User talk:Crossmr/Archive/Archive 06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


MySpace figures

Don't have an account so I wouldn't know. Should the reference not link to where you got your info? The present 'external article' link is irrelevant at the moment - even looks slightly like a sneaky spammy external link, if you're new to the page! Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Just created an account, logged out, logged back in. Still can't find any figures quoted for membership. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 17:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I can see it now (but only after full activation by email, it seems). Now...
How would we verify the figures in the article? We can't provide a hyperlink ref, as it won't show up to non-logged in members or non-members. Suggestions? If 154,000,000 stays as the figure, surely we need to point to the new source, or revert to the previous, unless there's some other way of proving the update through MySpace. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 20:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


These ("As of Feb 2007 ...") are pretty well-known facts but I found several cites to back them up per your request. Thanks for not just deleting the para outright. 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Please be more careful when making revisions. The text you reverted on The Sims Life Stories was a copyright violation which was explained in my edit summary. Its a word for word copy of the text from the website, this is not appropriate for article content on wikipedia. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information.--Crossmr 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry about that. I'm a little trigger-happy sometimes with the reverting. Thanks for letting me know of my mistake! MetsFan76 15:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response re: RateItAll article

(I hope this works; I'm still trying to figure this out; I'm copying & pasting the response to you that I put on my page) Response: Thank you for responding; I don't know how to respond to you directly (again, I'm a stumbling newbie, and figuring out the whole system is still very cryptic to me), so I'll do so here. Genghis and I both have been using RateItAll for some time now, so I understand it may be difficult for us to write in a neutral manner (I've avoided doing so only because I've only added that little box-thingy on the side. Hard to make that biased, though I'm sure it could be done). Even so, I think with a good run of editing it could work. As far as sourcing goes, I do agree with the complaint about the lack of hardcore sources; I hardly trust anything on the internet to be a legitimate "source" of any information that has a ".com" on the end of it, but I found that the sources listed on articles on similar webpages to list similar sources, or even sources that are downright unacceptable in my eyes (with regards to legitimacy). As someone who clearly has Wikipedia's best interests in mind, I would sincerely like to ask for your help on how to make this article up to par (which, as an admittedly hard-headed person who hates asking for help as I am, takes a lot for me to ask).Kamylienne 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your reliable sources comment in RateItAll page

I read your discussion and here is the provenance concerning the cite you removed.

Lee Odden is President and Founder of TopRank Online Marketing, specializing in organic SEO, blog marketing and online public relations. He's been cited as a search marketing expert by publications including U.S. News & World Report and The Economist and has implemented successful search marketing programs with top BtoB companies of all sizes. Odden shares his marketing expertise at Online Marketing Blog offering daily news, interviews and best practices.

I proffer that this contradicts your statement that the guy is not a subject matter expert.GenghisTheHun 22:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)GenghisTheHun

I forgot to add a Google search

By the way here is a Google search on John Battelle, another removed source re; The RateItAll page discussion.

GenghisTheHun 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)GenghistheHun

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Nforcelogo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nforcelogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My Fault, you're right

So the Conflict of Interest clause applies to deletion discussions as well. I wasn't aware of that - I'll bow out now, and sorry for breaking the rules. I do hope that you won't delete the info I posted, and believe it or not, we've made every effort to keep the hordes of RIA'ers trampling in here (after my initial blog post).

But Crossmr, we are a big, legit, high traffic, well-known web site that has been first to market with a number of important innovations. Hopefully the evidence is starting to demonstrate this.--Lawrencecoburn 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Crossmr, thanks for removing that deletion request. Any guidance you can give going forward to help folks make the RIA article consistent with Wikipedia's quality standards would be greatly appreciated.

Have a good one,

Lawrence--Lawrencecoburn 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Could do with an opinion

Hi. Maybe not your field, but you might see my point.

At George Courtney (former international football/soccer referee), I have recently reverted what I considered to be insensitive and even irrelevant information added, in that his son Matthew has been killed in a tragic accident within the last three days, and two editors created a tabloid-style reference to this today.

I am not sure about Wiki guidelines on this, you can imagine that if the wrong people saw this they would be upset - I know I would.

Your thoughts would be invaluable. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 00:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:AfD Closure

Yep. It was careless of me to remove the NPOV and unreferenced tags. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers. PeaceNT 15:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tower Defense

Sorry mate but i have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. The only comments i made regarding tower defense were logged my mistake and promptly removed. Anyway, if there was an appropriate forum to make my comments, they would still stand, even if your 'language skills' differ from mine. That ok, i think you get what im trying to say, if i want to find out info about something on wikipeida, and its not there, then whats the point of this whole thing anyway? roll on homie! Chillicane 03:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed but anyway, it was a mistake, but im not sure why you brought it up since i removed it. Never mind ill try and be more carefull in the future.


You're welcome. I know, it's frustrating when you post on one of those boards and no one notices or cares. (Happened to me a bunch recently.) Getting involved in personal attack intervention seems to be something most people avoid. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Websites against PayPal

Ehy man, why did you removed my edits? after all, i believe that a little of criticism against paypal (btw nothing of personal) isn't so bad, they all are real happened things, so there are no reason about removing them (IMHO). cya --DrugoNOT 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

ahh.... i get it.... very bad.... well, on we give to users good and bad sides of companies (something like both the truths, if there are more than one....)... on exists so much hypocrisy and a little of censorship. Btw, okay...never mind.. bye bye!... --DrugoNOT 19:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

photo of the La Fonera

In your recent edit[1] of FON you said that the package you received in Canada was identical to the one on the image.

Picture of a FON2100 router, its original packaging and accessories.

Is the power connector really identical? I wrote that it is "of a common European type" on the file's details page, and while not knowing for sure it seems like the power connector couldn't be identical in Canada, at least if i understand the article on Domestic AC power plugs and sockets correctly. apecat 04:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your AIV report (I cannot find any vandalism by this user)

Thank you for making a report in respect of (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. Sandstein 07:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein, it's a little more complicated than that: this person appears to be part of a group of people harassing Crossmr (possibly two individuals, one in California and one at Keesler AFB in Mississippi). It's not a one-off case of vandalism.
Crossmr, it looks like 24. and 131. are the same person, living/working in the Biloxi area, and 71. is in the San Francisco Bay Area. I just left a message for 71. Let me or AN/I know if he bothers you again. Antandrus (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This is your talk page, Crossmr, but it is not your page. Removing my comments is vandlism. 15:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's guidelines & policies permits that. Sorry. Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on 15:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Really? Than how come Crossmr threatens anyone who removes his comments on their talk page with a BAN? Hmmm? Is he "special"? 15:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As he is not an admin, he cannot ban anyone. However, if qualified admins agree with him that contributors are harassing him, or in any way vandalising his user or talk pages, then a ban might follow - from an admin, not from Crossmr. Hope that explains things for you. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 16:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Crossmr, it looks like it's been done [2]. 131/24, if you are reading this, harassment won't get you anywhere--if you think you have a legitimate complaint you have to go through the regular dispute resolution process. I've been a Wikipedian for three years and I've yet to see an exception to the rule that harassers get shown the door. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm sorry Crossmr had to put up with this for as long as they did. -- Satori Son 16:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again it's already been done (thanks, Trialsanderrors) -- I'm at work and only looking at my watchlist now and again. Let me know if you need any other help. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk page policies

If you decide to start a new discussion on Village Pump to try to start the ball rolling to get a consensus on a user talk page policy, let me know. In my opinion, baby steps should start with agreeing on a policy to make the removal of vandalism warnings from your own talk page a form of vandalism with the appropriate warning templates and escalation procedures. If we can limit the scope of the discussion and not let it get out of hand, we might have a chance at making progress on policy. Maybe we could even concede that the policy (to start) would only apply to anonymous users. Jimbo Wales even said that anonymous users do not have the same rights as registered users[3]. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Grilled Cheese

Why did you remove the part I added about Mrs. Crumplebottom on the Sims 2: Nightlife article? It was verifiable (use the cheat to add her to your family), and I've done it multiple times and gotten the same result. It was not a joke or vandalism. If you could explain your reasoning, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.--Grendlefuzz 10:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sims 2

Hi, I have some questions about the article, and you seem to be quite the expert:

  1. Is there a specific reason why aspiration is a header a level higher than the others, under "Sims"? If so, I don't think the subsequent subsections make clear use of that fact, that they are part of the Aspiration section. I think it is just a typo, because I think it falls on the same level as Motives and Personatlity.
  2. Would you object to a table-based structure for the Expansions etc. sections? I think a concise table displaying dates, important features, and other essential info is more useful than bullet points, in this situation.
  3. The article is long enough to warrant a statement on the edit page, so are there any sections you think should be deleted? I vouch that the Bella Goth Story and Goth Family sections be merged into a shorter summary of the canon present in TS2.
  4. The Sexual Controversy Section also seems a little out of place. I can see why it would go under Customization, but again it doesn't make it blatantly clear.

That's all for now. I just got addicted to playing again, so I'm going to hover around this article for a while. Thanks. z ε n .ıl 20:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll look it over. I think the Life Stories article needs expansion, if you've gotten a copy of it to play. Screenshots for all articles could help too. I haven't been able to get the OFB or Pets games yet. z ε n .ıl 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok fine, I can't add as much as I delete from the said article because I do not own it. I do think the basic house info must be mentioned. Regarding other content; if that 'level of detail' is inappropriate for Pedial, it's fine to put it on Books? z ε n .ıl 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I would like that. I'd be an active participator, but first I'd like to put the finishing touches on the Pedia articles first, and then get through other To-Do lists I have. z ε n .ıl 05:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Starcraft book to get some ideas about how to structure TS2 book, and apparently, according to this, they're actively purging all game guides anyways. Reason being - exactly what we resolved to do - WB modules were essentially dumps of content rejected from Pedia. ALTON .ıl 05:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, umm, I'm not sure where else to say this, but please stop changing my thing about Lillith Pleasant being emo. She is NOT A GOTH. I know my subcultures. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by *camisado* (talkcontribs) 15:46, March 10, 2007And again about that, it's something unwritten, unsaid, whatever. Since we really have no proof either way, prehaps we can just say that she has become a social reject or something of the sort? Thanks.


Hi Crossmr, I've created a {{Prod-nn}} template, which could be of interest... Addhoc 13:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your COI posting about RateItAll

Hello Crossmr. I just looked over the RateItAll article and made some notes at WP:COI/N. Feel free to add your specific concerns about items that may be against policy that have been added to the article. Or add your concerns at Talk:RateItAll and update the COI entry to reference your comments. EdJohnston 20:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems GenghisTheHun is asking the right questions. If I were more awake right now I'd try to think of ways of bridging the difference between your viewpoint and his. His degree of benefit from the RateItAll site appears slight; there would be many, many COIs in Wikipedia if that type of connection were considered enough to create a COI. What concerns me more is that he is creating the article from the viewpoint of an enthusiast. Somehow we should try to get more neutrality into the article and get more third-party viewpoints (if any can be found) on the effectiveness of RateItAll's concepts. EdJohnston 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms

Just for the record, I just completed the merge of the above article into Half-Life 2. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals removing vandalism warnings

A discussion is underway: [4]. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry I forgot the citation! Not sure what I was thinking. Not sure if what I added is all too nessecary but I figured it could help players undrestand frustrations that they are dealing with. Thanks for the edit! :) Artimaeis 00:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanking on AN/I

Responses on my talk page; goodness, you took a year off of my life :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bella Goth

Hey, I want to have your input on this article. I've added a prod and another user supported it, but an IP deleted it. I wonder if I am justified in fully nominating this at AfD, because I just don't think it should be included. See talk. ALTON .ıl 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

I deleted the image because it was licensed under GFDL self and CC-by 2.5. Which for a screenshot is unlikely. Especially as the screenshot of the page self had a big (c) notice on it. Garion96 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. No, there were only two edits to the image. One the upload and the second someone tagging it with {{imagevio}}. Garion96 (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RateItAll COI and Deletion

      As a former and heavily contributing member of RateItall I wish I had known about the COI and deletion issues. I'd like to know the two sources viewed as legitimate. My guess would be it resulted from networking. Not a bad thing really but I would question the exact origin of certain things. The ABC News reference... I have seen it. As I recall it aired at like 3am and may have even been local only. Legitimate? I suppose. But I would have to review the specifics of what is and is not a legitimate source. I would not view an obituary in a newspaper as a legitimate source regarding a person or their life. And a few things I have seen mentioned amount to a "special interest" article of a paragraph or two. Is that legitimate news just because it appears in a newspaper?

      But I am concerned about the inclusion of rateitall as a wikipedia reference in ANY form. I participated on that site for 2 years+. I was a driving force on some issues and one of the original moderators granted limited MAIN page editing ability. I contributed around 10,000 coments and created 100-120 lists. Unlike many users who just created dumb lists (as I viewed them) and put no effort in such as spell checking and images... Most of my lists were well executed and included links, pictures, full descriptions etc...

      I mention this because I am not bias at all and want to make that clear. My intention in getting involved in the rateitall COI and deletion discussion is to add the unbias view desperately needed. An active member cannot provide that and users who were banned also cannot because they may have a vendetta. I left rateitall of my own accord. I wasn't necessarily nice about it but felt ethics were being violated and I was quite offended. The same way I am concerned over an entry in wikipedia. But I have no vendetta. I only seek to offer insight others cannot offer. Mr. Coburn would probably disagree as to my intentions but he, more than anyone else involved, stands to benefit from a well established site like wikipedia authorizing a rateitall entry. He will certainly link to it from his site and reference it in his podcasts/mini conferences etc... And thereby prove his real intent to use it to help in his marketing campaign. Afterall, if wikipedia honors the site as a reference it HAS to be legitimate.

      But I enjoyed the site once very much. Over time I began to see the marketing tool it truly was and intended as. So when I went to remove all of my contributions the rules on how user created lists were handled changed. Why? Because my removing comments by other users on lists I created caused their "helpful" counts to drop and damaged his adsense links and references. The loss of helpfuls caused DRAMATIC backlash for Mr. Coburn. He quickly tried to intervene and promised users their helpfuls and comments would be restored. He acknowledged to me that I had followed the established ruls and had the right to delete those items but since his sites ToS claimed ownership of all content he would restore it anyway to appease the angry regulars. That, for all intents and purposes, rendered even having user created items "rules and policies" moot because they had no ownership, only the site did.

      But at the time I decided to leave rules were I had every right to delete those comments and lists.

       But my actions resulted in other far reaching "changes"... Not only could users no longer delete COMMENTS on their lists but they were no longer allowed to delete the lists. Once the content was added it remained. This was directly related to his marketing efforts and plans to expand things so users benefited as well.

      I apologize for taking up your space and time. I am very concerned about the rateitall entry. I figured one would come eventually but had hoped not. Mr. Coburn would never do it himself because it would be blatant COI. I am not surprised one of the users created one. I also wouldn't be surprised that it was suggested.

      FYI... since the implmentation of the adsense and revenue sharing model users routinely post links to rateitall on MANY sites. Most often to their own lists etc... Traffic is what matters to the users and site developers. PLEASE do not let wikipedia become a part of that scheme.

      Feel free to ask me questions or indicate you want more details. I take integrity and ethics very seriously and voluntarily sacrificing 10,000 comments I worked hard on was not easy. But the site did not meet my standards of ethics and does not to this day. As a side note I allowed my lists to remain. But I have NEVER signed up for or otherwise been provided a single dime for them. And I don't want any. I left them as a final courtesy to show I have no hard feelings, only great disappointment. Once again, apologies for taking your time. If the debate is over and the reference on wiki is to stand I can leave it alone. I hope the issue is not over and that deletion will be reviewed again. At the very least, NO ONE active on that site should edit it. I suggest suspending it until an unbias party can be found to create and maintain an entry. I would offer my services but truly feel it does not deserve an entry due to its nature as a site and marketing tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bippity (talkcontribs) 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC).


Thanks for keeping the talking going on WT:IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 16:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


I noticed a comment of yours regarding WP:IAR and wonder if you would give an opinion on a disagreement now taking place on Talk:Kundalini where my attempts to get compliance with WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiability are being rebuffed by users who quote WP:IAR. I have never faced a situation where people just ignore WP:RS by citing WP:IAR. Can you help give additional opinion on this there? I am not sure that I understand the claims of WP:IAR well enough to address them properly with the users who are raising them in arguing against improving citation methods for poorly-sourced articles. Buddhipriya 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of a speedy tag

(You wrote): regarding this edit [5]. The user has a high likelihood of being a sock puppet which caused this, and its basically a copy of the content over at DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_17#PGNx_Media.--Crossmr 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite clearr what you want me to do, or not do. The general rule about deleting talk pages when the article has been deleted has a normal exception, when the talk page has significnt debate about the deltion or retention of the page. It seemed to me that this talk page has discussions that would be relevant to any attempt to recreate this article, or to editors considering whether to create a new articel on this topic. I'm not clear what user you are accusing of sockpuppetry, and I'm not sure that it matters. If the discussioin on the talk page will be useful and relevant in future, IMO it should be retaind. If ther is good reason to think that it won't be, that is another matter. What are you asking me to do? DES (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a good day !

DRV: PGNx Media

For your entertainment... ~ trialsanderrors

RE: Bose corporation

The reason why I got into a heated fight/dispute with Ptkfgs is because of the disputed link ([6]), which I never had faith in because of the trolling promotion. The reason why I adamantly oppose, and even vow to keep the Intellexual link off the Bose article is because chances are, much of the trolling is influenced by that link. While I've been criticised by Ptkfgs for resisting the Intellexual link in the Bose Article, I was extremely mad at Ptkfgs for his extremely harsh criticism on me. I don't like harsh criticisms, as I have to declare Ptkfgs's criticism excessively harsh, which instigates a heated dispute between editors.

When people make extremely abrasive criticisms to others, then it tends to make the other person incivil. The problem with Ptkfgs is that he criticises people abrasively from my standpoint, from what I know. The problem with your message (that was recently moderated) is that you support allowing people like Ptkfgs to make abrasive criticisms, which I faced in the past. People criticise others here in Wikipedia, but if people criticise people too abrasively, like Ptkfgs did, then it becomes a heated problem. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your warning

By placing the warning into my talk page, you harshly placed an abrasive criticism which I cannot afford. I am not the person who takes warnings and/or criticisms lightly as I will take that as an abrasive criticism, and any abrasive criticisms are likely to be moderated. What you have told me is an extremely abrasive criticism which I don't like. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Problems with your abrasive criticisms

I detested the abrasive criticism that you placed on my talk page again. Some people don't like to be criticised because it harms their personality. Period. Same like what you attempt to do to me on my talk page about WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL—those warnings are detrimental to my personality, as I have gotten into a fight with Theresa Knott and Radiokirk about WP:NOT one year ago. Because Radiokirk and Kiand abrasively criticised me for my efforts in the Sennheiser Talk Page, it led to a feud which I can no longer assume good faith on Radiokirk, Kiand, and Theresa Knott. Sue Anne and Ptkfgs have fallen into the same fate as with these three because they harshly criticise me. There are some people I swear to god that doesn't like abrasive criticisms and those warnings only serve to harshly and abrasively criticise me. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your latest comment

Not all people archive their talk pages as there have been people who had to nuke their talk pages due to excessive space taken. Kiand is one of these people who is not capable of archiving their talk pages, and people archive and/or shrink their talk pages differently. You just can't assume that talk pages will automatically be archived unless the user is using some sort of archiving script to automatically archive.

Telling me that my talk page will automatically archive after 7 days is just like making an assumption, as heated debates like what you are putting me through right now is not archived under any circumstances. Not all people archive their talk pages. I didn't like the bad assumption that you made. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Ptkfgs

I did not deserve that warning in the first place because it was Ptkfgs who supported the trolling on the Bose (audio) article. It was wrong of him to even place the warning on me because honestly he supported using the Intellexual link, which was grounds for other people in Wikipedia to troll the Bose article. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has unlimited bandwidth or disk space.

Honestly, Wikipedia MAY have limited disk storage, so I criticise that latest message of yours since the amount of disk space here in Wikipedia is likely to be scarce. No one has unlimited bandwidth or disk space, and assuming that Wikipedia has unlimited disk space is a bad assumption. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view...

...any warning that's given to me is considered to be an abrasive criticism. Ptkfgs gave an extremely harsh criticism on me by placing a warning on my user talk, and I don't care if it has something to do with WP:OWN or WP:CIVIL. It's still considered abrasive. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


In the past Ptkfgs abrasively criticised a lot of people just because of that Intellexual Link being absent on the Bose corporation article, just to name a few. He abrasively criticised UKPhoenix79 for his points-of-view, which UKPhoenix79 felt that Ptkfgs's criticism is extremely abrasive. Although I try to keep the peace, any time people try to bring in a link that's considered to be trolling is considered to be promoting trolling in an article. I really don't like the fact that you are defending Ptkfgs's efforts, but apparently you are, and that's considered to be abrasive. People have their own editing styles and shouldn't have their editing styles contested. Ptkfgs contested my editing style and that's why the Intellexual link turned into a flame war between editors on the Bose article. Some people have no respect for other people's editing styles. I didn't like the idea of Ptkfgs defending the Intellexual.NET link in the Bose article. There is totally nothing wikipedic about the link. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Abrasive criticisms

I don't like your abrasive criticisms that you gave to me over the last couple of replies as it's assuming bad faith on an editor. You assumed bad faith on me and that's what you exactly did on my talk page. Giving me abrasive criticisms is much like assuming bad faith on me, and abrasive criticisms is assuming bad faith on someone. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


When you want to introduce a link into the article, you want to make sure that it won't promote trolling before it goes there, as I have detested the Intellexual link for a number of reasons that I won't name. Much of your dispute against me lies within whether or not the Intellexual link deserves to be there. I have criticised a number of people for supporting the Intellexual link into the Bose article for personal reasons, though some are extremely abrasive. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


The reason for me restoring that one is because I know the product very well, and they do make PDAs and the person was not aware of it. Not knowing what the firm does is considered blind editing. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just me

Some people make funny comments like what I did in the Dell page as well so that's also a bad assumption. Some editors also made statements like those in the past. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Editing Fights

So has other editors. There has been heated disputes and other editors fighting in other articles (i.e. Darth Vader) so I shouldn't be single-handed just because of what I did in the past. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

And the reason why some articles have been locked for editing was because other editors have fought with each other because of view disputes. Among all the articles I've gotten into an edit fight with, none of them has been locked due to conflicting views and/or what should be accepted in an article. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
And you shouldn't be singling me out as far as silly comments are concerned, check out your own contrib log--you made some silly comments, though you might have made some incivil ones as well. Other editors tend to make silly sometimes incivil comments when editing as well, so I shouldn't be singled out. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Other editors also did that as well on an abrasive basis as well, so don't single me out just because of what I've done. Have you gotten into an edit fight with others where you had to fight just to make your views accepted? Have you ever had to do something that was against your beliefs just to take a risk in making your views accepted into the community? — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is perfect

I'll edit in a manner where it's acceptable but remember that people get into edit fights once in a while and no one is perfect. There is no perfect editor here in Wikipedia, and there are certain people who had to defend themselves because they are viciously attacked. People defend themselves for a reason and that's to simply protect their repetition here in Wikipedia. People also have the right to defend their views as well. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Blood at times

Even though I try to keep a clean edit at all times, sometimes blood has to spill, and I have to prepare to defend myself at all times on the article's talk page. Much like what I had to do in the Bose talk page—I had no choice but to defend the fact that the Intellexual link does not deserve to be there because it promotes trolling. I am not a perfect man, and I tend to get ansy when I have to defend myself at times.

When I edit the page, I tend to keep a cool, but when I get ansy, I have to defend my statement with somewhat abrasive comments because some pages I know more about than others. People defend themselves for a reason here in Wikipedia—its to make sure that their views can be accepted at times. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


And people do hold grudges on editing as well. As much as I try, I avoid grudges but the Intellexual link in the Bose article led to my grudge against Ptkfgs. If the grudge can't be settled, then rules tend to be broken. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No perfection

Even though other people may be able to follow the rules, the world is not what you think it is. How many disputes have you gotten into? How many edit fights you have gotten into? Did you hold a grudge against someone? No one is perfect, not even myself. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


wow dude, thanks for removing all those pictures from the Moncton page, Im sure those companies would thank you greatly for preventing the exposure of thier logos. Stu pendousmat 01:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

lol didnt mean to be a jerk, I was just joking really, I understand the legal aspect of it, but in reality I dont think those companies would mind (espically The Wildcats lol) anyways, keep up the good work! (no sarcasm intended this time :P)

Stu pendousmat 03:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moncton Economy section

Let me know what you want me to do to remove "bias from this section. In particular, my most recent edit to this section was minor and in my own point of view, free of bias. Let me know on my talk page what it is exactly that you mean MonctonRad 21:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr: Lets go through this point by point: (1) - I work in the health care sector and I know for a fact that there are over 5000 workers with the two health care corporations here in the city. There have also been reports to this effect in the local media but there is no way that I can tell you exactly which edition of the newspaper this was reported in. There are unquestionably more health care workers in Moncton than any other sector of the economy. Likewise, with two universities and two community colleges, not to mention 34 public schools, there are a lot of teachers in Moncton as well. Can I give you precise stats - no, but it does indeed remain the case. (2) - Underpinnings of the local economy, again widely known in the local media. There are many trucking depots and warehousing units in the city, an international airport, a railway hump yard, the city lies at the geographic centre of the region, all road and rail traffic to P.E.I., N.S. and Nfld pass through Moncton. Thansportation has been the raison d'etre for the community since the 1850's. If it wasn't for the transportation industry, there wouldn't be a Moncton! (3) - If you don't like the comparison to Halifax, I'm willing to take this reference out but this is a truthful statement reported in the local media and well known to our Chamber of Commerce. (4) - There is a rivalry between Moncton and Halifax for new industry just like there is regional rivalries throughout the continent. My reference here however was not so much to highlight the fact there is a rivalry but to point out that Moncton and halifax have signed an agreement to promote a "growth corridor" to mutually benefit both communities , much like there is a growth corridor between Calgary and Edmonton. I don't see what your problem with this statement is. (5) - Head offices: I did include a list of head offices located in Moncton. Is it a significant number, perhaps not in the universal scheme of things but here in the starving maritimes, it does give Moncton a relatively strong corporate presence. (6) - Call centres: Again, I did list a number of call centers for the city. Many of the corporations listed are well known (UPS, RBC, Fairmont etc.) at least half a dozen of these centres have over 500 employees. Yes, they are a major presence in the city and indeed helped to save the city after the recession of the 1980's. This is a fair statement. (7) - I can remove the word "burgeoning" if you like, That probably is an overstatement but I would like to keep the subsection talking about the high tech industries. This is a growth sector in the economy. (8) - Hub Meat Packers employs over 500 people which by Moncton standards makes it one of the largest employers in the city. Meat packing has been a traditional strength of the community. (9) - The brewery is going to open this summer but I can't give you a precise date. (10) - Moncton is the retail capital of New Brunswick, no question. We have a number of stores here that can be found nowhere else but in Halifax or central Canada (eg Costco, the Bay). Again, I rely on the local media for information but that probably is not the sort of source material that you would find satisfactory.

I'm prepared to make some minor changes to this section but if you expect me to do extensive research on the economy of Moncton, you are sadly mistaken. I am a busy physician and can not afford the time. I believe the economy section is factually correct but perhaps could be reworded a bit. I hope you find this satisfactory. Let me know in my talk page. MonctonRad 22:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr - If you are going to be this picky then I might just as well resign as a contributor to the Moncton section. There is just no way that I can invest the time to source all the information that I have provided regarding this community. I believe that what I have contributed is of value but if you feel otherwise then so be it. I have been one of the chief shepherds improving this article for over a year now but obviously, as far as you are concerned, what I have contributed is worthless. I will try once to rephrase the Economy section to your satisfaction and I will remove your red flag. If the flag reappears then I will know that I don't belong at Wikipedia and I will invest my time elsewhere. MonctonRad 03:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey buddy, just wanted to let you know that I found many references for the Economy section, and changed some wording around. Hopefully you will find this sufficent. I dont mind finding references for stuff, I just find it useless probably due to the fact that I live here and its commomplace info lol, so you are right about the people who dont know about the area. Anyways just wanted to let you know. If you have any more concerns dont hesitate to let me know on my talk page Stu pendousmat 03:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

no problem, and yeah...I wasnt sure how to make it look nice...I played around with it in the text but that looked too crowded. Stu pendousmat 05:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that example for me, made the process a lot easier :) those ones look much better. Stu pendousmat 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Anon from Singapore

It's likely an editor who's been doing cruft edits, adding crystal ball content, predictions on article, just to name a few. There are anons whose edits may be attention-grabbing by people who know the article very well. That anon one time did a lot of WP:VSCA on that article using a lot of dynamic IP addresses, tearing the article apart. That editor also placed a lot of wordiness on the article as well so I was forced to revert wordiness on the article and because of the history of cruft edits on that article and anything related to that, the anon became untrusted since the edit pattern of that anon became attention-grabbing. Be aware that some anon edits you might have to deal with can be attention-grabbing, and some do have excuses for not having a Wikipedia account. I didn't like the assumption that you made because as far as I know, the anon had done a lot of cruft damage in the past (other editors had to put up with this as well). — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 15:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It does matter at certain times. If the anon's editing patterns prove to be damaging AND attention-grabbing, then the anon puts him/herself and others at risk as well. The anon had a long history of horrible sentence wording, cruft adding, crystal-ball adds, whatever you name it. The anon also damaged certain article talk pages and used it as a discussion forum as well. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notable Usenet personalities

See my response to your comment on the talk page. — Loadmaster 04:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolute prejudice

You assumed bad faith on that RFC that you forced me to participate in. You also have been prejudiced on that RFC and its content as well. I don't want my motives to be questioned again. Both you and Kiand. It's both of your fault. If you have not "touched" me in the first place, none of this would've happened. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 05:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe any admin would side with Kiand. Have you no shame? A305w 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Stay away from me and it will be cool

I'm going to make this clear. When no one bothers me, I'm cool, but when someone prolonges an act of habitual discussion, then I feel bothered, harassed, and provoked. I am going to make this clear—don't bother me under any circumstances as you will only know that I will defend myself. Stay away from me and you'll avoid a heated discussion like this—the more you stay away from me, the more it will be cool. Comprendo? — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 14:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr, do be careful not to aggravate the situation further. Your goal should be to help Kim, not to provoke him into getting himself blocked. –Gunslinger47 18:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have struck out and moved around some of your edits on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mark Kim. The goal was to keep more focused on your actual complaint and to be as fair as possible. People reviewing this page need to be presented with a clear case. Layering mountains of grievances--small or large--into one unsorted mess will make things appear more ambiguous than they actually are.
Please review my edits and make adjustments as you see fit. –Gunslinger47 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think Gunslinger47's suggestions are (for the most part) pretty good. I suggest you review them and remove altogether the ones you agree with. There is one in particular that i do not agree with and I'm just about to remove the strike out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
We are discussing it here. –Gunslinger47 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for your comment on McCarthy page

Crossmr, would you please comment on the cause of death discussion at [7]? I would appreciate your input. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit tag

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Joseph McCarthy. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
Unfortunately, the evidence of your edits suggests that you are much more interested in disrupting the article than improving it. If your recent effort had been in good faith, you would have examined the article's history and seen that the presence of the popular culture section is (a) of long-standing, (b) something that has been well debated, and (c) worthy of inclusion by well-established consensus. If you honestly felt that the article was too long and this section should be excised, you would have attempted to build a new consensus behind that opinion on the Talk page. In lieu of that simple effort, a good-faith editor would have done no less than raise a simple query on the Talk page. Your disregard for the article, its stability, and its history is evident. Please make an effort to contribute in good faith in the future.—DCGeist 05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're making a host of very interesting comments on my Talk page of the sort you should have made on the article's Talk page in the first place. As for "edit warring," the evidence demonstrates that you're quite accomplished at that yourself. Don't be so cross, mister.—DCGeist 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Kim

Unfortunately, I see no reasonable solution following an RFC. Sadly, I feel we have to resort to arbitration, so I have filed a case. — Selmo (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr, are you aware of the fact that Mark Kim has stated he has left the project, but has continued to edit while logged out as User: He's apparently trying to dodge the arbitration case this way.--Atlan (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer editing

Sorry but after 2 years, I'm voluntarily adios. The fact that you got involved in a conspiracy to place me under arbitration is the last straw. Therefore go to another editor if you want various articles to be edited. I don't have any time to waste with Wikipedia anymore. I leave Wikipedia with this one warning: there will be even more fragile editors like myself and soon there will be passive resistance to Wikipedia's oppresive rules that y'all will have to think things. I don't care about those articles anymore and nobody cared about my edits anyway. Sorry, but I'm voluntarily finished here. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)