Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:40, 25 June 2007

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 ? I would appreciate your input. Thank you. Jtpaladin 17:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit tag

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, 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)