User talk:68.14.84.60
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] RE:WELI article
My POV did not affect my review of the article you submitted. All articles must be written from a NPOV. The article you submitted was full of peacock terms and weasel words. I had to decline it. However, you do make a good point. I'll review it again and see if it can be re-written as a more neutral article. Regards, Boricuaeddie 14:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE:Joette Katz article
My additions to your comments regarding the State v. Bell and State v. Johnson decisions were not, as you have stated, an attempt to "soft soap the effect of these decisions". Rather, they were motivated by the desire to make sure that the article is written from a NPOV. Judges often are required to make decisions that can appear to be very technical and seem removed from the human elements of the facts of a case. The role of appellate judges is to evaluate the law in a particular case and, perhaps, to determine the intent of those who crafted the law, but not to determine the facts of the case nor to create policy (though policy changes may result from such interpretation). To a degree, such determinations of law can appear, in the short term, to be callous and/or ill-conceived. This is particularly common in cases involving violent crimes (such as the horrible killing of a police officer or any other human being) and the laws that relate to them. To a degree, judges must approach such difficult, emotional matters as dispassionately as is possible and is appropriate, if they are to be able to professionally evaluate how a particular case relates to current law and/or the intent of its framers. This is similar to how doctors need to maintain a certain professional detachment if there are to provide patients with the best possible care. Hopefully, the long-term results of such decisions serve to benefit the citizens being represented and, if need be, result in the legislature clarifying problematic laws or crafting new ones. As I am sure that you are aware, in the case of State v. Bell the Connecticut Supreme Court relied on the 2000 Apprendi ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Hartford Courant has pointed out in the referenced article "The Apprendi decision has sparked numerous appeals and affected laws in other states". This is by no means a novel issue nor apparently was the decision a radical or unusual one -- it was unanimous and the panel included justices crossing the political spectrum. The issue in question for this Wikipedia entry is not how you or I feel about this particular case, but accurately conveying what the decision was and, perhaps, why it was made. If there are clear, documentable consequences of such decisions (as in the case of the Kelo case) then these should also be accurately reported if they are relevant.
Comments that you have added regarding the opinions authored by this jurist seem to reflect your personal point of view and biases regarding the administration of justice and focus on the emotional aspects of these cases or your view/interpretation of their potential consequences. For example, your statement that "This decision effectively voided the state's persistent violent offender law" does not appear to be accurate and certainly has not yet been determined. It is my understanding that this law is not voided, but has now been clarified to require that juries (not judges) make the decisions about the determination of persistent violent offender status. This follows a similar decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. You have also not provided any detail in the State v. Johnson case related to why the majority of the court, including some very law-and-order oriented jurists such as the Chief Justice at the time, Robert Callahan, reached the decision that they did given that 17 shots were fired. This detail and their concerns related to this matter was provided by the justices in their written opinion and was reflected in their questions at oral argument. You chose to leave this out of your description of this case. Again, while you and I might not agree with the decision, it should be characterized for such an encyclopedia in as neutral a manner as possible in order to be fair and accurate. I have not removed your text in these instances in order to do you the courtesy of giving you time to consider and, if you choose, respond to my reply to your ad hominem comment to me (01:52, 14 September 2007), however I reserve the right to further edit this entry at some point in the future and, if need be, bring the POV issue to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. I believe that to the greatest degree possible POV should not enter into the editing of such entries. I feel that you violated this on 6 September 2007 by a biased characterization of these 2 cases that previously was not there. I would hope that will decide to remove such comments as soon as possible. CT2008 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Reply to your recent changes and comments:
("I've added additional clarification. WP should not pretend her decisions in Bell and Johnson (as well as other criminal law decisions) did not elicit negative reaction from the CT General Assembly, That is a historical fact. Whether this reaction was warranted is a matter of opinion, and removing the context for the consternation (they certaintly believed shooting a trooper 17 times was "heinous" when they passed the bill)amounts to doing PR for the Justice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.60 (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC) ")
Thanks for following up on this entry. You have modified one of the sentences so that it now reads "This decision led prominent legislators to conclude it had effectively voided the state's persistent violent offender law, and a new law would need to be implemented". This is followed by reference #2 (the Hartford Courant article). Nothing in that reference refers to statements by prominent legislators, rather it comments on the concerns of the prosecutor in that case. I am sure that you are correct that certain legislators feel that way and suggest that you use a better reference (should the sentence remain, and I continue to feel that it should not). I agree that there should not be any PR for or against the judicial department or other players in this matters. However, now you are promoting the point of view of selected legislators in order to support your personal point of view and it is not clear that this is particularly relevant at this point in time to an entry of this sort. There is no indication or commentary on whether other legislators agree that the statute has been voided or eviscerated. Should their thoughts be noted in this entry or is it too early to speculate on such matters? No law has yet been changed. Legislators often have differing opinion about many matters including court decisions, particularly if a verdict or sentence is overturned or the case is a high profile one. Is this entry the appropriate place for the airing of differing legislative (or other) opinions and concerns? If so, how should such differences of opinion be discussed in an entry of this sort while both maintaining neutrality and keeping the focus on the topic of the entry? Why did you choose to comment on the viewpoint of selected legislators and not others? Does this reflect your personal POV? You seem to be ahead of the game on this issue and continue to insert your POV into this article. It is clear that you feel strongly about this matter, but I would encourage greater neutrality on your part. This entry should not be a political debate, rather it should be a dispassionate relating of facts and events. Your changes, not those of mine or others who previously edited this entry, have moved this away from neutrality. I again encourage you to refrain from making this about your personal points of view and biases by selectively relating information that supports your opinions or those of selected legislators. By the way, who is WP? Why are you commenting (see above) that WP is pretending something (leading me to believe that you are referring to the judge in this case)? I have no idea what the judge was thinking about this case or its consequences, nor I expect do you. My guess, however, is that judges are well aware that their decisions will elicit reactions from legislators. It is my understanding that this is an expected part of the process and perhaps sometimes a desired goal on the part of the judges making decisions. Not being a judge myself, nor a legislator, nor a lawyer, you will have to ask one of these members of the legal community what their thought processes are. It is clear, however, that neither your speculations nor mine on such matters should be driving the editing of Wikipedia entries, including this one. Thanks for your indulgence on this matter. Time does not permit further comments on my part at this point in time on other issues that you have raised. CT2008 13:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
(PLEASE NOTE: I have moved the above discussion regarding Joette Katz from my User talk page ( User talk:CT2008) and the User talk page of this user with IP address 68.14.84.60 (User talk:68.14.84.60) to Talk:Joette Katz, and have arranged these comments chronologically in order to consolidate the discussion of this topic and move it to where it seems most relevant. I am concerned about the issues of NPOV, accuracy, and adherence to the policy on biographies of living persons on the Joette Katz entry and will be looking into this more carefully when time permits. I am happy to work with user 68.14.84.60 to ensure that an accurate, unbiased entry that conforms to Wikipedia policies is the end result and have made a number of suggestions about how to move in that direction. I know the 61.14.84.60 and I presently differ on the best way to do this and invite other Wikipedia editors to take a look at the Joette Katz page, the history of changes made to it, and the discussion regarding the nature and motivation of these changes. Thanks in advance for your assistance with this matter. CT2008 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC))
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 03:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chris Dodd Forbes article
I believe you misunderstood this article when you made this edit. Chris Dodd was actually asking the Bush administration not to side with the defendants, who were the ones being sued by the investors. I've fixed your edit, and merged it down to Christopher_Dodd#Tort_reform. -- 67.98.206.2 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- You would need to find a reliable source which ties Dodd's hold on the telecom amnesty bill to his past support for tort reform and his lack of contributions from telecom companies, otherwise this addition fails our WP:OR and WP:SYNTH guidelines. I've poked around on your behalf, but the closest I've seen is an opinion piece which blames Hillary Clinton's silence on the issue on her abundance of support from telecom companies[1] but that opinion piece doesn't express the converse idea that Dodd's being vocal simply because he hasn't been bought off. If you have a source, tell me what it is; I'm more than happy to try and work with you here. -- 67.98.206.2 16:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 23:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mercenaries in popular culture
Please consider adding the information as a new section to the article Mercenaries in popular culture rather than mercenary. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Immigration reform
Can you clarify your source for this information here? It seems dubious to me. -- Kendrick7talk 03:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- Kendrick7talk 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oh, and by the way -- Welcome to wikipedia
Welcome
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (68.14.84.60) is used to identify you instead.
In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! -- Kendrick7talk 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dodd CT poll
You know know the drill by now. Source?? -- Kendrick7talk 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Berman
The issue of where Berman and his family live is not an issue of libel, but concerns of privacy when the information is provided unsourced. See WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:OR. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- So... instead of being belligerent and accusatory, why didn't you provide the sources in the first place? It would have saved you a fair amount of trouble. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 16:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Joshua Komisarjevsky
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Joshua Komisarjevsky, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Charlton Heston, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Charlton Heston was changed by 68.14.84.60 (c) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2008-01-13T15:04:52+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
