Talk:Michael Keith Smith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removed text (1)

Other text removed: On 27 June 2002, The Daily Telegraph carried a letter from the CDA, signed by Smith as its Chairman, attacking the Conservative Party and its Chairman Francis Maude for "the sleaze, double-dealing, arrogance, incompetence, Europhilia, indifference and drift with which the party is still associated. Voters", he said, "deserve a real alternative to Blairism and his 'straight kinda guy' chicanery. Mr.Maude and his C-Changing Tories are incapable of providing it." Smith, in concert with many right-wingers, is opposed to the Iraq War and what he sees as the Americanisation of the world generally, and the United Kingdom in particular. Some suggest these traditional views may increase the distance between him and the 'modernising' Conservative Party. He was one of the top-table guests at the Traditional Britain Dinner held at Simpson's-in-the-Strand on 7 November 2003; and was present again on 8 February 2006 when the Guest-of-Honour was Simon Heffer, (Refer: The Daily Telegraph Court & Social pages, 8 November 2003 and 9 February 2006). Reason: I see absolutely no significance in it whatsoever. Having a letter published in a national newspaper, being invited to a party and having views on the Iraq war is no cause for a paragraph in this encyclopedia. I fail to see what Mr Keith Smith has done in order to warrent an article of this length or bias.

I have removed the text about Mr Smith's family tree as I do not see it as being relevant to anything and it is clearly a 'flattery piece.' Articles on Churchill other leading statesmen do not waste half a page on Geanology, I dont see why Mr Smith's case should be any different

Also removed other 'flattery text' which is unsourced: Both unsuccessful Tory candidate Penny Mordaunt and political commentator Richard North blamed Smith's intervention for the Tories' failure to win back the seat.

Removed Text (2)

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)

Removed Text (3)

This text has also been removed:

• Smith cannot recover either the costs or damages that is a fact

Please provide a sourced reference. I am the source of the reference Tracy Williams the defendent.

JASpencer 22:08, 22 April 2006 (UTAs)

Libel defendant comment

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)

And I am not interested in your opinion on what was lost and what was won. You don't know what you're talking about as I was the defendent I think I know more about the case than you do. Unless of course you're just another Smith sock puppet.

Vandalism

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)

Something needs to be done about this Chilvers character. He has a wrecking agenda. 195.194.75.209 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Shortening an irrelevant and self serving article certainly cannot be described as a 'wrecking agenda.' This article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. The olny person who could really have known his family history in such detail is either Mr Smith or somebody very close to him, that is to say somebody who knows him personally. Therefore this is a vanity article in direct contravention of Wikipedia guidelines. User:Edchilvers

These are your personal opinions. Before deleting articles you have made no valuable contribution to you should appeal to Wikipedia's administrators if you feel Wikipedia's guidelines have been contravened. But let me assure you these pages on the old guard of the Conservative Party are regularly visited by them. 86.129.77.169 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer me this question yes or no: Do you or do you not believe it to be concievable that it was Mr Keith Smith himself who personally wrote the bulk of this article?

Given your very clearly advertised dislike of Mike Smith all over the internet it is probably best if you refrained from these attacks. 213.122.96.39 11:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wiping Talk Pages! What next! Obviously this Chilvers guy is a crank, as is the woman he is in cohorts with who lost a major internet libel case to Smith. They should keep their hate campaign away from Wikipedia. Lightoftheworld 10:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Who was this woman that lost a major libel case? What did smith win? Besides a big solicitors bill and the fact he forked out £7,500 in court costs? Please do Light the way on that one, lightoftheworld.

Vandal's message

We are the only winners, not Mike Smith, he may have got a little 5 minute wonder in the press, but he's won nothing, he is a menace to society and needs removing from this planet, never mind wikipedia. 82.0.158.11

Err...wasn't there a little matter of £40,000 and some guy Smith practically bankrupted. I'd call that winning.

What has that got to do with Tracy Williams? The comment you are replying to was about me, Tracy Williams, and I am not the individual that lost money to Smith in litigation. Smith lost money suing me, about 17,500 last count. If it were not true I would not be posting the fact would I. Check my IP, I am sure Smith can verify it for you after all he paid £5,000 to get it.

Official vandalism

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)

The problem was created by yourself and your cohorts my friend. When I attempted to edit and improve the article in the spirit of Wikipedia and open it up to a wider audience (and not just those who were there at the time) a whole army rushed to its defence and I was subjected to all kinds of accusations. It seems as though only those with personal connections to Mr Lauder Frost are allowed to touch it. Seeing as you have all proved unwilling to even discuss the matter without resorting to abuse it is inevitible that the issue of complete deltion will be raised. A shame I agree but to be fair you have brought it on yourselves. User:Edchilvers.

I'm afraid that statement is just rubbish. Most "accusations" against you were extremely well-founded. You did not attempt to "improve" anything. You vandalised articles and that was recognised at least by Fred Bauder who placed a block on this article. It is just silly to state that everyone who supports Lauder-Frost's article are unreasonable etc. It was a good politicasl biography. Very good, in fact. Given your well-publicised campaign against MAK Smith it is no surprise to anyone looking into matters that you have attacked others you deem to be close to him. But you are in luck here. There are left-wingers here who were attacking GLF and his "cohorts" before your arrival and are all to willing to do your bidding. They, at your request, have demonised Lauder-Frost like nothing I have ever beheld before in a publication. Good luck. Sussexman 20:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your attempts to demonize anybody who disagrees with your point of view as being a 'left winger' only serve to make you appear ridiculous. I notice a moderator went on a couple of hours ago and changed the GLF article almost exactly in accordance with my original specifications. Minutes later a supporter of yours came along and changed it straight back again without any discussion whatsoever. User:Edchilvers.

• You, the libel-case loser, and the left-wingers you have awoken from their slumber are the only demonisers her, make no mistake about that. 81.131.77.243 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

How long have you got? Read the comments on the deletion page. There are enough valid comments for you to realise the wiki entry for Smith has no significance whatsoever.

"Is the suggestion that only an individual might know anything about themselves? Absurd."

It isn't a 'suggestion' though is it; it is an article on Michael Keith-Smith that serves no purpose to anybody. If you want to write about Mike Smith, why not buy a personal diary and jot down what you know about him in there. Give one reason why it should stay? I for one am not interested in Mike Smith's social Dinner habits or where he sat and who he went with, nor is Mike Smith's ancestry of any interest to anybody I imagine with the exception of himself and a paid genealogists. User:Tracy Williams

• This is your personal opinion to which you are entitled. But you are not entitled bring your sour grapes onto Wiki;pedia after losing your libel case. 81.131.77.243 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• "But you are not entitled bring your sour grapes onto Wiki;pedia "

wanna bet!

• Your comments are your personal opinion, mine are basesd on actual important facts. Take it to your personal diary. I didn't have a libel case, Mike Smith had a libel case and he lost big time. The only sour grapes are your own.User:Tracy Williams

Do you really think you are making helpful contributions to the discusssion here? You lost a major landmark libel action against Smith. My suggestion is that Wikipedia is not the place for your venom. Lightoftheworld 10:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)