User talk:Wim Dankbaar
Response regarding the Chauncey Marvin Holt biographical entry
Thank you, Wim, for your note. I came upon the entry quite by accident since, as a veteran Wikipedian, I have a self-assigned task of regularly examining the usually-empty Category:Dead people. This time I found three names—Harold Brainsby, Marcella Grace Eiler and, the most fascinating of the three, Chauncey Marvin Holt. I have not previously heard of these individuals and subsequently tried to contribute whatever minor reconfigurations, adjustments and additions I could to elucidate details. In this way, Wikipedia is a daily learning experience and as a result of you devoting so much time and energy to this subject, we have more knowledge of such little-known aspects of this endlessly-unfolding story.—Roman Spinner (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding your concerns about sourcing specific details, we cannot name Holt as the hitman since, as you point out, there is no direct evidence. However, his own words in the film then become the source for extrapolating his role in the killing. You could write something to the effect of:------Still another aspect of Holt's eventful life is his self-admitted key role in one of the most notorious killings in Mob history—the 1947 gunning down of Bugsy Siegel. In Spooks, Hoods and the Hidden Elite, he hints at being the triggerman by describing the details of the hit in such a manner as to leave little doubt of his role: =blockquote of your quotation above=. In the end, however, although anonymous sources have confirmed that he was the hitman, Holt himself never publicly admitted his direct responsibility for Siegel's death-------. Someone may ultimately challenge this portion of the text, but the blockquote should stand up to scrutiny since it is a direct quotation of Holt's own words. Also, in the English Wikipedia, libel/slander concerns are primarily aimed at biographies of living people, although, of course, truth and accuracy must remain undiminished. I hope this helps.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judyth Vary Baker
Dear Wim Dankbaar - I have reverted your edits to the AfD discussion on Judyth Vary Baker. Please refer to the guidelines on how to participate in the discussion. The text you inserted is below so you can copy and paste it where it needs to go, at the bottom of the discussion. I would encourage you however to familiarize yourself with the way these discussions are normally held, in order to make sure that your views are well represented and acceptable to the comunity. In particular, please refrain from personal attacks on others, they certainly weaken your own position. Kind regards. Enki H. (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- KEEP KEEP KEEP! Who are Fences&Windows and Enki to judge this article? They want to delete or re-edit based on the "research" and claims of John McAdams? Are you guys goons for McAdams, or just ill informed?
- The only hoax here is John McAdams. He should be glad his shameless article is still referenced to offer some "balance".
- Can you read the article thoroughly, including all the references and sources? Otherwise I can't see how anyone can conclude that this is a story without references and evidence from backup witnesses, documentation and contemporary newspaper articles.
- By the way, I am largely the author of the article as it is today. A year ago I replaced the piece of crap that Mcadams and his minions put out here. It stood for over a year without any problems. If you have problems with it, you better specify EXACTLY what it is that cannot be substantiated or why the sources are not valid enough for Wikipedia. If a source like McAdams is only valid, that speaks volumes. Who are you by the way? Why are you not "moderating" under your own true identity?
- Wim Dankbaar - Netherlands - www.jfkmurdersolved.com