Talk:Ken McElroy

message: I have added a link to the petition that was filed on July 9, 1984.  I have uploaded it temporarily to my webserver, I will be happy to upload it here if anyone sees the need. Dpalme (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Petition 

message: :Image:Skidmore-daylight-dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skidmore-daylight-dvd.jpg

message: :Image:Skidmore-daylight.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skidmore-daylight.jpg

message: :Image:Skidmore-mercy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skidmore-mercy.jpg

message: He was never convicted of anything.  He doesn't fit into the small group of bad-guys who get into the category by this exception: 
"Have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable felony criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed."    David in DC (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument above is too broad.  This is more accurate: His conviction was not final. He was out on appeal where his guilt WAS disputed, so he doesn't fit the narrow exception quoted above. David in DC (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the American Criminal Category 

message: The killing of McElroy was a killing, not a murder. Murder is an unjustified act of killing. The killing of McElroy seems to have been warranted. Presumably this point is to some extent controversial, but that also counts in favor of using the neutral 'kill' and its cognates as opposed to 'murder.'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.42.136 (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A killing (homicide is the legally correct term) is only a murder if and when a competent court rules that it is. Roger (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing vs. Murder 

message: I am not sure I want to even get involved in this matter, but since I am very familiar with the Skidmore area, I hunt just outside of Skidmore every fall and know the area and people fairly well, I will opine briefly.  By default, Grand Jury testimony is sealed, so asking for that as a citation is a little over the top.  I will not argue about the requirements of Wiki and citations, although I will say that I believe the rules are not applied in a consistent manner - that could be because the editors have not covered all the documents (and we know how large a task that would be), or it could be due to people not understanding the requirements, or just not caring (both posters and editors).  Citing the grand jury testimony is not feasible here, although I will point out that there is absolutely no question regarding the identification of <redacted until sourced in article> as the shooter by Trena McElroy.  That has ben well documented and not just in the book.  There was a lawsuit that she filed against the county, the city and <redacted>.  
As for the other individual that supposedly identified the shooter, that is also in the police report; however, those records are not posted online for anyone to reference.  Although I will agree that he retracted that statement the following day.
Now as for the author, I know him well - I know that some people think he is doing nothing more than promoting his book, which is what authors do, so I will not attack Harry for that. Books are cited all the time, including all over wikipedia - so I am a little unsure as to why this one seems to have been singled out.  I will leave that for others to argue about. Just throwing out my two cents worth here.
I would suggest that everyone take a step back and not get into this tit for tat argument here.  We all want the same thing, at least I hope we do - which is to improve the content of the articles.
If I can be of any assistance here, I am willing to help where needed.
I modified the auto signature because for some reason it did not pick up my name.
Dpalme (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Debate on here 

message: This section could use a rewriting. It reads as if someone was speaking it ("word got to" etc)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draeath (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  1981 murder 

message: It looks like the reference has been deleted or moved.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.200.33 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source #11 no longer available 

message: Under "Early life" it says he burned down Trena's parents' house and killed the family dog before the parents relented and agreed to let him marry their daughter. A bit later it says that when Trena had had the child, she and his former wife Alice escaped to Trena's parents'  house, and that he then burned it down and killed tha family dog. It is very confusing. Is it either-or or both?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.211.201.66 (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing the dog and burning down the house - twice? 

message: Are YouTube videos notable enough for inclusion in a popular culture section? Anyone can make a YouTube video.
*The case was featured in an episode of web series BuzzFeed Unsolved.
*The case was covered by YouTuber Count Dankula in The Town That Murdered Their Bully, on 12 April 2021 on YouTube.
*The case was covered by YouTuber MrBallen in the episode Top 3 stories that sound fake but are 100% real | part 13, on June 10th, 2021 on YouTube.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironmatic1 (talk • contribs) 21:23, February 9, 2022 (UTC)
: No, unless they are. The medium or delivery method doesn't matter as to whether it's an WP:RS but those aren't. I don't know how I missed most of those before. I must have been numbed by the story itself. Don't forget to sign your posts. — Smuckola(talk) 05:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: I am surprised that brandishing a rifle was not a violation of his bail conditions, one for which the sheriff could easily have jailed him again. Mere possession of firearms is often prohibited to people on bail. Does the literature on this case mention anything about his bail conditions?Bill (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Bail conditions