User talk:Kieronoldham/Archive 13

Buck Ruxton
Hello, Kieronoldham – I hope you don't mind I copy-edited the entire article Buck Ruxton. You are quite right that I should have used the -ise spellig of "summarize". I was tired, and I knew there were a few words spelled -ize even in British English, but I couldn't remember if "summarize" was one of them.

Regarding my changing "likely" to "probably", it is because, technically, "likely" is an adjective, not an adverb (although it is increasingly also being used as an adverb, particularly in the U.S.). See this Wiktionary entry: likely. See, in particular, the first item in the Usage notes under the adverb entry (scroll down to below the adjective entry). Thus, it should normally appear only with a noun ("a likely story") or the verb to be: "It is likely a forgery". When it appears with a verb ("it likely flowed...", it is being used as an adverb. That's why I changed it to "probably", which is an adverb. I agree it is probably best to avoid the use of "probably" twice in close proximity (except that this is an enumeration of detectives' findings and conclusions, so may be all right), but if you want to be correct, you would need to do one of these things:

(a) omit one of the words (avoiding using "likely" as an adverb) – that is, omit one of the "probably"s;

(b) find another adverb that would work (presumably, logically, normally, naturally, subsequently, soon, later);

(b) re-word the sentence (or phrase) so that it ends up with be as the verb; then you can use "likely".

Best regards, – Corinne (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, . Thanks for your message. I had already left a barnstar on your talk page before reading this. Of course I don't mind, and who would I be to take issue anyhow? I am somewhat a pariah on Wikipedia (or at least I sense as such given the topic I primarily devote attention to). I always like conversing and/or collaborating with people who help me populate and improve articles. I will look into the issue you raised.

Regarding the other major adjustment I made, the text read: "Before the Hampshires left Dalton Square, Ruxton gave them several sections of stained stair carpeting and Ruxton's stained suit to keep." This text needed adjusting in either the earlier part or the later part of the sentence to prevent dual insertion of the surname and not imply—contrary to the overall text of the article—that either a second individual with his surname was a participant in the murder, or his wife wore a suit which became bloodstained. Thanks for your help and advice.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I see you removed the phrase "it was" that I had added to this sentence:


 * In his closing argument delivered on 13March 1936 Birkett reiterated the defence's case that although the victims were indeed two women who had been murdered, the remains were not those of Isabella Ruxton and Mary Jane Rogerson, and that the Crown's allegations they were, and that the motive for Isabella's death had been Ruxton's suspicions of his wife's infidelity were collectively mere cases of conjecture.

I struggled to figure out the syntax of this sentence. It really is not clear, and it's a bit long, too. Let's look at the structure of this sentence:

(a) Prepositional phrase: "In his closing argument delivered on 13March 1936" – that's fine.

(b) Subject of the sentence: "Birkett";

(c) verb phrase that goes with that subject: "reiterated the defence's case";

(d) unwritten but understood relative pronoun and verb: "that stated" or participle "stating"


 * ...Birkett reiterated the defence's case [that stated] that...


 * ...Birkett reiterated the defence's case [stating] that...

(e) first noun clause beginning with "that": (...that [something occurred], or ...that [something was said/done/proven]):
 * "that although the victims were indeed two women who had been murdered, the remains were not those of Isabella Ruxton and Mary Jane Rogerson" – This is fine;

(f) second noun clause beginning with "that":

"that the Crown's allegations they were" – The problem with is is that if this is to be a noun clause, it needs a subject followed by a verb, just like a simple sentence.

That's why I added "it was" before "the Crown's allegations", to make it a grammatical noun clause, (...that it was the Crown's allegations that they were"), but there are other ways to fix this. One way is to change "allegations" to a verb:


 * that the Crown alleged that they were [the remains of Isabella Ruxton and Mary Jane Rogerson].

Another possibility is to change this to an adverbial clause modifying the first noun clause:


 * ..., as the Crown had alleged they were


 * that although the victims were indeed two women who had been murdered, the remains were not those of Isabella Ruxton and Mary Jane Rogerson, as the Crown had alleged they were;

(g) third (or second) noun clause: "that the motive for Isabella's death had been Ruxton's suspicions of his wife's infidelity were collectively mere cases of conjecture". Grammatically, this is pretty much all right, but "were" is the plural form of the verb, and "cases" is plural, and the subject, "motive", is singular. "The motive...were cases" doesn't go together. So, what do you think is the real subject of the plural verb "were"? What were "mere cases of conjecture"? "Suspicions" is plural, but I don't think that makes sense as the subject of "were" ( "suspicions...were...cases of conjecture" ). You either have to find a different (and plural) subject to go with the plural verb "were" or change "were" to "was" and "cases" to "a case".

If you fix the middle clause in one of the two ways I suggested, and clarify the last clause by answering the question "What were "mere cases of conjecture"? you'll be close to a good sentence. – Corinne (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the edit in which you changed "Buck Ruxton gave them (the Hampshires)" back to "the Hampshires were given" – or maybe you didn't – but I'm too tired to look right now. The reason I changed it from passive voice ("the Hampshires were given") to active voice ("Ruxton gave them") was because with passive voice, it is left unclear who gave the clothing and carpet to the Hampshires", and I thought there is no reason not to say that Ruxton did that himself (unless, of course, it really was unknown). But even if you use active voice, you are right to make it clear whose suit it was by using the name (because "his" could refer to either Ruxton or Mr. Hampshire). Let me know if you have any more questions or concerns. By the way, what does "populate an article" mean? I had never heard "populate" used that way. I've heard "worked on an article" or "expanded an article", but not "populate an article". – Corinne (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the closing speech, . I'll look into the issues raised - esp. the cases of conjecture aspect. This section of the text was hearkening to the closing argument of a trial, which predictably condenses all delivered testimony into one final summary, and Birkett was reminding a jury of what had been testified to my many witnesses.

Why do I use the term populate an article? Well some of which I work on are so sparse and in some cases poorly written that they | yearn for expansion, so what I mean my this is that they need expanding and clarifying as they are little better than stubs.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I structured the text within the article to read "Crown's allegations" simply to appropriately add the link to allegation to it's precise word instead of another method of adding the link. I know I could have tightened the text volume but this is an idiosyncrasy of mine. Best regards. :).--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering my question about "populate". Regarding the second noun clause (as discussed above), if a sentence is ungrammatical, it will be changed (or possibly even deleted) by someone eventually. You can put any form of a word after the pipe in a link, so you don't have to use the noun form. This is how I would write the sentence:


 * In his closing argument delivered on 13March 1936, Birkett reiterated the defence's case that, although the victims were indeed two women who had been murdered, the remains were not those of Isabella Ruxton and Mary Jane Rogerson, as the Crown had alleged they were, and that it was merely conjecture that the motive for Isabella's death had been Ruxton's suspicions of his wife's infidelity.


 * or:


 * In his closing argument delivered on 13March 1936, Birkett reiterated the defence's case that, although the victims were indeed two women who had been murdered, the remains were not those of Isabella Ruxton and Mary Jane Rogerson, as the Crown had alleged they were, and that the idea that the motive for Isabella's death had been Ruxton's suspicions of his wife's infidelity was merely conjecture. – Corinne (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer the later one. Hope it meets your approval. Thanks again for your advice, and your polite guidance. I always find bringing these articles to the level I and others do a rewarding experience. Have a good weekend. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Either one would be fine; I agree the second one is better. Go ahead and add it to the article (if you haven't yet done so). What's "Kez."? You also have a good weekend. – Corinne (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Already done so, . "Kez" is just a friendly term which I'm referred to by family and friends. Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Delta Dawn (murder victim)
Hi. Can you look over Delta Dawn (murder victim) ? thank you. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not unless you want to exhume her. EEng 09:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * / That's another cold one for me to crack open?--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's awful. You should be ashamed of yourself. EEng 23:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You started; I followed.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That should teach you a lesson right there. EEng 23:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Beware whose lead you follow. Surely from the kind of article you edit you should know the perils of trusting the wrong person. EEng 23:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely from the kind of editors I've spoken with and observed over the years I should know when someone's being led down the primrose path. Surely you must also understand the benefits of 'gallows humour' with this topic, too. ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely you knew I'be been kidding all along. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 23:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I knew mate. Don't worry I recognize your approach and I think I once mentioned how you and Martin maintain editors' morale. You just gotta compartmentalize your psyche with this topic. A little dry humour maintains motivation. I'm from a large family (4 sisters 2 brothers) and none of my siblings are interested in true crime & they can't believe how I can do this. Some of the things I've read and written on here and elsewhere, I've read have given people nightmares. Pleasant dreams.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Blwyddyn Newydd Dda! Kieron, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable Calennig, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The heddlu should be there? (That's Welsh for police if memory serves me correct.) Maybe Burke and Hare, too, if they had turned to | taxidermy wi nowt taken out?--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murders of Kerry Graham and Francine Trimble, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dental care ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Murders_of_Kerry_Graham_and_Francine_Trimble check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Murders_of_Kerry_Graham_and_Francine_Trimble?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) 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Delta Dawn (murder victim), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eyewitness ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Delta_Dawn_%28murder_victim%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Delta_Dawn_%28murder_victim%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Uncivil comments at Jeffery Dahmer
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Jeffery Dahmer. Thank you. '''Accusing an editor of "hiding behind an IP" is WP:UNCIVIL. IPs are human too.''' (And you're a terrible writer.) 32.218.43.20 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought I did. Please bear in mind you only have a limited amount of text space to explain your edits. The way your edit read was thus: "talking in Laotian, with three young women". Those women were African American. Everything I have read indicated they were speaking English. Look I know the article is repugnant in details, and I worked extensively on it a few years ago, but I am sorely tempted to remove it from my watchlist. Other point is I almost never encounter an editor who becomes as knowledgeable as you seem to be while remaining an IP editor. Don't worry despite the topic matter I choose to populate I don't stalk people; I just wish people on here were not standoffish to me. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "talking in Laotian, with three young women" - That was neither my wording nor my edit.
 * "as knowledgeable as you seem to be while remaining an IP editor" So what? It happens. Live with it.
 * "standoffish" - Do you even know what that means? Whatever you're trying to say, that can't possibly be the correct word. 32.218.43.20 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I knew I was right about your behaviour. You demonstrated it even in your blanking your talk page. Less than 10 edits last time I looked. Oh and it is the correct descriptive term. Aloof, unforthcoming, and reserved.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP addresses seem VERY similar. Back live on 31 January, too. You know "summat"? I don't care.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As for your "And you're a terrible writer" accusation. Sorry for your personal gripe. Ahem... the Dahmer article alone has 476 active watchers. I've been reverted by editors other than yourself on there, but seldom. Since the beginning of January alone the article has exceeded 12,000 views on a daily basis. Not seen too many adjustments, so I must have done/be doing something rightly. I was (rightly) corrected in some of the earlier edits on the Dahmer article. Ahem... he RETAINED heads in the refrigerator (as he wanted to keep them for his in progress shrine); he didn't PUT them there as in what people would normally do with goods in a refrigerator as they are consumed and the packaging thrown away. I'd like to see you contribute as extensively on Wikipedia as I do, across such a wide range of articles, as I do. Then see mirror articles on the Internet, as I do. Resort to insults should you wish. The proof is in the text that remains. Genuinely, I wish you all the best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)