From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on March 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 REVENUES 2 FAKE!!! 3 Paid for submission if on main page 4 lots of spurious uncited sources - please remove 5 cleanup 6 Thanks editors 7 New sources: 8 STOP with the Sock-tags 9 RACIST 9.1 Added citations for Easteregg and NSFW

[edit] REVENUES

Public or private corporation

[edit] FAKE!!!

This website is fake!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist :p

[edit] Paid for submission if on main page

How much is paid to the users if their video is featured on the main page? --165.230.46.150 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lots of spurious uncited sources - please remove

{{Sockpuppet|1= Mtwang IP: 69.108.152.153|evidence=[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mtwang]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.108.152.153]] IP Location California.}}

This article seems to be written by someone with an axe to grind. It's not balanced and includes a large # of uncited sources (listed below). Can someone please get rid of these>

- Visitors are supposedly able to rank site material on a scale of 1 to 5, which is factored into an average score. + Supposedly? Why supposedly?

- This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking. + Citation?

-Apart from the sponsored adult content, Break.com is a target of spamming from camsites and others. It can take several hours for staff to remove this content, allowing children who access the site to see it. + Citation? Does it take several hours to remove?

No, but 2 months by the look of this [1] Click on to the thumbnails and watch the XXX content. (Have replaced the link due to breaks hasty removal of the clips in question. Have replaced it with a page capture). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pollyfodder (talk • contribs) 04:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

All for balanced and factional, but don't understand how this entry can be populated with all accustaions and propoganda. That doesn't seem right, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtwang (talk • contribs) 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Accusations? or fact. Some people DO research before adding material! Hence, [2]--Pollyfodder 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not much of a wikipediast, but clearly someone is writing thinly veiled smears, with every description being derogatory in some fashion or another. Please someone stop this person who is preventing a balanced, factual entry.

Examples:

- Break.com (formerly Big-boys.com) is a highly publicised kids humor It's obviously a men's site targeting men 18-35, and says so on the site. Highly publicisized? Whatever, but goes to show the spirit of this editor's 'work'

- 'This being because clips have made the mainpage with very few visits and low ranking.'

Citation? Another vague accusation that shows intent of editor

NOTE: Citations did accompany this entry but were mysteriously removed.--Pollyfodder 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

- 'with approximately 60 percent of video content being reposts from other video websites. (Kids hoping to cash in if their repost makes mainpage).'

Outrageous claim with no citation

NOTE: Just visit the site and see for yourself! Again, some people actually do something called RESEARCH before adding to pages.--Pollyfodder 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research is not acceptable. See WP:NOR ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

'... is a highly publicised kids humor website'

Once again, a back-handed attempt (probably by a competitor) to try and paint Break.com in a less than even-handed way.

- 'Kids'? It's for men 18-35. That's like calling Comedy Central, Maxim or SpikeTV 'kids' properties.

Again, via RESEARCH [3]--Pollyfodder 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research is not acceptable. See WP:NOR ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

- highly-publicised? How? Is that factually accurate or even endemic to the top level description of break.com. You could just as easily write 'highly trafficked', which would be accurate, but positive. How about something even-handed... geesh.

Again, via RESEARCH [4]--Pollyfodder 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research is not acceptable. See WP:NOR ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to discredit the editors work when there is so much evidence supporting his additions?--Pollyfodder 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

                     ----------------

- The "Spirit of the Editors work" seems to revolve around the TRUTH. Links to break.com have been provided in relation to what is stated. The proof is in the pudding. Nothing derogatory in depicting the truth. Seems to me that you are on Breaks payroll.

"spurious uncited sources"?? Are you refering to the amounts paid for submissions that make homepage? You are right! These should be removed! As for the rest I suggest you click onto the references/links provided!

You state "Visitors are supposedly able to rank site material on a scale of 1 to 5, which is factored into an average score. + Supposedly? Why supposedly?" Answer... As soon as material hits the page it has a rating of 3 even though there have been no recorded hits. A blind man can see this. How can something be rated if it has not even been viewed?

There are enough references relating to what the Editor has put on the page. Esspecialy in relation to the pornography, the time taken by the staff to remove such content and the material "scavanged" from other websites. How much proof do you want?

You question whether it takes several hours to remove pornographic content. I see the reference in the "Pornography and adult content" section after "It can take staff several hours to remove content". Clicking onto this reference reveals pornographic content that has been there for 2 months! Whilst looking around I have actually found 47 more references.

Another baseless comment for the sites defense: "It's obviously a men's site targeting men 18-35, and says so on the site". WHERE DID YOU READ THIS?

Well go here and HERE and have a good read! When creating an account yesterday I tried to sign in as a 12 year old only to be hit with a pop up stating that I must be at least 13 years of age to create an account! NICE TRY!

You question the "Highly publicisized". You only need to go to Break.com scroll down to the bottom of the page and hit "ABOUT US". Enough said?

More references and proof behind the Editors work than you can poke a stick at.

You obviously do not like Wikipedias ACCURACY in regards to Break.com, but thats the way it is. If the hat fits WEAR IT.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia based on fact, not a medium for publicising or glorifying your website! This whole page is clearly advertisement/spam and it is beyond me why it is still here at all!

I think this page needs to be semi-protected.--Daveswagon 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion that this page be semi-protected to prevent it being used as an advertising platform. I have (again) cleaned this page up after it was (pro-break self back patting) modified. The page as it stands at this point in time is accurate and is Adequately referenced.

Furthermore,

Even though I aggree with the comments above, Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether a site is a good site or a bad site. Wikipedias inclusion of this website is for reference purposes relating to it as a site. No more, no less.

Therefore, all references to this site be they good or bad are valid and must be incorporated within this page to keep its accuracy value. As editors it is our responsibility.—The preceding Pollyfodder comment was added by Pollyfodder (talk • contribs) 23:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree that any valid (eg objective facts) should be included. That's what wikipedia's all about. There is NO intention to use wikipedia as an ad. It's not.

Conversely, it shouldn't be used as a slander tool. Want to mention the adult R-rated material? Fine. Mention that it once. Mention that it requires 18+ age gate. Mention that it includes a family filter which is on by default. Mention that content is R rated. But don't plaster the article with multiple references, which, through repetition and uncited editorialization, hope to even some score.

It's most a humor site for men 18-35 and,more specifically, college students.

Not from what I can see. [5]--Pollyfodder 06:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Compare the article to metacafe or collegehumor.com. See if they are on par in terms of objectivity editors. If so, it's cool. But some people (probably competitors or banned users) are trying to use as reverse advertising -- a soapbox for personal attacks. that's wrong.

I see no slander within the content. Everything relating to the adult content is verifiable via the links to break.com (provided). Just because facts are a part of the pages content does not mean the editor is bias or has grudge against break.com.

I certainly would not go as far as calling it a soapbox for personal attacks, given this page has been created and modified by several people. You refer to the break site as "a humor site for men 18-35". Have you read the comment several paragraphs up and clicked onto the reference link? Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.--Pollyfodder 07:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors - The various edits and additions speak for themselves.

They certainly do! You have shown us all that you do indeed work for Break.com and Wikipedia is not the place to beat the Break.com drum! The Editor obviously does NOT have a grudge, nor do I. The contents of the break.com page must be accurate and must include the pros and cons of your site! Don't like it, then delete the page! I have emailed Wikipedia Admin asking they review this page.--Pollyfodder 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of blogs for editorial petitioning. The jedi mind trick accustaion of the article being used 'for advertising' is silly. It's being used the opposite way. I'm sure you can tell that by looking at the site break.com and searching news.google.com for break.com. Get facts and general consensus about break.com and make that the basis for a fair-minded entry that doesn't have the single objective 'get r-rated content off break.'

Modifications to the page over several weeks do not reflect your grudge theory nor do they indicate a more than normal dislike of pornography on a site frequented by minors, given the video submissions on the just submitted.  :I myself have seen many a saucy clip on there! Because this is (obviously) the case, the inclusion of references to pornography within your site is valid. (sorry).

Also, the editor (Pollyfodder) has actually increased the number of references on the bottom of the page! I refer your attention to all the articles relating to Keith Richman, break.com's founder. This certainly does not indicate bias to me.

Ok, BAD sources don't do us any good. Please make sure ANY material you add can be sourced to independent non-trivial reliable secondary sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to draw everyones attention to user Mtwang and his defence of the page in question. Hence, 'lots of spurious uncited sources - please remove'. Since when do we entertain sock puppets? This page and Metacafe should be promptly removed as it is an advertisement, nothing more.--Pollyfodder 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My involvement here has nothing to do with Mtwang. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup

I have received an email at wikipedia HelpDesk regarding this article. In taking a look at it I've found an edit war over content that should not even be included in wikipedia in the first place. I have removed all of it and I will continue to remove it so long as it replies on trivial primary sources and contains original research. See these POLICIES: WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Anything that fails to conform with those policies in letter or in spirit will be removed without hesitation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Hopefully the page will be semi-protected.--Pollyfodder 05:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have again reverted your edits to this page, Pollyfodder. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks editors

Thanks very much editors for arbitrating!! {{Sockpuppet|1=Mtwang|evidence=[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mtwang 69.108.152.153]]and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.108.152.153]] IP Location California}}

Look forward to your supervision to bringing a fair minded pov to reviewing additions and edits. If you look at any additions and edits and ignore some of the rhetoric and attempts at deceptive posturing, you'll manage this properly. If you make semi-regulated, just get a wikipedia editor who has solid track-record and no axe to grind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.152.153 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

No problem. From this point forward I will remove any text that is not sourced by non-trivial secondary sources or is written with a point of view. I don't care about break.com in any way. All I care about is that this article conforms with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I note the thanks offered by the (break.com) sock puppet. Can we remove the reference to "Weed" in the Mainstream media content section as it is clearly WP:V.--Pollyfodder 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down. Can we please keep this about the article and not about the editors?

Polly, the most important thing for you to do now is find news articles on Break.com. You can check the typical anti-pornography groups (the major ones) and see what they have to say about break.com in official publications. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the "Weed" comment actually has a source over at Businessweek. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr Smith, what I am doing has nothing to do with just the pornography but an endevour to keep the page as FACTUAL as possible. These "facts" must include the pornographic content as kids who frequent Wikipedia will as a matter of curiosity use the link to break.com provided within the break.com page. You will notice I have added quite a few GOOD media references in the last 2 weeks and was one of the people who spoke out to keep the page when it was considered for deletion. Go look at the history. And here is a sockpuppet labelling me as BIAS! Second, Who removed the "sockpuppet" warning and why? The rules relating to sockpuppets in Wikipedia are clear

You cited my modifications to the page but forgot to include the sockpuppets who again tried to beat his break.com drum. I removed them and reverted the page back to what it was with explaination therefor. Wikipedia is not a platform for free advertising, esspecially one containing pornographic spam and sponsored adult content.

I know you have nothing to do with the sockpuppet Mr Smith as you have a long history as a Wikipedian :) The sockpuppet does not, other than the modifications to their page.

I refer your attention to "catagories" and the following "including animation, military, sports, humor, movies and entertainment". Do we need to have both there when the "catagories" links to the said content? I was going to modify this but thought no point lest I be singled out again for "MY" modification.

Many kids frequent Wikipedia and I question the reasoning behind removing the "parental discretion" warning I placed within the content. Would not look good for Wikipedia if a kid found this page and used the link to break.com only to be hit with adult content. I dont think the parents would be too happy, and I dread to think how the media would take it. I browsed the site not more than 10 hours ago and 2-3 pages in their just submitted section were saturated with XXX spam. (Screenshots available). In all fairness, no fault of Break.com, nontheless their responsibility for alowing it to stay there for several hours. Hence the addition where I made reference to those who browse break.com calling on the sites admin to police the site for which I did indeed include citations, but were "mysteriously" removed. At the end of the day do we want kids entering break.com from here to see this XXX content? This is why I added the "Parental discretion" warning.

I also draw your attention to the latest addition to the MEDIA section the first entry "Break partners with Audible Magic for copyright compiance in 2007". A whole page dedicated to copyright but break only has a minute mention "break.com" within the sentence. Is it worth being there? The numerous references I added included at least 60 percent reference to break.com or Keith Richman.

Thanks for your help. And, PLEASE dont take me the wrong way, I have put in alot of GOOD things about break.com and unfortunately the good must also include the bad to keep a fair balance. As for the "Weed" when clicking onto it it does not take us to Businessweek.--Pollyfodder 06:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'd really like to keep this conversation about the article and avoid any accusations about the people involved in editing here. They may or may not be a sock puppet... it doesn't matter when we discuss the merits of inclusion.

We do not design our site to be "kid friendly". Take a look at this article if you doubt me. :) Our job is to relate information that has been covered by other major secondary sources. For example.... Lets assume the fictional John Doe is a notable actor. Lets also assume that you know for a fact that our fictional John Doe is a child molester. Unless you had a reliable secondary source it wouldn't be ok to say that on wikipedia. It would be "the truth" and "factual" but it would also not be acceptable to post on wikipedia.

Likewise, wikipedia can't host your personal experiences (Ie, You saw that porn was left up for several hours) because the next person to come along has no way to verify your experience. However, if some notable group complained about it and some media outlet picked up on the story we could then cover it here on wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Likewise, wikipedia can't host your personal experiences (Ie, You saw that porn was left up for several hours) because the next person to come along has no way to verify your experience".

Mr Smith, in reference to the link you provided above linking to the human anus I have seen these entries in Wikipedia relating to the human anatomy in its "natural" state. Nothing wrong with that at all. However, there is a difference between this and " this Can you understand where I am coming from and why I urge that the reference to parental discretion be included within the break.com page?--Pollyfodder 07:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are links to screencaptures from secondary sites ok to use?--Pollyfodder 06:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"However, if some notable group complained about it and some media outlet picked up on the story we could then cover it here on wikipedia".

I understand your point regarding media outlets. Consider it done :--Pollyfodder 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Not ok if your trying to use the screen shots as evidence to prove a point. In any case, screenshots don't count as reliable source of information. We could include a screenshot in the article, but we still can't use it to draw conclusions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I used the screenshots as a source/reference--Pollyfodder 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New sources:

“

Joe Lazlo, a senior analyst with Jupiter Research, said the companies that are attracting funding are ones that are finding ways to differentiate themselves. He said one creative concept was that of Break.com, which allows people to post videos, then buys the more popular ones and runs ads with them. But so far at least, Break.com is not biting at venture capital offers. Keith Richman, its chief executive, said the company had declined financing a number of times as it tried to build the business on its own. Mr. Felser, the president of Grouper, said there was a limit to how much a video creation and sharing company can hope to grow independently, because of the expense of bandwidth and advertising infrastructure.

”

• Source: Miguel Helft and Matt Richtel, "Venture Firm Shares a YouTube Jackpot", The New York Times, October 10, 2006

A fairly trivial mention at the bottom of a large article, but it's reliable and could be used for some nice like factoids. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

“

Amp'd Mobile, which started late last year, offers video downloads intended for older teenagers and people in their 20's, clips from MTV, Spike and College Sports TV, along with "viral" videos from Break.com and iFilm, and live events like Ultimate Fighting Championship.

”

• Source: Wilson Rothman, Sending the Brand Into the Wireless World, The New York Times, May 3, 2006

Again, fairly trivial, but still reliable and potentially worth a mention.

“

Break.com has signed a deal with the production company Endemol USA, which has created TV hits such as Deal or No Deal and Fear Factor, to launch a new series on the male-oriented video hub sometime this summer. The new series, Record Breakers, will feature contestants competing to beat a series of silly or obscure world records. Thirty episodes of the Breakers have been ordered for the short-form Web-only, according to Break CEO Keith Richman.

”

• Source: Mike Shields , Break.com, Endemol to Launch Record Breakers, MediaWeek (The Nielsen Company)

The article continues from there. A much more substantial source with some decent information. If you want to expand the article, those three articles above would be a good place to start. On a side note, I was looking, but I was unable to find any media reference to any controversy over the adult content on break.com. I'll write the section myself if you can find some media coverage, but I so-far have yet to see any. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

+ 'The new sources are certainly worth including. --Pollyfodder 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Good sources. Very much appreciate your fair-minded approach.

Have added * TMFT Enterprises, LLC v. Mark Cosstick Claim Number: FA0508000531518 as it relates to "Break.com (formerly Big-boys.com)" Top of page.--Pollyfodder 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a note about that in the intro, and I added it to the references section in the proper way. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr Smith, help me out here. I understand your point regarding research, though, if I were to go out and find more material for inclusion in the references is that not "research"? How would there be anything on the page bad or good unless someone went out and found it? Is seeking information whether it be for confirmation or to establish authenticity etc research. If this is the case every page in Wikipedia should be deleted as the method used to collect the information is obviously "not allowed". I'm not one for opening cans or worms but...

RESEARCH Source

1. Careful or diligent search

2. studious inquiry or examination; especially investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws.

3. The collecting of information about a particular subject.

--Pollyfodder 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Pollyfodder, I'm talking about #2 there. #3 and #1 are usually acceptable. The idea is to avoid engaging in ORIGINAL research. Meaning, for example, "I found this, this, and this, so I draw THIS conclusion". I notice you did that a number of times in previous edits. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up my recent update to the references section :)

I tried to use these as citations/references at a time people were claiming my additions to the page were baseless or propoganda etc.

I am a strong believer that if someone states something esspecially here it should be backed up with evidence. I was just (as usual) trying to keep a level of accuracy and accountability.

I do see where you are coming from, and thanks for the advice :)--Pollyfodder 04:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please correct grammar mistakes on the top level description:

+ 'Break.com is lead by it's chief executive officer Keith Richman.' Should read 'by its chief executive officer.'

+ 'The websites target audience is Young Men.[2]' Should read 'The web site's target audience is young men.'

Also, although the arbirtration case is cited, it seem bizare to include in top level description of what break is, especially as all the editor's recommended citations were entirely passed up in favor of this strange detail.

The arbitration case is relevant, more relevant than your addition "Break partners with Audible Magic for copyright compiance in 2007" in the References in the media section where break.com is only mentioned once as "Break.com" and nothing more. Again, if you want YOUR site advertised here be prepared to have ALL aspects of the site covered. And, at least have the decency of signing your post. (Keith Richman/Brian Warner or whoever you are in break slaving to defend/promote your site in here).--Pollyfodder 22:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors: please note above. As mentioned, axe to grind. Just going to continue to look for editorial angles to slip into article. Please keep an eye on. Also, when convenient, please see above grammar requests. Grazie. (Editors please note: "Grazie" IP: 69.108.152.153 per statement above. This IPs only contrabutions have been related to break.com See "contributions"). --Pollyfodder 07:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

+ 'I question the need to have breaks latest addition to the Mainstream media content section "attractive women finding different ways to break objects" with accompanying reference linking to Break.com at the bottom of the page when it is not even featured on break.com at this time. The reference to "attractive women" is to commercialised and sexually appealing. They tried this a couple of weeks ago but a senior editor removed it. In fairness, and in keeping with the entries accuracy and rightful place within the section, it can be replaced by "women finding different ways to break objects". This would have far less sex appeal and commercial/advertisement value.----Pollyfodder 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my errors. I'll take a look at that in a bit. I'm not the best author in the world.:)

The "attractive" women bit is important. I could provide 3 sources that say they are going to being using "attractive" women. It also highlights the distinction between a show for women and a show for men. It is an important part of break.com's marketing ploy. If you think there is a better or more neutral way to put it I'm all ears, but I think it's important to mention. For the record, the citation to that section is from MediaWeek, not break.com. Weather or not the article is flattering or unflattering to the company is completely irrelevant. All we can do is reflect how the media reports on Break.com.

As for the arbitration case, I figure it's not important enough to merit it's own section latter on... but if we agree that the name-change should be mentioned in more detail then I'll try to find enough sources to justify it's own section. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

- Thanks for grammar fixes. I think your edits to name change are fair-minded. It's mentioned, cited and presented evenly now.

[edit] STOP with the Sock-tags

Stop putting sock tags on this page. Those are NOT for article talk pages. Those tags are for USER talk pages. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RACIST

This site has a ton of racist "commentary" and should be cited as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.68.26 (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added citations for Easteregg and NSFW

• With the link to break.com's "categories" (even though the categories are mentioned on the page) I thought it appropriate to also include these citations.--Pollyfodder 02:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted to show the preference to Wikipedia's own internal articles. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Have replaced citations to Easteregg and NSFW after they were removed.--Pollyfodder 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Have again fixed the citations for Easteregg and NSFW after they were altered by editor unknown. Message left below these on page asking editor to explain actions here in the discussion page were not only ignored but he/she also deleted the message.--Pollyfodder 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop fucking messing up the ref-tags in this article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)(Comment refactored 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC))

Not good for editors to use such profanity. First you say "Fair enough" then "Stop fucking up the ref-tags"? I did not know it was you that changed them! I did leave a message asking whoever it was to leave a note here in the discussion page before "someone" deleted it (remember). I suggest you modify the "catagories", esspecially whilst other editors are starting to discover the true agenda of this page! Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard--Pollyfodder 23:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

(So it is on record) In keeping with recent amendments to the Break.com page I have amended the "categories" in the content section as they are detailed in the same paragraph, in doing so removing the link to the Break.com website which is already featured in the external links section (as I have mentioned to editor J.Smith in other comments/replys above).--Pollyfodder 23:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my profanity. That was uncivil of me. However, my point remains the same... this article uses the <ref> system of footnotes. Reverting to the inferior inline-EL system lowered the quality of the article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)