User talk:Mikedash

Hello, Mikedash, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
• How to edit a page and write a great article
• The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
• The handy Manual of Style
• And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 00:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Hi - I saw you'd put in a request for Peer Review for Leigh Richmond Roose, but you hadn't done the review request quite right; you're meant to put the request for review inside Wikipedia:Peer review/Leigh Richmond Roose/archive1, not the talk page, and then insert the template {{Wikipedia:Peer review/Leigh Richmond Roose/archive1}} inside Wikipedia:Peer Review - fiddly, eh? I've taken the liberty of correcting the error, so your request for Peer Review will now get seen properly. I've also linked to it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football so people there know about it. Hope this is OK, and what you intended!

By the way, the article is excellent stuff, I'd never heard of the guy but I was thrilled to read it. I've done a few minor edits to it, but apart from a few style issues and the odd misdirected wikilink there's not much wrong with it. Qwghlm 11:34, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mike. I should just mention, how it was quite by chance I saw your article - I maintain a userpage with a wikilinked list of Arsenal players, past and present - by chance I checked the "related changes" link and found the page on Roose. Anyway, I've become quite interested in historic players as well - List of Arsenal F.C. players contains a lot more red links earlier on than later. Wikipedia inevitably has a bias towards the present, and as a result players who might have turned in hundreds of matches are not covered while current youth team members who haven't even stepped on the pitch do. I've been trying my best to cover Arsenal players from the past in order to balance it out. Since you're Welsh and a 'keeper you'll no doubt be interested in the (brief) article I wrote about Jack Kelsey, but there's some other players from a bit further back, particularly black players such as Andrew Watson and Arthur Wharton (who was a goalkeeper too), who I'd love to look up in the archives (something to do after I finish my Master's degree...)

By the way, any clues what Roose did after 1912? 35 is quite a young age for a keeper to retire, especially one with such joi de vivre... Qwghlm 20:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mike, Regarding your recent comments on Charles Becker, while he had little involvement with what we know as the Italian Mafia of today, he had extensive ties to New York organized crime particularly with Jack Zelig and more so with the Lenox Avenue Gang. Although Category:Mafia associates is perhaps misleading, the category itself is meant to include all organized crime groups. MadMax 19:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike,

The Lennox Avenue Gang has been mentioned in a few other books, most notably Robert Jay Nash's Encyclopedia of World Crime series (as my main source of reference). I'm fairly knowledgeable in pre-Prohibition organized crime history, as I've contributed the majority of Wikipedia's articles on the subject. I believe the Lennox Avenue Gang's murder of Rosenthal, of which they were eventually convicted and executed for, was the only major criminal act they committed. I'm not sure of any internet links although I believe I might be able to list a few specific resources.

The problem with websites like FindAGrave.com is that it directly conflicts with every source I've seen, particularly in Paul Kelly and Jacob Orgen dates to name a few. Thomas Hunt's Mafia Chronology has several dates for the Morello brothers alone.

From what I know, Jack Zelig was a prominent gang leader of the Eastman Gang and had led what remained of that gang following the murder of "Kid Twist" Max Zwerbach. While certainly not nearly as powerful as the days of Monk Eastman, or even of Zwerbach, he apparently still had some influence within New York at the time of his death. While I don't know much outside general history of Zelig's life, it may very well be that Zelig had been forgotten or even hated. Certainly neither Eastman nor Zwerbach received the level of Capone or Kelly's funerals. Oddly enough in all of my resources, both books and websites, Zelig was not charged with Rosenthal's murder and remained in New York where he was eventually scheduled to testify at Becker's trial before his death (often thought arranged by Becker or another interested party). Regarding Zelig's later financial state, it's fairly common for both gang leaders and other criminals resorting to petty theft. Even Monk Eastman was forced to become a sneak thief and opium dealer after his release from prison. I can state some specific facts if you're interested. MadMax 19:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike,

I'm sorry I havn't been able to get back to you. According to the Encyclopedia of World Crime, the Lennox Avenue Gang is referenced in Herbet Asbury's "Gangs of New York" and Jay Robert Nash's "Bloodletters and Badmen" as well as in the CrimeBook Archives however I'm still looking for other sources.

I certainly appreciate the compliments regarding my contributions. I'm glad someone finally got around to adding Becker. I agree FindaGrave.com is, in most cases, an extremely reliable sourse it seems to me that sometimes, especially if that is the only online source against 2 or 3 legitimate references. Looking forward to seeing more of your contributions. MadMax 20:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite impressed with your article on the Batenburgers. I've read a fair amount about Anabaptist but had never heard of the Batenburgers before. It inspired me to write a blog post[1] and add a bit about the Batenburgers to the Münster Rebellion article.

In researching the article I looked up the 1536 Bocholt meeting in The Radical Reformation, by George Hunston Williams. Contrary to the Batenburger article, he claims that David Joris succesfully brought the meeting to a compromise: "Rebaptism was abandoned and the use of the sword by the saints was declared justifiable but inexpedient, since the millenium was clearly not at hand." (p. 583) but says little more about the ramifications of this. Clearly the compromise, if it was reached, didn't mean much as the Anabaptists continued to fragment.

I'm interested in knowing what your source on the meeting was. I've got access to an excellent library on Anabaptist history but can't seem to find much about this meeting. mennonot 10:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. Thanks for the query & blog mention. My source for the meeting is Jansma's book (see references at the foot of the page itself), pp.218-20 - his title, incidentally, translates as "Melchiorites, Münsterites and Batenburgers. A Sociological Analysis of a Millennial Movement from the 16th Century". It's a bit dry, but by far the most complete source on the Batenburgers and their kin; in fact Jansma is the only scholar to have made a thorough study of the movement. Unfortunately his work is only available in Dutch. I cannot say with any certainty whether his account is more correct than that of Williams. But, actually, I'm not surprised accounts differ, as quite possibly the sources themselves are in dispuite; the various sects had such different agendas to push. I'm going to update the Batenburgers article by qualifying my statement about lack of resolution. Mikedash 22:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me! Thanks for your thorough response. Your addition to the article looks good to me. The Jansma book sounds really interesting. Maybe someone will translate it someday... mennonot 09:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hesitant to drop here and actually talk to you, as I never really knew "what" I was actually going to say. Since you first dropped by the Talk page at Spring Heeled Jack, I was shocked - the greatest authority in the whole wide world on the subject, taking the time to read "my" amateurish research! Too much to take... I never found the courage to review it the way it should, cause I get the feeling I'll mess the whole thing up.

Think of me as foolish; maybe I am, but hey, I admire you far too much to say something coherent. You are much an idol to me. I've read two of your books and since I ever knew of your webpage, I've also read your online works extensively. I hope you remain here for very long, for there is much, much I'd like to ask you, certainly more than I can ask in my lunch break (you guessed right - I'm eating right now!)

Regarding, SHJ, I guess you're right - too Haining-based. I hope to sit calmly in from of the comp and launch a throughly review, with your help. I intended to start now, but the challenge is far too serious to do it in a rush. This weekend, the article and I have an appointment, and I'm definetely sure it'll be for the better, with the guidelines you so kindly compiled for me at the Talk Page. Until now, I'll remove the "Under edit" tag, since it's somewhat intrusive, but rest assured I'm on bussiness.

I'm foolishly ashamed of writing you, and I hope you don't mind for me doing this, but I just created this entry. It's short, but I hope you enjoy it.

A big, big hug to you and I hope to talk to you very soon, Shauri Yes babe? 14:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post and new Wiki entry - I am flattered by your kind words, to the point of readily forgiving you for describing me as English! [This seems picky, I know, but I'm afraid a good many Welsh people people can be a bit sensitive on this point - it's much the same in Spain, I imagine, among Catalans and Basques.] To answer your implied question, I will be sticking around here for the forseeable future, though I have much less time to work on Wiki stuff than I'd like - and I'd be more than happy to offer such help as I can. Anyway, I've posted a fuller response on your talk page. Regards Mikedash 21:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eager to get to work on SHJ so I guess I'll get to compile all the points you raised under a more simple format, and as I get to address them, I'll scratch them from the list. I hope you review it after I'm done, and please don't hesitate to make any edits you deem necessary. I look forward for more communication with you. Thank you for the lovely words, and for listening to a Spanish fan - I assure you, there are plenty more like me. Have a great night, Mike! Hugs, Shauri Yes babe? 22:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your update to HMS Vanguard, and also on London fire and panic, July 1212. Do you have any citations for the latter -- it has always been in Guinness Book of Records, but I have never investigated the story? mervyn 16:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I have posted a reply on your talk page. Mikedash 23:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your research and Early fires of London -- you can't beat a day in a "dead tree" library! mervyn 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin. Mongo wants to discuss a matter relating to Bigfoot with you. Martial Law 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afterwards, I may have some things to discuss with you. Cheers. Martial Law 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

• Actually, I don't have anything to discuss. Martial Law assumed from another person's post to my talk page that I did...sorry for any misunderstanding.--MONGO 07:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to list yourself on my user page as a paranormal invwstigator ? Martial Law 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike as one of the leading Forteans around these parts I wanted to get your input on tidying up the Anomalous phenomenon entry - I've sketched some thoughts out on the talk page. Thanks for any input you can provide (Emperor 20:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Cuthbert Ottaway.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note ... one of those entries I just stumbled across and was fascinated by. Good example of the quirky article that WP can do so well and can build into something substantial. And good example of someone who isn't in the ODNB. --mervyn 18:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. I noticed that some of your scans are from Association Football and the Men Who Made It - Do you have all four volumes? You might be able to clear up some confusion on Talk:Laws of the Game. Jooler 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A decent picture of Charles Wreford Brown would be good, the article used to have a picture but it appears to have been deleted for copyright reasons. I just had a look at your website and you write just the kind of books I love. I've enjoyed the books of Giles Milton and Mark Kurlansky, so I've just ordered Batavia’s Graveyard from Amazon. Jooler 10:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have Green's 1953 book and know about the "eccentric" layout in appendix 4. He is making a direct comparison between the Cambridge rules and the "accepted laws". The nine rules of the Assocation are of the Association itself and not the game. The 1953 book has a picture of Wreford Brown, but I'm not sure if this is old enough. I thought you had the 1906 publication. Jooler 10:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC) - I just re-readyour comment on my page and I see that you do have the 1906 publication, but it doesn't confirm the accepted laws. Thanks. Jooler 10:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, someone in a pub was trying to convince me that sometime before the First World War, Spurs, or possibly some other team used to have had a one-armed goalkeeper. I've never been able to find any evidence to support this. Have you ever heard of this story? Jooler 14:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not come across this story, and it seems inherently improbable - as Kevin Keegan once observed, "You can't play with a one-armed goalkeeper - not at this level." The closest I can come to it is Arthur Lea, a one-armed Welsh international who represented Wrexham c.1890. he was a forward, though. Mikedash 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read about 50 pages so far but I am really enjoying it. I was not aware of the story beforehand, so I'm reading it with no knowledge of what befell these people. I do enjoy narrative history but I always wonder a bit about how much comes out of the mind of the author. I note that you are very firm about the lack of invention in the book's preface. Jooler 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike. I finished Batavia's Graveyard last night. It's a great book and a fantastic achievement on your part putting it all together. I really enjoyed it. Take care. Jooler 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommended Batavia's Graveyard to my nephew a few months ago and he has just told me that he loved it. Which reminds me I have yet to read Tulipomania. Take care. Jooler 22:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know that I enjoyed reading your comment at Talk:Battle of Adowa on the origins of one historical myth. It is moments like this, when I share with other people some of the delights of learning, that keep me coming back to Wikipedia. -- llywrch 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mickey D, so how did you work out it was me? I'll forgive you for deleting my posts even tho' every word is true. Unfortunately, things have been downhill for me since I was diagnosed with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, so you've actually deleted what's probably my last work before I kick the bucket, but life's a bitch, as they say and you weren't to know. Not that any of this really matters anyway. Best, PMD.

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

My jaw dropped when I saw your name at the Batavia article. I enjoyed your book so much I bought several hard copies (Ahem! Discounted, foolishly they discovered a bit later!) and donated one to the Perth library. We are currently undergoing an improvement drive to the article and no other coud be more welcome. Drop me a note or contact the WikiProject for Western Australia WP:WA. Best regards, Fred 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Can you offer any suggestions for Swan River Mania, c.1830s. Fred 13:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, hello from me too. If you're interested, drop into WP:AMH sometime. Cheers. —Moondyne 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this depend on whether you drop the 'h' when pronouncing the word?

When we last spoke about the matter, I'm sure you said 'I'm a historian' rather than 'I'm an 'istorian'.  :-)

Mpntod 13:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not! Saying "a historian" involves inserting a rather awkward and unclassy glottal stop; "a historian" is certainly becoming more popular as a usage, but "an historian" always used to be preferred. Anyway, when are you next in town for lunch/coffee? Email me! Mikedash 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I note that you created and wrote most of this article. It states "He was one of only six players (and the only Englishman) to record an international hat-trick in the nineteenth century". I don't think that this is correct as I can see several instances of England hat-tricks before Smith's in 1899. There are 4 listed at List_of_England_players_with_only_one_cap#Prior_to_1914 and these are only for players with only one cap. What was your source for this statement?

If you look at [2]. there were 13 England hat-tricks before Smith's. Furthermore, the 13-2 scoreline was not a record as England beat Ireland 13-0 on 18 February 1882. Daemonic Kangaroo 07:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to upgrade from an honorary member to a full member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography? Your contributions on crime have greatly improved Wikipedia and I think you would be a great asset to the project. Jmm6f488 07:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On October 9, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Richard Honeck, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike,

I was interested and perplexed by your experience of working on Energy Matters - which Richard Davies and I founded as an independent publication supported by the Engineering Department - under the auspices of Cantab. So I dug out one of the editions you worked on, in summer 1984. The acknowledgments page is nearly identical to those we published, and seems to show that it is an independent paper financed by the energy industry, as we had been from our third edition.

File:Energy Matters 0684 p 3.jpg

However turning to the last page, it is revealed as a "Roger Tredre production for ICS".

File:Energy Matters 0684 p60.jpg

I have no idea what that means, but since he was associated with Cantab I can only imagine that he brought our paper into its orbit. However, Energy Matters was never a "spin-off" of Cantab - maybe more like a "capture"! If I can learn how to use Wikipedia, you have stimulated me to write a specific entry on Energy Matters, to which you will be welcome to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewBud (talk • contribs) 23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you have a look in at Batavia (ship). There are obvious errors in the infobox relating to the date of the laying down (after the ship was launched, apparently) and she also apparently sailed on her maiden voyage the day she was launched. I've also replied to your comments on barratry on the discussion page: please note that that Wikipedia article has been changed since you made your comments (not by me) and now gives a more accurate definition.

Whilst writing, you might be interested in this discussion. I also believe that we share a mutual friend, Annabel Hervey-Bathurst, neé Warburg, who was at university with you? Your name came up in conversation when I was discussing how good your book (on the Batavia) was!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for yours. I'm afraid that we've never met and I know Annabel through her husband who was at school with me. I'm Godfather to their son. I'm also afraid that I've been involved in some unpleasantness on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles), one of those problems being an apparent threat to burn down someone else's house, so I'm nervous about giving my e-mail address out or revealing my name. Anyway, nice to see you back - I'm going to check on the Batavia (ship) article now!--Major Bonkers (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike Dash,

Thanks for your comments. I have posted them (in full) on my blog post with a reply.

kerim (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike,

The website I got this image from, http://www.flint.cc/gallery.php?section=fine_Art_European, states

"17th century portrait of Dutch shipping trader. Francisco Pelsaert (1595-1630) sitting with his book, Batavia (on his ship the Batavia) and his dog. To the right is a building: "Hoornwyk" now restored and for sale in Rijswijk, South Holland; was Pelsaert's home. Paint on wood. Size: 13.5" x 11"."

This is by no means an authoritative site, but the level of detail in the description made it seem convincing to this ignoramus. Is there absolutely no chance that we've stumbled upon something really exciting here?

Hesperian 10:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hesperian. I didn't mean to be brutal by simply deleting the image, but I'm afraid there's no chance it's of the Pelsaert who was involved in the Batavia mutiny. That Pelsaert died at the age of 35. The guy in the picture, to me, has got to be late 40s+. That's a subjective judgement, but objectively I can say that Pelsaert never wrote a book called "Batavia", and was far from rich enough to own the sort of house shown in the picture. There's also no record he ever lived in Rijswijk. I have to think the gallery has made a misattribution, or been misinformed by whoever they bought the picture from. Mikedash (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I was aware that Pelsaert died young, but was willing to attribute the apparent age in the portrait to a powdered wig and the rigours of shipwreck and court-martial. I realise, too, that the closest Pelsaert came to writing a book was Jansz's third person transliteration of his journals, but thought it possible that the artist had taken liberties in finding any excuse to whack the word "Batavia" into the portrait somewhere.

No problem with the removal. If it's wrong it's wrong, and if anyone's in a position to judge, you are.

Hesperian 03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say your input would be much appreciated in expanding this: Anomaly (Forteana). (Emperor (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for putting some basis for the category in the article. I'm still dubious about listing the firm as an American Criminal. But until the convicted criminal half of this team has his own page, this is much better than before. David in DC (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When I have more time" :)

You cannot believe the number of things I'm gonna do if we ever find that mythical state of being David in DC (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your name here. Perhaps you saw the Tulip mania article? I'd be happy to read any comments you have about it. Smallbones (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comments about the St. Petersburg Times article on Richard Honeck, I found the article by searching for "Richard Honeck" through Google News, which has a vast newspaper archive. The article I found is here. Hope that helps! PBP (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikedash! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Colin Brown (journalist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikedash. Thanks for your contributions to Delphine LaLaurie, which provide some much needed details. I note you source several quotes to Ghost Stories of Old New Orleans. Do you actually have a copy of this book? If so are you able to scan the relevant pages at all? I ask because we've had problems on this article in the past where more recent sources (such as the 1998 book) have been known to claim that earlier texts say things like this, and then are shown to be incorrect. There's apparently quite a vested commercial interest in showing this woman to have been a monster. Scans would be great in settling the argument, if you can provide them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Another question - the LaLaurie article includes a reference to the New Orleans Bee of April 16, 1834 (alongside the 11th and 12th for which links to scans are provided). I've been looking over the Bee of the 16th (here, and going on to 1834_04_0050 and onwards) and I can't immediately see a relevant article. I don't suppose you're able to tell me what part of that issue the reference refers to? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If it helps, there is an article in the Bee of the 17th ("For the Bee" - bottom left of scan) relating to the fire engines that attended the fire, but no mention of the slaves. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi - in your edits over the weekend, you reinserted the 16 April Bee reference. Was this a mistake or have you found a relevant article in the Bee of the 16th? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh - you seem to be citing it negatively, as evidence of it NOT containing supporting material. I'm not sure that's permissible - you can't cite a negative. The onus is on the person claiming it says something to show that it does. (Otherwise we'd have to cite every issue ever published to prove that they, also, do not support the claims.) Is there any reason I shouldn't clear all these negative citations out of the article? - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just letting you know that I have nominated this article for Good Article status. Thanks for all your work on this article! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually anything above 1 victim is speculation, since she was only convicted of one murder. However that number is clearly ridiculous, since she had been bumping them off at the rate of perhaps 3 or 4 a week for 3 or 4 decades. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mikedash. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

Hello, Mikedash. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]