User talk:Kieronoldham/Archive 12

?

How ya' doing? EEng 01:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine, mate. Seizures have been getting more frequent but have new scans scheduled. How's about yourself other side of the pond?--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, that must be tough, but I hope they find something that will help. On my end, things are going well. After a long dry spell, just this week there were not one but two important developments on my favorite topic. EEng 03:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, heard of that guy. Never short of a pool cue, was he EEng? Keep in touch. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

What does "never short of a pool cue" mean? EEng 21:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

His "constant companion", as we see in his portrait.EEng--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. I thought it was a quaint Limey version of wikt:a few sandwiches short of a picnic. EEng 21:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

More than a few cells short of a lobe he sadly was. Now I know how Phineas keeps an eye on the beer, EEng--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Correct birthdate

Hi, the correct birthdate was September 4, 1950, the January 22, 1950 birthdate was an error. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Davidgoodheart. Kudos for the your work on the List of people who disappeared mysteriously article, too. --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now correct that error, and you are welcome. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Duplicate" spacing

Re [1], I noticed that double-spacing and thought it made it easier to read in edit mode. I wouldn't mind seeing that become more common, and I certainly wouldn't characterize the removals as a "fix" unless there is some guideline that supports them. The extra few bytes in file size is vanishingly insignificant. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Whatever rocks your boat, Mandruss. A uniform consistency either way - across all articles including that one - would be preferable to me before either of us points the finger at the other. Don't worry, Mexico won't pay for the construction of it, and Bill Clinton's stony face doesn't hold resolve to fix the issue. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Uniform consistency on such things is not a reasonable expectation. Nobody is going to support a bot to go around inserting—or removing—those spaces, and any guideline proposal would easily fail with links to WP:CREEP and WP:OCD. Feel free to continue doing what floats your boat, if I've failed to sway you, but please refrain from calling it a "fix" in edit summaries. The word implies that the change is something more than your personal preference, and many editors don't know that it is not. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss Sorry for trying to make light of what to me was two integral editors making edits to improve an article in my initial response. I assume you have looked at each and every last duplicate spacing budge in that edit first before you made either or both of your comments here. If there was uniform consistency of spacing behind reference closings etc. there I'd have refrained. Never mind (and I assume you, too, believe the word "fix" is a daily layman, generic, ambiguous and overused word in the English language). Genuine best regards, and I intend to remove that article from my watch list once I finish typing this reply. All the best. K.J.S.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Although I almost never remember to do it, I try to use double spacing when writing new articles, because I really do think it makes the source text just that much easier to scan by eye -- and lord knows every little bit helps. For a while I even threw in a newline here and there to break up long paragraphs (again, in the source text only -- I'm not talking about a double newline, which would break paragraph) but that just freaked too many people out. EEng 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • EEng. Take a chill pill, or three respectively (500mg and 600mg twice daily with the hope of seizure prevention). Seriously, thanks for the info. Again - I'll try and keep it in mind. Everything I learn and heed on Wikipedia is appreciated, but unlike Bill Clinton's understudies, I am not on my knees as the student. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yuck! EEng 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Salted peanuts, EEng? Lol. The Bitterest Pill (I Ever Had To Swallow) or the raw reality the Clintons had to swallow? Believe me, it's tremendous, and the people are smart.--Kieronoldham (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert Berdella

Hi,

I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team and currently on a project to eliminate duplications of the word 'the'. Sometimes they're straightforward duplications, sometimes they're on either side of brackets or quotation marks. I noticed your reversion of my edit with a comment that it [the] is not duplicate, but don't understand it. The same phrasing, except for one 'the' is used several other times in the article, I believe correctly. One 'the' is supposed to disappear when the is needed to describe something that starts with the. Or am I missing something? I don't see how there can be two there. Spoken English has much more leeway, and it sounds wrong even when two 'the's' are spoken. And I don't think it's a British vs. American usage. Can you explain it further?

Regards,

Ira

Ira Leviton

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Kieron. I think Ira's right that the the the he's talking about should be just a the. I wouldn't bother to interfere except that I wanted to write the "the the the" I just wrote. All the the best to you! EEng 14:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ira Leviton. You're not missing anything - it's my error plain and simple. I've self-reverted. Apologies for inconvenience. EEng - I agree it was my folly. Rectified. Best regards to yous both. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you, and for the quick response.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Responding to your email

Hi Kieronoldham, sorry for not responding to your email right way, but I am swamped with Wikipedia work. I might be able to make an article about that person that you emailed about in the near future, but I am currently trying to add article the List of people who disappeared mysteriously article's solved cases section, and write some articles for the years that only have two articles on them, do you think you could help me out? The faster I can get this done, the sooner I can make new articles. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Davidgoodheart. Thanks for your reply. I know how much time and energy you devote to that article (I have it on my watchlist). I can certainly add references (feel free to request them). I'll help you out as and when I can. My mindset is currently focused on improving the Buck Ruxton case, but I will try and help yous out. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I have only tried submitting one new article in the last nine years but it was rejected. Feel free to list any you have created which you'd like particular help upon and I will try and help yous. Regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Shooting of Jordan Davis

I think I messed-up in an attempt to revert an IP and caught some of your changes. I'll let you double check. Cheers! -Location (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Location. I think I caught what you meant. It's referenced what I introduced to the article. It was a child of Dunn or Rouer (I think Dunn's son) who was wed and whom they were visiting at the time. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Buck Ruxton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blowfly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of Jeffrey Dahmer article

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Jeffrey Dahmer. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. 32.218.37.39 (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Since when have I assumed ownership, amigo? Wiki. is by us all and for us all. Please do not hide behind an IP address, btw.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't play coy.This ([2], [3], [4]) demonstrates perfectly well your intolerance of others' edits, or at least, that you don't even bother to read others' edits. (And implying that IPs are sockpuppets is WP:UNCIVIL.) 32.218.37.39 (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not. You can assume all you wish mate. Read the message on your talk page. It is seldom a Wiki. editor becomes so knowledgeable while remaining an IP user. Regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Assume all you like. I've been editing as an IP longer than you have as a "registered" user, chum. 32.218.37.39 (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Raw nerve? Take it easy. Seriously, I respect you. You were civil in your edit explanations as to why you reverted what you now refer to as a "non sequitur" on your talk page on your edits on the Dahmer article. It has over 400 active watchers and if they agree with you rather than me, I - the Wiki. pariah - will be reverted. Regards. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hah! That IP better watch out! Little does he know that you eat editors like him for breakfast! EEng 00:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Lol EEng. If he/she doesn't like my friends at the dinner table, he/she should try some of the salad. ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)