User talk:69.180.238.139

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On April 3, 2007, this IP address resolved to c-69-180-238-139.hsd1.tn.comcast.net and is in use by Liaishard (talk · contribs). --Geniac 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] March 2, 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Corey Clark, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Geniac 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Corey Clark. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Geniac 13:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Corey Clark, you will be blocked from editing. --Geniac 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Corey Clark, you will be blocked from editing. --Geniac 07:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The source given for the food fight Clark participated in makes it clear that only two people were present--Clark and his manager. No mention is made of an "entourage", or an "entire group". If you want to insert this notion, than you'll have to provide a source that supports it. Thanks. Nightscream 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You are continuing to insert unsourced material into the article. Please stop. If you dispute the reasoning that I and

others have provided, then please see fit to talk about with us on the article's Talk Page. Problems with the edits you keep reverting include:

  • Whether the evidence Clark provided for his affair with Abdul is "hard" is not a fact. It's a point of view. It does not belong in the article.
  • The affair IS alleged, and not proven.
  • The notion that Clark intially refused to cooperater with Fox's investigation is not indicated by the source given at the end of that passage.
  • The notion that the conclusion reached by Fox constituted "lying and sweeping things under the rug" is not a fact. It is your opinion. It does not belong on Wikipedia.
  • You continue to insert material on the food fight between Clark and his manager that is not supported by the sources provided. I mentioned this in my last Edit Summary, and you responded in your most recent Edit Summary by saying, "link provided to source for clark and troy riding in van together, no charges pressed on either party." I didn't say anything about whether they rode together or whether charges were pressed. What I said was that the source does not mention that they were part of a "group" or "entourage". You are evading the point by pointing to other aspects of the incident that have nothing to do with this.
  • Lastly, your other edits do not improve the article, and are grammatically poor. Starting off a paragraph and new section by referring to Clark by name, instead of the personal pronoun "he" is more appropriate. You moved the Soul Train back to the end of the paragraph, even though I moved it to the end of the passage that deals with his apperance on it. You also keep reverting the grammar/syntax of the passage dealing with his magazine appearances, and in doing so, your version is grammatically incorrect ("covers of a 2003 issue of People"). Please stop reverting the article. Nightscream 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


  • first off let's not give your journalistic opinion another thought it's not worth it. You keep attacking my edits as if you are getting paid to do so. it's not that big of a deal. You are also subjecting people to your own personal opinion of clark by misquoting your own reference of a story about clark. The w.q.a.d. story for instance states nothing about a fight between clark and his manager but an argument, yet you described it as a fight trying to portray clark in a false light. Also officer risley said that injuries to both parties were minor, simple scratches on the arms, not injuries and scratches on the arm, the scratches were the injuries. And it's your opinion verses mine, so we will go back and forth as i see it, you don't seem to like clark, and i care nothing only for the truth, which looks to favor clark more than you'd like. if you want to post your personal opinion about what you feel like he has or hasn't done, utilize your own web page to do so, and leave this forum of fact to the people whom only want that, the facts, not any more of your tiny jealous character assasination attempts, yours or fox's, leave this kid alone.
  • the affair is proven on clarks side, abdul admitted to the phone conversations of three and four hours do you know why, because there was proof, which has already been released on the abc special, it isn't alleged, the only people that still say it's alleged are die hard idol fanatics, the proof is black and white, they deny it because they have to, phone records don't lie, eye witnesses, could lie, but not 20 eyewitnesses. And the quote that was used about fox lying and sweeping things under the rug was sourced from clark's book.


  • I have not "attacked" your edits. I've pointed out why they do not conform to WP policy, and provided the detailed reasoning for this above, which you have not refuted.
  • Your statements that I have subjected others to "my opinion", and that I "don't seem to like Clark" are unsupported, since I don't have an opinion of Clark one way or the other, or of his affair with Abdul, nor am I a fan of American Idol, which I generally do not watch.
  • The WQUAD story does not use the word "argument", it uses the word "food fight". That was the phrase I have mostly used, though I see now that in my last edit, the word "food" was accidentally omitted. And again, I do not dispute anything about the nature of their injuries, nor have I mentioned that point, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The fact remains that you are again arguing a point that no one here is challenging, since it was the notion that they were part of a "group" or "entourage" that was unsupported by the linked sources, which you are again ignoring.
  • The fact remains that you insist on wording and phrasing that clearly indicates a point of view, and not mere "facts". That the evidence Clark provided is "hard" is not a fact. It's an opinion, as is your insistence that the affair was proven, which it was not. That someone participated in a phone conversation does not prove an affair.
  • The quote about Fox lying and sweeping things under the rug was not indicated to be sourced from Clark's book, either in its presentation, or in any sources provided. Thus, I treated it appropriately. If you want to include that as a quote, then use the proper quotation marks, and source it to the book, much as has been done with the other Clark quotes that remain in the article.

The fact remains that the version of the article you insist on is not consistent with the NPOV policy. WP has its rules, and if you have no interest in following them, which you've made clear, then it is you, not I, who has no business being here. If you really do have a sincere and good faith motive for being here, however, then you can show this by showing how the material I've challenged is indeed in keeping with NPOV, and by following WP's other guidelines, and signing your posts. Nightscream 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nightscream, the only person who has provided evidence or proof or fact of anything is Corey Clark. Say what you will, but the term "hard" evidence is used when there is evidence presented that simply can not be explained away. Hense the term hard. You keep sighting a press released publicity statement on behalf of idol and abdul as though these previously aforementioned statements are factual and truthful accounts of a relationship that stevie wonder could have seen took place. When really it is their public opinion about what transpired between two grown people during a clandestine relationship which publicly caught the show off gaurd and they've had to scramble and say anything they could to save their integrity and their bottom line ever since. So please stop making excuses for either Abdul or idol because you are doing yourself and the rest of america a great injustice by spreading conjecture and lies, which does nothing but continue to help idol and abdul spread lies and cover up improprieties. Wiki is a place for the truth, and the facts, so let them both shine. It is simply their words saying that their judge whom committed an impropriety during the show with a contestant has done nothing wrong which is false and there is proof that clark provides to point to that. Their words only do not equal fact or proof. No proof to discredit the multiple eyewitnesses that abc aired world wide and spoke with, no proof to discredit the 3 and four hour phone calls at late night hours that occurred during clarks time on american idol, which both the phone bills and abdul prove. The bills prove that clark was speaking to her during his stint on idol and at very late night hours, and abdul proved it because she publicly admitted to the conversations. But ironically she couldn't say what it was that they were speaking about for so long at such an odd hour for two people to be talking to eachother if they aren't dating, she just said it wasn't about the show, which was work for both her and clark, and it wasn't about having a relationship with clark, which would be considered play. There are only two aspects to life, Work and play. If you aren't working your playing, or vice versa, and if the two of them were talking about neither of those for 3 and 4 hours at a time at 2 and 3 in the morning, then what were they talking about, and why wouldn't abdul say it if it wasn't such a big deal? Because it is a big deal and she knows she would be lying. Not to mention the cough medicine prescribed to PUALA ABDUL which was in clarks possession and there is no other legal way for him to obtain that kind of thing without her knowledge, and to actually contemplate the notion that he dug into her trash to retrieve it without her permission or illegally obtained it through fraud would be pure speculation and we don't speculate on wiki we give facts, and the fact is he had it in his possession, not hers, and ABC aired it, so i ask you, if this site is about fact and proof, the only facts and proof i've seen are from Corey Clark, anything i've seen or heard from idol and abdul is conjecture used to confuse people and move the focus away from the facts of the situation which is where clark was trying to bring more focus, which is aimed at the improprieties of american idol and how one of their judges had to break ranks, if you will, to watch out for this kid whom she fealt to be extremely talented and didn't want to see him get taken advantage of by idol. That's what clark has been saying all along, and the second that more people start to believe him, idols whole world will be turned upside down and all the truth and facts and improprieties about the situation will be uncovered, much to the dismay of idol. So get with the truth man, it will set you free. thanks 69.180.238.139 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • the article should reference fact you are right, which in your tehcnical logic i can morbidly see how you say that fact isn't the truth, because the fact of the matter could be that someone lied and then that wouldn't be truth it would be fact so i get it. the article should read that clark provided a lot of evidence, and it's not the drudge report that has anything to do with the bottle of medicine, that was shown on the ABC special. Abdul said yes we talked because she couldn't refute the bills, but it wasn't of a personal nature or about anything to do with the show, at 2,3,4 in the morning, it's wrong to assume as you would say. but that's not my issue with you, my issue is you erased anything positive that i edited into the article sighting that it was unsourced when i've put consistently that my source mostly is the abc special and clarks book, you were too busy erasing my edits to notice i had said that, you were fine to put negative opine as you call it and conjecture from one side, but not clarks . if you want to put the facts than do so, but you should know the facts before you start telling someone else about them, i've followed this story since day one 4 years ago, and you say yourself you never even give the show the time of day, so not being well versed in the know of what has factually transpired means that you were editing blindly see editing blindly nightscream. I don't keep igonoring the independent councel point that's one of my biggest points, their official press release says they could not corroborate mr clarks evidence or witnesses, could not. Proving the negative isn't my point that's yours, Clark already proved his negative and that's the fact that american idol is blackballing his career since he's been off of the show clandestinely because of the relationship that he had with paula abdul, and you my yang are trying to keep that from being said here because you say it's opine, well it's clark opine on the situation he was in, and if you can source and independent councels opine whom have been paid by fox to say whatever they want them to say and then you put your stamp of fact on it to place it on wiki, than corey's opine should be allowed as well on the matter, hell the page is about him not abdul or idol or fox, opine porcupine?! All i care about is now clarks side is up in the article because it wasn't before, it used to read like a one sided negative magazine interview. this page is for corey clark but when it first started all it had to say was negative things and some people want it to stay that way, and that's not wiki protocol either, so now you have all of the negative facts in the article you want and i have all the positive facts i want so we should be done with this now right? 69.180.238.139 10:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

8=============================='pting


Say what you will, but the term "hard" evidence is used when there is evidence presented that simply can not be explained away. Hense the term hard. Which is an opinion. Not a fact. The article should reference the evidence Clark provided, which it does. It has no business forming a conclusion about the quality of it. That's for the reader to decide.

You keep sighting a press released publicity statement on behalf of idol and abdul as though these previously aforementioned statements are factual and truthful accounts of a relationship... No, I cite them as the source for which the information is properly attributed. I make no conclusions about whether they are being truthful, any more than I make any conclusions about whether Clark is. Once again, you simply do not seem to understand that Wikipedia does not concern itself with the ultimate truth of conflicts and accusations like this. It only refers to what each side says and does. That is why an encyclopedia is called a reference source. It refers to information provided by others, even that two people provide conflicting info, and one of them is lying or wrong. It does not create its own information, hence the No Original Research policy. The O.J. Simpson article, for example, does not take a position as to whether he murdered two people. It only references what other people said or did: That he was arrested, charged, and tried for it. The evidence provided. The counter-evidence he provided. What the jurors ruled. What legal experts and punidts opined. What public opinion was indicated by surveys or polls. It does not say (or use weasel word-like phrases to imply) that he is guilty. Now if someone inserted such turns of phrase into that article that opined that he was guilty, and I removed them (which I would), would that mean that I was inserting my own "opinion", and that I was trying to argue that he was innocent? No. It just means that I am maintaining the site's policy of neutrality. You go on and on and on trying to argue with me that Clark's assertions are truthful, and that Abdul's and Fox's are not, when I'm trying to tell you that I don't care. I am not interested in the ultimate question of whether Clark is right. My only interest is in making sure that the ARTICLE ITSELF does not take (or seem to take) a position on that matter. I myself DON'T HAVE a conclusion on that matter, and I don't watch that show (although I've seen some episodes of it, mostly the early audition eps).

So please stop making excuses for either Abdul or idol because you are doing yourself and the rest of america a great injustice by spreading conjecture and lies... Cite one lie or excuse that I have inserted into the article--one that is not a quote or opinion attributed to a peson--and then we'll talk.

Wiki is a place for the truth, and the facts... Wrong. It's a place for facts. Not truth. Truth is decided by the reader. If you don't believe me, check out Wikipedia's policy on Attribution. And altough it's been superceded by Attribution, the policy on Verifiability goes directly to your misunderstanding about how WP does things.

It is simply their words saying that their judge whom committed an impropriety during the show with a contestant has done nothing wrong... And an independent counsel, a point you keep ignoring.

No proof to discredit the multiple eyewitnesses that abc aired world wide and spoke with.. Because you can't prove a negative. What type of evidence could prove that someone was not intimate with someone else? Proving the negative is a common logical fallacy that you seem to be appealing to here.

The bills prove that clark was speaking to her during his stint on idol and at very late night hours, and abdul proved it because she publicly admitted to the conversations. Which does not mean that they were having an affair. They very well might have. Or, they might have just been friends. A long phone conversation does not prove either notion.

...and why wouldn't abdul say it if it wasn't such a big deal? Maybe because it was a private conversation and didn't think it was anyone else's business?

Not to mention the cough medicine prescribed to PUALA ABDUL which was in clarks possession and there is no other legal way for him to obtain that kind of thing without her knowledge... Three points: First, the Drudge Report page that you provided as a source for this did not support it, since there was no mention of the bottle on that page. I pointed this out before, and much as with all the other points of yours that I've refuted, you never responded to it, preferring to ignore it, which goes a great deal to illustrating your intellectual dishonesty. Second, having someone's prescription medication does not prove a sexual relationship, or for that matter, any relationship. Lastly, whether there is no other way for him to obtain it is an opinion. It is not something that an article has any business opining itself, as per the second quote-and-response passage above on attribution vs. opinion or truth.

...so i ask you...if you will, to watch out for this kid... No. It is neither my job nor Wikipedia's to "watch out" for anyone. That is outside the scope of its mission, and any obligations on my part, though I wish Clark well. Given Jennifer Hudson's success, who knows, Clark may go on to great things, which is fine by me. But it's not my job to advocate for him, nor Wikipedia's.

So get with the truth man, it will set you free. Right on, brother. I agree. But it's not the purview of a Wikipedia article to decide what's truth. (See above.) Nightscream 18:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated insertion of material not supported by sources provided, edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Geniac 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May I suggest

At first I thought you were adding helpful links to Corey Clark.. but after seeing your talk page, you have been warned numerous times to stop. I will now notify an admin of your relentless linkage. Ard0 (Talk - Contribs) 04:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalise Wikipedia once again, as you did to Corey Clark, you will be blocked from editing. --Geniac 06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the block, Geniac please read your talk page, this is like a one sided war, and i'm the only positive person here. 69.180.238.139 08:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes should be discussed on an article's talk page, not in messages to other users. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for more helpful information. I am not a good judge of what should be in any article about American Idol because I am not at all familar with the show except that it comes on before House. All I ask is that you do not remove {{fact}} and {{citequote}} tags without providing sources for the statement or quote they follow and do not link every occurence of "Clark" or "Abdul". Also, please do not remove block notices from your talk page. Thank you. --Geniac 13:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution/Issue

I think the main issue was that the tone of the article you submitted was more consistent of what a publicist would write, and not necessarily an NPOV information reference entry. I have not found any information regarding the excessive use of force in his arrest in 2003 in Kansas; if you have, please cite the source.

I adjusted your article by cleaning some minor grammatics and annotating excerpts from Clark's E-book as "Corey Clark's perspective", which is what it is: a combination of claims that he had evidence for, his opinion of the Fox Network's actions, etc.

Hopefully this will resolve the "edit wars" that have been going on since February. User:Ptah3773

i appreciate the compromise, i originally bought Corey Clarks book when it was available online, it has since been discontinued, but it is full of insightful information like when he was beaten by four topeka police officers for interjecting about them taking his 15 year old sister at the time to juvenile hall for 5 days as she was attempting to run away. He was initially refunded his bond money by check which he claims to still have the stub for after the courts didn't press any charges. Or how idol has been black balling his career since they found out about clarks relationship with abdul while he was on the show. It's very informative, it's a very good read, And he proves a lot of things which are corroborated by other season 2 finalists and eyewitnesses and evidence, something idol or abdul have produced nothing of. I appreciate your time, and hopefully we can keep the article in good standing, take care 69.180.238.139 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"It's sad that we just can't have the truth on this article." - Please see Wikipedia:Attribution; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." Please address the concerns mentioned on the article's talk page. --Geniac 16:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • anything i've edited the source for the truthful facts has been provided, my major source, once again is COREY CLARKS BOOK. 69.180.238.139 17:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You should discuss this on the article's talk page. Also, do not remove warnings or block notices from your talk page. --Geniac 18:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Re: this edit, specifically "...and here you call yourself an editor, go stand yourself in the corner for 2 editing hours, don't cry just do it." and the last paragraph added; "by the way it totally makes me hot...i'd like to be bald just like you when i grow up". See Wikipedia:Civility. Please do not continue to post comments like these. --Geniac 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: this edit, specifically "you are a tight a$$" and "so tenderly sweet bottom". Do not continue to make comments like these. Also, call other users by their name, not "duskbreeze", "mr. dummy pants", or any other silly or insulting nickname. --Geniac 19:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "...p.m.queef attacked me long before i even knew how to attack him..." - Two wrongs don't make a right. This includes "p.m.queef". See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Geniac 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • geniac i'm simply replying to screamers insults of my intelligence capacity. nothing more, i'm just doing it my way, and no two wrongs don't make a right, but i hope you are giving nightguy the same warnings about civility. thanks69.180.238.139 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

8==========================================~'pting