Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:39, 12 June 2007

The only additional rule I have here is to keep your comments clean and concise—I have zero tolerance over unclean messages and messages that are detrimental to my personality, as they only hurt the talk page's appearance. Thanks.

Page last moderated by — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Heated Debates in the last 2-3 weeks
• Past Heated Debates
• Dead Discussions 1 * 2

Image:Vestherpic.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vestherpic.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigrTex 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OWN

Please read WP:OWN you do not own your talk page. Continually blanking warnings so you can choose to ignore them and continue your uncivil attacking nature is not conducive to the community spirit here on wikipedia. I suggest your familiarize your self with that, as well as WP:CIVIL.--Crossmr 23:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is called a harsh criticism. That is extremely abrasive. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, that is considered unwelcoming as you support harsh criticisms here in Misplaced Pages. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the reason you got in to a heated dispute, you shouldn't engage in them, regardless of the reason. This isn't harsh criticism, its a reminder of the rules, since you continue to ignore them with uncivil behaviour while blanking warnings about that very thing. If you can't take part in a particular dispute without resorting to uncivil behaviour you should consider moving on and editing something else for awhile and return with a cool head.--Crossmr 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. If you're going to behave contrary to the policies and guidelines on wikipedia you're going to be reminded of them. If you continue to behave as such and ignore the warnings you will likely find yourself no longer able to edit wikipedia. The warnings you previously removed are standard warning templates used for when anyone behaves as you have so far and aren't personal. They're simple reminders, and owning your talk page to remove them isn't acceptable. Talk page content is generally archived after 7 days (see my page as an example) of non-activity in that subject. The page isn't yours to moderate and doing so will only lead to more conflict. Talk page content is only removed when its blatant trolling, none of which that content you removed fell under.--Crossmr 00:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

These aren't remotely abrasive criticisms. As I've pointed out, its a reminder to read the rules and follow them. If you can't handle being reminded about the rules on wikipedia you may wish to reconsider your involvement. Attacking other users and behaving uncivilly towards them because of a dispute in an article, or because their reminding you of the rules of participation here in some way damages you, is unacceptable. Ptkfgs left you a standard and appropriate warning for your behaviour which you deserved for the comments you made which included threatening him.--Crossmr 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say your talk page was being archived after 7 days. I said its appropriate to do so. There is no reason anyone can't archive their talk page, wikipedia has unlimited space, and regardless of size anyone can archive their talk page (and I've seen some extremely large user talk page archives out there). The point was that you were blanking warnings for behaviour and using that same behaviour to remove those warnings and ignore wikipedia policy and guidelines on behaviour.--Crossmr 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are a matter of public record: . This is a threat ...because if you do, then you will pay. and completely unacceptable behaviour on wikipedia. This is an uncivil edit summary . As is this, , it could have done without the snide remark tacked on the end. This is obviously an uncivil edit summary . etc etc, As well several of your comments on the Talk:Bose (company) are extremely uncivil.--Crossmr 00:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has no constraint on space. Its effectively unlimited. There is plenty of room for every user to archive their talk pages 10 fold. If you consider any criticism of you to be too harsh and requiring uncivil personal attacks as a response, then like I said, you may wish to move on from Misplaced Pages, because no matter what you do here, there is always going to be someone who disagrees with it. This time your behaviour is blatantly unacceptable and contrary to the policies and guidelines. --Crossmr 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That is considered assuming bad faith with all the harsh criticisms and abrasiveness you placed on me. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't assume good faith blindly. Your continued uncivil behaviour and personal attacks don't afford you any good faith since you continually demonstrate that you have no respect for the policies and guidelines here and that you continually express that you can't seemingly work in a group since even warranted reminders of those rules that you choose to disregard are considered harsh criticism.--Crossmr 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't matter what he did in the past. Nothing he could have done justifies your behaviour. There is no excuse it for it. If you can't be part of an article civilly, don't edit it. I'm not defending Ptkfgs at all. it doesn't matter who the other editors involved are. They don't control your behaviour, you do. Any editors editing style will be called in to question if they don't edit in accordance with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. They're there for a reason. The community has decided what is acceptable behaviour here and that isn't it. --Crossmr 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I could care less about the link in the Bose article. My dispute lies with your behaviour and has absolutely nothing to do with the link. I've never seen nor heard about the article until today. I noticed your uncivil edit summary on the Dell article. As is my custom I checked your history quickly to see if this was an on-going issue which it obviously is.--Crossmr 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My problem wasn't with you restoring the content, it was with the snide uncivil comment you made. Further checking showed a history of personal attacks and uncivil comments.--Crossmr 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I knew I recognized your name. Obviously you've decided to change your editing style and behaviour .--Crossmr 01:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How many silly comments you have made with your edits? Some other people in Misplaced Pages does that too, so don't blame me solely. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, it doesn't matter what other editors have done. Another editor acting inappropriately doesn't justify your doing so. I'm telling you that the behaviour you're doing is inappropriate. What editor X, Y or Z do, is immaterial. In the past you've had problems editing articles without getting in to fights over them. In fact that was the last time I spoke with you, a year ago. If you're going to make this a life long habit here and continue on ignoring the rules, you really need to take a critical look at what you're doing.--Crossmr 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I came across you behaving inappropriately and you were warned for it, yet you've continued, and you've continued even a year later with the exact same behaviour. Again, other editors behaviour is immaterial. The locking of articles also has no bearing on this. You threatened and attacked other users and behaved uncivilly towards them.--Crossmr 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not being singled out. If you did go through my contrib history you'll notice I've warned dozens, probably hundreds of users. There is no singling out. In fact the last time we talked was because someone got in a fight with you and I warned them, and then you after looking at both sides. you've obviously chosen to ignore that. There is a very simple fact here: You've continually behaved contrary to the policies and guidelines on wikipedia, you can either choose to address that or not. If you choose not to and continue to attack and threaten other users, you will eventually find your ability to edit severely restricted. So its up to you. You can complain about other users all you want, or bad links, or whatever, but in the end you're going to have to decide if you're willing to edit in a manner considered acceptable by the community.--Crossmr 01:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is never acceptable to threaten other users. If your viewpoint is neutral and verifiable, threatening other users isn't necessary to have it reflected in the article. Misplaced Pages has a number of dispute resolution procedures, I highly recommend you read them.--Crossmr 01:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can't defend your viewpoint within the constraints of the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, no you don't. You have been here long enough, and had this conversation before. You should be well aware of whats considered acceptable behaviour here.--Crossmr 01:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning doesn't matter. No matter the dispute, no matter the article. Either defend it within the confines of the policies or step away. There is no other acceptable method there. You don't get to attack and threaten users because you think you are right.--Crossmr 01:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter. No one else's behaviour justifies your own. If you want to try and ignore the rules and excuse away your behaviour, feel free, however wikipedia has very clear consequences outlined for dealing with that. That is all I will say. You make your choice on how you want to edit here and the community will respond appropriately. That goes for you and any other editor, including myself.--Crossmr 01:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)