User talk:Kelly A. Siebecke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Kelly A. Siebecke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kingturtle 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Only Living Witness

Two things:

  • First, I disagree with you regarding The Only Living Witness not being the best Bundy book out there. There are three general Bundy biographies, as I'm sure you're aware: Larsen's, which AFAIK was never updated since the original 1980 hardback; Rule's; and Michaud & Aynesworth. It is my own opinion that TOLW is by far the best of the Bundy books. The quality of the writing is better than Rule's, it gets at what made Ted tick better than Rule's, it does not indulge in the 100+ victims speculation that Rule's does, and it does not suffer from Rule's unfortunate habit of making herself out to be more important in Ted Bundy's life than she really was. Really, do you remember the passage where Rule says she thinks she could have gotten Ted extradited to Washington? Ridiculous.
  • Second, that aside, the article is not "a summary of The Only Living Witness" as you say. Here is what I have been doing: in order to give the article footnotes and avoid the people who keep coming in and mucking it up with 'citation needed' tags, I have been re-reading all of my Bundy books and footnoting the article as I read. I re-read Polly Nelson's book, which is mostly about the legal maneuvers, and added a few footnotes. Then I re-read Keppel's book, which concentrates on his own investigation of the Washington murders, and added footnotes from that book. Then I re-read TOLW, and added footnotes, finishing last night. Next--and after taking a break for a few days, because I am about Bundy-ed out right now--I will re-read The Stranger Beside Me and add footnotes from that book. This raises the question of which source to use for which notes. For some things it doesn't really matter. It's established fact that Bundy broke out of the Glenwood Springs jail on Dec. 30, 1977, so it doesn't matter which book one chooses for that footnote. They all say the same thing. When the two books differ, as in precisely what object "Joni Lenz" was violated with, it is my intention to rely on TOLW, because, as I said above, it is the best book. I don't know how many footnotes I will take from the Rule book. Certainly one about Rule working alongside Bundy at the Crisis Center. Probably one about Rule's theory about all the victims having long hair parted in the middle a-la "Stephanie Brooks". How many others I don't know until I actually go through and re-read the thing, but, as I said, when in doubt I will go with TOLW. (In case you were wondering, I have read Larsen's book as well, but it doesn't really add anything that isn't in the other books, except for the section where he claims Bundy was seen in the company of Laura Aime).
  • Finally, the whole point is to give the article footnotes. If you want to sub out some of the footnotes from TOLW with footnotes from The Stranger Beside Me, there's no reason not to do so. I would, however, strongly recommend going with TOLW when the books differ. Vidor 22:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Bundy, Part Two

I don't think that Rule's TSBM is necessarily better than TOLW, merely different.--Okay. I think it's worse. The truth is, when it comes to certain facts, Rule's book is more accurate.--Such as? Which facts would those be, and is there a third reliable source to demonstrate that TSBM is right on a point and TOLW is wrong? For instance, the 100+ possible victims: Rule's personal opinion--Which was shown to be wrong when Bundy himself, speaking to Polly Nelson, said so. I inculde that as a footnote. Then again, what in the world does one person's style of writing have to do with getting the facts straight?--Plenty, I think. Unless it can be shown otherwise, I'll assume that the better writer is also the more accurate writer. You have made a number of factual errors from (what I assume) TOLW, right? Two I pointed out, others I've let go.--I really do not know what you are talking about here, unless it's the business about the missing "The" in front of "The Evergreen State College", which, frankly, is pretty trivial. The truth is, Vidor, no matter how meticulously you work at this article, it's all eventually going to get changed and snipped and reworked by someone else. That, of course, is the nature of Wikipedia.--More's the pity.

In any case, I explained to you my method for footnoting the article. If it's any consolation, I have cracked open The Stranger Beside Me tonight, and have already added three Ann Rule footnotes.Vidor 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Jamesearp.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Carl W Thompson Jr.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carl W Thompson Jr.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Lakers 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/e/l/User_talk%7EKelly_A._Siebecke_9ea8.html"