Talk:Charles Whitman/Archive 3

Media Distortion

I'm sure the New York Times doesn't think they distorted the story. That section is opinion and shouldn't be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.1.29 (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! You're from Atlanta, home of CNN, so your opinion doesn't count. lol!--Victor9876 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding "lol!" does not make your rude dismissal of another editor's opinion more palatable, nor does it make it funny. I'd suggest that you strike it. Note to IP editor - we're not all like this, I promise. arimareiji (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, you take yourself too seriously. Get help!Victor9876 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've twice warned you to stop refactoring my comments. You're not being funny by doing so. arimareiji (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Make some comments that have elements of "fact" to them, and it won't be necessary to refactor them.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted, you assert the right to refactor anyone's comments you don't like don't think have "elements of 'fact' to them". arimareiji (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Last I looked, that's what editing is.--Victor9876 (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not back to content

Since your objections have been the chief reason this RfC was needed, Victor, could you please clarify the exact wording changes you propose? arimareiji (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Jwy, if you need any clarification, please feel free to ask me.Victor9876 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking he did. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think you have a case for your terribly clever insinuation, feel free to waste time taking it to WP:SPI... elsewise it might be better to put a sock in it. Figuratively speaking. arimareiji (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times. Even BMW warned him to drop it, and here he is again.Victor9876 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion, immediately, is that arimareiji explain the accusation he's just made or I will take it back to the etiquette board. Are you implying that I am a sock puppet of Victor's? If so, then just say so, take it to WP:SPI and have fun. In fact, I suggest that you do. And then I expect that you issue a wholehearted apology. I am not a sock puppet, I have made no accusations of sock puppetry regarding anyone on this page and arimareiji's post above is beyond bad faith, it is uncivil and contentious and is absolutely not acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the most sadly-amusing thing I've read in a long time. I ask a question of Victor. Victor says he'll answer questions John asks. You assert "I'm thinking he did. :)"

I tell you to take your insinuations to WP:SPI or drop them. Victor suggests repeatedly reporting me, and you come up with a rationale... that I just accused you of being a sockpuppet. arimareiji (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I asked to explain your highly contentious and assaultive comment to me, and if I recall, you were also admonished to be civil. Again, either explain your sudden and unprovoked attack on me, or it will be taken to AN/I. If you were not accusing me of sock puppetry, then do bother to explain clearly what you meant, because you are not making yourself clear. I responded to Victor's statement by telling him that Jwy just did ask for clarification. What is wrong with you that you cannot respond in a civil manner? How about you quit being cryptic and explain your attack. For the record, I don't make insinuations, if I suspect someone of violating a policy, I am not afraid to say so. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

John said earlier, "This points to the key concerns I have in the case. Thanks. I will defer any further comments until we get more outside opinions."

That's not a request for clarification by any stretch of the imagination.

On the other hand, I (not John) had just asked for clarification. Victor responded to my question by saying he would answer questions from John. You asserted that John "did" ask for clarification. WP:DUCK, you're insinuating I'm a sock of John.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to claim that my asking you to stop doing so is a "highly contentious and assaultive comment". arimareiji (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!!! Talk about not assuming good faith regarding this talk page discussion. I misread who asked for the clarification and when I saw Victor's response, I was only trying to remind him not to be difficult. That is exactly what happened. On the other hand, you immediately assumed I was making a - what did you call it? - "clever insinuation" about sock puppetry. Since you posted what, yes indeed, was a highly contentious and assaultive comment (ref: telling me to put a sock in it), that was indented under my comment that the glioblastoma would be relevant, your comment was bizarre and certainly seemed to me that you were accusing me of being a sock of Victor's. To assume I was subtlely implying something sinister seems kind of paranoid to me. Maybe it's time for you to once again, try assuming good faith and not fly off the handle to fire off such a response. It would most conducive to getting along if you had just asked what I meant instead of immediately assuming the worst. And again, for the record, if I suspect someone of being a sock puppet, I don't couch it as a "clever insinuation", I flatly say so. I've been around here a long time, I've seen Jwy a lot and I would never confuse his postings with yours intentionally. I've never seen him be assaultive in his dealings with anyone. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

So... you would never confuse John with me. Except that you did. And told me to take back my "highly contentious and assaultive comment" to tell you to stop insinuating I'm a sock, which was a terrible "sudden and unprovoked attack."

And this had nothing to do with Victor's immediately-preceding "My suggestion Wildhart, would be to report this guy for uncivil conduct re-re-re-re-peatedly. The etiqette page should show his propensity to deliberately antagonize a situation and Always have the last word, several times." Got it. arimareiji (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, dude. I said "I would never confuse his postings with yours intentionally." As I said, you seem incapable of assuming good faith in regard to this page and honestly, I'm tired of responding to this. I admitted I misread the original post. Period. I would have apologized, except you can't seem to be civil long enough, so one will not be forthcoming. Now, if you cannot reel back your sarcasm and try being at least a little bit civil, then maybe you have a problem. And if you can't let it drop and move on, then I will take it to AN/I. It was a misread post. It's over. Get over it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm stepping in Arima this one time and only this one time to speak to you directly. The genesis for my coming in was to speak to John and John only. I complimented him on his efforts and offered input. I was hoping for a reply from John, but you, as usual stepped in. I am not obligated to answer your questions. I choose to ignore, not duck, someone who, how did you put it, oh yeah, has "animus" for me. Any discourse between you and I are over. I will accept a consensus, I want nothing to do with you. That is personal, but not an attack. Some people just can not see eye to eye, and you and I are an example. Sometimes courtesy and team work is best when two opposed parties stay away from each other, that is my wish with you. You twist everything to what you want to see in black and white terms, with no shades of gray. I can not work with someone like that, so why try, given our history. You have not contributed one positive edit in the main article and have only been disruptive in this talk page. No need to retort, I have already anticipated your responses. Now, when John decides to respond to me directly or anyone else, they will have my ear. I will not respond to you in anyway or fashion, except this one time. History has shown me that it would only lead to further misinterpretations, or accusations of some rule breaking. So please, avoid me and stop refactoring what I have said, it was on point and a recommendation only.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been told repeatedly what is and isn't forbidden, Victor. Repeating what someone said isn't. Editing what someone said is. arimareiji (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving old material

Your archive was a very good edit, Wildhartlivie.
If there's agreement for it, it might be good to put MiszaBot in place with a 30-day expiry for comment threads. arimareiji (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The page was becoming hard for me to load. It would be extremely helpful if I could find the previous archives, but so far I haven't. They aren't listed under the usual names. I would suggest that it be a bit longer than 30 days. Considering how long some of the old content was extended, maybe 45 days. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections; I'm just a fan of having a bot do it regardless of how long the interval is. arimareiji (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly pertinent information: To my knowledge, MiszaBot archives based on when the last post occurred, not the first. I.e. a thread could have started in 2005 but still not be archived if it kept getting new posts. arimareiji (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For John (Jwy) and Consensus

As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea below and sign, all editors who disapprove, please place a nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yea--Victor9876 (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What specifically are we supposed to vote on? When I asked previously, you refused to elucidate because you said you only want John to respond - but consensus means all involved editors. arimareiji (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To who ever cares, consensus means by majority, some editors can abstain if they want, by doing so, they accept the vote of the others.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Vote of the others" (you, so far) for what specifically other than "I agree with Victor about something"?

(For reference, in case it ever gets changed: current wording is "As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues.") arimareiji (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your agenda Ari? You continue to disrupt the discussion with bad faith interpretations, personal attacks, $20.00 words with bankrupt content, insinuations and comments intended to incite and continue edit-warring; after the WQA has been resolved. You have forced me to break my committment to dis-associate with you for the good of the discussion and article to allow others to have input, but when they come here, all they are going to see is an on going dispute and personality dispute. You brought this RfA, regardless of your stated reason. It's here. Now what do you expect, to come to a formal conclusion, so you and others can return to some sense of normalcy? As suggested earlier, place the content in the article and get on with your life. For purposes of further clarification - I believe the following is what you want to replace the "A Sniper In The Tower" section. Do it! Place it there and your Third Party Opinion has been met to your satisfaction. Anyone can edit it later anyway's so why belabor the issue and drag the issue on? Just Do It!

Discussion of Whitman's Motivation The Conally report indicates that the tumor might have contributed to Whitman's actions. In his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower," Gary Lavergne dismisses these and Whitman's personal issues as sufficient causes, arguing he was in control of his actions and concluding he could not have successfully pleaded insanity had he lived. In Lavergne's opinion, Whitman would have been found guilty of murder with malice and sentenced to death (only to be reprieved as a result of the Supreme Court's Furman v Georgia decision had he lived that long).[1] Frank Rich, of the New York Times, in 1999, acknowledging Lavergne, names the triggering element beyond these contributing factors "for lack of another word, evil." [2]

The extent of the massacre has brought several media outlets to declare it the "worst mass murder"[3] and "the worst simultaneous mass-killing"[4] to that point in American history, although it had been surpassed in number killed by the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

^ Gary M. Lavergne (August 1, 2006). "Charles Whitman: Why did he do it?". http://www.garylavergne.com/whitman-why.htm. Retrieved on February 2, 2009. ^ Frank Rich (September 25, 1999). "Journal; The Long Shadow of the Texas Sniper". New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02EEDF103FF936A1575AC0A96F958260. ^ http://www.amazon.com/Sniper-Tower-Charles-Whitman-Murders/dp/1574410296 ^ http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=68860

--Victor9876 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon being prompted by User:Victor9876 to come look at the latest exchange, I'm posting my reply here. In contrast to your assertion of incivility and disruptiveness, I find no such thing above. In fact, the wording of this section screams "vote yes for my edit!". I'll even quantify that assertion, so there's no ambiguity here;

• "For John (Jwy) and Consensus" - Why primarily for Jwy? Should have been simply "Submitted for Consensus".
• "..all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign." - Translated, it reads like "heads I win, tails you lose". Again, shows a clear bias. Should have been "Could all editors reading this indicate whether we should add this or not?"
• "As the editor of the proposed change on the talk page, please review the suggestions and amend them as you see best or leave it as it is and post it to the article. For consensus purposes, all editors who approve, please post a yea or nay below and sign. Let's get on with other issues". - We know that you're the one submitting the change, no need to mention that. Further, this implies that the content gets posted in the article, regardless.
• THIS exchange is VERY problematic;

What specifically are we supposed to vote on? When I asked previously, you refused to elucidate because you said you only want John to respond - but consensus means all involved editors. arimareiji (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

To who ever cares, consensus means by majority, some editors can abstain if they want, by doing so, they accept the vote of the others.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• The way I'm reading the text above, Victor is suggesting that he wants JWY to respond, but other editors should abstain from voting, thereby affirming Victor's suggested content change(s). This is NOT acceptable.

Victor, You prompted me to come take a look at this, again making accusations of incivility and attacking. Where? In fact, I see you perpetuating the "shenanigans" we were talking about in the last WQA, by preparing and submitting an extremely lopsided vote process here. The only thing I see Arima doing here is questioning the same things I am at this point. Edit Centric (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When I asked you to come in Edit Centric, I asked you to review the whole discussion, not be selective as you were before, as in the WQA. I admit the wording to this section as you mentioned was problematic, and I have changed it to hopefully, not cause any further confusion, and reflect my original intentions. I was addressing JWY - the author of the proposed change for the article, not Arima. I did not write it and only made suggestions and gave information for Jwy to use to slightly change and correct the wording. Is that the SHENANIGANS you are referring to?!? If you would have gone through the whole process after the RfA, you may have noticed other problems that I was referring to. But no, like minds stick together and you sided with Arima, even though he points you in the right direction about what you are responding to, sans the remarks about your wife. Then you carry on with re-hashing the WQA. Go back to your breathing excercises and coffee.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so that everyone knows, I also have my own "3O" process here, in that if I feel I may be reading something wrong, I get my spouse to read it also, and give me her thoughts. If she says I'm reading something wrong, I'm open to that. In this case, it was her that came up with the "heads I win, tails you lose" analogue...(She's truly 3O, not even a Wikipedian. Her thing is Cafe Moms...) Edit Centric (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the 'ol "wife flipped a coin and you lost" defense. Good one Centric! Use it all the time myself!--Victor9876 (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In Victor's defense, I think that a few hours after he posted to your (EC's) page, he tried to simplify the matter by saying that he was giving up opposition to John/Jwy's proposed edit. This would have more-or-less resolved the matter. My apologies, I was almost entirely busy elsewhere, at work, or asleep between then and now.

The only reason I'm not sure is the sentence "Anyone can edit it later anyway's so why belabor the issue and drag the issue on?" This could be construed as "I'll just go back and undo it later"; I would like to think that's not true. If you can confirm that, Victor, I'll happily cross-post the first three sentences of my post (minus "I think that") to EC's talk page. out. arimareiji (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see Arima, I think I read somewhere that...Wikipedia - The Encyclopedia that EVERYBODY can edit! Tell me if I am wrong.--Victor9876 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this response to "This could be construed as 'I'll just go back and undo it later'; I would like to think that's not true." comes across very badly. If you intend to edit-war against the change, saying so plainly would be more honest. arimareiji (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting really tiresome and I am not seeing that the contention between either of you is abating in any way. Is it so impossible to stick to the issue at hand, which is the one section, without the back-biting and attempts to analyze some deeper meaning behind what is being written or trying to construe something else? It's just childish, and yeah, I mean that. More time has been wasted on mud-slinging than discussing the issue, which should have been resolved a week ago. No, there is no valid reason to assume that Victor meant something besides anyone could come along and change it completely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning of this thread, I would have agreed. That's why I 1) defended him, and 2) asked him to confirm that this wasn't the case. Both of your responses, by comparison, have been openly hostile. What I asked was whether he would revert it. It's less than encouraging that he refused to address it, and definitely less than encouraging that you both assert that "anyone could come along and change it" - presumably just by coincidence. arimareiji (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, my response was not hostile nor was it coincidence, it is weariness. I was echoing his statement, anyone can come along and edit it and completely change anything in the article. That's the nature of the Wikipedia beast. The thing is, someone is trying to finish this mess of a dispute. There is nothing to be gained by trying to read between the lines. It will never be a case of that section, or even any given sentence in the article, that once this particular issue is resolved, that content won't be changed. It's not a featured article, so it's not considered close to being done. If you want assurances that no one will change the section, they won't be forthcoming because nothing is static on Wikipedia. Tomorrow, something could come along that would render any given point in any article moot. It's not reasonable to ask Victor, me, Jwy, or the man in the moon to promise nothing will be changed at some point in the future. To me, it comes off as combative, especially as a follow-up. Don't overthink things. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't ask "Will anyone ever come along and make a different edit?" I asked whether he would simply go back and revert the edit.
• His answer was "Let's see Arima, I think I read somewhere that...Wikipedia - The Encyclopedia that EVERYBODY can edit! Tell me if I am wrong." I didn't raise the prospect - he did, and you followed suit. arimareiji (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Kindly do not read into my words. They are as transparent as the statement: Anyone can come along and edit the page. You are now ascribing intent to my comment, don't overthink it. This is exactly the kind of thing that has given me a migraine headache on 3 of the last 7 days. However, I am not seeing a consensus determination to go ahead and accept and change the section at this time. Since when does the disputed part get changed prior to the end of an RfC? They don't close after three days when the RfC hasn't closed. I am going to bed with the migraine and won't be responding tonight. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ascribe intent to your words, I repeated the manner in which you characterized the topic - i.e. "Will anyone ever change it," which was not a response to my question. Victor's absolute refusal to change the section was the reason for the RfC. With Victor's concession, consensus is 3-0 to my knowledge and there have been massive references to policies which state that kind of writing doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If you prefer that I immediately close the RfC I opened, I will. arimareiji (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. The few minor foibles left over could be summed up as follows;

• Again, please don't break the conversation track by insertion and refactoring. The flow should go like this:

• A comments.

• B Responds.

• A Replies.

• B Replies.

Also, if you're going to use HTML or other mark-up inside your entries, please close the tag! Open wakka, fwd slash, mark-up, close wakka. (Open-ended tags tend to interfere with everything after them.) The ONLY tags that you should be leaving open are things like line breaks (open wakka, br, close wakka) and horizontal rules (open wakka, hr, close wakka).

I won't turn this into a treatise on how to write HTML, there's already literally hundreds of these out on the web. Edit Centric (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall this being an issue except in the previous WQA!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he's taking note of your edits today: another open blockquote tag, and another repeat of inserting material into another editor's comment. You'd been specifically warned not to make the latter edit, to which your response was "Thanks BMW! I appreciate the distinctions and understand now very well! This has been valuable." arimareiji (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's take this to arbitration.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think they will take it, I'm not averse to you doing so. I strongly doubt they will, as this is a combination of content dispute and admin-resolvable issues. arimareiji (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then let's call in an administrator who doesn't have a wife who flips coins to resolve issues!--Victor9876 (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not only a blatant mischaracterization of his saying that she provided an analogy of "heads I win, tails you lose" to how you framed the issue, that's something like the third or fourth violation of WP:NPA against him alone. You're stomping on thin ice, and as I've said repeatedly I think the article would be the poorer without your input. Please at least listen to Wildhartlivie about this, if you won't listen to anyone else. arimareiji (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure!? Well...you should have removed the RfA tag before editing the main article. That was shrewd of you. Keep us busy here, while you run off and do your thing before any consensus. True, I told you to do it, but show me anywhere in all these threads where you have followed my advise without arguments and oral flagelations.--Victor9876 (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you know the time stamp will show your posting and the time of the removal of the tag. Don't blame me!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not even going to dignify Victor's personal attack with a response. There's a LOT I could say out of spite and retaliation here, but how would that be any more productive than Victor's snipe comments and insinuations? No. What I WILL say is that I am bringing a WQA of my own, and will by the same yardstick, recuse myself from the mediation process until this is resolved. Edit Centric (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait minute Centric, isn't not dignifying a response with a response - a response!? You know you have more clout here than I do on Wikipedia, I fully expect all of your friends to join in. But you were the one with the deep breate and coffee remark. You were the one I turned to for help. And what did I get? A monoptic review of the old RfA. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MoveOn.Arrrrrggggghhhhhhh

I put the article in the chronilogical order. Moving on.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion vs. Conflict (motivations section)

Rather than doing the two step, let's resolve the Conflict vs Discussion issue. How do you get Discussion out of what is left in the article? There is no discussion involved there. What is there is the Medical Report on Whitman and it's conclusions vs Lavergne's hypothesis. That's all. There is a Conflict in the two, one is Lavergne's opinion in rebuttal of his critics, the other, a Commissioned Panel of experts findings. Conflict not discussion. Please return your assessment of what's there. Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Foxtrot? My original intent for the title was that the section itself was a discussion of the topic - and it is - not that there was a discussion out in the world about it. Conflict implies to me an active, rigorous disagreement being discussed in the world. I don't see that. How about simply "Whitman's motivations" and adding a lead like: "There are differing opinions as to why Whitman acted as he did." (John User:Jwy talk) 16:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

An author's opinion is not a fact! A medical finding, of a panel of doctors and experts, who examined the subject, is a fact.--Victor9876 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The experts comments about motivations is opinion - I believe they said it "might" "could have contributed to his actions". (John User:Jwy talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

They said that the tumor "Conceivably could have contributed to his actions..." pg 11, Connaly Report. That is not "might", "might" is spinning a bottle. The panel could not say that the tumor in itself caused his actions, their "However," is what Lavergne uses to dismiss the tumor and all of the other elements, it was for a lack of a better term "Snipercrafting"!--Victor9876 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. corrected above. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Admitting a mistake and correcting to my contribution isn't commenting on content. Does this mean we change the header to Conflict or what?--Victor9876 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe he did mean to comment on content. It seems a straightforward admission that he misquoted "could" as "might," and to derive "this mean[s] we change the header" from it would be premature. arimareiji (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, both could and might indicate uncertainty and some degree of speculation -> opinion. Maybe views would be a better term. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving old material, part 2

Since the previous discussion never resolved, but seemed to be leaning towards a 30-day bot:
All in favor of adding MiszaBot with a thread expiry of 30 days after the last comment added, please affirm. If opposed, please say so - and preferably, also say what alternate archiving method you'd support. If there's not support for this proposal, we can start again from the alternates suggested. arimareiji (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - arimareiji (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - except might as well keep Cluebot (see below) (John User:Jwy talk) 22:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There's already a Cluebot 30-day auto-archive set up. A cut-and-paste (sorry) made it originally about 3-4 days, which is what happened to what you just brought back. As long as the text is available in a reasonably easy form, I'm not particularly picky on the term or the technology. 30 days seems good. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake, sorry about that. I'm striking the above, since I'm not particularly picky about the bot either - only the duration. arimareiji (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I would like arbitration on two matters concerning edits of February 27th:

1. Whether Victor9876 is the sole owner of this article, and 2. if the answer to #1 is "no" then I'd like impartial editors to evaluate my edits, compare them to the "undo" by Victor, and determine which is better writing.

If the editors want me to go away, that's o.k. Snipercraft (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you just registered a week ago, it might benefit you to first familiarize yourself with some basic Wikipedia etiquette principles such as assuming good faith and civility. As for dispute resolution procedures, we don't generally request arbitration the first time someone reverts our edit. That is an end venue when dispute resolution hasn't been successful. It might also benefit you to look over the talk page and realize that issues regarding the article are ongoing and are being discussed on this page. You've put forth essentially "choose me or choose him" sort of challenge, which doesn't quite work, as in most situations, editors won't decide on "one or the other", but some sort of consensus on the overall section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Snipercraft, why did you wait a week to edit? Was it to wait and see what the final outcome of the Whitman talk page would be? And if so, why did you follow my edits exclusively? One on the Lavergne article and three on the Whitman article? Are you an alter ego of Carrt81 who was warned for stalking me after explicitly warning me that you would? Your writing is fine, the removal or altering of facts was the issue. Not the edits themselves. Everyone can edit, but as it says at the bottom of the pages, don't write anything that you don't want mercilessly edited on Wikipedia. You appear to have come in with an agenda, me. Just like Carrt81. That would be re-inforcing the stalking threat if true, and after being warned. I'll concede for your purposes that you are a good writer, but to come in for the purposes of getting someone in trouble, is just wrong.--Victor9876 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeppers, this is a weird one to be sure. Snipercraft, you must know that this whole issue is being followed as a postscript to a WQA and other subsequent 3O observations. I find it a bit odd that you would create an account, and then jump right in to a hotbed issue like this. My concerns here might be moot, there may be a valid, logical explanation for this. On the face of it however, it appears quite odd. Edit Centric (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Snipercraft, IMO your edits here were quite good. They strengthen some very awkward language, and should be examined on their own merit. For this reason,

1. If you are an existing editor who has not previously edited on this, and the reason you created this account is to avoid retaliation on your main account, you have my sympathies. But please be SURE you're in line with alternative-account policy. It's strongly recommended that you notify ArbCom and/or a checkuser by email (see link for how); doing so won't "out" you to anyone here. If you've already done this, it might be a good idea to say so.
2. If you are an existing editor who has previously edited on this and has stopped editing here from your main account for the same reason as above, both my sympathies and my admonition go double.
3. If you are an existing editor who is currently editing on this page, you're way out of line. Sockpuppetry to create artificial consensus by seeming to have more voices is never justified. arimareiji (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious I am new at this. I am one person with one account. The rest of what you guys are saying is very confusing. I asked for arbitration because I've seen it done before and the history of edits and discussion pages make pretty clear that Victor and Wildhartlivie are two names for the same person who have claimed ownership of this article and all others related to it (like the McCoy and Lavergne articles) and that almost no edits are acceptable to them. I don't have the stomach for the namecalling that will follow. The edits I made did not change the information in the article. This is a very good article with great information, but the writing is awful, even incompetent. For example, in the fourth paragraph there is the "between the brain tumor..." phrase that has no antecedent. What brain tumor? All I was trying to do was polish it up, beginning with the first paragraphs and then working my way down as I had time. Law enforcement is in my background, I've read SNIPER IN THE TOWER (which is a very good book), and I started using my account to contribute to the articles I am interested in. You guys are rather unwelcoming. It's probably best for me to just let you guys have it and wish you luck. I have other things I can do. Is this what Wiki is supposed to be?

I still call for a review of impartial editors. Just to see what would happen. Snipercraft (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Addressing content, because anything else only leads to hypertension: Snipercraft's edits were IMO quite positive, and I'm not sure why they were reverted out of hand. Comments on content, anyone? arimareiji (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the changes were generally good. Any inappropriate changes of meaning (if any) could be addressed by working with the changes rather than reverting them. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Of which I posted on Snipercraft's talkpage ---

"In an effort to show good faith. I liked the following portion of your edit. There is too much lost detail in the other edits. Do as you wish, but I would agree the following is an improvement and you should get the credit for it, if you decide to stay."(end)

But this does raise neon flaming flags from the talpage:

Thanks Thank you both for the conciliatory tone and efforts, but you guys are a little to emotional about this subject for me. I'll see if something else can interest me and move on. Good luck with the article. Snipercraft (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a little review - Jwy comes onto the talkpage, runs into resistance. Leaves and has long pauses. Meanwhile, Arima comes in, makes accusations, supports Jwy, edit-wars, cites rules interpreted to his slant, calls for WQA, Jwy comes back, more rounds of edit-warring, Ari posts the content under discussion onto the main article and leaves, Jwy removes some content to another section, I change the section title because of the move of content, Jwy protests, continuing discussions, Snipercraft comes in from out of nowhere and re-writes the lede, I revert it due to content changes, Snipercraft posts for arbitration, others communicate with Snipercraft, and miraculously, Ari shows up to encourage and chastise Snipercraft, they communicate on Snipercrafts talkpage and Snipercraft leaves. Smells of...sniff...sniff-sniff...sniff...GAMING the system.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How should I react to this. What do you want a good faith editor like myself to do? (John User:Jwy talk) 17:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Victor:

1. I wouldn't consider my remarks to Snipercraft to have been chastisement. They were meant to try to make it possible for a good editor to stay and edit within the rules, but said editor appears to have left anyway. I can't say I blame him/her; there have been a lot of good editors who gave up on this page.
2. If you have specific assertions to make, I suggest you make them openly. If you don't, I suggest you stop making comments like "Smells of...sniff...sniff-sniff...sniff...GAMING the system."
3. Perhaps most to the point of all, echoing John's good question - do you have a specific remedy to propose here? arimareiji (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious Jwy, I do not consider you or Arima as "good" faith editors! Yes, I have a specific remedy to propose - I just can't do it here!--Victor9876 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would make resolution difficult amongst ourselves, so I'm taking a break while I decide what would be my best next step. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We have some nice high cliffs here in North Carolina. I could point you towards a few if you would like, out of courtesy of course. LOL! It's a joke Arima, don't respond with your usual huffing and puffing.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Victor: If you can't openly propose the remedy you desire on this specific page, there are other forums. If you can't openly propose the remedy you desire on any WP forum, then you might want to consider 1) why that's true, and 2) whether insinuating it is any better than openly proposing it.

Wrt your immediately-preceding comment, I've noted to you before that adding "LOL!" does not excuse incivility. However, on this occasion your comment is sufficiently indecipherable that it doesn't qualify as overt incivility. arimareiji (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Ari, I was watching a cartoon and was laughing my arse off. It took precedence over your response. So, since I was distracted, would you please repeat what you wrote a little louder?--Victor9876 (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Victor, could you please explain 1) where the reason is stated in WP:3RR that you're granted an exception (per your edit summary), and 2) why you think it's not consensus when three editors think the edits are a good idea and you don't? arimareiji (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Darn TV! I'm sorry Ari, what did say again?--Victor9876 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Snipercraft said: "I asked for arbitration because I've seen it done before and the history of edits and discussion pages make pretty clear that Victor and Wildhartlivie are two names for the same person who have claimed ownership of this article and all others related to it (like the McCoy and Lavergne articles) and that almost no edits are acceptable to them."

I have made only two other edits on articles besides this one on which Victor also edited. One - and only one - edit was to Gary Lavergne here, after I looked to see what other edits Snipercraft had made. Victor had removed a paragraph touting a book that supposed to be published by Lavergne, based on it being spam. It was only sourced to Lavergne's own website. The very first edit Snipercraft ever made on that account was to revert the removal. When I read what was removed, I agreed because I'm skeptical about a person's own web site supporting something as yet unpublished. The other one edit was on Houston McCoy, when Victor removed a reference because the link was dead, and I reverted it here because that isn't what we usually do with dead links. I fail to see in that how I could possibly be characterized as "claiming ownership of this article and all others related to it". I have worked on this article at times, and have supported some of the changes Victor has made. I also have not supported some of the changes Victor has made and in fact, have clashed over content on this article in the past. Maybe we set that up 6 months ago in anticipation of someone claiming we are socks in February 2009? Since there has now been made an undeniable accusation that Victor and I are the same person, I openly invite - and actively encourage - anyone to open a checkuser request, or file a sock puppet case, to determine if we are, in fact, the same person. I actually would enjoy it if someone would do that to clear that question away for good. I have been on Wikipedia since July 22, 2006 and have edited 8,045 different articles [1] during that time. If you can prove that a middle-aged, partially blind white woman from Indiana is also a non-blind non-specifically aged (because that would be Victor's option to disclose) man from about 350 miles away, then you're a miracle worker. Then we can open a sock case with Snipercraft and the accounts connected with the Houston McCoy family and see if the results are the same. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's 495 miles Wildhartlivie give or take a few. I'm a 12 year old with a psychology book as one editor put it, or an incompetent writer as Snipercraft put it. And I concur, a checkuser request is fine by me. But that would turn up nothing and they know it, so they won't make the request; it might put them in a bad light like Arima did with Edit Centric. I'm still confused by Arima's inability to stifle himself and his ability to jump on the chance to revert a newbies edit over someone who went through the arduous RfA discussion and WQA process - Twice! I'm also confused by Snipercraft's interest in going from Lavergne first, to Charles Whitman to Arbitration, and there is no chatter from the warring editors except against Wildhartlivie and myself. Assume good faith? Not anymore in this group.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said following Snipercraft's allegations.... Addressing content, because anything else only leads to hypertension: Snipercraft's edits were IMO quite positive, and I'm not sure why they were reverted out of hand. Comments on content, anyone?

Additionally, Victor - could you explain why the lede now needs a wide smattering of fact tags, when its synonymous (but more awkwardly-phrased) ancestor apparently didn't? arimareiji (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

More important questions than yours are: Is Marvin Gaye? Does Helen Hunt? Is Billy Wilder? Does Tom Cruise? Does Gregory Peck? Is Barry White? I don't have all the answers like you do. Make up your own answers, you usually do.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you formally giving up on WP:CIVIL, and discussion versus edit-warring? arimareiji (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Let's call it WP:CIVIL_WAR. I'll be Lee and you can Saddam Hussein.--Victor9876 (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I made my declaration above already. You, Jwy and Snipercraft have gamed the system, so no need for my input, just to be over-ruled by a cabal and not WP:RULES!--Victor9876 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would just like to say that I know Wildhartlivie and have communicated briefly with Victor. They are not socks. I just want to let others here hear my opinions on this which is they are not the same editor. They do not agree with each other a lot of times.

I do have concerns about the Snipercraft account, esp. now since the account seems to have gone quiet. It doesn't seem to pass the WP:DUCK. I am also concerned with the name in use, which doesn't seem appropriate and also seems to be attached to the subject of this article in some way. Victor, I know you are being sarcastic and using a little humor above, but please stop as it is only bringing more heat than light to the discussion. I think everyone needs to get back to discussing content and not the editor(s). Disclaimer: I have this page on my watchlist and have been watching this article for quite sometime. I do vandal reverting, try to keep up with changes and conversations and add input when I feel my comments may help. So please, I think that some of the edit changes made by Snipercraft are copy edits but discussions about the changes still need to be discussed since it's obviously being disputed by some. I don't see any consensus for any of this so maybe that would be the first thing to try. Maybe it's time for a WP:RFC again to bring outside views in. There are a lot of ways to get more input for others. I would ask everyone though to stay cool and please assume good faith. I think I've said more than enough here and I hope what I've said is not offensive. I am sorry about my comments about Snipercraft but I really do feel there might be a problem. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the least offensive; thank you for coming out. I'd actually noticed your input before, and I'm very glad you're here. (I'm an avid history-checker.)

I share your concerns about Snipercraft, as you may have seen earlier. For now I'm willing to take him/her at face value - but I think it's moot, because I don't think he/she will be back whether on the level (due to WP:BITE) or not (due to not wanting to get caught). If he/she was on the level, I think it's a shame to have lost that input.

Setting Snipercraft's conduct aside for the moment, and focusing only on the edits - do you have any specific concerns about them? IMO they strengthen some very awkward language and don't substantially change any meanings. Your input on the question is not only not offensive, it would be quite welcome. arimareiji (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with both you and Victor in a way. I think that s/he did some good edit copy but did lose some content along the way. If you take note of the fact tags put up in the article, I agree that refs are needed. I think the article should go back to its stable version than a copy edit done along the lines of what Snipercraft was doing with the wording. I really think if you all go back to that stable version you all will be able to work a lot more harmoneously together. You all really aren't that far apart in your thinking from what I have seen. I hope this helps and is clear because I'm a little tired right now. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - but if you could point to specific examples of where you think sourced and/or well-worded content was lost, and where you think wording was improved, it would be extremely helpful. So far, you're the first of five people who have commented on content to say that there's a halfway point (which in my experience is a good thing). Up to now, we've only had three "it's all better" (including myself) and one "it's all worse", and that doesn't leave much room for compromise. arimareiji (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) A belated response from earlier, to Wildhartlivie: I can only speak for myself with any certainty, but had Snipercraft read the history and/or been here for more than a brief time, I doubt s/he would have kept the impression that you're a sockpuppet of Victor (or vice versa). Had Snipercraft read your talk pages, I'm almost sure s/he would have lost the impression that you're a sockpuppet. For myself specifically, I would be stunned if either of you was a sockpuppet, or if anyone who's spent any time here thinks that.
By this I don't mean that I believe you're being nonpartisan in defending Victor; I don't. But that's both a less grave matter than, and a completely different story from, sockpuppetry. arimareiji (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I had started preparing an AN/I offline while on break and see I have been superseded there - which is fine. My belief in what is happening can be found here and my content issues are reasonably well defined/discussed here - I'd still like to get a third party comment on whether I was pushing this too far. If anyone has questions about my actions or suggestions for improved behavior, feel free to contact me on my talk page. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A fresh perspective

Whoah, people! I just caught the fact (as I have this page on watchlist) that a new editor has come in, with no apparent previous interactions with any of the editors involved in the current dispute, and started making some productive changes to the article. This is encouraging. Let's see what Adamrush can do with this. Also, I'd love to see what angle Crohnie can provide to the content. Edit Centric (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, Snipercraft appears to have come in today and had his userpage and user talk page deleted. I'm not thinking that a brand new editor would know about doing that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Outside opinion

(The following quotes can be found in this diff and this diff.)

• "When I interviewed Martinez he was a gentleman and personable, I had no reason to make judgments or doubt his character. Then I interviewed McCoy. McCoy's account differed." (Victor9876)
• "Lavergne has removed his site. Why? He has followers and watches for his critics. In this instance, he knows the truth has finally caught up with him and he removed the evidence. Don't worry, I can retrieve it and replace the links." (Victor9876)

I'm disturbed by these - if you've been writing articles outside Wikipedia from one of two contrasting POVs, you have a major conflict of interest.

• "So after a long legal battle with the City of Austin for McCoy, their own evidence turns on them for fighting McCoy for an earned Award I got for him." (Victor9876)

This demonstrates a level of conflict of interest that borders on disqualifying.

• "The City of Austin and the APD is at fault for this, not me. I am only the messenger, who has been shot by more Texans than Whitman ever could have been, and I mean that metaphorically. So if I seem bitter, I have just reasons." (Victor9876)

As above, and your apparent belief that you're on a crusade for justice makes me question whether it's possible for you to edit this article neutrally.

Victor 9876 - your apparent expertise on matters concerning Charles Whitman should not disqualify you; it appears that there have been occasions where you've made positive suggestions other editors have followed. But at the very least, due to your heavy conflict of interest, you should be listening to other editors rather than edit-warring against them. Whether or not you should be topic-banned from this article is not my decision to make, a fact which I am glad for. But if you continue at this rate, I'm afraid it will be inevitable. I'd rather that it never come to that, which is why I'm trying to warn you before it does. Sorry, but that's how I see it.
Jwy et al - please give Victor a chance to back down and return to an advisory/discussion role as well as making noncontroversial edits. He apparently has quite a bit of expertise on this topic, and it would be shameful for that to needlessly go to waste. But if he doesn't, I'm afraid the next step will be the formal dispute resolution process.
(For future reference, WP:3O is supposed to be for two-editor conflicts only. I took this one anyway because I hope that everyone can calm down and make peace, instead of upping the ante until it winds up in DR.) arimareiji (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

---

::Thank you Arimareiji for your input. The above are of course, out of context and the whole not there, but to answer your concern about writing articles outside of WP, that is not the case. The "two contrasting POV's" issue you speak of, needs clarification for a further comment.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::How so? It is not in the article and only a part of a talk page discourse.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::I have written approximately 70% of the article as DetroitNews9 and Victor9876. I could not recover the password for DetroitNews9 and resumed under Victor9876. As to a crusade, as echoed in an exchange with Jwy and myself, I defer to a quote from Jonathon Swift - “Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late: the jest is over, and the tale has had its effect.” There are many inclusions I could put in the article, but there are no sources or references to do so. Also, there are many inclusions that are false with references and sources, that I can not dis-prove.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::So what you are saying is - you would ban me yourself, if you could, based on my edit-warring but not others edit-warring. I hope that is a wrong observation of mine.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::To et al: show me overwhelming evidence that I am wrong and I will gladly comply with any and all suggestions. I am not here to war with anyone. Controversial edits are healthy and add to the vigor of the discussion and allow an understanding of all concerns. Rules, Policies and OR aside, there are agreements that can be made without resorting to a quasi-censorship because some issue has nasal issues with others. (Rub a little Vic's salve under the nose and re-iterate a position.)--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks again Arimareiji, please understand, I appreciate your concerns, however, I do not use POV without references, nor do I OR, except where the references and sources blatantly call for it. I hope this address's everyone's concerns.--Victor9876 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

/*Who is the killer here?*/

It isn't the media, the university of Texas, Frank Rich and Gary Lavergne... Why is that stuff in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.63.88 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason it - the stuff - is in the article is because the media shapes public opinion, as well as Lavergne's book "A Sniper In The Tower", and Frank Rich (among other high profile journalists) endorse the errors of the media and book. All of the issues in the article are subject (Whitman) related, documented, sourced and referenced. All within WP's policies.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Victor9876, I'll thank you not to intermingle our comments in the future.
• Likewise, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I find your level of conflict of interest in the matter to be disturbing, and your inability to recognize it as such even more disturbing. As I said, you appear to have quite a bit of expertise on this topic, and it would be shameful for that to needlessly go to waste. If you can back down and stop trying to override multiple editors, you can be a big asset to keeping this article good.
• If instead you continue down the path of being a lone crusader for justice, rather than working together, then yes - you being topic-banned in the future seems likely. But no, I do not wish to see that happen. arimareiji (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

---

You're welcome, no problem!

Have the right words come out of your mouth, so a better understanding can be had! I don't understand your interpretation of COI, where is the COI? You've mentioned all of this before.

Alright, how many crusader's are needed by WP policies? And PLEASE, what the hell is justice!?! You have yet to point to any wrong doing on my part. As far as working together, I have requested the same, so what's your point?--Victor9876 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Humor can be invaluable in defusing stressful situations. But it's not funny to respond to "I'll thank you not to intermingle our comments in the future" by saying "You're welcome, no problem!" and doing it again. Nor is it funny to respond to "Likewise, I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth" with "Have the right words come out of your mouth". If you want to get into trouble for disregarding WP:CIVIL, there are faster ways to do it.

1. Edit-warring against multiple editors is disruptive. Whether or not you "have requested [working together]", your actions belie it.
2. Rewriting the article to denigrate opinions that don't match your "work" (journalistic or otherwise) to get McCoy the recognition he deserves: That demonstrates inability to be neutral due to conflict of interest, whether you acknowledge it or not.
3. Whether you have written "70%", 100%, or 1% of this article, you do not own it and you are not entitled to drive other editors away. We all irrevocably agree to release our contributions under the terms of the GFDL, like it says at the bottom of the edit screen. arimareiji (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At least you recognized the humor of the situation. After that, you go on a rhetorical and metaphorical rampage with accusations and innuendos that are just not true! 1.) I have not sought to "drive" away any editors. 2.) I am not a liar as you suggest with the term "belie", would you like it if I called you "disengenuous"? 3.) You have no idea about what you are talking about in the "Rewriting the article to denigrate opinions...to get McCoy the recognition he deserves:". You are acknowledging that he deserves recognition, then faulting me as being non-neutral and COI!?!?!? How ironic!!! Wildhartlivie and I discussed the article needing a WP lead-in. After very careful analysis of how to word the lead-in, I wrote it based on the information already in the article that would support it. 4.) At this stage, seeing as to how you have contributed nothing to the article, and only came in to render your third opinion philia, I suggest you address your actions and motives (whatever they are), to anyone else that may care.Victor9876 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, seeing as to how you've blatantly ignored ("to anyone else that may care", I believe your words were) my unwanted opinion on how to stay engaged in this article without falling afoul of CoI, I suggest that you be mindful to not fall afoul of WP:3RR. I certainly don't encourage you to edit-war against multiple editors, but keep in mind the limitations you have in doing so. If they concertedly revert to the consensus version rather than your version, you can't win. I truly don't want to see you topic-banned, or banned in any other fashion - and trying to out-revert multiple editors would be a fast way to get there. arimareiji (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And when the reversions start, as you are instructing others to do, you will be reported. Of all the foul things an editor can suggest, yours is the worst. To induce or encourage others to break WP rules is the lowest form an editor can take.Victor9876 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that if/when you get burned for 3RR, you're going to tell them I made you do it? That'll be a hard case to make, since you've been flirting with 3RR for long before this was posted on WP:3O. arimareiji (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You have serious mental issues - seek help immediately. Please.Victor9876 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

break

Folks, this is going nowhere and deteriorating fast. How about taking a deep breath and back up to trying to actually discuss the section under dispute. Victor's involvement with talking to a couple of the actors in these events doesn't actually represent a journalistic endeavor, and he is not involved with either of the men at this point. His tangential involvement with the case, which, after I discussed it with Victor, convinced me that it was not a conflict of interest. Yes, he has a large amount of knowledge about this case, and that is a benefit to keeping facts straight. Yes, he can be a bit of a pain sometimes, but his intentions for the article are honorable. I'm wondering why this WP:3O seems to be more directed at his perceived behavior (which, Victor, you know can be a little contentious-feeling at times), than at the section under question. Deep breaths, guys. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more than being "a pain" to be grossly uncivil, as you just saw - and as I'm sure you've seen before. Pretending "tee hee, it's funny" about remarks like the ones immediately above doesn't excuse it. arimareiji (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just checking - you seriously think it's "not a conflict of interest" to make statements like "So after a long legal battle with the City of Austin for McCoy, their own evidence turns on them for fighting McCoy for an earned Award I got for him." and "The City of Austin and the APD is at fault for this, not me. I am only the messenger, who has been shot by more Texans than Whitman ever could have been, and I mean that metaphorically. So if I seem bitter, I have just reasons." when these are about the topics the article addresses? arimareiji (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you will check the Houston McCoy, City of Austin, Texas, and Austin Police Department pages, you will see that I do not edit there. That would be COI.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's some pretty amazing logic you got there, pardner. Unless you edit one of those three pages, you can't have a CoI. Gotcha. arimareiji (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see we finally agree.--Victor9876 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Whaddya know, guess you do have a sense of genuine humor after all. arimareiji (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep! I only use lol when I'm not sure of myself!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What I see is someone who helped another person with an employment issue get it straightened out. That in turn sparked his interest in the Whitman case. What I see here is that he has then used what he learned from his interest in the Whitman case to add a lot of content to this particular page. And yes, I think that avoiding the pages where he had a modicum of involvement with the subject is trying to avoid COI. I also see that this childish back and forth continues to deteriorate and again, I'd recommend everyone take a step back, a deep breath and slow down. I thought that responding to WP:3O involved working on the content that was under dispute. All I'm currently seeing is a pissing contest. Are you actually here to help with a third opinion on content or to chastise an editor? Can you actually point to anything that was added to the article itself that has skewed the facts of the article in some way to benefit this editor or paint something in an inappropriate light? I was under the impression that the content dispute was about something else entirely. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O is about providing a third opinion between two editors who are resolved to disagree, not mediation and not to work on the article. I saw an editor who has a history of fighting with multiple editors, so I should have explicitly noted I was not speaking in the capacity of a "third opinion" - you can't be a third opinion when you're the fifth or sixth to see the same thing. Your familiarity with the page may have made it less obvious - sometimes it takes an outsider, or a new editor, to notice a pattern that builds over time. If you review the recent history, I believe you'll see the same pattern of advocacy rather than neutral editing. arimareiji (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Back to content

RFCbio originally here. Moved lower where there is a clearer description of the issues.

---

This is the current state of one section of the article:

"A SNIPER IN THE TOWER"

Gary Lavergne , in his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower", advances a lot of arguments about Whitman that breaks down to the non-scientific term "Evil", as to what and who Whitman was. Lavergne totally dismissed the tumor, the amphetamine abuse, the sleep deprivation and the personal issues Whitman was under at the time. As a response to criticism of the book, Lavergne published a page on his website called "Charles Whitman - Why Did He Do It?". The response also ran in the Austin American Statesman on August 1, 2006, the fortieth anniversary of the event. In the response by Lavergne he discredits those who disagree with him, while explaining that Whitman would be dead today and buried at Pecker Hill Burial grounds near Huntsville, Texas if the Death Penalty hadn't been abated a few years later in 1972, or that Whitman would be in prison today, serving a life sentence. Frank Rich, of the New York Times, in 1999, wrote an article in the Times praising the book, also charging Whitman as "Evil".

The facts are that the glioblastoma brain tumor would have killed Whitman within a year, and conceivably contributed to his actions on August 1, 1966, and goes against the Connalley Commission Report of 1966 as reported above.(see pgs. 10-11)

Prior to the Tower, Andrew Kehoe of Bath, Michigan in 1927, killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7-12 years of age). Lavergne and other media publications have for years called the tower tragedy, "The Worst Mass Murder In American History".

---

I believe it shows massive problems with WP:UNDUE wrt Lavergne rather than his book on Whitman, WP:Attack_page against Lavergne, WP:SYNTHESIS wrt "The facts are...", and WP:OR by setting itself up as a tertiary source to analyze Lavergne.

The following was proposed by another editor, and I concur that it would be an improvement (although I personally think "The extent of..." does not belong in this section; IMO the only reason for its original inclusion was as a rationale to justify the previous title of "Media distortion" for the section.):

---

Discussion of Whitman's Motivation

The Conally report indicates that the tumor might have contributed to Whitman's actions. In his 1997 book "A Sniper In The Tower," Gary Lavergne dismisses these and Whitman's personal issues as sufficient causes, arguing he was in control of his actions and concluding he could not have successfully pleaded insanity had he lived. In Lavergne's opinion, Whitman would have been found guilty of murder with malice and sentenced to death (only to be reprieved as a result of the Supreme Court's Furman v Georgia decision had he lived that long). Frank Rich, of the New York Times, in 1999, acknowledging Lavergne, names the triggering element beyond these contributing factors "for lack of another word, evil."

The extent of the massacre has brought several media outlets to declare it the "worst mass murder" and "the worst simultaneous mass-killing" to that point in American history, although it had been surpassed in number killed by the Bath School Disaster of 1927.

---

Your opinions on this and/or suggested modifications would be invaluable. arimareiji (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This points to the key concerns I have in the case. Thanks. I will defer any further comments until we get more outside opinions. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You have done a good job on reducing the section Jwy and only a few suggestions are in order. 1.) You only use the tumor in the opening sentence - the word "these" in the second sentence needs to be changed to "this" since the example is singular and not plural. 2.) In regards to the tumor, the original autopsy by Dr. Chenar, characterized the tumor as an astrocytoma and not significant to the event. The Conally Commission, after reviewing the slides and brain matter after retrieving the brain for a thorough re-examination, found it to be a highly cancerous glioblastoma multi-forme, and "conceivably" could have contributedto his actions that day. [[2]] Scroll down this source, and you will find a reference to the mortality rate of this type of tumor, as a one year median to death as of 2004. In 1966, medical advances were not to todays standards, nor the level of treatment options. This should be considered in the section, and even if the motality standards today are three years, Lavergne's assessment in 2006, could never have happened. 3.) As I wrote in the lead-in, there was no single "triggering" event. It was an accumulative issue. 4.) Another suggestion after re-reading your proposal, if you were to reverse the paragraphs and re-title the section to a consensus, I think the section would be fine.Victor9876 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Since your objections have been the chief reason this RfC was needed, Victor, could you please clarify the exact wording changes you propose? arimareiji (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Jwy, if you need any clarification, please feel free to ask me.Victor9876 (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking he did. :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion was, since it seems relevant that the glioblastoma would have been fatal, that simple fact would nullify the assertions that Lavergne made. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be true if all the assertions Lavergne made were predicated on the assumption "because he would have lived more than a year." I don't believe they are. arimareiji (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I plan to move the RFCbio tag from the top of this section to the "content" section below as I think it will be less bewildering to a visitor. Let me know if there are objections. (John User:Jwy talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I see there has been some discussion of removing the RFCbio tag. I'd be interested in hearing what they would have to say, but if the current status of the section is going to stay, I wouldn't have a problem with the tag going away. I will be quick to re-instate it if necessary, but the "motivations" section as is seems reasonable - in fact I think further discussion from other (well-sourced) points of view would be interesting and a good addition. Personally, I would add a bot archive for 14 or 30 days. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Content

Please try to make this a meta-discussion free zone.

I've removed the key part of the paragraph that I most object to as per WP:SYNTH. My key question remains: Is there no notable source that reaches the same conclusion? And I hope the online authors source could be improved as its just a sample from the book - a "real" reference to a real book would be ideal. And it doesn't mention the specific medical identification of the tumor noted in the text.

With the part I removed in it, the paragraph seems to owe its existence only to discredit Lavergne, which needs good sourcing (especially as per WP:BLP). Without it, I'm not sure how notable it is. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a BLP. Whitman is dead. As to Lavernge, he is referenced in exactly the light he turned on himself in his book and editorial that is linked in the article. If he says Whitman would have died years after the event as he does in the article, and the medical facts say Whitman would have died shortly from the tumor, are you saying we should discredit the medical facts and history for the benefit of Lavergne? His book was released as a semi textbook and is used today as such in some colleges, if his logic fails science, are you saying, so what? Anyone can make an error in their summation? Should we call back reason because it may make someone look as if their research is flawed, just because it is?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Not throw it out. All I ask is source it to someone who has made that conclusion. And, if I understand it correctly, the fact that Mr. Lavergne's scenarios about Whitman's future are wrong because he would be dead doesn't necessarily invalidate conclusions about Whitman's motivations. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please Jwy, look at the reference I provided and read down it. It says exactly what you are looking for. It doesn't have to be in the first paragraph does it? If that is the standard, 85% of Wikipedia has to be thrown out. As to Whitman's motivations, I put all in the lead-in, near the bottom. I follow science and the high art of psychology, not rhetorical observations.--Victor9876 (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Scroll to the bottom of the source, sixth paragraph up. [[3]]--Victor9876 (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That sources that the Conally folks believe the tumor to be malignant and that Whitman probably would have been dead after too long anyway. It does not mention Lavergne or Lavergne's book. And even if we mention it contradicts Lavergne on this one point, this contradiction says nothing about other conclusions in the book and sufficient notability about this "problem" has not been established. In my understanding, without an explicit source it is synthesis (and non-notable) and therefore unsuitable for inclusion. I think this is the core of our content disagreement. If so, it is what we have asked for further help on clarifying and we should pursue those channels. I'm not sure the status of the bio RfC above. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Going nowhere fast. I peeked in on the bio RfC page the other day, and it seems to be accumulating more than it clears. It might be good to cross-post to society RfC. arimareiji (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the article sources the Commissions findings. The panel was made up of Doctors and highly specialized experts in their respective fields at the time. The "folks" didn't say they "believe" the tumor was malignant - they said the tumor "was highly malignant" (read the report). Why don't we apply "Occam's Razor" here and close out this discussion. You are asking for sources that fit how you want the article to read. When supplied, you bring up sub-arguments and thourough book reviews and want rebuttals that don't exist on the web. So, as a compromise, after reviewing your edits of the Whitman page, I can live with the edit - if you adjust the time frame by reversing the two sentences in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is independendent and dosen't need changing. Can we agree on that?--Victor9876 (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS

1. "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources."
2. "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research."
3. "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material which advances a new position, which constitutes original research. 'A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this same argument in relation to the topic of the article.'"

Adding together "Whitman would have died within a year" and "Lavergne hypothesized Whitman would be in jail now if he hadn't been shot" to get "Everything Lavergne said has been discredited" is synthesis, unless a reliable source explicitly says this. arimareiji (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

That's your interpretation. The section merely shows three opposed findings. One by the official medical committee, another by an author, and another of media research. How it gets interpreted, is by the reader.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether we shall abandon these rules is what we need an outside opinion on. ...and a skilled writer can use the same facts to influence how something gets understood and it is our responsibility to ensure we don't slant the text unduly. Someone writing this paragraph believing Lavergne "is wrong on most of his views" [4] would have to be especially careful. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As you mention here [[5]], my jaw has been broken from hitting the floor over these exchanges. BMW was right, you were not even considered by me. I'll ask you again to review Occam's Razor and my suggestions to your rewrite that is now posted in the main article. I am prepared to move on as Bwilkens and Centric suggest.--Victor9876 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lede

It is quite correct to say that most of the lede is presently unsupported, i.e. needs fact tags. In fact, only the first paragraph and these snippets are supported in the body of the article:

• "Charles Whitman grew up... in Lake Worth, Florida."
• "... there were underlying dysfunctional issues within the family that escalated as Whitman grew to adulthood."
• "[Whitman's father] was... physically... abusive."
• "Like his father, Whitman developed a domineering personality" (but it should be rephrased to "became abusive" to be fully supported by the article)
• "[Issues leading up to his actions]... were complicated by his health, dysfunctional family, and abuse of amphetamines. He was also affected by failures as a United States Marine, a student at the University of Texas..."
• "After his death, a brain tumor was discovered that may have played a role in causing his actions."

The rest of the lede is not supported, and should eventually be removed if it's not possible to find supporting sources to include in the article body. The lede is supposed to be a synopsis of the article, but much of what's currently in it can't be found anywhere else in the article. Victor (or anyone who's been watching this article), your knowledge of what the article has gone through since you started editing here would be invaluable if you're willing to share it. If you know of past material which would have supported the rest of the lede, now would be a good time to bring it up and discuss whether it should be re-included. arimareiji (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If no one has any suggestions (from history or otherwise) as to how the remainder of the lede can be supported, we need to start considering the question of "What should be removed to reduce the amount of unsupported wording in the lede?" I'll leave this open to responses for a couple of days, as with the immediately-preceding points. Please note that refusal to discuss an issue doesn't confer a right to revert results of discussion after the fact. arimareiji (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that everyone has been taking a bit of a rest about this article after the last few days. Some of us are sick and trying to recuperate. There is no need to set a time limit to respond. Please note that not everyone gets on WP everyday. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. But please note that while Victor hasn't made an appearance in this thread yet, at the time of your writing he'd already started making edits to try to address the same subject. To be absolutely clear, I believe 1) that effort is to his credit and 2) he does appear to be aware of the thread. arimareiji (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So you were referring specifically to Victor. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As I originally said, "Victor (or anyone who's been watching this article)". And since he was the one who added fact tags, it seemed logical that he would be concerned with proper sourcing and support - but the questions have been meant to be open to anyone who's willing to respond constructively. Did you have a more specific objection, or was it just a general concern? arimareiji (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It's mostly just a general concern that there's no hurry, plus the fact that people have been quite ill the last few days. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for removal

It would be good to have the following removed from the article section "Aftermath".

On November 12, 2001, David Gunby died of long-term kidney complications from a wound he received while on the South Mall. He had been born with only one functioning kidney, and it was nearly destroyed by Whitman's shot. Facing the prospect of losing his eyesight in 2001, he refused further treatment and died shortly thereafter. The Tarrant County Coroner's report listed the cause of death as "homicide." Some have suggested that the Coroner was seeking publicity since Gunby had made the decision to stop treatment, likely knowing it would result in his death.

---

With all due regards to Mr. Gunby, one victim receiving a whole paragraph because he died 35 years after the incident, though interesting, is the opinion of the Tarrant County Coroner, and may have been ruled a homocide for Whitman, however, the fact that he decided to quit his treatment, and knowing he would die by doing so, makes the ruling suspicious. Karen Griffith, another victim who was initially listed as wounded, died a week later without as much notice. In the victims list, Gunby is noted as having died on 11/12/01 and it is noted with the article that references the Coroner. If this were removed and the reference to McCoy's PTSD diagnosis, the section could be re-titled to reflect the APD responses and material.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

With all due regards to Officers McCoy and Ramirez, a couple of sentences about a victim dying decades afterward as a direct/indirect result of losing a kidney are much less undue than an entire section about the two officers. arimareiji (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Say what?!?!!??!?!!?!?!--Victor9876 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are saying now. the extra information about Gunby lends undue weight to the death of one person as related to the event over the others. Also, it should be (and is) covered in the list of victims and not in the main article, just like Karen Griffith and the unborn child of Claire Wilson. --Victor9876 (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can see a good way to include it in the realtime events of the shootings, please feel free to do so rather than simply re-deleting the information. It's not covered elsewhere, unless you count simply listing his name as having been shot. arimareiji (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Wildhartlivie or CrohnieGal, if either of you happen to be around: Do you have any opinion about where the stories of Officers McCoy and Ramirez in later years belong? I would think they belong in Aftermath, rather than needing their own section. arimareiji (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I just got back on so here are my thoughts about the above discussions. I think the officers having their own sections is appropriate as it is under the heading about the police responses. As for the information about Gundy, I think it should be removed due to WP:Undue weight. There are a lot of victims and it seems weighty to add this when he decided not to continue medical care so many years later. I just think it's not needed with so much information. Hope this helps, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CrohnieGal!--Victor9876 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Such unanimity is heartwarming. Nice to know everyone can stay objective. arimareiji (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. It's nice to see everyone listening to everyone else. I wish this happened more often around the project. Victor, pet peeve, I hope it's ok, I corrected the spelling of my name. ;) Thank you both, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, how it can be undue to have a few sentences noting that Whitman's last victim died decades after the fact, which wasn't the question. But not an entire section about McCoy and Ramirez, which wasn't the question either. Oh, and it also belongs where Victor says, coming back to the question. What passes for objectivity apparently can be oxymoronic when it comes to heartwarming unanimity. Before you go, he might have some stuff on the lede for you to agree with, but I'll let him handle that. arimareiji (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey you specifically called me out for my opinion so I gave it, did I miss something here? I don't understand what you are saying. I actually did read the conversation in this section and the article sections prior to making my comments. I'm sorry if you don't agree but like I said, it's just my opinion. Maybe Wildhartlivie will also come by as you asked and give her opionion too. Sorry if you don't like what I said, I thought everything was ok until this last response from you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I just thought it was heartwarming that you'd give Victor such unconditional support. Incidentally, you never did respond when I asked specifically which of Victor's previous disputed reverts were well-sourced - you might want to go through and check so that you can get all of them. arimareiji (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't remember a comment on my talk page from you but I could have missed it and I do apologize if I did. I have been real sick with a cold and when on I was working the article Crohn's disease and had another editor check me. If you look at my talk you will see how I could have missed things. I am not up to reading and checking out another article right now in detail. I left a note at Wildhartlivie to pop in here to see this conversation and maybe comment. I hope this helps. I am going offline now and back to bed, sorry again. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the last time you came to the page; I responded at that time. It has been a while, so I can see how easy it would have been to miss it if you weren't following discussion. arimareiji (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If it helps to find it, it was the one in which you noted "I think the article should go back to its stable [Victor's] version than a copy edit done along the lines of what Snipercraft was doing with the wording." But as you've noted that you're going offline, you'll probably not see this either. C'est la vie, I'll try to catch you next time Victor needs support. arimareiji (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Drop it Arimareiji! Your subliminal insults are not beneficial and breaks too many rules to list here. You are in territory you know nothing about, so why roam the range looking for cow pies to throw at others. I hope you will decide to leave the Whitman Article and talk page alone, and find some other topic that suits your talents. If not, I will bring you before a committee review. --Victor9876 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

arimareiji, your sarcasm and attacking is getting way too old. You asked for input on this from myself and Crohnie, and when she didn't agree with you, you attack and accuse her of being biased plus other equally pissy commentary. Each and every change to this page does not have to pass your personal review and any person who doesn't agree with you does not need to be accused of bias and cabalism. It is absolutely time for it to stop.

The content about Gunby was giving him undue weight in comparison to the other victims and I am the one who suggested to Victor that it was better placed with discussion about the victims on the List of Charles Whitman's victims page. I moved the content regarding his ultimate death to that page, where it is still covered. The section covering police response is a perfectly acceptable place for Martinez and McCoy. It gives continuity to the previous section, which discusses their shooting of Whitman. It is in a transitional place of the article, moving from the day of the shootings to the future events. Hacking out that small section to plunk it later makes it too chopped up. There is a perfectly fine transition in the article moving from the events to police to the governor's report and controversy to later events like the memory garden and the tower dedication. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)