This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kieronoldham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I apologize if my reply seemed abrasive. I used to edit on Wikipedia A LOT years ago and just came back on and it seemed that everything I edited now was getting reverted and I couldn't understand why. I understand now that things have changed tremendously it seems and truthfully it looks to be for the better. I'll make sure I'm citing things better now and will use good references. Thanks NotSheepOrCattle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. I would appreciate taking some feedback and advice as I edit articles on here. I was a non-logged user more than ten years before I decided to start an account on Wikipedia. Would it be possible to send prospective page edits to you through the platform somehow? AspergianDoodler (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
It's alright, AspergianDoodler. I don't think I own anything and never have, despite one or two of my edits. It's primarily the layman links which are often duplicate. There are no shortage of watchers to these articles and I have collaborated with several over the years and been corrected and reverted. :) If they agree with you as opposed to me, consensus governs. In having said all this, referencing your major edits will help. All the best, Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I do hope "UK vs. US friendships can be restored". Let's just leave it at that, EEng :) All the best, pal. Keep in touch. I could talk far more to you and hope to do so in subsequent days and weeks. I have always considered you a friend. Your eminence and plethora of brilliance have never ceased to amaze me.--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:CITELEAD does not state or suggest that there should be no citations in the lead. It merely promotes the avoidance of redundant citations in the lead. When citations supporting statements in the lead are readily found at restatements in the remainder of an article, there is no need to duplicate them in the lead. WP:CITELEAD, a guideline, does not trump WP:VERIFY, a policy. If a statement in the lead is in need of support from a citation, and that statement is not restated later on, then the citation will have to appear with the statement in the lead. --Lambiam07:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Surely the lead is supposed to summarise the entire article, with the most important facts? So there shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't included later on? There should be nothing unique in the lead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
You are correct: WP:LEAD states that significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. However, this is again a guideline, not policy. The issue was a {{citation needed}} that had been removed from a statement in the lead of Functional analysis with an appeal to WP:CITELEAD, viz. the statement, "However, the general concept of a functional had previously been introduced in 1887 by the Italian mathematician and physicist Vito Volterra." The easiest way to conform to both the policy and the guideline would have been to remove the statement. However, I think this would not have been in the best interest of the Wikipedia project. The best solution in the long run will be an appropriately researched and referenced section ==History==, but that is not an argument to leave statements unreferenced now. --Lambiam09:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Two wrongs don't make a right? But an easy mistake, and one that should be corrected by adding sources material to the main body, not just replacing the cn tag? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I thanked you for your initial revert of my edit, Lambiam, and then made an effort to find a verifiable reference having noted you had replaced it. I try and find an outstanding citation (usually a random one) every day or so to do my bit to clear what, to me, is a greatly burgeoned backlog. Indeed two wrongs don't make a right, but someone with a greater interest in the topic than I can rectify the issues. Regards to you both. Have a good summer!--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Back in January, Paul Benjamin Austin (talk·contribs) asked me to look at the article, murder of Heather Rich. I've been working off-and-on since then, but the one thing I didn't do is watch the original article. As such, as I prepared to copy-and-paste my draft into the article space today, I only just noticed your many, many edits to the page in the interim. My version of the article is 51.35 kB at the moment, and I'd intended to simply replace the old 7 kB version that I'd seen last. I'm not sure how to go about trying to merge different versions, especially since you're making sometimes dozens of edits per day to the article. What think you? — fourthords | =Λ= |18:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, fourthords. I didn't know Paul Benjamin Austin had also asked someone else to look at the article too. He asked me to look at the article in early June (look further upwards on my current talk page), and several weeks later, when I'd finished the 1960 Little Miss Nobody case and the Bible John murders up in Scotland, I began to look at the article when he reaffirmed on his talk page he'd like me to look at this article. Obviously we can work together? I was going to begin an 'aftermath' section today (likely still will), but really, for the most part, I only have the investigation, arrest and trials section to populate. This is just a suggestion, but you could e-mail me your draft or add it onto my talk page and I'll amalgamate it into the article, or just add what info. you think is still missing? We can certainly work together. There isn't a particularly large amount of literature out there pertaining to this case, but what there is, is not scant in details. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
fourthords. I will merge it myself if that's okay with you? I hope so. It'd be a crying shame to see your efforts go to waste. I'll bet you spent at least 5 or 6 hours working to create your version. Paul Benjamin Austin, there is nothing to apologize for mate. We both promised to do this article for yous. The end result will show both our efforts. ;)--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm already sketching out a reconstitution of the Bridgette Andersen article based on the sources already present. After that, I'll work on expanding it. I'll be doing so in the the actual articlespace this time. — fourthords | =Λ= |17:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
You could copy and paste the text to me on my page with relevant accompanying info. I will need to reference it? We could do it article by article that way? Then I could access the information I would need?--Kieronoldham (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Bless you, Kieron! Thanks, that's made it so much easier to follow the narrative. Best wishes to you as well, and if I can be of any help as an admin, please let me know. Mandsford00:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Please could you have a look at the comments at Talk:Disappearance_of_Genette_Tate#Failed_verification. The article material needs to be matched exactly by the cites that follow it, and at the moment it isn't, which is leading to problems with failed verification. In some cases, I'm not sure which cites were used to obtain the material, so the problem is hard to fix.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll try and look into this, Ianmacm. I can't make any definitive promises as to fully rectifying the current problems as I only have a limited amount of info. on this case. Anything I have added to this article I have either found online or own in printed format. Regards, Key.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I have fixed one, and partly fixed the second reference. I am pretty sure the kidnapping being discounted when no reference demands were made is in one of the online news sources if it isn't the one listed. I know I read that online in a reputable news source a month or two ago. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the reference and slight sentence restructure to this article warrants removal of the second tag given, Ianmacm. Any further assistance, feel free to ask. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I know he was arrested in 1991, and not for indecent exposure. It is also better to not duplicate the same image at the header of the article and within the text. The article has a good number of watchers. If they agree with you as opposed to me, then so be it.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Kieronoldham. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Santa's hard Brexit grotto lol. Taking a brief "brexit" from the sixth week of yellow vest protesting in France, I say all the best for Christmas and a pleasant New Year to you too, Martinevans123. --Kieronoldham (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kieronoldham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
