User talk:Aikibro

Hello, I'm EmmOmg, I noticed that you recently removed some content describing it as random and adding little substance but not disputing accuracy. I disagree as the the part in question speaks directly to the bio where Sunny Hostin is described as “... a former Assistant US Attorney, as well as a legal expert and TV personality, who is often called upon for her analysis on various provocative issues and high-profile criminal cases in the news.” The information speaks to her abilities, case knowledge, quality of opinion and ethical standards displayed during and after a nationally streamed debate on a preeminent legal question. Thus the information is directly on point (not random) as regards legal analysis and adds considerably to readers' understanding of legal bias and ethical standards. Given there is no dispute of the accuracy of the information, the insert should stand.24.96.234.188 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to post that Sunny Hostin moves her lips when she speaks, that too would be accurate and there would be no dispute as to the validity. Contrary to what you assert, the information does not speak to her abilities, case knowledge, quality of opinion and ethical standards displayed during and after a nationally streamed debate on a preeminent legal question. Highlighting one incident where she got a factual element wrong does not override her years as a prosecutor, attorney in private practice, nor her years as a legal commentator. Her comment was not on a "preeminent legal question" it was on a minor point as to whether the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle. She was wrong to the extent that those exact words were used. She was correct in that that was precisely the spirit of the instruction to Zimmerman "we don't need you to (follow Martin)" meaning "don't follow Martin". Her failure to pay the bet to date says nothing about her ethics, that is patently ridiculous.

You display your biased agenda by being so insistent (and petulant) about the deleted item. If I were to insert some random anecdote about one arbitrary instance where she made a cogent point, I suppose I too could argue that the accuracy is uncontested, but then we'd have two pointless edits in an otherwise substantative Wiki entry.Aikibro (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 20 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the History of Trinidad and Tobago page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]