| Revision as of 02:17, 3 December 2009 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits →Answer to Brumski: cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:21, 3 December 2009 edit undoRedheylin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,508 edits →Answer to BrumskiNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| :This comment violates ], as it makes attacks not backed up or supported by anything. It violates ], as it is use of the talk page space for discussion not related to further improvement of this article but rather to increase drama and drag out attacks. And per both of those, it violates ]. I ask you to please remove it. You could continue this line of questioning at ] if you wish to. ''']''' (]) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | :This comment violates ], as it makes attacks not backed up or supported by anything. It violates ], as it is use of the talk page space for discussion not related to further improvement of this article but rather to increase drama and drag out attacks. And per both of those, it violates ]. I ask you to please remove it. You could continue this line of questioning at ] if you wish to. ''']''' (]) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::If you think it's an attack, report it. As far as I am concerned, I am still wondering why you cited sources as saying what they do not say, and why the sources are not cited as exceptions to a definition you present in the present argument, and why you wish to remove comments addressing this valid concern over NNPOV. ] (]) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:21, 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)
- This comment violates WP:NPA, as it makes attacks not backed up or supported by anything. It violates WP:NOT#FORUM, as it is use of the talk page space for discussion not related to further improvement of this article but rather to increase drama and drag out attacks. And per both of those, it violates WP:BATTLE. I ask you to please remove it. You could continue this line of questioning at User talk:Brumski if you wish to. Cirt (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you think it's an attack, report it. As far as I am concerned, I am still wondering why you cited sources as saying what they do not say, and why the sources are not cited as exceptions to a definition you present in the present argument, and why you wish to remove comments addressing this valid concern over NNPOV. Redheylin (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)