User talk:Kieronoldham/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kieronoldham. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kieronoldham. You have new messages at DoctorJoeE's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


It's a firsthand account, and a weird thing to make up. And Gacy certainly isn't talking! Quaife, who relayed the 1965 incident, was not known for a life of excess (left the band three years later), or mental illness, and it's a weird story for a private citizen who is not actively seeking publicity to make up. I can scan the magazine page and privately message it to you. Quaife jokes about Gacy being homicidal in the 1960s when this happened, which he was probably not; he was just a gay, closeted alcoholic.

Or, turning this around, if it's not true, Quaife could only have been a lying 60-year old Gacy fanatic playing on a coincidence and did legwork to determine that The Kinks and Gacy were in the same city on the same date where they just happened to play a show 41 years before. ("Where were we on June 23, 1965? Springfield, Illinois. Who else was there that day? Hmm. I got it, John Wayne Gacy!" As I said, very weird thing to make up.) My email (which I will come back and edit out): ******@********.com. PM me and I will get this to you. Also you can google the city, the band, and the date, and it shows that the Jaycees did hold a Kinks concert in Springfield on June 23, 1965, but that author of the piece found in Google Books speculates that Gacy had no direct contact with the band. Quaife says, though, that he was physically present and that they did meet and spend time together. My guess is that the Google Books piece is older or that the author missed this source. Swinterich (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I do apologize if my initial replies were terse: I blame the lack of available word spacing. ;) I never doubted your integrity here; I simply doubted the reliability of the source and the author, from what you wrote, removes Quaife's credibility. What you wrote certainly makes an interesting read, I'll admit that. However, a music fanzine is, as I say, hardly the most trustworthy source. Quaife has to be taken by his word about what he speculates happened after the gig, it seems. Regardless, I also doubt this would have been too 'out of the blue' for Mod stars to have people attempting to inebriate them after a gig.

In any case, we shall see what other editors decide. Lets give it, say, a week and see what the majority think? :) As you know I personally think it is backing a reliable source (the mouth of a bass player relaying his experiences 30-something years after the incident in a music fanzine is not reliable regardless of his shying from publicity attitude). The Kinks (incidentally a band I like although not my favorite) are hardly an obscure band and there must me more than one way of verifying this account via a reliable source (which we can all see on the web)? If you can place The Kinks in Springfield as you say and at that high school via another source, print it here. In all the books I have on this guy I have never read anything about this incident. It does fit chronologically well between his 1st homosexual experience and his beginning to offend, though. Most importantly it has to be proven that on the date in question Gacy hosted that gig and took them home. The fact they left and nothing happened leaves me feeling that it is not worthy of inclusion. Also, the fact the author speculates Gacy had no contact with the band members would at best, I suspect, throw into disrepute the inclusion. We would need a source which will meet consensus to get something worthy of inclusion in the article although perhaps not as extensively as you wrote. What COULD be included by your reference(s) with little or no objection would be a minor inclusion of 1 or 2 sentences regarding Jacyee clout somewhere in the article with a reference i.e. something like they are known to have hired entertainers such as The Kinks at venues they held? Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Wayne Gacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikitable on Whitman

Actually, I like the table better, because it allows the reader to have a line of division for the reader, plus it keeps the information tight and without a split left and right column. I was going to do the same for the injured with a collapsible table, since for some reason in the past the list was removed. I'll revert for now, and let's see if others have opinions one way or the other. We also need to discuss SWAT. Whitman was not the impetus for SWAT (read Daryl Gates and John Nelson. SWAT was created from the Watts Riots and the mention of snipers refer to multiple snipers who were firing from buildings in the LA area. Yes, Whitman's actions were undoubtably known, but SWAT had already been invisioned, prior to Whitman.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As an after thought, since you mentioned "in the middle", do you think the victim list should be at the bottom of the article? The narrative in the article mentions the individuals anyways.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I do believe the table stands uncomfortably in the middle of the article; however I think that-as you indicted-a consensus is more appropriate than either my or your viewpoint here. If two columns for the initial table is uncomfortable I'd be more than happy to see it adjusted to one. If you'd like to take this to the actual discussion page on the article, I'll be happy to take it from there. Personally I think that chronologically the positioning of the table is correct considering the overall structure of the article. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
See what I've done to this point. I understand your argument about the table being chronologically correct prior to the edits, but look at it now, and remember, the narratives in the article basically make the previous table redundant. This way, the reader gets to recap the narrative, with a table of the victims and descriptions. Cordially, (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, time to leave again. Ylee reverted a few of my edits and I had hoped to have the whole correction and balance of the article before that happened. Spent two hours working on the wikichart for the wounded victims and was getting ready to upload photos of all the victims, when the same old issues from the past resurfaced. In leaving...again, Whitman was only court martialed for conveying a threat to a fellow Marine (his fists), and usuary for the loans, he ws not court-martialed for the gun or gambling, I have the summary from the court martial, so I do not care who the source is that claims otherwise. He also put Griffiths photo back on and I was going to upload the well defined photo, which makes her look more tragic than the washed out photo on there now. Oh well, I had hoped things had changed and became more relaxed, the talk page says otherwise. Good luck!2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Apologies for the delay in my response. Your edits and commitment to the betterment of the article are impressive. I myself made many expansive edits to this article approx. 6 months ago and have watched the page since this date.
1. Paul Sonntag (18) – Aug 1, 1966
2. Karen Griffith (17) – Aug 8, 1966

I still stand by my opinion that the initial layout of the fatalities looks better as a table format looks almost intrusive to me. That said, the placing of the table where it is now makes it look slightly less uncomfortable in its current format. Maybe the title 'background' can be changed to 'notes' or 'circumstances of murder'? Maybe the removal of the repetition of 'background' and an insertion of this type of info. table in the article would be apt? (Background color in actual usage on the page would be white as per the actual article.)

I have noted the tensions between users on the talk page and that alone is why, at present, I myself have no desire to place my request for consensus one way or the other on the talk page. As for your desires to expand the article then maybe you can use the sandbox to create what you want to see re: the wounded and paste it to the article should it be reverted or not meet consensus? It is stored in old revisions then.

Best regards and keep up the good work--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed the heading to manner of death; because most of them have errors against the official records. As to changing the date for Griffith, she was kept alive by artificial means and never had consciousness after the operation to remove her right lung and the surgeons also had to remove a large portion of her left lung. For practical reasons, she was taken off the ventilator and stopped breathing almost immediately. The note on her line explains enough. There may be a way to change the color, however, I'm not aware of the color code to put in, and even then, it may have a slight cast or off color to the actual page. Be my guest if you can. Good job on the revert, it was Wyatt not Wyatt's, I ate there a few times, however, Luby's did have a better selection that was more diversified from the old style of Texas country cooking (that is not a bad thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just updated the table to how I think it would better look and, for that matter, be placed. Being divided into sections as to the sequence of events and placing brief descriptions as to circumstances/manner of death it removes the need for a second column. Hope it meets approval. I'm sure it will either be reverted or, at least, adjusted. Of course I'd welcome being proven wrong there...

As for the details regarding Griffith and Gunby, I think a brief chapter relating to both in the 'aftermath' section would be apt? It would also remove the prv. 'later deaths' section which sat below the previous table as well as add opportunity to explain circumstances of their deaths.

Should you wish to reinsert any info./update any details or even suggest an alternate table, feel free as unlike a few contributors you seem amicable in addition to knowledgeable; as was another user I chatted with regarding this article last year. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)l

Kier, don't take this personal, but I do not like the change, however, I am not going to change it. The reasons I do not like it are the inclusion of Gunby in the table, which is highly controversial, and has numerous arguments against it. Also, sans the references, it is wrapped by the mistaken claim that Whitman was the impetus for SWAT. SWAT was not created due to Whitman's actions - read Daryl Gates and John Nelson, the LAPD officers who created SWAT, there is no mention of Whitman in any of their writings, and the concept preceeded Whitman. At this time I am re-divorcing myself from Wikipedia, except for birthdates and only as a passive researcher with no interest in editing. I wish you well.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
No worries. I respect your opinions and can see why the inclusion is uncomfortable given the inclusion. The table I constructed was done so with Gunby included in the hope we could all 'take development from there' although the talk page would have been an ideal initial step for consensus although you know why I'm refraining from going there at the present. I respect your opinions and would welcome working with you to improve this article further. As a matter of fact I believe you may be the same individual who gave me some good advice and polite discussion on this topic 6 months ago...

I do hope you choose to remain on here, at least until your mentioned issues are resolved. I believe a subchapter in the 'Aftermath' section regarding Gunby and the disputing his being classified a homicide victim regarding his choosing to end dialysis would be more than appropriate?

As for the controversy regarding the SWAT Team formation I have never been happy with this claim, but as I am no expert on the matter and have never looked beyond the mention in Texas Montly(?) as the source of the claim I have never even tried to remove this from the article although I've never read this claim anywhere else.

Best regards whether you choose to remain on Wiki. or otherwise. K.D.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the prv. reference no longer in the article, one can still find them in the revision history of the article.

I know the reference source from Texas Monthly, Pamela Colloff, she wanted a comprehensive interview with McCoy in 2006; McCoy and I discussed it and wanted to protect our copyright issues through their disclosure that they could sell the information to anyone for any reason. They declined and I left it up to McCoy if he wanted to or not. He put a stipulation out that Texas Monthly would not go along with, and declined. I got the blame for it through the media and McCoy's family, who thought the interview should have been done. McCoy did not tell them he declined the interview. He's dead now, and I can't verify that, however, it is true. Yes, that was me about 6 months ago. The difference between me and the editors who have issues with me, is that I have the records and interviews with many people who were directly affected and effected by the event. However, WP rules excludes my knowledge as original research - yet, a writer who knows nothing about the event except from erroneous articles from publications that are not professional researchers, are considered reliable and credible, I am regarded as an interloper and disruptive. I suspect this will not change any time soon.2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC) (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my reply. I did intend to reply to you this week.

I fully understand how frustrating arguments with other editors can be on here and it seems that, to a degree, your hands are tied regarding rules and I sense understandable frustration here. Of course, the only way around this would be verifiable links to a webpage or book and even then there would probably be disputes by some. This issue of ownership (or a sense thereof) within articles is an unavoidable pitfall with Wikipedia...

I of course very much trust your integrity and respect your desire to rectify errors and remove information backed by less than reputable sources. If you wish I will remove the death of Gunby to a subchapter as prv. indicated and add it as a subsection within the Aftermath chapter? I can see how other editors react to this.

Your focus-or part of your focus-is now upon An All American Boy? I'm intrigued and wish you the best of luck with this and hope you maximize publicity for funding via all avenues - I 'm sure you are. With your permission I will advertise this project via true crime forums upon which I am a member.Come Friday I intend to contribute. In the meantime I'll share the page. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your summation and insight is correct, I appreciate that. By all means, please share the link to the project, and thank you in advance for any contribution. Of course, if you know someone with $1.5 million USD projected costs, we can end this campaign with their submission, and end all of the anxiety of seeing it through the ending date! LOL!!! Thanks again for any support. John2001:558:6007:27:7992:7DA3:D702:EE6A (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed you keep using Lavergne as an attempt to chronically list the victims. After Eckman, Lavergne is just guessing. I discovered this in the WP rules - "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."

In other words - WP is BS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6007:27:40F2:B304:8911:6110 (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration here. Although I did expand the article last year and used Lavergne's online info. here, it does chime in with another extensive, detailed account within a book I have on the subject: Mass Murderers (ISBN 0-7835-0004-1) which I have also used although I opted for the Lavergne article as people can view it automatically to verify the content. Although I'll add that other users have changed the structure ("Whitman then began to fire upon people walking on Guadalupe Street" etc.) since that date.

Given the nature of the shootings, I don't think anyone will ever know precisely who fell and in what order after Eckman and Wilson were shot. It is not like other mass murders such as the one committed by Michael Ryan over here in the U.K. where he is known to have followed a particular route and who fell where upon that route. It is a grey area which is unavoidable and which must be filled somehow by anybody writing or talking about the subject. If you like, perhaps a few sentences to the effect of "although the exact order in which Whitman selected his victims is unknown"/"Whitman then likely targeted people to the west side of the tower" or suchlike may meet consensus if you propose something on the talk page? I would support a degree of inclusion :) --Kieronoldham (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Kieronoldham; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for keeping a watchful eye on the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing article. Alatari (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Bonin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gunpoint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde caption

Hi. Thanks for your note about the caption you edited at Bonnie and Clyde. Yeah, it might be a tad sensationalist, but it's hardly Marvel Comics grade. The fact is, the six men on the posse were temporarily deafened for the rest of the day from shooting off all that firepower (in fact people for miles around mistook the roar of the guns for loggers using dynamite to fell trees, a hotly disputed technique at the time). More importantly, though, was that your rewrite committed the cardinal sin of caption writing — the self-evident caption. When you state the obvious — Detectives examine the car — you're insulting the reader, who's thinking, "Do I need you to tell me what I can see with my own eyes?" The extreme version of this would be "John and Mary pose for the camera." Since captions are the first-read — and the most-read — item on a page, they must be provocative enough to engage the reader's interest; "Fred and Ginger trip the light fantastic" just won't do.

If you think the tone is too Ringling Brothers (which I don't) and want to soften it, well, give that a shot I guess. But please don't remove the intrigue of the temporary deafness and replace it with something totally self-evident. Regards, (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Many articles of this nature have captions like the one I attempted to add and it doesn't take long to find them. Moreover, it is mentioned in the article (same chapter) that the posse were temporarily deafened: that was why I thought the caption needed changing as it is a repetition of what the article unequivocally describes. If any caption insults an editor/reader as to what they can see with their own eyes on this article, then it has to be the one with Bonnie Parker with the cigar in her mouth. In any case I do think the text needs altering, in addition to multiple duplicate links (Blanche, Dillinger etc.) removing, but I will leave that up to the next Wikipedia editor. Best regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I toned down "our" caption while keeping the temporary deafness. See what you think. (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems a lot better. I genuinely apologize if I sounded somewhat terse earlier - not least with the inaccurate Marvel comic comparison. Sometimes two people with sincere intentions can create slight friction over minor disagreements. I respect your points regarding captions being the first-read and holding the reader's attention and looking back my edit was a little too in depth.

The article is well-written and I assume you have played a part in its structure and maintenance. Good job! My only observation as to improvement now would be that it does need multiple duplicate links removing. Best regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I also fixed the "cigar photo" caption you didn't like. The point here is that the photo defined Parker's image for the next 35 years — check out the poster from "The Bonnie Parker Story" near the end of the article! (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Randy Steven Kraft may have broken the syntax by modifying 5 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lviv, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


I think his clear interest in blood is enough for inclusion in the category. The fact that he "often" tasted the blood of his victims indicates that he shares the pathology of other murderers who consumed it. He belongs in the category as he is relevant to in terms of criminology. Asarelah (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Not in my opinion he doesn't. Someone like Richard Trenton Chase does fit that criteria given his intentionally consuming styrofoam cups of blood of his victims; Chikatilo (whom you said was a drinker" of blood initially) does not really in my opinion as it's a loose aspect. Would Dahmer be an exhibitionist as he wanted to create a private altar of victims' bodies? I'm tempted to revert but hey I have always been largely guilty of neglecting categories despite efforts to improve and populate true crime articles incl. this one. In any case, it seems you're committed to improvement so I'll leave it there. Regards. :) --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)