User talk:Coontrack: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:04, 19 July 2008

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Max Stuart. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Mattie^TK 11:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate and insulting to the victim and her surviving family to say that the conviction was 'controversial', when the appeals and review ALL were dismissed, and the conviction was investigated and upheld. In those circumstances there is no 'controversy' in acknowledging what he did. The 'controversy' is in his attempts and the lengths that he and his collaborators in the media went to to have him escape the lawful consequences of it.Coontrack (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Max Stuart. Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Max Stuart, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Channel ® 11:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to describing the appeals as being "ultimately found to have been in poor taste"? It's hardly a stretch, considering that the newspaper was prosecuted for malicious libel in promoting it. What is that the sign of, their -good- taste?? So on that score please, no more comedy. If you think I'm making that up, you should review the WP article on the 2002 film "Black and White" which definitely acknowledges the fact (although the film is a disgraceful distortion).Coontrack (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view policy]] by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles{{#if:Max Stuart|, as you did to [[:Max Stuart]]}}, you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-npov3 --> <span style="background:#FFEE91; border: white"><font color="#000000">[[User_talk:Channel_R|&nbsp;Channel '''&reg;&nbsp;''']]</font></span>&nbsp; 11:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
+:Are you referring to describing the appeals as being "ultimately found to have been in poor taste"? It's hardly a stretch, considering that the newspaper was prosecuted for malicious libel in promoting it. What is that the sign of, their -good- taste?? So on that score please, no more comedy. If you think I'm making that up, you should review the WP article on the 2002 film "Black and White" which definitely acknowledges the fact (although the film is a disgraceful distortion).[[User:Coontrack|Coontrack]] ([[User talk:Coontrack#top|talk]]) 12:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 {{indefblocked}} [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] | [[User talk:Theresa knott|The otter sank]] 11:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)