Talk:Rampart scandal

message: There is a surprising amount of evidence the Chief Bernard Parks was actively involved in covering this up.  The coverup operation was fairly extensive.  I hope to begin writing about this soon.  There are just so many details to cover and I've barely scratched the surface on this article. Jonathan Stokes 04:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bernard Parks

message: the refs formatting needs to fit guidelines, but good article. JoeSmack Talk 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref formats 

message: :Image:RampartLAPD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RampartLAPD.jpg

message: The article is based very heavily on material on the wsws.org (World Socialist Web Site) which is in my opinion neither a objective nor a credible source. If there is no opposition I believe we should try to find better sources for the parts where we can and delete the parts where we can't. Sirana (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Material 

message: It seems to me that 'Scandal' should be lower case, but very few pages link to Rampart scandal. Should the page be moved? --Kevin W. 04:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think since it's the official name of the incident it would be capped, no? – cacahuate  talk 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: On June 30, 2009, the city of Los Angeles FINALLY paid ex-Rampart officers Ed Ortiz, Brian Liddy, and Don Harper the 20 MILLION DOLLAR settlement they won in federal court.  Federal Judge Carney declared in his legal opinion that LAPD and the city of LA violated the RICO statute in their treatment of the plaintiffs.  Luckily for the city of LA, Judge Carney didn't triple the settlement amount to 45 million.  He had the option to do just that.
These ex-officers endured 10 YEARS of personal agony waiting for justice...all because of the lies of Raphael Perez and Bernard Parks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemo38 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampart "Scandal" Finally Ends. 

message: Ok can someone please tell me how biggie smalls is a victim of rampart. It says it in the section map at the bottom. I'm going to take this out. It's never been rpoved one way or the other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutCoppinH (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biggie Victim??? 

message: Please notice a new, yet to be reviewed entry on the related matter of Rampart FIPs.
Seeking review of the entry.
--InproperinLA (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampart FIPs 

message: The vast majority of this page uses The World Socialist Web Site as its only source. Come on. That violates so many Wikipedia guidelines. 10:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The World Socialist Web Site?!? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rampart scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100526074543/http://edwardlawson.com:80/Rampart.html to http://edwardlawson.com/Rampart.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090123123626/http://www.rollingstone.com:80/artists/notoriousbig/articles/story/5933156/the_murder_of_the_notorious_big to http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/notoriousbig/articles/story/5933156/the_murder_of_the_notorious_big
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070505021338/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/18160791/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18160791/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the sub-section, Ties to the Bloods, there are 3 statements there that have had a "citation needed" request for years (one for over 2 years; two for nearly 2.5 years).
So I'm removing those 3 sentences under BLPREMOVE rules.Colbey84 (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Unsourced Material 

message: I think this content removed by an anonymous editor should stay out. "streetgangs.com" is not a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rampart_scandal&type=revision&diff=977248387&oldid=977248332
causa sui (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Causa sui Hah, didn't catch that.  It should have been clearer in the edit summary of that anon.  Keep up the good work everyone. Aasim 14:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streetgangs.com