![]() Archives |
||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
Disambiguation link notification for November 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fritz Haarmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foreign Legion. 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) 09:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion for Haarmaan
I'd like to suggest adding in his nicknames as they appear in German. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mean to the lede? Good idea. Feel free. According to German text I've found they translate thus: The Butcher of Hanover (Der Schlächter von Hannover); The Vampire of Hanover (der Vampire von Hannover) and Wolf Man (Wolfsmensch). Have a good weekend. --Kieronoldham (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC).
The Beatles Invite
Disambiguation link notification for January 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrei Chikatilo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Cullen. 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) 08:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
February 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 16th Street Baptist Church bombing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- amp;lpg=PA88&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false The Informant, the FBI and the Ku Klux Klan p. 88]</ref>)
- [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0y-vO9QLE&feature=artist Joan Baez sings "Birmingham Sunday>"] link includes lyrics.</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 16th Street Baptist Church bombing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- These instructions were relayed to the crowd present by a single youth with a bullhorn.<ref>[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19630919&id=yswpAAAAIBAJ&sjid=
- [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ0y-vO9QLE&feature=artist Joan Baez sings "Birmingham Sunday>"] link includes lyrics.</ref>
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Language requirement
Is there a language requirement in school in England? - Bossanoven (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'll remain inquisitive as to the basis of this message, Bossanoven. (?)--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I was just curious how you acquired your knowledge of Spanish, friend. - Bossanoven (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I mispoke. Frankly, I was just curious about language requirements in England. - Bossanoven (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Over here in England, when pupils attend secondary school (ages 11 to 16), half the pupils will learn French, and the other half Spanish. (In some schools German is substituted for 1 of the languages and I've heard private schools offer other languages, too.) I was delegated Spanish and was the only male pupil to achieve an A grade when I finished school in 1996. Sadly I don't get to practice it much anymore. I don't know much about how the system differs in the USA.
Pupils are now taught a language at a much younger age as there was a concern about the number of pupils opting to study a language further at college. Obviously being in Europe with free movement of people in addition to immigration from across the globe there are a number of people from immigrant backgrounds who speak 2 languages fluently. A lot of Polish people (and other Eastern Europeans) in particular have settled in England since 2004. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Here in the States they start us in grade 6 (that's about age 11), and language is a requirement up until about 16 as well (I forget whether it is two or three years required language in high school). However, there are many more options from which to choose, at least in a big city where I'm from. They include Spanish and French, of course, but also such tongues as German and Japanese. - Bossanoven (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Seems you have a better selection of languages than us across the pond.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A beer for you!
.
- Thanks. Wasn't easy on my psyche doing that article, believe me. Nice to know you give kudos to the overall result.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Andrei Chikatilo
I see yopu have reverted my edit to this article (though you merely removed it and added a citation to something that was not disputed). The point of the change is that the previous version says that 15 years was the maximum penalty at the time. The next sentence says that he was retried under pressure from the relatives and given the death penalty. The problem is that there is no logic to this, since he had already been convicted: unless there was a change in sentencing policy. The two sentences need to be meaningfully linked. The only logical conclusion was that the death penaly was available at the time of the retrial, but not at the time of the original trial (otherwise "the maximum penalty at the time" is a nonsensical sentence). If this is erroneous, please state why. Removing an explanation that otherwise makes sense of the otherwise unintelligable jump does not help, unless you can improve the explanation. How does leaving it as it is with an unnecessary citation to something that was never altered or challenged help? Paul B (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Well if you look at the contributors' history I have greatly expanded this article. I've always been fascinated with this case. As for the somewhat contradictory overall message: well spotted. I'll look into that further and clarify the reintroduction. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Birmingham pub bombings
Hi Kieron, you've done a lot of work on this article. I haven't looked through it all but thanks for all your effort. I've amended the infobox. Happy to discuss. --Flexdream (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- No worries. I'll be expanding this article further over the coming weeks and may have come back to that mention. I understand that 'revenge' sounds flailingly petty as a motive, but this article in which a former senior figure within the IRA finally divulges culpability, does state that the bombing was "revenge for the death of IRA bomber James McDade" (or, more precisely, how initial proposals for his funeral were prevented). I think it does deserve mention in the infobox, however. The source is reliable. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. The link in the infobox was to a different article, by the BBC, which mentioned fear of revenge attacks after the pub bombings, not revenge as a motive for the attacks. The other option of course is to just leave motives out of the infobox. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a discussion on victims' names at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse? WP:NOT refers to articles per se, not lists/names within an article. The list has been there for ages and many similar articles have similar lists. PS thanks for all your editing - good effort :) --Flexdream (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes there is a discussion I have taken there, Flexdream. If you look at the revision history of the Birmingham pub bombings article, another user has taken exception to the inclusion of the names of the fatalities within this article, using the (obsolete and disputed) talk page, and the WP:NOTMEMORIAL as his/her justification. Sadly, this editor takes exception to the inclusion of the victims' names in this article (and I've left a message on this editor's talk page). As much as I appreciate his/her integrity, the rationale is flawed as you point out. Please keep an eye on the article. Thanks for the kudos, much appreciated. :) Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Kez. I've got a watch on your page so you can post to either my talk page or yours, you don't need to post to both. I can't find the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse. Your approach on this is very sensible. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Flexdream. Here is a link to the discussion in question. User JoeHebda makes a good point, but I can't find a link to the victim list to add to the External links section (not that I've yet done major searching). Regards, Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Cheers Kez. I've got a watch on your page so you can post to either my talk page or yours, you don't need to post to both. I can't find the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse. Your approach on this is very sensible. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes there is a discussion I have taken there, Flexdream. If you look at the revision history of the Birmingham pub bombings article, another user has taken exception to the inclusion of the names of the fatalities within this article, using the (obsolete and disputed) talk page, and the WP:NOTMEMORIAL as his/her justification. Sadly, this editor takes exception to the inclusion of the victims' names in this article (and I've left a message on this editor's talk page). As much as I appreciate his/her integrity, the rationale is flawed as you point out. Please keep an eye on the article. Thanks for the kudos, much appreciated. :) Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a discussion on victims' names at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse? WP:NOT refers to articles per se, not lists/names within an article. The list has been there for ages and many similar articles have similar lists. PS thanks for all your editing - good effort :) --Flexdream (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. The link in the infobox was to a different article, by the BBC, which mentioned fear of revenge attacks after the pub bombings, not revenge as a motive for the attacks. The other option of course is to just leave motives out of the infobox. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Dahmer
Please read WP:CLAIM and WP:POV. Wikipedia is supposed to adhere to NPOV, and the language as I've edited it adheres to that. It repeats what Scarver has said and what the Reliable Sources have reported, simply and plainly, and lets the reader determine what is truth or fiction. The previous language was intended to push the POV that Scarver's recent statements are lies, which is a form of editorializing. I do think it's a good idea to discuss Scarver's various explanations over the years. Perhaps a Requests for Comment should be initiated? Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Sorry I typed my previous one in a haste. I'm well aware of NPOV. I'm not pushing POV; I am merely stating Scarver "claimed" as opposed to "publicly stated" is hardly an infraction of NPOV. Really both versions are NPOV it is just the choice of "stated" or "claimed"; it tends to read in the 1st sentence, in the current version, that his word is to be taken at truth. To me, if Scarver had not told several contradicting versions of that morning, then sure he "publicly stated" would be fine, but as he has told other versions of these two murders, now he is "claiming" these murders were committed for different reasons - on his part and that of the two murder victims - altogether.
Basically I feel that the current structure of this paragraph leads the casual reader to believe his current statement/account is both trustworthy and supersedes all his previous explanations, not to mention the fact that his current claims are frankly ludicrous (I don't accuse him of lying his track record proves that in of itself), and in many instances easily disprovable (likely intended to promote the book he hopes to see published). Sources can refute some of his claims and throw into considerable question others. The reader needs to know his previous mental diagnoses - (another here) - and constantly changing accounts of the murder. As for Scarver's differing various explanations for his actions over the years. Good idea. I could add a brief chapter if you like?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- The paragraph about his conflicting stories over the years, reliably sourced, sounds much better than using loaded words like "claim" regarding this specific (most recent) statement. Have at and happy writing. Kindzmarauli (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- A loaded word would be "stated" i.e. as in loaded with pretense as to honesty and authenticity. I will return to that sentence in time and fully intend to happily rewrite it-in addition to resolving the dead links on the Dahmer article-unless another editor beasts me to these issues. I'll do this once I've completed the lion's share of the work on the Birmingham pub bombings article.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)