User talk:Kieronoldham/Archive 3

Disambiguation link notification for October 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 Vice versa (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) 01:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Whitman article

Very well. Although you seem to be somewhat educated for a supposed IP user, pal. That alone makes me question whether you are actually an IP user. Nonetheless, Wikipedia strives to be open and friendly and I would like to abide by this.--

I was surprized to see the above comment. If it refers to my use of the term "mate", I meant that in a friendly manner and used it only once. I like English people, myself being tied to the region through many generations. How can I not be an IP user, and what can I do to prove it, other than that is what shows up? I am also a little more than somewhat (sic) educated, as I hope you are. I hope you are sincere in carrying on in a friendly manner. That was my intention all along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It was not meant in any abrasive term. ;) I wrote this because your IP address seemed to suddenly appear on Wikipedia with your edits to the Whitman article and you seem to be a veteran as per your seemingly extensive knowledge of Wikipedia usage and in the 4 years I have been active upon Wikipedia I have almost never encountered any individual who will bother to learn Wikipedia policies etc. while continuing to expose their IP address. As for my usage of the term "pal" if you lived over in the section of England in which I do it is never taken in any offensive way.

As for the Whitman article I stand by my comments in my initial reply although I do acknowledge what you wrote, and I'll reply in depth there tomorrow.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

Very good. Your insights are sound and correct. Nothing more to report on that except that experience can be a great teacher. If I may expand on the Texas Sniper disambiguation link, it may have been an unintended consequence of the party who titled it as such. There is an article on Charles Whitman who was a political figure with their own Charles Whitman page. If this article were named Charles Joseph Whitman, the redirect would not be needed. Just a FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have left my own regarding Whitman on the talk page. It is good that we can both converse informally and also discuss the improvement of an article constructively. I was slightly offended by the accusation regaining "owning" an article and have mentioned this briefly within my reply upon the Whitman talk page, but generally speaking I suppose that is in the past. I hope you don't take any offense as that is not my intention.

PS The more I read your words, including your rationale regarding the removal of the "later became known as" insertion in the lede, the more I realise you are not "somewhat" educated at all... ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not like to make assumptions, can you clarify the "you are not "somewhat" educated at all... comment". It may have a cross Atlantic intention that I am not aware of. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I meant you seem highly intelligent as opposed to somewhat intelligent.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't really looking for a compliment, but thank you, I can return the compliment to you as well. Here is my curriculum vitae - http://universityoftexastowertragedy.com/ - I noticed on your profile page you are a true crime fan, I am not promoting the eBook here. The eBook covers all of the Whitman files and I have a section with a warning that contained within, are the death photos of all the victims who lost their lives during the tragedy. If I may offer a few words of warning (mainly due to your chronological postings of the event through the book "A Sniper In The Tower"), Gary Lavergne is a good writer, but poor researcher. I have had exchanges with Lavergne over his appearance in his book as being an apologist for the University of Texas. Lavergne also omits critical information in his book that favors the University, where the University was wrong and culpable. He also dismisses the tumor. To my chronological point, some victims can obviously be followed to a certain point, after that, there is no way to tell which victim became next. Also, Lana Phillips, who I interviewed, mentions nothing about her sister, let alone that she drug her from in front of the theater to a store on the drag that was under fire by Whitman; in fact, she mentions other issues about the University's Health Center, as she worked there part time among other jobs. Of all the people I interviewed, except for McCoy and Martinez, no one mentions having been interviewed by Lavergne - he relied on the public records, and the same files I publish in my eBook, which contain errors, and were released in the public domain after I did a few interviews and the photos shown on Fox news in Austin (the first video on my website). Lavergne also mentions that the tower tragedy was the worst mass murder in American History at that time, Andrew Kehoe would have been a good source to verify before making that statement, the info was there at the time of his research. I doubt the University would have hired Lavergne, if he did not omit certain information. They would never hire me, so I am not vested in protecting the University. Having said all this, I have no interest in editing on Wikipedia anymore, for obvious reasons. I wish you well with all your endeavors. Cheers! (I took license with that one, not to offend. lol!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It is indeed interesting to read; not least considering who you actually are from what you describe as 'my curriculum vitae' . I know it is not your intention to do so in contacting me, but I do feel almost humbled. I am normally wary of purchasing items online, but when I am next paid at the end of this month, I will more than likely purchase this eBook...

I agree that one can only trust both books and newspapers to a degree, but there are a limited number of sources consensus would deem reliable upon the web for articles like this: that is why I have used Lavergne's A Sniper in the Tower in several instances upon the article. I agree he is a good writer. When I purchase the ebook, I will have more of an insight into his research...

As for true crime: Yes, I have been intrigued by this subject since I was a teenager. I have always felt that sharing my interest in this subject (among others) upon Wikipedia, for the benefit of other individuals, makes good use of free time I choose to devote to this. Another example of an article I have spent extensive time researching and populating can be found here. One of the references I and others have used upon this article is a book named 'The Man with the Candy' in which the author, much like what you wrote regarding Lavergne (which I will learm more about), relies on public records to a large degree to actually populate his book as opposed to interviewing those affected. (I discovered this when researching the newspaper archives for this article.)

It is unlikely we will continue to chat, but may I both offer my best wishes to you for the future and thank you for both sharing this info. with myself. You have given me a few appreciated pieces of advice referring to improving the ledes upon articles such as this. All the best, and cheers to you too. Kieron. S. --Kieronoldham (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with Corll. Serial killers were also, initially, a part of my studies, but research led me to impasses that could not be resolved, i.e., Henry Lee Lucas, Ted Bundy and others, who once caught, lie and lie about their innocense, or change their motives often. They are generally serial liars as well as killers. Mass Murderer's are generally more focused and leave clues to their motives, whether perceived or real. They also give more insight as to the social ills they believe brought them to their deeds. Though more of a sign of mental instability, and maladaptive living, at least their issues may lead to a concrete discovery of how to prevent such tragedy's. Serial killers are much more elusive, because that is what society has been to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.128.19 (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randy Steven Kraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pacific Coast Highway (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) 11:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

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.