Talk:Michael Keith Smith/Archive 1

message: I've removed the following text:
Although Mike Smith won the test case technically, he has not and will not receive a penny of either the award or the costs. In light of this fact Mike Smith is now claiming a ['moral victory'http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/er7cDxuxbCD]. Post Number 1211.
The injunction Mr. Smith served against the defendent has also not been served, so all in all, test case or not, it is a pretty expensive and pointless enterprise the only result being and attempt by a CDA, right wing UKIP candidate to claim a 'moral victory'.
There are a number of reasons:
*Although Mike Smith won the test case technically,
:That's correct (although he didn't just win technically, he won - full stop).  However if we are going to take out the next clause this is fairly pointless.
No he didn't if he won full stop, he would have got the award and costs he didn't so he won nothing, zero, zilch. What is it about that you can't understand?
*he has not and will not receive a penny of either the award or the costs.
:This needs a citation.  It's a big claim, especially from an anonymous poster.
OK I am Citing : he has not and will NOT receive a penny of either the award or the costs.
Signed: Tracy Williams'''
*In light of this fact Mike Smith is now claiming a ['moral victory' http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/er7cDxuxbCD]. Post Number 1211.
:This has been removed because the previous claim is (for the moment) inadmissable. I'm also not sure about the citing of a bulletin board (although I admit that these are special circumstances as Mike Smith has signed in on his own bulletin board).  If the bulletin board post can be cited then this should be reworded.
How very selective of you. post 1211, you have the link. Don't be afraid to use it, you would make a better biographer if you got your facts right, stopped printing selected edits, didn't get so uppety about your precious article, and stopped being a brown noser for Smith.
*The injunction Mr. Smith served against the defendent has also not been served
:This is self contradictary.  Even if it were reworded it needs to be sourced.
It is not self-contradictory, don't be such a pedantic bore. Smith claims an injunction was served against me, so where is it? Do you know,? As Smith's official boigrapher maybe you could shed some light on its whereabouts.  *so all in all, test case or not, it is a pretty expensive and pointless enterprise the only result being and attempt by a CDA, right wing UKIP candidate to claim a 'moral victory' 
:This is opinion and should not be allowed on in the main article.  You can say that someone says this, but not as part of the article.
Most of the article you wrote about Smith is irrelevant drivel and should not be allowed on Wiki, you can say what you like about Smith, but do try and keep it to yourself. There's a good boy.
JASpencer 19:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Text (2)

message: I am the Tracy Williams in question I think I know whether or not I have been served an injunction or indeed if Smith has tried to recover the costs and awards which, he hasn't to this date.
"he has not and will not receive a penny of either the award or the costs. "
It is not a big claim it is the truth. I am Tracy Williams the defendent. It is true that Smith knew I did not have any assets or money before he made the claim against me, Mr. Smith claims only a 'Moral Victory' as stated here on his Quick Topic Boards
Michael Keith Smith said: 
"As for Williams, the action is over bar her self-righteous and ignorant squeals. She has been defeated without prospect of appeal, and exposed in the national and local press as the lying foul-mouthed creature she is. 
No more agency teaching jobs for her. 
Nearly two years ago my enquiry agent reported that she lived in a council flat on an estate which was 'bad even by the standards of Oldham' (his words not mine). He also reported that what he could see of the contents indicated that the woman was not worth the cost of a Sheriff's warrant, so I realised long ago that Williams was a woman of straw. 
My victory is a moral victory which has already inspired over a hundred people to seek my preliminary advice on dealing with similar vile internet abusers.'''
http://www.quicktopic.com/16/H/er7cDxuxbCD post number 1211
* You lost an important libel trial. Wikipedians are not interested in the content. Please do not import your quarrel to this encyclopaedia. Sussexman 12:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libel defendant comment

message: It appears (see Google) that User:Edchilvers and this Williams woman are having some massive slanging match with Michael Keith Smith and Chilvers has decided that he will now vandalise Smith's article and anyone else he can associate with him. The Wikipedia is not the place for your private feuds, so please go away. 86.137.204.101 10:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: What is wrong with this article which makes it so bad that it is nominated for deletion?
Is the suggestion that only an individual might know anything about themselves? Absurd. Sussexman 16:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official vandalism