User talk:BassPlyr23

Image:Yossef Romano.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Yossef Romano.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Admrboltz (T | C) 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Munich 9 living.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Munich 9 living.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Munich 11.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Munich 11.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 01:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Romano and Weinberg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Romano and Weinberg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 02:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Joe Perry.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Joe Perry.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 02:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Moshe Weinberg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Moshe Weinberg.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Abu Badali 02:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Snark on RHPS
Hi. I'm the one who made the rude comment about "silly virgins" when correcting the RHPS article. I'm sorry that I offended you. I did not intend to - the edit summary was meant in jest, largely poking fun at me for being able to quote almos the entire movie verbatim. I realize that it was, in this context, a rather tasteless joke :). No hard feelings, I hope. LW izard  @ 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Munich
I'm fine with the stuff you restored. I edited it because a lot of odd material had been added, so I went back to the last stable version I was familiar with. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:1972 Israeli Olympic Team.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1972 Israeli Olympic Team.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 16:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Munich FA
I've noticed that you've worked for a while on the Munich massacre article and first just wanted to congratulate you on fixing it from what it used to look like a while back. I could definitely see this going the Featured Article sometime soon, but above all it needs a lot more inline citations. Keep up the good work!. Joshdboz 21:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Munich Massacre
The section will likely keep being challenged by editors until there are references that back up the facts, always a common niggling insistance by Wikipedians to make it encyclopedic :-) . I see that you now added a source.  You may want to use a couple of direct quotes and yes, list page numbers.  Also editorial comments ("It is clear that", "Incredibly", "It should also be pointed out that") and adjectives like "egregious" are subjective and need to be avoided so that the article is simply reporting what sources say in a neutral voice.  Thanks for your efforts there.  -- M P er el ( talk 22:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, thx! -- M P er el ( talk 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw, page numbers would be helpful so that others can find where this information is specifically found in the book. -- M P er el ( talk 23:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, "It is indicative of ..." should be reworded or directly quoted, otherwise it makes it the voice of Wikipedia making this analysis and not neutral. -- M P er el ( talk 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, you asked in your recent edit summary "Why all the edits?" I argue, that this article needs to be trimmed for length and copyedited for tone and style. As another editor (Chrisfow) argued elsewhere in this Talk page, this article "...reads like a novel or account, rather than an encyclopedia entry. It also follows a logical, hierarchical structure." This editor also argues that there are sections which lack references (e.g., "Security was kept deliberately relaxed, and it was not uncommon for athletes to come and go from the Village without presenting proper ID." ...the editor asked "How do you know? Which source did you get that from? Remember, no original research!"). As well, the editor argued that a person could "...not come to this article without prior knowledge of the event or its wider context. Who were Black September? Why did they target the Israelis? . As well, the editor notes that there are statements like "The mistakes made were mind-boggling" which are "neither neutral, nor referenced. This is not an essay!" I would like to work with other editors to improve this article. SlimVirgin, in particular, I would like to hear your views on whether the article needs to be improved (posted to talk page of Munich Massacre article)Nazamo 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, you also said "As I've said many times, facts are not POV." I wish to quote the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. “By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can." ...By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."  “ That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.” “Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." Nazamo 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1972_Israeli_Olympic_team.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tex Watson's marriage
As shocking as it is, his marriage to Suzan is listed on his own Ministry's webpage where you will findf a photo of him with his ex-wife kristin and his new wife Suzan. As I said, I know it is shocking and I didn't believe it either, but it was sourced properly. I will go back and put the coruced info in where it was. LiPollis 21:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I will not put the info back in since the few sources are not clear on the subject. If you know for a fact that this is not true, could you help me out by referring me to a source that specifically denies this?  it would really help the articles out.  I was not the original source of the marriage fact, I merely went online and found sources that appeared to confirm it.  Your edits removed the links to those sources.  i will try and go and fine them again.  Please do help with this since it of interest and is a controversial fact.  By the way, Suzan and tex have been very close for a number of years, promoting their reconcilation as a testiomny of Christian forgiveness.  Would it be so odd that they would fall in love and marry?  I don't think so.LiPollis
 * OK, it seems that the original factoid was posted on an earlier version of THIS pageManson Timeline but they have since reverted it. I would guess that the erronious fact then drifted all over the net.  It was included in the Wikipedia article long before I came along and then its inclusion there gave it a new legitimacy which caused it to spread even wider over the net. Sveral pages which once had it have since removed it, perhaps at your suggestion?  I will contact the page oweners and ask them where THEY got the info originally and see if I can get to the bottom of this.  In a way it's a shame Bill nelson is dead, he would have been all over this (not necessarily in a god way mind you).  Please remember, I acted in good faith and did have what appeared to be confirmation.LiPollis 21:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No harm - no foul
hey, no problem with regards to the weird thing about the alleged marriage to Suzan. I too was initially taken aback when I saw the info but I DID find that timeline page and it DID list their marraige. Since it doesn't list it anymore, i think we can be assured that it was not a fact. Just goes to illustrate how important it is to get things right here on wikipedia, huh? Sorry if I inadvertantly helped the rumor gain legs.

I've also been a student of the case and did some legwork for a proposed canadian documentary called Valley of Shadows that sought to cover a number of unusual religious and social movements that flourished in the San fernando valley and surrounding environs. I don't know if it ever saw the light of day. They covered Fountain of the World and a number of other groups that predated Manson and who manson and his group had some peripheral contect with. it was fascinating. Folks don't realize what a swirling pot of mysticism and social experiment that area was for decades. How about you and make some good out of this and work on the manson related articles together and try to get the references improved? That's a small goal but a workable one. I'd love to have a helping hand in this. Do you frequent any of the particular forums or blods devoted to the cases? I used to but gave up around 2000. I had other academic work keeping me busy. Nice to meet you. I'll do what I can to see if there's any other wild factoids littering the Manson articles. You've inspired me.LiPollis 22:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Spitzer and Shorr.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spitzer and Shorr.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Responsible for that mess
Because you have asked, I'll mention that I am the person responsible for the mess you have undone at the Charles Manson page. I don't share your view that the material you have eliminated was inaccurate or unsuited to this encyclopedia. As far as I can tell from a quick look, the material you have reinserted is not entirely accurate, is not carefully sourced, and has no shortage of poor syntax. (Come to think of it, that probably does make it better for Wikipedia.)JohnBonaccorsi 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted the sweeping changes you made at Charles Manson because 1) you didn't discuss them (although you did use edit summaries, some of which were not very civil) and 2) because you removed a number of properly sourced items and replaced them with unsourced items. Per WP:BLP, we need sources!  Lets discuss this on the talk page and we can reach a middle ground. --Chuck Sirloin 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the changes you are making are indeed sourced, then you should be in-line citing them as was done in the version you are erasing. As it stands, it is unsourced.  Please take it to the talk page to discuss your specific problems with the article.  Your assertion that you are an english teacher does not add or subtract any weight from your contributions' value.  I can say that I am Charles Manson and it doesn't mean anything on the internet.  What does subtract from your contributions' value is that, while they may seem to read better and be more encyclopedic to you, they remove citations and months of consensus-driven work by a number of editors.  Again, this could easily be resolved by discussing it at the talk page. --Chuck Sirloin 12:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Manson
Thanks for stopping in to help with this article. Do you have sources for the information you added for Steve Grogan? If so, please add them, as this article is currently in process of being evaluated for Good Article status. Also, I removed a comment you added about Leslie Van Houten (although this in no way lessens Van Houten's guilt one iota) as this isn't an encyclopedic comment. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the reference. Re: Van Houten, technically, yes it's true that it doesn't lessen her guilt. It may, or may not, be a subject for inclusion in her article, but it isn't wholly encyclopedic and would probably be the first thing a GA reviewer would jump on as a problem. Her conviction pretty much says that it didn't matter whether Rosemary LaBianca was dead or alive when Van Houten stabbed her insofar as her guilt was concerned, and her continual parole denials extends that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to thank me. I'm just interested in making it the best article it can be. People get emotional over things all the time, I think the best way to deal with it is to be calm. Well, WP has guidelines for it - stay calm, assume good faith. Sometimes we get caught up in the minutia and overlook the big things (aka can't see the forest for the trees). The other editor has put a lot of time into the article since I decided it should be submitted for good article consideration, I see it as he is invested in seeing through that also. By the way, I'm the one who made the comment about people coming out of the woodwork when an article goes up for consideration. It wasn't directed at you specifically, I see that you've worked on the article before. But there have been those whose name doesn't much appear on the history list at all who have suddenly come in since the nomination. There are those who collect the accolades, for lack of a better word. RE: wording: I did like his wording of ..."Leslie van Houten’s equivocal contention that Rosemary LaBianca was dead by the time she stabbed her." Anyway, I just want the article to be accepted. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Note
I'm beginning to become concerned that when reviewers for GA status come in, they are going to see this recent back and forth editing & the lengthy talk page entries as evidence of edit warring & reject the article without due consideration (that's one of the quick-fail criteria). I really would urge everyone involved to discuss this on the talk page before charging in to change it back, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of edit warring. Discussing it is evidence of collaboration. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

On Manson page
I've seen the note you posted on my User Talk page at 11:27, 26 November 2007. I've responded to it on the Manson talk page.71.242.203.167 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. On the Manson talk page, my response to your note is now in its own section, headed "Deaths on the lawn." That will make it easier to keep the discussion there.71.242.203.167 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Manson
I have tried to encourage editor cooperation and an atmosphere of collaboration on this article. To be quite honest, I resent and find offensive the last comments you added to the talk page, which say "revert the article to the horror that it was before I fixed it - and that's what I did, I FIXED it." You are not the only editor who has worked on this page and you are not the only editor who has an opinion on what the article should contain and say. You are also not the only editor who has an education which includes skills in English grammar and composition. Apparently, you feel you are the saving grace of the page, which just isn't true. There have been a LOT of good articles which made it through the process without you. I've withdrawn the article from GA consideration because the extent to which the disagreements, personal snipes and nitpicking, on both parts, will cause the article to fail. I would encourage you to rethink the attitude and hostility that you've shown, especially over the last day or two. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Burgled versus burglarized
I've left a note on this subject on the Manson talk page.71.242.203.167 13:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Manson -- Shaved heads
Having taken a quick look at the pages you cited, I think you're right that the heads were not shaved in response to the guilty verdicts; I misread the caption of the photograph between pages 340 and 341. -- Does the text indicate when the Family members other than the defendants shaved their heads? You've written that they waited until the penalty phase was almost over; but on page 455, which you cite, only the female defendants are mentioned.71.242.203.167 22:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I've just worked up a revision that eliminates the reference to the head-shaving by the sidewalk girls and that also specifies that the female defendants did not show up with shaved heads until the penalty verdicts were ready. I'll post it, and you can see what you think.71.242.203.167 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I personally am not worried about footnotes for the infobox; I don't know whether other editors think they're necessary. The addition of the children's names was good. — Your addition of "almost" was good, too. After I got your note, I went back and read Bugliosi's paragraph. It is, indeed, impossible to say when the female defendants shaved their heads; maybe Bugliosi himself didn't even know. As far as I can tell from page 455, the girls still had their hair when the jury left the courtroom on Friday, March 26, to deliberate. The hair was gone by the time the girls returned to the courtroom on Monday the 29th, to hear the verdicts. It could have disappeared at any point in the interval.71.242.203.167 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about:


 * "did not follow suit until after the jurors retired to decide the penalties."


 * 71.242.203.167 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't heard from you — and saw another editor had already noticed the passage; so I went ahead and made this change. After getting your note, as I've said, I took another look at Bugliosi and Gentry's paragraph. After a few minutes, I caught its logic: Because the girls didn't want to sink the exoneration attempt by looking like Manson's slaves, they refrained from shaving their heads until the jury went out.71.242.203.167 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I figured you had a reason for not replying; I was just letting you know why I'd gone ahead with the change without a reply from you. Two things:


 * 1. I changed "motive" to "narrative" because the witnesses were trying to exonerate Manson with the story of the motive, not with the motive itself. Actually, it seemed to me both words were needed: "via the story of the copycat motive." I won't change it, but I ask you to think about it.


 * 2.Possibly, Bugliosi knew exactly when the girls shaved their heads; that wasn't my main point. I ask you to look again at those passages on pages 439 and 455:


 * From page 439:


 * On March 4, Manson trimmed his beard to a neat fork and completely shaved his head, because, he told newsmen, "I am the Devil and the Devil always has a bald head."


 * Interestingly enough, this time the three female defendants did not follow Manson's example. Nor, when he occasionally acted up in court, did they parrot him, as they had in the guilt trial. Obviously it had got across to them, albeit belatedly, that such antics only proved Manson's domination.


 * From page 455:


 * [The jury] left the courtroom at 5:25 P.M. on Friday, March 26, 1971.




 * When I received the call [that the jury was ready with its verdict] on Monday afternoon, I knew there could be only one verdict.




 * [T]he jury was brought back into the courtroom at 4:24 P.M. on Monday, March 29, with their verdicts.


 * Manson and the girls had been brought into the courtroom earlier — the three female defendants now, when it was too late to influence the jury, having shaved their heads also.... (Emphasis added)


 * On page 439, Bugliosi has indicated that the girls did not follow Manson when he shaved his head; they don't want Manson to appear to be dominating them. — Why? Because his defense — specifically the copycat-motive defense — depends on his not being dominant. Bugliosi expressly says now — i.e., when they return to hear the verdicts — the girls are sporting shaved heads. At this point, they don't have to worry about influencing the jury against Manson — because the jury's already been out and made its decision.


 * Your placement of the shaved-heads passage between the synopsis of the copycat motive and the reading of the verdicts is just right. That's where it belongs; that's the whole point: they didn't shave their heads until the jury went out.71.242.203.167 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure whether you're simply unavailable to discuss this further, but I'll be placing a note about it on the Manson talk page. I'll give it the title "Shaved heads."71.242.203.167 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination
I've thought it over since you wrote about the article, and I've watched the page, and to be honest, I don't want to get into it again. Every time someone adds to the page, or does anything to it, it's reworked, reverted or an internal note gets put in. I've tried to explain to the guy that 3/4 of the internal notes are unnecessary, as they are usually to clarify a change that was essentially either vandalism or just simple tampering and an internal note won't change that, but it's like talking to the wind. Every time I see that another internal note has been inserted, my stomach knots up and I have to stop myself from getting angry. As long as this sort of thing is going on, it will never pass good article review, because reviewers will see that sort of thing as meaning the article isn't stable enough. It's a decent article, and yes, it probably should be further up the quality scale, but that won't happen until it's left to settle. What I would really like to see happen is it be semi-protected, which would get around a lot of this kneejerk reaction to tampering and/or vandalism, but that has to be done while an article is being vandalized. I keep it on my watch list and I do check all the changes that happen on it, which maybe isn't the best thing for me sometimes! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I did request the semi-protection (and got it!), because so much vandalism was happening night before last. At least for 3 weeks or so, editors will have have to be registered, which helps a lot. You hadn't answered, so I wondered if you understood my reluctance to get into it again right now? Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Manson - revolver
At the Manson talk page, you might want to weigh in on "Revolver," a section I've just put there.71.242.159.196 (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: You might also want to weigh in on "Clothing discovery," which I've just added to the Manson talk page.71.242.159.196 (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Manson edits
Mike --

Glad you like the edits. For the record: The awkward sentences that have regularly concerned you have generally bothered me, too; there’s hardly an instance in which I’ve been surprised you’ve gone after a sentence. The problems have usually been a result of attention to the article’s byte-count: in trying to keep paragraphs brief, I’ve sometimes constructed sentences that simply don’t work. In some cases, I’ve seen the solution after a few days, sometimes only after weeks; sometimes you or someone else has reached it first. One of the reasons I’ve been able to attack a few of the problems over the past few days is that the semi-protection from vandals has relieved the pressure on the article. Anyway -- thanks for the note.

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.159.196 (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Your correction to "Mick Fleetwood"
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. You are, of course, correct that my "correction" was wrong, and I was somewhat mortified to see what I had changed it to... Clearly "it's" is a contraction of "it is", and is not appropriate here. I have even corrected other people on this, so I am annoyed with myself.

But "its'" is also incorrect, no matter what you think. The edit I have made now ( to "its") is grammatically correct. The construction "its'" does not actually mean anything as far as I can see... Being an English teacher does not make you immune to mistakes. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Manson
I apologize in advance if I said anything on the talk page that might offend you. I'm officially finished with this article. I can't take it anymore. Maybe you can look in once in a while to see if everything is okay. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I apologize for anything that was said last fall that offended you, I was incredibly frustrated at the time, and probably should have just left then and dropped it entirely. I'm glad you feel vindicated, really! I can't take the stress that I've felt the last few days over this article, which is why I've stopped dealing with it for now. The GA reviewer echoed my feelings over this article and the issues I outlined, as have 3 others who contacted me or responded. I just don't know what to do about it, or if I want to deal with it. I thought a Manson break was warranted. I have an MA in clinical psych and part of my thesis covered Manson, so I'm really not ignorant about the subject, but my health is at risk with added stress and that is more important. I did move a copy of the article to my userspace and have worked a bit with it. I noted ... somewhere ... that I dropped 5 kb of size from the article by removing all of the extensive internal hidden notes, which in the long run don't discourage vandals or the random passerby from changing things arbitrarily anyway. I actually have it down to 76 kb with not all that many changes, but at the moment, that's where I am going to leave it for now. At least until my blood pressure drops and some time passes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My mention of your name
Thanks for the note. As I'll comment in a moment, I think your idea for breaking up the Manson article might be a good one; but before I get to that, I want to address, in this separate note, my mention of your name on the article's talk page:

I didn't intend to offend you — but maybe you know that. As you can see, another editor, AndToToToo, has entered the discussion on the Manson talk page. I want to put on the record here — on your talk page — the details of an exchange he/she and I have had:
 * 1 — When AndToToToo first contacted me about the dispute that erupted on the Manson talk page, he/she said, among other things, that I was not permitted to "reveal" your name. In responding to him/her, I indicated that you had given me your name on my talk page.  I wrote as follows:
 * I didn't reveal the name of editor BassPlyr23. He gave his name right here, on my talk page. In mentioning it, I was simply trying to indicate that, whatever conflict he and I might have had in the past, we had managed to get onto good terms.
 * 2 — AndToToToo responded that, even though you had given your name on my talk page, I didn't "have the authority to carry that to neutral talk pages." I asked him/her the basis for that statement.
 * 3 — AndToToToo directed me to WP:NPA and WP:OUTING, where, as I subsequently informed him/her, I found only this:
 * Posting of personal information
 * Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.
 * 4 — I told AndToToToo that:
 * As far as I can see, nothing [in the above-quoted paragraph, headed "Posting of personal information"] suggests I was in violation of Wikipedia policy by mentioning the first name of an editor who mentioned it himself on my talk page, which, in the manner of every other Wikipedia page, is available for perusal by — what? — four billion persons?

I asked AndToToToo to bring to my attention anything else he/she knows of that does, in fact, suggest my mention of your name was a Wikipedia violation. I have heard nothing more from him/her on the subject. In short: To the moment, I know of nothing that suggests that, in mentioning your name on the Manson talk page, I committed any sort of Wikipedia "violation," to use the term you yourself have employed.  Unless you have information to the contrary, please do not state as much. Naturally, I will honor your request that I not mention your name again.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: And kindly do not presume to refer to "[my] attacks on Wildhartlivie and ... other violations." To my knowledge, nothing I have done at Wikipedia has been declared a violation by anyone with authority to declare it such.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Manson revamp
I myself had been wondering for some time whether the article should be broken up. In fact, I think I am speaking truthfully when I say that I have vaguely imagined it in just the form you have suggested:


 * 1 — Charles Manson
 * 2 — Manson Family
 * 3 — Tate-LaBianca Murders

That really is the way to go — although I suppose there could also be a "Trial of Charles Manson."

The nice thing about this is that it would allow us to address the subject of variant accounts of the murders. Maybe you are aware that I temporarily addressed that here. Wildhartlivie and I had a discussion about the material, here and here; and I quickly told her simply to delete it, as she wanted to. (I suggested that, on the Manson talk page, she place a note about the exchange she and I had had. She did.)

At the time, I told Wildhartlivie that, even though the material was about to be deleted, I was glad I had made it "part of the Wikipedia record." I think I was basically anticipating a Manson-article revamp of the sort you have now suggested. In other words, I was assembling the information for an eventual separate article about the murders alone.

I'm not sure how we would coordinate the revamp. Is it possible to place the reworked material in a sandbox where we can all see it and deal with it?JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Postscript: I didn't want to mention this suggested revision at all on the Manson talk page before you would respond to me; but when I discovered that another editor — AndToToToo — was making helpful suggestions about the article's size, I decided to post some sort of mention, just to relieve the tension on the page.  My post is in the subsection headed "Article size." Here's what I wrote:
 * Another editor has given me a suggestion that the article be broken up into smaller articles. I've responded that (a) that might be a good idea, (b) I'd been thinking similarly, and (c) maybe the article can be broken up even a bit more than he has suggested.  Because I haven't yet heard back from him, I won't get into details; he might prefer to bring the suggestion to [the Manson talk page] himself.
 * Just wanted to give you this heads-up.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Saw your note a little while ago. You might be right that the trial material should be part of a Tate-LaBianca article. — I'm out of gas either way. Good luck doing anything you might choose to do with the Manson article; I can't work on it any longer. I'll say again what I said on the talk page the other day: the article has the facts right. They should provide a good basis for any revamp.

There's always a possibility I've missed some factual problem, of course. Also, sources are not always consistent with each other. (Small example: Bugliosi says Manson asked to go to San Francisco on the day he got out of Terminal Island; Manson in His Own Words says he asked the next day.)  Lastly, sources are not always internally consistent; but I won't get into that.

Despite all of that, I'll say again that the article provides a solid basis for further work. (Don't trust anything you might have seen in the "Manson Trial" piece I was working on in my sandbox. It was, as you say, skeletal; sometimes, I just rough a pseudo-fact into place to keep myself going.) I'll post pretty much this same note on the article's talk-page, to say that I'm out of energy, as I thought I might be. Again: Good luck.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Postscript: Here's some information that I once assembled and that might be of use to you for a "Manson Family" article:
 * Characterizations of the Family's ultimate size vary little. Bugliosi writes as follows:  "[Thirty-five] was our [i.e., Los Angeles law enforcement's] initial estimate of the size of the Family.  We'd later learn that at various times it numbered a hundred or more.  The hard-core members — i.e., those who remained for any length of time and who were privy to what was going on — numbered between twenty-five and thirty."  (Bugliosi 1994, 147-48.)  Tex Watson, who did not become associated with Manson until 1968, writes that "even though later estimates of the Family's size were exaggerated, there were eventually about thirty of us" (Watson, Ch. 7); he speaks of an "inner circle" of "eight or twelve of us" (Ch. 8) and a "Family of less than forty" (Ch. 11).  Paul Watkins, another 1968 newcomer, refers to a "Family of twenty-five" (Watkins, Ch. 11); after naming nineteen adults, including Manson and himself, Watkins says, "While there were fluctuations in size from time to time, new faces coming and going, this nucleus remained fairly consistent" (Ch. 4).  See, too, Watkins's remark in his 1989 CNN interview: "[T]here were a lot of people who came in and out of the group throughout the time."
 * Re 1989 as the year of the CNN interview: That's the date given at the mansonfamilytoday website, which presents a third-party transcript of the interview.  A year or so ago, I saw an official transcript, so to speak, at CNN's website; but I haven't been able to find it since.  My rough memory is that Watkins mentions his cancer diagnosis in the interview and that that made me think 1989 is right, but I really can't say.  Good luck yet again.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Skynyrd additions
Hey thanks for the additions that you are making across the Skynyrd articles. I saw that you sourced a couple of things you added but not others..I was hoping to get you to add citations because they are pretty important additions..I guess you know that Ronnie's death has been controversial as people on board have claimed different things about it. We need more good citations for the articles. I only placed one citation request in one article but more citations are welcome. Btw, is the book good? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk page. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)</b>) 11:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Ford assassination attempt
Do you have a source for the statement that Squeaky Fromme was the first person to be sentenced under the Presidential assassination statute? Because her attempt against Ford was probably the first attempt on a President's life after the Kennedy assassination, which, I'll guess, prompted the creation of the law, I don't doubt it; but a citation would be good.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The page I linked is only the text of what appears to be a first section of the Presidential assassination statute. It would be good to have a solid source re Fromme's being the first person sentenced under it.  As we've said, that seems likely; but I couldn't find it stated anywhere on the internet.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Onelifefreak2007
Just leave him alone. The edits you're making on his page are mean spirited and have crossed the line into personal attacks. It's time to take your focus off of him and put back onto the articles. Comment on content not on contributors. The next time I see you attacking him, I"ll take this to a WP:AN/I for wider community input on both of you. A  ni  Mate  00:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me when I say that I know how PJ's reactions can make "debating" him a lot of fun. In fact, he gives the kind of reactions that I used to love whenever I'd pick on my brother. Still, he's not a bad guy, just painfully, stubbornly one tracked and convinced that he's always right. Not exactly the right attitude for Wikipedia, and I have a feeling he'll discover this project isn't right for him (or he'll get indef blocked). Regardless, it's probably best not to poke him too hard, despite the satisfying reaction. A  ni  Mate  21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Munich massacre
I've responded to your inquiry. It's possible you've misunderstood the purpose of categories and how they are commonly used on WP. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramiro Martinez and bias
First BassPlyr23 (I assume you are a bass player and 23 years old by your moniker), I have interviewed Martinez, represented McCoy, talked with and interviewed other officers on the tower that day, met and interviewed Whitman's professors, friends and victims. So don't threaten me with vandalism. Like everyone, I want facts and facts are what I give. Martinez has changed his account and stories many times through the years, some are out right lies, others he gives partial truths and others he believes. As to the confrontation with Whitman, Martinez did take the initiative on his own to go after Whitman, forcing Mccoy along. Whitman was too well shielded by the light ballasts for Martinez to have hit him anywhere other than the knees down or in the head. Martinez claims in several interviews that he hit Whitman "somewhere on the left side" and that Whitman sprang up like a cat. McCoy fired on Whitman as Martinez was firing and McCoy aimed and hit Whitman flush in the face with several 00 buck shot, McCoy pumped in a second shell and fired on Whitman's left side of the head and shoulder area as Martinez was out of .38's. The second shogun blast wasn't needed, it was insurance. Martinez then grabbed McCoy's shotgun from him and ran to Whitman's prone dead body and fired point blank into Whitman's left arm and left the scene yelling that he had got Whitman. Even Martinez tells of Whitman coming around with the carbine after he stopped shoooting. McCoy tells that Whitman never sprang up and remained in his position sitting on the deck when he hit him with the 00 buck. Also, Martinez never talks about the other officers involved, but will speak of civilian Allen Crum. There has been bad blood between Martinez and all of the other officer's in the tower. The media focuses on Martinez because Chief Miles released the wrong information immediately after the event. Once the media gets info, they rush to claim exclusives and they will not relent until the story is told over and over again. The wrong information. So am I biased? Yes! I'm biased to the facts, and that is all.Victor9876 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, your link is to Dr. Chenar's Autopsy which was overturned by the Connally Commission. Dr. Chenar misdignosed the tumor and made several other mistakes during the original autopsy. Rely on the news programs if you want, they make a lot of money off of people like you who believe everything they report.Victor9876 (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You will be reported for WP:3R rule, there was no "consensus" as you mentioned, wether you are older than 23 or not is a moot point. In fact, on the Whitman discussion page, the consensus goes against you.Victor9876 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BassPlr23, sometimes, people just don't get along with certain people. I am not against you, nor am I "pushing" my points of view on Wikipedia. So let's have one agreement, stay off my talk page and I'll stay off yours. Civility is one thing. Dealing with someone who is an irony is another. I prefer not to deal with you. Now please, stay away. Thank You!Victor9876 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your suggestions under advisement. Healthy is your view, not mine. Good luck!Victor9876 (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Martinez would accept "assisted", but hey, what the hell do I know?Victor9876 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Manson
I think the wording as of now is good. I wasn't trying to be contentious, it is just that at some point, we (don't remember every participant) had a discussion about the wording, since we didn't have anything that confirmed that Manson orchestrated the girls' confession strategy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's twice in two weeks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Either that, or we have an alliance/cabal. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Defense rests, Manson case
Check the Helter Skelter chapter headed "November 19 — December 20, 1970"; it picks up right after the defense rests. The women started shouting. There's no indication of a reaction on Manson's part. In chambers, the judge asks Manson whether he wishes to testify and he says, "No." He adds, "That is, not at this time anyway." He's playing it low-key, so to speak. That's why I kept Manson out of the statement about the reaction. "Riled" is the apt word. "Likely angered" should be cut out. It's gratuitous surmise. The reader can arrive at his or her own conclusion.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My note above was being composed and posted while you were making your final changes (from 22:58 to 23:01), which I hadn't seen. The wording now is good.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Knife found at Tate residence
Mike --

My change to the knife sentence didn't necessarily indicate that your wording was incorrect (although I think it was). You'll notice that, in my edit summary, I used the word "clarification," not "correction." I simply didn't want a reader who knows about the knife that was found at the Tate house — or who learns about it after reading the Wikipedia article — to say to himself or herself, "Wait — Wikipedia said none of the knives were found."

I've just taken a quick look through Helter Skelter (1994 edition), to see what it contains on the subject. I've found the following:


 * According to Kasabian: As Watson and the others were leaving Spahn ranch on the night of the Tate murders, Watson handed Kasabian "three knives and a gun" and told her to wrap them in a rag and put them on the floor of the car.  If the group were to be stopped by the police, she was to throw the weapons out.  (Page 260)


 * According to Atkins (at the grand jury): In the car, as they headed for the Tate place, Atkins, Kasabian, and Krenwinkel "each had a knife; Tex had a gun and, [Atkins] believed, a knife too."  (Page 176)

So — there's already uncertainty about the number of the knives — three or four — though my quick review of all of the passages, including the following, leads me to think it was three. To continue:


 * Atkins (grand jury): When they went over the gate of the Tate place, Atkins had "her knife in her teeth."  (Page 177)


 * Atkins (grand jury): After Frykowski was tied up, Watson told Atkins to bring the house's other residents into the living room.  Atkins went to Folger's bedroom, "put a knife in front of her, and said, 'Get up and go into the living room.  Don't ask any questions.  Just do what I say.'"  Krenwinkel, "also armed with a knife," took charge of Folger while Atkins got Sebring and Tate.  (Page 178)


 * Atkins (grand jury): When Watson ordered Atkins to kill Frykowski, Atkins "raised her knife."  In the struggle that broke out between Frykowski and her, she "had the knife in [her] right hand" and "was just swinging with [it]."  She couldn't see what she was stabbing:  "It could have been Frykowski, it could have been a chair, I don't know what it was."  (Pages 178-79)


 * Atkins (grand jury): As Frykowski was trying to get out the door, Watson got to him, hit him over the head.  "Apparently Tex had a knife ready, as he began stabbing Frykowski...."  (Page 179)


 * Atkins (grand jury): As they were driving away from the Tate house, Atkins "realized she had lost her knife, but Tex was against going back."  (Page 180)


 * Atkins (grand jury): On the drive away from the Tate home, they pulled over at "what looked like an embankment going down like a cliff."  Kasabian threw the bloody clothes over the side of the hill.  "The weapons, the knives and gun," were thrown out at "three or four different places."  (Page 181)


 * Parent had a defensive knife wound on his left hand. Apparently, Watson was holding a knife by the time of Parent's approach, in the driveway.  (Pages 260-61)


 * According to Kasabian: "Perhaps a minute or two" after she (Kasabian) followed Watson's instruction to wait down at the Tate gate, Krenwinkel came back to her and asked her for her knife, which had a taped handle.  (Page 261)


 * Kasabian: On the Tate lawn, Krenwinkel pursued Folger with an upraised knife.  As the intruders were leaving the Tate place, Krenwinkel complained that, in stabbing against bone (with the knife that lacked a regular handle) she had bruised her hand.  (Page 262)


 * Kasabian: As the killers got into the getaway car, Watson "yelled at [Atkins] for losing her knife."  (Page 262)


 * Kasabian: En route from the Tate place, Kasabian followed Watson's instructions to throw the bloody clothing down a slope.  After that, she followed Watson's instructions to wipe the knives of fingerprints and toss them out the window.  She tossed the knives out one at a time — two knives.  (Page 263)


 * At the Tate house, an investigator "found a knife in the living room, less than three feet from Sharon Tate's body. It was wedged behind the cushion in one of the chairs, with the blade sticking up.  A Buck brand clasp-type pocketknife, its blad was 3/4 inch in diameter, 3 13/16 inches in length, making it too small to have caused most of the wounds.  Noticing a spot on the side of the blade, Granado tested it for blood:  negative.  Girt dusted it for prints:  an unreadable smudge."  (Page 17)

So — was the knife that was found wedged behind the cushion one of the knives wielded by the intruders? It certainly seems to have been. It appears to have been the knife Atkins used to threaten Folger and the others (to get them into the living room) and with which she was armed while she was struggling with Frykowski. Was it "used" at the Tate residence? I suppose that depends on what is meant by "used." It was certainly used, as I say, to threaten. Was Frykowski actually stabbed with it? That's uncertain. Regardless, the Wikipedia article will be, at the very least, misleading if it says that "the knives used at the Tate residence" were never found. That's why I rewarded the sentence. If you think the article should mention the knife found in the Tate house (as it presently does not), I won't argue with you.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: I neglected to mention that the Tate housekeeper "could not recall ever having seen [the knife found wedged behind the cushion]." (Page 17) I'm pretty sure, too, that Helter Skelter mentions Buck knives that were at Spahn Ranch — something about Buck knives' being purchased by the Family, I think. That contributes to my conclusion that the knife found wedged behind the cushion was the one Atkins said she'd lost. Again: The sentence I revised was, at the very least, misleading.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And lest I be misunderstood: My characterization of the sentence as misleading is not dependent on the conclusion that the knife found behind the cushion was one of the knives wielded by the intruders (although I don't think there's any doubt of that). The sentence is misleading simply because of the possibility that that was the knife Atkins said she lost. The sentence I revised indicated that the knives used at the Tate residence were never found. No: The knives discarded along the road were never found. Another knife, possibly used by the intruders, was found inside the house; so the sentence I changed is misleading (and arguably false).JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Who else
Thanks for reverting that. If you haven't, would you leave a note backing my comments on the talk page? Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Manson and The Monkees
Wikipedia is of course a consensus and generally those accusing others of bullying shouldn't be leaving messages on their talk page with words stressed in all caps. Pot, meet kettle.

Perhaps you fail to see that the Wikipedia article not a fan page emphasizing the "mystique surrounding Manson and his music" but rather facts related to him and not the debunking of rumors. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "A fact (in rumor form)." Seriously? Sottolacqua (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you need to take a step back and a few deep breaths about this very simple disagreement. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Additionally, when accusing someone of incivility, you probably shouldn't call them a "putz." see User_talk:Wildhartlivie Sottolacqua (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From me
I saw the exchange, and I responded on the Manson talk page about how the page has been reduced to a fan page. On the other hand, it hasn't been removed again, so hopefully, it will die down. This is an issue of consensus of the regular editors vs. one person whose only complaint about the article was the Monkees thing, but who essentially ended up denigrating the whole page. It's a good article. The only reason it isn't a GA or FA is because none of us had the inclination to cut it down to suit arbitrary article size limits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

PJ/Onelifefreak2007
I just caught this little gem. PJ is clearly special needs, and has admitted as much. Calling another user a butthole is a personal attack and so painfully immature I don't even know where to start. Watch yourself, as I'll be watching you. I know online fighting can be fun, but it's not productive for Wikipedia. Cut it out. AniMate talk  04:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Knife in Tate residence (Resumed)
Mike --

Just wanted to let you know I’m not so sure now about my response to the question you raised -- whether the knife found at the Tate residence was "used" by Susan Atkins.

This really is one of the mysteries of the case, as even Bugliosi acknowledges. Because I’m basically no longer working on the Manson article, I'll make this brief. All references to Helter Skelter are to the 1994 edition. Here goes:


 * 1 -- When the L.A. Sheriff’s detectives went out to the desert and talked to Lutesinger, she mentioned a fight in which Susan Atkins supposedly stabbed someone in the legs. Even though the Sheriff’s men were really investigating the Hinman murder, they thought of Frykowski, who was stabbed in the legs.  (Helter Skelter, pages 76 and 77.)


 * 2 -- In the tape-recorded statement made in her attorney’s office on December 1, 1969 (Helter Skelter, page 160), Atkins confessed to stabbing Frykowski five or six times "in self-defense" (Helter Skelter, page 167). When she spoke with Bugliosi on December 4, she again said she had stabbed Frykowski.  (Page 171.)  In the tape and in her conversation with Bugliosi, she said she stabbed Frykowski "three or four times in the leg."  (Page 179.)


 * 3 -- When Atkins testified before the grand jury on December 5, she spoke differently. She said that, as she struggled with Frykowski, he got behind her and that she stabbed repeatedly behind herself.  She said she didn’t know what the knife had been penetrating:  "It could have been Frykowski, it could have been a chair...."  (Pages 178-79.)


 * 4 -- In his autobiography, Tex Watson says that, as Atkins and Frykowski struggled, Atkins stabbed Frykowski in the legs. (Chapter 14, Watson, Will You Die for Me?)


 * 5 -- In her own autobiography (Child of Satan, Child of God, 1977 edition), Atkin says that, during the struggle, she stabbed Frykowski in the legs:


 * He had me from behind and I flailed wildly with my knife, stabbing him over and over in the legs. Blood was everywhere.  (Page 141.)

Okay – so the question is: "Did Atkins stab Frykowski in the legs or not?" Her recollection that "blood was everywhere" sounds pretty vivid -- but if you’ll take a look at the rest of her autobiography, you’ll see that Atkins has pretty vivid hallucinations (including at least one she experienced in childhood). For me personally, it’s really hard to say whether her recollection that Frykowski’s blood was everywhere as she was struggling with him is genuine. It seems as if it could be something that appeared in her mind years later, when she was working on the autobiography. (Compare her grand jury testimony. She mentions Tex’s supposedly stabbing Folger in the gut inside the Tate residence, but that doesn’t seem to fit into the sequence of events.  Watson doesn’t mention it (in his autobiography), and it’s hard to believe Folger was able to run out the house’s rear door -- particularly without leaving a bloody trail -– if she’d been stabbed in the gut before she escaped from Krenwinkel.  Again:  It’s hard to say whether Atkins’s imagination has confounded her recollection.)

Okay – so that’s still the question: "Did Atkins stab Frykowski in the legs or not?"

Let’s say she did. Which knife did she use? The one she lost at the murder scene? Was that the one found wedged in the chair in the Polanskis’ living room? If so, then why did that knife have no blood on it? (Helter Skelter, page 17.) As I didn’t realize when I typed my initial response to you (earlier on this talk page), Irving Kanarek raised that question in his closing statement to the jury. Bugliosi acknowledged, to the jury, that the prosecution had no answer:


 * We had no answer. We could speculate, however, that Sadie had lost the knife before she stabbed Voytek and Sharon, possibly while she was in the process of tying up Voytek, and that at some later point she borrowed another knife from Katie or Tex.  "Much more important than what knife she used was the fact that she confessed stabbing both of the victims to Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard."  (Helter Skelter, page 405.)

Well –- you and I are not discussing the stabbing of Tate. My concern is the stabbing of Frykowski. If Atkins stabbed Frykowski, why is there no blood on that knife? If she used a different knife, when did she get it? According to Helter Skelter, Atkins said she didn’t realize she’d lost her knife until the four Family members were driving away from the Tate house, in the getaway car. (On page 180 of Helter Skelter, you get the impression she said this to the grand jury; but I haven’t seen any such statement from Atkins in my quick look at her grand jury testimony. Maybe she said it to Bugliosi in the conversation she had with him on December 4.)  Kasabian said that Watson yelled at Atkins in the car because she’d lost her knife. (Page 262.) I don’t think there’s any indication in Helter Skelter whether Kasabian indicated when Atkins announced the loss of the knife.

So –- as I say –- this is really a mystery. It really does seem as if the knife that was found wedged in the chair is the knife Atkins lost –- but what is the explanation for the lack of blood on that knife? The simplest explanation, I suppose, is that Atkins actually was stabbing a chair or something –- but that requires an explanation of two further things: (1)  Why did Watson say Atkins stabbed Frykowski in the legs? (2) Why were there apparently no slash marks on furniture in the house? Question 1 isn't so hard to answer: In his autobiographical account, Watson might simply have been including some details that weren't from his own personal memories. In describing the struggle between Atkins and Frykowski, for instance, he says that Atkins lost her knife, even though he apparently didn't learn that until the getaway. Question 2 is a little harder.

The other possibility, I suppose –- a strange one –- is that Manson wiped blood from the knife. In Manson in His Own Words, he says he went to the Tate house after the murders and tampered with evidence. (1986 edition, page 207) He says that, for instance, he wiped the Parent boy’s car of fingerprints. (I don’t know whether Bugliosi ever mentions any indication that that car had been wiped, but I'm pretty sure he doesn’t mention any Family member fingerprints that were found on it. The fingerprint-search of the "residence, guest house, and vehicles" of Cielo Drive is mentioned on pages 15-16 of Helter Skelter.)  Somewhere, too, in The Family, by Ed Sanders (2002 edition), it is said that, during the trial, Manson told Sanders (maybe through his, Manson’s, lawyer) that he had gone to the murder scene. Sanders had raised the question because the prosecution’s map of the crime scene made him think that the police had not found the scene as the killers had left it –- something like that.

So –- anyway: a mystery, as I say. I hadn’t realized it until I went to the Susan Atkins website today and took a quick look at a rough manuscript called The Myth of "Helter Skelter". In "Chapter 27," Atkins is talking about the question whether she stabbed Sharon Tate. She mentions that the knife that she left in the house was found without blood, and she mentions that the testimony from Kasabian was that Watson didn't learn she (Atkins) had lost her knife until the group was in the getaway car. (Atkins mentions all of this to argue that she didn't stab Tate: If she'd borrowed a knife in the house, why didn't Tex know about it?  Bugliosi's first response, I suppose, would be that Watson would not necessarily have known that Atkins borrowed a knife from Krenwinkel -- and actually, on page 141 of her autobiography, Atkins says she borrowed a knife from Kasabian, who, she says, came into the house.  Anyway -- we're not discussing the stabbing of Tate; and the Tate-murders account in the Atkins autobiography seems to me to be confused.)

In a footnote to those statements in The Myth of "Helter Skelter", Atkins mentioned the Helter Skelter passage about Kanarek’s mentioning the no-blood-on-the-knife to the jury. I’d not known about that when I wrote my answer to you, earlier on this talk page.

(A small point: In that same Chapter 27, Atkins says she knew she’d lost her knife before they got to the getaway car -– but that, as already noted, the testimony was that Tex didn’t find out until they were in the car.  In Helter Skelter, as I've said, Bugliosi says she said she didn't realize it until she was in the car.)

Anyway –- I won’t be working on the article anymore. The article presently says Atkins stabbed Frykowski in the legs. It doesn’t say she "might have" stabbed him in the legs. It says the knife found in the chair was apparently that of Atkins. (In both her autobiography and the online manuscript of The Myth of "Helter Skelter", Atkins indicates she takes it to have been her knife.) Obviously, the Wikipedia article can’t go into detail about all of this –- but maybe the mention of Atkins’s stabbing Frykowski in the legs should be removed. Maybe, too, the sentence about the discovery of the knife in the cushion should be followed by a sentence such as: "No blood was found on it" – with a footnote to Helter Skelter 1994, page 17.

Anyway -- that’s all I wanted to say, Mike. You raised a legitimate question, and I've realized there were some problems with my earlier answer. That's why I'm leaving this note. Take care.JohnBonaccorsi (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:David_Wright_2009.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:David_Wright_2009.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Francisco_Rodriguez_2009.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Francisco_Rodriguez_2009.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No problemo - the Orphaned images are often a good clue that vandalism has occurred :) Skier Dude  ( talk ) 05:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello BassPlyr23! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gad Tsobari -

re: Israeli fencers
There's really no need to thank me for creating the articles in the first place. Warm regards.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Talking drum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fleetwood Mac (album) (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) 00:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fleetwood Mac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santana (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) 11:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Year of birth
I saw that you added 1945 to 1937 as possible year of birth of Luttif Afif. You also said that two different books give these two options. What we do on Wikipedia in such cases is add the source to each of the two statements. Can you provide them, please? Debresser (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, I'm AldezD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Price Is Right (U.S. game show), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AldezD (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of guitars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tommy ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_guitars check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_guitars?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
Hello, I'm Praxidicae. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You have more than enough experience here to know that adding content such as this, particularly without a source is not acceptable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at 1977 Mississippi CV-240 crash, you may be blocked from editing. SolarFlash<sup style="color:#03F">Discussion 19:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

June 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jonestown, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jonestown, you may be blocked from editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Upon closer examination I think I misread the situation. My apologies. --Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Mets retired 24.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mets retired 24.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Jennifer Salt edit
I have reverted your addition of an unsourced date of birth to Jennifer Salt. In addition to Wikipedia's basic principle of citing sources (Citing sources), a special need for citations applies with regard to elements of a biography of a living person (WP:BLPPRIVACY). Feel free to add a date of birth when it is accompanied by a citation to a reliable, published, non-primary source. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)