Talk:Scott Dyleski

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)
 * 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
 * — 71.197.64.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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
 * — Artists for Scott Dyleski (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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
 * — 71.197.64.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Writing
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)

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".  I've added significant clarification of this point. SummerPhD (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 — 71.197.64.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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 tag for . 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.
 * SummerPhD (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Above comment was refactored for privacy. Notable that the site is registered to creater of http://eosceres.com/humanity_descending.html, which presumably ties to http://www.myspace.com/humanity_descending/ which was listed three times. All are tied to the IP address other editor is commenting from. SummerPhD (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2008 (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)


 * Sorry to hear of your confusion. Yes, everything contributed to wikipedia is subject to editing by anyone and everyone. You will note that whenever you edit anything that several notices appear:
 * "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Thus, you cannot cite that something does not exist, nor imply that something is relevant. You need a reliable source to verify both. This also explains difficulties in using primary sources. Short of merely quoting sections, it's difficult to say much from them. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.
 * "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*" Thus, the content may be edited by anyone.
 * SummerPhD (talk) 00:35, 3 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)

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. SummerPhD (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Murderer Propaganda has no place on Wikipedia.
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 unsigned, angry comments above are inappropriate. "Pro-Murderer Propaganda". "Murder-Groupie". Lighten up! What I find disturbing is that the article is devoid of anything - anything at all! - that presents another point of view other than guilt. With all due respect, "He was convicted, so that's that!" is intellectually lazy. This article needs major work, especially since the defendant adamantly maintains his innocence, and there WERE problems with his trial. The POV garbage above is ridiculous. It is perfectly acceptable to present both sides, which this article does NOT! Proud to sign my name: AlaskaMike (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the history of this article, there clearly has been some involvement of those closely associated with Dyleski, using the article to make arguments that are not to be found in reliable sources, which I spent some time cleaning up. At least one of those was someone pro-Dyleski websites (see above discussions). There is little point arguing this is not the case.
 * At this point, the best we can do it try for objectivity. The crime occurred. Dyleski was arrested and charged with the crime. The prosecution made arguments. The defense made arguments. Dyleski was convicted and sentenced. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

writ?
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)
 * The writ cited says failure of counsel (basically claiming counsel did not investigate various alternate theories). As it was filed two years ago, we might have coverage of a decision by now. I'll see if I can find anything. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this, basically saying Dyleski's new representation was saying there is "significant evidence" pointing to the victim's husband. If anyone wants to add this, go for it. Otherwise, I'll do it when I get a chance. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Miller v Alabama
Does anyone know if Dyleski is entitled to a parole hearing under the ruling??Bjoh249 (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Broken sources
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)