User talk:Kieronoldham/Archive 5

John Wayne Gacy

Hi! The thing is, in a large article the link may be further up and a person may not know that an article exists on that subject. Usually IMO it's better to link to something once per section, so that even if a person starts in the middle of the article the subject will still be linked WhisperToMe (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I read Wikipedia:REPEATLINK#What_generally_should_not_be_linked and it states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." - Instead I had been following the idea of linking once per section. Perhaps I can bring it up at the talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • It has always been a pet peeve of mine, noting multiple links in the actual text of articles. I do appreciate your commitment is for the betterment of the article and understand the potential benefit to the reader of inserting links later down the article. One of your links added occurred a total of 3 times in the text after you added them - two of which were quite close to each other. I do try to follow those guidelines noted in your message myself and exclude insertions of links in image captions etc. already used once in the actual text from any I remove. If consensus is reached then their being reinserted is fine by me, but, my worry is then we will gradually over time see a multitude of links added to the article and it will also eventually become inundated with repeat links like this article I chose at random currently is.

PS Sorry if I sounded abrupt in my reverting - I have spent a lot of time building this article up to where it is now. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Dahmer

Dahmer's most significant diagnosis was the borderline personality disorder, which virtually all that evaluated him diagnosed him as such. I disagree with Palermo because I believe, like Dr. Samuel Friedman and Dr. Dietz, that Dahmer killed for company. He wanted companionship and was desperate. DendroNaja (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with Palermo, too - I added that fact re: Judge Gram because it was unusual for the judge to offer his own opinion upon sentencing. Some aspects of Dahmer's life from the late 80s onwards hark to his acceptance of his sexuality even if belated. As for Judge Gram; he also sustained objections regarding the jury to consider disorders and the ability of self-control.

What about the trial section, then? Much of the pathology is discussed at the trial (obv.) and repetition of facts should be avoided. Regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the pathology section should remain. It's purpose is to clearly state what mental illnesses Dahmer was afflicted with. The big one is obviously the borderline personality disorder, the diagnosis which he received over and over again. I think the trial section should focus more on the sane vs insane debacle. I know it was somewhat covered in the pathology section but it should go into much greater detail in the trial section. The pathology section should focus on his mental illnesses and the trial on the trial. --DendroNaja (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely I agree it should remain - I appreciate your time, effort and dedication. I hope others will so, too. Maybe slight reduction/morphing will be required when the trial section is expanded to briefly touch on the personality contention, but nothing major. I do think myself the section should be placed immediately below the trial section as it is intertwined with what was so fiercely debated by opposing counsels at the trial. What do you think? In any case, consensus will govern. Thanks again.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I agree that the pathology section should be placed right below the trial section. The only thing that was so fiercely debated was whether or not he was legally insane or not. The defense experts stuck to the he's a "necrophile" mantra, when in fact he was not one, especially not in clinical terms. Dahmer had BPD - the hallmark of this disorder is an intense fear of abandonment. Dahmer wanted so badly to have a lover that will never abandon/leave him - so to prevent that from happening he killed them to make sure that they can't abandon him. If he was truly afflicted with necrophilia, he wouldn't have tried to create living zombies. This clearly demonstrates that he WS more concerned about abandonment. Did he engage in necrophilic acts - yes! But that was not his cup of tea. His BPD is textbook. This is why he was diagnosed with the condition over and over. --DendroNaja (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything points to his sense of inability to attract people to him or keep them with him - even more so when considering his yearning for continuous submissive state. In books I have on Dahmer, the best is Brian Masters' one. He harks to Dietz's practically acting like a self-appointed foreman of the jury in his testimony shortly before the jury retiring to consider their verdicts regarding his instructions as to whether Dahmer could control his actions & appreciate their criminality.

I really hope you and I plus others can build this article to GA status.

PS The edits you made to the impressive expansions on the pathology etc. contain duplicate links. Hope you don't mind but I think 1 link suffices in the text of each article. --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's work hard to bring this article to GA status. I am going to focus on Dahmer's pathology and psychology since it is my line of work in the real world. I am going to further improve the pathology section and add a subsection that will talk about post-mortem speculation about his mental health (speculation that he may have had Asperger's, antisocial personality disorder/psychopathy etc). Dahmer was never diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and he wasn't a psychopath. He scored a 22 on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which is slightly above average and way below the threshold of being a psychopath. --DendroNaja (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My 2cents on Chikatilo

There is absolutely no comparison between Andrei and Chase. Chase was a schizophrenic who didn't didn't know right from wrong. He was drinking blood because he was delusional and psychotic - believing it was his only way to continue to survive. He experienced hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thinking, etc. None of this was true of Chikatilo. Andrei was not delusional nor was he psychotic. He was a sexual sadist of the very highest order. I also believe he had antisocial personality disorder with some borderline undertones/features. --DendroNaja (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I am well aware of Chikatilo's behavior traits; his focus and his ability to minimize risk of capture. This in addition to his official diagnosis at the Serbsky Institute. To me, aside from his justification for killing his victims (in that he was disdainfully proud of his education and his facade of respectability whereas his earlier female victims in particular were "declasse"), he purged a long built-up rage onto those he killed. He started killing when he was 42. I mean, all the feelings of injustice (real and imagined) in areas ranging from abuse and belittling, humiliation, lack of success with women, his impotency and (his opinion) society's lack of rewarding his commendable efforts to achieve a higher status than his peers and thereby rescue a sense of self-importance as he emerged from the peasant background he had been born into when the earlier instances of humiliation and degradation occurred. In short and as he said himself, his knife became a substitute for his penis and the killings offered "relaxation and a certain pleasure" as he purged all those feelings of shame, ridicule, inadequacy, tribulation and denial on the victims.

I just proffered Chase as an example of someone who could have vampirism as a category added to their article as opposed to Chikatilo in response to ardent efforts by another Wikipedian to have the category added on there. I am well aware of Chase's deteriorating mental state in the years preceding his 1st murder and his killing of animals etc. in order to consume their blood and prolong his life. Right to the end he believed the Prison Warden (or suchlike) was trying to kill him with poison. --Kieronoldham (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey Dahmer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intoxication (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) 11:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Dahmer

I was responding to a Help Desk question, and it seems you removed the information that was the subject of that question. Specifically, a lawsuit that was filed because Dahmer's family didn't recognize his deviant behavior as a problem in time to stop it. Seems notable to me.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't removed the info. re: Hicks' family suing Dahmer's family at all - I simply expanded it to accommodate the fact 2 other family members also sued the parents for damages and tailored the wording to conform to how the article is written. The reference is still there and it harks to the parents' negligence as the reason. User Japanesehelper wrote:

'In August 1992, the mother of Steven Hicks, sued Jeffrey Dahmer, Lionel Dahmer, Joyce Flint and Shari Shinn Dahmer (neé Jordan) for having not noticed the deviancy of Jeffrey and that he was a threat to others. She claimed $50 million dollars as reward'. The current text now reads in pertinent part: 'two for using their names in the book without obtaining prior consent;[193] and a third family—that of Steven Hicks—filing a wrongful death suit against Lionel Dahmer, his wife, Shari, and former wife, Joyce, citing parental negligence as the cause for the claim'.

I can't see any major difference to the original text and virtually all the original addition is there - it's just morphed with other similar, equally pertinent, info. --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I didn't see what happened to the text.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I see it now. The specific lawsuit is no longer mentioned, but at least one person didn't see the one suit as significant enough to mention.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know quite how I should interpret that reply. I'll assume good faith. The suit is still mentioned in the article. If I am the "one person" indicated here then I shall reiterate that the content added by Japanesehelper is - to my belief - still in the article; therefore, to me, it is indeed significant enough to mention. The article is expanding and the overall length of article needs to be taken into consideration. As I mentioned on the help page: If Japanesehelper (or yourself) wish to have (other) parts of his/her original edit reinserted to accommodate further aspects you/he/she feel should be there then I'll be happy to do so. As another editor/watcher of the Dahmer page pointed out, the suit was unsuccessful.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked in the wrong place and that explains my last reply. The "one person" was User:OrangeMike who didn't look for the specific information before making his statement.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Best regards and see you around Wikipedia.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Whitman edits

Erm it's not me that reverted that part of the edit. I simply restructured one part of the article to avoid repetition of mentioning Whitman and Heatly met only the once. Your edits were reverted by another user.

Also, generally speaking, videos are not used as references in any case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Good, You have my apologies. However, if a video is of a person directly defined as having created something, and disproves something in an article. It should have heavy weight.98.209.161.183 (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries. It was intriguing that you wrote his parents were not divorced. TruTV harks to the parents being divorced. I'll look into finding out conclusively whether they were or were not and fix the article accordingly if they were not so. Best regards--Kieronoldham (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, they were not divorced. If TruTv can be used as a source, why can't the Gates video be used, which does not mention Whitman at all, and Pamela Colloff, a writer for Texas Monthly, who I refused to interview with because of TM policies, can be used because she probably got the false information from WP or Gary Lavergne. Also, check the Talk section.98.209.161.183 (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

From TruTV, "Meanwhile, C.A. and Margaret Whitman separated after another violent row. Margaret and Charlie's brother Patrick moved to Austin in the spring of 1966. C.A. called ceaselessly, begging Margaret to return to him, but she refused. In May she filed for divorce."(end) Filing for divorce, does not mean, being divorced.98.209.161.183 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have looked into several potential sources - online and in books - as to the parents actually being officially divorced and cannot find a single reputable source which states as such. I have made the amendments as per your observation. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Kieronoldham - You use Lavergne's book with a link to the page that can be read, whether his writing is accurate, is anybody's guess. With the Time Life reference and page number, it could say anything before or after the referenced part to disclaim the writing - there is no way to know without the text being available. Believe me, there was no letter written to the father. I would have it, and I was the one who got the records released into the public domain, even though they were on a "hundred year" list, to not be released before then.The writer of the article, must have been trying to get his name associated with another MEME!98.209.161.183 (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The reference isn't Lavergne's book, it is a 1993 hardback True Crime book I have which begins a paragraph with the words "Whitman then went on to scribble two additional letters, one to his father, the contents of which have never been revealed, and one to his younger brother."

I am aware that (assuming what I have read is true), he actually wrote a final note to both his brothers. I respect your dedication to facts, and hope you appreciate I am just trying to keep facts as accurate as they are in published works. We've had a few discussions over the years (assuming you are who I think you are) and I trust your judgment. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 07:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

PS I'll transcribe the entire paragraph on here if you wish. Key.--Kieronoldham (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I am who you think I am. My reference above mentions the Time Life reference in the second sentence, which is the source of inaccurate information that you mention, as well as Lavergne. The only notes to family members were to "Johnny" and "Patrick", his younger brothers and they were apologetic and short. If Charles did write a note to the father, it would have been held as evidence, after allowing the father to read it. So the Time Life writer or any other writer asserting something as having happened without any evidence, is "here say" and goes against WP policy anyways. Again, if it is about Charles Whitman and the UT tragedy, I haven't found anyone yet, who doesn't have glaring errors in their reports or articles. In fact, I could upload a newspaper from San Angelo, who has a photo of Houston McCoy in the article and under the photo is his new name "George McCoy", should I change his name in the WP article because of the error in the paper (most readers wouldn't know if the San Angelo paper were referenced)? I don't need the paragraph, because it is false, if it is as you say. I believe you, not the writer.98.209.161.183 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Alyssa Bustamante Case

I am planning to start an article about Alyssa Bustamante and I was hoping you would help out. Bustamante is a young female who committed an atrocious homicide back in 2009 at the age of 15. She received considerable media attention in the United States and Canada, but she doesn't have an article. If you want to familiarize yourself with the case and you're up to helping me I would appreciate it. DendroNaja (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a deal. I have heard about her case, although admittedly have only read a limited amount of info. Keep me informed as to when you intend to create the article and I will set aside time to expand, source and populate the article with you. Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created the article Alyssa Bustamante. I find her case to be especially disturbing. She is another borderline personality, which is why I am interested. You can expand, source and populate as you like. DendroNaja (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Dean Corll

The edits I made were factual. Why did you change my edits? Henley is serving his life sentences concurrently <Henley Sentencing

The reference to The Police News article establishes that the identification of Michale Baulch came from independent research by Barbara Gibson.The Police News October 2010 Txcrimenews (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change that fact - you did so yourself between 08:26 and 08:30 yesterday. As for your research in discovering the 1973 mis-identification I kept that info. in the article - some wording had slight grammar errors ('claim to the Gibson'). I also tried to ensure the text conformed with how the Wiki. article was written.

Good luck with the book by the way. About time someone did real research on this case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not Gibson -I'm Deb Phinney. I wanted to clarify Barbara's role with my edits. The ME's office had no intention of revisiting the "identified" cases prior to our involvement. As far as Mark Scott- yes-it was common knowledge that Henley stated Mark was buried at High Island but no one was doing anything about it until we pushed the issue.

We've been researching the case for years and we want to finish the book but the story is still ongoing. May I ask how you came to have such an interest in the case? Txcrimenews (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Deb. The interest in the case came from reading the Olsen and Hanna books and noting the lack of research those authors had done. I decided to do online research a few years ago to populate the Wikipedia article and noted the fact those 2 books relied heavily on newspaper accounts. I know this article contains a few errors still but hopefully when your book is published it will rectify them.

This case is arguably the most horrific I have ever read about. Congratulations on your research. --Kieronoldham (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Murder casebook?

Several years ago you inserted at Randy Steven Kraft a reference to a Murder Casebook, ISBN 0-7485-3874-7, pages around four thousand. I could not find the ISBN, nor anything the like that many pages long. Could you provide more details, such as authors or editors, year, publisher and place of publishing?

— 189.61.0.190 (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure I can. I used it as one of several references I used to extensively populate this article over the years up until this spring/summer. It's a U.K. published magazine (since republished as Murder In Mind). The reason it is page number 4648-4679 is because the page number accumulates with each edition. Imagery and some info. regarding the magazine can be found here. As for info the ISBN it is 0-7485-3874-7. Published by Marshall Cavendish Limited in 1992. Published in London, England. Authors/consultants are David Jessell, Colin Wilson, James Morton and Bill Waddell. Good job with reference tidying. Thanks. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dahmer for GA status

I have nominated the article for GA status and someone has begun reviewing it. Can you help me meet his demands for some changes he wants? Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeffrey_Dahmer/GA1#GA_Review --DendroNaja (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, DendroNaja. I have just spent close to two hours searching for and adding references from the books and magazines I have as well as the Internet as the reviewer has requested. I still have roughly half the article to review. In the meantime, aside from what I have already done, perhaps you could look into adding some additional references to the trial/pathology sections as they stand?

It looks like some requested amendments have already been made by more than one editor. I will take care of the required references (or the majority of them) within the next day or so. As stated, I have already started to do so although I can see this will take a minimum of 2 additional hours of my time (which I am happy to devote to this). To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single piece of information in the article that you, I, or others could not provide a reference so as far as the current requirements are concerned. This will be taken care of.

Perhaps a full list of 'absolutely everything' requiring a reference can be provided to comfortably satisfy this outstanding requirement?

As for trimming the chronology of the crimes there are some areas which I think could be trimmed, but as it stands the article covers Dahmer's paraphilia etc. Just my own opinion here, but for this case it should not be trimmed excessively.

You rightly created and took care of the pathology section, so you may have already decided to trim it down somewhat to meet the criteria outlined? I will be happy to attempt to reword the section as per your request. (Again I hope it is not trimmed too severely - I liked/like the pertinent content you provided.)

By the way, the Bustamante article you created was removed before I could take a look at it. Sorry about that - I did intend to honor my previous promise regarding helping to expand it.--Kieronoldham (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No big deal on the Bustamante article. But in regards to the Dahmer article, I believe the trial and pathology sections are perfect. The reviewer doesn't seem to like the fact that the trial section mentions repeatedly that he was diagnosed with BPD. But that was what the whole trial was about: to figure out his sanity (or lack thereof) and his diagnoses. How can we just put it in a sentence. He has to read the article, as he said he would, then make an appropriate decision. I don't agree with trimming down the trial or pathology sections. --DendroNaja (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I did have input on the structure of these sections too. To me the article as a whole is almost completely perfect. I neglected to acknowledge that he has stated he is to read through the whole article again. As for overall size, he also harked to exceptions being made regarding prose and with any luck the article will still meet the criteria. Time to finish adding those references. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry I haven't been paying much attention to the Jeffrey Dahmer article as I have been quite busy with the Snakebite article (herpetology is what I am specialized in). I was disappointed that the reviewer failed the article. I just don't agree with his requests for the changes to the "Trial" or "Pathology" section. Ted Bundy is a GA status article and I carefully looked at it and noticed that the Dahmer article is better written and referenced. --DendroNaja (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I share your disappointment regarding the Dahmer article, although the feedback we received was still somewhat encouraging. I can of course understand that the book page references cannot be verified unless the viewer chooses to purchase the book or, in the case of The Shrine of Jeffery Dahmer, search for the transcribed book online. The reviewer must/should have been aware of this fact. As you rightly pointed out, one or more editors will have verified these references by now - esp. when considering both the number of daily views the page receives and the number of watchers the page has. (The Dahmer article is the 1,451st most popular Wikipedia article.)

We can add some additional references and resubmit the artricle? The Sinthasomphone murder is arguably the most notorious murder Dahmer committed and it is easy to verify the info. currently in the article to show there is no bias whatsoever in that section. If you're willing to work further on addressing the points with me, let me know and I'll look for more references - particularly for the Sinthasomphone murder and the police action.

As for the Bundy article, I think it holds virtually all the info. required, although it is somewhat overpopulated and some info. needs moving to other sections. I don't know when it was awarded the GA status and whether it has changed much since then, but the article does need trimming and tidying - unlike the Dahmer article. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coat hanger (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) 09:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Gacy's supposed head trauma

Is the claim of Gacy suffering from head trauma completely unfounded? Just curious as it is nowhere in the article but "suffered from blackouts" is mentioned.Hoops gza (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for your message and your question. I assume your question refers to his conditions/behavior up until his late teens as opposed to his later MPD claims from Dec. 78 up until his trial and beyond? The original claim for his episodes of blacking out was an episode of his being struck upon the head by a swing at age 4(?). In later life, Gacy would also refer to his being struck upon the head by his father by a broom before waking up and finding himself being held by his mother. The story basically is true as to the sources (which I'll provide as well as elaborate on if you like), as are the blacking out episodes. Once 2 friends found Gacy unconscious behind his school reception desk.

Yes, I was not certain of the truth to his being struck on the head. I do feel that it is notable and would be an improvement to the article. Thanks for contributing so much to these articles as they are of importance and interest.Hoops gza (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris

I see that you have been working on this article a lot. In case you are wondering why the article does not contain more categories, it is because the cats for each individual are located on the individually named pages which redirect to that article.Hoops gza (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is my next project. Incidentally one which touches nerves more than poss. any other I've worked upon/expanded to date. --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Before you began work on this article, it stated that both Bittaker and Norris were convicted of torture. I assume that you have not found a source for this anywhere and therefore removed it. Is this the case?Hoops gza (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A lot of the convictions listed upon this article prior to January were past criminal convictions the pair had accrued before they even met i.e. leaving the scene of an accident. In all the sources I have found in books and online (one online can be found here) there is no mention of either being convicted of torture. I'll keep looking, I'm only about 70% finished with the article. Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Could you please do me a favor and leave a message on my talk page when you feel that you are done with the article?Hoops gza (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Will do. I'm never completely finished in the sense of watching for vandalism etc. but as far as general populating is concerned (with the exception of when these two pieces of remorseless filth die) I hope to be done by around Friday-Sunday. Just need to look for appeals issues and upload a picture of Norris. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. The only real suggestion I have is whether you think you could do the proper categorizing of the individuals at their redirect pages Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris. This would mostly be the convictions that they each have. Some of these categories that are currently on there are incorrect (the American people convicted of torture should be changed to American torturers) and others that apply probably need to be added. You seem to be a veteran editor so I assume that you are familiar with categories?Hoops gza (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I have altered and expanded the categories upon their redirect pages as requested. I'm familiar with categories but, as I once mentioned on my talk page, categories are the one thing I neglect - this is largely because I see no shortage of continuous effort by other editors as to categories and their appropriateness (or lack thereof) on articles. You may wish to view the categories and expand/tidy/refine them. I removed living people as I didn't think it is pertinent. If you believe it or others should be reinserted (you are obv. more seasoned than me in categorizing), be my guest. :)--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, all crimes of which they are convicted should be added to the infoboxes, such as theft and attempted murder. I would work on this but you already have the entire article in your memory so it would make more sense for you to do this task.Hoops gza (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The crimes they were convicted of are already there. I note on several-but not all-other serial killer pages, previous convictions are not included in the infobox? Personally I don't believe they should be there, but I'll reinsert them tomorrow.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I was of the impression that serial criminals should have their serial criminal history presented in the infobox. I guess it's up to the editor and case by case basis?Hoops gza (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Done as promised. Sorry for the delay.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

One last thing, if you don't mind, while it is still fresh in memory, could you please state the number that each is suspected of having killed, convicted to having killed AND confessed to having killed? It would save me some trouble, as I am working on a serial killer list with this type of information included.Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Hi. Genuinely sorry for not having acted upon or responded to your last reply. I will honor my promise as to adding the prv. convictions - it was genuine forgetfulness on my part. Also sorry for early notification as to completion - a few extra edits and thoughts came to mind (I'm certainly 99%+ done now). As towards being fresh in memory within articles - everything is always fresh in memory to me in all cases I have worked on and not worked upon and the rectifying/expanding, Hoops gza. The only thing is either finding an actual page number in books I have, or, occasionally, an online source to back up what I have written. As I say, this one just found a level of emotion I thought I thought I was desensitized to, given all I have read and researched...

There is nothing conclusive to state anything other than the 5 girls being murdered. This to me is a classic wedding of two mindsets coming together to compound ultimate, carnal desires. The press conference by Pitchess in Feb. of 1980 as to a possible 6th victim is purely circumstantial, but intriguing. I assume the inquisition sources from the actual photos of the 19 girls identified as runaways? Bittaker divulged very little until it was proven against him; Norris spilled details as to five. Dalton gave details as to 5 being what was told by Norris. Bittaker is known as an attention hound and has reduced himself to cheap publicity stints to devote attention to himself. Whether he holds any dependency upon Norris as to withholding knowledge as to further victims I very much doubt. I am certain they would have divulged knowledge of further victims.

A '6+' figure would be appropriate as to speculative victims in this case.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. Bleak.Hoops gza (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aye, but fruitful given the timescale as to release, meeting and arrest and gems of information. Both Norris and Bittaker hark towards those dry runs and the attempted abduction of a teen girl by Norris alone in mid-June of '79 before they snatched Schaeffer off the street on 6/24. That tightens the time frame to between 6/24 and 10/31. What is bleak to me is the speculation of those depicted in the photos as being noted as to being missing and as to whether any of the 19 were located. I doubt it, but as I stated to you prv. I'm surprised overall as to how little has been written about these two.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I correct in deducing that Norris was convicted of attempted rape?Hoops gza (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that charge stems from 1969 while still in the navy (assault with attempt to commit rape). A full list of prior convictions the two had accrued before they met at San Luis Obispo is as follows:

Bittaker:

• Burglary
• Attempted burglary
• Hit and Run
• Auto theft
• Robbery
• Parole violation
• Assault with a deadly weapon
• Attempted murder

Norris:

• Forcible rape
• Assault with a deadly weapon
• Assault with attempt to commit rape

Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

For your future reference, I have created the Category:People convicted of attempted rape.Hoops gza (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)