Jump to content

Talk:Scott Dyleski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.197.64.190 (talk) at 21:30, 2 January 2008 (removing personally identifiable information that is unneccessary. Sorry, I am finding it confusing to sign my comments here. I am not trying to enter bias. I have researched this cases for two years). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Birthday

born 10/30/1988 scorpio just like charles manson haha and scott peterson oh they are so very mean???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.246.1 (talk • contribs) 19:13, October 28, 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Could there be a better picture? The Chronicle compilation has been criticized, and it is not as recent as a photo could be. - Emiellaiendiay 20:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many other pictures are available of Scott on the web at http://myspace.com/humanity_descending for instance. I cannot figure out how to change the main picture, but I am the author of that page and of http://eosceres.com/humanity_descending. There will also be pictures of Scott available at his official site scottdyleski.org.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.64.190 (talk • contribs) 08:07, December 23, 2007 (UTC)
This template must be substituted. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Not sure if I am doing this right, but the recent information added is the links is extremely biased and should be compeltely redone. There is a huge discussion on the courttv forums about one of these articles in particular right now. see http://boards.courttv.com/forumdisplay.php?s=5fe35990856f8ca074842cc8f78c604a&forumid=176 I believe the person who entered these links has an agenda because Scott Dyleski's appeal will be file in only about two weeks. If their IP address is coming from the East San Francisco Bay area, then it is probably suspect even more. There are several sites and forums set-up that discuss the travesty of this unjust trial and how Scott Dyleski was basically convicted because he was demoized and because his own defense attorney did not even put on a minimal defense. Here are the sites and forums. I hope someone else will change the links. A link that has been taken out is one to a site that has been up for a long time that even has the cour transcripts posted. http://justiceforscottdyleski.com/ http://sleuthingforjustice.com/ myspace.com/humanity_descending http://eosceres.com/id51.html (also humanity descending - artists for scott) http://eosceres.com/id53.html (about Scott's symbol and what the prosecutor presented) There are also some good articles out there, one is by Seamus McGraw (it is also cited on the courttv boards and on myspace.com/humanity_descending). The others will be posted soon on myspace.com/humanity_descending also Whoever changed the links also knows that there are many other picture of Scott on the links I've listed. This is a Wikipedia travesty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artists for Scott Dyleski (talk • contribs) 08:49, October 24, 2007 (UTC)

This template must be substituted. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses limited and biased sources not to mention way too many articles (all with biased titles and biased writing is sourced as the authority on the topic, e.g., Lisa Sweeningham article ), most of which are inserted by the same user (Christine Garden). This user also keeps deleting valuable external links and does not appear to be an expert on this case as can be witnessed by comparing the court transcripts and what is now available to the public concerning this case. In addition, the article needs editing as many commas and such are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.64.190 (talk • contribs) 08:03, December 23, 2007 (UTC)

This template must be substituted. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing

Utterly inadequate. Cisum.ili.dilm 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H-shaped and Other Content Changes

I can't find anything to support the claim that the report "clearly" said the carving was anything but "H-shaped". [1] I've added significant clarification of this point.[2] Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the reference pages on the autopsy of the dimension and location of the mark on Vitale's back as well as the diagram drawn by the coroner. If you draw this out as is described, it is clear the coroner is merely using an easy way to describe the mark by saying an "H" shape, it could just as well be called an "I" shape, however, if you look at the dimensions and diagram The coroners description also does not neccessarily mean it represented the letter "H' as was presented in trial to demonize Dyleski further. I have provided other references pages of drawings that were also presented in court and this link was also removed. The mark on Vitale's back was 'superficiail', so the word carving is inappropriate and promotes more innacurrate informationb on this case. So called blog pages have also been removed that contain primary documents. If information is prsented about Esther Fielding in the article and an articles is cited then I do not know why an interview with her is removed and considered unimportant. If you want to make the article better then add reliable resources and refine instead of gross removal. There are several articles of dubious content being used to support what was presented in court as well as sayings like "the jury decided" instead of what forensic evidence was or was not presented. These are areas that need work and there is primary documentation available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.64.190 (talk • contribs) 17:49, December 31, 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
The edit I originally corrected said that the report clearly said it was "I shaped". It does not. It repeatedly says it was "H-shaped". What you, me, or any other editor thinks it "could just as well be called" has nothing to do with it. What verifiable, reliable sources actually say is the heart of the issue.
Saying it was "'superficiail', so the word carving is inappropriate" is a moot point. I quoted the report "cut into skin" and "superficial incisions". You are adding "Whether one called this mark an 'H' or an 'I' shape depends on the angle of inspection. Because of the dimensions described in the autopsy, the mark would resemble more of an "I" shape (see autopsy diagram, pg. 14)." This is unsourced, unverifiable original research.
"So called blog pages have also been removed that contain primary documents." Blogs are not reliable sources.
You make repeated mention of various news articles being biased or unreliable and point to primary sources. You are apparently under the mistaken assumption that wikipedia is trying to present The Truth. Wikipedia is about presenting verifiable information from reliable sources in a neutral way. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Primary sources are not superior to secondary and tertiary sources in wikipedia.
Further, you are repeatedly adding unsourced arguments such as: "No forensics were present in court about the size of the shoe and if it matched Dyleski's. Additionally, there was no blood reported in the crevices of the shoe nor blood splatter on the top of the shoe." which you placed inside the <ref> tag for [3]. The source says nothing of the sort. If these are relevant facts about the case, you need to find a reliable source saying so.
In general , you seem to be closely tied to elements of the case. One of the links you defend is scottdyleski.org which was listed twice in various sections of the external links.
In short, though you honestly believe you are merely presenting what you believe to be the obvious truth, you are presenting your opinion.
Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~

Restructure of this page

I have just added signatures for all comments to this page and a few categories. If you are starting a new topic, please use the "+" tab at the top of the page and use a descriptive header. If you are adding to an existing topic, click "edit" next to its heading. At the end of all comments, type ~~~~ to add your user name (if signed in) or IP address (if not signed in) and the date of your comment. Without this, we have to add it in manually. For the numerous single-purpose accounts editing this page, keep in mind that wikipedia has policies on sock puppets and all edits can be traced by IP address. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Dyleski&oldid=181704439"