User talk:J4ronow

Murder of Richard Oland
I undid your edits (you can replace them by undoing my removal) for a number of reasons: Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The use of "rumor mill" is not encyclopedic even if sourced.
 * The use of "Dick" instead of "Oland" - See wp:surname - please avoid the familiar "Dick"
 * Please use an encyclopedic wp:tone
 * Familiarize yourself with the wp:manual of style - Generally, articles should have the "look and feel" of the more visited articles.

Jim1138 I just wanted to let you know I got your feedback, and I'm working to incorporate everything you mentioned into this article. I'm going to frequently check with the resources you supplied as I go along to improve the article quality overall. Thanks very much, J4ronow (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To extend the comments of Jim1138, there's nothing worse than a scruffy-looking article in my view -- so some specific MoS points:
 * MOS:HEAD -- section headings should be sentence case.
 * MOS:REF -- references go after punctuation.
 * Thanks, Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have also decided the remove the "Key players" section -- we do not need to pin-point every person involved, certain important persons in the investigation can go into a future section that regards the investigation process. See Murder of Joanna Yeates, a featured article on such a subject, to see how such an article is done. Thanks, Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My name is not dave Your comments are extremely helpful and appreciated, thank you. I acknowledge this article seems pretty scruffy at the moment, but I am hoping to have the majority completed in the next 48 hours, with much improved formatting upon the final draft. References and punctuation will be corrected as well. I'll be sure to have the formatting of the final copy of the article follow similar Wikipedia articles; and I also notice someone had pointed out the lack of balance in the article, but this should not be an issue in 48 hours from now, as I am aiming for the article itself to be objective and unbiased. Thanks! J4ronow (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tchaliburton! I can tell that quality development of this page matters a lot to both of us. I think it might be most appropriate to discuss what we think this page should look like on a talk page rather than re-editing one another's work. I know you had placed a POV tag previously, and now a tag for too many primary sources. I'd love to know what you'd like this page to look like, and what you don't see on this article that you think needs to be written. I wrote on your talk page but wasn't sure if you had seen it. It would be great to hear back from you personally rather than via edits. Thanks very much for your contributions so far and look forward to chatting. Cheers! J4ronow (talk) 01:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it might be best to get the input of some other editors. I'm concerned with the use of primary sources but I'm not an expert about what's acceptable. I'm also not sure how we should treat live blogs from the trial. I don't know what the precedent is. My concern is that if we rely heavily primary sources from the trial and the investigation we may include unproven allegations that violate WP:BLP. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 02:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a HUGE number of secondary sources used for the writing of this article. You flagged the article with a POV tag without stating your rationale or any other communication, and no response to the message I had left on your talk page. Regardless, I removed the tag and added primary sources as a supplement to the secondary sources. Again, if there is a particular idea you have for what you'd like this page to look like, if there is something you don't see on this article that you think needs to be written, or if there is particular content you'd like removed, such as names, this can all be arranged. I'm not interested in getting in an editing war, but collaboration can only happen with communication. Thanks, J4ronow (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's discuss this on the talk page.T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 17:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

shorter = better in most cases
Please understand that I take WP:BLP policy seriously - unless a name of a person is "really useful" to readers, adding them is not going to help readers, and that is the goal of articles. It is not our goal to try or retry cases, but only to give sufficient facts and sources for readers to get a good overview here. Thank you for sure. Collect (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I have a number of edits I'd like to make to this page, including removing a number of names, but out of respect for their feedback I was waiting to hear back from another editor. So this article has been on hold for a few days now, but the end goal is just to provide an "overview" for a national-level audience that would be otherwise unfamiliar with the case. The excess detail had been incorporated to determine the overall format for the article, with the intention of removing irrelevant minutiae near completion; I wasn't expecting the writing of the article to take so long. I wanted to let you know, though, that I got your comments and appreciate the suggestions, thank you! I'll ensure the completed article is reviewed to ensure only information "really useful" to understanding the case remains. I'll also make sure to maintain contact with other editors to ensure a high-quality final product. Thanks again, J4ronow (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks again. I think you might well include specifics on some of the "excluded evidence", but not a lot of other trial detail as it seems there is possibly a valid issue of prosecutorial misconduct which would have to be very carefully written - the prosecutor is also a "living person" etc. My wife likes "murder TV" , but I find it better here to stick to facts as much as possible, and not be a moot court exercise for readers.