Talk:Scott Dyleski

message: 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 • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  - SummerPhD (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: — 71.197.64.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  - SummerPhD (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Utterly inadequate.
Cisum.ili.dilm 20:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing

message: 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)
thread_title: Restructure of this page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  writ? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broken sources