User talk:Cannonform

Hello, Cannonform, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may want to begin by reading these pages :

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

You can change any pages you want! Any changes you make can be seen immediately. You can ask questions at Wikipedia:Simple talk. At the end of your messages on Talk pages, please sign your name by typing "~~~~" (four tildes)

Good luck and happy editing! Griffinofwales (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Tina Watson[change source]

Hi there. As an online encyclopedia, we try to keep personal opinions out of articles which you did not do at Death of Tina Watson. Please don't make such changes in the future. Thanks, Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please be sure to use change summaries that relate to what you actually do in your change. In this change, you did not change one sentence, you added a lot of text. Either way (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[change source]

The citations you are adding at Death of Tina Watson are not proving what needs to be proved. In this change, you added a court filing and an article about the family being grateful for the appeal. The court filing does not prove that the Attorney General appealed because he was "concerned at media comment." The second one doesn't prove that the Attorney General of Alabama encouraged the Queensland Attorney General to file the appeal nor does it say that the family encouraged him to do it. It only says that the family is glad he did. Please provide sources that prove what is being asked for. Thank you, Either way (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the Court filing citation was to prove the filing and the give readers a source to read the judgement, in accordance with normal reporting practice.

The citation about the family being grateful for the appeal comes from a newspaper story and was inserted by the originator of this article.

The court used the term, "very Public" to make reference to the media. This was in response to comment from submissions from the bar at trial, and legal submissions going back several years. The term is correctly used and correctly cited.

The Lonergan case provides readers with documented allegations of murder of a scuba diver, very rare, but coming from the same jurisdiction, Qld Coroners Court. It was put in by I think Sinbad, without citiation, and is an important part of this topic. I added proper citation.

Parts of this story remaining that have not been edited. There is no evidence in the video footage of gifts being vandalised. It cannot be seen from the video that the flowers are plastic and of a few pennies value and often prohibited in cemetaries because they are not bio-degradable.

Those who run this site have one clear duty, if scholarship is your aim. To either get the Tina Watson simple english wiki correct or remove it from the site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannonform (talk • contribs)

I don't see how one reference to the term "very public" in the court decision shows that the Attorney General felt he needed to appeal because of "media comment." What you're linking to is the court's ruling, isn't it? So it shows nothing about the motivation of the Attorney General in filing the case. You still need to address the Alabama Attorney General "encouraging" the Australian A.G. into filing the appeal through sources.

The Lonergan case has no connection to this one, especially not as presented in this article. There was absolutely no proof of connection needed. I don't know what you're talking about with the gifts at the cemetery. Either way (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The association you make in your reply of "very public" by the Court to an explanation of the motivation of the AG for Alabama in appeal leads nowhere. These words were made up from individual contributions by a number of contributors, and as I read it, the citation does not necessaritly refer to the entire sentance. There is a very real double reporting standard here, if I understand you correctly. On one hand, through editing, you claim a link to a trial of a scuba diver in the British Virgin Islands as relevant, but on the other, you say a link to similiar and I would say, "better" trial, where identical allegations were made, in the same jurisdiction as Watson, i.e. Qld, Australia, is not. Then you retain allegations of vandalism present in a video clip of Watson, when the clip shows no vandalism, rather the contrary, what could quite easily be seen as the tidying of a grave site. I have no connection with either the wife's or the husband's side, but find it difficult to understand your own competing claims to logic, as shown with your edits.

~~~~" iki>Cannonform (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply]

Well if there is no proof that there is a "media comment" that led him to make the appeal, we need to take it out of the article. When did I say that a link to a trial about divers in the British V.I. is relevant? I never said it was. The article never says anything that accuses Watson of vandalism at all, so I don't understand your claim. It says that people thought there was vandalism going on or the "stuff" disappearing, so the police investigated and saw Watson removing things. No where does it say he vandalized. Either way

The implication is clear. "vandalized" is joined to the rest of the text by the word "and". You left the BVI stuff in while removing other sources more complimentary to Watson. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, or to put it another way, "the facts speak for themselves", I don't need to add to them.

If you read the newspaper citations for this story, at the foot of the Wiki, you will see there is much newspaper comment on the sentance, the day following the trial with both Troy King, the Alabama AG and Tommy Thomas the dead woman's father widely quoted and making perjorative comments about (a) the court (b) the DPP (c) the Australian justice system (d) the trial judge. These newspapers can be read online. I did not create this material, nor the citations. They were created by others. (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~" iki>Cannonform (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply]