Talk:Zodiac Killer/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Richard Gaikowski

With all the information recently given on and its forum, shouldn't something be said in this article about him? If Allen is still here after all that has discounted him, certainly Gaikowski should be. (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he should be listed, although I don't terribly mind having a monopoly on the situation. That aside, the info about him that is on the way will make it a no-brainer. Tom_Voigt 10:57 p.m. Pacific Time, June 23, 2008 (UTC)
Once it's a no-brainer, it'll be here. Jimbonator (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
So, is this a no-brainer yet? ..are no other suspects to be listed other than Arthur Leigh Allen? It would add balance to the article, if possible.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I've heard nothing to date that suggests Gaikowski is a no-brainer. (If someone has, please discuss it here.) Leigh is the only suspect listed because his name became so synonymous with the Zodiac Killer, both during his lifetime and afterwards. He also appears to be the only person to have search warrant(s) served in connection with the case. The article used to have a Suspects section, but it (a) added a lot of length to an otherwise long article, (b) named living people, which may be in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and (c) attracted numerous questionable additions with no supporting documentation (and became a huge maintenance headache). As I've stated before, I would be in support of a separate "Popular Zodiac Killer Suspects" article, but do not have time/energy to pursue it myself. Jimbonator (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Willblew GYKE his nickname is found in the first part of the 3 part cipher, as well as some audio tape of him explain how to use dummy ciohers to distract your foe while still operating. Also there is some other evidence that I cannot disclose at this moment.
I just watched the History Channel program about this (Mystery Quest, I think it was called). Is that what you meant by this being a no-brainer Tom? I just don't see it. GYKE is spelled wrong (Gaikowski himself spelled it Gaik). Some of Gaikowski's DNA was apparently recovered, but compared to nothing. Voice comparison was the subjective opinion of one person who heard Zodiac's voice once 40 years ago, and who knows how this was pitched to her, and how that might have biased her. I think this constituted very little evidence that is very weak, and I don't see how it should change anything. Nothing personal Tom, just my opinion of the evidence as it was presented on the show. BTW, you look great on camera! Dcs002 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I watched the show myself and I just don't see Gaikowski as being all that different from most of the other non-law enforcement researchers' pet suspects at this time. I say "at this time" because I don't think Tom Voight would have risked being associated with the show and the naming of his pet suspect unless he had a lot more in his filing cabinet that for whatever reason, he can't reveal yet or has been asked not to reveal. For years I have always been one of those who wished Tom would just stop shooting every body else down and write his own book already. However, when dealing with a crime of this magnitude or any unsolved crime, it is irresponsible to just toss a name out in print with anything less than very nearly conclusive evidence. Plenty of others have done it and I hope Tom is able to connect the dots in such a way as to separate him from the pack of past Zodiac accusers. "Pin The Tail on The Real Killer" is a game that many armchair detectives engage in as if it were nothing more than a parlour amusment without any real life consequences. Unfortunately, what gets published in true crime accounts often slips into the actual literature on unsolved cases and errors become repeated until they are deeply imbedded in the accepted "truth" of the case. Last night's show mentioned one in particular that Tom was quick to dispel and that is that a recording exists of Zodiac's voice. All I can say is good luck and Godspeed to Tom. It would be nice if the survivors and the victims' families could live to see this solved. For whatever reason, Tom has made this a personal quest and he's done more than anyone else to assemble and preserve diverse and scattered bits if evidence. I don't always agree with him or the way he handles those who disagree with him but I do believe his dedication to the case and empathy for those affected by it to be as real as it gets. LiPollis (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Guys, User:Tom_Voigt was the man investigating the leads on Mystery Quest. Duh. Did you watch it or not? Geeky Randy (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

External Links strike again

If you're new to this entry, be aware that there was a major kerfuffle about a year ago over the External Links section. Check the Talk: archives to see how that played out and the resolution.

That said, I've checked WP:RS, WP:LINKSPAM, and WP:EL for advice on what should and should not be listed in the EL section. My conclusions are this:

  • A Zodiac decoder webtoy is not unreliable if it's using the Zodiac's codes as ciphertext and not spam if it's free to use. It is something that cannot be duplicated (nor should it) in this Wikipedia entry. Just because it is not encyclopedic doesn't mean it's inappropriate for EL. It seems reasonable to link to it for our reader's benefit.
  • is a blog. So what? It doesn't seem to violate any of the above policies.
  • Please don't justify a revert of a revert as "self explanatory" when it's not.

That said, I'm making my own edits to EL, and justifying my reasoning here.

  • I'm removing the link to Mike Cole's page. Although it's reasoned out, it's not necessarily expert opinion.
  • I'm removing the spyderware link not because it's a webtoy, but it no longer works. Image links are 404'ing.
  • I'm removing because it doesn't appear active.
  • I'm keeping the web toy because it works and is not spam.
  • I'm removing the NPR link because it deals with the movie and fan base, and not the killer himself. This would be more appropriate for The Zodiac Killer in popular culture.
  • I'm keeping the "Clumsy Criminal" link because it's of historical interest and a primary source of the newspaper reportage he was receiving, a vital element to this subject.
  • I'm keeping the Google web map for much of the same reasons as the oranchak web toy.
  • I'm keeping the "Zodiac: The Conclusion" as it's an article oft referred to by Zodiac researchers and deals with the case directly. It also provides context and information beyond the scope of this WP entry.

The EL section has caused so much trouble in the past, I'd like to record my thinking prior to making large edits.

-- Jimbonator (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to reread WP:EL if "Just because it is not encyclopedic doesn't mean it's inappropriate for EL" and "is a blog? So what?" are what you think are appropriate comments. DreamGuy (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The Zodiac Cipher tool seems to fit with WP:EL. I agree with Jimbonator on that. Why is it unacceptable?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to understand how it could possibly be seen as meeting WP:EL. It's not a source of encyclopedic information, it's a web toy to play around with the code from the letters and "find" words. That doesn't tell you anything about the topic. We are here to give info on a topic, not to try to "solve" a case or anything. "It works and is not spam" is not a reason to keep a link. We don't link to toys or tools or whatever it is. A link needs to have an encyclopedic purpose. Can you explain why you think it should stay? DreamGuy (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:EL rules aren't hard & fast otherwise we wouldn't have WP:ELMAYBE. Read #4 there. Sometimes the enrichment that lies at the other end of the link is in spirit with Wikipedia, providing a more digitally rich learning environment. As one who is interested in the case, I can see that the link indeed has good value.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
MAYBE #4 says "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" which certainly is not true... it's not an information source, it's a toy. The actual information about the letters is already presented at other links, so this provides nothing of any encyclopedic value. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

<== I appreciate your viewpoint but at least two of us think that it does have encyclopedic value (especially for this encyclopedia) and should be linked. I would also welcome comments or opinions from others as well. The author may refer to it as a toy but it is a proper cryptanalysis analyzer and deals correctly with the ciphers. It isn't factually incorrect in any sense. It allows the reader to decide the value for themselves. Just to make sure that I'm understanding you correctly, you aren't suggesting that the tool's author has (deliberately or not) created something that is inaccurate, correct?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

External. Links. Again. Dear sweet Lord. You'd think this page was 95% links and three sentences on the Zodiac.
ELMAYBE #4 says "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." It does contain information about the subject, the information is accurate and knowledgeable, and it even includes information that is not present in the article, namely symbol distributions and other statistical information. As Berean notes, sometimes the links are there to complement and enrich the reader's understanding of the material. Note also that Oranchak's page offers the reader both the original 408 cipher and its plaintext; our page does not. And, it offers these ciphers in a way that Wikipedia is not designed to offer them. There is interesting and accurate information to be gleaned from this page even if the reader doesn't try to solve them -- that is, even if the reader doesn't engage with the "toy"-like aspects of it. Jimbonator (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Modesto Attack Peculiarity I was just pleasure-reading this Zodiac entry and read the sentence "the sheriff had Johns wait in Mil's Restaurant, in the dark, fearing they might all be killed," or something to that effect, which, although is found on a few other websites, is ridiculous. No page I've come across cites evidence of this ever happening other than this sentence-long blurb, and it seems highly unlikely that an abduction victim would be sent away from a sheriff's office because he (the sheriff, supposedly?) was afraid the killer would return. Can someone corroborate this, or remove it? Although numerous other sites reference this incident, none claim where the information came from or the specifics of her encounter with the sheriff, which should be the only details that are truly verifiable about her experience. Why, again, would an armed officer of the law send a woman who was reporting a kidnapping to wait in a darkened restaurant away from his protection lest the killer return and "kill them all"? I thought at first that it was vandalism, but, no, other cites reference it. Thanks all. -- (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Napa Sentinel editorial article

An anon IP has deleted this external link twice. It's an article by Napa Sentinel publisher Harry V. Martin who argues that a hoax was perpetrated. Martin isn't particularly easy to read — rambling, not very concise — but otherwise, the editorial satisfies general requirements for external links. If nobody objects, I'll keep returning it to the list. Binksternet (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I see Jimbonator also lists the article as one worth keeping. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike Rodelli

I've twice deleted mention of Mike Rodelli. I see this amateur investigator as a guy who wanted to ride the coattails of the Zodiac case to get a little professional fame. Unfortunately, Rodelli's only suspect, an unnamed SF businessman, was taken out of the running by the DNA test. Bye bye Rodelli. Also, the way Rodelli was brought into the article was completely out of the blue, with the guy getting no introduction as to who he was and what his credentials were. I deleted the section mainly because his suspect is kaput, but if somebody really wants to make Rodelli stick, if someone thinks it's a good idea to show independent, amateur investigators working on the case, Rodelli would need some supporting introduction so that we know who he is. So, the sentence as it now stands will continue to get deleted. An expansion of Rodelli is another story, but then the editors here would have to pass judgment on whether he is notable enough. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few "independent, amateur investigators" besides Rodelli are mentioned in the article Why don't you have a beef with them? Tom Voigt (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no beef with any of them. I simply haven't looked at the others yet. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I see. And you feel it's appropriate to jump to such conclusions even though you have such limited knowledge? Tom Voigt (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Yes, I feel it's appropriate both to edit the article and to comment upon such edits here... it was clear even to me that Rodelli was brought into the article with no preface as to his importance, which appeared (after a bit of online research) to me to be small. It doesn't take a True Crime scholar to spot that... Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Bink--You clearly are not a researcher of any merit at all. If you were, you would have already learned that my contributions to the case include working with a retired VPD detective to do the only legitimate interview with the eyewitnesses to the Stine murder that was ever published. (i.e., It was on the web at one point.) (BTW, they got a good look at Z without his mask on, in case you didn't know.) Robert Graysmith never interviewed these cornerstone witnesses for either of his books. All he did was distort their story and the facts of that night in order not to have to admit that the "Revised" SFPD sketch is very accurate and that it does not look anything like his favorite suspect. (That's why said sketch wasn't in the movie.) I've also interviewed Officer Don Fouke and then posted a complete transcript of it on my site in about 2005. (Do you know who Officer Fouke is?) Maybe the fact that these interviews are no longer on my website threw you. (Hint: use the web archives, if you can even find them.)

If you were a "True Crime Scholar" (which you are not), you'd realize what a fool you're making of yourself. (You're lucky that not many people get to see this particular page in the backwaters of Wikipedia.) Ask anyone wno knows the case about me and my research. My research is not limited to Mr. X. However, your KNOWLEDGE of my research is limited to Mr. X. There is a big difference! The real Z researchers know and appreciate (and even admire) what I've done. That's all that matters to me, not what "Bink" thinks. Interviewing people is part of "research," too. You can't learn everything you need to know by Googling someone's name, as much as you might think that to be true. However, Googling is the way a lazy or ignorant man does his research.

With people like you around, I don't expect to be on the main Zodiac Wiki page. That is because any idiot can delete whatever they want from the site regardless of accuracy. I just want you to know that you are completely ignorant of the history of the Zodiac case. I hope you know more about sound mixing than you do about the case and about me.

What's next? Will you delete my posts from this discussion page, too? Doesn't matter. You can't delete my contributions to the factual base of the case, facts which can help all researchers in their efforts to solve it. (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Mike

I have no problem with you or your investigative work. The problem I had with you (Mike Rodelli) in the article was with the way your work was brought into it. There was absolutely no introduction to you through a very brief description of your importance which meant the natural flow in the article was jarring. The reader was asking "who is this Rodelli guy?"... I don't have to be a Zodiac scholar to spot flawed writing. All I need is a finely developed sense of written English.
On that subject, it's poor writing that keeps me coming back here. I would like to see this article have more of a step-by-step chron order layout, with early mention of early involvement by parties whose work only later yields fruit. Naturally, in a collaborative setting such as Wikipedia, the writing style is bound to have a kind of mosaic or jig-saw puzzle feel, where contributions by various editors abut each other and the sense of one editorial 'voice' is lost.
At any rate, I stand by my deletions unless the section is rewritten to include your importance and to highlight your successes rather than focus on Mr. X being crossed off the list. Did any subsequent investigation build upon your work? That would be good information to include. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Bink, as I said, I don't care if I am on the main Wiki site or not. It doesn't affect my life one way or the other. FYI, I didn't write the section about myself that was up there, so I don't even recall what it said. I just don't like the fact that my name is the header of a section on some page in which you tell the world why you took it upon yourself to edit me out. If you had credentials in the case, I could live with it but unless I am mistaken, you are just "some guy" who doesn't like the fact that I wasn't "properly introduced." Get over yourself. Go back to mixing sound while I go back to researching the facts of the case. Later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC) says my comment was unsigned. I must have done something wrong? Tom Voigt (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Editor, I'm Mike Rodelli. I think that it is outrageous that someone like you, who clearly and obviously has no knowledge of my contributions to the facts of the Zodiac case, is in charge of editing the Zodiac page. I am not going to enumerate those contributions; you can do some research and learn about them for yourself, if you truly care about providing readers with an accurate history of the investigation. Suffice it to say that I've done more than someone like Dennis Kaufman (who somehow is mentioned on the page) to interview key eyewitnesses, get to the core facts and correct the many lies and distortions of Robert Graysmith. How Kaufman, whose only claim to fame is that he thinks his stepfather was Z, is mentioned in a history of the investigation but I am not, even if "Mr. X" was eliminated to your satisfaction, is a mystery to me.

I don't really care if I am on Wikipedia or not. However, these arrogant, snide, cavalier and unfair remarks you've made about someone whose work and contributions to the case over the past ten years you clearly don't understand can't be allowed to stand without comment. (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)M. Rodelli

Jack Tarrance

It seems this has been getting plenty of media coverage. Deserves a mention, probably a section. PyroGamer (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If the criteria for getting featured here is media exposure, we should also include Col Calvez, Christopher Farmer and a host of other theorists. Ugh. Tom Voigt (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree, sans the sarcasm. Though I wouldn't use as strong a word as "featured", just "mentioned". If Col Calvez, Farmer, etc have received the substantial media attention that Tarrance has, they should be added. PyroGamer (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The most relevant thing is reliable sources. Currently the section discussing Tarrance doesn't seem to have even unreliable sources. That means, per WP:PROVEIT, it can be removed at any time without justification from the editor who removes. Tarrance has no other coverage or link elsewhere in the article, nor does his step-son Dennis Kaufman, and neither appear elsewhere on wikipedia. Based on the lack of sources and the lack of significant coverage elsewhere, I'm leaning towards removing Tarrance.
Actually, media coverage does determine appearance on wikipedia to a certain extent - WP:N and WP:PEOPLE are the key guidelines for someone appearing on wikipedia, with WP:RS being the guideline for what can be used to justify. If Calvez, Farmer and Tarrance have extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources, we're perfectly justified in having articles or sections about them. WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules(simplified) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New Suspect - Jack Tarrance

thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think 1) this isn't a message board and 2) this has been covered. Scroll down. Tom_Voigt 11:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Voight, the new developments concerning the FBI and the DNA tests have NOT been covered. They deserve mention, whatever your personal bias about "Sam".
"Sam" was cleared 15 months ago via DNA testing. I see you are out of the loop. As far as the alleged DNA testing, if the FBI actually releases information, I suppose it's wiki-worthy. But unsubstantiated statements from a Kaufman and a Pickle belong right where they are -- at a low-brow message board. Tom_Voigt 09:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure "Jack Tarrance" was the key figure played by Jack Nicholson in "The Shining" perhaps the deceased Stanley Kubrick knew something we dont? Coincidence? I think not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Tarrance and Rodelli

I've been away for a while, and I'm stepping back in.

Regarding Tarrance, I've deleted the mention of him in Current Status. This is all undeveloped information. One man is claiming (and has been claiming for years) that his father is the Zodiac. The details are scintillating, but so was the Ripper Diary ten years ago, and today it's largely considered a joke. I've yet to hear the FBI name Tarrance as a viable Zodiac suspect. If they do, then it may be appropriate for this page. But so many people have been named -- even the Unabomber -- it takes more than the FBI collecting a bloody knife and mask to make Tarrance's mention worthy here.

Regarding Rodelli, folks, remember that this isn't a "Let's Solve the Zodiac Murders" page. Even if Rodelli's suspect has been eliminated -- which Rodelli denies -- the reason he was originally included in the article is that the SFPD saw fit to include Arthur Leigh Allen *and* Rodelli's Mr. X in their test, unlike many other well-known Zodiac suspects. Rodelli and Mr. X *had* been introduced earlier in the article, years ago, but the entire Suspects section was removed after a lot of squabbling over who should be included and who should not. (Tarrance was an issue back then, too.) I'm okay with Rodelli being removed, as I think Bink's right, it's kind of dropped on the reader out of the blue. But that's the only reason, in my mind.

My point is, we're not here to document people who's suspects are "right". This document is a history of the Zodiac Killer's misdeeds and the investigations into his crimes. Personally I would love to have a Suspects section (or another page, as this one's getting long) just to document the crazy number of people who have been implicated -- Mr. X, Ted Kacynzski, various members of the Manson Family, Dick Cheney* ... what a rogue's gallery! But that's a separate issue. -- Jimbonator (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC) (* Joke.)

I'm getting tired of the reverts, especially now that the cite has migrated up to the lead section. I am putting a greatly reduced mention of Jack Tarrance down under the former prime suspect, with a reference to crime reporter Kris Pickel of CBS 13 News reporting on it. Until the FBI comes forward with their report, I think that's all we need to say on Tarrance. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The very fact that the FBI is in fact actively investigating him posits by definition that they consider him a viable suspect. Please stop changing pertinent current information being developed because you don't like Tarrance as a suspect. Until the FBI releases their findings, I agree that he is not the Zodiac, but he is CLEARLY a viable suspect, since the FBI has opened an entire task force to investigate Mr. Kaufman's claim. Please leave that information up and stop censoring everything that you don't like or agree with simply because you feel you know more about the case. You don't. There are a number of very knowledgeable individuals regarding this case, including those of us who are related to law enforcement. Please don't remove information and contributions simply because those facts, views and opinions conflict with your view or opinions of the case. Themoodyblue (talk) 00:07 01October2008
Your assumption that I don't like Tarrance is based on nothing I've written or done. Yes, he is a viable suspect, but too much conjecture and detail have been brought to the article about the case. We aren't a breathless news channel reporting every new detail; we are calm compilers of appropriate facts established by reliable third parties. I've edited the lead Tarrance section to take out conjecture and too much detail. I'm not against Tarrance as a suspect, I'm against jumping the gun. Binksternet (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Your edit is better. Much more concise. I just realize that there are a lot of people for whom this case has become something approaching a pseudo-religion, and it seems any mention of someone one group or the other does not agree with starts another fight in the great Zodiac war. Sorry for my assuming on that part. All I was saying is that it needs mentioning, at least until we know the result of the investigation. That is one good thing about all of this. Either a) the case will be solved (which I am not holding my breath for, but is possible), or b) Tarrance will be permanently eliminated and we can move on to other, more viable suspects. Both outcomes are good for the case.Themoodyblue (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear, though: Neither the (a) nor the (b) you list warrants Jack Tarrance's mention. These are both what-may-happen. Wikipedia concerns itself with what-has-happened. We're not here to "move on to other suspects" -- that's for other sites to deal with. Bink's edits are a major improvement. Jimbonator (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
OK then, 1) the items have been found, have been turned into the FBI, have been and are being tested, and the FBI have now mentioned him as a viable suspect. All of these things have happened. Themoodyblue (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The FBI called Tarrance "a viable (Zodiac) suspect"? Surely you won't hesitate to provide us with a source. Because it's not exactly uncommon for a law-enforcement agency to take a cursory look at someone without actually being gung-ho about their likelihood of being the culprit. And spare me the "But DNA testing wouldn't be done unless they thought he was guilty" nonsense. Tom_Voigt 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Tom -- I've yet to read any story where the FBI even acknowledges Tarrance as a Zodiac suspect. Everything you mention -- the items being found, items turned into FBI, etc. -- don't really warrant being mentioned here. They belong on the Jack Tarrance page which, unfortunately, redirects to the Zodiac Killer page. If the tests prove positive, then we have a different discussion. My suggestion to you is: Remove the redirect and create a new entry on Jack Tarrance with all these details. Someone could write a book about every person who was investigated by all the different law enforcement agencies -- that's not what this entry is about. Jimbonator (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Tarrance gains impact by being mentioned on the local news channel CBS 13. Announcements from the FBI can only add to this notoriety; silence from the FBI doesn't remove Tarrance from the local news. Binksternet (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
""And spare me the 'But DNA testing wouldn't be done unless they thought he was guilty' nonsense." I agree that particular statement is probably a bit nonsensical, as the FBI never says someone is guilty until they are convicted. However, the FBI has confirmed that they are in fact testing Tarrance's DNA, and have even sent agents to Bellingham, WA to retrieve his dentures for further DNA exemplars. Until the DNA tests eliminate him as a suspect (and I am assuming that they are testing for other DNA than his on the items, such as blood from the victims at Berryessa, etc) he may not be guilty, but the FBI is not going to spend the cost of DNA testing on a non-viable suspect. He is clearly, at the very least, what we in law enforcement would refer to as a "person of interest". If the DNA exemplars return positive or indicative results, then he becomes a suspect. THEN the investigation will really get rolling. If it comes back negative, Mr. Kaufman will be discredited and we can move along to the next possibility, such as the "Gyke" individual that you are developing (which I have to admit is intriguing, at least from the little I know about that individual).Themoodyblue (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That the FBI "sent agents to Bellingham" simply isn't true. At least as of 2004, the FBI had a representative office in Bellingham and most likely Kaufman's sibling dropped the material off there just as Kaufman did at the Sacramento office. Here's a link: . The FBI also has a field office in nearby Seattle and other places close by. No, it's not as dramatic as imagining men in black suits flying cross country at the speed of sound to collect important evidence. Rather, like with 99% of Kaufman's "case" against Tarrance, when you actually look closely at the details the case evaporates. Tom_Voigt 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tom. Tarrance is just like the case against Gyke. When you actually look closely at the details, the case evaporates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Once again -- and I'm beating a rigor mortis horse, but it's obviously not sinking in -- when you say "If it comes back negative, Mr. Kaufman will be discredited and we can move along to the next possibility" demonstrates you don't understand Wikipedia's purview. We're not here to move along to the next possibility. We're not here to report every tip every law enforcement agency receives on the Zodiac. (Do you realize the SFPD fields calls daily from Zodiac tipsters?) My feeling is, until the FBI announces "Jack Tarrance" and "Zodiac" in the same sentence, we don't have anything to report here, and if they report he's been eliminated as a suspect, then we're all set. Jimbonator (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(Unindented) I usually just lurk here for vandals but I've been watching the conversations going on since it got active. Just my opinion but I would say to keep it out until the FBI makes an announcement of involvement or not. Wikipedia is not Crystal ball so until that information is reported it should stay out as per WP:Notability. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

FBI and Tarrance

I've modified the opening to reflect the fact that the FBI has *not* announced when it will release the results of its tests: [1] (See the final sentence of the article.) This convinces me even more that the entire episode shouldn't be present here. When (and if!) the FBI announces its results, it may make sense to include Tarrance's story. As it stands, this splash-in-the-headlines is nothing more than one of thousands of leads law enforcement has followed, which is not the goal of this article. Jimbonator (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any information or update on the FBI Forensics testing? If not, does this continuing delay invalidate the mentioning of the entire situation in the larger article, or continue to justify its presence or even its expansion? Are they investigating the case against Tarrance, building a case against Kaufman for filing a false report/obstruction, etc? (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Clues I would like to see investigated further:

Zodiac -- relationship to Zodiac boats, i.e. the type used by the SEALs and brown water navy, swift boat and PCF/patrol boat units that were moved to Mare Island at the same time. the differential between Dec 1968 and the summer of 1969 indicates the killer may have gone on a deployment (i.e. viet nam?)

      • NOTE: JACK TARRANCE'S BIOLOGICAL SON, DENNIS TARRANCE, WAS DEPLOYED TO VIETNAM IN 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe the killer was left handed and possibly dyslexic.

Believe the killer was a Navy or USMC member possibly removed from duty or not selected to go overseas, trained but did not qualify, or was a "support" member not an operator, i.e. a "wannabe" with a grudge against his unit (needed to prove he was good enough). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets suppose

Lets just suppose there is a certain person promoting a website that makes money from advertising. This particular website discusses Zodiac theory. What if this person and a friend of his concocted this wild theory that they know who Zodiac is but they cant reveal his identity because they will get sued if they do. For two or three years this website gets bombarded with hits from people trying to find the identity of the elusive Mr. Z and all the while this team of hoaxters gets richer and richer. When asked for newpaper articles, names, addresses even the slightest of hints such as initials, NOTHING conclusive is revealed except for some vague clues about Mr. Z. Next thing you know everyone wants in on the game and claim they know who Mr. Z is but they cant tell you because He will sue. If this BS were true, anyone could go to their public library and reveal his identity anonymously. Once the popularity of the website dies off, I forsee a book deal. By then Mr. Z will be dead too. Wikipedia is advertising snake oil! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy on External Links

I added an external link that contained the 408-character cipher key and frequencies. The key and frequencies are fact and in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. None of the other footnotes/external links covered this information. I would like to understand for what factual reason it has been removed by whom, while at the same time the article tolerates links to highly speculative articles such as "Alphabet of the 340-Character Cipher" and even broken links such as those from Jake Wark. I feel that the Zodiac Cipher key provides additional factual value to the article and therefore will put it back. I hope and request that the next person intending removing it will bother to check the facts more carefully instead of arbitrary deletion. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What you added was a URL reference where there was already a fat and happy reference to the Graysmith book. Graysmith was perfectly capable of serving to anchor the fact that the Hardens of Salinas cracked the code on such and such a date. Nobody disputes this; it doesn't need a second reference. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Binksternet, for your prompt response. Possibly there is a misunderstanding that I would like to clarify - The link that I included referred to the 408-character cipher key and cipher frequencies, not to its solution. The key and frequencies are fact and can be recapitulated. I believe that they add value to article and reader, and I don’t see a duplication. In case you still are of the opinion that the reference that I gave doesn’t qualify, then I would like to understand why the reference to the so called "Alphabet of the 340-Character Cipher" does, although its conclusions are more than questionable, to put it mildly. Furthermore, there are plenty of other references to other sources in the footer of the article to topics that also have been covered by Greysmith one way or another. He wrote a book about the Zodiac Killer. So what? I do not think that Greysmith owns the right to every reference, particularly not since he has been erroneous or rash with various of his conclusions, including the cipher solution published in the article. I would be happy to contribute more to the article and topic and would appreciate your second consideration and further guidance. Very soon I will have much more exciting information to add. Thank you and best regards, Aldron —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Binksternet, since I didn't receive a negative response from your side I trust that matter is positively resolved and thta it is OK that I put the hyperlink back. Thank you and best regards, Aldron —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the link once again. I find that it does not mention the Hardens, so it could not possibly be used to support the selected sentence. It does not give encyclopedic content, either; it just has two tables of ciphers. Your case here appears to me to be one of a proponent of a webpage who is looking to find a place on Wikipedia where it can be inserted. I hold that, if this article needed that webpage, the place where it should go would be obvious. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

another person claims to know identity

New developments: If credible, maybe add to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

is this worth mentioning?? [2] (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No. There are tons of these claims, this woman simply caught the media's attention. To be neutral about this: If she comes forth with some kind of positive evidence validated by authorities, it's worth mentioning here. Otherwise, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Jimbonator (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It really depends on the longterm response to the claim. If a book by a mainstream publisher comes out about it, if it's still talked about years later, if the FBI sas there's something to it, or whatever. But these kind of claims in unsolved cases happen all the time. Local news coverage isn't enough to show notability. DreamGuy (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This story appears to be legitimate, and is being covered by MSNBC, Fox and CNN. These are all more than reliable sources, so I am not entirely sure why it isn't worth of mention. If it were only the San Francisco Chronicle, I could see leaving the information out. I would hope that these are reliable enough to validate wanting to add it. Thanks, Ono (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Just my thoughts on this. I read the different articles. The articles say that this woman has the glasses of the last victim yet the police say she hasn't turned them in yet, why? The story broke to the media before law enforcement was notified, how? There is a new documentary in the making, a connection to the story being released? Just because the story is in the news, is there any other citations from anywhere that states that this is true or not? I did read that it is being investigated as usual, like all the other claims made in the past. I think we should wait until there are sources stating that there is something to this story other than what the press is stating. It reads in the different articles like the media is feeding off each other. Maybe it can be added if the glasses are actually turned in to the authorities. My problem with this addition is that she says she has these glasses yet she hasn't produced them. Maybe I missed it where she did turn in any and all the evidence she says she has. I think it should wait till the agencies taking care of investigating this makes a firm statement about what is going on. Just my opinion, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. WP is not the news. If this turns into something (which it isn't now) then we can find something to write about.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like not only that the people who want to add it do not have consensus to do so but there's a consensus here to not add it at this time. Please respect that. If you'd like to add it, try to convince other people with reasons, don't just shove it in there. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say wikipedia desperately needs a list of Zodiac suspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Chronicle reports Deborah Perez's stepsister denies their father was the Zodiac, and UPI reports it as well. This is why WP is not news. Jimbonator (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FBI currently investigating suspect

Is there a reason why there is no information about the current investigation by the FBI?

This article makes it sound like a stagnant case with no action on it at the moment.

And there are more articles/videos about the FBI's current investigation.

To my knowledge Jack Tarrance is the only suspect (other than Arthur Lee Allen?) that has been investigated so extensively by the FBI. Seems like it should be mentioned on the wiki entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a thread just above about why this is not in the article. When or if there is something within a WP:RS we can then add it to the article. Hope this helps. --CrohnieGalTalk 19:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No Crohnie, not only does this not help, but you're not even talking about the same "suspect". Please read what I wrote. Jack Tarrance is the only suspect that the news is reporting as being actively investigated by the FBI. Since when are news sources not "RS" ? I'm not talking about one of the many other random people who have claimed to know the Zodiac, I'm talking about CBS13 ongoing coverage of the FBI investigation into Jack Tarrance as a Zodiac suspect. How is this not relevant to the wiki about Zodiac? Yes many people have made many claims, but I am unaware of any others that the news is reporting on as being actively investigated by the FBI. Are you? If Jack Tarrance is the only suspect that the FBI has investigated since Arthur Leigh Allen, who is mentioned on the page, why is this not mentioned?

A proposed solution to the Zodiac Phillips 66 Mt. Diablo Map Code.

This is a proposed solution to the Zodiac Phillips 66 Mt. Diablo Map Code.

I do not know if this meets wiki guidelines.

I think most visitors to this page would be interested in seeing this.

Akwilks (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Done I added it to the external link section. Thanks for sharing. Celestra (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it as it is copy written. Check the website again please, maybe I am misunderstanding the use of copywrite here. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am AK Wilks, the author of the essay and the one who suggested it be included here. There are many links to copyrighted material - a link is not a reproduction and is clearly fair use. If it matters, I AK Wilks, the copyright holder, hereby give permission to link to my essay. Akwilks (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the entry for rather obvious reasons. Tom_Voigt (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Why because it doesn't support your pet theory about Gaikowski? Could someone in charge at wiki just decide if this should be linked or not? Akwilks (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Akwilks (talkcontribs) 03:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I deleted it because I don't think Wiki wants every crackpot with a code solution to litter the article with links to an unverified "solution," of which there are hundreds if not thousands. Tom_Voigt (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I am content to let wiki decide that. I find it amusing that you are not content with erasing six months of postings about the possible Kaczynski link to Zodiac on your site, but feel compelled to go to other sites as and erase content as well. Wiki it is your call.Akwilks (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:ELNO, WP:COI. You can read at WP:EL what is acceptable and not acceptable for EL. I removed it again per the policies I mention. --CrohnieGalTalk 11:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I did, and I do not understand your reasons. Wiki guidelines say to link to copywritten material, as opposed to putting it in the article. The original determination by wiki editor Celestra should stand. You have not articulated a valid reason to delete it. And, ultimately, is it not better to err on the side of inclusion, if all rules are met, so that interested persons can access the information if they want to? But I will not add it myself, I leave that for you or another editor to do. Thank you. Akwilks (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not copyright, it's that the author is (to my knowledge) not a reputable expert in the field of cryptography and/or that the solution has not passed any sort of publication or expert review that would make it reliable. It appears the link was added by the essay's author himself, which is verboten according to WP:ELNO. Additionally, the author himself calls it a "proposed solution". Wikipedia is not about proposals, but authoritative content. Removing this is not erring on the side of inclusion -- it's following good policy. Jimbonator (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The first Zodiac code was solved by Don and Bettye Harden, a school teacher and his wife, who were not code experts. I still think most visitors would be interested in having access to this. But at this point in time, your explanation is reasonable and I accept it. Akwilks (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I dreaming or did you just compare yourself to Don Harden? First of all, Don had equal help from his wife, Bettye. Second...well...they actually SOLVED A CODE, not goofed around with potential anagrams gleaned from mathemagic at its worst. Tom_Voigt (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out a fact: That Don and Bettye Harden were not code experts. I accept the reasoning for not including it at this time. The matter was settled. Wiki is not the place to carry on private battles. Akwilks (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's also not a place for anagrams. Tom_Voigt (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Just FYI for both of you (and whomever else is editing this discussion page): (1) Wikipedia maintains a changelog of all edits, so we can all see who said what when, and what was deleted or revised. (2) Take this elsewhere. -- Jimbonator (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"Take this elsewhere" is a rather vague order. Nonetheless, I suggest you reword it, and also not attempt to be an authority figure when you most certainly are not. Tom_Voigt (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Here's some authority for you, Tom: [3] (item #4), [4], and [5]. Please read and absorb. Jimbonator (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
And somedbody needs to tell Voigt to stick to his own grim little world and stay off of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC) that you? Nonetheless, I shall be more than happy to do as I please under Wiki guidelines. Sorry, but you aint' the boss. Quit trying to manipulate this discussion area to suit your agenda. I am here to stay. Tom_Voigt (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh my, you are such an awful savage and tough guy, Tommy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, wasn't logged in. Tom_Voigt (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this bit of code work by Wilks is absolutely not appropriate to the article. It would be if it were picked up by news reporters or official investigators. Until then, it's no go. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about Donna Lass and the casino name

An editor has been doing a lot of article changes calling the casino Sahara Tahoe from the original name listed that was Lake Tahoe Horizon Casino. [6] Even the article that was titled 'Lake Tahoe Horizon Casino' has been redirected to this new name which appears to be coming from this external link which are bulletin boards. [7] I did a search of the original name and it is stated as Lake Tahoe Horrizon Casino. [8]. There appears to be more than one casino and I am wondering if all these changes are incorrectly being done in good faith. Comments please, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't find that this is necessarily a problem. It appears that there has been a major change in management and that often is accompanied by renaming. The article itself at least covers the management change. This is the link to the establishment. It's entirely possible not all websites have updated their pages yet. I'd say it's probably okay and reflects a very recent change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Small repetition of "the"

"The" is repeated in paragraph 3, "The case also remains open in the the city of Vallejo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsineau (talkcontribs) 12:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Green tickY Done. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Christopher J Farmer

Extremely thorough, and fairly compelling, breakdown of the ciphers by this intelligence analyst pointing to Zodiac theorist Gareth Penn as the killer. (talk) 07:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

inclusion of composite sketch

I have seen some photos of the composite sketch of the Zodiac Killer, as described by the surviving victims. I believe it is an important document, and should be included. Jessemv (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My Father may have been This Guy...

William Lee Hansen left his wife and son in WI and moved to CA. He married my mother in '65 and I was born in '66. He worked for Mare Island Naval Shipyard as a government employed civilian while living in Vallejo. Family secrets' left me unaware of his first wife and my half-brother until I was 20 yrs. old. He wound up on retirement-disability and in '75 we moved to WI. As a shipwright, he worked many different shifts and was gone, sometimes, all night. I have some of his appentice logs for '66, '67 and part of '68...but after that, he kept no record of hours at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

At least Deborah Perez came up with some fake glasses. You didn't even list one reason why he could be the Zodiac. Tom_Voigt (talk)

Adding a book

I would propose the followIng book be added:

Oswell, Douglas. The Unabomber and the Zodiac (2007). ISBN 978-0-6151-4569-3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akwilks (talkcontribs) 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:Please be bold and go ahead and add this to the article. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 19:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will, but someone removed it when I added it before. Akwilks (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Akwilks (talk · contribs) contributions to wikipedia under Special:Contributions/Akwilks and the multiple IP's, consist entirely of spamming and adding WP:BOOKSPAM related to Doug Oswell. Looking through those contributions as a whole, reveals they all are and Doug Oswell related only.
Akwilks, Please stop Source soliciting for and Doug Oswell related Book spam. You've been asked to stop, yet you continue. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Equaly Wikipedia is not a place to promote and Doug Oswell.--Hu12 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the updated information. I was not aware of this so I will keep an eye out too. Is the site black or white listed? If not, should it be? I have striken my comment above also. Thanks, and sorry I should of reviewed it more closely. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply CrohnieGal. If the spamming and promotion continues, blacklisting should be considered at that point. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. Sadly, all of Akwilks's 29 article talkpage contributions are Only about getting and Doug Oswell included in articles. Keep up the good work.--Hu12 (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is the book being excluded? This place is insane! What an arrogant little clique. Why do you want to keep out knowledge? I keep adding it as it meets all criteria - the vandal is the person who keeps removing it. Why is the book being removed? It meets all criteria. What is your grudge against me Hu12? Dedicated to protecting Ted Kaczynski, or just a bored person who wants to restrict information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akwilks (talkcontribs) 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the history. For YEARS there has been a book there by Doug Oswell and Michael Rusconi called "Dr. Zodiac" about the possible Kaczynski connection to Zodiac. That book is out dated and out of print. All I did was add the new version of that book - WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE ENTRY FOR YEARS - so the information would be timely and correct. Now, someone keeps taking it down, EVEN THOUGH IT MEETS ALL CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION. OK, I understand my wish to add what I think was a valid external link to a free, no advertising website has been rejected by the petty little dictators here. OK, fine, I have not and will not add any more links, or anything else. You have driven me away and restricted knowledge. Congrats, mission accomplished. But the book should be added. Goodbye. Akwilks (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a hunch this isn't really goodbye. :( Tom_Voigt (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Tom is the man who bans everyone who disagrees with him. You know Tom one of the great pleasures is going to be seeing you revealed as a fraud. It is coming very soon. Email me if you want the details. Otherwise wiki is not the place to carry on your battles with every body in the Z research world. So don't pollute this with your nonsense. You have your own website to do that. :) Akwilks (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here will go against the clique? Cowards. Look at the page history. The book was up here for years. All I did was add the new version. Hu12 or some other vandals keep removing it. Silly, petty politics by silly, petty people. Akwilks (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't really goodbye. And no, I won't be contacting you. Why would I? So you can claim the case will be officially closed soon and Kaczynski will be declared the Zodiac? Ummm...something tells me if that were the case, you'd have better things to do than haunt Wikipedia. But then again, you're the one who likes to play with anagrams. So who knows. Tom_Voigt (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Voigt (talkcontribs)

OK, I would enjoy telling you, but you csn read about it like everyone else. Don't worry, you can move on to Jack the Ripper. Or maybe just grow up and get a job. I wanted the wiki entry to be correct but they can update things themselves when it happens, I can't seem to break into their little clique. 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

You repeatedly Accusing other editors of "vandalism" .
  • " keep adding it as it meets all criteria - the vandal is the person who keeps removing it. " -comment added by Akwilks
  • "All I did was add the new version. Hu12 or some other vandals keep removing it." -comment added by Akwilks
Content disputes are not vandalism. Accusing other editors of vandalism is uncivil unless there is genuine vandalism, not a simple difference of opinion.
You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of "suppressing information", "censorship" or "denying facts".
  • "Dedicated to protecting Ted Kaczynski, or just a bored person who wants to restrict information?" -comment added by Akwilks
  • You have driven me away and restricted knowledge." -comment added by Akwilks
  • " This place is insane! What an arrogant little clique. Why do you want to keep out knowledge?" -comment added by Akwilks
This is prima facie evidence of your failure to assume good faith. Never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion.
You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.
  • "Why is the book being excluded?" -comment added by Akwilks
  • "Why is the book being removed? " -comment added by Akwilks
  • "But the book should be added. " -comment added by Akwilks
Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. Only once you have justified your edits beyond a reasonable doubt does the burden of proof shift to others.
"But the book has been there for years."
  • "For YEARS there has been a book there by Doug Oswell and Michael Rusconi called "Dr. Zodiac" " -comment added by Akwilks
  • "All I did was add the new version of that book - WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE ENTRY FOR YEARS " -comment added by Akwilks
  • "Look at the page history. The book was up here for years. -comment added by Akwilks
There are no binding decisions on Wikipedia, especially when the decision was never discussed on the talk page. Just because nobody noticed your spam a long time ago does not mean you now have a "right" to keep it in.
--Hu12 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the book years ago. The book meets the criteria for inclusion. Will you tell us why you remove it? You are an amazongly petty and vindictive person. How does it not meet the critieria for inclusion? It is a book about the Zodiac case, has been discussed and written about, was even on TV. So why remove it? By your vendetta you have given 100 times more space and publicity than if you had just left the mention up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What happened to goodbye? Regardless, claiming Doug's book was "on TV" is a lie, at least if you're referring to the "Unsolved Mysteries" episode from back in 1996 or so. Back then, Doug had a CD-ROM, not a book, and I don't recall it being shown even once during that episode. Tom_Voigt (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


I realize this is mere speculation and cannot be added to the article, but it [the article] mentions that the last eighteen letters of the cypher have not been solved. Now, one of the conclusions I came to after looking at it for a moment was, "BEFORE I MEET THE PITY". The mash of scrambled letters could, with a bit of imagination, resemble that. But then I took it like an anagram and discovered that, when reordering all of the letters, you could form the phrase: "I HOPE THE TIME BE RITE" Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vallejo Police tried to charge Allen?

The article is presently stating the "Vallejo Police Department tried to contact him to charge him with the murders." I believe that is wrong and, unless I'm somehow missing it, the listed source, doesn't state that. Also, should, a movie site, be considered a reliable source anyway? Its interview with the author of Zodiac is certainly not NPOV.

I had edited that the Vallejo Police had tried to charge Allen and also inserted details of the Michael Mageau identification of Allen but this was quickly deleted.TL36 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

regarding "He ... did not sexually assault his [victims]"

I reverted the un-sourced "He was one of the very few killers who did not sexually assault his prey". The poor wording logically implies that most killers sexually assault their victims which I believe is false. "Killers" would better be "serial killers" or "murderers". "Prey" is usually "victims". I don't find this point to be particularly noteworthy (I don't like lists of things the subject is not), but if someone were to re-add a similar statement, I would suggest something more direct, such as "He did not sexually assault his victims." There's no need to quantify or embellish it, especially without a source.-- EsotericRogue Talk 16:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

N/A is standard

I undid revision 347674283. Since it has more to do with the template rather than the article, I put my reasons at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Criminal_Biography/Serial_Killer_task_force#unapprehended-- EsotericRogue Talk 17:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

People's temple connection?

I remember reading or seeing some connection with People's Temple. Has anyone else heard or read anything sourced?? Skipdownthestreet (talk)skipdownthestreetSkipdownthestreet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC).

Steve Hodel's Case that G. Hodel Hill is the Zodiac

I added two paragraphs stating retired police detective S. Hodel's two books showing that his father was the Black Dahlia killer and his second book making a strong circumstantial case that he was the Zodiac also. Unfortunately, the case in the books are so strong it caused Crohnie to undo thinking it was an advertisement for the books.

Can someone more experienced with the right form please comment on my presentation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangmilnes (talkcontribs) 20:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's about as plausible as any of the other theories. Rodhullandemu 20:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
I personally think to my weight is given to this section with both books listed. The comments the police gave, it would seem that the second book was of interest to them, not the first. --CrohnieGalTalk 09:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


I removed a paragraph that was incorrect. It stated that the Zodiac case was reopened in 2007 because of Dennis Kaufman's theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Voigt (talkcontribs)

I have corrected the text to reflect that the FBI are currently investigating the evidence that Kaufman presented. Unsolved murders are always open cases...never closed. Whether they are "active" or "inactive" reflects whether resources are being expended on the case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm 99.9% sure that all the FBI have ever done directly (and not by a third-party claim) is acknowledge that Kauffman has submitted materials to them. So, in good faith I suggest that unless you can cite a specific FBI source, and not a third-party claim, you should be hesitant to post that the FBI is "currently investigating" the Kauffman "evidence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Voigt (talkcontribs) 06:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you seen the April 2010 "True Crime with Aphrodite Jones" on the Zodiac? She has gotten confirmation of the DNA tests continuing and also stated that they confirmed they were actively studying Tarrance's handwriting (I believe she said that the FBI told her they had a positive match but not ready to release a full report). She hired an independent handwriting expert to comment on the writing since the FBI wouldn't tell her anything.
Please note that I'm not trying to endorse this viewpoint but rather taking the disposition that the article needs some way to address Tarrance as a possible suspect. If he is omitted, people will only seek to add him back. I was hoping my wording was neutral and giving him little more than honorable mention as coverage.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The Aphrodite Jones show did not name an FBI source. All the show did was repeat the claims of Kaufman and company. Further, the FBI has already stated the handwriting comparison they performed was inconclusive. initially reported the handwriting results about a year ago. You can find the story at their website. That said, I'm not against Tarrance being listed here. We can verify the FBI did a handwriting comparison, so maybe the entry on Tarrance should be limited to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Voigt (talkcontribs) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
What wording would you suggest? I'm open to your idea.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
How about something like: "In 2009, CBS13, a Sacramento, Cal. TV station, reported that the FBI had recently compared Jack Tarrance's handwriting to the Zodiac's handwriting, and the results were inconclusive." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Voigt (talkcontribs) 20:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That works for me. Feel free to change it. Cheers
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 10:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the Zodiac in SOUTHERN Cali.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Date format

With the exception of military articles, the British date format doesn't belong on an article describing events that occurred in the United States; it would be like going to Jack the Ripper's page and changing the dates over there. (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Zodiac's Cross-Hair 'signature' & a question

The Zodiac's Cross-Hair 'signature', within Astrology/Astrological Charts, is also known as "the point of fortune" which signifies success, happiness, and luck for the person having their chart calculated -- i.e. the Zodiac himself. This is not my own personal, original research but mentioned in many books and online articles; to be clear.

Additionally, Zodiac emblazoned that symbol on the black, boxy hooded vest/poncho he wore in the Lake Berryessa (Hartnell/Shepard) attacks & murder, along with inscribing the felt pen autograph/brag/threat which left on the couple's car door. (That door would be a good photo for the article, if it could be used, IMHO). It is also used, IIRC, very often as a sigil (proper term?) in the coded letters and messages he mailed.

It seems he was extremely attached to the symbol. Noteworthy? This has always been quite significant to me. If it is to anyone else, feel free to add it in. I am not yet in any way comfortable with changing significantly any page at this time; add to that this cross-hair symbol was only mentioned within a photo/picture link makes me even more apprehensive to assay that information into this page.

On another topic; I'm wondering why the murder of Cheri Jo Bates is listed as "suspected"? The M.O. was the same, the writing ("poem") on the desk in the library was judged to be very similar if not identical to his handwriting and the letters sent to her father --including not only the same handwriting but the unique multiple stamps making overpostage-- were exactly the same as in his letters/cards to the S.F. newspapers and police. In my readings it seemed to me that there was no question this was found as the Zodiac's first recognized kill...

If this was already mentioned in this Talk Page I apologize for posting in a top post -- I did a page search and did not find either.

Cherchez la Femme (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

      • Addendum

I did a search through the Archives, not just the Talk Page which shows upon clicking, for 'point of fortune' and 'Cheri Jo Bates' and I found the 'poem' which was scrawled on the desk in the Riverside library ("Sick of living/unwilling to die") referenced <a href=""> here </a> (hmm, can't seem to even make a link here) possibly significant of R Hunter?

Cherchez la Femme (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dawley, 16 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Blue Rock Springs attack

Just before midnight on July 4, 1969, Darlene Ferrin and Michael Mageau drove into the Blue Rock Springs Park in Vallejo, four miles from the Lake Herman Road murder site, and parked. While the couple sat in Ferrin's car, a second car drove into the lot and parked alongside them, almost immediately driving away. Returning about 10 minutes later, this second car parked behind them. The driver of the second car then exited the vehicle, approaching the passenger side door of Ferrin's car, carrying a flashlight and a 9 mm Luger. The killer directed the flashlight into Mageau's and Ferrin's eyes before shooting at them, firing five times. Both victims were hit, several bullets passing through Mageau and into Ferrin. The killer walked away from the car but upon hearing Mageau's moaning, returned and shot each victim two more times before driving off.[1]

Dawley (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


There's been some recent ridiculous edit-warring concerning an external link to a website claiming to be useful here. I make no judgment on that, but this to-ing and fro-ing is unacceptable. Accordingly, I've protected this article to bring the parties here to discuss how this link satisfies our policy. Since registered accounts are edit-warring this link into the article, protection has to be full, but that does not absolve registered accounts from justifying their position. Over to you. Rodhullandemu 02:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for stepping in and helping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I wasn't one of those edit-warring but would like to know why the site in question is considered valid when others of its kind have been removed. Also, who is behind the site?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting most of Allen section

I am deleting most of the section under "Current status of Zodiac Killer investigations" which lists Graysmith's first book as its source because that publication has proven to be too unreliable for an encyclopedic article. The only part of this section that is believed to be correct by most investigators is that Allen did have a Zodiac brand watch. As far as "While Allen was in jail for a separate crime, all communication from the Zodiac stopped and quite awhile after Allen was released, they started again," none of the letters received in 1974 and afterward are now considered to have been from the actual Zodiac.

I am also rewording "following Mageau's identification, Allen died in 1992 before an arrest could take place." The Vallejo police were never about to arrest Allen. TL36 (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"none of the letters received in 1974 and afterward are now considered to have been from the actual Zodiac" is absolute nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Voigt (talkcontribs) 05:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tom, you have made two comments about something I've written, the first was "well said" and now "absolute nonsense." Are you as crazy as everyone says you are? Regardless, "none of the letters received in 1974 and afterward" is incorrect and I should have written, "none of the letters received after 1974."TL36 (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
What is your reliable source for the prevailing view you speak of? HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan
Other than the FBI documents on the case, the most reliable source on the internet I know is (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from SMA.Haseeb, 28 January 2011

{{edit protected}}

I actually thought of adding information to, rather than editing, the article. After going quite a bit into this case (out of Wikipedia), I found out that the contribution of Mr. Robert Graysmith and Mr.Dave Toschi was not at all given attention. I would like to request the administrators of this article to pay attention to this topic. I even found out that some evidence information was missing too. In the case of the killing of the cab driver near Presidio Heights, the killer left behind his bootprints which proved that he was a military man. These kind of shoes are generally used by soldiers to walk on the wings of the military planes. According to Robert Graysmith's amateur investigation, some code decrypting books were missing from the military library which further strengthened the point of the Zodiac being a military man. I wanted these — and the missing reports — to be viewed in the article publicly. I hope my request will be taken seriously.

SMA.Haseeb (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(From memory) AFAIK, the size 10 1/2 Wingwalker shoes is correct but doesn't prove that he was a military man. Those shoes were sold in 3 locations on the west coast- all in commissaries on military bases - Vandenberg AFB being one of those bases. This does not mean that the suspect was necessarily in the military or a vet but instead could have received those as a gift or alternatively, could be a family member of military personnel. The shoes were intended for aviation crews for both the Navy as well as the Air Force.
What code-decrypting books and what military library are you speaking about?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. If you want a change made per editprotect, supply the complete text that you want to have added to the article. Include references to justify any factual claims. Administrators will not write the prose for you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The bootprint of a 10 1/2 sized Wing Walker that was apparently left by the killer was done at the Lake Berryessa murder site in September and not in October at Presidio Heights. Hundreds of thousands of Wing Walkers were sold in the '50's and '60's.TL36 (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

John Lewison

Here's an item that I think is still too early and speculative to include, but might be worth keeping an eye on.

Gorner, Jeremy (April 16, 2011). "Chicago cop spends restless hours on trail of notorious Zodiac killer: Now he believes he has solved 40-year-old cryptogram". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 19, 2011. 

The story says, "And while he's not yet ready to go public with his solution, he believes he has found the bomb location as well as the killer's initials in that mind-bending stew of symbols. He plans to send it to the FBI, he said, but first wants to have it looked over by local cryptography experts." Based on the tentativeness and the lack of a published solution, it's not worth including yet, but might be worth looking into in a few months to see if anything's come of it. TJRC (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why he would go to the newspapers before having the FBI do a confirmation?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Confession? Is this what it appears to be? A confession by Gareth Penn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. It's a commentary mocking attempts to link him to various murders, including the Zodiac case, to which he has no connection. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar Error..?

Why, in te first section, does it say "The killer coined the name Zodiac for themselves..."; I think everyone agrees the Zodiac killer is a single person, and probably a man. It shouldn't say for themselves, it should say for himself.

And also, the pop culture section is very vague and limited.. Instead of saying that he inspired many movies an books and whatnot, perhaps there should be a list of these movies? (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the pronoun to himself. Pop culture sections are often problematic as they become places for trivia which is discouraged. That said, the pop culture section in this article has a hatnote to the related article, The Zodiac Killer in popular culture, where notable mentions are made.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Final Zodiac Letter"

Personally, and I welcome debate, I believe that the "Final letter" written by the Zodiac Killer was in fact not written by him, as are many of the speculated letters. He writes to make a claim for what he has done. The last letter has many issues with it, including the "Me = 37 SFPD = 0" That alone tells me he did not write the letter because he would not name himself and then later not use the name he himself had used every time before. further more, and I will post the link I have to the letter, but in every other letter that is written by him he does not use a "-" to bridge his word from line to line. This letter uses that however which is more reason that it is unlikely to be written by the actual Zodiak Killer. Something I think should be looked into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loyaleinherjar (talkcontribs) 06:56, 30 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Hello Loyaleinherjar, Has this been published in a reliable source? We do not engage in original research and only use what has been published. Also, if you do find a source I believe that our guideline on fringe theories would apply. Oh, you may want to use four tildes ~~~~ to sign your posts.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nanette Barto

Collapsed for brevity
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Under section 4, "Current status of investigations," in the second paragraph, the sentence, "[a]n associate of Kaufman's, Nanette Barto, received her Forensic Document Examining certificate through an online course," is misleading as to why the certificate may be less than credible; and, in the process, unduly and unnecessarily disparages the "online" distance learning modality. It is, in fact, not because her certificate was earned online, but, rather, because it was earned from an unaccredited educational entity which makes it of questionable credibility; and I would like to change the sentece to reflect that reality.

It is a misnomer -- an outmoded/outdated way of thinking from and older time when distance learning credentials were pejoratively referred to as "mail order," and advertised on matchbook covers and the sides of buses -- that "online" (or any other form or modality of distance) learning is inherently sub-standard. The common mistake of thinking badly of "online" learning is, in largest measure, on account of the fact that nearly every diploma/degree mill (fake school) is an "online" entity. The reason, of course, is that it's much easier for a fake school to build an impressive-looking web site than an impressive-looking physical campus.

However, even such august institutions of higher learning as Harvard and Yale (in the US), and/or Oxford and Cambridge (in the UK) now offer entire degrees entirely via distance learning; and in this day and age of the Internet, the modality of said distance learning tends to be largely of the "online" type. Nearly all fake schools are online; but not all online schools -- not by a longshot -- are fake. Legitimate "online" schools, therefore, sometimes get tainted in the eyes of those who don't know the difference... painted with the same awful brush as fake schools. Clearly, that is the misguided mindset of whomever worded the offending sentence as s/he did so that the mere mention of it being "online" will cast aspersions on it.

What might possibly make Ms Barto's certificate questionable (that is, assuming it even is inherently questionable) is not that it was earned online, but, rather, that it was earned from an entity which has no educational accreditation. Since the entity from which she earned her certificate is in the United states, it would have to be accredited by an agency approved (to accredit educational institutions) by the US Department of Education (USDE), and/or the USDE-sanctioned Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). In the US, only schools which are accredited by USDE- and/or CHEA-approved agencies may consider themselves "accredited," as the world of higher education universally understands that term.

While it is, of course, possible for an unaccredited school to be nevertheless credible, most unaccredited schools (unless they're brand new, and so have not been in business long enough to apply for accreditation, but are nevertheless operating in a credible manner worthy of same until they finally are) are usually not terribly credible, and often lack both rigor and financial soundness as their primary impediments. Even if they are in some manner objectively provably credible, their credits are usually not transferable to, nor are their degrees usually acceptable as requisite for entry into higher-level degree programs of, accredited schools. Unaccredited credentials are also usually not acceptable by government as requisite for professional licensure, or sometimes even basic employment. In some US states, in fact (such as Oregon, for example, just to name one of roughly a half dozen, at this writing), it is now even illegal -- can even, under the right circumstances, result in arrest -- to tout an unaccredited educational credential (certificate, diploma or degree) on resumes, CVs, business cards, letterhead, articles, advertising, job applications, etc.

Ms Barto's school, the "International School of Forensic Document Examination," located in Sherman Oaks, California, USA, is not accredited by any USDE- and/or CHEA-approved agency, as may be easily determined by its absence from either the USDE or CHEA databases. It is that factor, and not that she earned her certificate "online," which would be the proximate cause of any potential questionable credibility.

As it happens, in Ms Barto's case, as evidenced on her web site, her credential having been obtained from an unaccredited online entity has not stopped her from being approved as an expert witness in some more than 200 both civil and criminal cases in the Superior Court of California in several jurisdictions... no small fete, just generally, I want to make clear. Opposing counsel nearly always vigorously opposes the Court's approval of any "expert" witness; and so, believe me, if her credentials lacked inherent credibilty no judge would have approved her to give "expert" testimony on any subject. So, even though the online school from which Ms Barto got her certificate isn't accredited, it would at least appear to be nevertheless credible. Such is not unheard of, though: Persons in California may become such as, for example, licensed clinical social workers (LCSW), marriage and family therapists (MFT), and even psychologists after having obtained requisite degrees from unaccredited, but nevertheless state-approved (and, therefore, credible), schools. California is also one of a tiny handful of states which allow graduates of unaccredited, but nevertheless California Committee of Bar Examiners-approved law schools to sit for the Bar Exam, and to become licensed attorneys.

And, no, incidentally, I do not know Ms Barto, or anyone else associated with or mentioned in this article. I have no skin in this game... other than I have considerable expertise in the area of accredited higher education of the distance learning type, and I'm also a noted foe of degree/diploma mills; and so I simply want there to be no misinformation, or misunderstandings in terminology such as that caused by the way the sentence in the second paragraph of the 4th section is worded.

Therefore, I am, unless someone makes a compelling argument, here, to disabuse me of the notion, going to change the aforementioned sentence in the second paragraph of the fourth section to "[a]n associate of Kaufman's, Nanette Barto, received her Forensic Document Examining certificate through an unaccredited school." (boldness placed here simply to show the change; no boldness will be in the actual article)

Since the mere mention of the the school as "online" was, in this case, given the context, clearly intended to cast doubt upon its certificate's credibility, I'd also like to add "but nevertheless credible" behind the word "unaccredited" in the sentence, but I fear that that may be going too far. I hereby humbly request the opinion and guidance of others, here, regarding that matter. The truth is, I'm not sure that any qualification of Barto's certificate is really in order, here; but perhaps that's a good place to start the discussion.

At any rate, if there are no objections, I am now making the change.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 07:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talkcontribs)

ADDENDUM 1 of 3: When I went to make the change, and took a giant step back from not only the sentence in question, but the next two, as well, I realized that, for clarity, they should all be as follows: An associate of Kaufman's, Nanette Barto, who received her Forensic Document Examining certificate from an unaccredited school, claimed to have matched Jack Tarrance's handwriting to that of the Zodiac Killer. However, in 2010, the FBI's Head Document Examiner at Quantico deemed the handwriting "Inconclusive".

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 07:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talkcontribs)

ADDENDUM 2 of 3: I then clarified "Quantico" by linking it to the FBI Academy, where the forensic examiners are located.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 08:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM 3 of 3: You know, upon further consideration, it occurs to me that the original writer should never, in the first place, have editorialized by trying to cast aspersions on the certificate by mentioning that it's "online." Even though s/he didn't realize that it's not that it was "online," but, rather, that it was unaccredited which matters, the fact is that such editorializing is inappropriate in the first place... no? Opinions, anyone? Since the Courts have clearly recognized Ms Barto as an expert -- something not possible if her credential were not legitimate (despite its being unaccredited), and her other qualifications not in order -- shouldn't we simply be removing any mention of either "online" or "unaccredited;" and simply, instead, just show her as the expert whom Kaufman brought to the table to examine the handwriting, with which the FBI subsequently didn't necessarily agree? Wouldn't that, under the circumstances, really be more appropriate? Just askin'.

Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 08:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Age range in 2012 of the killer ?

What age range would the killer have if he lives today ? A pattern has shown most killers start young so it is possible that he is between 55-75

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC) 
Conservatively 60 to 80.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Realistically most people think he's dead. He was probably 40 to mid 50's in the 60's. He probably died twenty years ago. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Zodiac Killer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am starting a good article reassessment of this article because it has not kept up with GA standards since it was promoted, and has numerous tags that show this. Specifically:

  • First, tags:
    • Seven references with dead link tags. There may be more that aren't tagged.
    • Over a dozen citation needed tags scattered through the article.
  • In addition to the tagged areas, there are numerous spots, including entire sections, of unsourced material.
  • The lead needs to be expanded. WP:LEAD recommends four paragraphs for an article of this length.
  • The numerous short sections make the article really choppy to read. Many of these could easily be integrated with bridging material would make the prose flow more smoothly, rather than reading like a series of calendar entries.
  • What makes (used for numerous references) a reliable source?
  • Reference #26 (Rodelli, Mike) is an untagged dead link, and what makes it a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #32 ( a reliable source. The author is PI, but this does not make him an expert on serial killers.
  • Reference #49 (L.A. Times 1971 Zodiac letter) is a dead link (tagged), and what makes it a reliable source?
  • What makes ref #66 (Zodiac Killer's Daughter, Deborah Perez, Also JFK's Daughter) a reliable source?
  • I would think that more of the books in the Further reading section would be integrated as references, rather than using unreliable and semi-reliable sources like the ones listed above and others.
  • There are two books authored by Graysmith in the Further reading section, but I don't know which one of them is meant by all of the "Greysmith, p. xx" in-line references.
  • Popular culture section - one (unsourced) sentence does not constitute a section. This should either be expanded with a cross-section of the most notable pop culture references, or should be merged with another section.

These are the big problems I'm seeing on a first run-through. Please let me know if there are any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As nothing has been done to address the above concerns, I am now delisting the article from GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the delisting. You asked what makes a credible source? The website is a good source for documents about the case but not anything else because there's too much POV. For the first ten or so years of its existence, the website creator thought Arthur Leigh Allen was the Zodiac Killer and he disingenuously presented information to support that conclusion. He no longer believes Allen is the killer but he hasn't changed his previous distortions. The second book by Graysmith has been heavily discredited and I am removing it from the further reading section but his other book on Zodiac, the best seller, remains on the list.TL36 (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I worked heavily on this entry years ago and was proud back then to see it receive the GA status. It's disheartening to see the state of entry deteriorate so badly it has to be delisted. Dana, regarding some of your points:

  • is not entirely reliable, but when I used it for references, I tried to focus on links to first-hand and contemporaneous documentation, like police reports and news article clippings. I feel this documentation is the most reliable we have for this type of topic and is a major repository of it.
  • You suggest using books in Further Reading, but unfortunately with this subject most books are less reliable than contemporaneous accounts (again, like police reports and newspaper articles).
  • The Popular Culture split-out was as much a defense mechanism as anything. Years ago this entry was bombarded almost daily with people wanting to link their favorite heavy metal band, graphic novel, etc. as influenced by the Zodiac Killer, and many of the references were quite a stretch. In addition, at one point the list was nearly 50% of the article itself. Both points merited (in my mind) a separate page linked to from here. WP:IPCA seems to agree with my thinking, and although it cautions against splits, it seems to have worked well here, as doing so kept this (already lengthy) article focused and the IPCA has stayed relatively orderly as well. If the link to the IPCA article needs to be moved to merged somewhere, so be it, but I don't think anything is gained by attempting to merge some or all of the IPCA article into this one.
  • This article is also constantly bombarded by people who are convinced that the latest person to come forward with their "solution" has nailed it, and that has caused the "Current status of investigations" section to balloon with a lot of disproven cruft. -- Jimbonator (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

340 cipher solved?

This guy claims the killer is Arthur Leigh Allen and says he has cracked the 340 cipher. RainbowOfLight Talk 04:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I read this too, how is this not bigger news? AMac2002 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It may or may not materialize into something bigger. It really needs confirmation by some form of authority to garner recognition. It needs more adequate coverage in reliable sources to merit mention.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The original decryption of the first cypher was done by an amateur, too. This time the amateur code-breaker used the area codes of the victims to solve the 340 cypher. 340 turned out to be a confession by Allen in which he flatly says who he is by name & asks for the police to come arrest him. Guess the case's been solved. Updated the intro section to reflect this. Maybe we should revert that section that was deleted talking about Allen as the main suspect? I'd do this but I'd rather not run roughshod over the whole article. Opinions? (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The news story appears worthy of inclusion, but we cannot state as a matter of fact that Allen is the Zodiac killer; just that an amateur cryptologist claims to have decrypted a letter showing that Allen is the Zodiac killer, but that a cryptographer he sent the letter to dismisses this interpretation.
Additional source include a article and an International Business Times article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
More coverage in sources is good but it remains just a claim until such time that law enforcement or other authority accepts the claim as valid. Since we're not the news, I'd suggest waiting for more developments without having it in the article. At the moment, it is also a fringe theory....the case has not been solved until SFPD, FBI, or Vallejo PD, etc. declare that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone has done a lot of editing to remove the new Allen info. I realize that Allen as the killer may have been an unpopular theory in the past, but these edits were made within Wikipedia editing guidelines & included citations. If the current assertion is considered contested then citations from multiple sources can be included with a notation that law enforcement still considers the case open. Notably, the edit summary of the roll-back says: "Removed stuff about most recent decryption and "true identity" of Zodiac killer, the decryption has no validity, has not been corroborated and makes no sense to anyone with any knowledge of actual cryptography" I'm someone with knowledge of actual cryptography & I can say that the work actually does have validity. I'm sorry that this editor didn't like the information but that doesn't make the assertion less valid under Wikipedia guidelines. I'm re-inserting the information with a slightly smoother wording. If you want to change this back please discuss the matter rather than ignoring what the other editors had said about including the information in a different way & just reverting the article. (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have zero vested interest in who the Zodiac Killer is. The "decryption" has no validity. The way this person "decrypted" the text was just to wholesale replace it with whatever text he wanted. That was literally his entire "method." There is absolutely no reason to believe that the decryption is accurate and it has in fact been rejected by experts. The citations are simply that someone claimed he solved the case and provide absolutely no evidence that he actually did so. It is more than "contested" - there is literally no reason to believe that it is true other than the single person making the claim. And the online paper that printed his claim is one he contributes to! It's exactly equivalent to me claiming that I personally cracked the code and putting that in the wikipedia article. The absolute most you can say is that someone claims to have cracked it and his claims were rejected by a cryptography expert and everyone officially handling the case. This has nothing to do with me "liking the information", you seem to have some bias here and are implying that I do as well. My objection is with the fact that his decryption has no cryptographic basis and is a complete invention. You could literally make the text say anything using the exact same non-method he employed. Since you claim to have knowledge of cryptography I would love to see you try to explain his method and why wholesale replacing the text with text of his choosing is any more valid than replacing it with any other text. I in fact claim that I have decrypted it and that the killer is Snooki's Mom. If you are going to include every decryption merely because a single person claims it is accurate you should include that as well. (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep out per my comments above & per Doranchak. Wikipedia policy here is that we are not news. There have been many claims which have proven false concerning the Zodiac. When a claim comes along, we leave it out and give it time to see if it garners merit. This claim is unproven.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Corey Starliper's "crack" of the 340 is patent nonsense. There is certainly no reason to give it any more credence than any of the other numerous amateurs who think they've cracked the 340. His claim is both unsubstantiated and not very plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The 340 was not solved. The reporter that ran the story should have done some homework on the subject.There are numerous problems with his methods. For one thing there was no 340 area code in the virgin Islands at the time of the murders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Any new news?

Is there any new news about the Zodiac? --Joseph 12:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Zodiac Killer Caught

After the 4th murder of a man in a local park, the police officers were able to figure out the pattern of which the Zodiac Killer was using to kill his victims, It was found that after exactly 21 days after the last killing the next attack would occur. However, after the 4th murder, the killer disappeared, until 6 years later when a call came through that a man had shot his sister with a homemade zip gun, the suspected weapon used by the Zodiac Killer. When the killings begin a psychic was used to help solve the case, she predicted that the man was a Latino man by the name of Eddie, much to the argument of the witnesses that it was a black man. His finger prints were recovered and compared to that of those found on the letter 6 years prior. It was then confirmed the prints matched. The Zodiac Killer was indeed named Eddie and then confessed to the killings and sentenced to 236 years in prison. This is all true, if you still do not believe me look up Psychic Detectives and you will find this case. He has been caught, confessed and convicted. (````) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, this is all without references/sources and should not be taken seriously. Please also sign your "contribution" David J Johnson (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you think of Heriberto "Eddie" Seda. Didn't it occur to you that Seda looked a bit young to be involved in murders in the late 60s? In fact, Seda was born in 1967 and is just a copycat who murdered several people in the early 90s. (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Tarrance

From what I've heard, Dennis Kaufman had attempted to sell a piece of what he claimed to be Paul Stine's clothing to administrator Tom Voight for $50,000 rather than handing it to the proper authorities. To me, that's a real red flag. There are other calls slamming his legitimacy and whatever beef he has with his step-father. Among those, Nanette Barto being a fraudulent doc examiner and Kaufman lying in 2010 that the FBI would officially be closing the case and naming Tarrance the Zodiac. --Bladez636 (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of "Current status of investigations"

My edit was reverted with the note that consensus must be reached. So, let's discuss it. As Dana Boomer indicated above, there's a lot of problems with this entry, and in my view "Current status of investigations" is the worst of it. This page isn't to list every single development in the history of the Zodiac Killer; perhaps a "History of the Zodiac Killer" entry would be good for that. Since almost every one of the entries in this section have been discounted or gone undeveloped, some for years, I don't see how they are relevant to this article or a section which purports to be about "current status". What's more, books about "my father was the Zodiac" are not the kind of investigations that's intended by this section; it's intended to discuss where official investigations (i.e. law enforcement) stand. This is why I feel this section, which has atrophied to the point of being near-useless, should be wiped rather than be a post-it board for every single unsubstantiated personal theory. Jimbonator (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hypocrisy Abounds in the Zodiac Wiki World

Why does David Oranchak get protective status to promote his personal site on Wikipedia? Did you know that he has a Zodiac case "Wiki" which he locks down to his own biased and unsubstantiated views? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Solution to EBEORIETEMETHHPITI — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is pure speculation and I have reverted the wrongly placed contribution on the article page. Wikipedia requires reliable confirmed sources to include material within the Encyclopedia. David J Johnson (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The blog in question is of my own, I think, if it is to be published, should have its name changed to theory and no solution. I do not agree that is mere speculation

Marcleandro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcleandro (talkcontribs) 15:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We will have to agree to differ. It is still personal research, which Wikipedia does not accept. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Identity of the Zodiac Killer

The Zodiac Killer was born Lane Gareth Stewart in Millbrook Hampshire, UK. He currently resides in Fresno Stockton, CA.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to supply far more information than a simple paragraph accusing someone of the crimes. Wikipedia operates by using confirmed and reliable sources and not speculation. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Phjacobs is justified in his reverting of edits action of 5 Oct. 2014, however, it is FACTUALLY INACCURATE for anyone, including Phjacobs to state that Arthur Leigh Allen was "cleared via DNA evidence." It is NOT a fact that any DNA "evidence" collected is the DNA of the Zodiac Killer. DNA "evidence" has neither cleared nor implicated any suspect; and while Phjacobs provided no sources, please refrain from citing sensationalized television shows hosted by John Quiñones or others to allege substantiation of such false claims.-- (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC) Whilst agreeing with your post above, please do not use caps - this is considered shouting. Also your comments would be better directed to the relevant editors Talk pages, or in a separate para on this Talk page, certainly not under a old paragraph. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Paragraph on Guy Ward Hendrickson

"In 2009, Deborah Perez claimed that her father, Guy Ward Hendrickson, was the Zodiac.[63] However, Perez alleged previously that she was the illegitimate daughter of John F. Kennedy, so her claim that her father was the Zodiac has been viewed as unlikely.[64]"

I removed paragraph above for the following reasons:

  1. No reputable sources are cited listing that anyone other than Perez believes this to be true.
  2. Her equivalent claim to being the daughter of JFK is not documented in that article. (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Zodiac called KGO TV.

In the early 70's Jim Dunbar had at least two phone calls from someone who said they were the Zodiac killer. That was live on local TV in SF. No mention? it might have been a hoax..but still pretty strange and really did happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Not strange at all - many loonies called in to radio stations, police stations, etc., trying to claim the identity of this serial killer - they often come out of the woodwork on cases such as this. Unless a Reliable Source marks this incident as noteworthy, it's just another crank.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error


The following coordinate fixes are needed for (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ebola

Not done. There are seven sets of coordinates in the article, and you haven't specified which of them need correcting or what you think the correct location should be. All of them superficially correspond to the locations described in the article's text, so nothing is identifiable as prima facie wrong. If you still think that that any of the coordinates are incorrect, please repost your request, this time with a clear explanation. Deor (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitively Identified?

Forensic Files (an HLN show on US television) claims the Zodiac Killer has been definitively identified by DNA *and* fingerprint evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This is hardly a notable source and should be ignored until a confirmed source appears. David J Johnson (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The trouble with TV documentaries is that they (unlike WP) are not obligated to support their claims with reliable sources. The documentary in question probably used one or more of the books and films that named Arthur Leigh Allen as the Zodiac, all of which contained numerous factual errors, as well as theories, a code solution, and other claims that were equally dubious. If something definitive has been uncovered, as David said, we'll need reliable sourcing for it.DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this was a reference to the New York copycat Zodiac killer, who was identified. There is a Wikipedia page on him. The Forensic Files show on Sada is mentioned in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have raised concerns about a source which is being used in this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Editors are invited to participate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk page style

In what way was there no reason? I added the United States project, because that's where the crimes occurred, i collapsed the wikiproject banners as easier on the eyes and i removed the clutter of the archive box considering there is one up the top. yeah i messed up accidentally and changed the min threads from 2 to 0 but that doesn't mean it should be taken back to this uneasy on the eyes cluttered version. GuzzyG (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you "messed up". Could I respectfully remind you that it is better to leave a edit summary, rather than just blindly altering content without giving a reason. Then check the content of your edit. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Coordinate error


The following coordinate fixes are needed for

2607:FB90:2852:3FFA:ADBC:D1A9:57C4:1F63 (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there doesn't seem to be a request here. Shearonink (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence: reasons why.

I deleted this sentence from the article:

"In September of 2015, retired Detective Kimberly McGath released a book entitled Zodiac, Setting the Score, in which she reveals the killer's identity."

The reason I did is because after a few minutes of Googling, I discovered that Kimberly McGath has no significant profile or presence on the internet, and that the book was published with CreateSpace, and has received virtually no attention from the many, many active Zodiac web sites. (For what it's worth, her book has one review on Amazon, from someone with the same last name as the author.)

These facts lead me to conclude that this sentence is not only not a worthy addition to the article but was probably placed there to promote the book in some way, which appears to be one of the millions of self-published pieces that come and go every year without making an impact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I would agree. The curse of "Kindle." HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I have removed mention of that book in its entirety. No third-party sources; WP:UNDUE violation. Huon (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There is still no third-party coverage of that book. What we have here is a synthesis from unrelated sources that makes a point none of the sources make. I still don't see any indication that the book is notable enough to be mentioned in the article at all and thus will remove it again. There are also WP:BLP issues in that content. Huon (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What follows is a discussion from a few days ago on my talk page. I will, of course, abide by consensus -- but the consensus of our discussion was to leave it in, for the enumerated reasons. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Doc, I missed that you added that originally and I see that in the manner that it is currently treated, it gives about as much weight as it is due. I see now that the IP was trying to eradicate the conclusion of the of those, "you'll have to read the book to find out" kind of things. No surprise that the IP locates to the same region as the author. Another book claiming to have solved it. Great. I'm aware of this thread. Personally, I wouldn't consider it to be reliable but you are essentially saving others from wasting their money by having it in the article, right? :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: Bullseye. My sentiments exactly. The original "tease" (similar to the one you reverted) was added by that same IP, and removed by another editor. The book is priced at something like $35, which is outrageous, IMHO, particularly for what you get, which (as noted near the end of the thread you linked) isn't much. I thought it was worth 2 sentences to give it equal weight with the other suspects that have been proposed, based on similarly tenuous circumstantial evidence. Now, I see someone else has reverted it. I'm inclined to add it back, for both your reasons and mine, but I abhor edit warring -- what do you think? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Checkingfax should join us. :) He may see his way to self-reverting after reading this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Berean Hunter and DoctorJoeE, the blurb does not say where McGath was a Sheriff nor what qualifies her as a WP:RS or expert on Zodiac. As an aside my Dad had 4 years in the Korean conflict and spent from 1990 to 2000 deligently researching a based on true life novel that he self published with Xlibris. Xlibris (later Author Solutions) hosed him for $40K for publishing/promotion and sold about 4 copies per year. Later he jumped to CreateSpace where they just charged him $1.70 per printed paperback, with no minimum. Until McGath demonsrates some notability I do not think she or her book should be included. I do appreciate that the blurb includes a book plot spoiler. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Checkingfax She was a detective in Sarasota - I'll include that if you think it's necessary - and she's notable for her involvement in a cold case involving Richard Hickock and Perry Smith (the "In Cold Blood" guys) and a quadruple murder. (The DNA didn't match, but it was very old DNA.) Her theory is certainly no less notable than Hodel's, Kaufman's, Lafferty's, or Kenney's -- so if you're going to insist on keeping hers out, you're going to have to pull the other ones out too. As Berean Hunter said, my two sentences give it about as much weight as it is due - and saves our readers the book's ridiculous asking price. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Your points are valid, Checkingfax...I have to agree since I first raised them. :) However, I also understand the value in DoctorJoeE's edits and determined that may be the best way of handling the situation. No one is trying to use her work to change the factual content of the article...I think we would all disagree with that. She isn't an RS but by mentioning the book in a very brief way then it may be seen that we haven't omitted it in error but rather given it the very minor mention that it merits. I doubt that anyone will buy her book based on that just shows that, once again there is another book of wild theories to be thrown into the pile with the others. This may be worth taking to the talk page of the article to see what other editors think.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Berean Hunter, and Doc, go ahead and put McGath back but title her: former Sarasota, Florida Deputy Sheriff Kimberley McGath. Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for working with us. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not sure I see where the above addresses the lack of reliable third-party sources that discuss the book. Huon (talk) 22:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

My view is that the proposed re-insertion is of little value, as the book and author are not considered to be a WP:RS and the edits appear to be promotion. However, I have no objection to a reference to the book, so long as it is mentioned that there are no reliable sources. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed mention of the book and only mentioned Deputy McGath's theory. Checkingfax (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already made my case, above - and it's a minor issue, so I won't belabor it - but for the purpose of simply mentioning its existence, a book can serve as its own source, as it does, for example, in the case of the Hodel book in that same section. The entire last portion of the article is kind of a mess, and should probably be reorganized into a listing of notable/credible suspects, similar to the one in the D.B. Cooper article. It's on my list, but not near the top. So many articles, so little time... DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
By that logic we could mention every self-published book that mentions the case. How does that agrees with WP:UNDUE? If this is a significant theory worthy of mention, someone other than the proponent will have written about it. Huon (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
There appears to be only one vigorous objection to its inclusion; but by the same token there is minimal enthusiasm from anyone (including me) for retaining it. So I'm content to wait for some sort of third-party acknowledgement -- if, indeed, any ever materializes. I've put a WP:COI notice on the talk page of the book's author, so hopefully she will cease her attempts to re-add it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zodiac Killer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zodiac Killer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Letter written in Ogham alphabet?

In the article about George Hill Hodel (prime suspect in the Black Dahlia murder, possible Zodiac suspect?) it says The new investigation further linked George Hodel to the San Francisco Bay Area "Zodiac" murders, and presented hard evidence that Hodel was in fact, the writer of the legitimate 1970 Zodiac coded cipher mailed to the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper and turned over to SFPD. The solution and "cracking of the cipher" was performed by, M. Yves Person, a high-school teacher in Paris, France. George Hodel, using Ogham, an ancient Celtic "tree alphabet" signed his real name, H O D E L, placing it both as the return address on the envelope and as a signatory inside the card which read, "You Ache to Know My Name...I'll Clue you in..." GHH's secret code remained undeciphered for forty-five years. (1970-2015) Does anyone think this deserves some mention in the Zodiac article? --RThompson82 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I do see your point, but I feel too much of this material is still unconfirmed speculation. If, and when, further confirmation of these theories emerges than that would be the time to add to the Zodiac article. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zodiac Killer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory


Firstly, do not type any "contribution" in caps, it is considered shouting and is against Wikipedia conventions. Secondly, please sign any text you add to this page. Thirdly, do not engage in personal attacks on any editor and use the article Talk page, not a User's page, for comment. Your edits were removed because they are defamatory, trivia and not from reliable sources and if you continue edit warring you may find yourself blocked from editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

David, GQ is not an unreliable source. Get your facts straight. If you look at such things, you will see that it is a conspiracy theory that is of valid rapport. It isn't defamatory, or trivial. Don't you have better things to do than police the website? People change the AUS Economy money to dollarydoo and you complain about me? It is rather unfounded. Second, if my caps lock was stuck, I can't do anything about that now, can I? Stop undoing the edits I am making, they are valid. if you want to block me, fine, but I do protest your thoughts on this. - Komatsoulakis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komatsoulakis (talkcontribs) 13:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you have failed to sign your contributions - as requested. Your edits are defamatory and will be deleted. If you continue with this, you may find yourself blocked from editing. David J Johnson (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, you're wrong. I did put my name but screwed up the coding. Your edits to my edits are not based in fact, read SmallJim's response. You are making attacks on me based on your personal beliefs at this point, and it unprofessional that you are trying to suppress well-sourced and valid information. There's a reason I created the "Conspiracy Theories" chapter, because it is a valid conspiracy theory. What is wrong with it now? User:Komatsoulakis (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2016 (EET)

This is my final comment to you. Please stop making personal attacks, as also requested by other editors, on my motives or what pages I edit. I still feel that your edits are possibly defamatory. Also please stop making excuses about the numerous lack of signatures, or use of caps, on your contributions. If you wish to continue with the "conspiracy theories" regarding Ted Cruz, then I suggest you possibly use the Zodiac Killer in popular culture article and not the Zodiac Killer factual page. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ Graysmith, pp. 26–28.