User talk:Dsprc

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful and encouraging response to my edit. I like the emphasis on being bold and the DIY ethic! Although I have used Wikipedia for twenty years, today was the first time I've edited an article. It is good to know that an explanation of reasonable changes on the edit itself is sufficient. I will review the resources for contributors. Have a good week! Adam055lakes (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam055lakes You're welcome! Your immediate engagement with the article talk page shows good intentions – even though it was a minor thing. 😉 It was good first contribution! It's not merely an "edit". You improved the encyclopedia. We hope you will stick around and make many more of them! You have a good one too! Happy Trails! -- dsprc [talk] 23:41, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bail bondsman

I see that you've reverted my edits. I would like a quote from the source that proves this information, "those released via bail bond appear more frequently than other defendants." Afterwards, I can double check that in the source. Thank you! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:815C:862:ADF7:E542 (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it {{pn}} & {{vn}}… but, I just verified the source to see if you were correct (I like seeing shit sources and dubious material being removed) and it absolutely checks out; almost verbatim. You can thoroughly review the source yourself. -- dsprc [talk] 09:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the source myself and do not see that information anywhere. "According to 1996 figures for the U.S., one quarter of all released felony defendants fail to appear at trial" -> this is in the source. The second part of that sentence is not. If you claim that it is the source, you wouldn't mind providing a quote, would you? Then we can both move on from this. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:815C:862:ADF7:E542 (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please place the two aforementioned tags. I'll look at updating the citation later with corrected pp. (FWIW: material is lower down, but verifies. Source itself is actually the more iffy concern) -- dsprc [talk] 10:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For doi:10.1086/378694; pages: 93 for the first part. 96 for blurb of "second part", and 102–118 are the data for part 2. Please review to double-check my own double-checking! -- dsprc [talk] 12:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Defendants with high point scores were recommended for release on their own recognizance. Felony defendants who were recommended for release by the Manhattan Bail Project had failure to appear rates that were no higher than those released on money bail" -> according to this, it actually is saying the opposite of the claim is. Those released on their own recognizance were more likely to appear at trial than those released on bail bond (money bail). It's safe to say that we should delete that part of the sentence now, ok? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:E9EE:AFCC:C60:16CF (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... no. p. 96; last ¶: "…In light of the persistent criticism that surety bail encourages failure to appear, it is perhaps surprising that the data consistently indicate that defendants released via surety bond have lower FTA rates than defendants released under other methods." (emphasis added) -- dsprc [talk] 23:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to open a discussion on article's Talk, not here. Maybe get a WP:THIRD, or an WP:RFC going; or WP:DR if those fail. -- dsprc [talk] 23:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bail bond and surety bond are not the same thing. That statement does not prove the statement in the article. I'm sorry, but a discussion can happen anywhere. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:994D:FBB4:D7C7:E957 (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of dispute, and should be directed toward article Talk as previously instructed. Discussion needs to happen on article Talk where parties actually interested in the topic can properly engage (no one giving a shit about this article watches my user page).
Per above: I'm officially requesting no further discussion occur on my talk regarding content of this article.
Not doing the aforementioned is considered disruptive, will be ignored and reverted. -- dsprc [talk] 11:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been fruitful. I have no objection to you changing it to surety bond. Have a good day! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2557:92F5:3794:A9F3 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]