Talk:Thomas Penfield Jackson

message: RickK, JonGwynne, shall we discuss this?  Overtly-biased was probably over the line, but the other comments did contain fact, and, perhaps RickK should have edited them instead of reverting? -- Baylink 16:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in this particular situation, I think "overtly biased" is actually NPOV because that was the ruling of the US Appellate Court and the basis for them to overturn his findings.  So, I would argue that when I say his were "overtly biased", I'm not expressing my personal point-of-view but rather reporting the findings of the higher court.  I changed it to "extremely controversial" anyway as a gesture of compromise.  However, if everyone agrees, I'd like to go back to "overtly biased" because, as I said, it is not only an accurate characterization but is fair comment.  BTW, I think it is important to say that he was "overtly biased" so that there is no chance of someone inferring that the bias was hidden (i.e. covert) or underhanded.  He made no effort to cover up the bias which was to his credit.  Anyway, he really was extraordinarily out of line.  I watched his conduct on TV while the case was going on in absolute shock - as did many.  It was as if he was trying to either become famous as the quintessential example of how not to handle a high-profile case and thus guarantee his immortality in US law-school lectures for the rest of time or that he'd just "lost it" and was ready to be put out to pasture.  The funny thing is that I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft but his conduct actually had me taking their side in things.  They've done some pretty unforgivable things in their history, but Jackson turned the opportunity to hold them accountable into a farce.   The fact that a judge would speak this way about the principles of a case is bad enough but to do it in public and while the case is still pending is simply "off-the-charts".--JonGwynne 17:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: p.s.  Rick, I have the page on my watch-list, you don't have to write to me on my user page.--JonGwynne 17:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the ruling used those words, you could have avoided the NPOV fracas by slightly different phrasing to make that point clearer.  (And you still can :-)  I personally don't have a problem with it now, but RickK, if you still do, I'd suggest either editing to fix, or calling Jon on the specific places he needs to quote-mark and reference better. --Baylink 19:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There's already an article on the Microsoft case. I think a biography ought to be more broad than this one issue. I came to Wikipedia to look him up after catching this reference --  -- in which Jackson dismissed a murder case involving the American bombing of two Libyan cities. The article has him comparing Microsoft to gangland murders, but there's no mention of that, either, here. I think this article needs to be much broader, and to include some personal information. --Thatnewguy 03:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Small background item here  ... Also a follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal is available to those with a subscription. --Thatnewguy 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other cases?

message: I have tagged this since there is no citation that supports this claim and I can only find references to the "appearance of impartiality". Captain Nemo III (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unfairly favored the prosecution"? 

message: This article was terribly and deceptively written, very likely by a source with a strong pro MS bias. The article had read as if the judge was biased and had been found to have been biased, neither of which was found to be the case. Had the judge been found to have bias, they would have thrown out the case and his rulings. To the contrary, almost all of the judges rulings were upheld on appeal. I do not know the author, but given the business practices which MS has repeated been found guilty of (see EU anti trust conviction September 17 2007) one cannot exclude the possibility that MS has paid to have this written in a fashion favorable to MS.
  But this is Wikipedia. I'll check the article again in a few months to see if the Softies have rewritten it again to make it appear as if the judge should be on trial, not the repeatedly convicted predatory monopolist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfolk (talk • contribs) 21:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "predatory monopolist" What does that mean exactly? This isn't the place to bash Microsoft, guys; it's tasteless, ignorant, and unbecoming. Grow up. 64.111.151.184 (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro MS propaganda 

message: A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Thomas Penfield Jackson was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot-created subpage

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Thomas Penfield Jackson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120524145641/http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-214993.html to http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-214993.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion