Talk:Padilla v. Kentucky

So... what happened?

The ruling of the court is not mentioned. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll clarify that and add in more about the collateral consequences. Those should also be mentioned in the lead because the Supremes actually went around the cc question. But one of these days someone will bring a good case, especially when it's based on consequences that arise from further state action, like revocation of professional license. That is a career ending consequence and can be argued that it has the same impact on an individual as deportation. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Page move

Moved the page to Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky because 1) it is the formal title and 2) there are only four Commonwealth states in the U.S. and it is an important legal distinction. It will also link to the Wiki article Commonwealth (U.S. state) which will add to the reader's understanding. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted your move. The short name of the case is Padilla v. Kentucky and that is the name we should use, per WP:COMMONNAME, which instructs that we use the common name for article titles. Additionally, the current name is in line with current case names on Wikipedia. As for the supposed legal distinction in the case name, neither the Supreme Court (as per the link to their webpage for the case) nor the Bluebook make that distinction when naming cases. Please don't re-move the article without first gathering consensus - and given the widespread usage of state names in cases, it should probably be consensus on a project-wide basis. (A good potential place for this type of discussion would be at WT:SCOTUS or at WT:NAME, with the other locale made aware of the discussion). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional link being removed

I've been trying to add an external link, which keeps getting removed.

Guidelines for external links state the following:

What can normally be linked

3) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

My site, Moral Turpitude, contains additional information relevant to the ruling in Padilla v. Kentucky. Its a large volume of information which is not appropriate for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mturpitude (talk • contribs) 19:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Answers:

• You have a conflict of interest. See WP:COI
• You've been told twice to stop but persisted.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

PS Other, established editors are free to look at your site, see if it meets our rules (see WP:EL and WP:RS), and add them if they think appropriate.

You are also free to make people aware of your site at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law but I wouldn't do anymore than that since, frankly, you've sort of cross-threaded the community with what folks perceive to be self-interested spamming. That may not actually be fair or the way you see it, but I'm letting you know how others are likely to see it. Pushing these links could backfire. In fact, if you post a note at the Wikiproject talk page above, I would openly acknowledge that you realize you have a conflict of interest and that you may have rubbed folks the wrong way. You can then say, "Here's my site; if the resources on it are helpful, feel free to link." ... and leave it at that.

Also, we're very sensitive to maintaining a "neutral point of view" so if your site is an advocacy-site on one side or the other of this issue, expect a chilly reception -- even if some of the editors agree with your outlook. See WP:NOTSOAP for more info on this.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)