User talk:MisterCake/Archive 6

Paul Broca
Hey, Im working on a mega expansion of the Paul Broca page. And wanted to ask if you could please look over the first section that I added - 1850's Societies. And also let me know if there is anything that stands out re citations, references that I should fix and keep in mind when making more additions. Rybkovich (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did/undue-ed because I got confused by the footnote below Rybkovich (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. I didn't go through the sources, but I don't notice a claim without a supporting footnote. Quite interesting but I fear much of it is over my head if you want me to go through them. I can remember getting curare in Amazon Trail without knowing what it was. If I can add other comments: there is a limit, but (perhaps due to my ignorance) I would use more links in the article, e. g. aneurysms. Also, I think it is a good tip to try and avoid uses of "that". I would revise the first sentence of the first paragraph and the last of the third. Also consider moving further up in the paragraph the last sentences of the first and second paragraphs, for they seem important. One wonders how "soft bones were caused by interference with ossification" is not a tautology, like Moliere's quip about sleeping pills. "bad x was caused by interference in the x making process". Cake  (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! will update if I find anymore interesting stuff like curare. Rybkovich (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

short punt
Stumbled on the the short punt, good work on explaining how it was used offensively. Rybkovich (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

1929 California Hoover
Dear expert: Is this California Goldenbears team? & I got them from Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/npcc.17822/ states that it is University of California. The pics are taken on October 16, 1929. The 1928 California Golden Bears football team did not win national champ. The man next to Hoover does look like Nibs Price, compare http://tiptop25.com/top25_1929.html Thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1929 California Golden Bears football team played at Penn on 10/19 so it is probably them at the White House. The president Herbert Hoover probably invited them because he graduated from Stanford and had Cal connections. Rybkovich (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Good collaboration on Bradley Walker
Hi, MisterCake, I have enjoyed working on Bradley Walker with you. I need some help— the part about the "track meet at Vandy", "the all-around athlete medal" and the "boxing champ"(citations needed) are from an old clipping I found HERE. As you can see, there is no source or date for either article. The first one is by "Pete Ezell" and says "another of a series on past athletic greats in Nashville". Can you help me track this down and solve the mystery? No luck in scouring the Tennessean. I will delete the statements if I can't verify. Best regards,--Eagledj (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Balmain
Hi, I wanted to double check something you. I compressed a couple of sentences together on Balmain's life in 1772 and 1773. In both cases, the original editor wrote "By 1772" and "by 1773". Are you able to check the reference on this? What I would like to find out is whether those events in his life occurred in those years or in the years leading up to it. The reason for this is I want to tidy the phrasing of that section a little, but what I want to say may result in a different meaning. Thanks Blackmane (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for what you have done. Yes, both statements remain true if you change it to e. g. "in 1772"; "in 1773". Cake  (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. One other thing, I'm going to leave the family section unchanged. There's not really enough material to beat into any semblance of shape as yet. If more can be added that would allow coherent prose to be written, then I'd be happy to revisit it. Blackmane (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Pop Warner Little Scholars
The Pop Warner Little Scholars page was stripped a few years ago due to copyvio and has been pretty barren ever since. Figured you might have stuff to add on its history. Lizard (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I wish. Helped another make Pop's article, and wouldn't know anything about that history. Can say a lot more about his time at Pitt (since they played Ga Tech for one), Carlisle, or Georgia. Cake  (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Joint project?
Given our shared interest in old time football, it might be fun to work together on a project. Spring Hill, which I had never even heard of, brought this to mind. If you have ideas for something on which we might combine efforts, let me know. I have your talk page on my watch list, so you can think it over and reply either here or on my talk page. Cbl62 (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you'd like, sure. I try to focus on pre-1933 and/or pre-SEC in the South. War football during WW1 is one idea, since you already covered WW2. Lots of football stars made heroes in that conflict: Irby Curry, Tommy Spence, Farley Moody, and Chink Lowe off the top of my head. Josh Cody was considered a strong player during the war, as everywhere else. Those partial to the South like to blame the 1918 Pitt/GaTech debacle on the War. Which brings me full circle to Spring Hill. I wouldn't have ever heard of them before wikipedia, but I tried to expand Moon Ducote (and more notably, Mike Donahue), so I had to learn about them. In fact, I found a video of his descendant describing his kick off his teammates helmet, with a few details wrong, such as saying he kicked it off his own helmet, and contacted him to correct it. As a result the family shared with me several pictures of Ducote, including during childhood and Spring Hill team pictures. I used it to source the main picture, which is the usual picture used of Ducote, so the most encyclopedic, but if you click on the dropbox source you can see these. Cake  (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WWI service teams is a good one. Do you know of any good sources identifying the top teams in this category? Cbl62 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ducote, Harlan, and the Cleveland Naval Reserves beat Pitt - and Pitt is the 1918 national champion. So, they must have been pretty good. This source relates some of the best teams. Cake  (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is neat. I see now Gaylord Stinchcomb piloted the team. Cake  (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good sources. Cbl62 (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Chicago Naval Reserve was strong as well apparently. Auburn's big moment in 1917 was tying Ohio State. Tech beat the snot out of Auburn, then lost to Pitt the following season. Neat that Auburn, Ohio State, and Tech backs team up to finally take down Pitt.   Cake  (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Researching now to see if Cleveland Naval played any other games so as to warrant a team/season article. Cbl62 (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Started 1918 Cleveland Naval Reserve football team. Cbl62 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty good start for a little more than an hour of combined effort! Cbl62 (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not bad. Started 1918 Great Lakes Navy Bluejackets football team. Might have to resurrect the service team navboxes. Undefeated, winning the Rose Bowl, and beating Navy (probably #3 behind Pitt and Michigan) must have them ranked highly. Cake (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Spalding's Guide says Great Lakes Navy was the best service team. Confused at all the team pictures with different names for Mare Island. Wilson Collins SABR page says Camp Gordon was the best service team in the South. They had Collins and Strup. Cake  (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Started 1918 Camp Gordon football team, but its record doesn't support the contention that it was the best service team in the South. It lost twice to Camp Hancock. Cbl62 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess the baseball site was clueless. Supposedly, though I don't see it in the newspaper clippings, Strup played for Hancock too. I started Mare Island and the Chicago Naval Reserves as well. Cake  (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * this site has a fair amount of games with a service team. Cake  (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Started 1918 Camp Grant football team as well. Cbl62 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Just came across a self-published work (here). Not sure it qualifies as a reliable source, but it appears to have been prepared with some care. Cbl62 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good source for the Great Lakes and Mare Island teams at least. Is there a reason 1918 doesn't have the All-American service teams? Cake  (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know of a reason. The all-service teams should be included somewhere. Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

1917: I kicked of the 1917 service teams with Mare Island, Camp Lewis, and Allentown Ambulance Corps (sometimes referred to as the USAACS). Which were the big Southern service teams in 1917? Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one as 1917 is a big year for the colleges in the South with Georgia Tech's title. Camp Gordon gave Alabama its worst loss. I think Bob McWhorter was captain. Cake  (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Started Camp Gordon. Lots of names there. Camp Jackson's tackles were Josh Cody and Ted Shultz.  Cake  (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention Kirk Newell's heroism. My excuse is 1913 was before I was thinking about. Cake  (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Eckersall likes that 1918 Chicago Naval Reserves team. Rough time finding a source for the players. Cake  (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have a list for the top scoring teams each year, like Florida in 1928 or Vandy in 1915? Also, for 1921-1924 on the individual scorers you listed the top scorers in just the East. For example, in 1921 you have Kaw as the top scorer, but Bo McMillin outscored him. Also, in 1926, your source does say Koster was tops, but it also gives a rather measly total for Mayes McLain. For 1918, it is hard to imagine anybody outscoring Georgia Tech. Do we know the points scored by Bill Ingram or Wooky Roberts at Navy? Surely the only people who might be comparable to Red Barron. Also left a Q for you about Bradley Walker on your talk page a bit ago. Cake  (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any lists on Wikipedia for top scoring teams by year. As for the individual leaders, you should feel free to update it to revise if you can find and add a reliable source showing that McMillin scored more, etc. I have not researched Ingram's or Robert's scoring totals at Navy. I will take a look at your Walker question and reply on my talk page ... must have missed that. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Here are the eight most recent leaders per the NCAA: 2017 - UCF (48.2 ppg); 2016 - Western Kentucky (45.5 ppg); 2015 -Baylor (48.1 ppg); 2014 - Baylor (48.3); 2013 - Baylor (52.4); 2012 - Louisiana Tech (51.5 ppg); 2011 - Houston (49.3 ppg); and 2010 - Oregon (47.0 ppg). Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I see you have already created the list. Nice work! Cbl62 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

URLs for newspapers sources
Hi Cake. I'm chipping away at Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL and came across Phillips Haymakers football. I realise this was a long time ago now, but are those newspapers online, and might you be able to add URLs for them? It's useful even if they're behind a paywall (e.g. Newspapers.com). No worries if not; I'll remove access-date in that case and be on my way. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 09:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed the ones I could find. Cake  (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a great improvement, thank you. If there are other articles you write or edit, URLs are a great help and I appreciate you adding them here. Sorry for having to pull you into an article from two years back this time. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 20:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please review comments on A.H. Douglas
You appear to be a lead contributor for the article on Archibald Hugh "Toots" "Tootsie" Douglas (February 8, 1885 – December 12, 1972). Please review comments on his Talk page. Shipsview (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have a full biography from a Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame article. If interested, please email me at william @ douglashistory.co.uk (no gaps)Shipsview (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

1884 Dartmouth football team
Hello, are you able to help fix the reference on this article or replace it? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi MisterCake, please let me know if you're able to help with this, or whether I should look at other options for it. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Bare URLs
Hi! Could you please have a look at Bare URLs, and especially the section What is wrong with bare URLs? Thank you! Richard 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I know. Sorry, working slowly. Feel like the pre-massacre section needs to mention fireworks. Cake  (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with being slow; haste makes waste. Better slow than sloppy. Richard 11:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Vanderbilt yearbooks
Not sure if this interests you, but I periodically monitor ebay for interesting items and found a current auction for 1920 and 1921 Vanderbilt yearbooks. Opening bid just $8.00 per book. You can find here if interested: 1920 and 1921. Cbl62 (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Will probably pass, but thank you, and cool stuff, and weird shapes on those books. I have 22 and 24. Wish I could find 23. Usually the football season is from the year before. So 21 is gonna be 20 with the snot kicked out of them by Tech and Auburn. 20 is a little interesting since it might have some neat pictures of Josh Cody. Also the Tech and Auburn yearbooks are online of course. The '25 Notre Dame yearbook with the four horsemen is for sale on ebay as well. I'd really like to find one of those old friction-stripe jerseys, but I guess most of those are destroyed by now.  Cake  (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Golden vs. Littleton
Hi! Regarding this edit: the source provided actually states February 24th and 25th the evidence was put on display in Littleton for the families of the victims to view [...]. So, either you or the source is mistaken. If you're absolutely sure the source is, I think you should provide a replacement source. Richard 09:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I fixed it. Maybe it was moved to Golden on the 26th for the public viewing? Cake  (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That might very well be the case. I have put the original display (February 24th/25th) and its reference back into the article (no need to give more weight to one of the exhibition locations over the other). I take your word for the new reference, since the LA Times website is not directly accessible from my location (in Europe). Richard 12:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The victim's families were at the public viewing though, and acolumbinesite is not exactly perfect. The LA Times article is about victims families and it written in Golden, and contradicts any prior viewing: "GOLDEN, Colo. — Appearing stunned and distraught, relatives of those killed in the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School got their first look Wednesday at all the physical evidence in the case." Also, seems like a lot to move for no real reason, but I can understand wanting to reconcile the sources. Can you view gettyimages? I did not want to cite a photograph, but it was what made me realize it was not in Littleton. See here for instance.  Cake  (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Always nice to have sources contradict each other :( With how it is put in the article it looks correct in any case – it was put on display that day (it does not say that that was the first day it was on display ;) ). However, the original source (acolumbinesite) can no longer be used to back up that statement. Since it was re-used elsewhere in the article, I have moved it to that location. Richard 13:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I've wondered if I should add the European copycats. Several in Germany, and e. g. Jokela. On one hand, the copycats might need their own article, and tl;dr on the copycats probably lionizes the perpetrators. On the other, the sheer amount of copycats might be the most notable fact about the crime. Cake  (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree with that assessment (the most notable fact). Richard 09:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should state it the other way around: I'm not sure I know of a crime more notorious for its copycats. Cake (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

How is it December already?
Hello, just wanted to check in and let you know that I haven't forgotten our discussion at Columbine High School Massacre. I haven't been able to dig into the review in the way that I want to because of school, but the quarter is over on Friday and I will be officially out of excuses. Thanks for your patience and I look forward to continuing to collaborate with you! †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  21:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. It probably borders on OR, but I dug through the witness statements to try and best replicate what they said in the library. Most depictions in film, articles, etc, have Harris as the more vocal one, yet by all accounts of people there and who heard the full 911 call, Klebold was the more vocal one. He also wrote more about resenting the jocks. They are also usually depicted as near the entrance. For example "all jocks stand up", nobody standing up, and "fine I'll starting shooting anyway" is usually given as Harris by the entrance. Bree Pasquale, the most vigilant of the witnesses, says it was Klebold between the computer rows. Kacey Ruegsegger, who admittedly was shot so has an excuse if her memory was fuzzy, was inches from Klebold when he dropped his trench coat, and she says "Fine, I'll just start shooting" was stated then.  Also, pretty sure at least Steepleton and Ireland had white hats on, so it makes some sense. Also, apparently the "white hats" comment was made after nobody stood up the first time. As in, "Hey Klebold, since the jocks won't identify themselves, then just shoot at white hats." That too makes some sense.  Cake  (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Gacy
Further to your question, I believe it is one of the victims retrieved from the Des Plaines River killed in November 1978.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * That makes some sense, though I am surprised how well preserved they are, and I wonder if that picture is taken in his house. I was debating whether to call the museum and annoy them from nowhere near Wisconsin. Also, given the story with Antonucci, and how "The first victim is the most revealing" is a cliche, I wonder most about Gacy's second victim. Is that true here? Was the 2nd where the handcuff trick started? And of course who was he, I wonder. Also a bit confused about the Marino situation. Cake  (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There was testimony at Gacy's trial from Dr. Stein that all victims recovered from Gacy's house were complete or near-complete skeletons. The first and last victims recovered from the river were nude. Mazzara was found after just over one month; Landingin after eight days. Cold climate months.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Gacy stated he fully perfected the handcuff trick in circa 1976 and the guile to subdue his victims via handcuffs was basically "no challenge" after 10 or so murders. I can clarify more with the Marino dispute, but Kenneth Parker was identified via bone fracture radiology as well as dental records. I only have access to printed material and what I find online. Little is known about the precise date of the second murder although Gacy (in one of the few truthful interviews given before he began to portray the "Bad Jack" Hanley alter ego as the perpetrator) was insistent he did not murder anyone between the time of his June 1972 marriage and when he practically evicted his wife's mother from his home around December of 1973, and the second murder (victim 28 or maybe victim 10) was killed shortly afterwards. I put some information regarding 1975 being a possible murder year for victim 28 on the unidentified.wikia.com page for victim 28 last year. Anything you wish clarifying, feel free to ask.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Arguably looks more like Mazzara than Landingin, yet looks like he hasn't been out for a month. I guess I just don't follow whether Marino is a victim or isn't, and what he said to Antonucci suggests he had already handcuffed several victims. He could've meant rape victims, etc, but there are just two murder victims at that point, and handcuffs are not an element of the first murder. Given how that became his usual MO, as well as the element of premeditation, and the bit about stuffing cloth in the mouth to stop leakage, it seems like there is some importance to that second murder which might be overlooked in favor of the curiosity of his 'first murder'. Cake  (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He readily stated neither the murder of McCoy or of Piest fit any form of pattern regarding his offending behvior. In having said that, his last murder was his downfall and repeat offenders become more confident and in turn progressively careless. Certainly the first murder was to a degree at least atypical of those that followed.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting how the two anomalies are the two given the most focus due to being first and last. I used to figure Butkovitch was the original victim of the handcuff trick and thus the most interesting victim, but the fight with Antonucci suggests otherwise. That said, kind of surprised how little there is about McCoy. Only one blurry photo, for instance. Also, do you know how Gacy got chloroform? It was a big element of the Casey Anthony case. Unfortunately the media is a joke with it and the JonBenet Ramsey case, but wikipedia wants to keep to what the media says for fear of original research. In short, the prosecution accused Anthony of using chloroform. She probably didn't. People say she's not a chemist and it's more of a thing in the movies. I think of Rignall when people go that far; I can think of one example that was not in the movies or from a chemist. Cake (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * He regularly either stole or, in some instances, was given various parmaceuticals from owners of drugstores he remodeled. Many of the stores PDM Contractors or PE Systems renovated were drugstores. Gacy used to refer to days in which he remodeled drugstores or drove to various locations bidding upon drugstore renovations as his "drugstore days" (no prizes for originality in that terminology). Also chloroform is a solvent and given both his thieving and the necessity of materials used in roles within the firms cannot be too difficult to obtain. I could clarify that more, feel free to ask. I may do so.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I did know he did drug stores like Nisson Pharmacy, but I never made the connection between that and chloroform. Also, the Davis 2005 source does not link to anything. A shame since Gacy being a copycat of Corll seems quite likely in my opinion. Always found it interesting that he mentioned Henley's name, but not Corll's. Wonder if that is significant. A way to hint that Rossi and Cram were accomplices? A way to say he saw himself as a kid like Henley more than Corll? A way to say he wish he had been killed like Corll? Cake  (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

FL
FYI FloridaArmy (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft:Florida secession convention
 * Draft:William Iredell Turner
 * Draft:Truman Futch

I also started Draft:Malachi Martin (warden). An article on [Thomas Hannah (Florida politician)]] is also needed. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff, though not sure I can help with any of them. I saw Turner from Lesley's page, and I've got an ancestor born in Hampton, but only just learned of Futch. I don't know much about the Secession Convention. I assume George Taliaferro Ward was there, and he was a big shot.  Cake  (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:David P. Hogue
This draft could use a lil push to get it over the starting line. If you're interested. Regardless, great work you've been doing. Happy New Year. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I find. And thanks, you too. Ever hear of Ray Parmely? Cake  (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Surely there is some connection between McQueen McIntosh and James McQueen McIntosh. Cake  (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Spamming
When you at the same template to a hundred articles at one, spending 15 to 30 seconds on each one, you aren't carefully evaluating whether the template is appropriate to the article. Instead you are spamming. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry if it was something that needed consensus or whatever. Figured I was helping navigation. Was fixing incorrect references to classical logic being Aristotelian logic. Also tried to fix the analytic philosophy template. I won't revert your reverts or start an edit war, but I have to say I don't see them as errors, especially not the logic templates. It was not based on 15 seconds of reflection, even if adding a template only takes a few seconds. Cake  (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

University of North Carolina / SIAA
Yo Cake. How ya been? I think I found your missing link. The University of North Carolina seems to have actually been an SIAA member. I thought they were, and I noticed them missing in all the SIAA standings. According to some of the articles you cited, University of North Carolina was a charter member in 1895. They were still in the organization as of 1901 as a host member. UNC-Chapel Hill was also listed among the 14 colleges (future ACC and SEC charter members) that left the SIAA in 1921 to form the Southern Conference. SIAA records were probably not listed in the UNC media guide because they did not appear to start keeping individual team and player statistics until around 1931:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/7847243/the_timesdemocrat/

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/3116130/the_charlotte_news/

http://www.soconsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=4000&ATCLID=177772&SPID=3001&SPSID=69769

https://unc_ftp.sidearmsports.com/custompages/football/2016footballguide-o.pdf (p. 183) SportsEdits1 (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (connection problem, this was supposed to post here an hour ago; I corrected myself ;)) Hmmm. On taking another look at individual seasons of North Carolina, it does look like they started scheduling more eventual 'South Atlantic' schools around 1903 up until 1921. From talking to an asst. SID several years ago, I think the SAIIA originally centered around track and field like the lead suggests, but may have been originally connected to the SIAA, but for geographical reasons and travel, the eastern North Carolina schools, Virginia schools, Maryland, etc., continued to scheduled their football games with those same track and field schools.  SportsEdits1 (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Glad to see you are still around. You are probably happy about Clemson. I still have trouble with their 1900 season. Media guides are far from gospel, but they seem to be confident they were champions and with 3 conference wins. However, I can only justify 2 (UGA and Bama), and there were several teams undefeated in conference play that year, so it would make things easier to find a third. The most likely candidate for a third is Davidson simply because Fuzzy Woodruff mentioned the game in his history of Southern football. It probably was not South Carolina, but I would not be shocked if it was either of Davidson, Wofford, or VPI. Saylor's source on the SIAA says Davidson was in it at some point, and their 1906 season seems the most likely year. Websites with old schedules include their 1902 and 1906 years because they played enough SIAA teams, and Woodruff mentions them in 1906 as throwing the South's first forward pass. However, Spalding's Football Guide for 1906 specifically mentions the teams in the South Atlantic region (North Carolina and Virginia) which are also in the SIAA, and does not mention Davidson, but then does when it lists all the teams in the region. So, I have no contemporary source saying Davidson was ever in the conference. Wofford seems to be in it by 1903. Media guides sometimes say VPI was in the conference for one year in 1898. I cannot justify this, but there's always the possibility they were wrong and it's 1900.  Would love somebody to call Clemson's media department and ask them which game it is they are counting as the third conference win in 1900.
 * As for UNC, there's a lot I can say. I am glad you went looking for sources, but I don't think these are enough or say anything different from what I know already. I already have them in the conference when it started, but out of it before the first football season. Your source also includes Johns Hopkins, which has the same story. I also already have UNC with its only year in the conference in 1901. The SoCon source is obviously forgetting about the SAIAA, with its mention of Maryland, VPI, Washington & Lee, and so forth. As I understood, UNC was kicked out of the conference in 1902 due to paying its baseball players. Some sources do include UNC as 1895 and 1898 SIAA champions. If they were in the conference, they no doubt had the best team. However, I cannot justify this. For example, look at the source for the 1899 conference standings. Auburn's yearbook has all the conference members listed. There is no UNC, nor Davidson, nor VPI, nor Wofford. Therefore, I think they were only in it in 1901.  Cake  (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey. I posted a correction above. Looking at the schedules, UNC-Chapel Hill was playing other SIAA schools in a few seasons in the late 1800's (Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Sewanee, and Auburn), and again in 1900.  I think on the original 1900 template they were listed in the 1900 SIAA standings, and some previous ones. It doesn't make since that they would host an SIAA meeting in December of 1901 if they had not been previously affiliated.  I find these early conferences fascinating in that they were attempting to organize fledgling football schools with rules, like transfer-player eligibility, etc.  I see someone was messing around with the standings back in October, and was throwing in my incite.  As for Heisman's 1900 team, we already know the SIAA league chose them as champions, and from biographical info.  But as for memberships, which seem head-scratching, I have since emailed one of the Clemson sports information directors to see what they know about certain memberships with other schools.  I expect there to be inconsistencies with a league with various sized schools spread out over so many states.  I don't know if you would mind emailing the North Carolina SID, or if you could look up his email for me.  I have been very busy this year, and ill, and haven't had as much time to devote to this.  I would love to get a listing of North Carolina official membership years, to clarify some of the discrepancies.
 * As for the CFP National Championship. Well... wow.  What a game!  I think we have been witnessing college football history.  Teams very seldom are consistent enough to make it to two championship games in a row, let alone 3 or 4 in four years.  It has literally been like a heavyweight prize fight. The first two were both close, and the last two were TKO's in the second half.  Simply amazing.  SportsEdits1 (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I already said UNC was a member in 1894 and 1901, but no evidence that they were in between or afterwards, hence the 1899 list of members not including them.  Cake  (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I saw you say you added a correction, but I didn't see what it was until just now. Conferences in general in those days were mostly track and field things, both SIAA and SAIAA included. I don't know enough to say whether the SAIAA broke off from the SIAA, but I doubt it. NC and VA were its own category. The only SID I can find for UNC is an "SID emeritus", so my feelings are mixed. Don't want to bother him if he's retired, yet my concerns are about things where somebody 200 years old would be nice. As for 1900 Clemson, "we know the SIAA chose them as champions" - I don't know that. I am basing the claim on Clemson claiming the title, and that's enough to note the title, but even e. g. LSU claims 1902. If Auburn or Tulane claimed one too, I would have to give them a co-championship. Clemson's yearbook doesn't mention an SIAA title. Also, if there were a contemporary source, they would probably pick Sewanee. After the historic 1899 season, they were going to pick Sewanee as champions of the South in general in 1900 had they just beaten Virginia, but they lost and threw a wrench into the process. Ormond Simkins was very probably considered the best player in the SIAA in 1900 (it's a crime that Seibels is in the Hall of Fame but Simkins isn't). And it looks like Dabo gets to claim he's the greatest Clemson coach now, above Heisman, Cody, Neely, and Howard. Neely would play defensive end at 150 pounds against 230 pound linemen. Check how much bigger Cody was than his teammates on the basketball team Also Clemson was probably 1900 SIAA baseball champion as well, though I can't confirm. Their 1903 baseball record was so good I just assumed it anyway. Carl Sitton is definitely my favorite Clemson lad from the old days. Heisman's favorite play at Clemson was an end-around with Sitton.  Cake  (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool. I was just thinking outloud and weighing in on what I noticed.  UNC continued playing schools I listed west of the Appalachian Mountains (other SIAA schools) from 1896-1900.  One of these asst. SID's wrote me before and said the SAIAA was originally for track and field for schools who sponsored T&F.  Annual memberships to a league were often based on whether a school could afford to sponsor itself in a particular sport.  More northern schools (Virginia, Maryland) were forming more sports popular in the north: Track and Field, Rowing (crew), Lacrosse, etc.  The very name and geography suggests they were connected early on in some way, like all the conferences that grew, split and changed names.  I have enjoyed reading some of the articles you have found.  However, respectfully, we cannot just "give a school a championship."  I know you said if "those schools 'claimed it'", but honestly I have yet to see anything from our spotty records and conference records definitive enough to make significant changes.  As for the John Heisman era, I don't see any basis that Clemson University simply claimed that championship in 1900, and it think I saw it written in one of those Heisman biographies that a couple of Heisman's seasons were cited as championships at Clemson, before the ones at Georgia Tech.  I was reading about the makeshift championship game against Cumberland.  Also Tim Bourret, a Notre Dame graduate, was a well known, respected SID at Clemson, who has been referenced to me by name by other sports information people I have written.  His department doesn't seem to have a history of claiming things from the past, especially if there was no real legitimate basis to do so, ie. for "marketing purposes" like a lot of other colleges have tried to do over the years.  Just saying. :) SportsEdits1 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * On a related subject, and why I mentioned in the above, is we as editors have a responsibility, and honestly, this whole "claiming of championships" thing has gotten out of hand at times on wiki among fans and people with bias (not historians, researchers, scholars, etc.) Example: the "National Championship Foundation (NCF)" was pretty much a joke, often sited with the now defunct "College Football Data Warehouse" which was not official, used no empiricism, and simply just compiled many amateur websites written by more online fans. I know this has been under much debate and scrutiny, and rightly so. I didn't want you to misinterpret my tone as preachy.
 * Hadn't really thought about it, but I guess Swinney does have an argument now. I still think it's all relative though.  Football coaches like Saban, Meyer, Fisher are more like CEO's now, than coaches were back in the day.  Have you enjoyed the championship games?  They have been pretty exciting since the playoff era started imo.  Alabama / Clemson has lately reminded me of Ali / Frasier, Lakers / Celtics (Warriors / Cavs maybe).  Some great football though during the playoff era.  SportsEdits1 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reached out to Davidson, UNC, and Clemson for feedback on SIAA, although I really shouldn't take time to fall down this rabbit hole. *lol* Curious to see what kind of feedback they send. SportsEdits1 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You accidentally left North Carolina off of your other corrections in the 1899-1901 SIAA standings. This would change the conference standings back closer to the original.  I fixed and noted it, but the other game result templates you have since added to the "season" pages, and the team pages, have not all been corrected.  Not sure if those extra results templates are necessary, and since there may be a few other schools revised, it might make these pages possibly more tedious?  Looking at it all again, including sources, reason and schedules seem to suggest North Carolina were most likely members at least from 1894-1902.  I also see that you changed Davidson to an Independent on their main page?  You're making this too confusing. *l* SportsEdits1 (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It's been the same point. I couldn't confirm UNC was in the SIAA other than 1901 and before there was ever any conference play. I don't think Davidson was ever in the SIAA. Also, I was not saying Clemson made up the 1900 claim. I was saying we have to go by what the school claims, and that that can be sketchy, such as 1902 LSU. Going by conference records, 1900 is a 4-way tie, so I am interested in the reasoning for claiming 1900 Clemson. Maybe it was just that Davidson score. Cake (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Those old standings templates can be annoying to reorganize with ties.  My eyes are starting to cross.  You might want to check my work. Apologies, I didn't see the Davidson removal. I am surprised templates don't organize automatically once you plug in the numbers. By the way, the "results and team stats" boxes that were added seem "modern," in that they do not seem to mathematically organize ties?  Something I just noticed. I think overall standings are considered too since SIAA teams rarely played uniform conference schedules.  Auburn only played four games for example.  Like a Seinfeld episode, I feel like we had this conversation before. ;) And UNC gives Sewanee back a conference tie per original standings. SportsEdits1 (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We have had it before, but I am still just as curious as I was then. 5 teams undefeated in conference play, and only 2 conference wins, there must be more to the story for why they would claim an undisputed conference title. Also, ties are not losses, especially back in the old days. Even if the ties are why Sewanee and UNC don't count, it is still curious. Just look at 1902 or 1903. Clemson is more the clear-cut champion in those years, and there are still co-champions. Cake  (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this gets too long, I started an SIAA sub-heading on my talk page. I will have to look at the LSU season.  Still think you are over-analyzing standings.  There was very little consistency with league schedules back then.  Sewanee loss to UVA (and tie) knocked them out. Texas only played one southern opponent.  I also think they started picking and claiming champions more at the turn of the century.  Only explanation I have for UNC being 9-0 in 1898, but not claiming a championship.  1902-1903 seasons, Vanderbilt and Sewanee both traded losses at season's end   And the biography I was reading was Umphlett, Creating the Big Game: John W. Heisman and the Invention of American Football (1992). It cites three SIAA titles for Heisman at Clemson College and summarizes those seasons (starting at p. 64). . SportsEdits1 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't think I'm overanalyzing. I'm not doubting the championship or going to remove Clemson's claim to a title, just curious why them if they had only 2 conference games and 4 other undefeated conference opponents to contend with, and if it was all down to the beatdown of Davidson given the emphasis on points in those days. I've used Umphlett for a lot - I did the article on Heisman, the GT seasons, etc. I was referring to 1902 LSU and 1903 Cumberland being co-champions to Clemson despite arguably having weaker claims than any of the undefeated teams in 1900. Also, Vanderbilt beat Sewanee in 1903. Guess since Cumberland beat Vandy they played them instead. Cake  (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Umphlett notes for 1900: "It was the big win over Georgia that made everyone sit up and take notice." Could well be right, but interesting that Auburn (and UNC) beat them even worse. Cake  (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the UNC findings. Would really help if we can find one from 1895-1898. I did not like having to say there was no 1895 SIAA champion, and their 1898 team was a powerhouse. Covered their season because I initially thought they were SIAA. Cake  (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think C.C. played more games, and won impressively as a road team. But you're right, 64 points was impressive, at 5 points a TD.  UNC opened the season against "The Deaf and Dumb Institute."  Really?  *l*  Talk about weak non-conference scheduling.  I still think UNC was SIAA in 1898.  The league had only been around for 3 years then.  Does Sewanee actually claim 1898, and when did they?  And, when did SW Presbyterian become a member? *L* That didn't last long. SportsEdits1 (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Both Rhodes (SW Presbyterian, Neely's first coaching job) and Mercer were legit in baseball back in the day, though pretty irrelevant in football. Supposedly Rhodes was part of the slew of teams that joined in the second year of the conference, 1896. Now that you found a source saying UNC was there in 1899, I think they probably were there in 1895 and 1898 too, but another source would be nice. See for example this source noting Sewanee's share of an 1898 title (and in fact no SIAA title for UNC). Also, for deaf and dumb teams, Gallaudet used to have a good team.   Cake  (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I figured Rhodes was in because of another sport. Like Track & Field schools? ;)  I am familiar with that "laundry list" / source, which has glaring inconsistencies, and uses that Vanderbilt book.  It looks like it was compiled based on the same inconsistent conference records / schedules, and not based on any research on the teams' actual overall seasons.  1903 is just as one example that we have discussed and cited, but appears to not be based on much research from their list.  I'm also familiar with Robert Kirlin.  He was a part of one of those small, inconsistent retroactive championship groups who called themselves the "College Football Researchers Association (CFRA)."  It sounds officious, however they and the "NCF" have "elected more national champions than any other multi-voter poll in the country."   I know this also because Bob Kirlin picked Clemson University as the 1983 national champions.  True, Clemson was thought to be one of the toughest teams in the country by the season's end (they lost one ranked game on the road in early September).  However, they were on probation for that year with a post-season ban.  I don't know if Bob just didn't know this from his "deep-seated research" or just didn't care. *L*  I think it was probably the former. SportsEdits1 (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Influencer Diotima
I am not strongly involved, but just curious, so in case you are bothered, simply ignore or delete this, and sorry.

I recently disagreed about said, perhaps only fictionally existing, woman being a remarkable influence on Plato (see infobox and the TP-discussion). I further denied a psychologist's treatment on transference (technical term) with respect to the affective phenomenon "love" the status of a relevant source for "Plato being influenced by Diotima" regarding "Platonic love". I do not pursue any outcome or change, I simply thought of asking for your opinion on these "factoids", since you appear to me as both erudite and engaged. Best regards, Purgy (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You flatter me, and it beats me. Been a while since I've read the Symposium and frankly a loner/loser of the sort who should not be giving advice on love, even of the platonic kind. Transference like hating all women because one hates their mother, or I guess say loving a dog like a brother? I guess that's possible; never heard it explained in terms of projection. One wonders how that works if say you love your wife but haven't loved anyone else before. Transferred from what exactly, in that case? Though that's one of those first-day questions probably and I've never been much into psychology. Also wonder the relevance to Plato, or if that was an aside.
 * As for Plato, I don't think he has any fictional characters in his dialogues, unless Socrates was one of course. Then again, there are certainly anachronisms, like Socrates still being alive for Plato to write about, and Atlantis say seems a fictional place, though some will disagree there too. I am inclined to believe the trial of Socrates was fictional. For one, the court he was at was only for murder or impiety, so he wouldn't have been droning on about his love for dialectic. There were several defense speeches of Socrates in antiquity, and Maximus of Tyre said Socrates said nothing at his trial, hence the tradition of writing defense speeches for him. That strikes me as plausible. It seems to me even where Plato draws influence, he is quite original. He's not really a Pythagorean or Eleatic or Heraclitean. The Forms aren't Socrates idea according to Aristotle, and according to Xenophon Socrates thought math was rubbish, so Plato isn't merely a follower of Socrates either. Then again, nobody is totally original, and he probably would not seem so original if we had a time machine. So, in short, I am inclined to agree with you, but I don't have any great reasons why. Not really read up on Diotima. Wonder if she or indeed any woman at that time would be classified as a philosopher without being a pupil or her father or husband. While it's not impossible to be original, like today if you aren't in the school of analytic or continental, you're probably hardly a philosopher, I want to ask of what school was she a part? Mantinea is not in Ionia nor in Italy, the two main pre-socratic branches of thought. Who were her teachers? Assuming she existed, she seems more of a mystic figure like Pherecydes of Syros or the Oracle at Delphi. Philosophers of a sort I suppose, but for good reason won't find them in e. g. Diogenes Laertius. Then again, before Plato, love may have not been a subject for proper philosophers to worry about.   Cake  (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this elaborate reply. To lessen the flattering I might say I thought myself along your lines; alternatively, I could simply cite Great minds think alike. :p In any case, thanks again and cheers! Purgy (talk) 11:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Francis Loney


The article Francis Loney has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "References provided do not show significant coverage, a before search didn't show much else, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Killiondude (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ted McNair


The article Ted McNair has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The references provided do not show significant coverage in third party sources and I couldn't find any online. Doubtful subject meets notability standards."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Florida State College football navbox
Template:Florida State College football navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

University of Maryland, Baltimore football team
Cake, how's it going? I've been doing some cleanup work on a bunch of older season articles, and it seems that the University of Maryland, Baltimore had a football team circa 1900. The 1901 VMI Keydets football team and 1906 VMI Keydets football team both played a University of Maryland team; see newspaper sources in those articles. The VMI media guide lists "Maryland" for those years and seem to treat them as the same program as the familiar Maryland Aggies/Terrapins that they have played several times beginning in 1910. Virginia Tech—then VPI—appears to have played the University of Maryland, Baltimore four times, in 1897, 1898, 1901, and 1911. The Virginia Tech media guide calls them "UMBC", but the University of Maryland, Baltimore County in Catonsville was not established until 1966. Have you run into this University of Maryland, Baltimore team before? Any idea if they had a fight name? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk)
 * Meh, it goes. Not sure on a fight name. The 1901 Gallaudet team played against "Baltimore Medical College". If that's the same thing, they are "The Meds" according to this. Cake  (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

For the Blue and Gold
Hi Cake, have you read "For The Blue and Gold" its a look into life at Cal at the end of the 19th century (published in '01), a documentary piece presented as fiction. There is a lot of detail re Cal football customs and descriptions of the game as it was played at the time. Thought you would find it useful please, let me know if it was. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t5cc0vf5z&view=1up&seq=39 There are specific chapters re football - 6 and 7. Rybkovich (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits
Don't you believe the edits you made to the Gacy article elongate it a little too much? It is already quite extensive. I don't see the need to sort information of this nature either. On the Chikatilo article, given the diverse background of his victims, I can see the benefit of having a tool whereby sorting information of this nature may be of interest. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thought it was questionable, and would understand reverting, but of course wouldn't have done it if didn't prefer it this way. Also posted on the talk page and never got a response to the idea, so went ahead and did it. I think it's nice to be sortable and easier to read this way. Only bit annoying is the long bit of blank space on the right as a result. Wish there was some relevant not-so-gruesome image in that shape to take up the space. Cake  (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hope you don't think I was being abrasive. I have enjoyed talking with you in the past pal. If consensus goes your way I'll abide. I have read comments about the length of the article being too much for some - that is where my concerns sourced. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. The table made me think knowing more about Samson's case could be revealing about Gacy's MO/etc, having been buried in the strange spot, and seeming to kick off the post divorce murder spree. Cake  (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * He was lured with an offer of employment if memory serves me correct (I'd have to check to verify). Carole and her daughters had only recently moved out of the property by April and he was renovating that area of his home. Having the home to himself gave full opportunity for him. He first met Rossi on May 23, 1976.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Davis" was the name of an author of a book someone used on this article to add a citation to the handcuff trick reference years ago. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel like it must have been me, but I couldn't for the life of me figure it out. I found one where I cited a Serial Killer Magazine, which is self published so probably wouldn't work, but not Davis. Cake  (talk) 05:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of a table like Charles Whitman's, or just the fact that he can be used as a precedent for a lengthy victims table? It seems to me useful to be able to quickly sort by both when they were killed and when they were found in the case of Gacy, not to mention alphabetically by name, etc. Cake  (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe an uploaded image of the numbered trenches would be better visual representation. What do you think?--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any crawl space images seem pretty eerie for a kind of scholarly article, unless you mean a diagram. Though it would fit If it can be long and next to a table, if that's what you mean. Also no mention of the big western or luau party eh? Also no mention of the surveillance team names (Albrecht, Hachmeister, Schultz, and ...Robinson?) Cake  (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did mean a diagram. I thought the yard parties were mentioned. Luau was 74. Western was 75. Italian theme was 78.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I thought you meant the one with the tags and numbers and spray paint on the wall. Yeah. It might even make sense to go with the diagram Gacy drew next to the one they did after. Is it known what got him the asshole of the year award on his wall? Cake  (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . If you're referring to what I think you are, that was likely placed there by those excavating his home as a form of gallows humor.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ha, I thought it was a real JC award. Feel bad for laughing at their joke to make it a gay disco with glass floors. How did nobody make the joke Gacy, the gay Jaycee? Cake  (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

OJ Simpson
Hi- I have reverted your changes to the OJ article. The main reason is that none of the edits contained an edit summary, which really ought to be the bare minimum for the type of changes you have made. There were also issues with a lack of sourcing that need to be addressed. As per BRD please take your proposed changes to the talk page. Sorry to revert you but the reasons above make that unavoidable.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like the article needs a lot of work, but I understand the revision, no worries. Cake  (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Texas SIAA Baseball Championships
Hi Cake, Happy Holidays. I'm building a list of Texas baseball seasons, and it appears that the Longhorns claim additional SIAA baseball championships in 1905, 1907, and 1908. I'm a bit skeptical because I thought they left the SIAA in about 1906. You've had much more success in finding sources, at your leisure can you see if any other sources besides Texas might agree? Billcasey905 (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Only just noticed this forgive me. 1905 seems ok and I added that one. In 1907, Heisman said it was a 6-way tie or something and I am not even sure that included Texas, so it seems fair to say there was no champion. 1908 is curious indeed. A big year for baseball in the South, and Georgia's team was strong. Will have to look more into it. The wiki page for Texas baseball has them listed as SWIAA I see.  Cake  (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This source mentions SWIAA and this source proves there was such an SWIAA in 1907 and 1908, despite the Southwest Conference page claiming that started in 1914. So, it seems to me the 1905 was possibly an SIAA title, but 1907 and 1908 were surely SWIAA titles. Cake  (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, in the SWIAA in 1905 as well. The Texas baseball article is right. Will revise and move Texas's exit from the SIAA back a bit. Cake  (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome, many thanks! Billcasey905 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, their own sources say they joined the SWIAA when it started in 1904. Auburn's 1904 yearbook, recounting the 1903 season, has them as a member of the SIAA. Think it's fair to say they were in the SIAA in 1903 but left for the SWIAA for 1904, for some reason. Cake  (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Death of Brian Wells

 * Hi MisterCake; during my c/e I've added some Citation needed tags to areas I think need citations, and I've also added one By whom and one not in source, which you may wish to deal with before re-nominating he article for GA status. Cheers,  Baffle☿gab  03:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

File:HubbardUmpire.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HubbardUmpire.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 13:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Minor league season articles
Before you put in too much work, be aware that minor league team season articles have been deleted in the past as non-notable. See Articles for deletion/Triple-A season pages and WP:NSEASONS. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I feared they might be, and appreciate the heads up, and see you've done a lot of work with baseball articles. However, I've done a lot with Southern football, such as All-Southern teams, so I seem to make some progress on the idea that the South was its own thing. The South didn't have any major league baseball teams. The Southern Association pennant was as major as it got around here. Regardless I figured the Greatest Game Played in Dixie, Heisman, and Shoeless Joe at least justified the 08 Vols, 09 Crackers, and '10 Pels. Cake  (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Either forgot or didn't realize you had so much on Nashville and minor league baseball. Will try and make articles for William Hirsig and Doc Wiseman. There's a great picture of Hirsig standing in the seats at Sulphur Dell. As I recall, he was a horse guy turned car guy by the automobile, and his sons were real characters as well. Cake  (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Template speedy deletions
Hi. I'm afraid inaccuracy isn't a valid reason for speedy deletion of a template. I also couldn't delete them as "by author request" as other people have edited them. Therefore, I had to decline your requests. If the templates need to be deleted I suggest you nominate them at WP:TFD. --kingboyk (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 1910 New Orleans Pelicans season for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1910 New Orleans Pelicans season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1910 New Orleans Pelicans season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Atlanta Crackers
Template:Atlanta Crackers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Gacy
Shouldn't we keep the lede to a minimum, adding only the sparsest facts? Article is quite long and everything is covered in the main text.Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If there's some policy saying I should not think this way then I would have to reconsider, but I am of the school of thought that an article writes itself. A maximum perhaps, but should not have some predetermined length. Also, as I understood, a four paragraph lede was normal or even recommended, though to say  as I had it rather than a lengthy special case like Napoleon. And it seems to me the lede should summarize whats in the main text, and that I wasn't making it too long.  Did I really add that much? I felt I did more rearranging. I was trying to think of a way to shorten bits of it like the parades and childrens functions and etc w the killer clown part, but found no part able to remove, and given that Gacy's community involvement is really part of the lore I figured to leave it in there, as it did double duty in explaining Gacy-as-clown as well as Gacy-as-pillar-of-community. In short, I thought it hit all the main points of a Gacy lede in the proper order while keeping the spirit of the previous edits before me already. 33 murders, mostly from 76 to 78, near Chicago, mostly in infamous houses crawl space, mostly strangle on pretense of showing a magic track, because he's the killer clown, while being pillar of community what a shock, then he was executed. Though, obviously, I'm not dogmatic about any of this, and defer to your expertise for how to handle Gacy. I also considered adding something his capture. The police drama or whatever it's called is such an aspect. In short, should Piest be mentioned in the lede? I think it's arguable.  Cake  (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Just my main concern, but I have read comments regarding the length of this article. Have also read no shortage of edit summaries on other articles regarding the fact a lede should be kept to a minimum. I would definitely say the community generosity should not be in the lede and his earlier 1968 release re: sodomy are not what he's noteworthy for (clarified in the "sex offender" mention) but his murders from 1972 onwards and the fact he is known as the Killer Clown.

As for the murders committed in 1976 or 1977 Gacy said his second victim was buried in the crawl space. That indicates four murders committed between 1972 and 1975. How about something mentioning his arrest following a research into his background after the murder of Piest?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about 68 in Iowa, though it's arguable, that seems more day 2 Gacy than day 1, and wasn't my edit. My worry was just "1972 to 1978 murder spree" doesn't capture Gacy like "76 to 78 murder spree with a few before then" does. I know Amirante also contends Gacy said there were 5 in the river, not 4. Seems like something about Piest leading to his capture should be added artfully. Cake  (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree about Piest. Maybe a brief mention about relocating to Illinois in 1970 following his release from Anamosa re: the 68 conviction for sodomy? Need any references, ping me. (Hope you don't think I was being defensive I am sure I mentioned to you once the length of the article seems to raise eyebrows so that is where my concern sources.)--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah didn't take it that way. Glad you keep up the maintenance on the article. I believe citations in the lede are frowned upon unless necessary. At least, that makes sense to me. Whatever is in the lede should be in the body, and presumably that's where it is cited.  Cake  (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct about insertions of references in the lede, . Maybe they should be placed further down the article?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just used to the press saying "young men and boys" but "33 teenage boys and young men" seems awkward and wordy. I wish there was some one word meaning males aged 14 to 21, or if just saying that is any better. As an aside, the more I read Gacy the more I am convinced he was a copycat of the Houston Mass Murders, which makes for a lot of questions about Cram and Rossi. Also, while I have read quotes and heard small bits, I've never seen a full recording or transcript of a Gacy confession. Does such exist? Or, if it only exists in snippets, is there a book which has the most of it? Cheers. Cake (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The vast majority were teenagers. I suppose late teens counts as young men. Gacy did copy Corll to a large degree. Patrick Kearney is also known to have collected newspaper clippings of the HMM. Defending a Monster has a transcription of Gacy's confession to Amirante (even though I personally suspect it is embellished). A full re-enactment of one of the murders (which Gacy re-enacted more than once with no discrepancies) is in the Buried Dreams book. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some victims were chloroformed upon being lured into the vehicle. Some were cuffed believing Gacy was a policeman before being placed into what he referred to oft. as "the Olds" before being driven to his house. Others were (oft.) plied with alcohol and/or weed at his house before being shown clowning routines incl. the handcuff trick. He saw himself as a master manipulator and circumstances and opportunism dictated when and how he would strike.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand that (though "the Olds" as his term for the Oldsmobile is new to me). Cuffing people as policeman wasn't the handcuff trick though. I was trying to find a way to mention it as the usual way he dealt with victims, but not necessarily always, and not outside the house. Cake  (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe the 1970 release belongs in the lede given the date Gacy began murdering following his release? In 1980, Kunkle referred to the report of a Dr Heston(?) in 1968. This evaluation of Gacy stated he found him to be an "antisocial personality" and a "psychopath" who committed crimes without renorse. Heston's report stated he feared Gacy would commit further crimes upon release. Kunkle stated in conclusion of this section of his closing argument that they still "let him out" despite these warnings.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I've struck a compromise in mentioning the time in Iowa as is. I can see the relevance of him being a sex offender, as one could see the murders as him silencing rape victims rather than as pure sadistic torture or becoming his father or whatever the reason might be implied without that element. However, it's already mentioned he started his crimes in 72. And yes I'm aware of him being diagnosed as a sociopath/psychopath, whatever those mean. Though I suppose it proved to be accurate, I wonder what specifically resulted in that diagnosis. Cake  (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, Cake. I wasn't the individual who reinserted the text. You know what "sociopath/psychopath" mean, but can study his criminal behavior up to that date. No shortage of material available online or printed. All the best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I knew it wasn't your edit, and suppose I didn't come across properly. Not saying sociopaths don't exist or that Gacy wasn't a bad guy, just that I'm no psychologist and I am not sure what identifies a sociopath, or how mental illness plays out with free will/determinism. Not sure I've ever seen somebody diagnosed with it before they committed a crime, Gacy included, which makes it seem ex post facto. Other traits which definitely mean something is going on psychologically, like compulsive lying, can be e. g. narcissistic personality disorder, or whatever else that I find equally confusing. PS Tim McCoy's findagrave has a proper picture of him rather than the blurry newspaper one; had never seen before. Cake  (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Patsy or Paske?--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Marko Butkovitch was quite proficient in English. He stated that, had only police actually listened to him and his wife, Terezia(?), they would have saved many lives. Off-topic, but I found this image of Robert Piest in the Commons earlier. Unsure whether the actual free usage is valid, though.

Paske doesn't make it add levity any more. Don't hear about him as much, though he's got a neck to make you think he'd be stronger than Cram or Rossi (despite Cram's Army exp). Also, not questioning Marko's ability to speak English. I'd look a lot worse if you asked me to speak atrophied French or German. But he had a strong accent, and would search for words, and at least in books/movies/fanfic I believe that's been implied as a reason the cops would ignore him. Plus Butkovitch is just a funny name compared to classic Northwest European Americana names, might be interesting to put where it was from. As I recall, Gacy recalled Szyc as the one with the funny name, so might be interesting for him too. Godzik also. Though of course for every one that would be tedious.

I think Gacy also said Szyc was a 'he-she' and I always wondered about that one. Was that just because Gacy had his ring that he said that? Gacy seemed to like - or kill, the guys with the longer hair. But other than that hard to imagine Szyc as a convincing crossdresser. I know it's a pathological liar and he would say they're all prostitutes regardless and the like, but that one seemed significant in its specificity.

On Piest and pictures, it's interesting how large the picture is. Though, in color and the yearbook being some months before would have me leave up to you the judgment for which is more how he looked the day Gacy killed him, which as long as the picture isn't pixelated or something, might be the consideration. Also he's alone in that one which makes it easier to say who he is in the picture without cropping it awkwardly.

Do you like Gacy's pic with Rosalynn as the profile pic? While such an infamous pic it seems like it doesn't need to be twice, and should be in the body as it is. But I'm used to older articles where the pictures copyrights isn't a as big a concern. A multiple image one like with Pogo but for Gacy's own diagram of the crawl space with the investigations diagrams of the crawl space is one I think the article needs. Cheers. Cake (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Other things I forget. This article has the trappings of authority of coming from the Chicago Tribune, but seems to differ from your own accounts slightly. They seem to get the order of victims wrong, and have Kenneth Parker's picture twice rather than Jon Prestidge. So, if I wasn't already, I am more likely to trust your account. But it makes me want to go over the victims myself and see if I get the same thing, though that's difficult. Seems there's very little on what happened to Samson, Reffett, or Stapleton. Notice you differ on who of Reffett or Stapleton you put first, for instance. Also, I wonder if adding Prestidge and McCoy's picture, and moving the order around would change it enough to use it as your own work for an article like this. With the listing of victims not being a table, it might help one's conception of what happened.

And I'm a little bit of a genealogy buff. Tried to check what it says about Gacy. Only found the 1900 census, where the family is there days before John Sr. was born. Neat but I thought there'd be more. It does say the father and mother immigrated at different times. As you probably know, the Visalia Ransacker/Original Nightstalker/East Area Rapist/Golden State Killer (the 4 names and trillion rapes and burglaries rly doesnt help) was caught via genealogy. Many thought about catching the Zodiac this way after; I wondered about identifying Gacy victims. Has that route been tried? Do they have DNA from them, and has anybody tried that? I know they were mostly skeleton but at the same time they talk about their hair color and stuff. Cake (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Hi,. Thanks for the reply. I think a mug shot would be ideal for the infobox. There was a mug shot for this article, but it was deleted and replaced with the May 1978 image some time last year. My suspicion regarding the current image now in the infobox is that it has been fraudulently uploaded as the uploader's "own work", as the original author (unless the uploader was the guard who physically took the image), committed suicide in 2006. With all this said, I should imagine someone will mark it for deletion before long. I do think we need a mug shot, but consensus governs. If not, the May 1978 image will have to do. I like the idea of an image of the diagram of the crawl space. Have to say that. I'll leave the Piest image aside until dust settles on the issue regarding the image currently in the infobox. I did encounter that image when searching the Commons last month, but refrained from using it for reasons I have mentioned...

Yeah I encountered that article on Reddit a year or so ago. Some of it is imprecise (January 20, 1976 - March 15, 1977), that's the trench Godzik dug and I assume it should be January 20, 1977. The dates in the article come from multiple references. All, for example, state Nelson ws 21. 11 p.m. May 14 for Stapleton. The Chicago Killer has direct trial quotes for dates and ages of each identified. Unless there is something I have never read, it is accurate as presented in the article. For the unidentified, I do wonder if Cram told the truth about Body 13, as he may have had every reason to lie as to which trench he dug in '76. Gacy said he buried his second victim in the crawlspace, so the second victim could be Body 10, or 13.

Gacy did describe Szyc that way. As you say, though, he was a liar. If you ever read Buried Dreams, the only reason he "remembered" Szyc was because investigators linked him to the murder through the Motorola TV and selling his car. He apparently had a girlfriend, according to this author.

DNA has been extracted from all the remaining unidentified Gacy victims, and hair was recovered from each body save for body 10. There seems to be a lot of effort in place to identify the remaining six (I personally believe this individual is a strong candidate for Body 21. I know the lead has been submitted already but don't know the progress of the lead). The only thing I can think of is looking at the records (if any exist) of Betty Gatliff or Robert Stein when the original reconstructions were released to the media in 1980, as Gatliff is known to have recollected she received two separate phone calls from two sisters in "different Chicago suburbs" who "gave the same boy's name, and said he was their brother". They said their mother refused to either talk about this, or release the boy's dental records. McCoy wasn't from Illinois, and Bundy and Haakenson had only one sister, so it has to be one of the remaining six.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you believe on adding the images of Prestidge and McCoy, be my guest (the image of Piest should definitely stay and images of Piest on Commons differ even from year with justification of freedom of use). I added the images of Samson and Godzik for the purpose of his victim profile in 2010. If they need superseding, be my guest, even though I personally see use in the inclusion. Gacy hated facial hair or a lack of bodily hygiene (filthy hippie s**t), and preferred light hair. When presented with an array of images of his identified victims at (I think) Cermak, the majority identified were of blond or light haired boys and men. If you haven't already done so, Cake, I strongly recommend reading the books Buried Dreams and Killer Clown to understand Gacy from EVERY vantage perspective. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC).
 * I was referring to the Chicago Tribune's graphic of all of the victims lacking Prestidge and McCoy, and in a different order; so that I was wondering if we could make those additions and use a graphic of all of the victims here. Our own version of the victim board could be helpful, though I don't know whether victims pictures are fair use. I need a copy of Buried Dreams, but I do have Killer Clown, and have read it more than once. Forgive me if my answers are there. The only thing I can think of for why Gacy would have us believe Szyc was a 'he she' and wearing costume jewelry, is because he had his ring. Yet that doesn't seem like enough for us to believe that either.  Wondering what's going through Gacy's head for that lie I suppose, though it make sense that we didn't hear similarly insane lies about the others because he wasn't linked to their car and tv. Appreciate the reply. I've wondered, how did nobody call him "Gacy, the Gay Jaycee," and then figured maybe one in the crawl space beat me to it. Also sources seem mixed for whether Robin Gecht worked for Gacy.  Cake  (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt we could use all of them, unless some sort of table was created, but then I think the article would be flagged for having too many non-free images. We could create some proposals, but the images would likely have to be morphed into one. (I could add an image of McCoy though.) Prestidge is included in this array, just a different image of him. Amazon is selling Buried Dreams for $7. I don't know if you're in isolation with this damn virus pandemic (I still have to work), but it could pass the time if Amazon is still operating as an essential public service.

Gecht was a PDM employee, and is known to have stated Gacy's mistake was to bury the victims on his property, although Gacy referred to this decision as a "stroke of animal genius".--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The surveiilance team members' names were Robert (Bob) Schultz, Ronald Robinson, David Hachmeister, and Mike Albercht. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like I've heard that was the mistake Gacy made before, and seems hard to deny. I suppose the issue is as long as they don't ever find the bodies. Did I not get the surveillance team right? Don't remember much about Robinson. As I understand, Schultz smelled Gacy's corpses and that's all you hear about him. Most seem to focus on Albrecht and Hachmeister, who really needed mention. I think Hachmeister even said they were the only ones Gacy really confessed to (idk what that says about Amirante, maybe Hachmeister just means after the initial one). He seems the most insightful of the bunch for my taste. I found Albrecht is the one who has the image of the two crawl space diagrams. As I understand he was the blonde they thought Gacy wanted to bang. I'm not sure how to introduce Joe Kozenczak, though I know he often gets the credit for pursuing the Piest case initially. Always have to look up how to spell his name. Must be another Polish one. You probably knew before I did but John Borowski has a Gacy film coming out this year.  Cake  (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, once asked you about that picture in Wisconsin of a Gacy victim that isn't skeleton. I notice in one of those press conferences outside Gacy's house they asked Stein about one preserved victim. Cake  (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah obviously it was his undoing, but he said he'd never have been able to talk his way out of the Donnelly and Rignall matters if police had been finding bodies in woodland. I tend to agree with Amirante's observation that the surveillance officer made the story of the odor up to get the search warrant as they were against the clock, and were basing this on Rossi's testimony, revealed when he submitted to the polygraph. As the digging progressed, several of the later victims were less skeletonized, having been buried a year or less. One began bloating upon recovery.

That was a joke among the surveillance officers about Albrecht. Kozenczak is a Polish name. Gacy was proud of his heritage (he could speak basic Polish. I used to date a girl from Poland and apparently it is one of the five most difficult languages on the planet to learn) and at the time of the investigation referred to him as "Polack", saying he could call him that as he was of Polish heritage himself. (Gacy loathed Kozenczak and referred to him as "asshole", saying he "played a hunch" to investigate him, and got simply lucky).

Kozenczak simply glanced at the missing persons report on December 12, and was intrigued as nothing struck him about Piest being a typical runaway; he then contacted the department's youth bureau, who informed him the family had been at the department earlier. They talked further and agreed the case warranted further investigation. Kozenczak assigned two detectives named Michael Olsen and Jim Pickell to the case. They quickly learned all the details upon Gacy's "rap sheet", and were with him when Kozenczak first talked with Gacy. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing to think how easy it was for Gacy to get away. Do you think Piest was the start of something different in MO, expanding his scope of victims to more people, or just what he always did? Also that seems plausible to me about the smell. Isn't that why we bury corpses in the first place? Aspects like that, media fed untruths or whatever, that must gnaw at the murderer, are always a bit interesting to me. I take it the 5 Gacy claims to remember or be involved with were McCoy, Butkovich, Godzik, Szyc, and Piest. Samson maybe can be justified for kicking off the worst of the murder spree and the different burial location. In short, should we add an image of Butkovitch and Szyc? Cheers.  Cake  (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As time goes on, offenders increase in confidence and can become careless. Gacy speculated the reason he murdered Piest may have been an unconscious desire to get caught (although I suspect otherwise). He said: "Everyone saw me at the store. Everyone knew my line of work. Then the kid goes out, says he's going to talk to a contractor. Who else could that be?" To me, it is simply overconfidence. Yeah the article mentions that fact. I can see merit, but worry about the number of images not upon the Commons upon the article. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I've heard Ressler in particular emphasize that with the Piest case, but curious whether you think he had a similar case before and, if he had not, and had not been caught, if Piest signaled any change in MO, or at least locations of victims. Also interesting he was so confident about getting off on the Rignall case which I guess never happened. I had the same concern with the images of victims. It is unfortunate to have zero, but hard to justify 33. With the four we have, it's not difficult to justify Butkovich's picture, e. g. as the first with a face for a long time. Then, it seems, to me, one should have Szyc to have all with the ones he admitted at least involvement. Probably nice to separate Samson and Godzik with the differences in time with their murders if we do. Cake  (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, the only reason Rignall and Donnelly were spared was because he was rapidly running out of space beneath his house. He will have been emboldened by not being arrested. To my mind, with Piest, it was simply opportunity mixed in with overconfidence. Either add Butkovich or Szyc, Cake. Maybe not both, but I'll respect your judgment. Feel free to separate the images if you wish. I just hope nobody questions the number of images. An article as extensively populated needs at least eight or nime images, not just for descriptive purposes, but to maintain the reader's attention. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the error in my most recent edit to the Gacy article, .--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No biggie. Went for it with the Butkovich picture. Won't temp them to delete everything by adding Szyc, at least not yet. Agree that part of the appeal of pictures is just so it isn't a wall of text. Wonder if there's a free one of the house. Why the pouty mugshot on the 21st but the laughing one on the 22nd? Cake  (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw a documentary once where a police officer stated he asked him what state he was born in, and he jokingly said he was born in a state of confusion before chuckling as the mug shot was taken. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That I've heard, but I wonder why the two mugshots. Guess by the 22nd he was trying for the insanity defense. Cake  (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He was formally charged with murder on December 22. On December 21, he had been (no doubt while on or "withdrawing from" the multiple prescription pills he had consumed) arrested on the felony of possession and delivery of marijuana. Buying time for their REAL intended charges.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, the first one was for the marijuana, the second for the murder. That makes sense. Thanks again Cake  (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, . I do hope the (almost palpable) increased and maintained public interest in this case leads to the identification of at least one or two of the remaining unidentified victims. Six is a shockingly high number. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Come on, you're havin' a laugh with the image sizes, right? They need to be uniform (unless there's something you're working towards). Seriously, do you think, going forward, that this article could be nominated for GA?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's more how the picture shifts the text and so can make for hyphens ending the line of text or other strange features, as well as not making them so large the lose quality or too small to see detail. I like to use the guild of copy editors before I GA, and might have to double check that all images are fair use, but I don't see why it can't be GA eventually. Cake (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, . Thanks for the reply. All the best.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wish Marino was clearer. For example, "Disputed tests confirm" - is it disputed or confirmation? Also a source for Gacy's scar, and difficult to know what to put in the account of the murders and what to put in Gacy's confession i. e. account of the murders. Cake (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The DNA tests Marino's mother had conducted on the body given to her as her son, she has refused to share the results of this DNA testing on the body, the results of which she states confirm the body given to her is not her son. Investigators have requested they be given these DNA testing results. Dentists were 100% positive at the time of their dental identification of both Parker and Marino as to their identity, and I believe more than one dentist had to independently confirm the identifications. Obviously they disappeared on the same day, and shared a common grave. As for the scar, Gacy's older sister Joanne was a nurse. She saw the fresh scar on John's arm at the wake for his Aunt Pearl. He claimed he had cut himself while trimming carpet in his kitchen. After the wake, he drove to St. Elizabeth's hospital to have the wound stitched. Pages 110 and 111 of Buried Dreams reference this.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * RE: The Poles, an interesting people for sure. The people of Copernicus and Chopin. And yes the language is crazy, Michener's book will teach you that Lancut is said "Winesooth" and Przemysl is P "Shemish" l. Maybe I missed it, but I think it should be added somewhere that Gacy didn't recall or wouldn't say the names of the victims, hence e. g. "Greyhound Bus Boy", and the need to identify them.  Cake  (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great and coincidental timing. Same word for zip, lock, and castle. Perhaps. Would be great if people devoted similar time and devotion to articles, though, as I hope we can strive to achieve.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely one needs to add something about Jack Hanley. As I recall he said he had 4 personalities, something like Gacy the man, Gacy the contractor, Gacy the clown, and Jack Hanley the policeman? Seems like Amirante's claim is different than that, more like it was just two, a Jekyll and Hyde and the other bad personality was Gacy's father. While Amirante hardly shuts up, and sometimes you see Motta, don't ever see much from Leroy Stevens, at least of which I'm aware. Greg Bedoe and Dave Sommerschield are two investigators you hear about around the case that I couldn't tell you what they did, or if it might be significant enough to mention.  Cake  (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm only kidding, . I know you're working with me in your collective, inimitable style to improve the article. Great to se EEng looking over the article. I've worked with him in improving a few true crime articles over the years. Not looked at all his edits yet, but will do so when he's finished. I do hope this article can earn GA status before long. Anyhow, my previous message was a hasty attempt at what EEng once termed EEng humour (which he said to me DO NOT try unless sufficiently trained).

Gacy's wife once said at his trial he had a memory like an elephant. When Robert Ressler visited him on death row, Gacy told him he remembered him from his childhood (they grew up four blocks apart). He even recalled distinctive plant pots Ressler's parents had. Basically, he'll have recalled at least their first names and origins. He devalued all his victims as "worthless little queers and punks". Stevens excused himself from the case around the time of Gacy's arrest. Yeah he said there were four Jacks, this is in his 1978 and 79 attempts to convince doctors he suffered from a multiple personality disorder. He was speculating as to the triggers which brought out each personality and as to why he killed some and not others he lured to his house. He theorized drink and drugs "set loose the killer". Some lured to his house he even gave money if they had a "genuine hard luck" story, without assaulting them (the compassion cop). He once theorized all the victims had similar facial features to Donald Voorhees. Jack Hanley was derived from what John convinced himself was a "tough homicide cop" he met while still working as a chef. The real officer's name was James Hanley, and he worked in the hit and run unit. He adopted the name when prowling for victims (or at least the ones he deceived into believing he was a cop). This is before his later "I may have done it but I don't remember" stage of excuses, of course. As for "Gacy didn't recall or wouldn't say the names of the victims", p. 218 of Cahill's book could be a valid reference for that insertion.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like one should add it as both his defense and his way to cope with confessing (a la Bundy speaking in 3rd person). Des Nilsen seemed to say he was triggered by music and drink/drugs. I notice in Gacy's interview when he lists serial killers he totally-isn't-like, he seems to go alphabetically until he gets to C. Avoiding mentioning Corll? Have to wonder if he went "Berkowitz, Bundy (crap let's start going backwards instead)...Williams (or maybe the middle)....Manson (or maybe to get a C)". I think Ted was in jail when William Bundy was killed by Gacy. Wonder if that's not a coincidence. Also I think they use his school id photo, which has me recall that am a bit surprised when they say they found a bunch of drivers licenses in Gacy's house, I don't recall them saying those were therefore victims. Do you think Hattula was the 5th river victim, or somebody else on that mysterious barge?  Cake  (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He actually thought the last victim's body had hit the barge. The way Gacy brutalized his victims, there is no way his death would have been ruled as accidental. Having said (sorry, wrote) that, Gacy was living with a woman at his home between either March or April, and June of 1977, so he could have disposed of his first victim in the river at this time.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, considering new edits on the article I've made, I do think Hattula was likely the 1st river victim. Some sources say Mother's Day 1977 as his death, but a LOT of others (books and otherwise) state Charles Antonio Hattula died in May 1978. Driving license issuings and revokes from Feb. and Apr. 1978 etc. Kozenczak's book releals this info. (I own a copy of this book.) Hattula had blond hair (Gacy's preference), and Gacy stated to employees one morning when Hattula did not arrive to work that he had drowned. "One morning when failed to arrive for work" yet how would he know this, esp. as his body was not found for five days? And the cause of death (with Gacy's excruciatingly long bathtub dunking and his statements he "changed the immobilizing rules" with some later victims)? Hattula apparently largely lived in his van, but Freeport authorities concluded he fell from a bridge. Rossi (intrigue?) mentioned Hattula and Godzik to investigators.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to me Rossi wouldn't call if he wasn't, and seems to me a faulty assumption that the 5 were in the Des Plaines River specifically. Such as with the confession and Piest, it seemed more like "five in the river". His tombstone says 78 (and father). Cake  (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We're making good progress with this article. It is more easy to navigate and seems to be attracting several new watchers. I am sure clarkprosecutor.org is not a reliable reference, Cake. I am sure someone said this to me several years ago. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Several books mention Landingin's driver's license is what connected him to Gacy, but not those we have and not seeing where they get it from. Maybe the newspaper articles cited by the clark site. Sometimes hard to decide where to put the investigative work with the victim or with the later investigative work. I guess Gacy was gonna give the McCoy story and give up Butkovich in the garage hoping it would save the house. Cake  (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also seems to me fair to divide the Voorhees case into Schroeder's assault and the conviction. The three things you find in the newspapers. Cake  (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. It has been great working with yous and EEng on this article. It was well populated and referenced two months ago, but it has been vastly improved. Yeah you're right about the driver's license initially linking Gacy to Landingin. Bonnin's fishing license was also recovered. According to Kozenczak, Gacy turned pale as he told them it would not be necessary to excavate the crawl space and referenced the body in the garage. Somebody once gave me a mini lecture about clarkprosecutor.org not being a reputable site, years ago.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the news reports mentions the store where Butkovich's car was found, as if it's significant. Might be TMI, but I wonder, where was it? That might be why it gets mention. Say it was closer to Gacy's place than Butkovich's, or that he drove to where ever Butkovich was from. Cake  (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know the name of the store, . Butkovich's car was found at the corner of Sheridan and Lawrence. Keys still in the ingnition, also his wallet and jacket still inside. Close to one of the apartments his father owned. He still lived at home, but was in the process of decorating his apartment with view to moving in shortly. Gacy said Butkovich was drunk when he lured him to his home and while there, couldn't find his wallet.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, must've been one of the streets. I suppose I wondered why they found it significant.  Cake  (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If can get the search for victims part properly fleshed out, with the crawl space and Stein and bones and identification, etc. For example, which bodies unearthed on which day, then I think it can be to the point of more minor things like archiving links and alt text for pictures. Cake (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You might want to take the article back to 'Revision as of 03:01, 7 May 2020' and we can start again from there. It is getting a little too much to keep track of, all at once. I don't want the article to avoid GA. Errors aplenty are seeping through. For example, he made the confession as to burying Butkovich when informed of the intentions to excavate the crawl space on December 21. Full confession was at 3:30 a.m. December 22 (including the river and garage). He showed investigators where on I-55 he'd thrown the final 5 (possibly concealing Hattulla just like he later did with Bodies 28 and 29) on Dec. 22, then drove to his home to mark the location of Butkovich's body. Body numbers and locations are in the victims section. Maybe that section is where each body date could be added. I can provide all the info. you need regarding dates and numbers of victims recovered,, Cake.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll defer to your and/or consensus judgment if it needs to be reverted, and I know the search for victims section is ugly for the moment. Can only apologize if I wrecked it. But much of what was there previously should have gone elsewhere, and much of what was in the murders section should have gone there, and I think it's coming along nicely and the correct spot for it. It makes the rest a lot smoother as well. With how many bodies found on each day (it already had that structure implied before I got here: "On December 28..." and "On December 29...", was how they reported to media as you obv know), who and how they were identified, where they were buried and what that implies, whether they were found with clothes or the rope or whatever, etc. I think it would be on to minor GA stuff.  Cake  (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We're working together, and I don't want to tread on toes (obv.). I initially wanted to make some reversions, but didn't want to upset you (hence the message on here), as we're working well. I'll reply fully tomorrow, Cake. If not on here, then in edits on the article. Part of me was waiting to view your reply. Wrecked? No, I just think it's a method of working collaboratively on sections because most don't bother. Obv. this is hardly "everyone's" topic. There is no WP:OWN; just the fact hardly anybody bothers with this topic matter. Seriously, keep up the good work.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I can stop now, as I have the search for victims section such that you can see the intention of it, and how it makes e. g. the murders section much smoother. Only thing missing is something to say before dividing it into crawl space and river sections. 02:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also how is that happening at the bottom about Boschelli by creepy uncle? lol Cake  (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Splitting off burial into search for victims and identification into above the list of ID and unID victims is another option, rather just burial and ID and in the search part as I had just done. Both seem better than in the murders. Cake  (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm just joking, . Gacy's father called Boschelli "a fairy" as he and his son talked about books and flowers.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Crikey. That was on there since 3 May-I mean May 3-but it's fixed now. Lol. Any further ideas, let me know. I've still to look at the victims section.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Confused with Body 13 and 21. Rossi dug the grave for 13 it says. So, and it seems to be, the one Cram dug is talking about 21. But then it mentions October 5, which is listed as the dates for Body 13. It also mentions August 20 for it.  Cake  (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into that (literally before I read this). Killer Clown refers to Rossi as Walsh and Cram as Gray. August 6 to October 5, '76 "high probability" for Body 13 (according to Cook County). Rossi stated "sometime in August 1977" he dug that trench. This text ("Cram testified that in August 1977") may need removing. The references contradict each other. The newspapers I looked at years ago support Cram; others Rossi. Buried Dreams states quite strongly "a couple of weeks after Rick Johnston disappeared" Cram moved into 8213 on August 21, 1976, the day before his 19th birthday. The attempted rapes were in September '76, and Cram started wearing old jeans for protection. He moved out "shortly after" Gacy's second attempt to rape him (all in this article). This leads me to think Cram dug this trench. The "August 6 to October 5" is so "high probability". Does need lookin' into. As for Body 21, the age range sources are reputable, but others like this state he was aged 21 to 27. I still think Craig Conner is a strong candidate for Body 21. Thx.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If can solve that conundrum, I've got everything where I wanted in the first place. Just a matter of making paragraphs out of itnow that I moved stuff around. So, I can wait to see what needs reverting from the others, and move on to archiving the links and putting alt text on the photos (GA likes those). Cake  (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Might need to rephrase on that bit about the second rib cage found. Haven't heard Egan relay the other bits, and regardless quite confused by it. Cake  (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Documentaries only limit (obv.) I believe I have viewed the doc. you're inferring to. It's within the page of Sullivan's book I referenced. What may need discussion (or further discussion) is the entry/validity of the image of Body 10 & Body 13. The image has been enlarged on the Wiki. article, but a discussion as to the removal has been underway for weeks. If yous can salvage it (and I pinged you prv.), then great. If it goes, then okays, even though I see validity in overall remaining.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Missed that ping, pardon. Multiple docs mention it but I'm thinking of articles, and regardless I'm saying I dont understand what it's trying to say in that part. 4 victims where body 1 was? Cake (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Same trench. Victims 1, 2, 4 and 5. When they unearthed the first victim they found a second skull alongside the body,--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see now, I apologize. I was assuming two trenches ("trenches"?), and so it was even worse for Body 5 to be unidentified when the guy had 3 heads. Whether we call Butkovich 2 or 3, then I suppose the question to not have the article perpetuate that confusion is was Body 5 above Szyc or below Godzik? Also Szyc and Godzik were discovered impressively fast; I assume Gacy said something to have them find victims they knew about previous, like with Butkovich (my brain wants to make it 'vitch' sometimes. Croatian specifically but could only find the broader Yugoslav in sources). Cake  (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, pal. One trench, long enough to fit two outstretched bodies. Similar to the trench beneath the kitchen and laundry room. He filled one side in at a time, most likely. Butkovich was assigned Body 2 by investigators. Body 5 was beneath Prestidge. It was coincidence that they were among the first to be recovered. They were linked to Gacy in the investigation stages so their dental records were quickly matched to the bodies. I haven't read Killer Clown for several years, but I recall in his confession, he was shown a photograph of Johnston, and recalled he was from Bensenville. So his dental records were compared with each victim recovered too. There used to be typos on this article misspelling Butkovich's surname.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This book is a reputable source, I'm sure, Cake? Contains hundreds of original copies of documents relating to the case. Don't know why another user has relegated it to the further reading section. It contains a wealth of information the other printed works (as useful and detailed as they are) lack.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks cool. According to those documents, Gacy happened upon Butkovich after the dispute while cruising. Not how I imagined it. Cake  (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wasn't cheap, but worth the money. Also says Hattula fell from the bridge in the presence of three or four others while changing a tire. "July, August, September" 78 for first victims discarded in the river.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That last river victim quite the anomaly it seems. Also interesting to see Gacy had property even in Brooksville, Florida that they looked for victims in. And funny to see Downer's Grove on that map of the Des Plaines River. Cake  (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He stated both the first and last victim "didn't fit the pattern" as far as his offending goes. I'll say again it was overconfidence with Piest. Borowski's book does contain info. indicating Mazzara and Piest were the exceptions as far as time of death is concerned. He gave differing accounts of his first victim's death. Totally off-topic here in this section of my reply, but, given your prv. link in your last message, well what will you think of next?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry I didn't mean Piest, but the 5th unfound river victim, if he existed.  Cake  (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Will have done. A timespan of over four months is too atypical for an offender as prolific as this. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wonder if any significance to Godzik/Talsma/Piest all around the same time of year. Cake  (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Who knows? He was always high-strung around Christmas due to the death of his father; this could have been a facilitator. His second murder victim may have been killed in December 1974 too, and not January. Borowski's book states Dec. '74 as the second murder date.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Put the article in the copy editors guild. It could use a mention of Russ Ewing. Also seems to skate around necrophilia in a way articles on other morbid people doesn't. Cake  (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear from you, . Hope all's well. Nice to see the article is in the 'requests' section. I really enjoyed collaborating with you, EEng and LittleJerry to bring this to the level of quality it is currently at (I recall telling you I thought it was good enough even beforehand). Some books mention Russ Ewing, but to me he is just one of a swarm of reporters who covered the case. Greater Chicago is (or was in the 1970s) the third(?) largest media market in America. One of the books I have mentions this.

The article mentions his embalming room activities in Las Vegas, and taking some of his murder victims out to the garage for embalming. The hose on the wall was used for these activities. He never specifically discussed, to my knowledge, penetrative or intercrural sex acts with his victims' bodies, although he did sleep alongside some victims or stow their bodies below his bed for a day or so before burial. Despite his house becoming his private tomb, Gacy was fastidious as to cleanliness. Anything you want adding, feel free to discuss. Regarrds,--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Supposedly, Ewing is the source for Cahill's book, and got Gacy to tell him things he wouldn't tell other people by sneaking him chicken sandwiches rather than the prison bologna. Kozenczak said Gacy told him he was a necrophiliac, and that whole account of the second body leaking on his carpet seems to show he wasn't done with them when they were dead. For instance, Bundy's article makes sure to mention it. Cake  (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'd almost forgotten that. He compiled a report in '77 on the number of missing children in Chicago and, in doing so, noted an unusually high number of teenagers and men in their early 20s reported missing from or last seen alive in, particularly, Uptown. He handed his material over to Cahill in the early 1980s. The book took over 3 1/2 years to write. Second victim (either #28 or #10) was stowed upside down before burial. Article states he learned from this and that is why some victims were found with bags over their heads. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to me Kozenczak gave the answer for "Why did he need to be stowed and didn't go straight in the ground?" Cake  (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gacy refused to talk with Kozenczak, from December 22 onwards, when he was arrested. I believe I once mentioned this to you. He'd only concede to interviews if he was not present. Cahill's book clearly illustrates this, as does The Chicago Killer, written by Kozenczak himself ("Just keep that f**king Kozenczak out of here"). Don't know why a source states Gacy told Kozenczak this. If reputable sources can be found?--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. See here around 4:40. Cake  (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in my reply, . I believe I watched that clip years ago. I will try and find an online source. Borowski's book has direct copies of his confessions. They contain inferences to sleeping alongside some victims' bodies, but not acts of necrophilia. Page 17 of this book mentions his activities in Las Vegas, but erroneously claims he was caught in the act. If you can find a reliable source maybe it should be added, at least as a note, or as a mention alongside his embalming in the garage?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sleeping beside them seems good enough for a confession with someone like Gacy. If Berry-Dee can be believed, he was a necrophiliac, and the debate was whether it started at Palm Mortuary, which is all what e. g. Morrison talks about. Cake  (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A source for note n about Stein would be nice. Would be brought up in a GA review. Cake  (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles
Greetings MisterCake. I would love to have some help on White Municipal Party if it interests you. It's in mainspace but isn't great. For example it notes the Democrstic Party was Whites only after a certain date and then discusses the party in Tampa being created to exclude African Americans. Why was this necessary if the Dem Party already dominated politics.in the area and excluded Blacks? I apologize I didn't do a better job with it and some scholarly assistance from a more accomplished editor would be most welcome. If you're interested of course.

Also, in draft space, I would love to see Draft:Harlem Academy (Tampa) developed more and in mainspace.

And finally I was working on an author of ethnography of African Americans in Florida as part of the Federal Writers Project. Some interesting stuff. Zora Neal Hurston ans other were involved. Should there be an article on the Florida section of the project? The "Negro" section of the Florida project? I'm not sure how best to handle it. I was working on Draft:Viola B. Muse which may be too specific to be notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Aristotelian logic
Template:Aristotelian logic has been nominated for merging with Template:Aristotelianism. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: 2014 Lindenwood Lions football team
The above article has been nominated for deletion on grounds that it does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Feel free to comment at Articles for deletion/2014 Lindenwood Lions football team. Cbl62 (talk)

Reference presentation format
Forgive me if wrong, but you seem to have concerns regarding the current reference presentation method on the Gacy article, Cake? I had nothing to do with that format (beyond adding Borowski's book to the template). If you believe the reference presentation format on the Gacy article would be better if changed around, then I personally have no issue, Cake. If others do, then it'll be taken forth to talk. All the best, Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you see the edit history, the user 48pills kept reverting it, and then seemed upset when I explained why it's there. Cake  (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that, Cake. I was going to insert that user's name here in my previous reply, but did not want to erroneously reference another editor. It is too repetitious, I agree, even though I can see a degree of "kudos-like" benefit in the template. I am more than agreeable personally to an adjustment to another format of presentation. I'll add support on a discussion should you or another user open one. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No I don't think I WP:OWN anything personally,, and never have. As I think I once said to yous, it is just that so few people converse with me compared to other users (which I understand to a degree given the topic matter but I dinnae need a straitjacket).--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That was only because he said I think I own the article. Not that you actually do. Just, if (emphasis) I think anyone does, it's you. Cake  (talk)
 * Understood, and appreciated, . I'll personally support a change in the ref. format, should you propose or implement one. Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I like it how it is, just trying to better explain why after the reverting seemed to get hostile. I also pinged you on the discussion of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebolds page, since you have some edits on the Columbine page. Really quite bizarre to me to give perps and victims a page. And Columbine is the crime I probably know most about. While of course to insert it would be OR, I even have an alternative theory of the case which makes all the various theory factions hate me.  Cake  (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made some edits on the Columbine article over the years, most recently in the months after reading A Mother's Reckoning in about 2016. I will refocus my attention to that article in time, Cake. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for other users. Held similar thoughts when reading the explanations of the user you mentioned. Myself, I can understand why some think I "hold the cards close to my chest" but, as I say, I can understand why some are reluctant to converse with me. I don't know how deep you are prepared to delve your emotions and psychology, but a few articles I have researched and populated even I don't want to mentally revisit, which is why some edits can seem a wee bit terse. I have stepped on the toes of others and had my toes stood upon, but as long as we get the collectively desired results, it is worth it.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Sharp, Vanderbilt; Alf Sharp, Australia
Hi MisterCake - Looking back at these two pages it occurs to me that both ought to have notes at the top saying "for ... see ...". I've never made one of these, and won't know the proper wording or procedure without having to do more WP research than I'm up for. If you're handy with that kind of thing, would you mind making them? Milkunderwood (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dallas Hilltoppers football coach navbox
Template:Dallas Hilltoppers football coach navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C)  15:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Florida State College football coach navbox
Template:Florida State College football coach navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eagles 24/7 (C)  15:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gacy
Hello:

Since you're working on this I'll continue my c/e later, otherwise we'll run the risk of edit conflicts.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you and pardon, just finished - and was about to note that on the Borowski section of the talk page. Cake  (talk)
 * Whenever you return to removing the Borowski references from the article,, this one can replace reference number 242. If you need me to look for any others, feel free to ask. Needless to say, now the tag is on the article, I and others will refrain from editing there. Really hope this can earn GA status. Have a good weekend.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As Typist pointed out, Xlibris means Kozenczak's book was self published, and those are generally frowned upon. However, he was the lead investigator of course, so this seems to me a curious case. For now, I would say avoid sourcing it when we can. Cake  (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

John Wayne Gacy
Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article John Wayne Gacy have been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

There are a couple of things I'll draw to your attention.

1977

"Szyc was lured to Gacy's house on the pretext of selling his Plymouth Satellite to Gacy, who later sold Szyc's car to Michael Rossi for $300.[177] I think what this sentence means is: Gacy invited Szyc to his house on the pretext of buying his Plymouth Satellite. Having done so, Gacy later sold the car to Michael Rossi for $300. If this is the case, you might want to make it a little clearer

In the section retitled Summary, what is the rationale for the order in which the names are listed? It just seems random to me rather than in order Body 1, Body 2, etc… or alphabetical. The article is already very long, I wonder if it’s even necessary at all.

Joseph Kozenczak’s ‘’The Chicago Killer: The Hunt for Serial Killer John Wayne Gacy’’ is self-published (Xlibris). Self-published books are generally not an acceptable source. See:Identifying and using self-published works. The article is extremely long by WP standards. I reduced it by 500 words. It might be an idea to run through it with an eye to removing absolutely every unnecessary word. Splitting the article doesn't seem to be an option to me. Anyway, best of luck moving forward with the article. Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. Agreed on the length. One reason it needed an editor; as well as my own shortcomings with grammar. Fair point on self publishing. I think I will probably use your version of the fact about the Plymouth Satellite, perhaps removing "Having done so" as it might imply he bought it from Szyc, rather than murdered him. Cake  (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interject here, Cake. Do you think this would be a good image of the house to add to the article?--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good one. It seemed even more fitting to have it than the crawl space, and the space seemed to need an image. One could complain about color I guess but one might have public domain concerns and it seems to fit anyway. Not sure I noticed before whatever is going of with the right corner being a slinky rather than a straight edge. Can see the important details, even say the street lamp and the diamond window and such. If it doesn't work one could try that bicentennial one with 76 in the grass.  Maybe should mention that Butkovich was buried in a place for drain tiles, making Godzik's quote that much more sinister. Left curious after Borowski's book for the story about Gacy drawing a stick figure if Butkovich's corpse was more folded and jumped on to fit in there. Guess that's why Gacy chose to challenge that aspect.  Cake  (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added the crawlspace image in 2009 or 2010, I believe. At the time the article was somewhat conglomerate and sparse compared to how it currently stands. A lower size, cropped and maybe slightly tinted hue should assist in NFCC3 justification. Extensive publishing since the 1970s should assist NFCC4 justification. Maybe burying the victim in the drain tile section in the garage gave him that later excuse for the trenches? He always said his home and the homes of about three or four of his neighbors were subjected to inevitable water table flooding of the crawl space.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Added the image, as promised. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Principles of Mathematics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meinong.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)