User talk:Rdmlawpc
Welcome
[edit]
|
Hey there. I couldn't help but notice that your user name appears to indicate a relationship to the subject of the article. Is that correct? If so, your input to the article is certainly welcome, but you may want to restrict your contributions to the talk page.. We want this article to be as accurate as possible. However, Wikipedia rules require that all facts in an article be sourced, and your contributions do not include references. I've included some links above to site policies. Again, don't hesitate to post about your questions and concerns on the talk page of the article. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Raymond Marquez
[edit]This message is directed to the commentary made by Scott Berg. Yes, I am R. David Marquez, Esq. and the edits that I made to the post concerning Raymond Marquez are based on first hand knowledge, and not personal opinions, or inaccurately reported news articles or secondhand accounts related by authors selling books. All of the facts that I have edited into the post concerning Raymond Marquez are verifiable in court records, except for the comments made by the jurors to me and the others immediately following the verdict of the 1998 case that concluded in July 2001. If you think that I, as an eyewitness to the events that I personally experienced and observed, am a less reliable source than the newspaper reports, prosecutors and self-serving book authors that often twist facts to sensationalize a story or over charge a case, then I am here to tell you that you are wrong, as are they. My sole interest is to tell the unvarnished truth. If you cannot handle that, then take down the page all together.Rdmlawpc (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- The page can't be taken down altogether because it is about a person who is undeniably well known and has received a great deal of public attention over the years. You can nominate it for deletion, but I doubt that it would be succeed. If you feel there are errors and omissions in the article you can raise that point on the talk page of the article. However, Wikipedia rules require that information added to articles be verified. See the policy on verifiability, WP:V. You are adding material based on your own personal knowledge. What if someone comes along and says, "I want to add stuff based on my own personal knowledge that is counter to what User:Rdmlawpc has added"? That happens all the time, and that is why the rules require that text added to articles (especially biographies of living persons), be verified. I haven't removed most of what you added, but it is subject to removal at any time because there is no sourcing for it. Also you need to be aware of WP:COI. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Raymond Marquez
[edit]To Scott Berg and Tony the Marine, I shall endeavor to gather citations for all legal decisions cited. As for comments made to me, I have no problem acknowledging that I am the primary source. Furthermore, In the Matter of the Petition of RAYMOND MARQUEZ, DETERMINATION, DTA NO. 818561, that I posted on JD Supra<<http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=e8603918-1de5-4c14-8705-cb89f574f4dd>> you can verify what the NYS Tax Appeal Division determined for yourself. As for the reference to the appeals of the attempt to withdraw Mr. Marquez's guilty plea, that statement finds support in the New York Times story by Selwin Raab who states in the last paragraph of his interview article dated July 6, 1997, for which I was present and was held in my Manhattan office, that, "[A]waiting the appeals court decision, Raymond Marquez says that his only remaining link to the numbers world is as a customer who ventures a few dollars on an occasion hunch." Additional reference is available from appellate court records, such as in, "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,v.RAYMOND MARQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; in which Judges: Rosenberger, J.p., Ellerin, Wallach, Williams, Saxe, JJ. decided as follows: Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered April 15, 1997, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of attempted enterprise corruption and promoting gambling in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years probation and a 3-year period of conditional discharge, unanimously affirmed. Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas was properly denied. The original sentence agreement provided for 5 years probation, the first 90 days to be served in jail. Although that sentence would have been illegal, the court took proper curative action by eliminating the 90-day jail term and thereafter imposing a lawful sentence of probation only (see, Matter of Kisloff v Covington 73 NY2d 445; People v Monereau, 181 AD2d 918, lv denied 79 NY2d 1052). Since the sentence was no more severe, and indeed was clearly less harsh, than that promised, defendant was not entitled to withdraw his pleas. The confusion, if any, over the original sentence cannot be said to have created such an ambiguity that the voluntariness of the pleas is called into doubt. Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: MAY 7, 1998."
Since, not all decisions are are published, your request for citations is a bit burdensome. However, with your Pulitzer Prize winning abilities, I am sure you can confirm all of what I have stated as truthful. As for the ultimate determination for Unincorporated business tax owed that was originally well under 1 million dollars as discussed in the NYC Tax Appeals Tribunal's decision that is available for viewing at <http://www.nyc.gov/html/tat/downloads/pdf/97107Edec0507.pdf> my statement can easily be verified.
As for the remaining citations needed, you can refer to the New York Times article entitled, Convicted Gambler Whose Lawyer Is His Son, By JOHN ELIGON, Published: May 27, 2008.
So, as far as I am concerned, I again insist that the post be made complete and that my edits be allowed to remain in tact. By the way, I am, as you well know a "primary source" and not some unverifiable opinionated editor. So you and your cronies had best take notice of what I have said herein. Omitting the the parts of the story that create balance is just as disingenuous as making an untruthful allegation. So just be fair about it and don't skew the story. You cooperation will be genuinely appreciated. Rdmlawpc (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and I've been bending over backwards to be fair since this is a biography of a living person and there are specific procedures that need to be followed when the subject of a biography (or other interested persons) edit an article. Usual procedures dictate that unsourced material be summarily removed from an article, especially a BLP, but that has not been done. While I understand your passion concerning this article, you should be aware that sarcasm, threats like the one you removed, and saying things like "with your Pulitzer Prize winning abilities, I am sure you can confirm all of what I have stated as truthful" is not acceptable methods of communicating on Wikipedia and is going to tend to turn off editors who might otherwise want to help you. I've asked you to review the site policies and again encourage you to do so. I will examine the links you provided. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Scott, another reference that you should included amongst the others I have stated above is the New York Daily News article entitled, Spanish Ray Says his Number's Up by Robert Ingrassia published on Monday, July 23, 2001, immediately following the acquittal of the 1998 charges. While some of the information already posted, in addition to the edits I have contributed, are attributable to this source, it is not mentioned in the footnotes. Again, I don't seek to offend, although I find the original tilt of the story offensive due to information omitted, but rather to bring balance and truth to what is published over the Internet, since it will be here in perpetuity. The full and complete Raymond Marquez story is not the story that has been sensationalized by some journalists, prosecutors and authors who never interviewed him. There is more to it than any of them would care to acknowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdmlawpc (talk • contribs)
- I'll repost the above on the article talk page, which is a better location for posts concerning sourcing of an article. I suggest making further suggestions there, because there is no guarantee that I or any other particular editor is going to continue working on this article. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I now know that when my posts to the talk page were censored, it too was a violation of policy.Rdmlawpc (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, you violated policy when you made a legal threat, and you were asked to remove it. I didn't. Site policies have been repeatedly pointed out to you, and you disregard them.
- Your latest edits to the article were not consistent with the sources. You also removed your name from the article, where it was correctly placed by the article creator in your capacity as attorney for Marquez. You have a COI, if your claim to be Marquez's son is correct. Even if you didn't have a COI, it is against Wikipedia policy to change text so that it is not in conformity with the underlying sources, or to remove sourced text without a valid reason. If you continue to edit in this disruptive fashion, you risk being blocked. Please confine your contributions to the talk page. And by that I mean the article talk page, not my personal talk page. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
COI, Incivility, and Legal Threats
[edit]Raymond, it has been brought to my attention and the attention of several other editors that there may be problematic patterns with your editing as well as your overall attitude towards other editors and Wikipedia. I've done a quick assessment of the situation and has so far, I've seen a legal threat which would be ground for an indefinite ban had you not redacted it, persistent incivility, and an admitted conflict of interest. I just wanted to let you know that I'll be taking a closer look at the situation so that I can make an informed recommendation regarding your actions. The actions that could result from that recommendation include blocks and an indefinite ban.
I see that at least two other editors have been working with you and attempting to improve the encyclopedia while making you aware of our governing policies and guidelines. I suggest you listen to them. As for my report, I only care about Wikipedia's policies/guidelines/aims and whether or not you are breaking them or have aims that directly conflict with Wikipedia's. I don't care what you think the truth is; we care about verifiability here. I apologize if this seems harsh but form my quick assessment, it seems obvious that this is a concept that you don't agree with and if you want to fight that fight, you won't win.
If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them here or on my talk page. OlYellerTalktome 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- First, I let me start by stating that I have been completely transparent in both my identity and my intent. I am here on Wikipedia only because I came across the post about Raymond Marquez by chance. I was appalled by what I read, in as much as the original post was clearly a bastardization of both the source articles and the truth.The selectivity of source articles was readily apparent to me. While you are forthright in your expression that you don't care about the truth, and care only about verifiability, as an experienced practicing attorney I find that position offensive as it invites the compounding of distortions. One distortion begets another and by the time its repeated over and again it bears no resemblance to reality. Case in point; the "article" as it stands right now has not only been expanded to involve other members of the Marquez family, but has described those family members as being related to each other in an inaccurate and unsupported manner. It describes individuals as siblings and parents who are not. So, for example, if I were to write that only homosexuals have aides simply because the illness was first reported as being associated with the gay community, you'd be alright with that as long as I could source it. Your emphasis on verifiability is not legally good enough as it allows for distortions that may be otherwise actionable when compared to the realities that are being portrayed. Moreover, given the world wide viewership of the posts on Wikipedia, any kind of distortion is dangerous and can affect people who your editors don't consider when creating their posts. And even worse, that too may be the agenda of some. In any event, the since the disclaimer says that there is no editorial board, where do you or any editors get the authority to threaten "blocking" anyone. And as for the way you qualify the source materials, that too configured in a manner that can strategically omit more accurate and truthful documents that are available on line.
- AS for the way you, whoever you actually are, Scott and Tony interpret my words is completely subjective. I am not expressing "passion" as Scott put it, but rather I am protesting with an aim at promoting a more balanced post. Is Raymond Marquez an angel? clearly not. But it is not for this site to villanize him either. Just report the facts in a balanced manner and you'll never hear from me again. Rdmlawpc (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- That you find my position offensive is of little consequence. You seem to be making an argument that only verifiability matter yet state that it's not "legally good enough", whatever that means. As for my views of your civility being subjective, they certainly are. My views of your actions are subjective as are the views of the editors who are monitoring your actions. At this point, they seem to agree with me and a consensus of those subjective opinions can decide whether or not you will be allowed to edit the article or more.
- I appreciate that you've made your aims clear. If you wish to improve the article, I suggest using the talk page to discuss the references used, one by one. Working with others instead of fighting them will produce the best results. Disagreeing with others is not only OK, it's welcome but there's no need to start attacking others. I think you'll agree that saying something like, "So gab yourself importance, stick it back in your pants and zip up your fly" will not produce favorable results for the encyclopedia.
- You're somewhat correct about the representation of the subject of the article; we're not here to praise of vilify anyone. As for it being balanced, I think that's were the confusion comes in. WP will represent a balance of the view of reliable sources and not the balance of what you consider truth, as accurate as your view may be. OlYellerTalktome 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I love it. SPA editors on Wiki hide behind published half truths and they think their right. WOW LDMF.Rdmlawpc (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)