User talk:Kieronoldham/Archive 17

You've got mail

• 
  A picture I took of East Bay, viewed from the Forth Bridge, September 2011
• 
  A church in December 2006
• 
  An Edwardian-era lamp post, 2009
• 
  The Royal Liver Building, 2013
• 
  Wee man construction. Eden Project, Cornwall, June 2011
• 
  Pingot Quarry Waterfall, 2009
• 
  Silverburn Park, Leven, Fife, March 2015
• 
  Letham Glen Park, Leven, June 2015
• 
  Skyline near Bury. May 2018
• 
  River Irwell, April 2019
• 
  Peel Monument on horizon, August 2017
• 
  Rams Head Inn, Denshaw, Saddleworth, May 2019
• 
  Saddleworth Moor, seen from The Rams Head Inn, September 2019

Hello, Kieronoldham. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.David J Johnson (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sylvia Likens

Hi! Are you done editing Murder of Sylvia Likens? If not, would you mind letting me know when you are? I'd like to make some copy edits, but don't want to interrupt anything you're working on. Thanks! Orville1974 (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Orville1974. I have been working extensively on the article for a few months as difficult as it is emotionally. I am almost finished (just making a few final edit/reference "dabs"). Make edits as you see fit. Wiki. is for us all. Any help/research/suggestions, feel free to contact me. Best regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm done with the edits for now (mostly rewording some lengthy sentences, correcting some grammar, and catching a few typos). There is still a lot of duplication between the description of events and the testimony about those events at trial that can probably be consolidated to reduce repetition and shorten the length a bit. The article is very thorough and well sourced, and the story itself is moving. Orville1974 (talk) 05:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Orville1974. I have been rewriting the article by section. Thanks for rectifying the overlooked typos. I would like to see the article perhaps nominated for GA status.--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Larry Eyler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Kieron. How are you? EEng 00:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fine, EEng. Not heard much from you for a year or so. Nice to hear from you. :) Hope all's well, pal. Keep in touch.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Larry Eyler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comatose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Q

What do you mean by "chapter structure"? EEng 00:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A) They had five victims. You created chapters/subchapters for each one, and quite appropriately. The current structure implies only Reade, Kilbride, Downey, and Bennett were victims in addition to being a lengthy chapter. Evans's murder was not atypical in any way other than it being an initiation to David Smith; their intention had been to bury him in the same location, that same day, or very shortly afterwards. He was writing a note to his employers when the policeman arrived at their door. Brady believed he had ensnared Smith as a participant in future crimes, incl. murder.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

By chapters I guess you mean sections. But I didn't change the section structure -- that was someone else, and it was that way when I started work. This entire episode has been a travesty. What I did is being lumped in with all kinds of things other people did, and because the article's owners have become absentee landlords who only visit their property once in a while, if they don't like some aspect of what's changed in their absence they simply revert to their preferred version, regardless of how many other editors' work is thrown out at the same time. Because they're busy and important, they don't have time to discuss what should be kept and what should be reverted. EEng 03:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sections. A continuous summary of text can likely detract the continued interest of a reader. I always try and avoid this potentiality when I devote time to populating a single article over time. I can understand your concerns here, and agree with your observations. I may try and address this, although my efforts may be reverted.--Kieronoldham (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Then why are you supporting reversion, which restores that awful giant section and various errors, and throws away many other editors' work? Though, come to think of it, I'm not sure which version you're saying you prefer -- was it this [1] or this [2]? EEng 04:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of the sizes of some of the images, I prefer the version you restored on 7 August with the explanation "restoring Cassianto's August 4 pre-editwar version." Sorry for the confusion, Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)