Talk:RTMark

®

®

unencyclopedic

"It thus operates outside the laws governing human individuals, and benefits from the much looser laws governing corporations."

That's quite pretentious. One has to be rather pompous to claim their organization operates outside the laws governing human individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:857A:C53A:549D:3C4 (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Internal inconsistency

The title of this article is "®TM", but both the first and second lines of the article refer to "®^TMark". Which is correct? Note that I understand the superscript limitation; I'm referring to the presence/absence of the "ark" bit. -- DH85868993 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(Note: there is no such limitation for this case, since there is a ™ symbol) +mt 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Move back to RTMark

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The present name of "®TM" is not a really good choice, and is only rendered for logos on the website (all other references use upper case "RTMARK"). Move this back to RTMark? +mt 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with this rational logic, and per naming convention and WP:MOSTM. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What SimCopter hack?

This is not explained in the article, and the external link is dead. Could someone please fix this? Loganberry (Talk) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the referenced article from the NY Daily News "is not available in your region". Is it possible to get an archive? Wmwafr (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Unexplained past tense

This article is written in the past tense without explaining why. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

Rewrote and expanded the article quite a bit: added a sourced history, split out the better-documented projects, clarified the organizational model, and added the later connection to the Yes Men. I also toned down a few claims where the sourcing was weaker than the wording.

I removed the notability tag because the article now has substantial independent coverage from Wired, The New York Times, the Whitney Museum, Galloway/MIT Press etc This seems enough to establish notability under the general guideline. I removed the citations-needed tag for the same reason: the main factual claims are now cited throughout. Normospheric (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I see the rewrite has since been reverted over concerns about LLM use. Looking back over the diff, I also noticed that I accidentally left a stray code-block marker in the Deconstructing Beck section, so I understand why that raised concern.

For clarity: I used LLM assistance for proofreading text I had written - the sourcing and factual changes were checked by me. My understanding is that this kind of use is permitted under WP:NOLLM, which allows LLMs to suggest corrections to an editor's own writing. I'll go over the rewrite again over the next few days. Normospheric (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2026 (UTC)