carpet cleaners compare steam
No references
No sources, unnerve tag added.--FloNight 18:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality disputed
Evidence casting doubt on guilt has been repeatedly removed - see previous versions.
Protected
Due to constant edit warring, the page is now protected from editing. Please resolve your disputes here. Remember that all information that goes into the article must be verifiable from reliable sources. Once you have reached a compromise, please request unprotection. If you cannot come to some sort of compromise, you should see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks. howcheng 23:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
TripleH1976 09:52 p.m., 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It is understandable that you like this version, you authored it. However you also misstated some things and 196.15.168.40 did a very good job of making the corrections to the article.
I am new to this site and I don't know how to sign my comments....sorry - FreedomRings
Accuracy
Everything I added IS verifiable, mostly directly from the trial transcripts (including unsealed documents, also the autopsy report), which are more authoritative than media reports.
The version which has been protected contains errors. This has been stated many times, as can be seen from the History file (March 29, and April 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 18 and 20), and those accusations have gone unchallenged. (I haven’t included March 21 and 25, because those corrections haven’t been undone.)The corrected versions were much more accurate than the protected version.
If anyone wants to now dispute that, then please provide proof that Danielle and Brenda only sold cookies to Westerfield once, that Brenda returned from the bar with only two friends (I won’t be impressed if you merely argue that the men arrived in a separate car), that Westerfield was the only neighbor who “was not home on a Saturday” (that’s a strange statement), that he arrived home driving his RV (unless this was a reference to the Saturday afternoon, but the context implies it wasn’t), that he said he was driving around the county all night, that he was seen in a casino during the weekend Danielle went missing, that he gave his RV an intense cleaning, that her body was badly decomposed, that the video was of a 7-year-old, that he spied on his neighbors with binoculars, that his lawyers revealed that he was going to take police to the dump site - and that he was born on June 16, 1949.
Reply to TripleH1976:
Number of sales: This is an encyclopedia, so a high standard is required. The words chosen must be precise and permit no ambiguity. Twice is not once; three times is not once. And there IS evidentiary relevance. One possibility, if there was only one sale, just days before she was taken - meaning that this was the first time Westerfield had contact with her - is that he was smitten by her, hence the kidnapping/murder - behavior which was totally out of character for him. But the previous sales rule out that possibility. And Van Dam hairs and fibers in his house were used as evidence against him: some could have been left over from previous visits. Brenda Van Dam also stated on Larry King Live June 3, 2003 that they had also sold gift wrap at a previous time and this was never mentioned in court. Keep in mind that any order previously made also requires a delivery date.
Time surveillance began: (This wasn’t one of the points I listed.) As surveillance began less than 24 hours after they first interviewed him, this is relevant to the allegation that the police were guilty of a rush to judgement.
Spying: The old version of the article states, as if it were a proven fact, that Westerfield spied on his neighbors with binoculars. I listed the only evidence I could find - and it’s very weak evidence. I could have added a comment to that effect, and concluded that the allegation is almost certainly not true, but refrained from doing so.
Including everything: Given your concern about the greater length of the new version of the article, I could have simply replaced the original “spying” statement with something like: “The police believed that Westerfield spied on his neighbors with binoculars, but this is probably not true”. But by giving the actual evidence, the reader can decide for themselves whether or not this was proved. I like evidence. This point is also relevant to the Neutrality issue, which I discussed separately.
Selby: It’s not uncommon for criminals to confess to stuff they DID do. And Selby did confess to crimes he committed. Based on what is known about him, he might well have been responsible for Danielle’s death. It is the job of the police to INVESTIGATE leads and evidence, but in this case they failed to do so - not only Selby’s confession, but any evidence pointing away from Westerfield, giving as their excuse a lack of time. Westerfield WOULD have been exonerated IF Selby’s DNA had been compared to the unidentified DNA in the blood on Danielle’s bed and found to be a match. And the same is true of the unidentified prints on the Van Dam’s staircase and by her door, and of the evidence at the dump site especially the hair.
Verification: The existing article didn’t include footnotes, so I merely followed that example. My source was the San Diego Union-Tribune, especially the trial transcripts on their website, which I added to the External links but which was repeatedly removed.
Conclusion: You did not respond to most of the points I listed, and for those you did respond to, in no case did you dispute the truth of what I said - your objections are on various other grounds. I therefore conclude that you accept that the accuracy of the article will be greatly improved if my edits are reinstated.
Westerfield birthday
I just want to say that I was not the one, who put the birthday information. I assume somebody who knows him may have put that in. TripleH1976 08:11 p.m., 25 April 2006 (UTC)
David Westerfield, born February 25, 1952
Neutrality
Articles must be neutral. That means giving both sides of an argument. In a court case, it means giving the evidence both for and against the defendant.
The old article (up to mid-March) contained only evidence of guilt (except perhaps Westerfield’s explanation for the porn and the “suggestions” by his attorneys about the police’s rush to judgement and the parents’ lifestyle). It was therefore not neutral. So the current, protected version is also not neutral.
I added evidence of innocence to balance the article, creating the desired neutrality. This consisted of the entomology evidence, the search dog evidence, the red fibers found with Danielle’s fingernail clippings, the failure to find any evidence that Westerfield had been in Danielle’s home, and so on.
I didn’t remove any evidence of guilt, I merely corrected errors in it (e.g. the plea bargain), or pointed out if it was incomplete or misleading (e.g. the blood evidence, the hint at suicide, and his niece’s testimony), thus creating a balanced and neutral article. Nor have I attempted to correct/improve the article about Danielle: I saw, for example, that it also contained the wrong date for the discovery of her body, but I left it alone.
In stark contrast, TripleH1976 completely removed all I added (apart from the first two small corrections), thus reverting the article to its previous, non-neutral state.
Until his comment above (April 24) about Westerfield possibly having been set up by the police, he did not challenge the neutrality of any of my edits. Let the facts speak for themselves.
Reply to TripleH1976:
The article isn’t neutral at all. It was you who wrote it, so it was you who selected what to include and what to exclude. The jury had nothing to do with that. I have not said that Westerfield is innocent: I am trying to be neutral, so I have merely presented the evidence. If you find that threatening then you should examine your standpoint - and it would be a good reason to “retry the case” here. If you were confident of your conclusion, then you would welcome the evidence, secure in the belief it would confirm you are right.
I detect anger in your responses. One reason I decided to study this case is the public anger that surrounded it: that is not conducive to an objective verdict. Now might be a good time to re-examine the evidence: the time which has elapsed has given tempers a chance to cool down a little. You do not have the right to prevent that.
Given the public anger, I wonder if it is really so clear that the jury thought the evidence of guilt outweighed the evidence of innocence: was it the evidence or the angry crowd that was responsible for their verdict? That by itself is a good reason to “retry the case” here.
I don’t find the article convoluted at all. Nevertheless, I don’t object to a copy editor revising it - whether to shorten it or to improve the readability.
Novels are fiction: everything I added is fact.
Part of your reply actually refers to length, not neutrality, and so belongs in the next section.
Someone who came here wouldn’t necessarily want such a brief description, which might leave them dissatisfied: they might instead want more detail and more facts - and neutrality - but not have the time to wade through numerous media articles and lengthy trial transcripts. So they might be extremely grateful to me - they would certainl
carpet cleaners compare steam
Carpet cleaners and carpet steam cleaners: Daimer's offers the industry's best quality and most ... Compare
Best Carpet Cleaners, Carpet Steam Cleaners - Up to 50% OFF
Carpet steam cleaners – Bissell offers a variety of upright vacuum cleaners and deep cleaners ... Parts & Accessories Stores User Guide (PDF) Compare View Compared Products
Upright Deep Cleaners, Carpet Steam Cleaners
Consumers can use this website to find a local carpet cleaner and ... There are many different ways to clean a carpet. You can use dry methods, shampoo, steam, bonnet ...
Carpet Cleaners - Carpet Cleaning Companies
Carpet Steam Cleaners Rating - 32 results like the Hoover F7222-900 Steam Vacuum Cleaner - Deluxe Kit, Rug Doctor Plus Steam Cleaner, EUROFLEX Monster Cable SC60 Multi-Surface ...
Carpet Steam Cleaners Rating - Vacuum Cleaners - Compare Prices ...
... for the industry's technologically advanced, best carpet cleaners and carpet steam cleaners in ... Compare
Best Carpet Cleaners, Carpet Steam Cleaners - Up to 50% OFF
Compare at: $261.94 Savings: 35% off ... Home care is easy with a steam cleaner. Carpet steam cleaners enable you to keep your floors and ...
Steam Cleaners from Overstock.com: Floor Care
Compare commercial and residential carpet cleaners for the home, office ... Steam Cleaners Vacuum Cleaners. Air Purifiers See all... Air Cleaners Allergy ...
Compare Commercial and Residential Carpet Cleaners
... full line of carpet cleaning machines, portable carpet shampooers, and steam cleaners. ... compare: MCE6000 - Featherlite Carpet Extractor Powerful enough for whole house ...
Carpet Cleaners from Dirt Devil: We Carry Steam Cleaners, Stain ...
Carpet cleaners from Hoover are America's best selling upright ... Compare Products (select up to 4) ... Hoover Steam Vac
Carpet Cleaners - Shampooers, Steam Vacuums and Stain Extractors from ...
Compare Membership Types: Gift of Membership: Group Membership Program: Purchase a ... Sam's Club>See All Categories>Appliances>Floor Care>Carpet & Steam Cleaners
Latest News
Truck plant in Chatham, Ont., faces another 200 job cuts
A truck plant in Chatham, Ont., that is already facing 490 layoffs at the end of this month will lose another 200 jobs.