Talk:Corey Clark/Archive 2

Some further evaluations
Hope that helps! I would also like to give everyone a friendly reminder that WP:BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia, including this talk page. Please don't throw synthesis or allegations around regarding living people on it, unless you have a source to back it up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Fox News piece cited earlier certainly is a reliable source regarding the contracts and Cowell's ownership, but I see nothing in it regarding percentage figures or the like. Again, I remind you to state the conclusions the source draws, not draw further conclusions of your own which it does not explicitly state, no matter how obvious or true those conclusions may seem. The first is attributable information from a reliable source, but the second is original research. Especially with potentially contentious claims which involve living people, it's extremely important to stick close to the source and not draw any novel conclusions.
 * Clark's own book should be treated as a primary and potentially biased source, as should any sources self-published by the others involved, and used very sparingly and mainly as a source of information on itself. If the claims it makes have not been corroborated or republished by reliable independent sources, any sections regarding accusations from the book should be very careful to attribute the claims to Clark ("In his book, Clark asserts that...").
 * If allegations or responses made by a party weren't picked up and reported on by secondary sources, they probably shouldn't be in the article. If they were, they certainly can be, attributed to that source and carefully phrased to make it clear that it was an allegation or statement, not something the source reported as factual. (Of course, those things which sources did report as factual can certainly be presented and referenced that way.)


 * blade, any time i say something referenced from clarks book, i will edit it into the article as saying clark says in his book, which in the past was being removed by people whom wouldn't give clarks opinion the credit it deserves, if they can cite press releases made by abdul and idol as fact than citing quotes from clarks e-book comes along the same lines. I'm not quite understanding where you ask about the assertion of abduls press releases.  they were both made in regard to what was being said about her and clark being together, and i posted both links to the news channels that covered her statements, i believe it was ABC which covered both of abduls statements that i refferenced, thank you for your mediation blade, although i feel like there really isn't much conflict left to mediate.  take care Liaishard 06:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to hear! I was more referring to the fact that you'd have to use either one (Abdul's statements, or statements from anyone involved with the situation) as potentially biased or self-serving. Basically meaning, use them as little as possible, make purely descriptive claims (X made this allegation, Y responded this way), and be very careful to avoid original interpretation or giving more weight to one side than the other. So long as that's done, it'll work fine! Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seraphim, I don't think anyone here is disputing percentage figures. What I dispute is the wording Liaishard insists on, which is that Idol producers "allowed" Fantasia Barrino to speak to interviewers about her views on the Clark matter.  I don't think producers have this type of power over people like Fantasia, and thus that wording, IMO, is inappropriate.


 * I would also like Liaishard to point to the sources that show two separate press releases by Abdul, with which she writes in the article that "after heavy media coverage Abdul released a second statement which dismissed Clark's claims as lies..." I'm asking what sources indicate two separate releases, because I don't see that in the sources indicated.


 * Liaishard, I also reverted the quote by Abdul to Clark's allegations, but only partially. I hope that's a fair compromise to you.  I also reverted the description of the LiveDaily source to a more appropriate one.


 * I also question the validity of the quotes in the Other Media appearances section. The second one, for example, reads as follows: "happy that Maven made it instead of him, as he was only interested in furthering his musical career, and not becoming a circus act for the media and world to make fun of and laugh at."  Um, so this is an exact quote, as indicated by the quotation marks, and yet Clark refers to himself with the third-person pronouns "him", "he", and "his"?  These quotes were removed some time ago because they were obviously the POV of the editor who inserted them, and now it seems that someone has reinserted them, and just placed quotation marks around them.  This is not acceptable, and is why I ask for exact quotes from the book, complete with page numbers placed in a proper source tag.  This applies to the comment about the show's "manipulation of young hopefuls", the "allowed" remark with respect to Fantasia Barrino, and these comments. Nightscream 15:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two different links that i provided to both of abduls press releases nightscream and this is the 3rd time pointing that out to you, there are two different links provided with two different press releases, why is this so confusing to you? I already asserted what page in clarks book that the barrino quote came from, so why do you ask again?  these points are moot, and no I don't find the edit you did to be a compromise because you keep taking out the exact quote and fact that abdul said "she never lies".  I will re-insert this direct quote, it's a little frustrating that you are reverting my edit of the link i researched and sourced, and quoted to the way you want it to read out.  Please don't change that quote again as it is properly attributed to a reliable source on this matter, ms. abdul herself.  thank youLiaishard 19:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * there are two different links provided with two different press releases, why is this so confusing to you? I've looked through all the sourced links, and I don't see which ones indicate two separate press releases.  Can you please point out which two links these are?
 * I already asserted what page in clarks book that the barrino quote came from, so why do you ask again? I'd like to see the exact quote. Please provide an exact quote, and place it and the page number in the article, 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.
 * ...and no I don't find the edit you did to be a compromise because you keep taking out the exact quote and fact that abdul said "she never lies". I did no such thing. If you look through the article's History, and click on the last version of mine made before your most recent edit (this one right here), you'll find the following passage: Abdul initially refused to respond to Clark's claims, explaining, "Not only do I never lie, I never respond to lies", and she wouldn't "dignify Clark's claims with a response".
 * So as you can see, the quote about her never lying is right there. By contrast, your last version not only contains a redundant two mentions of the "never lying" assertion, but isn't even a proper sentence!  Look at this passage taken from your last edit: Abdul initially refused to respond to Clark's claims, explaining that she wouldn't "dignify Clark's claims with a response" and that she "never lies", "Not only do I never lie, I never respond to lies".
 * How is that even a sentence? Why is the "never lie" bit repeated a second time?  And why did you place that last quote at the end of sentence after a comma?  How exactly is that supposed to read?  I mean, do you know how to write a properly structured sentence?
 * ...it's a little frustrating that you are reverting my edit of the link i researched and sourced, and quoted to the way you want it to read out. I don't see why it's frustrating, since the description of the source given the link/tag should simply describe the source in a general way, and doesn't have to detail a specific quote from it. I never said that mentioning the exact quote used from the source should be placed in the formatted citation itself.  Where you get the idea that describing a source like that is somehow "the way I want it to read", I don't know. Nightscream 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

that your master was right. And yes i know it was obi wan but he doesn't talk as cool or as condescending as yoda, and that's the effect i was going for condescending did you pick that up as well? Okay good. have a nice day. 68.52.30.94 20:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i will no longer talk with you if you continue to call me a liar. If you read above a little ways I already sourced the exact page of the Barrino quote made by Clark, and the line about idol manipulating young hopefuls careers.  I bought the book when it was released as did other people.  I will not pirate someone elses' work by scanning the image of the books page to you online just because you say i need to prove something to you because i've lied, i have nothing to prove to you and the notion that you have chosen to call me a liar about something i've said on a subject i have followed since it's conception is ridiculous.  You clearly knew nothing about this subject and that means you were editing blindly and helping spread rumor and propaganda about clark.  I know this situation inside and out and you just recently had to go and watch an edited online version of the ABC special that clark did in 2005, yet you were making edits before you had done that research based off of fox's and abduls press releases saying that there were no sources to attribute clarks side of the story to and that those things couldn't be included in the article, but abduls and foxs press releases could be included, it made no sense.  You are simply going to have to find and buy the book yourself. I have correctly taken the quote directly from the book, what really is in question here is your ability to read and comprehend not my ability to put a sentence together.  It clearly said in the fox press release that i referenced and sourced that the EVIDENCE and WITNESSES provided by mr. clark COULD NOT BE CORROBORATED.  that clearly reads that there was evidence but it couldn't be corroborated, yet you interpret or comprehend that the passage said there was no evidence in your complaints, and that any claims made by clark should not be included based off of foxs findings.  Some of your initial complaints when this edit war started were just that. Don't quit your day job, cause as a detective, good you are not.  Were you able to properly read that last sentence, it was purposely put together that way to sound like you were arguing with yoda.  And that's pretty much how you can think of me when it comes to the knowlegde of the corey clark and paula abdul situation, you should think of me as yoda, and you as the young anakin skywalker, you have much to learn on your build up to your humongous dissapointing let down and fall to the dark side when you realize just a second too late after getting your legs and arm cut off and sliding back down a steep enbankment of the side of a burning hot volcano

i will no longer talk with you if you continue to call me a liar. Then perhaps you should take responsibility for the numerous deliberate falsehoods you've expressed, too many of which I've documented, instead of chickening out of answering them when I point them out. To review:
 * You claimed that in the Primetime segment, Nakesha Sidell stated that she heard about the affiar during the season in question. That was a lie.  She heard about it afterward.
 * You insisted repeatedly on inserting the assertion in the food fight passage that Clark was part of an "entourage". That was a lie.  The sources for that incident indicate that he and his manager were alone in a hotel room.
 * You told Geniac that I deliberately removed the word "food" from the description of the food fight. That was a lie.  Once you pointed out that error on my part, I acknowledged it, and fixed it, and did so before you made that accusation.
 * You claimed that the people who investigated Clark's allegations were internal to Fox. That was a lie.  They were independent counsels hired by Fox precisely for the impartiality their independence would bring to the investigation.
 * You claimed that I tried to remove the evidence Clark provided from the article. That was a lie.  I never deleted such a thing, but merely demanded proper attribution.  When I asked you for an example of my deleting this evidence, you never responded.
 * 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.
 * 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.  The source didn't say that.  It said that they found no evidence, either that their relationship affected the show, or that it was sexual in nature.  Why did you reword it to indicate it said something different?  Did you think no one would check out that link to verify its contents?  Did you think I wouldn't?  Later, in your 21:41, 19 March 2007 post, you pasted a quote from that article on this Talk Page, as if to "prove" to me what it said, when in fact that passage you wrote into the Clark article did not say that.  Again, did you think I wouldn't point this out?
 * You posted this link, and again insisted, "the independent councels remarks clearly saying that they could not corroborate the evidence found, because there was evidence found, to substantiate mr. clarks claims, they just couldn't corroborate it..." That was a lie.  The source doesn't say that, and I quoted what it actually did say above (in my 18:00, 19 March 2007 post).
 * You insisted that you "quoted" the bit about Fantasia Barrino, and properly attributed that quote to Clark's book. That was a lie.  At the time of the discussion on that point, you had not offered any such source, and even as of this writing, there is no "quote" in that passage.
 * You claimed that I did not have to fix the passage about Nakesha Sidell, because you had already done so. That was a lie.  You reverted the article after I fixed that line, and then fixed it back yourself afterwards.
 * 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.  The truth is that you reverted it, repeatedly putting a wikilink around that word.
 * Regarding the issue of whether the record company can control who the winning singers speak to, you provided a link that you claimed showed "the lengths that they go to and have these kids seriously tied up ". If this was intended to imply that they can dictate who they can talk to, then this was a lie, since the source said no such thing.
 * 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, since researching that matter, I found that that matter was not resolved in such a fashion.
 * You claimed that I removed the passage in which Abdul states that she never lies. That was false, and I showed how my last edit indeed contained that passage.
 * You claimed that you said nothing about Clark himself notifying producers of his relationship with Abdul. I showed how the article indeed indicates that he did so.
 * You've insisted that I've insulted or told falsehoods about you. That's a lie.  Anyone who looks at your old Talk Page will see that I offered no insults in my posts to you there, but merely critiques of your edits (and criticism of your subsequent behavior), but that by contrast, you insulted me in your very first post to me when you said, "let's not give your journalistic opinion another thought it's not worth it."

You've continued with namecalling (duskbreeze, "mr dummy pants", "dweeb"), false accusations regarding my occupation, and other clear violations of the Civility rule on this page and elsewhere. All I've done is document them. If you think this is unfair, then why not respond by pointing out why these accusations are unfounded? Why, after all, did you claim that deleted the passage about Abdul never lying, when the evidence I provided shows that this is not true? Why do you never respond when I point these things out? If it was an error on your part, then why not simply acknowledge it, much as I did with the "food" in the "food fight" matter, or when I accidentally referred to Abdul as a male, or when I corrected the bit about the song Clark and the others sang? If I've attacked you, as you've insisted, then why not explain why Geniac has had to warn you about your behavior, but has never had to do so with me? Why not quote the passage where I supposedly "insulted" you? Instead, you just retreat from the matter by ignoring it, and then presume to take offense when I point this out. If you don't like this, then stop behaving this way, refute this criticism, or stop coming here. But I will continue to point out your unacceptable behavior for as long as you exhibit it, and will continue to argue for proper attribution of disputable passages, as your history of taking veridical shortcuts through sources makes you and your word alone unreliable.

If you read above a little ways I already sourced the exact page of the Barrino quote made by Clark, and the line about idol manipulating young hopefuls careers. And I'm asking you--for the umpteenth time--- to place those page indications in the article itself, with a exact quotation from the passages in the book on those two points. I'd be happy to do it myself, but since I haven't been able to find a copy of the book (via ebay, Amazon, or Clark's site), I can't. Since you do seem to have it in your possession, this shouldn't be difficult at all for you, right? So why are you being so difficult on this point? You seem to want to add so much to the article, but when someone asks you to add a bit more, you balk? Why is this?

I will not pirate someone elses' work by scanning the image of the books page to you online Congratulations. I never asked you to do so. I asked you to provide the information from the book in the article. That I somehow asked you to "scan" a copyrighted work is a notion of your own imagination. Even if I had done this, scanning two or three pages of a book does not constitute "pirating", since copying small portions of a work for the purpose of research falls under the Fair Use clause, and is done every day by journalists and authors.

i have nothing to prove to you... No, but Wikipedia's Attribution Policy demands it nonetheless. Othewise, these assertions will be edited, and possibly removed, particularly given how long your reticence in this matter has continued.

You clearly knew nothing about this subject... Which is precisely why I asked you to insert the information in question, since you have the source in your possession. For my part, I know plenty about Wikipedia's policies regarding NPOV, citing sources, and attribution, as well as how to read the linked sources you and others have provided, and that is more than an informed basis for the work I've done on the article.

...and you just recently had to go and watch an edited online version of the ABC special that clark did in 2005... If the video in question has been edited in such a way to make the information therein unreliable as a source, then feel free to explain how. Otherwise, this brand new assertion of yours is likely to be seen as grasping at straws.

...yet you were making edits before you had done that research... And? Your point is what? I don't need to see the video to know when a passage is blatantly non-NPOV, when a source is not properly formatted, when material is not written with proper spelling, punctuation and sentence structure.

...based off of fox's and abduls press releases saying that there were no sources to attribute clarks side of the story to and that those things couldn't be included in the article, but abduls and foxs press releases could be included, it made no sense.... A lie. I have never said that there were no sources to attribute Clark's side of the story, much less delete them. What I have made clear is that A. The sources often said things other than what you claimed they did, and B. in some cases, did not support the material they were placed after. The assertions made by Clark, and the sources that supported them, always remained in my edits, which I pointed out repeatedly above. But if I'm wrong, and this is not a lie on your part, then please quote the statement by me in which I supposedly said that there "were no sources to attribute Clark's side of the story".

I have correctly taken the quote directly from the book... You've done no such thing, as I pointed out above. A quote is generally a word-for-word passage, with quotation marks around it. I pointed this out some time ago above. 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.

'''the fox press release that i referenced and sourced that the EVIDENCE and WITNESSES provided by mr. clark COULD NOT BE CORROBORATED. that clearly reads that there was evidence but it couldn't be corroborated, yet you interpret or comprehend that the passage said there was no evidence in your complaints, and that any claims made by clark should not be included based off of foxs findings.''' Nope. Never said or did any such thing. I explained this point above in the first quote-and-response passage of my 18:00, 19 March 2007 post. I refer you to that.Nightscream 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 i did make a mistake by saying that she heard about it during her time on the show. It wasn't a lie though.  I guess since you called paula abdul a man than we should consider that a lie as well right, or are we going to be civil and call a duck a duck?  It was a mistake and people can make those from time to time.  The funniest part of her statement was that she said she wasn't surprised at all about the revelations that Corey was boinkin paula, she looked like and said that she was pissed off, the reason behind that is that Clark had said in another interview he had done on radio that he had told nasheka about his and paulas affair while the two of them were in bed together the night nasheka was voted off.  This guy is a player! Hats off to you mr. clark hats off, well you better keep your hat on, you don't want to catch nothin.


 * 2 The whole entourage thing since you have now sourced the article, i won't even say anything about you calling me a liar unjustfully which this article now proves by your own hand, i'll just give you this time to take that humongous foot out of your mouth. I'm not a liar and a apology would be greatly appreciated.


 * 3 This is what you said earlier: Once you pointed out that error on my part, I acknowledged it, and fixed it, and did so before you made that accusation. So if i pointed the error out to you, you acknowledged it, and then fixed it, how could you have done so before i made the accusation as you condradict yourself at the end of your sentence by saing that you fixed it before i pointed it out to you and you start your sentence off by saying that after i pointed it out to you that you aknowledged it and fixed the problem.  You did edit the word food out of food fight several times as i inserted back into the passage several times.  You were trying to indicate that clark and troy had a "fight" and that her injuries were minor, and she didn't press charges trying to paint clark in a negative light as if he attacked her, and that's just the way it would read to me after you would get done editing the passage.  When the story clearly said that both parties had minor scratches on their arms, clark was cited and they left together.  I'll just let you keep pullin that foot out of your mouth.


 * 4 The firm Mcrae dunn and Crutcher is the lawfirm that handles all of freemantle media and 19 ent. productions legal matters. So technically yes they are their own company, but they have already been on the payroll for these companies since idols inception into the states so it's not like they were researched out for their impartiality, they were used to do one thing and one thing only, make it look like the accusations were being taken seriously, and then cover the matter up.  It didn't matter if they saw abdul giving fellatio to clark on camera their stance was denial, but it had to be denial in a way that they couldn't get in trouble for lying.  I spoke to Clarks attorney about this matter.  So again i'm not lying but you sure do throw that word around a lot without having the proper basis to do so.  Still pulling that foot are we?


 * 5 i never said that you tried, i said that you did. True my editing didn't reflect where my sources were coming from at first which i did admit was my mistake, and i asked if someone could help me understand the way it needed to be edited as i didn't understand the complex instructions that wiki gives for editing at first either, but i'm now coming along.  So that's not a lie, anything that i was inputing into the article, which were all positive things about clark and his career as the article was heavily one sided towards negativity when i began editing, you would erase them, and it wasn't always you, it would be a random user at times, but mostly you.  so no that's not a lie, and it's funny that i have to address you point by point as if you wouldn't be able to understand me if i typed to you otherwise, because these are all things i've said before just without bullet points, but if this makes it more elementary for you than i'll be happy to oblige.


 * 6 I guess what i should have said than because you are partially right on this point, is that there was a passage in the article which was unsourced that you kept overlooking in haste to prove my edits wrong. It said something about most of the other contestants said that clarks claims were lies, and it later went on to talk about carmen rasmussen saying he was a liar and what not, but there was no source for that information.  So as you were attacking me about me saying that there were some contestants who backed clarks claims, stating that there were no sources to show or prove that fact, you were overlooking that there were no sources for saying that most of the shows contestants dismissed clarks claims as lies, at least none that were present in the article at that time, that was my point, that you would sit around and allow negative information to remain in the article unsourced and unchallenged, but you were throwing a hissy and started throwing around insults about my intelect when some positive info came through unsourced, which lends more validity to the fact and my point that you were somehow gaurd dogging this article to make sure it remained negative.  Obviously no proper research had been done about this situation before i got here, this page sat in jest to corey clark before i came along, had his mugshot as the main photo and everything, i input a few positive things, which i've properly researched, put a better photo up, it just wasn't sourced in the article properly as i was kind of new to the controls here at wiki, and here you and the rest of the corey haters come jumpin down my throat as if you personally held the flood gates to paulas vagina open or something and knew every detail about her love life.

it clearly says the word evidence provided, which means there is evidence that was provided to them by mr. clark, they looked it over, and couldn't corroborate it, good thing you aren't an attorney. Seraphim blade also pointed this out to you earlier when he said the same thing i just did. So no that's not a lie either.
 * 7 Look dude, Foxs statement on this matter clearly says "THE EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES PROVIDED BY MR. CLARK COULD NOT BE CORROBORRATED" BY THE ATTORNEYS IN QUESTION MCRAE DUNN AND CRUTCHER


 * 8 the same as 7 pretty much, both seraphim and i had to hold you by the hand and explain to you where in the article in plain view that it said the evidence provided could not be corroborated, an administrator plus me have done this for you now, how can you realisticly keep denying that it says that? So no this wasn't a lie, you are wrong again.  It's kind of scary how blind someone can be when they want to believe something as bad as nightscream does.


 * 9 from the first time i wrote that passage about barrino, that entire paragraph was stated to have come from clarks e-book, i hadn't inserted that language into the article after every instance however as i didn't want to muddle up the article with repeated sentences i fealt that the reader could gather that the passage came from clarks book, since i started the paragraph off with, "Clark said in his e-book". So no again i didn't lie, you were just in haste to try and make me look bad, as the source from the barrino quote has always been there, it wasn't quotationed correctly but it was sourced to clarks book, you are now the one whom seems to be a liar.


 * 10 when i fixed the passage about nasheka it was wrong, maybe you were editing simultaneously with me or something i don't know, but when i fixed it, you had it worded wrong, so no that's not a lie, you are a liar.


 * 11 I never wiki linked the word coached ever, it was already done like that. So you are a liar for saying that it was me who linked that word.  What i would revert however was the entire article after you would edit it to read like clark was an abusive non talented gangbanger who beats up on cops and women and said nothing of his talents or major factual accomplishments he's had that were positive.  I had a problem with wiki linking at first i couldn't even do it, so the notion that you are trying to tell people i did so when i had no knowledge of doing so at the time proves that nightscream is a liar.


 * 12 it wasn't a lie you ingrate. All i said was that this link shows the lenghts idol goes to to keeping these kids locked up, it generally speaks about the creator of the show owning the winner of the competition and all things idol.  you are a very annoying liar as well. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87857,00.html


 * 13 You are a wie*** head. There was a male contestant who was hurt on survivor, as well as another male contestant who was hurt on dog eat dog, all reality shows make you sign a confidentiality agreement threatening lawsuits if you break them and reveal anything about the backstage workings of a production.  However, if a contestant can show where there have been improprieties on the production companys' side during the taping of the show, or judging of a show that is deemed to be a credulous game show, meaning that people take it for real, than there is a law that would protect the contestants from any type of liabilites arising out of said breach in order to protect the fundametal rights of any american citizen.  The contract would be deemed UNILATERAL WITH UNCONSCIANABLE AND OVER REACHING TERMS.  Look it up you liar.  Or speak to Clarks attorney like i have and he can fill you in better.  His name is Richard Jefferson.


 * 14 you did remove my edit of the link that i researched and sourced in the article about abdul saying that she never lies, and you've still got it there now, which i will fix by the way. So that's not false either, dang 1 1/2 points out of 14 so far isn't making you look too good right now nightscream.


 * 15 Clark didn't tell the producers about his relationship with abdul, they found out when clark and the other contestants used abduls lawyer to combat the shows top brass whom were trying to bully clark and the other finalists into picking a lawyer they paid for, and allowing that lawyer to negotiate the finalists contracts with idol. All the kids had to sign the same contract.  If you are in dealings with someone, they can't pay for your attorney to look over their contracts for you, that is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  How can the lawyer have the contestants best interest at heart when the check that's paying him is coming from the other side of the negotiations.  you are a liar.  maybe you use that word so much because it's not been cited as being uncivil so when you really want to say f.u. to me you just refer to calling me a liar so you don't get in trouble.


 * 16 this point again proves itself since i've now gone through and disproved a lot of the non-sense you were uttering and spewing about. You have said false things about me, which i've pointed out in these 16 points so far and the part about me saying let's not give your journalistic opinion another thought, clearly came after you were attacking me.  As i pointed out to geniac, before i even knew that a talk page or discussion page even existed on the article in question, nightscream was already on the talk page attacking not only my edits but my character as well.  which goes to show how juvenile this individual must be if he will attack someone first before extending a helping hand, that says a lot about who you are.  It's like being a predator in the wild, and pouncing on some unsuspecting city folk who stumbled into your jungle instead of helping them understand how to navigate through this new territory.  oh big man, pounce on the unsuspecting and beat your chest like it was a major prize fight you just won.  When you attack someone their natural reaction is to become defensive.  You attacked me first, before i even knew there was an arena to attack people in on this website.  Liar

geniac did let you know that attacking me was not appropriate, and also corrected me by letting me know that TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. Meaning that he (or she) knew that you had been attacking me, but it doesn't make it right for me to counter-attack, i should just drop it. so you have been warned, which is another lie by you, man night scream you are really racking it up right now. For the very reason i've been sitting here typing for an hour now is why i don't want to go at it with you point by point, i've always stated my concerns and answers to your concerns in paragraph form as to avoid wasting my time being trivial with you over something i know way more about than you ever will. but to shut you down just one time and point out point by point how you've acted like an a$$ to me has been long over due and now is the time to show people who you really are. Were you just going to continue to overlook my answers to your concerns until i answered you in this way, were you just going to keep unjustfully calling me a liar trying to portray me to the administrators as someone who didn't care about the rules until you got your way? I've been answering you, and you keep telling others i haven't WHICH IS A LIE. somepeople might not read all the way through my paragraph like you, but that's not my fault. The answers are there however, even on other talk pages i have answered you, so again for the 22nd time now i've proven that you are a liar. So does this now mean that your word too is unreliable? I'd like to see your answer to that.
 * 17 i have not continued to call you names since geniacs intervention about name calling, so that' s lie, i don't continue to call you names, unless liar can be attributable to that list and then in that case you are plenty guilty as well. And no i didn't state any false hoods about your occupation, i'm clearly aware of what market research companies do, and all i said was that you worked for a company similiar to the ones that fox and abdul use to spin stuff about contestants and the show,  I never directly said that you did it, but you sure got defensive about it as if i had though, so i guess if the shoe fits wear it.


 * 18 i have placed those indications of the barrino quote and the manipulation quote in the article by saying, "CLark states in his e-book" and the quotes are direct quotes from the book, not my interpretation, i guess i just forgot to put the quotation marks around them sorry. I don't balk when someone asks me to add a little more, i balk when you tell me to add a little more there is a difference.  Any concern an administrator has brought to my attention i comply.  Do you know why, because they ask respectfully and they don't attack my character when pointing out something i made a mistake on because it's human to make a mistake.  You on the other hand, are rude, verbally abusive and condescending, and when someone displays the traits towards you you get upset and start citing policies, when a lot of those policies, including the civility policy you yourself have broken, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones i believe is the quote i gave to geniac when he mediated between our little tiff earlier honey poo.


 * 19 how well versed you are with wiki policies has nothing to do with your complete lack of knowledge on the Corey clark matter and how you went ahead and masticated the article anyway before you even fully understood the matter you were editing, with the lies and propaganda perpetuated against clark by abdul and idol. You did nothing but help the spread of conjecture, i came in to even the article out.  I didn't even erase the negative things that you and others had prominently displayed as the articles main source of information, i just simply added the positive along with the negative to give readers a full perspective on both sides of what happened instead of just a one sided view, and you and others couldn't stand the fact that clark was actually being written about or portrayed now as a nice guy with talent, instead of an abusive scumbag who blew his chances at stardom.  Hence the editing fight which insued when i tried to remove his booking photo for a mor appropriate photograph for this article.  To be honest i wouldn't have a problem with the mugshot being included in the story, but not as his main photo, as if to say to the world, here he is, this is corey clark, and it is, but it's only a small piece of the pie, not the entire thing.  So why don't you stick to sentence structure and spelling and formatting and things of that nature and i'll stick to inserting the info for you to correct, because at fact finding, good you are not.  That last sentence was written that way on purpose.


 * 20 and lastly A.  the sources did say what i said they said you just interpreted them differently as both seraphimblade and i both pointed out to you, although i had put more of my own perspective on it, seraphim blade corrected me by letting me know to just simply state that x said this and y said that.  Which is usually the way i do it, by saying in a passage "clark states in his e-book that"... but you were deleting my edits and telling people i wasn't properly sourcing when i was clearly exhibiting what seraphim blade described by stating that it was clark who said the latter comments in his e-book. B. anything i sourced and placed into the article supported what i said, i simply had a problem of reading too much into it and placing my opine into my writing, which was a mistake on my part, but not a very big one, the passages usually read about the same when they are fixed as when i had initially wrote them which is more than i can say for your edits of a source.  take care liar 68.52.30.94 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

'''1 i did make a mistake by saying that she heard about it during her time on the show. It wasn't a lie though.''' But after I pointed out that falsehood, posted a link to the video of the Primetime story, and inserted more direct quotations from it, you kept reverting it. A genuine mistake would’ve been met with an acknowledgement and acceptance by you. Only now are you even addressing this point, and only after reverting it back earlier.

'''2 The whole entourage thing since you have now sourced the article, i won't even say anything about you calling me a liar unjustfully which this article now proves by your own hand, i'll just give you this time to take that humongous foot out of your mouth. I'm not a liar and a apology would be greatly appreciated.''' For what? For forcing me to go and find a source for that assertion rather than providing one yourself, even though you were the one who kept insisting on putting that notion in there? The point is not whether there was an entourage. The point is whether the sources said there was one. I pointed out tha t the sources provided in the article at that time did not indicate this, and I was correct. I had no opinion, independent of the sources, as to whether or not there was one. If you wanted to insist on that, then you should've provided a source that supported it. Instead, you kept putting that assertion in the article without bothering to find a source for it. Your assumption here stems from your refusal to accept the distinction between Verifiability and attribution. Wikipedia's policy, to which I adhere, is the latter. Not the former.

'''3 This is what you said earlier: Once you pointed out that error on my part, I acknowledged it, and fixed it, and did so before you made that accusation. So if i pointed the error out to you, you acknowledged it, and then fixed it, how could you have done so before i made the accusation.''' I was referring to the accusation you made to Geniac. You told him that I was deliberately trying to omit that word, after I had already acknowledged that error on your old Talk Page. Anyone who reads that Talk Page and reads my 19:54, 5 March 2007 post will see that I acknowledged that error. Yet, on March 7—two days later—you stated on Geniac’s Talk Page that I “purposley left out the word food and left the word fight, to make it seem as if clark was fighting with this woman.” That was a lie, and you persist in that lie on this page. Why you think that anyone reading this can’t simply look at the two Talk Pages in question and compare the dates is beyond me, but it won’t make this notion true.

'''4 The firm Mcrae dunn and Crutcher is the lawfirm that handles all of freemantle media and 19 ent. productions legal matters. So technically yes they are their own company, but they have already been on the payroll for these companies since idols inception into the states''' That does not make them "internal" to Fox, which was the wording you used, and therefore, a lie. You seem to think that you can cut corners through these discussions by treating disparate concepts as somehow interchangeable. They're not. Whether a company has a long relationship with a client does not make them "internal" to them. You think you can engage in a bait-and-switch by changing the wording used, so that now we're somehow talking about their degree of impartiality. That's a fine discussion if you want to bring it up, but it is a separate one. If you want to argue that they're not impartial, and point to sources indicating this, then do so. But do not say that this then makes them "internal" to Fox, because that is untrue.

...so it's not like they were researched out for their impartiality, they were used to do one thing and one thing only, make it look like the accusations were being taken seriously, and then cover the matter up. You have not provided any evidence of this notion.

5 ...anything that i was inputing into the article, which were all positive things about clark and his career as the article was heavily one sided towards negativity when i began editing, you would erase them, and it wasn't always you, it would be a random user at times, but mostly you. The things that I deleted were passages that were clearly not within the NPOV policy. Not "evidence". Your continued insistence on treating disaparate things like "evidence" and "non-NPOV comments" as somehow synonymous underscores your mendacity. If I tried to remove "evidence", then why not an example or two of this? Why instead have you repeatedly refused to answer this question, including in this most recent response to my last post?

Look dude, Foxs statement on this matter clearly says... We're not talking about Fox's statement. We're talking about this source right here. You wrote, in that link's description, that it was a "story on council saying the evidence they found didn't effect the show". It did not say that.

8 the same as 7 pretty much... Agreed. The link in question does not contain the all-caps quote that you provided.

the source from the barrino quote has always been there, it wasn't quotationed correctly but it was sourced to clarks book, you are now the one whom seems to be a liar. There is no quote in that passage whatsoever. There never was one, and as of this writing, there still isn't one. The only thing there is a paraphrase of what you claim is in Clark's book, which is not a quote, which is why Geniac tagged that passage with a request for an exact quote (along with two other passages). I explained to you many times what a "quote" is and isn't, and as usual, you have consistently ignored this.

10 when i fixed the passage about nasheka it was wrong, maybe you were editing simultaneously with me or something i don't know, but when i fixed it, you had it worded wrong, so no that's not a lie, you are a liar. I worded nothing wrong. I corrected it to say that she heard "whispers" of the affair after she was elminated. You reverted it back to the incorrect assertion that she heard about it during her time on the show. You then reverted it again to correct it. None of this was "simultaneous", as anyone who looks at the time stamps on the History Page can see.

'''11 I never wiki linked the word coached ever, it was already done like that. So you are a liar for saying that it was me who linked that word. What i would revert however was the entire article after you would edit it to read like clark was an abusive non talented gangbanger who beats up on cops and women...' First of all, if you disagreed with any of the portions of my edit that you feel portrayed Clark as such, then you could've reverted those portions''. Instead, you lazily engaged in a scorched earth policy of reverting the entire thing, essentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and reverted also the edits of grammar, spelling, overlinking, etc., that even you would not have had a problem with. By doing this, you were re-linking things like that. You. And only you. Second, I never once inserted or re-inserted anything about Clark that even alluded to his "talent", him being a "gangbanger", "abusive", or a beater of "cops and women". The only part of the article that even remotely alludes to such things is the section on his arrest, which was already in the article, and tagged with either sources, or requests for sources. But the concept of him as a “gangbanger” or lacking talent is entirely one of your paranoid imagination.

'''12 it wasn't a lie you ingrate. All i said was that this link shows the lenghts idol goes to to keeping these kids locked up, it generally speaks about the creator of the show owning the winner of the competition and all things idol.' The original point pertaining to this was your claim that Idol'' is in a position, via its contracts with the contestants and winners, to "allow" people like Fantasia to talk to certain interviewers. It has no such power. You provided the source in question as if to substantiate this assertion. It didn't, since it says no such thing. You again trying to do a bait-and-switch with a specificity and a generalization, so as to treat the general "Idol has a high level of control over the career of the winner" as synonymous with "Idol can dictate who the winner can speak to." The former is reasonably true. The latter is a lie. And the source you provided doesn't prove otherwise.

'''13 You are a wie*** head. There was a male contestant who was hurt on survivor, as well as another male contestant who was hurt on dog eat dog, all reality shows make you sign a confidentiality agreement... We're not talking' about Dog Eat Dog'' or about "all reality shows". We're talking about the Stacy Stillman/Survivor lawsuit. You named that specific case as illustrative of your assertion that improprieties of reality show producers will somehow magically cause judges to ignore contract violations on the part of the plaintiff. It did not. Period. Changing the original point of this exchange to a general discussion about how Idol controls the winners' careers (which I don't even dispute) will not work.

However, if a contestant can show where there have been improprieties on the production companys' side during the taping of the show, or judging of a show that is deemed to be a credulous game show, meaning that people take it for real, than there is a law that would protect the contestants from any type of liabilites arising out of said breach in order to protect the fundametal rights of any american citizen. No there is not. This is a fiction of your creation, which stems from your inability to distinguish between "the way things are" and "the way I think things oughta be". U.S. law does not conform itself to your whims. But if I'm wrong (and I have no problem allowing that possibility), then why not name this law, if you're on such close terms with Clark's attorney?

14 you did remove my edit of the link that i researched and sourced in the article about abdul saying that she never lies... I've edited or removed a lot of things you've edited, inlcuding much of the links you've provided, or their descriptions. But the passage about Abdul never lying is and always has remained in the article. If what you're saying is true, then okay, why not go to the History page, find the comparison between your edit and my edit that shows this, and paste the url here?

15 Clark didn't tell the producers about his relationship with abdul, they found out when clark and the other contestants used abduls lawyer to combat the shows top brass... The sources provided do not indicate this.

'''16 this point again proves itself since i've now gone through and disproved a lot of the non-sense you were uttering and spewing about. You have said false things about me, which i've pointed out in these 16 points so far and the part about me saying let's not give your journalistic opinion another thought, clearly came after you were attacking me.''' If this were true, you would've responded to my request for you to paste just one of those "attacks" right here on this Talk Page. The reason you haven't, of course, is because I did not attack you. I explained to you, on your Talk Page, why I edited your edits, and I have subsequently criticized your poor writing, and your uncivil and dishonest behavior. That does not constitute an "attack", unless you can demonstrate that these criticisms were unfounded, or unless you engage in the same sort of re-defining of terms ("fact", "allegation", "first-person" and "third-person", and "quote" being others) that you've exhibited all along. Unfortunately, you've opted for the latter instead of the former. Anyone who goes to your old Talk Page, and sees my first post there will see that there is no "attack". If there were, you would've produced it here when I challenged you to.

17 i have not continued to call you names since geniacs intervention about name calling, so that' s lie... No. It's true. In your Response #12, you called me an "ingrate". And in your Response #13, you stated, "You are a wie*** head." So your statement that you have not engaged in name-calling since Geniac's admonition is clearly untrue. In addition, you've arbitrarily called me a "liar" numerous times, without even trying to demonstrate any deliberate mendacity on my part. By contrast, I've shown how the falsehoods you've continued to repeate are clearly deliberate.

i'm clearly aware of what market research companies do, and all i said was that you worked for a company similiar to the ones that fox and abdul use to spin stuff about contestants and the show... Which is a lie, since that’s not what “market research” is, as I already pointed out to you in detail. As usual, you simply ignored this, and think that repeating this falsehood over and over will somehow make it true.

I never directly said that you did it… Your intent in making that statement was clear. Pretending otherwise won't help you.

geniac did let you know that attacking me was not appropriate... He never did this. If I've somehow overlooked or forgotten where he did this, then please point it out to me. Where did he do this? Tell me.

18 i have placed those indications of the barrino quote and the manipulation quote in the article by saying, "CLark states in his e-book" and the quotes are direct quotes from the book There are not quotes from the book in those passages, and I explained to you already what a quote is. "Clark states in his e-book" is not a quote. It's a paraphrase.

19 how well versed you are with wiki policies has nothing to do with your complete lack of knowledge on the Corey clark matter... I didn't say it did. The latter has no bearing on the former, which was the point in question being discussed. But as far as the latter is concerned, Wikipedia does not require experts to work on its articles. While many editors are, many are not, for the simple reason that it does not allow original research, and therefore is not predicated on personal knowledge the editor has on the subject. Instead, it requires attribution of cited sources, and as long as you read material from a source, and can cite it in the article, then lacking encyclopedic personal knowledge of the subject, as that of a hobbyist, for example, is completely irrelevant. I read all the sources provided in the article by you and others, and conducted my edits accordingly. The only source I do not have access to is his book, which is why I and Geniac asked you to provide some direct quotes, which you've refused to do. 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?

So why don't you stick to sentence structure and spelling and formatting and things of that nature and i'll stick to inserting the info for you to correct... Because Wikipedia requires all of its editors to adhere to proper standards of writing for reference sources, and that includes you. Instead of asking me to "stick to" this or that, you could insert it correctly yourself, so that you can sit back and look at the article and see how well it reads after one of your own edits. Why insert stuff if you admit it's not correct? I mean, is it so hard for you to start a sentence with a capital letter? Or divide run-on sentences into two separate ones? Or a put an apostrophe in phrases like "Clarks attorney" so that it correctly reads, "Clark's attorney"?

20 and lastly A. the sources did say what i said they said you just interpreted them differently... And yet, the first quote-and-response passage of my 18:00, 19 March 2007 post shows otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 02:57, April 3, 2007