This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
Murder of Jacinto Gutiérrez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Puerto Rican.
Please make me this userbox and you may choose the design: This user prefers CDs to vinyl records as they believe that they are much more durable and easier to use.
Davidgoodheart (
talk)
01:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Shall do,
Davidgoodheart. If you can find her actual date of birth though? Surprised how little info. is available for this particular unsolved case by comparison to some others (even decades earlier) which I can bring to mind.--
Kieronoldham (
talk)
06:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
If you're up for the task, I humbly request some expansive work on the
William Husel page; as of 20 January he has had 11 murder charges dismissed from his prior 25 charges. His trial is set for Valentine's Day of this year. I'll see if I can expand on the trial aspect of his case soon as well.
Hi there again @
Kieronoldham: I hope you are well. I am just messaging as I am feeling a little low at the moment as I feel I am on the bad end of
WP:WIKIHOUNDING and was wondering if you could help me out a bit. The other day I had a disagreement with an editor on the
Michael Stone (criminal) page:
[1]. The editor then followed me onto the
Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins article, which they hadn't previously edited since 2010, to remove some of the large amount of content I had added from academic and reliable sources:
[2]. I then had another talk page disagreement with them over the content but in the sake of compromise I decided to remove the content in question:
[3]. Despite this however, they have now gone on to the WP:BLPN page to request to remove much more of the content I have added over the last few days. The user
User:Springnuts advised that they were scrutinising my contributions list as I am a
WP:FRESHSTART editor:
[4]. I just feel a little low about it as they never edit the Billie-Jo article and are only now doing so because they followed me over there from the Michael Stone article. Would it be possible for you to advise me on whether I should be concerned?
The Good Dante (
talk)
22:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
From what I can see, I wouldn't be too worried,
The Good Dante. I very much doubt you are being singled out. As for the Stone case, he's in the news again (as is Bellfield), so that'll naturally attract editors old and new to these articles and of course, any contributors can then look at others' contribution histories. This is just my opinion, but
this edit (or the likes) may be worthy of a "one-off"-type entry, but could indeed lead too much of a "speculative" slant (WP:WEIGHT). Could be worthy of inclusion in a created "notes" section ("unsubstantiated rumors" ... "never disclosed to the jury."). Rumors are not really evidence though. I certainly would not add "speculative weight" to an article (much less someone living and accused of murder).
Don't feel bad or wary. Good to see compromises hopefully being reached. If you feel you are being hounded, be wary, and there are avenues to report this. I don't feel you are being, though. I believe most - if not all - editors detect your efforts are for the benefit of others and of course some content remains unchallenged. Perhaps the editor in question just wants to ensure policies are not being overlooked. (Been challenged and overruled several times myself over the years.) As for WP:FRESHSTART, time'll be your ally and reward here. Hope you stay one here. Be good to work alongside you. :) --
Kieronoldham (
talk)
04:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. Yes the section about the rumour of the affair with the 17 year old was questioned and I agreed to remove it in the end, that's not really what is worrying me. I'm worried that there is now the possibility that a huge amount of the edits that I have added to the Billie-Jo Jenkins article over the past few days will now be deleted. I've recently added a large amount of content which has changed the article from looking like this:
[5], to how it is now, which I thought was a considerable improvement. I was only being well-intentioned and trying to research and add a much more detailed summary of the case using archived sources, you see. However I fear they will likely be deleted. The Jenkins case is a complex and often controversial one and so I thought it best to include as much detail about the background of the case as possible, including a section highlighting the controversies that have arisen because of the case. Sadly, I can see they will now be removed.
The Good Dante (
talk)
05:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Is indeed a complex case (which I recall vividly from my college days) and one which reminds me of others where there is/isn't enough evidence to prove guilt on suspects rightly or wrongly if the suspects exist (
Keith Lyon/
Clare Morrison/
Lindsay Rimer etc.). I don't have this case on my watchlist, but can add and will add it. I'll try and support you as and how I can going forward.--
Kieronoldham (
talk)
05:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes is an interesting case. Great if you add it to your watchlist, although I’ve now removed all the content I’ve added over the last few weeks as people clearly preferred the previous version. Kind of regret adding any of it now I feel like the 25,000 characters of content was a bit of a waste.
The Good Dante (
talk)
06:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I never thought that,
The Good Dante. Matter of fact I just strictly looked at the linked edits you provided. You should (hopefully) reinsert. Looking into the Patsy Morris case you created at the mo. Mind is focused on the
William Bonin Freeway Killer case largely at the moment. Poss. 85% finished there. Jenkins case is chalked up for the near future. Regards, --
Kieronoldham (
talk)
06:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Watch the movie clip and you see will actor Danny Devito grab a glass pepsi bottle that is the right type of bottle that I need you to add an image of.
Davidgoodheart (
talk)
19:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah I got that. And the fact the woman is her within Kindergarten Cop(?). Regardless, your title led me to believe a disdainful and haughty instructive, terse instruction. I will see, in time, what is on the Commons to devote my free time, intention and benign betterment for you going forward.--
Kieronoldham (
talk)
19:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
Murder of Jacinto Gutiérrez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
Puerto Rican.
Please make me this userbox and you may choose the design: This user prefers CDs to vinyl records as they believe that they are much more durable and easier to use.
Davidgoodheart (
talk)
01:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Shall do,
Davidgoodheart. If you can find her actual date of birth though? Surprised how little info. is available for this particular unsolved case by comparison to some others (even decades earlier) which I can bring to mind.--
Kieronoldham (
talk)
06:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
If you're up for the task, I humbly request some expansive work on the
William Husel page; as of 20 January he has had 11 murder charges dismissed from his prior 25 charges. His trial is set for Valentine's Day of this year. I'll see if I can expand on the trial aspect of his case soon as well.
Hi there again @
Kieronoldham: I hope you are well. I am just messaging as I am feeling a little low at the moment as I feel I am on the bad end of
WP:WIKIHOUNDING and was wondering if you could help me out a bit. The other day I had a disagreement with an editor on the
Michael Stone (criminal) page:
[1]. The editor then followed me onto the
Murder of Billie-Jo Jenkins article, which they hadn't previously edited since 2010, to remove some of the large amount of content I had added from academic and reliable sources:
[2]. I then had another talk page disagreement with them over the content but in the sake of compromise I decided to remove the content in question:
[3]. Despite this however, they have now gone on to the WP:BLPN page to request to remove much more of the content I have added over the last few days. The user
User:Springnuts advised that they were scrutinising my contributions list as I am a
WP:FRESHSTART editor:
[4]. I just feel a little low about it as they never edit the Billie-Jo article and are only now doing so because they followed me over there from the Michael Stone article. Would it be possible for you to advise me on whether I should be concerned?
The Good Dante (
talk)
22:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
From what I can see, I wouldn't be too worried,
The Good Dante. I very much doubt you are being singled out. As for the Stone case, he's in the news again (as is Bellfield), so that'll naturally attract editors old and new to these articles and of course, any contributors can then look at others' contribution histories. This is just my opinion, but
this edit (or the likes) may be worthy of a "one-off"-type entry, but could indeed lead too much of a "speculative" slant (WP:WEIGHT). Could be worthy of inclusion in a created "notes" section ("unsubstantiated rumors" ... "never disclosed to the jury."). Rumors are not really evidence though. I certainly would not add "speculative weight" to an article (much less someone living and accused of murder).
Don't feel bad or wary. Good to see compromises hopefully being reached. If you feel you are being hounded, be wary, and there are avenues to report this. I don't feel you are being, though. I believe most - if not all - editors detect your efforts are for the benefit of others and of course some content remains unchallenged. Perhaps the editor in question just wants to ensure policies are not being overlooked. (Been challenged and overruled several times myself over the years.) As for WP:FRESHSTART, time'll be your ally and reward here. Hope you stay one here. Be good to work alongside you. :) --
Kieronoldham (
talk)
04:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. Yes the section about the rumour of the affair with the 17 year old was questioned and I agreed to remove it in the end, that's not really what is worrying me. I'm worried that there is now the possibility that a huge amount of the edits that I have added to the Billie-Jo Jenkins article over the past few days will now be deleted. I've recently added a large amount of content which has changed the article from looking like this:
[5], to how it is now, which I thought was a considerable improvement. I was only being well-intentioned and trying to research and add a much more detailed summary of the case using archived sources, you see. However I fear they will likely be deleted. The Jenkins case is a complex and often controversial one and so I thought it best to include as much detail about the background of the case as possible, including a section highlighting the controversies that have arisen because of the case. Sadly, I can see they will now be removed.
The Good Dante (
talk)
05:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Is indeed a complex case (which I recall vividly from my college days) and one which reminds me of others where there is/isn't enough evidence to prove guilt on suspects rightly or wrongly if the suspects exist (
Keith Lyon/
Clare Morrison/
Lindsay Rimer etc.). I don't have this case on my watchlist, but can add and will add it. I'll try and support you as and how I can going forward.--
Kieronoldham (
talk)
05:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes is an interesting case. Great if you add it to your watchlist, although I’ve now removed all the content I’ve added over the last few weeks as people clearly preferred the previous version. Kind of regret adding any of it now I feel like the 25,000 characters of content was a bit of a waste.
The Good Dante (
talk)
06:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I never thought that,
The Good Dante. Matter of fact I just strictly looked at the linked edits you provided. You should (hopefully) reinsert. Looking into the Patsy Morris case you created at the mo. Mind is focused on the
William Bonin Freeway Killer case largely at the moment. Poss. 85% finished there. Jenkins case is chalked up for the near future. Regards, --
Kieronoldham (
talk)
06:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Watch the movie clip and you see will actor Danny Devito grab a glass pepsi bottle that is the right type of bottle that I need you to add an image of.
Davidgoodheart (
talk)
19:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah I got that. And the fact the woman is her within Kindergarten Cop(?). Regardless, your title led me to believe a disdainful and haughty instructive, terse instruction. I will see, in time, what is on the Commons to devote my free time, intention and benign betterment for you going forward.--
Kieronoldham (
talk)
19:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.