User talk:Goodman1387

Is there a reason you keep deleting the Daniel Corral section from my BMF article? jlcoving (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is defamation and designed to place human lives in danger. Please stop.

It's not defamation, it's absolute fact and is in the public record when he chose to testify; everyone involved in the case knows he testified so who is he in danger from? A random member of the public? I don't think so. Everyone who may cause him danger already has his name and testimony as part of their court documents through the discovery process. Learn how the law works. Wikipedia moderators have already said it's ok. YOU need to stop. I'm a 2nd year law student and I think I understand defamation law.

In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification–is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. The claim has to be FALSE, however, to be charged for libel. This is ALL fact that he testified as well as the other 10 or so people listed on the page. And again, all the people who would harm him over this are in jail -OR- as I said they already know he testified so it isn't a secret. This wikipedia article deserves to have the full facts of the case, which includes the information the government used to prosecute and hand out well over 300 years in prison altogether to various defendants. That "information" they have was from informants such as Daniel Corral.

Further, it would be libel maybe if I said "Daniel Corral has sex with underage boys", or "Daniel Corral is a homosexual who has attempted to rape others in the past." Because that has to do with portraying a NEGATIVE image of him in an UNTRUTHFUL manner. Simply stating FACTS that he testified against others in open court, as well as admitting in open court he supplied Demetrius "Big Meech" Flenory with 400-500 kilogram loads of cocaine at a time, is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD and is a FACT.

How come you only delete his entry? Are you related to him? jlcoving (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

saw reference, undertand your point, please delete the reference; you are not seeing the entire picture are you?

I see the entire picture. You're saying that by exposing him as an informant it could put his life in danger. However, like I said the people who would cause harm to him ALREADY know he is an informant. Part of going to court is you sit in a courtroom and watch those who provide testimony against you do it right in front of you. So everyone who would cause him harm is already totally aware of what he did. It isn't like drug suppliers are sitting here reading Wikipedia to find out who is an informant or not. That is something they would do on their own. And like I said, they already know he was an informant... jlcoving (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D  00:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.