User talk:Wikiwriter100

I'll be glad to try this again. I have not violated any policy of Wikipedia as all of my statements are based on published facts. Yet, I will respect your observations that these supporting documents need to be referenced or provided to prevent readers such as yourself from making the same mistake in assuming that this is merely just someone's opinion or that it is written by someone they believe it to be. I will rewrite my statements with more detail and references before I put it back in place.
 * Thanks for your attention to this. I would also request that you write your statements more neutrally (check WP:NPOV for neutral-point-of-view standards).  You're not describing allegations made against SCETV as a neutral observer would, you're making them yourself.  "Clearly made efforts to cover up the problem" is an example of this.  Also, is the Web site you reference your own, or does it represent a credible, unbiased source of information?  And how widely known is this issue?  I lived in SC for 23 years without ever hearing of it, and I was politically active in my community and in a couple of environmental groups.  Is this really something of sufficient interest and/or importance to the wider general public that it needs to be a prominent part of the SCETV page, or is this a grudge held by one person and/or small group?  If it's the latter, Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances.  Thanks again for your attention. (edit: this was originally posted by JTRH)

You're at it again, it seems ... inserting links to your own Website. This type of linkspamming isn't allowed. If you do it again, you'll be reported. Blueboy96 23:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Quit cutting out my writing long enough for me to cite my referrences. Everything sited is true and supportable.

The problem is that none of your sources meet Wikipedia standards. And you're not helping your cause by logging out and editing anonymously. Yes, I know you've been editing from your IP--so now you're violating WP:SOCK as well. You're digging yourself a very deep hole here. Blueboy96 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realize that I was logging out. I will try my best to stay logged in as there are no secrets or underhandedness about contributing to the creating an accurate POV of SRCTV.


 * It's not an "accurate POV" if it includes an allegation you can't prove, or at least haven't proven yet. "This is true because I say so" doesn't meet the standard for Wikipedia. You have never provided a reference for these allegations other than the one Website, which has no documentation of its own except the advertisement for the book it's trying to sell. The only objective news coverage I've found of this "scandal" is one article in The State reporting that the lawsuit had been filed. That means it's not a matter of general public interest. (What happened to the lawsuit? Was it dismissed as frivolous?) And the Website's statements about Inez Tenenbaum are libelous, which isn't appropriate for a source for Wikipedia. I realize you're blocked for a while...I'll await your response when you're able to get back on.JTRH 12:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
This account has been blocked for 24 hours to prevent you from evading a block placed on an IP address you were using. --Ginkgo100talk 04:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)