User talk:Rox Da Box

Fair use rationale for Image:From-the-Cradle-to-the-Grave-Subhumans.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:From-the-Cradle-to-the-Grave-Subhumans.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tom (talk - email) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of serial killers

First of all, your previous work on the list is very much appreciated, though I am unsure what your comment is aiming at. You are correct that the list was (and maybe still is) an unsightful mess, so I took up the task to make something half reasonable out of the information that was already present. It should be noted that my work on the list was not a mere roll-back to the version prior to the (rather half-assed) merging of List of murderers by number of victims and List of serial killers by number of victims – that would've been too easy and pretty unfair to all those who have worked on it in the meantime. What I have done is taking the two lists (the serial killers list and the other one that was mixing them with spree killers) removed all entries that were classified as spree and merged them together into one coherent layout. If any information was lost in the process it was by mistake and not on purpose, though I don't think that it could amount to much, if any.

That I have merged the two lists had several reasons: First, I don't see any point to have on the one hand serparate lists for serial and rampage killers, and then in addition to that some crossbreed monstrosity containing both. Second, pretty much all the information in the "unofficial" list (which I guess is the one that mixed serial and spree) was already present in the other list (the one containing only serial killers). There was one exception, being information about the time span in which the killings occured, which is the reason why I have added a separate colon for that in the old/new list.

That there are some problems regarding information about the number of victims in many serial killer cases I do know very well, and that is probably the reason why the list has separate colons for proven and possible victims. To keep two lists, one listing only proven victims and another one listing proven and possible seems unreasonable to me, because the former contains no information the latter wouldn't contain either. So out it goes for being no more than a duplicate. The information about the number of victims was rarely contradictory in the two lists, and in those cases where it was, I have always chosen the lower number as the proven one to be on the safe side.

Regarding sources, all the sources present in the previous version are included in the new one, so nothing was lost. Weren't that many anyway. Plans for the list, well, I don't have any, because what I wanted to do I have already done: merging two lists that were almost identical and streamlining the layout. If you want to split it again into a list containing only pre-1900 cases, another one with cases with less than 10 victims and a third one with those having 10 or more, well, go ahead, I won't stop you. It'd be a simple copy-and-paste work that will probably consume only a mere few hours of your lifetime. But I wouldn't recommend to add spree killers again, which would be pointless and a loss of focus, or to reinstate a second list with only proven victims, which would be only a duplicte of the one already present. (Lord Gøn (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

List of serial killers - Feedback and some suggestions

Well, well, well, you've made quite a few changes to the list, I see, so here's the feedback you were asking for.

In all honesty, as it stands it looks pretty chaotic. The first look at the index was like hitting a brick wall with all that text, and even after I have recovered sufficiently from the initial shock it took me a couple of seconds to wrap my mind around the concept behind it, which is not so very good. So, if you don't want to stop cold anyone who has only a slight interest in the subject I'd recommend to shorten the section headings to such a degree that even people with a severe attention deficit can see what's going on with a swift glance. An aggravating factor in this context is that the sections appear quite out of order. Violent, Medical, Violent, Violent, Disputed, Violent, Violent, Crime related or Group & Individual, Group, Individual, Group & Individual, Individual, Individual, sorry, but I can't see any system here. My suggestion would be to first list the violent individuals, then killer couples, followed by medical and contract.

Next, what is really missing are brief explanations what the single sections are about; e.g. what is, in your eyes, a violent serial killer? After all, all serial killers have to use some sort of violence to snuff out the lives of their victims. That definitely needs some clarification. Also, what criteria are you using to list cases as disputed? e.g. I've never seen anyone disputing that the Zodiac killer is a serial killer, nor is this the case with Henry Lucas or Albert Fish. Here also I'd advise at least some clarification (or better, throw that section out entirely, because it is complicating matters too much).

Finally, the list "serial killers with under 15 victims" is rather long, while those with 15+, 20+ and 30+ victims are pretty short, so I would suggest to combine the latter three into one longer list the create a more balanced look.

Regarding pre-1900 serial killers, you need to set a standard what to do with serial killers whose crimes began in the 19th century, but continued into the 20th. Otherwise you might face the problem that people will add them wherever it pleases them. Well, that's it for now, I guess. (Lord Gøn (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Good morning!

I have seen you are working on the List of serial killer with your friend "Lord Gon". Several killers haven't got an article, you should write it or call the Serial Killer Task Force to write them. Excuse me for my very bad english, I'm Italian and my nickname on Wiki.it is "Logged", here I'm not registrered. Anyway, they are:

Mariam Soulakiotis, 177 <---- a lot of victims! Why haven't you got it?
Nicholas Trapishkin, 100+
Chang Shin Liao and Chang Shan Hsui, 79
Kampatimar Shankariya, 70+
Abul Djabar, 65/300+
Wang Qiang, 45+
Manuel Octavio Bermudez, 34+ (I have found it on a book)
Fernando Hernandez "Pancho Lopez" Leyva, 33/137
Vasili Komaroff, 33
Li Mingwu, 29+ (' ' ' ' )
Ali Asgar, 28 (' ' ' ' )
Juan Martin Candu, 26
Gu Guangfan, 19 (' ' ' ' )
Velaphi Nadlangamandla, 16 (' ' ' ' )
Asande Baninzi and Mtutuzeli "Voks" Nombewu, 14/18
Li Wenxian, 13
Vampire of Cali, I can't remember anyway he is from Colombia

Try to call the SkTK; that's very important! Thank you for interesting (:D) 91.80.63.121 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative between lists

How come your list and the list in Spanish differ so much? http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Asesinos_por_n%C3%BAmero_de_v%C3%ADctimas — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoacoCanal (talk • contribs) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of serial killers.

I've re-started the discussion on the separation of medicals professionals in the list of serial killers page, a subject to which you have previously contributed, and may wish to discuss again. The discussion is here. Guinness2702 (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]