User talk:Inexpiable

Archives

1, 2, 3

I noticed you put in "4 murder victims" for the inmates who have said number of victims in California and Mississippi. However in states like Florida, it seems you only did that for cases with 5 or more victims. For consistency, I reinstated the victims names for the former states cases and will work on the other states whose cases have 5+ victims that you missed such as Oklahoma and Virginia. I should mention that these are only for executions post 1976. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @YatesTucker00090: I see what you're saying, however, it reads better in table format if all the information can be fitted within a single line. I will slowly go through the lists and if it's 4 victims or more I think it should belong in the note section. Inexpiable (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wesley Ira Purkey.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inexpiable,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Inexpiable,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and barnstar. It is the first time I ever made an article relating to a murder or criminal investigation. I felt compelled to do so after seeing how big of a miscarriage of justice this was. Jon698 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my pending edits to list of serial killers in the United States involving Ryan Scott Blinston and Edward Dean Kennedy when Blinston does not meet the definition of a serial killer and Kennedy does? Startrain844 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Startrain844: Kennedy does not meet the definition. Blinston maybe does I'll give you that, but you'll have to take that to the talk page as it's already been reverted a few times. Inexpiable (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy definitely does not fit the definition: both Cone, and Cone's cousin, Robert C. McDermon, were killed at the same time in the same location. If they had been killed separately then maybe it would classify but as it stands it does not. Inexpiable (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In list of serial killers in the United States, User:ExRat said “Am again removing Kelvin Malone from the list. As define by the The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, a spree killer is define by "killings at two or more locations with almost no time break between murders". Defined by the FBI as "a person (or more than one person) who commits two or more murders without a cooling-off period; the lack of a cooling-off period marks the difference between a spree killer and a serial killer." Malone's killing spree occurred in only 6 days, during the commission of a crime spree with two accomplices that lasted only two weeks. Most of the references on the subject's page refer to the events as a "rampage" or a "spree". Malone is a clear example of a spree killer, not a serial killer, as defined by the FBI, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, and numerous authors cited in the spree killer article.” ExRat Startrain844 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--Startrain844 (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) If Keven Malone does not meet the criteria then Blinston doesn’t either however Kennedy does as he had a cooling off period between at least two of the murders that lasted well over a month.--Startrain844 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inexpiable,

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how my edit was disruptive or non-constructive. It appears that you're deliberately reversing any edits that paint Cure's behavior in a negative light. Could you go into further detail? 2603:9000:7300:1737:585F:E31:FA5D:2B (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @2603:9000:7300:1737:585F:E31:FA5D:2B: Because it is an unsourced claim, presumptuous, and unnecessary. "a move that could have potentially led to serious or even fatal harm to the deputy". Yeah obviously... but it could also not have led to serious harm. Presumptions don't belong on Wikipedia. We just report what news sources say. Inexpiable (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not painting Cure's behavior in a positive light, that's what happened, it clearly states in the article that Cure grabbed the deputy's throat during the struggle and that he was tased for not complying. It is very neutral. Inexpiable (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inexpiable:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Inexpiable, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Ezra Cricket (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murders of William Redmond and Helen Phelps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Alabama song “Once Upon a Lifetime” has no direct connection to the Pete Shrum murder — that’s why it was removed from the article the first time. The fact that the song was playing in the background when the murder happened is only a coincidence. Zredman (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inexpiable,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:1997 Detroit shootings (2).jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sreejith K (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out your suspicions were well-founded after all. Kudos. (sorry, still learning how to link diffs) — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@That Coptic Guy: Thanks, well it did seem odd his knowledge of the site given his recent account creation. It may be worth checking some of the other accounts who responded early to his discussion and agreed with his move. User:Kcmastrpc and User:Qwirkle responded pretty quickly in support of his nomination. Inexpiable (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, fair. A cursory review of those folks' contribs (those who agreed early on) doesn't suggest anything outwardly nefarious to me at least--maybe at worst WP:MEAT, but I don't think so. Downerr has admitted to it before, though. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was already looking at this because of the (badly made, in my eyes, but understandable) call to snow close. Afterwards I did notice that fellows precosity, but I think reviewing and dumping a superfluous article is still the right thing.Qwirkle (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Qwirkle -- totally true! I was honestly just thinking that his discussion could stay up (even if he was a sock) since it was one worth having anyway. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Frank Atwood (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Inexpiable, it’s me Nelson. i recently started the article Travis James Mullis, a work that I kept holding off until last night due to the sources not that much for me to find until I hit the jackpot. The tag notability kinda got me concerned, so I not sure if I should rename the article, rewrite it? I would like to know what’s your take on this (got discussion on the talk page of the article). Thank you so much. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I apologize if I disrupted you if you are in the middle of something.@Inexpiable NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. The article has been renamed and rewritten. But still, thank you and sorry for troubling you. @Inexpiable NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inexpiable, its me, Nelson. I would like to seek your assistance in editing the draft of a new article, Draft:Robert Roberson case, concerning the guy convicted of murder and facing the death penalty due to the alleged theory of shaken baby syndrome, as I might not find enough time to edit the article or supplement any further details as of now given that during this week, I just enlisted into the army for my compulsory military service for two years, and still adjusting to military life. Hope you can help me out here, and to review any changes for improvement if possible, thanks. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NelsonLee20042020: I'm afraid I too have work and other commitments but I can look over it when it's done. Chat GPT is a useful tool to use to help check grammar which is what I use occasionally if I find some sentences don't flow smoothly. Inexpiable (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the reply, @Inexpiable. I understand that you also have other stuff to do like me. I appreciate your help. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Inexpiable, plus, is there a way to appeal to other editors who are interested in the case to join the editing too? NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NelsonLee20042020: Not really sadly. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a real shortage of users who write crime articles or even contribute anything meaningful to them which is extremely frustrating and disappointing. Too many users would rather make pointless mundane edits to existing articles that don't really add anything rather than construct anything new or original. As such, Wikipedia crime articles are always made by the same few people which gets very tiresome over time. What's worse is editors who just edit these articles by adding no real substance. The amount of users who make edits to the "list of people executed" pages regarding executions in the United States and yet not a single one of them can even be bothered to write an original crime article, which is honestly pathetic and rage-inducing. It's why I've kind of lost interest in Wikipedia and don't edit as much as I used to. Anyway rant over, but no sadly you will not get any help in writing that article, unfortunately, just a few users who might add one sentence of wording they've basically just copied from a news article and then don't even add the source properly. These types of users are frustrating as hell. Inexpiable (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the messages you left on my talk page. Exactly how was I being disruptive? All i was doing was making the infoboxes look like most other articles, which is using numbers instead of the names of victims, are you against consistency or something? YatesTucker00090 (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YatesTucker00090: There is no reason for you to remove that information. So yes, it is disruptive editing you were doing. Unless 5-6 or more people have been killed there is no need to remove the names of the victims. Your edits aren't helpful and are disruptive. You are exactly the type of user I was referring to in my statement above. Why don't you actually create an article of your own and you could do what you wish with the infobox rather than trashing other people like myself's hard work. Inexpiable (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the two most in-depth pages on Wikipedia titled "Murders of" list all of the victim's names as well as the perpetrators names, so I am unclear as to where you have come up with the idea that only numbers should be used for victims names in Wikipedia articles. If we are talking serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer then yes listing all 17 victims' names is unnecessary. Still, in my opinion, if it's 4 or fewer victims I see no logical reason why they need to be removed, and it seems the most in-depth pages titled "Murders of" agree with me and go by that format. If you want to make your own articles and just have a number next to the victims names then you are free to do that. But don't trash my article Murders of William Redmond and Helen Phelps, as well as many others please, just because you personally have an issue with that for whatever reason. Inexpiable (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trashing your work, and don’t compare to me those other users. You and all those other “top editors” treat us casual editors like we don’t matter or that we don’t have right the edit. Also I have added new material to articles before, so now you really can’t compare me to other users.YatesTucker00090 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I have created an article before, it right here. Granted I started it with the basics, but I still created it and let other editors fix it for me. I tried making another article about a similar topic like the ones mentioned above, but the draft submission was declined. And no, I did not make those “disruptive” edits for my own personal grievance, I made them to make the inboxes look cleaner. With all that being said, regarding this and my other comment, I think you can’t assume I’m “one of those editors” since I’ve done more than just small edits. I’m getting the impression that because you’re a “senior editor” you think you have the right to pick on lower lever editors. I would never intentionally make disruptive edits, I’ve had a clean record on Wikipedia up until now. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Inexpiable: Ok, it looks like i’m not the only user who disagrees with your edits. It looks like another auto patrolled user removed the secondary infobox’s for Murder of Linda Reaves and 2006 New Bloomfield murders, both of these were removed recently. Anyways, I don’t mean to spam your talk page, but hear me out on this. In case you missed my previous comments I’ll reiterate it here. The reason why I changed those infobox’s from victims names to number is because I thought they looked simpler and cleaner with them. It might also just be that I’m so used to seeing numbers including ones with fewer victims like Carl Buntion and Execution of Quintin Jones. I did not think they would be considered disruptive, but if thats the case, then I’ll accept that I went overboard right then and there. However what really got be riled up was you claiming that I was “trashing you article” because you disagreed with my edits. To me, that says you own those articles, but I would think you of all people should know that NOBODY owns articles they edit or create as per Wikipedia:Ownership of content. It’s understandable that you disagree with my edits, but it’s not when you claim that those articles are yours and you can’t expect every user, whether new or not, to make you happy. I’m gonna let you know again that I’ve actually contributed quite a bit on Wikipedia, among by contributions including adding content with sources and started a new article, which I NEVER claimed as own. I’ll finish this off by saying this what happened wasn’t exactly my brightest moment, but I still don’t think I was “trashing your article” since its not technically yours, whether you agree or disagree with edits made and you shouldn’t expect other users to always satisfy you.

YatesTucker00090 (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YatesTucker00090: The secondary infobox removal is a completely separate issue which I am currently seeking clarity with from that editor. It has nothing to do with your case though. You were not removing secondary infoboxes you were removing the victims names and replacing them with a number which I also object to. If Wikipedia policy requires there only be a number next to "Victims" in an infobox then I'll go by that but I do not understand why there is a need to remove the names. I accept you were not "trashing the articles" so I take that comment back. Inexpiable (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you raise an interesting issue. What is the correct protocol for that information in an infobox? Should we list the victims names or just a number? And should there be more than one infobox per article? The fact there isn't clarity is the real issue here. I am hoping to get an answer from that other user. Inexpiable (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Inexpiable: the help page regarding Infoboxes says that Infoboxes should not have excessive length and right above it says they should be concise or “at a glance” as the help page puts it. That’s probably where the number issue falls under. The 2 examples I gave (i.e. Carl Buntion and Quintin Jones) were older articles and all the ones I edited were created more recently. Regarding the secondary infobox issue, the articles for Murder of James Byrd Jr. and Matthew Shepard, both of which are older articles, don’t use infobox’s for each perpetrator like the newer article Murder of John Edwards does. I’ve also noticed a similar trend with mass shooting articles as some list the victims while others don’t. Talk pages on those articles seem to always have consensus’ on whether to include them or not. I think all these issues addressed shows that when it comes to crime related articles, editors and wikipedia as a whole seems to have a serious consensus problem as older articles use the traditional/expected format while new ones seem to break tradition and challenge what is expected. For average readers and anonymous users who edit, This could throw them off guard as they’re probably used to seeing articles written in a typical way, which was probably my process thinking when I made those edits.

YatesTucker00090 (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YatesTucker00090: The answer seems to be: there is no clear answer. There is no right or wrong way. Forget what other articles do per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, why do you think a number should be next to the victims in the infobox and not the name of each victim plus their age? Is it simply because other articles use that format and you were trying to be consistent or do you genuinely believe just a number is better? Also, the articles: Carl Buntion and Execution of Quintin Jones are not exactly old articles, 2022 is still moderately not that long ago so they fall into the newer/recent category. Inexpiable (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article I created: Dustin Higgs back in January 2021, older than both those articles used the victims names format. As did the Brandon Bernard article, not created by me, made back in 2020. Inexpiable (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I really don't care all that much, every article is different, I don't think it's a big deal. Inexpiable (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Inexpiable: To me, numbers just look cleaner and simpler, as well as consistent with other articles. So I guess it’s a mix of everything you asked. Regarding the articles mentioned I found two other articles that use the name format both were created pre 2020, they are Jason Massey and Edmund Zagorski. Odds are, they probably had numbers in their infobox’s at one point and were undone later. As for infobox’s with numbers, the articles for Earl Bramblett and Allen Lee Davis, both of which are relatively old, use that format. Like you said before, there really is no clear answer and if this ever happens again with another user, let’s just try to understand where they’re coming from regarding their edits. For the time being, I’ll just leave that certain aspect of the infobox’s alone and you should clear things up with that other user regarding multiple infobox’s.

YatesTucker00090 (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I changed the discussion title, since we talk more about infobox’s in general rather than just my edits. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

What is it you didn't like about my changes?

Surely Older date > Newer date reading left to right is more sensible? and 'Age Difference' isn't really what the column is showing, it's about the number of years passed.

And having merged columns across multiple rows makes a table much harder to read. e.g. Do you really prefer the complete mess in the middle of this one for instance? Trying to read across the table to parse the rows is a real chore, and merging the rows implies, to me, some sort of relationship, whereas the fact that two sequentially executed people were executed 19 years after their offense is entirely arbitrary. [1]

JeffUK 07:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my changes are

• Unmerge adjacent numerical rows
• Unmerge some adjacent other cells
• Reorder columns age at offence and age at execution
• rename 'Age difference' to Years until execution

Which of these do you disagree with?

JeffUK 07:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: Hi. My issue is that you can't make a big change like that without gaining consensus. What you are proposing is a big change. Remember that these pages have been around for 10 or so years and have always been styled that way. They date back to the year 2000. It is a big job you are proposing and you can't just do it to the most recent year pages and ignore all the others. The change would need to be implemented across all the pages dating back to the year 2000, plus the scheduled execution page. So in total, you are talking 25 separate pages that would need to be updated with this new format. A big job that needs careful thought and consideration.

Furthermore, I didn't like the change itself. I thought it made the tables look weird. Having the sentence "years before execution" makes that third column unnecessarily wide compared to the other two. Remember we're only putting two digit numbers in there, it looked odd. I just don't feel the change you are proposing is necessary at all. How it looks now works. The pages were created that way, it is what it is, is my attitude. You are from the UK, it's the saying, "If it's not broke don't fix it". Which is my attitude. You are free to put your proposal on the talk pages at List of people scheduled to be executed in the United States and List of people executed in the United States in 2024 if you are adamant to make this change. But bare in mind you'll have to personally update all this info for every year from 2024 back to the year 2000. So ARE YOU SURE you want to do that task? Hope that answered your concerns. Inexpiable (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not read either WP:EDITCONSENSUS or WP:EPTALK as requiring an affirmative consensus for Wikipedia edits, but I'm happy to discuss your specific concerns. I have no problem with modifying 24 articles, it's not a huge job, and the name of the column is by far the least of my concerns. How would you feel about 'Years Passed' though, it's shorter than both? 'Age difference' in the context of offenses is almost always used to refer to the age difference between the offender and victim, I'm never seen the effect of aging described 'Age difference' before. JeffUK 19:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: Years Passed is better. Perhaps put a sample of the table you would like to change it to on my talk page as an example so I can review. Inexpiable (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to it changing but it should be reviewed before being boldly done. I agree with these changes [2]. I would object to you doing that for the date of execution though as two executions on one day within the USA is quite rare so I think the rowspan highlights that better. Inexpiable (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's quicker to just change it on the article than mess up your talk page formatting! How does this look? [[3]] ? JeffUK 19:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first column, date of execution really affect readability so I'm ok with either. I think if merging columns is like a tree it's fine (bigger to smaller and/or vice-versa), but mixing it up in the middle is very confusing. JeffUK 19:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: How about just the word "Difference" in that third column? Inexpiable (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer that; I'd just leave it as 'age difference', it at least gives context to the number. JeffUK 19:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: The problem with Years passed is that some of the numbers will actually need to be changed. For example, Ivan Cantu committed his crime in the year 2000 at the age of 27. Executed in 2024, aged 50. Yet the number of years passed since the date of crime is now 24, instead of an age difference of 23. Inexpiable (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, that could actually be a more meaningful number (It took 30 years for the killer to be executed vs He had 30 birthday between offense and execution...) but I'm not going through every number to make that particular change at this point! It's fine enough as it is. JeffUK 19:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: I think state and ethnicity look better merged. The ages don't need to be. I didn't like these edits: [4], [5]. It seems in the 2nd edit you concluded state looks better merged. I also think ethnicity does. The age at offense being first in the column I agree with, plus the ages not being merged (although this is rare, it isn't needed). I think difference is simpler than "Age difference" as it's obvious what we're referring to. Those are my final thoughts. And this all needs to be done back to 2000, which is really why I can't be bothered changing any of it lol. Inexpiable (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: Another user reverted your edits and they have a point. I think you'll need to take it to talk before going ahead with this. I've reverted the other pages back to how they were for now until a consensus is reached. Inexpiable (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just reverted changes that include only minor changes, that we discussed, only citing 'discuss before editing' which we have already done. This is becoming disruptive. It would be a good sign of good faith if you could please restore those edits. JeffUK 14:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]