User talk:Liaishard
|
Trouble with page
[edit]I see you're having a bit of trouble with the appearance of a page you're editing. May I suggest you use the "Show Preview" button to help out. -Patstuart 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much patstuart, it helped a lot, would you be so kind as to help me figure out how to enter this article for biography review?
there shouldn't be any dispute at all
[edit]This article was heavily one sided before i did any editing. Clarks main photo was a booking photo, and the only sources utilized were all negative or making fun of Clark and his career. I simply evened it out without deleting any of the negative sources which were priorly associated with the article, by adding some positive sources and a decent photo of Clark which also backed his documented account of his time on idol. What better source to take from then the source him self. (Liaishard 13:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC))
If you have permission that this picture is released under a free license, please forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org, otherwise the picture will have to be deleted. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Corey Clark
[edit]Hi. Please stop inserting non-NPOV material into the article, as you did when you inserted the phrase "for fear of this very reason, that they would some how lie and sweep things under the rug.". Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
- Hi. Most of the material you added since my last addition to the article did not have sources provided, or were not supported by the sources that were, and therefore, cannot be included. Remember, citing sources is a required policy of Wikipedia. I detailed these additions on that article's Talk Page. If you can refute those points, then feel free to do so there. Thanks. Nightscream 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Edit summary
[edit]
--Geniac 11:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense
[edit]Please do not post nonsense to Wikipedia, like you did in this edit to User talk:Nightscream. Thank you. --Geniac 19:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced additions
[edit]In this edit, You added "in the mouth" to the sentence "After managing to get his handcuffed hands in front him in the squad car, he was shown a Taser and warned he would be shot in the mouth with it if he continued to resist, at which point he relented." The source provided for this statement is this web page. The word "mouth" does not appear on that web page. Please discontinue adding unsourced material to Wikipedia. --Geniac 20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In this edit, you added "Initially no charges were filed against Clark and he was refunded his $116.00 USD bond money after attending a November 11th, 2002 court hearing in Topeka". However, neither "refund" nor "November" appear at the given source, [1]. This is the second time I have pointed out this unsourced addition; the first was at Talk:Corey Clark#April 5, 2007 in the 6th bullet point down. Please stop adding unsourced content; continuing to do so may result in a block. --Geniac 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "Please allow me to properly edit my piece before instantly reverting my edits, i'm still getting my wiki controls together and need a little more time than the average editor, just please have a little more patience, 'preciate ya playa, thanks."
- I didn't instantly revert that edit. I removed the unsourced statement 1 hour and 20 minutes after you added it. That is plenty of time to add a reference. You proved that when you then added Although Corey was described as "one of the most impressive top ten finalists of the talent search’s second season" then added a source for that statement the next minute. I recommend that when you add a statement, add a reference for it in the same edit. That way, nobody can claim you added an unsourced statement.
- You have been an editor since September 29, 2006. You should have your "wiki controls together" by now.
--Geniac 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop adding material to the article that is non-NPOV and not supported by the sources provided.
- The quote "We want our own attorney, we're not rolling with this stuff you want us to do," they won't kick off the rest of the cast." is a direct quote from the source provided. The version to which you changed it is not.
- The quote “have not been substantiated by any corroborating evidence or witnesses, including those provided by Mr. Clark, and Ms. Abdul expressly denies that any such relationship ever existed."is a direct quote from the source provided for that passage. The version of it that you altered it to is not. Although there is a source that you provided that indicates Abdul admitted to phone conversations, that has nothing to do with changing a direct quote from a different source. Moreover, I had already put that admission from Abdul in there, and Geniac had removed it. I've placed it back in there, with the attributable source, but in a different passage, and without the fake quote you put in there.
- The conclusion that the bit with the lawyers was a conflict of interest is a personal conclusion, or opinion. It is not a fact. Stop changing it. Nightscream 18:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- i've sourced everything, the combination of our two sources was the result of the sentence i edited nightscream, if you say i need to provide source i did, and it said abdul admitted to phone conversations, its not a fake qoute, please don't change it again, and as far as the lawyer situation i'm sure i've cleared that up now, i'm not trying to give you guys a free read of clarks book, if i had to pay and other people had to pay for it, you should too. I've sourced direct qoutes from his book which you have previously altered several times, and i've said nothing to you about them so please stop making such a big deal about things because when you complain about things that you yourself are participating in, your complaint loses merit. thanks.Liaishard 07:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
`~~`~~<===========================8 PTING! Liaishard 07:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced, POV or misquoted material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --Geniac 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
the combination of our two sources was the result of the sentence i edited nightscream, if you say i need to provide source i did, and it said abdul admitted to phone conversations, its not a fake qoute... If you want to combine information from two sources, that's fine, but not when it's a direct quote. One more time: A direct quote is not a passage that merely has quotation marks around it. A direct quote is when you relate what someone else said word for word. (The only exception to this that I know of are elipses, and words and small phrases in brackets to edit for clarity). The quote in question was the one that I edited in there. That's what that investigator said. By changing it, you were changing that person's words. You can't do that. If you want to add the info about Abdul's admission, that's fine, but then it would be a paraphrase. You don't portray as having been said by the person being quoted, if he didn't say that.
And as far as your recent Edit Summary instructing us to "PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE DIRECT QOUTES", I don't know where you get the idea that direct quotes are not subject to editing, but they are, especially when, for example, they exhibit poor punctuation or spelling, or cause the paragraph, section or the entire article to be too long (the Edit Page now warns editors that the article is 31 kilobytes long, which is a warning that it is approaching the size limit).
Lastly, why, in the bit about Abdul's admission about the phone conversations, did you not merely insert the detail about their length, but omit the passage "Their accounts of those conversations, however, differ greatly"? Why include the former, but delete the latter? Nightscream 15:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked
[edit]
Liaishard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sandstein is using his blocking powers to keep me from starting a mediation page which is going to focus on his and other admins recent blocks of me based upon another users lies, and to try and avoid mediation about their behavior, i can't start the page as long as i'm blocked, i am trying to make this as civil as possible, but these retorts i'm getting from these admins and the blocks are unjustified and ridiculousLiaishard 00:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You can make a mediation page when your block expires. That isn't a reason for unblocking. You have had your block reviewed and denied twice already. It also appears that your block has been extended for block evasion. Please stop. Your block will expire soon enough. Denied. — IrishGuy talk 00:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Heimstern Läufer 01:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- this block was taken out against me based on lies, here is the proof. This is a copy of nightscreams report to have me blocked.
- Hi. I've been having trouble over the past two months with User:Liaishard, who continuously inserts non-NPOV material into the article. *[this is nightscreams opinion not a fact] Right now, she she insists on changing a passage *[this is a lie as i am the person who inserted the passage, so i should be able to change it, i am the one who researched it not nightscream] so that a point of view taken by Clark reads as a fact *[I want it to factually read the way Clark said it is my problem]. Specifically, in the passage detailing how the producers of American Idol told Clark and his fellow contestants to select one of two attorneys for representation that the producers presented to them within two days or be dismissed from the show, the wording indicates that Clark and his fellow contestants felt this was a conflict of interest *[this is a lie on nightscreams part because the wording clearly says in the book and cut and pasted into the article for nightscream and everyone to see that clark and the other contestants "KNEW" not "Felt" it was a conflict of interest, and Clarks experience in the music industry does validate that assertion as does the actual definition of a conflict of interest]. Liaishard keeps changing this passage from "felt" to "knew" *[this is a lie, nightscream continued to change the wording from "Knew" to "felt" not vise versa, I AM THE ONE WITH THE SOURCE, NIGHTSCREAM DOES NOT HAVE THE BOOK SO HOW CAN HE CLAIM THAT I'M CHANGING THE WORDS AROUND, HE KEEPS REVERTING A DIRECT QUOTE MADE AND WRITTEN BY CLARK]. Liaishard insists that it's a fact, not an opinion, that it does not require a legal conclusion, *[i SAID THAT CLEAR CUT CASES OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST LIKE THIS ONE DO NOT NEED A LEGAL CONCLUSION TO SAY IT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST] because it's from Clark's book and his own words, that it's a "direct quote". I've tried to explain to her a direct quote is a word-for-word reproduction of someone's words with quotation marks, and that the passage "Clark felt" or "Clark knew" is a third-person paraphrase, but she refuses to listen, insisting that no, it's a first-person direct quote. Wen I try to correct her on this terminology on the article's Talk Page (as I have done numerous times over the past month or two), she disagrees, but without explaining why my assertion is wrong.*[THAT IS A LIE AS I REFUTE ANY OF NIGHTSCREAMS EDITS AND TALK TO HIM ABOUT THEM IN LENGTH ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE] She also continues to insert a dead link that she herself previously removed for that reason *[I RE-INSERTED THE LINK BY ACCIDENT 1 TIME AFTER I POINTED OUT MYSELF THAT THE LINK DIDN'T WORK, IT'S CALLED A MISTAKE, SOME PEOPLE DO MAKE THOSE YOU KNOW]. User:Geniac, who I've asked for help numerous times, intervenes only sporadically, as he is probably very busy. User:Seraphimblade,*[TOLD US BOTH THAT THE ARTICLE WAS ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS DIRECT QUOTES OR POTENTIALLY LIBELOUS COMMENTS WERE ATTRIBUTED CORRECTLY TO WHOMEVER SAID THEM] who has also tried to help out, has a banner on his page that he is currently away. This has been going on for months now, and I would appreciate some decisive action with Liaishard *[AS I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME DECISIVE ACTION WITH NIGHTSCREAM WHO USES LIES, CONJECTURE AND BIG WORDS TO TRY AND PROVE HIS POINT AND COVER UP HIS OWN MISTAKES], who neither understand nor cares about the site's policies. Nightscream 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
pLEASE THOUROUGHLY INVESTIGATE THIS MATTER BEFORE TAKING SUCH DRASTIC MEASURES AS BLOCKING, THE FACT THAT NIGHTSCREAM USED HIS PAST REPUTATION WITH THIS COMMUNITY AS A BYPASS FOR HIS CURRENT ACTIONS AGAINST WIKI POLICY ARE A DIRECT MOCK OF THIS SITES RULES POLICIES AND ADMINISTRATORS WHOM ACTUALLY TAKE THEIR POSITION SERIOUSLY. THANKS Liaishard 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Liaishard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
<Rationale moved below by admin to fix template>
Decline reason:
Your rationale is way too long for me to examine it in any detail. You have violated 3RR on that article, regardless of what the other party did. It is not relevant here who of you was actually right. You don't settle this by edit-warring, you settle this by talking. Note that the other editor was also blocked, but was unblocked because an admin felt that your edits had WP:BLP problems. Please read that policy and keep it in mind in the future. — Sandstein 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have only reverted edits as others like nightscream have done as well. He too should be blocked from editing if you are going to block me. It is a matter of his opinion against mine, he has tried to get others to agree with him as it shows here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ptah3773 and he simply would like to word things the way he likes. The truth is Corey Clark said EXACTLY what I edited into the article and nightscream has been reverting it. Ironically I find his edit to now be acceptable as it shows in this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corey_Clark&oldid=124744966 : and previous edits he has not included a wiki link around the words conflict of interest as he did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corey_Clark&oldid=124758511 : in this edit. Either way he's playing on the way people read into what's going on and his reverts are as vandalizing as mine are if you are to call it that. He reverted my facts and i reverted his opinion, therefore your block is uncalled for and i will be seeking to remove it immediately. thanks. Liaishard 03:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- on the article discussion page nightscream also said this: "Second, even if this accusation of yours were true, you're not going to gain any credibility as a good faith editor by using violations of others as an excuse to commit the same violations yourself. I caution you to think before you proceed further on this course. Nightscream 00:48, 22 April 2007"
He is only claiming i'm in violation of the policy according to his opinion. He says the passage i'm editing is a third person edit, when in actuality it's a quote taken directly from a book written by the person this article is about, Corey Clark. I'm not changing what it says, nightscream is, and he continues to revert it, so i revert it back because he's violating the same policy he's accusing me of. If you are going to unblock him than you need to unblock me as well. I'm only inputing sourced facts that i refuse to let him change because he feels like it. Liaishard 03:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Further more, as was told to nightscream and i by saraphimblade, we must properly attribute qoutes to the person who said them without alteration. Wikipediass policy can not over shadow facts, it would be a direct contradiction of it's own rules to do so, whether the statements made are libelous or not they were factually said by clark whom the quotes were properly attributed to from his book written by him.
- nightscreams prior standing with this editing community has nothing to do with the fact that he was breaking the 3 revert rule himself. There was no vandalism of the article, nightscream simply disagreed with what COREY CLARK said and wanted it to read his way so he continued to revert my edits. Metaphorically speaking, if he has never killed someone in the past does that mean that he didn't kill the body lying at his feet? In other words, what he's done in his past has nothing to do with how he's conducting himself in the present. Nightscream said himself that he's already been tagged once before for this same violation so why he thinks it's okay to do that now based off of his opinion is beyond me. He's blaming me for breaking the same rule for the same reason i feel he violated it for, inserting his opinion into the article time and time agian. Corey Clark didn't say that he and the contestants felt that way, he said they knew better. Nightscream is the only person to combat Clarks choice of words.
- we are not here at wiki do decipher wether or not what clark had to say was true, only what was factual said. And what can be sourced as being factually said. The point nightscream is trying to make is irrelevant because the situation that Clark and the other finalists were presented with was a conflict of interest. Telling the contestants to sign with one of these attorny's or else risk disqualification is a clear cut and dry case of C.O.I. The very definition which i provided from answers dot com forbids such an act by a corporation. This is the question that nightscream should ask himself before reverting my edit, were clark and the other contestants unduly pressured (which aren't clarks words by the way they're nightscreams) to pick an attorney that idol payed for or not? The answer was given to you from Clarks book in his words, and the answer is YES. Therefore it would be very easy for someone like Clark who's been in the entertainment industry for 13 years now to ascertain beforehand the fact that someones actions in the dealings of their contract that they want signed are considered a conflict of interest. There is no arguing that fact. Clark said that's the way it went down, regardless if it is true or not that's what he said. Clark could have said the sky was purple when he had sex with abdul to a reliable source, and i would have the right within wiki policy to edit that into the article, but with a description of an editor somewhere along the lines of "Clark says that the sky was purple when he had sex with Abdul, although there are no reliable sources to point to the fact that the sky was purple as he was inside her vagina this is what he said". Something like that anyway. The point is like seraphimblade said if he said it, and it's relevant to the article, and it can be sourced or referenced, than it can be entered into the article. Everything i've edited is properly referenced and sourced, and is not changed to fit my opinion or some of wiki policies even as nightscream would like it to be, but it is word for word what Corey Clark said. End of story, this block is ridiculous, and the fact that i've been blocked because i refuse to allow someone to change a direct quote to fit their needs only goes to show and prove the lack of efficiency that some of these administrators are using when it comes to thouroughly investigating what's going on behind an edit war, one that i did not start, and one that i intend to finish.
- this edit is acceptable to me with a few points, that Clarks wording be used exactly when he says that he knew instead of nightscreams assertions of he felt, just like when nightscream insisted on using abduls press releases exactly how they were worded in the article on the articles talk page,two that nightscream fix his error of the spelling Universal in the info box as well as sanbernardino, the way i just spelled them is the correct way. And 3 i just want to thank nightscream for going above and beyond anything i've done for the article in a positive way and adding an info box, that was cool nightscream, it did show that you weren't all about painting clark to be a bad guy. The page went from looking like this when I started editing ==>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corey_Clark&oldid=51944428 to it's current state. I think i've potentially fulfilled my mission here. I would be a smart ass and just unblock myself, but i figure a nice vacation for a couple of days away from corey clarks life, might leave me a little more time for my own, chow you S***** M**** F*****, and S*** My D*** you C**** Commanders! That's short for the Sunny Mens Fraternity out of the San Diego California Chapter, and if you sign up today you could be one of the commanders as well. Liaishard 06:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- we are not here at wiki do decipher wether or not what clark had to say was true, only what was factual said. And what can be sourced as being factually said. The point nightscream is trying to make is irrelevant because the situation that Clark and the other finalists were presented with was a conflict of interest. Telling the contestants to sign with one of these attorny's or else risk disqualification is a clear cut and dry case of C.O.I. The very definition which i provided from answers dot com forbids such an act by a corporation. This is the question that nightscream should ask himself before reverting my edit, were clark and the other contestants unduly pressured (which aren't clarks words by the way they're nightscreams) to pick an attorney that idol payed for or not? The answer was given to you from Clarks book in his words, and the answer is YES. Therefore it would be very easy for someone like Clark who's been in the entertainment industry for 13 years now to ascertain beforehand the fact that someones actions in the dealings of their contract that they want signed are considered a conflict of interest. There is no arguing that fact. Clark said that's the way it went down, regardless if it is true or not that's what he said. Clark could have said the sky was purple when he had sex with abdul to a reliable source, and i would have the right within wiki policy to edit that into the article, but with a description of an editor somewhere along the lines of "Clark says that the sky was purple when he had sex with Abdul, although there are no reliable sources to point to the fact that the sky was purple as he was inside her vagina this is what he said". Something like that anyway. The point is like seraphimblade said if he said it, and it's relevant to the article, and it can be sourced or referenced, than it can be entered into the article. Everything i've edited is properly referenced and sourced, and is not changed to fit my opinion or some of wiki policies even as nightscream would like it to be, but it is word for word what Corey Clark said. End of story, this block is ridiculous, and the fact that i've been blocked because i refuse to allow someone to change a direct quote to fit their needs only goes to show and prove the lack of efficiency that some of these administrators are using when it comes to thouroughly investigating what's going on behind an edit war, one that i did not start, and one that i intend to finish.
- nightscreams prior standing with this editing community has nothing to do with the fact that he was breaking the 3 revert rule himself. There was no vandalism of the article, nightscream simply disagreed with what COREY CLARK said and wanted it to read his way so he continued to revert my edits. Metaphorically speaking, if he has never killed someone in the past does that mean that he didn't kill the body lying at his feet? In other words, what he's done in his past has nothing to do with how he's conducting himself in the present. Nightscream said himself that he's already been tagged once before for this same violation so why he thinks it's okay to do that now based off of his opinion is beyond me. He's blaming me for breaking the same rule for the same reason i feel he violated it for, inserting his opinion into the article time and time agian. Corey Clark didn't say that he and the contestants felt that way, he said they knew better. Nightscream is the only person to combat Clarks choice of words.
- Since not only nightscream but also the administrators whom blocked me and than refused to unblock me, yet unblocked nightscream seem to be uncivil, I am going to remove the block myself. Examples of uncivility taken from wikis page of uncivil behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNCIVIL inlude but aren't limited to: Examples
Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
Rudeness Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap") Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:CIV#ICA) Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..." Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. More serious examples include:
Taunting Personal attacks Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs Profanity directed at another contributor Lies Defacing user pages Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove vandalism Calling for bans or blocks Indecent suggestions Incivility happens, for example, when you are quietly creating a new page, and another user tells you, If you're going to write a pointless page, could you spell-check it?. Escalation occurs when you reply, Mind your own business.
This style of interaction between Wikipedians drives away contributors, distracts others from more important matters, and weakens the entire community.
When and why does it happen?
During an edit war, when people have different opinions, or when there is a conflict over sharing power.
When the community grows larger. Each editor does not know all the others and may not perceive the importance of each individual to the project — so they don't worry about maintaining relationships that don't exist. Reputation does not count as much as in a smaller community.
Sometimes, a particularly impolite user joins the project. This can also aggravate other editors into being impolite themselves.
Most of the time, insults are used in the heat of the moment during a longer conflict. They are essentially a way to end the discussion. Often the person who made the insult regrets having used such words afterwards. This in itself is a good reason to remove (or refactor) the offending words.
In other cases, the offender is doing it on purpose: either to distract the "opponent(s)" from the issue, or simply to drive them away from working on the article or even from the project, or to push them to commit an even greater breach in civility, which might result in ostracism or banning. In those cases, it is far less likely that the offender will have any regrets and apologize.
Some editors deliberately push others to the point of breaching civility, without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This may constitute a form of trolling, and is certainly not a civil way to interact.
Why is it bad?
Because it makes people unhappy, resulting in discouragement and departure
Because it makes people angry, resulting in non-constructive or even uncivil behavior themselves, further escalating the level of incivility
Because it puts people on the defensive, closing their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming
Because people lose good faith, resulting in even less ability to resolve the current conflict — or the next one
Because in the end, the content to be edited is not improved:
the administrator sandstein who reviewed and denied my unblock request had this to say: Decline reason: "Your rationale is way too long for me to examine it in any detail. You have violated 3RR on that article, regardless of what the other party did. It is not relevant here who of you was actually right. You don't settle this by edit-warring, you settle this by talking. Note that the other editor was also blocked, but was unblocked because an admin felt that your edits had WP:BLP problems. Please read that policy and keep it in mind in the future. — Sandstein 07:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)". so he's saying that he didn't even look through my request as he FELT it was too long to read, but had already researched and given the thumbs up to unblock nightscream. Not a very good example to set being an administrator and refusing to read through my concerns simply because of the length of my statements. What does it have to be two lines long in order to keep someones attention or have a chance to actually be reviewed before being denied?
- Another example of an administrator Thuranx being rude is:
This was brought to WP:AN/I, and I had a few minutes, so I'm offering an opinion. In reviewing this section(the previous one has such AWFUL formatting, random caps and lack of signatures as to be practically WORTHLESS), it is clear that Liaishard doesn't understand the difference between first and third person writing and a direct quotation and a paraphrase. Further, the text she herself provides as a direct quote shows that yes, these were the author's feelings, not his specific trained knowledge. As such 'feels' or 'felt' instead of 'knows' or 'knew' is appropriate for the article. ThuranX 05:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Corey_Clark"
- In actuality the text the Author provides does point to his specific trained knowledge in the music industry about his previous problems with Conflict Of Interest as he says in his book and i quote "Saturday, March 8th, Nigel and Simon Lythgoe and another producer, Kenny Warwick, called the 12 of us together to inform us that we needed to pick a lawyer to advise us on signing the AI contract. They were going to start paying us $1,000 a week, we would be given a clothing budget, we would be receiving a fixed amount for tour appearances, and a percentage of royalties from the second season CD. The contract looked like it was a hundred pages, it was a weekend, and they informed us we had to sign it by Monday, since the contest to pick the winner of the 12 was starting on Tuesday. Otherwise, they threatened to put us off of the show. But the “good news” was, they told us, that they had already pre-selected two attorneys we could choose from and the show would be picking up the attorneys expenses. Paula had warned me that this would be a conflict of interest, since our legal advisors would be on their payroll, something I had know about from my earlier dealings in the industry. When I brought this up at a prior meeting on the subject, the face of the staff’s legal counsel had gone white as he brushed my question aside and said to discuss it with the attorneys who might represent us. While we were waiting for them to come into the room, I stepped out and made a call to Paula. She told me not to sign anything, and that the other contestants and I should unite and insist on having an attorney of our own. “There’s strength in numbers” she said, and then she recommended one who was a friend of hers, who had represented Justin Guarini against the show the first year. And though she didn’t tell me this high profile New York Music Attorney turned out to be an attorney of hers as well, the shows higher up brass had no problem figuring it out and started putting two and two together. “If we all stood together,” Paula said, “then Idol couldn’t fire all of us.” She believed that if we tried to go about getting our own attorneys separately the show would pick us off one by one, just like they did to Mario Vasquez the fourth season of idol". End Quote.
It clearly says "Paula had warned me that this would be a conflict of interest, since our legal advisors would be on their payroll, something I had know about from my earlier dealings in the industry". So what's the issue, do i need to edit in the words "in Clarks opinion he writes in his book that such and such happened"? Because that has already been described to the reader in the article as the paragraph starts, so does this need to actually be pointed out again?
- here are examples of nightscream attacking me even before i knew that talk pages existed here on wiki, which proves he's been uncivil towards me without initial instigation and has yet to be blocked for it
- "which goes a great deal to illustrating your intellectual dishonesty" which he says on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:69.180.238.139 also
- "Lastly, your other edits do not improve the article, and are grammatically poor". this as well *"it reveals you to be an irrational hypocrite, one whose rantings should not be taken seriously" and this
- "which is why Geniac and Ptah, for example, have stated that they don't buy your paralogia" neither of the two had ever said such a thing to me, but geniac has told me that getting back at nightscream for his attacks isn't appropriate either, i believe he used the words two wrongs don't make a right.
Nightscream said this as well *"Otherwise, you'll only be reaffirming your reputation as a liar". What reputation? I was new to wiki at the time, so he quickly cultivated and painted a picture of me to other people in order to create a bias against my edits which were sourced and referenced just not in the correct manner. He also says this *"Do you even know how to properly write a sentence in the English language? Are you completely unfamiliar with prepositions" He also says this *"despite your petulant insistence that my version was "full of errors" too many to list, and so forth." He also says this *" You, on the other hand, can barely conjugate coherent sentences with proper syntax, puncutation, spelling and sentence structure, so this doesn't come off as a particularly impressive criticism by you. Like your bloviating about my occupation, it comes across as trolling." He also says this *"A statement that means little, when one considers that you have expressed complete ignorance and/or contempt for every single one of them" he also said this *" The manner in which the law is applied in courts is not based on your misconceptions, whims, or flights of fancy. It is based on proper legal interpretations and precedents." calling my intellect on the matter a whim. He also said this *"because I'm not going to rely merely on your say-so that it says what you claim it does, given your repeated history of lying about what your cited sources say." while trying to discredit me to seraphim blade. He also said this *" By contrast, your last version not only contains a redundant two mentions of the "never lying" assertion, but isn't even a proper sentence! " He also says this *"I mean, do you know how to write a properly structured sentence?" He also says this *"You insisted repeatedly on inserting the assertion in the food fight passage that Clark was part of an "entourage". That was a lie." when telling me about a passage in the article about a food fight, and nightscream ended up being extremely wrong in his assertions of me being a liar. He also said this *"You told Geniac that I deliberately removed the word "food" from the description of the food fight. That was a lie" in reference to when i told geniac about nightscreams attack on my character. He also said this *" You claimed that the people who investigated Clark's allegations were internal to Fox. That was a lie." In reference to me saying that the firm which conducted the investigation was already a hired on legal team prior to the incident. He also said this *"You claimed that I tried to remove the evidence Clark provided from the article. That was a lie." In reference to my statements to the other admins that nightscream was continously reverting my edits. He also said this *"You claimed I inserted unsourced info when I wrote that some of Clark's fellow contestants disbelieved his allegations. That's a lie. That information was in the article before I took an interest in it. Which was wrong because as he was deleting what he called my unsourced info, he was leaving other unsourced info in the article. The difference was my info was positive and i hadn't sourced it correctly, and the info he left in the article was negative towards clark and had no source at all. He also says this *" You wrote a description of a source in the External Links section in your 04:24, 13 March 2007 version of the article that stated, "story on council saying the evidence they found didn't effect the show". That's a lie. In reference to the way a source which i provided read, nightscream was arguing symantecs with me. He also said this *"You insisted that you "quoted" the bit about Fantasia Barrino, and properly attributed that quote to Clark's book. That was a lie." In reference to when i had sourced Clarks book again and told them the source on the talk page of the article, and he ignored it and instead said the above. He also said this *"You claimed that the word "coaching", from which I kept removing a wikilink, "just managed to stick around through all these edits." That's a lie. In reference to me letting him know I had nothing to do with wiki linking the word coached. He also said this *"You claimed that the Survivor matter illustrates how a contract violation by someone like Clark would arguably be overlooked in a court of law due to improprieties on the shows behalf during taping. That's a lie. In reference to my research i had done on contractual improprieties and how it was relevant to what Clark was going through and how he was able to talk publicly about the shows indescretions. He also said this *"You've insisted that I've insulted or told falsehoods about you. That's a lie. In reference to me getting other admins to back up what i was inputing into the article and pointing out to them nightscreams attacks. He also said this *"refute this criticism, or stop coming here. Telling me to stop coming to wikipedia. He also said this *"your history of taking veridical shortcuts through sources makes you and your word alone unreliable. He also said this *"Your repeated insistence on this point, and ignorance of the correction I keep presenting to you on it, is simply one of your many mendacious little idiosyncracies. He also said this *"But if we embrace this reasoning of yours about "knowledge", and take it to its logical conclusion, wouldn't your "complete lack of knowledge" of spelling, grammar, syntax, sentence structure, basic definitions of simple words, and Wikipedia's various policies, call your edits into question? If my "complete lack of knowledge on the Corey Clark matter" somehow invalidates my work on the article (even though I suffer from no such lack, since I've read most of the sources), then wouldn't your complete lack of knowledge of how to read, write and communicate properly invalidate yours? He also said this *"Which is a lie, since that’s not what “market research” is, as I already pointed out to you in detail. In an effort to discredit my knowledge of market research firms.
- I have just pointed out 27 instances in which nightscream has been completely uncivil towards me, there are more instances, i just figured 27 would be a good enough # to prove my point that i've been dealing with his BS as long or longer as he claims to have dealt with mine. And still no Adminstrative block for uncivility, i might have needed one too had it not been for the fact that i was defending myself in response to these attacks and got a little frustrated myself and used inappropriate terms. The point here is that i have been no more irrational than nightscream has, maybe a little less technically advanced, but rational none-the-less, and he too was blocked for reverting the article more than 3 times which he himself admitted to being blocked for once before. In his opinion what Clark said shouldn't have read the way that i cut and pasted it from Clarks book. My point was that you don't change direct quotes. Clarks claims weren't anymore libelous than Abduls or Idols which he maintained in the article and would absolutely flip out if i changed one word in his direct quote. The Unblocking of nightscream was merritless. As he too was guilty of not only reverting the article over 3 times based on his opinion verses mine(which an administrative intervention would have been more appropriate than a block), but also of uncivility towards me. This has brought me to the conclusion that the administrators involved seem to be bias in favor of nightscreams opinion, edits, and unruly and uncivil behavior towards me and therefore i will not accept the full length of this block.
If nightscream can be unblocked and he is in clear violation of the rules, regardless of his opinion about why he did it, than i too can be unblocked. The fact also that the Blocking administrator has talked about this situation in full with others but has refused to answer any of my questions or talk with me about this block or my side of this edit war and ignored me completely (it does take two sides to have any kind of war) leads me to further believe that a remedy for the standards of the administrators whom are allowed to police this website need to be raised a few degrees as to let someone who wants to do their job thouroughly, effectively, fairly and correctly instead of just engaging in a popularity contest about which editor has been around longer and embracing that persons opinion to enforce a block based upon his time as an editor alone is highly needed. I will be reporting nightscream and the admins involved in blocking me and denying my unblock request to a higher authority on wiki, even though i don't have a pool of administrators whom I know to pull from like nightscream does i'm sure i can find someone who will agree with the fact that you few people are acting unjustfully. Liaishard 17:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Liaishard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
this block was taken out and continued based on lies and laziness on behalf of nightscream the user, who lied, and the admin who took this block out and the other who denied my unblock request for not investigating what really transpired which i have thouroughly refuted below, if another admin other than the ones presiding currently could way in and remove the block as was done for the other 3rr violator it would be greatly appreciated. thanks Liaishard 19:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
For continued disruption through the repeated use of unblock templates, and as the block-evading IP 68.52.30.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), your block is extended to 48 hours. Now please calm down and read up on our policies, or you will likely face even longer blocks. — Sandstein 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Do not overwrite warnings. Write below them instead.
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Liaishard, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. (Diff) Sandstein 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Corey Clark image
[edit]The permission for use of this image is not acceptable since it does not allow for use off the web and does not allow for derivates to be made.Geni 03:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
Note that incivilities are not tolerated on Wikipedia. You are welcome to contribute here, but you are not welcome to disrupt. Sandstein 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted your request for unblock attempt. Again: do not overwrite previous messages, but post new ones below them. You must user the unblock template, not the unblock-auto template, because you are directly blocked. Sandstein 05:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Possibly unfree Image:Corey Clark.jpg
[edit]An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Corey Clark.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 76.117.210.109 (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The image in the article
[edit]Done. In the future, when not sure how to format certain things, I recommend clicking on another article that has the feature you want to utilize, clicking "Edit", and seeing how things are formatted there in the Edit field, and just copying it. It's how I learned a lot of the stuff I did when I first started. Nightscream (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Runkorin23
[edit] Regarding your comments on User talk:Runkorin23: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The football player
[edit]Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Nightscream (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)