This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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
Utterly inadequate. Cisum.ili.dilm 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Agree, however, it appears this is a difficult article to revise since information on this case was severely restricted until far after the trial concluded. Much of the media on this case was inaccurate or sensationalistic. Comments below on sourcing material and that WIki does not care about the truth (or facts as most would see it), lead me to believe that editing this particular article is a dead-end street. mysignature ( talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
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] SummerPhD ( talk) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to learn basic editing here to respond to your comments. It is an honest attempt to improve the article, not put in personal opinion. I have asked others who know the case well to assist in any further editing and will not edit and insert any unsourced material. However, these contributors do not have the computer skills neccessary to edit here, hence, the Democratic component of Wiki breaks down. I understand your superior Wiki skills, but many people have expertise to share that do not have such skills nor have the amount of time to expend in order to add their expertise to a page here unfortunately. It could end-up that I or we do not contribute further to this Wiki page on Scott Dyleski as then Wiki would own the writing and it could perpetually be reverted to the citing of biased news articles and sources, making it a waste of time. We are sincerely only seeking balance and factual representation. If headlines and articles about Esther Fielding appear as sources, then why would it not be appropriate to hear her own words about the trial. I'm sure there will be some Wiki reason for not seeing an interview with Scott Dyleski's own mother as important on a page about Scott Dyleski. The site scottdyleski.org is Scott Dyleski's official site and was just started. I am merely the webmaster for now and have registered it for Scott Dyleski and Esther Fielding for the same reasons, computer skills. I am not trying to hide who I am nor my interest in this case. I do not know what is an acceptable source for facts like "'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. since the proof is in the court ommission of such evidence. In this case, there is no Defense cross examination to quote from the trial transcripts as the Defense did not call their own expert witnesses to challenge these things nor question the Prosecutor's witnesses on them. This article is in sincere need of revision as an appelate attorney has been assigned to Scott's case since last summer as well as a Private Investigator and Forensic Scientist has been hired on the case. Also, the coverage of this trial could not be verified against what actually occurred at trial until months after the case ended due to transcripts being unavailable - this is nearly unheard of in any trial, let alone one of this importance to both the victim and the person accused/convicted. mysignature ( talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is not the place to argue Scott Dyleski's appeal. This page is the place to present verifiable, sourced, facts, and properly sourced opinions about his case. By drawing facts from the primary documents and assembling them into arguments, you are conducting original research, which wikipedia tries to avoid. I can appreciate that as the person who put up his web page, you may feel an emotional investment in the outcome of his appeal, but please review the FAQs on Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and edit accordingly. Digthepast ( talk) 04:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Those FAQs may be found at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There's_no_such_thing_as_objectivity Digthepast ( talk) 04:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
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. SummerPhD ( talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Every time there's a Wiki entry on a murderer, some Murder-Groupie shows up to try and turn the Wiki entry into their own personal Shrine. In this case, it appears that the perpetrator is none other than one of Scott Dyleski's parents... if the MySpace entry cited below is to be believed. While I'm sorry that your son turned out to be a killer, please try and remind yourself that Wikipedia articles need to be based on facts, not opinions. The facts are that your son murdered a woman. Yes, I understand that you don't believe he did it. If Hitler's parents were alive today, they'd no doubt be telling us how "misunderstood" their precious angel is. But a judge and jury found Scott guilty, and that's the only fact that's relevant to this article. If you ever manage to have him acquitted, fine, come back and edit the entry. Until then though, please stop trying to Game the article. It's insulting to everyone involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 January 2010
The article states that Dyleski is appealing, but doesnt explain his reasoning, on what grounds is h appealing? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Dyleski is entitled to a parole hearing under the ruling?? Bjoh249 ( talk) 03:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Almost every linked source is either broken or the articles have been removed. There's even one "source" that just links to the Google homepage. That one says it was added in 2016 and explicitly just says "Google," so I'm not sure how that's been on here for four years. I'm not an editor or anything, so I figured it would be better for me to just put this here and hope someone else knows the best way to deal with it - for instance, I don't know if they should be replaced with other contemporary sources that still exist or if the previous articles need to be found through an archive. Caittails ( talk) 06:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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
Utterly inadequate. Cisum.ili.dilm 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Agree, however, it appears this is a difficult article to revise since information on this case was severely restricted until far after the trial concluded. Much of the media on this case was inaccurate or sensationalistic. Comments below on sourcing material and that WIki does not care about the truth (or facts as most would see it), lead me to believe that editing this particular article is a dead-end street. mysignature ( talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
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] SummerPhD ( talk) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to learn basic editing here to respond to your comments. It is an honest attempt to improve the article, not put in personal opinion. I have asked others who know the case well to assist in any further editing and will not edit and insert any unsourced material. However, these contributors do not have the computer skills neccessary to edit here, hence, the Democratic component of Wiki breaks down. I understand your superior Wiki skills, but many people have expertise to share that do not have such skills nor have the amount of time to expend in order to add their expertise to a page here unfortunately. It could end-up that I or we do not contribute further to this Wiki page on Scott Dyleski as then Wiki would own the writing and it could perpetually be reverted to the citing of biased news articles and sources, making it a waste of time. We are sincerely only seeking balance and factual representation. If headlines and articles about Esther Fielding appear as sources, then why would it not be appropriate to hear her own words about the trial. I'm sure there will be some Wiki reason for not seeing an interview with Scott Dyleski's own mother as important on a page about Scott Dyleski. The site scottdyleski.org is Scott Dyleski's official site and was just started. I am merely the webmaster for now and have registered it for Scott Dyleski and Esther Fielding for the same reasons, computer skills. I am not trying to hide who I am nor my interest in this case. I do not know what is an acceptable source for facts like "'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. since the proof is in the court ommission of such evidence. In this case, there is no Defense cross examination to quote from the trial transcripts as the Defense did not call their own expert witnesses to challenge these things nor question the Prosecutor's witnesses on them. This article is in sincere need of revision as an appelate attorney has been assigned to Scott's case since last summer as well as a Private Investigator and Forensic Scientist has been hired on the case. Also, the coverage of this trial could not be verified against what actually occurred at trial until months after the case ended due to transcripts being unavailable - this is nearly unheard of in any trial, let alone one of this importance to both the victim and the person accused/convicted. mysignature ( talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is not the place to argue Scott Dyleski's appeal. This page is the place to present verifiable, sourced, facts, and properly sourced opinions about his case. By drawing facts from the primary documents and assembling them into arguments, you are conducting original research, which wikipedia tries to avoid. I can appreciate that as the person who put up his web page, you may feel an emotional investment in the outcome of his appeal, but please review the FAQs on Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and edit accordingly. Digthepast ( talk) 04:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Those FAQs may be found at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There's_no_such_thing_as_objectivity Digthepast ( talk) 04:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
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. SummerPhD ( talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Every time there's a Wiki entry on a murderer, some Murder-Groupie shows up to try and turn the Wiki entry into their own personal Shrine. In this case, it appears that the perpetrator is none other than one of Scott Dyleski's parents... if the MySpace entry cited below is to be believed. While I'm sorry that your son turned out to be a killer, please try and remind yourself that Wikipedia articles need to be based on facts, not opinions. The facts are that your son murdered a woman. Yes, I understand that you don't believe he did it. If Hitler's parents were alive today, they'd no doubt be telling us how "misunderstood" their precious angel is. But a judge and jury found Scott guilty, and that's the only fact that's relevant to this article. If you ever manage to have him acquitted, fine, come back and edit the entry. Until then though, please stop trying to Game the article. It's insulting to everyone involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 ( talk • contribs) 01:07, 6 January 2010
The article states that Dyleski is appealing, but doesnt explain his reasoning, on what grounds is h appealing? Sephiroth storm ( talk) 13:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Dyleski is entitled to a parole hearing under the ruling?? Bjoh249 ( talk) 03:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Almost every linked source is either broken or the articles have been removed. There's even one "source" that just links to the Google homepage. That one says it was added in 2016 and explicitly just says "Google," so I'm not sure how that's been on here for four years. I'm not an editor or anything, so I figured it would be better for me to just put this here and hope someone else knows the best way to deal with it - for instance, I don't know if they should be replaced with other contemporary sources that still exist or if the previous articles need to be found through an archive. Caittails ( talk) 06:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)