User talk:Piledhigheranddeeper/Archives09

Talk from 2016 through 2019

Decompression sickness

Thanks for your improvements to Decompression sickness. I live in the UK, so have no concept of the cost of DCS treatment, and I have to ask what do you think might belong in the "Economics" section, if it doesn't discuss the potential costs (and insurance against them)? --RexxS (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, although I've been in a hyperbaric chamber used for treating the bends, it was as a demonstration, and I have no idea what treatment would cost. In Los Angeles, hyperbaric treatment is provided by the Catalina Marine Science Center of USC by contract to the county government, and medical attention is provided by the county medical center, so there may be a subsidy involved. I can see mentioning the costs, and even that insurance is available, but I wouldn't say what the premiums are (they could always change, and mentioning only one provider seems unfair). Another possibility for the Economics section would be a study of the costs of decompression sickness (lost work, out-of-pocket expenses, etc.). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Article

Please take a look at the article about Frans Jeppsson Wall. Appreciate it :)BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

copy-edit
... you were recipient no. 435 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Citizen Kane spelling error?

Hi. Another editor brought up a very good question regarding Hopper's quote in the pre-release controversy section, see this edit by Piledhigheranddeeper. I don't have access to the source, but it would make more sense if Hopper said vicious, rather than viscous. Do you have access to that source? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have the book, I looked it up—and it's an error. The word should be "vicious". I'll fix it straightaway, and thank you.—WFinch (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

page views macro

Wow, cool. Thanks. PRRfan (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Shore Line East

Thanks for your edits on Shore Line East earlier today. I believe I've found good citations for everywhere that you marked them missing. I'm planning to nominate it for FA soon, so this was very helpful! Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Airlander 10 aka "Flying bum"

I was first, [1] (I think,) and my edit was revised here, but now there is similar info [2] about the Airlanders 'bum-ness' in 2 places. Just FYI. 220 of ^Borg 07:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

"Bummer." —PhD

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Piledhigheranddeeper. 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)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you so much for your improvements on Train of Tomorrow! I want to apologize for letting so many mistakes slip through my review process after I finished drafting the article but before I moved it to the mainspace. I put a lot of time and effort into the article, including a multi-hour copyediting session, but I missed a lot of mistakes and errors. Please accept my apologies for that. Thank you again for helping to correct them and generally improve the article. All the best! Michael Barera (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Pips says: I've been using the Oz book to run a merry chase around the world and boy are my arms tired. would love to talk but can't tell if you want to. Please advise one way or the other. Take pity. ROSTJO (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Which Oz book do you mean? --Ph&D

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peabody and Stearns, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stockbridge and Bryn Mawr. 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) 10:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Dick Jauron

You removed content with citations. What goes on in your mind with that act? 127W111 (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A review of my recent edits of Dick Jauron shows that not only did I not remove text with citations, I did not remove content at all (unless you count the apostrophe in "weren't" and things like that, which were edited to a more encyclopedic form). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Beverly Hillbillies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and Bars. 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) 09:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Blondie (band) article

Hi. I was wondering why you have been hammering the Blondie (band) article with 'citation needed' references for the last two years. I'm responding to your citation requests, but they have gotten to the point where the citations degrade the layout of the text, where every sentence needs a citation. A simple internet search finds WP:RS for everything you've marked. Why, instead of adding the Citation needed template, didn't you just add the citations to the article? It's not like they're an obscure band and the requested citation needs research or anything more than for editors to add it.

To put this in perspective, the Wikipedia article on Lady Gaga (a Music Good Article) has an intro paragraph consisting of 471 words and ZERO citations. Blondie's article has 249 words in the intro paragraph and contains 8 citations.

Lady Gaga's article has 9,149 words with 358 references (25.55%) Blondie's article has 4,577 words with 70 references (65.38%).

What exactly, is your criteria for demanding more citations?

I want to make the Blondie article a Good Article again. It was once a nominee for a Featured Article. The Blondie article obviously has your attention... so please disclose your expectations. If you want every sentence sourced, I accept your scrutiny and will be part of the huge community who would like to oblige. Otherwise, it seems you're doing a disservice to the Wikipedia community. I sure would like to understand where you're coming from, and what you demand, and I'd sure appreciate your support for that rather than corrupting the Blondie article. It's not like it's just an advertising page. It's a well written article. Xblkx (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The criterion: WP:CS. Simply put, every factual assertion that is not truly common knowledge (or simply a summary of other material in the article, as in an intro) needs a citation. The standard is not "can a source be found somewhere on the Internet?", but "is the source cited in the article?". Sadly, an ongoing problem with popular-culture articles is their tendency to be filled with facts by fans who seem to think "common knowledge" means "my close friends know it". To borrow an observation from another, "Other editors have no obligation to figure out if and how your unsourced additions can be sourced." This is not to say that every sentence needs its own footnote: if several sentences in a row all come from the same source, one footnote at the end of the passage in question will suffice. However, the passages I flagged tended to be entire paragraphs without a single citation.

I also feel compelled to point out that my flags in Blondie are from 15 months ago and 2 months ago; I don't think three edits in two years (plus) is "hammering". Just because some other article is citation-poor doesn't make it right. If I come across an article that contains uncited assertions, I'm liable to flag the assertions. There are so many of these in Wikipedia that I haven't got to them all. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

References

In response to your text comment in the intro of Measure S ...

... I added some sources that were cited further down in the article (in retrospect you had a point; it had not occurred to me since I had been working on the article for such a long time when I wrote that graf (the very last part of the article I added) that that did seem rather extraordinary. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Image source problem with File:Beau James SAG baseball card.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Beau James SAG baseball card.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Wood Siding railway station

Have you a source for that? While the station building was pulled down then I'm unaware of the bridge being demolished at the time of closure, which would go against standard GWR and LRT practice of leaving structures in situ unless there's a reason

From the photo of the site today, the caption of which even mentions "the remains of the bridge", it is clear that the bridge is gone. So obviously it was removed, and that's what I said, in order to make the connection from the removal of the station structures and the gap over the GWR tracks. I carefully did not say when this happened, let alone "at the time of the closure"; I do not know when, and suspect you are right that it was at a later date. If you should come upon a date, that would be a plus. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf

Hello, Rothorpe – I was wondering what you thought of this edit to Dire wolf, and the edit summary, by Piledhigheranddeeper. Is "concluded" that much better than "found"? I copy-edited this article in March and in the weeks following that, and now it is a featured article. I consciously used different verbs after "A study..." to introduce variety. I just did a search in the article itself for the word "study" and looked at the verbs that follow it, and I see "found", "concluded", "showed", "shows", "yielded evidence that", etc. Is "[improving] diction" a valid reason to change "found" to "concluded"? Or, if it is ever a valid reason, was it necessary?  – Corinne (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No, 'found' sounds to me better in that sentence, more direct. Rothorpe (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

William Harris Do you concur with Rothorpe? If so, would one of you change it? I don't want to get into an edit war with Piledhigheranddeeper.  – Corinne (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you. Corinne, I understand that "found" is more direct, yet I am not fussed about "concluded" either. I have found that scientists often speak of what we know from the past as "concluded", because it is based on a set of assumptions and we do not know something for a fact. I would advise letting this one go; it certainly isn't worth edit warring over, especially after the recent dire wolf "incident". (For this article, those types of "opportunities" will no doubt make themselves available later!) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

'Found' does have an unwelcome legal ring to it. Rothorpe (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the reluctance to get into an edit war, and I thought it might be useful to explain my reasoning (although I have to wonder why nobody simply asked for it). As a scientist of some experience, I have come to see that "found" refers to the raw observations of a study: the tooth lengths, or the masses of tunicates from different locations. A "conclusion" is what one builds on the raw data to reach: that the bite strength was 30% greater than in the modern-day specimens, or that warmer water results in smaller body size. I realize it's a semantic issue, but that's the semantic size of it. Keep up the good work. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

That's very clear. Thank you. Rothorpe (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 95 in Virginia route description

Just what is it about the route description for Interstate 95 in Virginia that you would consider original research? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hard to say exactly, not having seen the published material from which the description was theoretically taken (remember, not one footnote existed in the flagged sections until the one you just added, DanTD). However, the narrative style of the route description (e.g, "I-95 curves back to the northeast") suggests that it might have been written by a person who drove along the segments described and made note of the observations (s)he made. I note that the OR comment came with a question mark: it was speculation, but in the absence of footnotes, it's reasonable speculation. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. For the record, there's a good reason it was written that way. It was written by somebody who drove along the segments and made notes of what was there -- me. Of course, looking at any maps of the road and the KML would also confirm what I wrote, but any other sources would also be helpful. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much the definition of "original research". Perhaps VDOT has some materials. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I can see personal drives being considered original research, but not maps or KML's. I haven't looked for any VDOT material, but I don't doubt they have any. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Piledhigheranddeeper. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Latin grammar

Hi; thanks for your edit on the Musca article. I presume it should also be (Latin for "the bee") later in the same paragraph? I don't know Latin so thought I'd check with you first. — Hugh (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Because Latin has no definite article, it can be proper to translate nouns by themselves or with "the"; it depends on the circumstances. In the context of names of constellations, I think "the" is called for. Thanks for pointing that out. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

And the best back to you, my Canajyun friend! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

!

this

is a

placeholder

!

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dempster Highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lost Patrol (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) 09:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

MI counties

I saw your question about Gogebic county. I found this map (that was harder than I expected) that shows Gogebic only borders WI by water and not MN. Chris857 (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah. But I see that it shows Keweenaw County as sharing a water boundary with Minnesota. Looks like a little text expansion is called for! Thanks for enlightening me! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Miriam Makeba

@Piledhigheranddeeper: The answers to your questions are "no" and "no"; I don't see how that was in doubt, though. Vanamonde (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mussel Watch Program, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Washington and Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Rosemonde Gerard.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Rosemonde Gerard.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Good gravy, that file was uploaded in 2009. I have no recollection whatsoever what website or other source it's from. Indeed, if it was a website, it's likely gone inactive in the intervening 9 years. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Piledhigheranddeeper. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

LIRR shooting grammar

You reverted my moving the explanation to the position of an appositive. However, "He was held down for several minutes until Andrew Roderick boarded the train, an off-duty Long Island Rail Road police officer who was picking up his wife from the train, and he handcuffed Ferguson" makes it seem that the train was an off-duty police officer, as the phrase should refer to the immediately preceding noun. Perhaps the aside could be set off by em-quads, but the sentence as it now stands is very convoluted. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Piledhigheranddeeper: I've endeavored to make it clearer. The problem is that the sentence contains too many small details, many of which are irrelevant. —Dilidor (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Vargur moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Vargur, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~~Cheers~~Mgbo120 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Diamonds

Hi, rather than us going round on something quite pointless, I've tweaked and linked which gives a bit of context, but also the link for those who really can't work it out. Does that work for you? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

NH map

The olive green you were seeing on the New Hampshire ancestry map must be the gray areas, which are unpopulated. I decided I didn't want to make the caption any longer and just left it as gray. Let me know if you were seeing something else. --Ken Gallager (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I can see a town or two as gray, what I am seeing as olive is a scattering of towns in Coos County, particularly the southern, central and eastern parts. I'm guessing my monitor shows colors a bit different from yours; maybe color-boxes in the caption would help. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the towns in Coos County are the gray ones. You're right that it would be better to have the shades as a legend. Now to figure out how to do that! Thanks, --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Franz Kafka wording

You asked for an explanation.

The paragraph in question, the last in the article, read, in its entirety:

San Diego State University (SDSU) operates the Kafka Project, which began in 1998 as the official international search for Kafka's last writings.

First, this paragraph is only one sentence long. Paragraphs, being miniature expostulations, should have multiple sentences logically grouped around a topic sentence, which is usually the first or last sentence in the paragraph.

Second, the sentence includes an abbreviation, which is introduced therein, right after the full name. But that abbreviation is not used anywhere else in the article, except for the footnote flag (I checked before making this edit). Why introduce it?

For those reasons, I broke the sentence into two and dropped the introduction of the abbreviation.

Keep up the good work, though! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't write that particular paragraph, but was curious. I have no problem with removing an unused abbreviation (had missed that, as it wasn't in the edit summary, removed it now), nor with braking up a run-on sentence (which I often encourage, see any of my reviews), but in this case, it seemed that the connection between the two things is closer and more elegant as it was (above) than what you suggested: "... Kafka project. This began ...", which seemed like a split for teh rulez' sake. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee on Traveller

Hi! I see that you are interested in the article Robert E. Lee on Traveller. Would you like to review the article for GA?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Flattered as I am to be approached in this way, I don't know that I am the person to conduct such a review... --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Government actions against the mormon church heading.

I'm curious why you added the section claiming that it was one of the biggest moral issues in 19th century America and then put citation needed on your claim. What was your reasoning for adding the section?Maerlon0 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add a section to Mormonism and polygamy, just a two-sentence introduction to an already-existing section (which itself has subsections). The refimprove flag was for the whole section, which contains many uncited assertions. I have found and added two sources for my own addition, and invite the authors of the subsections to add sources for those. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Trial of Mary Fitzpatrick

Thank you for your text comment. I get your point, and have amended the text slightly. I have no access to the full Court records for that case - just the newspaper reports, and a book which makes the same assumption that you did, i.e. that Mary's husband Thomas ran off to America due to family embarrassment about the trial. However, other than the book's assumption, I have seen no evidence about Thomas' motive for emigration. But there are clues. Somewhere in the sources (I forget where, for the moment) there is the implication that Mary knew what happened. There was no report in the newspapers of the Court regretting not being able to assess Thomas' alibi, and that is puzzling, bearing in mind that Mary did not have a police record until she married Thomas. So that raises a question or two. Hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate efforts to improve Wikipedia, I'm not sure we have hit it yet: it was, as far as I can tell, it was the torrent of pre-trial publicity (as opposed to the trial itself) that encouraged her husband to leave the country (before the trial, after all), although there's also the possibility that he was afraid she might implicate him in the murder during her trial. I was thinking something along the lines of ". . . who had emigrated to America amid the (storm of) negative pre-trial publicity." I put optional additional words in the parentheses; others might not like them. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

What is your evidence that Thomas left due to negative publicity? Arrests and investigations were being made before the trial, e.g. for the inquest. If Thomas did fear being asked for his alibi, he had good reason to leave soon after the victim was found dead, or soon after his wife was questioned and then arrested. But all this is speculation. I am happy with your suggestion, because it doesn't actually say why he left. I'll put it in the article if you like. Storye book (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My only evidence is from the article text that said he left "in response to the effect" of the trial. The "effect" sounds like the unwanted publicity and the aspersions that may well have been cast on the defendant's family and associates. I agree with your point that we're getting into speculation: all we know is that there was publicity (which sounds like a hue and cry, but that's my reading), and he left. Barring finding some other evidence, let's go with the proposed language. Thanks. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"In response to the effect" was my wording. It was meant to be ambiguous. But I am happy with your suggestion. My guess is that if we had access to the original Court records (at Kew?), we might find out more. But that's the great thing about putting articles on WP: other researchers can continue the work if they want. Let's hope they do.

Meanwhile, I don't think we can take Williams and Godfrey's interpretation (in their book) too seriously because they don't give their sources. They say (p.150): "Though Mary protested her innocence of the crime of murder, she evidently knew something of Richardson's demise." Their grounds for saying that appears to be that Mary said, "What am I going to be charged with?" when she was arrested. Mary had previously been arrested several times for other offences, so in that context it could mean anything - unless W & G had seen sources unavailable to us?

Then the book says, "Mary, in the month leading to her trial, continued to protest that Richardson had given her the watch as a gift. Thomas, unnerved by the thought that his wife (although estranged) was going to be tried for murder, quickly emigrated to America." Yes, Mary did say in the pawn shop, when using an invented name, that her husband had given the watch to her, so that particular statement is just part of a pack of lies, and cannot be taken seriously as an implication of Thomas on its own. If Mary repeated that statement, using Thomas' own name, that would be interesting, but I have seen no evidence of that yet.

Of course, my guess about what really went on, quite rightly cannot be used in the article - but since we are discussing it here ... Mary appears (as I see it) to have been purposely keeping herself sober and distant enough during that evening to have picked out a vulnerable, drunk and isolated young man, and without invading his space too much (to avoid noisy rejection) she followed him until he was falling about on his way home, and she could get away with taking his arm in the street under the gas lamps. It looks to me as if she had done this before. It would have been simple enough, then, to have diverted him past his home on Low Road, along Old Mill Lane, where it would have been unlit, past the place where her friend(s) may have habitually waited for her to bring a punter. Maybe she and/or other women did that every Hunslet Feast Day.

I have visited the site, and I have an old map of that area. I shall be getting a larger scale old map if I can, then I intend to make a map of the most direct route between the George pub (where they were last seen) and the Old Mill Dam (where the body was found). It is not far - five minutes sober and twenty minutes drunk, maybe.

That is my guess, anyway, because that scenario fits that place as it was then, and a certain type of people who live around some parts of Leeds even today. They tend to be fairly quiet, and you can spot them hanging around, watching. They are more still than regular people. You can often spot shoplifters in that way. So that is just my personal opinion, and no doubt there are potentially many other possible interpretations. That is why this trial is so interesting. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Nice summation. Keep up the good work! --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Vargur

Hello, Piledhigheranddeeper. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Vargur.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Lynching in the United States

While this article does an estimable job of treating lynchings of black men as a terror phenomenon after the Civil War, it pays almost no attention to any other variety of lynching, such as of suspected lawbreakers on the frontier (accused cattle rustlers, for example) or of Mormon polygamists (such as Joseph Smith) before the flight to Utah. What is the reason for this omission? It seems almost intentional. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Piledhigheranddeeper, Such items could be talked about, although I would opt they stay shorter. Most sources and books about lynching focus on the main issue, which was the lynching of black men. As we note, others were lynched, and we do discuss that. But we're not trying to give a false balance by giving non-black lynchings undue coverage. If you could recommend some sources and other incidents to add, we could find a way to incorporate them in a choice manner. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)