Talk:Houston McCoy/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jimbo Edit

I have deleted the talk page for inappropriately quoting a personal attack. Please be very very very strict with yourselves on this page, and say nothing which might be interpreted as a personal attack against anyone.--Jimbo Wales 16:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


So within 12 hours of being unprotected, the article was vandalised by somebody claiming to have talked it over with Jimbo Wales...without throwing any accusations, would this be the same person constantly sending me harrassing eMails, and insulting various wiki editors and lawyers? Could we all maybe try to work out compromises and offer evidence of our claims, rather than vandalising an article? Personally, I believe that partial-protection, preventing non-registered accounts from editing the article, might be a good way to start for the next month or so.Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This IS Houston McCoy

To Whom May Concern:

I have requested from Wikipedia to remove this page created about me because of inaccuracies. However, Jimbo Wales has told my daughter he will not delete the page!

Therefore, I will be editing the page to reflect the accurate account of my involvement with the Texas Tower Tragedy after I review the information on the page with verifiable sources. However, there are many truths about the event that are not verifiable due to the media of the time, and their reporting information that was/is untrue, as appears on my page. The media did no interviews with me after the event. My first interview was July 31, 1976, with a Dallas Newspaper.

I am not going to offer an expanded version as I am involved in doing a documentary about the event. I will only correct what is now on the page. —The preceding comment was added on 20:11, 14 June 2006.

I recognise that the media is often far-from-perfect, though hopefully you also recognise that sometimes the subject of an article is not the most impartial person. It's not meant as a slight against you, just a caution if you're not familiar with Wikipedia that we do like to be able to verify things. Unfortunately, we do not delete pages just because the subject wishes them deleted, I actually had a similar circumstance with John Stockwell and his nephew. Like you, he performed an action decades ago that made him noteable, and today he wanted only to fade into obscurity without fanfare. We aren't trying to interefere with your private life, and thus just like we don't mention Stockwell's current-day kayaking enterprise, we wouldn't mention that you currently live at 742 Evergreen Terrace where you run a small tea room or anything like that. But your role in the Whitman affair, and who you are/were, does merit some mention.
While you're here, do you mind if I ask you to explain your aversion to a 4-decade old photograph of you as a young officer being used to illustrate the article? Personally I didn't see a problem with the image we had used, and I'd love to restore it with your blessing. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I entrusted John Moore as my Power of Attorney, my daughter has been emailed by Jimmy Wales, without any success as to my wishes. I do not know you, nor who you really are! You want me to trust you after everything has transpired with my most trusted protectors, friend and loved one! No! My page will reflect facts, not poor and hasty reportings by any publication I have had no personal interviews with. My image if copyrighted, must go through the source of the copyright. Partiality has nothing to do with accurate information, even John Moore has pointed out inacuracies in my origninal report. We discussed them and I can not take back what was written 40 years ago. I can only state that, I wasn't a good typist and just wanted to go home to my wife and two boys at the time. The trauma that all of the officers went through was enourmous, not just me and Martinez. We did NOT storm the tower, there was NO plan, and the information on the Whitman page is wrong about the officers. I will not allow that if my page is to remain.HoustonMcCoy 05:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)H

Who I really am? Why is it relevant who I "really am"? I'm not asking you to trust me at all, you make it sound like I'm asking you for a loan, or even a huge favour, which really isn't the case. Your image's copyright lies with the Austin History Centre, whose permission I have to use the image - legally it's perfectly acceptable, in the words of Fiddler on the Roof, you misunderstand, I was asking for your blessing, not your permission.
Nobody on Wikipedia has said that you or Martinez 'stormed' the tower, I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. Certainly neither this article, nor the Charles Whitman article. Similarly, nobody has said anything about a plan.
As per "The information on the Whitman page is wrong about the officers", can I ask specifically what it is you believe we have incorrectly described? Much thanks, Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Who you are is relevant because you may be a mentally ill person, on drugs, a psychotic or any combination of anything. I am the subject here and SUBJECTIVE here! Martinez would be subjective on his page!HoustonMcCoy 14:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)H

In that case, you can rest assured that I am a professional journalist by trade. I am also averse to the very thought of alcohol and drugs, and have never suffered psychosis. I can also assure you that I would hold Martinez to identical standards. I have no personal stake in your petty squabble, you're both just former police officers in my mind. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you won't mind if I read a few of your "professional articles" that have to be published somewhere. Please post a link so I can read them. In fact, just one will do from a credible source.HoustonMcCoy 23:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)H

Go find another article to edit, Houston. We strongly advise against editing articles on oneself since most aren't objective about themselves and your edits have certainly bore that out. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Charles Whitman

Since the encyclopedic notability of this person stems from and is confined to the events of that day, the story of the shootings should be in a single article. As of now, that article is Charles Whitman, though if there is some standard, convenient name for the shootings, along the lines of "UT-Austin shootings" perhaps, then it should all be moved there. The first three paragraphs (before the recent deletion of the preliminary second paragraph) duplicate what is properly in the main article. The latter facts, long after the event, are not sufficiently important for an encyclopedia and, if anything, would warrant a single, general sentence in the main article. —Centrx→talk 06:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The below sub-section is substantively unrelated to discussing whether to merge the article or not. Please see Talk:Houston McCoy#Merge discussion—Centrx→talk 01:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelated to merge discussion

This is true and I don't care what is said on the Charles Whitman page, about me (unless it is untrue) or anyone else. On MY page, I will not stand for lies or inaccuracies!HoustonMcCoy 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)H
It's not YOUR page, it's an article. If we write an article about Bill Gates, Shaquille O'Neal or anyone else, it is not their article. However, I do agree that inaccuracies should be avoided, though I'm curious what "lies" you believe are on the pages? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll assume for the moment that you are HoustonMcCoy, but whether you are HoustonMcCoy or John Moore or someone else entirely really makes no difference. We are writing an encyclopedia and our aim is to be as factual and as complete as possible. We can't remove an article just because someone doesn't want it to appear. We can't change an article just because someone wants it to say something else. We don't let George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein or Angelina Jolie or Daniel Brandt or Colt McCoy control whether or what we write about them either. If you have information that passes WP:CITE for being a reputable printed source, then by all means provide it and we will work it into the article.
Put yourself in our shoes for a moment. Since someone can sign up for any username they wish - there is no way to prove someone is who they say. Even if we knew who they are, we can't trust their personal recollections about an event. They may honestly mis-remember the details. They may have an interest in lying to make their article sound better. That is why we stick to the published information and cite the source of the publication. The reader can then evaluate the source and decide how much credence to place in the information.
If the article disturbs you then either provide us reputable, published sources that agree with your claims, or stay away from reading the article. Those are really your only two choices. Johntex\talk 16:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I, however, am not Houston McCoy, and I am proposing this merge on general principles independent of any peculiarities associated with this article. I am re-posting this proposal at Talk:Charles Whitman#Merge from Houston McCoy and putting up the merge templates. Please do not confuse the discussion by talking about this separate matter of a person editing his own article —Centrx→talk 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McCoy's changes

In addition to Crum and Day, you also removed Martinez's name from the article, which is aggravated by the fact that you have an outstanding personal dispute with him over which one of you killed Whitman. You removed the reference to the fact you were carrying a shotgun and Martinez had a .38. You removed the wikilink to currency assuming the entire world is American. You removed which corner of the balcony you exited on. You removed what corner of the balcony you shot Whitman on. You removed your unsuccessful lawsuit against the makers of The Deadly Tower. Those are the bad changes, imho. You removed mention of your prior alcoholism and inability to afford to continue the trial, both of which are fair changes. Though I will point out that it was John Moore who added the latter information, not us. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Martinez is not the subject of the article!!! Do you understand!!! I am!!! I removed things that are untrue because they were never printed with my permission, they are the opinion of the writer. How do I reference an untruth that has never been corrected? The lawsuit wasn't the same one Martinez sued on! I wasn't unsuccessful, my attorney at the time was unsuccessful! Who is US! You're the only one, for the most part, creating this garbage! Now stay away from me!HoustonMcCoy 14:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)H
I'm nowhere near you. The lawsuit is named "Houston McCoy vs.", not "Houston McCoy's Attorney vs." thus proper terminology is that you lost your suit, not he. Your personal opinions on the judge's reasoning are inconsequential, however, if you have a copy of the judgement than what the judge said were his reasons for dismissal would be valid. Secondly, your permission is not needed to write about you - nothing is infringing on your privacy, and we are only recording facts of public record. I don't see any allegation in the article that it was "the same" lawsuit as Martinez, in fact I think it's quite clearly referring to a separate action. I'm not creating anything, I'm merely standing on the shoulders of giants :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And the bigger the giant, the harder they fall! Lies and incorrect information IS infringing on my privacy because this is a public forum! I don't like what I see on my page and therefore, it's causing me distress! The Lawyer suggested the lawsuit, the Lawyer made the motions, the Lawyer did all the filing and talking, the Lawyer lost! I never even appeared in person! This is my last communication with you! The next will be arbitration!HoustonMcCoy 16:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)H

Is that wiki arbitration, or through the court system sweetie? One way I'll advise you to read over WP:NLT, the other way I'll advise you that thusfar 3 Wiki admins and a Wiki attorney have all backed up that there is nothing wrong with the information in the article, and it meets the critera for inclusion. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crum

From what I've heard, Martinez was the one who deputized Crum, while the two of them were together, before McCoy was with them. The Travis County Grand Jury also referred to Crum as having been deputized Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That is simply B.S.!HoustonMcCoy 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)H
Well on a professional level, I'd ask you to support your claim, since I can not only provide authors and reporters who say he was deputized, but the Grand Jury inquiry into the shootings. On a personal level, I'd point out that Crum seems to say that he interacted chiefly/solely with Day and Martinez, and he doesn't mention meeting you until he says "there were two officers" out on the ledge, and then later refers to you by name as having been the other officer. So simply because you were not aware that Martinez had deputized him, doesn't mean it didn't happen in the time before you first met him. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you see ANY signatures on the bottom of the Grand Jury report? No! Then get them to sign it and I'll believe you! Until then, there was NO officer who could Formally Deputize anyone in 1966. I can't speak for after that! Now again, you are irritating me, as Mr. Moore warned me. Please create or find another target for your ill received information! I want nothing to do with you! I find nothing professional abouted misguided information! Reporters make mistakes and authors make mistakes! I make mistakes! The only remedy is a retraction or correction from a reliable source. I qualify for that on MY PAGE! You are becoming a vandal on my page, and I would appreciate you letting me correct my page, not authors and reporters who may have made a mistake with no known retraction!HoustonMcCoy 16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)H

And doubtless Bill Clinton would like us to allow him to edit his article as he wants, but the fact is that is not how we operate. I have supported your removing the hang-gliding reference (which you then re-added yourself...oddly), as well as your removal of the discussion of your past alcoholism and financial inability to proceed with the lawsuit. That's all fine. What is not fine is removing actual information, such as what currency the settlement was in, what weapons were used, which other officers were involved, and similar facts that you insist on removing.
I am certainly not forcing you to have anything to do with me, you're choosing to return increasingly flustered each time. Might I suggest a ten minute walk away from the computer screen? It's usually a good remedy to let things calm down in one's mind.
For the last time, this is not "your page". Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

Just a note that you have now reverted three times, and I have reverted twice. Please read WP:3RR before proceeding. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explicit 3RR exception in WP:BLP

Remove unsourced criticism Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.Steve 06:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, but this doesn't mean that someone shouldn't be warned before they reach the 3RR limit. Yes this is an exception but it's up to the admin looking at the notice on 3RR to decide whether it applies or not. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a further note, that every single fact in this article has been sourced - whether in the article, or else on the previous talk page, and in private eMail correspondce with Brad Whatshisname. The information being "removed" involves the types of firearms used, currency, etcetera. Nothing even remotely libelous. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 17:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::"Just a further note, that every single fact in this article has been sourced - whether in the article, or else on the previous talk page, and in private eMail correspondce with Brad Whatshisname."

Ahahahaha. A "source" consisting of "private email correspondance with Brad Whatisname." I'm finally coming to realize you're perhaps attempting comedy, and since we have no laugh-track or rimshots to warn us, we haven't gotten it. An explicit failure of the medium, perhaps. Could you use a smiley or two?
If you read WP:BLP you'll see that there are clear distinctions made between information which invades the privacy of private persons vs. public persons (The Queen of England or George Bush). Just because your birthdate or whatever isn't libelous, doensn't mean it belongs in a Wiki bio of you which itself exists only because of one unfortunate tragedy 40 years ago. And neither the lawsuits you were party to, or dealings with writers, or whatever. If you're a private person and whatever happened in your life didn't make into AP news, I think it's better left out of Wikipedia. That's my sense of WP:BLP. So I suggest leaving Mr. McCoy alone, as he has asked. Whether you know it your not, you owe him something for his actions that day. I don't know him, but I think he's deserving of more respect than he's gotten here. If you yourself are ever the unfortunate target of a Wiki bio, you'll understand completely.Steve 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Please be more civil with your comments and avoid the use of sarcasm. Thank you, Johntex\talk 19:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for any sarcasm. At first I thought it indeed was a comedic remark and I did laugh. "Email of Brad Whatshishame"-- this can't be serious, said I. But perhaps it is and was. Seems incredible, but I will muster up faith and assume good faith. But what conclusion am I to draw when somebody states that the email of Brad Whatshisname is a source? So that you do not conclude that last question was sarcastic, I will state that further it is meant as a serious question and not a rhetorical question. Do you have a comment or answer? Thanks. Steve 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I can understand why you would be suspicious of a private e-mail correspondance being used as a source. Sherurcij is the better person to answer your question, but I think this is a reference to e-mails traded between John Moore and Brad Patrick, the Wikimedia attorney. If that is the case, there may have been special care taken to validate the source. Please don't take this as definitie, just an honest attempt to answer your honest question. Johntex\talk 20:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
And if John has talked to Brad recently, I'm sure he'll let us know. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Brad Patrick was indeed the name I was looking for, couldn't remember his surname, and on an insanely slow internet connection today, so didn' want to spend ten minutes looking through my inbox for his full name. You'll notice I said it was all sourced ON this talk page (prior to deletion), IN the article and IN eMail with those involved. Not "BY". I'm saying everything has been sourced a bajillion times, by newspapers, grand juries, witness statements signed by McCoy himself, similar statements signed by Crum, etcetera. My point was that there is nothing invented, libelous or otherwise defamatory, everything is verifiable, and every precaution has been taken to make sure we verify it. If there is a problem with the article, I invite Moore/McCoy to explain clearly their issue, not vandalise the article or rant about "gross invented inaccuracies, lies and invasions of privacy" or anything of the sort. Be calm, be logical, provide sources. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The article

For quite some time now, John Moore/Houston McCoy have been contending that the link to http://amarillo.com/stories/062800/tex_LD0691.shtml "leads to nowhere" or "doesn't work". It does. As we've explained before, all you need to do is to create an account. The link leads you to a sign up page. You then fill in your info and login. After that, it takes you to the Amarillo.com main page. Then you have to search for "Houston McCoy". You will then see a listing of search results. The 2nd or 3rd article down is the one we're linking to. It's a bit involved but it works. I'd copy the article into here but the AP probably wouldn't like that. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone had a source that requires signing up to a particular site and paying for the privelege of seeing the source, which may or may not contain errors, the source should be removed. If an article cites a pornography website, the website requires a monthly subscription, why should anyone be put through the burden of going through that process to verify an editors input? Get Armadillo's permission for copyright release for an open link and put it here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.108.98 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 2006 July 3 (UTC)
That's not the way we work, no. For starters, reputable sources are considered to be error-free unless it can be objectively proven that they've made a gross error, you might want to read WP:CITE before continuing this discussion. Secondly, you're not being put through a burden, nobody is forcing you to double-check references, but multiple Wiki editors have already registered for the site, and confirmed that it does in fact exist and say what it claims. Similarly, nobody is forcing you to go to Rotten.com's database of serial killers, which I assume is your complain about pornography. Copyright release is practically impossible, and even permission to copy a copyrighted article usually runs anywhere from $15-$5000, so I can assure you that none of us are likely to pursue that option. If you are the doubting Thomas despite everybody else's combined claims, then the burden is on you to find a way to disprove them. We've provided our sources, you being too lazy to verify them is your own problem. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that all references that refer to a copyrighted web page is illegal where there is a copyright notice? There must be hundreds of thousands of illegal links on Wikipedia then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.108.98 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2006 July 5 (UTC)
Certainly not. Sherucij is saying that getting that information released from its copyright is not something we are prepared to do. Linking to copyrighted information is fine. Copying that copyrighted information verbatim and hosting it here would not be. Johntex\talk 16:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that's exactly what I said and meant, the exact quote is "Copyright release is practically impossible, and even permission to copy a copyrighted article usually runs anywhere from $15-$5000", as I've mentioned elsewhere I am a journalist by trade, and I assure you that Johntex is right, you may link to something, you may not copy it. Honestly, in the time you've spent typing your last reply, you could've registered to view the article yourself Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed merge tag

Hello, I removed the merge tag from this article today because it seems that discussion has gone stale and there is currently no consensus for a merge. If anyone wants to reinvigorate the discussion, they may re-apply the template. This talk page is not that long so it probably does not need to be archived. However, the Whitman talk page is somewhat lengthy, so if there are no objections I will archive that discussion soon. Thanks, Johntex\talk 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramiro Martinez page

It takes a little time to start building a page, reverting is OK if a mistake is made and corrected, Speedy Deletion is absurd! Give it a few days at least!

Welcome back John, please do remember to use ~~~~ to sign your messages, it does make reading the talk page so much easier. Secondly, you'll notice the page history of the Martinez page says "(cur) (last) 09:59, July 29, 2006 Mikeeilbacher (Talk | contribs)", indicating that User:Mikeeilbacher was the one who nominated it for deletion, not any of us. He is unrelated to any of our discussions, and has no agenda - he is merely one of those who checks all/most new pages created named after specific people, to see which are notable. But I agree, flesh out the page some more. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 15:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume the above is for me. What excludes user:Mikeeilbacher from his/her participation? Perhaps he/she should have a tag notifying everyone (especially me), that he/she is merely a janitor on Wikipedia. Is this the signing methodTruthtruthtruth 23:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)T

[edit] Mass revert

I've just reverted things to pre-truthtruthtruth, because comparing against the old version, the only differences were thus:

  • You have removed all mention of Martinez firing six shots into Whitman
  • You have removed mention of the lawsuit entirely, when it seems the only dispute is whether it was against the producers or the stations.
  • You screwed up a ref tag
  • You removed references

None of these actions improve the quality of the article, and in a hotly disputed article it seems wise to reference things as much as possible. Especially when you are the one complaining about references, it seems odd you would go around then deleting the references. Please, just stop. We welcome constructive edits, but this is not. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Woai(?) radio interview to the Martinez page. It was his interview; belongs on his page. I'm re-deleting the Dedman and other dead link (unless you speak to dead links too) because their is nothing to reference and no way of knowing if either one is about Martinez or McCoy. If you don't believe me, talk to Aristotle about it!Truthtruthtruth 00:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)T

Time to run a checkuser as this seems to me like John Moore #23. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While you're running a user check on John Moore #23, check out yourself on Wiki-TruthTruthtruthtruth 12:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)T

Thank you!Truthtruthtruth 23:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)T

Sherurcij (Talk | contribs) (rvt banned user's continued vandalism, this does fall under a 3RR exception for me, not for you. Please stop.) I would assume the check:user John Moore #23 didn't bear out; and it wouldn't! Assume me to be anyone as I have to assume you are anyone. Your remarks above are not keeping with Wiki Civility Rules. Why are you exempt from the rules when I am obviously not banned? I'm looking at and removing dead references which can not verify contributions, placing references where they belong, going into references to verify the content, reading erroneous information, observing pleas for help on the discusion pages, so what more do you want and expect? I'm being assaulted without confirmation by an administrator. I'm being assaulted by a user with...as you put it...AN AGENDA! And what is your agenda anyway's? To protect your contributions when the facts don't bear out?! Give me time. I'm only "Speaking for the Living", I haven't got your talents yet!Truthtruthtruth 02:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)T

a) I'm not the one doing the CheckUser, I believe that was WHK, so I have no idea how they work, how long they take, or what they show
Neither do I!
b) You are John Moore. You also have a long history of claiming to be different people, each one intent on registering with Wikipedia with an account that has no edits except on these articles, does not create a userpage for themselves, and posts the exact same POV-pushing statements in the articles before crying "Victim!"
?????????
c) The links appear to be active, I visited the WOIA link less than 12 hours ago and it was still valid. Please stop deleting them.
Again, the WOIA link is active, I moved it to the Martinez page because it was an interview with Martinez, not McCoy, I never deleted it!!! Look, Look Look!
d) I fall entirely within WP:Civility, just like every one of us has continued to be with you throughout this whole little crusade you've embarked upon. I don't put up with your shit, but I also don't spam your eMail inbox with sexually suggestive threats either, though I wish you would return the favor.
You're claiming Civility in an Uncivil tone, are you an oxymoron? Say What??? What is that last part about?
e) Please look up the legal definition of assault, since you claim to have passed the bar exam, I would assume that you would be familiar with the term.
I don't need to look up the term assault, it's the compliment to appepper! I did pass the bar exam with a 4.0, blood alcohol level! Only smashed the right fender in the crash! The lawyers were though on me though! Assumptions are your thing, not mine!
f) Yours truly, Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No thanks, my lady wouldn't understand!Truthtruthtruth 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)T
Truthtruthtruth has been blocked indefinitely. The fact that it was John was so obvious that the checkuser folks thought it'd be pointless to run the test. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Occam's Razor

Discussion: Why don't we proceed with the janitorial duties using William of Ocam's principle of simplicity? It may help to be able to remove the contention that the issue of who killed Whitman is a "subject of hot debate". From what I have read in the references, the autopsy showed that the death of Whitman was by shotgun blasts. Other sources read that the shotgun blast's were to the head, heart and left arm. Other source's say that the first shotgun blast from McCoy entered the head, brain and heart. The second shot from McCoy entered the left side of the head and left side of Whitman. The third shotgun blast was from Martinez, after he grabbed McCoy's shotgun from him and ran to the limp body, shooting the body in the left arm...Point of simplicity...what human being could be shot in the head and heart and survive the blast? Two, What human, if the first point is not enough, could survive a second shotgun blast to the left side of the head? Third, given the first two points, what reasonable person would believe that after a human being has been shot twice to the head (with multiple .oo buck penetrations), slide down to a prone position, have a few seconds for another person to grab the gun and run over to the body and shoot it in the left arm, believe the arm shot may have caused the death? I submit this as a discussion first. All of the conjecture, assumptions and hypotheticals are in favor of Martinez. Occam's Razor is in favor of McCoy. Let's work for a consensus on this.Truthtruthtruth 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)T


I have a better idea, how about we don't take sides and instead just present the facts? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, is the principal of simplicity too complicated for you? Where did I suggest taking sides? In fact, if you read the proposal, the facts are what Occam's Razor is all about! Ask him, he's been dead for about 800 years, or do you only speak to the recently dead?Truthtruthtruth 06:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)T

  • a) First, it says Speaker FOR the Dead, not TO the Dead.
Well speaking for or to, somebodies dead!
  • b) It's not our place to hold an impromptu autopsy, the fact is that controversy exists and different people report different killers of Whitman. We beautifully cover that fact without taking sides
True, you may not have a Coroners License, so why don't you get the report?! One sides got to be wrong!
  • c) Just so that we both feel validated having learned something today, you'll be interested to know that apostrophes are used to denote the truncating of words or possession (though not in all cases!). However, they are not used to denote the pluralization of words.
What a clever disguise for rudeness, you might want to look at your comment on the talk page, think is not spelled htink! But it didn't bother me, I knew what you meant!
  • d) We do present the facts, what do you want us to do, write an encyclopaedic article that says "C'mon now, what reasonable person believes that a shotgun..." ? That would seem rather unprofessional. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
So you're not a reasonable person, no law against it!Truthtruthtruth 07:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)T
I do wish that John would go get a hobby. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The same could easily be said of you, sir. This is getting so ridiculous. It is my opinion that you are all so caught up in a personal vendetta mode against each other and because of that have lost sight of what is important. This is just unbelievable. I don't think I will ever understand the why's of it all. Something that could so simply be discussed turns into vicious and mean spirited word wars and exchanging jabs. M.McCoy 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not intersperse comments

Hello, please do not intersperse comments within the body of other people's comments. Thank you, Johntex\talk 18:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voices from the tower link

It's an external link. It is about the subject! It contains information that is designed to augment and contrast the articles! Why is it spam? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.103.147 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 2006 August 11 (UTC)

It is a commercial link to a site that exists to sell audio tapes that present one version of the story of the Charles Whitman shootings. Typically, we try to link to neutral sites that are not pushing any particular viewpoint. We also try to keep the number of links to a small number. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a web directory. If the link is not adding to the content here, then it can be removed.
We can't allow links to every store or website that would like to use traffic from Wikipedia to make a buck. We do allow some commercial links, of course, but usually only to major sites. For instance, our article on Apple Computer will link to the manufacturer, but not to hundreds of retail sites where you can buy apple products. The site you are trying to link to is not a well known site and it is not up to Wikipedia to help you make the site more famous.
If you think this link should be included, please explain your reasoning on the Article talk page. Johntex\talk 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion occured on Johntex's talk page as a result of User:71.121.103.147 placing the identical link on Charles Whitman, Houston McCoy and Ramiro Martinez. I am copying the discussion to the three Talk pages to explain the reasoning behind reverting the link. - Johntex\talk 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:71.121.103.147 has now added the same external link to 3 more articles. I have warned this user that further behavior of this sort will lead to blocking. Johntex\talk 16:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked for a while by Woohookity. I had corrected the time line of Whitmans "notes" in the Chas. Whitman article and used the site as a reference. That was reverted by Sherurcij. So I put the site in the external links section, not as spam but for information purposes. The site is under construction, but holds enough information for "someone who reviews it" to see the issues that contrast the information on Wikipedia and other sites. There are plenty of links that have commercial content through out Wikipedia. This site also claims to be in the interest of "all of the victims of the Texas Tower Tragedy" and should be allowed to link to external sites germain to the article and site. Johntex, I see you are an administrator. You must have reverted while I was in the process of adding links. That's why more were added "after you found the first ones"! I was unaware your reversions were taking place. To say I added links after a warning is incorrect.71.121.103.147 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized discussion on UT Tower shooting link

An editor wishes to add the following link to this and other articles:

"VOICES From The Tower"

I have asked them if we can have a centralized discussion about this link, rather than have the discussion across mutliple pages, and they have agreed to have the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Texas#Centralized_discussion_on_UT_Tower_shooting_link. Please visit that discussion if you wish to participate. Thanks, Johntex\talk 17:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/o/u/Talk%7EHouston_McCoy_Archive01_797e.html"