| Revision as of 02:13, 3 December 2009 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits rm per WP:NOT#FORUM take it to his talkpg, does not have to do w/ current article's state or with improving this article.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:14, 3 December 2009 edit undoRedheylin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,508 edits Undid revision 329368239 by Cirt (talk)Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| Archived threads that degenerated into ]. ''']''' (]) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | Archived threads that degenerated into ]. ''']''' (]) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Answer to Brumski== | |||
| (Awaiting answer. Mistakenly archived on the pretext of "notforum") | |||
| At the time I notified Cirt of ANI report, the first two references provided by Cirt, both of which failed to support the text, were still the only two authoritative sources in place and both failed to give support to the assertion referred to them. After being informed of the report, Cirt added more references, who up to that point had asserted that these were sufficient - but the two sources in question were still cited as saying what they did not say, and have never at any time been cited on this page as examples of authoritative sources that DO NOT back Cirt's POV. You yourself questioned that the assertion was beyond doubt (as well as the validity of the related name-change), so did ]. Now you seem to suggest that, as five out of seven references were accurate, "it is not true" that the other two, original references were faulty, that they were somehow validated and acceptable and should not have been questioned. That's a strange view. Note also that "admitting to certain facts as specified by the prosecution" is not admission of evidence. I still assert that the definitions are intended to specify a difference from "nolo contendere" and do not represent a legal requirement and that the necessity of admission is not specified by all authorities, including some that have been cited. Finally, when a user seeks to make changes to a page with a view to making a ] on another page, uses inadequate citations and refuses to desist without recourse to admin, that editor is disruptive. ] (]) 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:14, 3 December 2009
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Alford plea. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Alford plea at the Reference desk. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alford plea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Archived
Archived threads that degenerated into WP:NOT#FORUM. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Answer to Brumski
(Awaiting answer. Mistakenly archived on the pretext of "notforum")
At the time I notified Cirt of ANI report, the first two references provided by Cirt, both of which failed to support the text, were still the only two authoritative sources in place and both failed to give support to the assertion referred to them. After being informed of the report, Cirt added more references, who up to that point had asserted that these were sufficient - but the two sources in question were still cited as saying what they did not say, and have never at any time been cited on this page as examples of authoritative sources that DO NOT back Cirt's POV. You yourself questioned that the assertion was beyond doubt (as well as the validity of the related name-change), so did User:ChildofMidnight. Now you seem to suggest that, as five out of seven references were accurate, "it is not true" that the other two, original references were faulty, that they were somehow validated and acceptable and should not have been questioned. That's a strange view. Note also that "admitting to certain facts as specified by the prosecution" is not admission of evidence. I still assert that the definitions are intended to specify a difference from "nolo contendere" and do not represent a legal requirement and that the necessity of admission is not specified by all authorities, including some that have been cited. Finally, when a user seeks to make changes to a page with a view to making a WP:POINT on another page, uses inadequate citations and refuses to desist without recourse to admin, that editor is disruptive. Redheylin (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Categories: