Talk:Disappearance of Richard Colvin Cox

OK, "Colvin"? or "Calvin"?

The title of this article has "Calvin," but the name in the lead is "Colvin." Which is it? Feel free to revert me if I am wrong, but I am going to change the name in the lead paragraph to match the name in the article title. ProfessorPaul 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

After looking at images of the book available through Amazon's website, I can see it is clearly "Colvin" not "Calvin" according to Maihafer. That means we need to go through the bother of getting the page renamed... --TravisM 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"which proposes a solution"...which is?? Is this some kind of teaser for this book, in an encyclopedia article? If the book is relevant, this should be clarified. 71.63.119.49 04:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, and exactly why I came to the Discussion board - What solution does this book propose?? Anybody know? Engr105th (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's "Colvin" And I Will Complete The Article After It Is Changed

Okay, I went to the library and actually GOT the book, "Oblivion" and so am now, having read it, in a position to complete the article, by putting forth the very reasonable theory advanced in Maihafer's book. However, I don't really want to touch the article until the title is corrected, because Cox's middle name was COLVIN and NOT "CALVIN". I would make the change myself but for the fact that I have no idea how to do so. Hi There (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are at least three issues with your suggestion. First of all, it's not within the scope of Wikipedia to solve a disappearance or present a solution to a mystery in an article. The article already relies solely upon a single source, the Maihafer book, which is an issue for it as it is right now. To "complete" the article based on what is essentially a fringe theory gives undue weight to Maihafer, his book, and one solution only. It's POV to assume that the article would be complete once Maihafer's theory is presented. Secondly, doing this would essentially endorse his book, and ultimately act as subtle advertising for it. Thirdly, the book itself is published by a vanity press publishing company, so that casts doubts as to it being a reliable source. One additional issue doesn't need to be stated here, but we know what it is. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What ?!? How do you know it was a vanity press company, and what's the mysterious issue? I'm restoring a previous edit of this Discussion page. I will leave the actual article alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.87.176 (talk • contribs)

It's relatively easy to track a book and publisher. The issue, which isn't at all mysterious, is answered by the question "Why did you bother to come on and restore only a discussion which was posted by a proven sock puppet of User:Nyannrunning (which was User:Newcastleind)?" Really, it's getting a bit old, popping up on the same old articles and restoring content, on either article pages or talk pages, that are there originally a sock. The banned sock master User:Nyannrunning came on and edited this article when the only changes to it for 17 months were four very minor housekeeping/adminstrative changes.User:Nyannrunning's additions came from the (obscure) Maihafer book. The sock puppet User:Newcastleind made another edit to the article, and after the talk page had been idle for 8 months, User:Newcastleind enters a lengthy chat about this book. This was the confirmatory evidence that allowed the sock puppet case to be proven. So, WHY would you come back to the same article, again, and restore that discussion when no one else in the world has bothered? If you're going to be insistent about using sock puppet accounts, my advice would be to use a name that hasn't shown up anywhere and edit articles that you've never bothered with before. It's always that irresistible compulsion to come back to these articles that prove the sock cases. Once a person is banned for abusing multiple accounts, they aren't welcome to sneak back over and over and edit the samea articles. You know this, Dooyar, and you know that it will removed and blocked. Desist. And moving around LA county and using internet access from gig12-vnnyca2-cda6.socal.rr.com is the clincher. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How did I get accused of being a sock puppet? I have no idea who "76.93.87.176" is but it isn't me. I will continue the original discussion after this stupid little problem is taken care of. Hi There (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So, what will it take for this to be corrected? Signed, Jeff, a curious reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Restoring article so it tells everyone ...

... why it has just one source. Book was authored officially by a poor high school teacher (Marshall Jacobs) who took it as far as it can go ...

(repeat from "edit summary" of today's edit) ... No, fellow anonymous Wikipedia editor, article doesn't contain "promo of book" or "mini-bio of author." It explains that book credits one author (Jacobs) who depended heavily on West Point expert (Maihafer) now dead. wildhartlivie, book did come out first with a vanity press in '96 but was published again three years later by this company that pays its authors.

second publisher

Lots of famous books and plays started as vanity, such as Arthur Miller's The Crucible.

Hence somebody tagged article calling into question its lone source. As long as Maihafer remains dead, and as long as Richard Colvin Cox was born 82 years ago, then what other source can ever be? Article clarifies book "proposes a solution." You can read solution in book. Bottom line: Cox probably lived until early '90's and he didn't want anyone to go public with old photographs of him from mass circulations Life and Coronet, and "a mysterious friend called George" probably was David Westervelt. He died of leukemia in his 40's in '69. His widow didn't know him when Cox vanished and she doesn't know anything about it. Jacobs said Mrs. Westervelt thinks the personality of the man she knew matches the man who tortured those people in Germany. Abusive talking on the phone with West Point receptionist also sounds like her man. She doesn't really know, right? David Westervelt was married to another woman in 1950s, dead now. That's the end of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.101 (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What does half of this have to do with the fact that this section is promotional in nature for the book and adds nothing of substantive value to the article except to tease the reader about the solution in the book? This section in no way expands the sourcing beyond one source because nothing in the article, including the mini-biography of the book editor is sourced at all. And please stop wikilinking the dates in the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a second source on the Cox mystery. If you read the book, you see that a second person investigated it so many years after Cox was declared legally dead in '57. The daily newspaper in his hometown ran a series of front-page articlse in '82. The year '82 is old enough that the Mansfield paper isn't online, but anyone can get interlibrary loan of the microfilm. Or you can read a summary of it in the Jacobs book. But that's our singular, probably unreliable source, right? I told you about the legitimate publisher, Potomac Books, that took responsibility for the whole thing three years after Jacobs paid for vanity. Oh, well, whatever ... go to Mansfield, Ohio, go to dispute resolution, but for heaven's sake let's do something productive ... something! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.101 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not dispute resolution. Dooyar, Nyannrunning, whatever you're calling yourself these days, there is not a second source contained in the article. Saying someone wrote a book, without even citing that addition's statements, is not adding a second source, nor is it citing the article itself. What you're adding is simply a book promotion. It's not my job to go hunt an obscure book written about the subject in order to add it to this article. And please do not tell me to get it from interlibrary loan. This falls under WP:PROVEIT, which says it is your responsibility to adequate source content you add. Do not readd this content. There is nothing to resolve here, you are adding a book promotion without proper referencing. Now go learn how to source and address the sock puppet tag I put on your page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What's with you?

I am not a sockpuppet. Wildhartfire, livie, whatever you're calling yourself these days, or whatever your opinion of Los Angeles, California is ... Hey, nobody's promoting any book here. People have cited it as a legitimate source, which is what it is. If you don't want to read it ... that's cool. But there it is on amazon.com and many local government library systems. If you're calling it a fraud, you're making a very serious charge about a major book publisher, Potomac Books. They pay their authors. Or is there something mysterious about that, too? Please start a dispute resolution here and then I'm going to bed for the night.

The old section "Dispute re-examined" said Harry Maihafer (not a "book editor" as you claim him to be) died in 2002; it said that for the purpose of showing the reader that the facts end there. He worked with Jacobs investigating the mystery so many years after the national media lost interest in it, then he died. If you're suggesting "Disappearance re-examined" promotes anything or anyone, then clearly you haven't read this legitimately published book and you're misrepresenting the work of several Wiki editors going back three years. Several of them approved of the "... re-examined" section the way it was. If you're not going to approach dispute resolution, or if they overlook this while you ignore them, then ... hey, what more can anyone do to please you? Buenas noches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.101 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to start a dispute resolution. There is no dispute. You have added back content you first added here before. I'm not calling the book a fraud, I'm saying the addition that you keep restoring is inappropriately added content. It is not referenced in anyway, and adding a mention of a book does not make the article sourced by more than one source. I did not call anyone a book editor, please don't misrepresent what I said. You are adding unsourced background information on a book that has been written. You are not adding anything about the subject of this article. Go away, Dooyar. You were banned permanently for a reason and I'm not going to get into a drawn out dispute with a proven sock puppet. How do you happen to know what that is if you're an innocent bystander?? That book is not being used to source anything. Keep it up and your IP will be blocked. There have not been "several Wiki editors" on this page. You made most of the substantial edits and no one edited after July except a date delinking bot. Now go to bed and stop trying to return to Wikipedia. You're not wanted here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

How do I happen to know what a dispute about a sockpuppet is if I'm an innocent bystander? Because innocent bystanders have access to the Wiki article about sockpuppets. How is the addition I'm trying to restore inappropriate? You've never read (or seen?) the book, so how do you know what's in it? Scroll up higher in this discussion page and you'll find another Wiki editor who found the book, too. The book says Harry Maihafer was a known graduate of West Point in 1949. It says Marshall Jacobs needed help from him because the mystery happened at West Point and Jacobs had no first-hand information about the campus. What's wrong with saying the book contains a "proposed solution?" You're not suggesting that our article should summarize that solution, nor am I. And your reference to "Go away Dooyar" tells the dispute resolution people more about you than about anyone or anything. I won't track down the dispute mediators tonight because it's late at night now. If I return here during the day to find that you've deleted everything I've said in this discussion, then there's nothing I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.101 (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not buying it, Dooyar. The addition is inappropriate because it's about a person who wrote a book, not about the article subject at all. We both know that User:Hi There is an already blocked sock account of yours. Keep talking, you're adding behavioral evidence to support the sock case with every word you type. There will be no dispute resolution request filed, only a suspected sock investigation, if necessary. I've already contacted an administrator who will block. Dooyar, go home. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The book by Maihafer

Ok lets get to the bottom of this. Are you a banned editor? Please disclose all your accounts, thank you. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What you added reads like an advertisement for the book. Your ID, name, seems to confirm that you are a banned user so please answer my question above about whether you are a banned user. I usually assume good faith but this time it's really hard to do. Thanks for you co-operation. If I am wrong about you being a banned editor I'll be really happy to apologize. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a banned user as any senior editor would know by not finding my IP address elsewhere. No, I'm not advertising the book Oblivion. I'm merely using its contents as a source. Rather, I'm trying to, but someone doesn't like that. It's not self-published. A senior editor named "Wildhartlivie" has said on this page that the book is a product of vanity publishing. You can find that comment by scrolling upward here. Wildhartlivie is mistaken. The book was first published by a vanity press in 1996, but three years later Potomac Books published it. Google Harry J. Maihafer and you will find Oblivion among his titles. Several web sites sell copies. You also can find that I'm trying to use Life magazine, for heaven's sake, as a legitimate source for the article. Wildhartlivie doesn't like that, either. Does anyone think I'm trying to advertise that defunct magazine for the benefit of its now-dead publishers? (Henry Luce and his wife Clare)My account now (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Dooyar, you're about to be blocked as a sock puppet of Nyannrunning. That's the problem here, you aren't permitted to make up new names and come back time after time to continue. The book was first published by a vanity press, we don't use vanity press publications. I don't like Dooyar showing up repeatedly and pretending that he is innocent or feigning shock at being outed as a sock puppet. That's my issue with you. Now say "bye bye", and hello to blocking. The more you type, the more idiosyncracies you reveal. Repeatedly referring to "several websites" and making obscure references to long dead persons is a bad trait that you have. Referring to "senior editors" and trying to draw attention to your IP are others. Another is that you tend to talk down to people. Responding to something said to one of your socks is a give away. Oh, and Potomac Press is a vanity publisher. Bye Bye. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This article could have multiple legitimate sources

I get it. The less type, the more I reveal. Such as the fact that Potomac Books (not Potomac Press) isn't a vanity publisher. Their web site's instructions for aspiring writers is to submit your manuscript but ...

... don't call them; they'll call you.

It was called Brassey's when it published the sole Richard Cox book in 1996. The web site says front and center it was "formerly Brassey's." Here is a library catalog listing that tells you the Cox book was published by Brassey's.

Main source for this article was published by Brassey's in 1996, now known as Potomac Books.

There are other sources on the Cox mystery besides the book. The Mansfield News Journal ran two series of articles: one in 1982 and the other in January of 2010. Most installments began on the paper's front page. Maybe someone can add references to them in this Wikipedia article along with a new Wikipedia Commons pdf or two with permission from the News Journal.

Accusations of sockpuppetry can't change these two lies:

1. 1 -- The only book ever published on the Cox mystery is a vanity-published book.

1. 2 -- It's the only published source on Cox.

I'm sick of the lies.

I added something earlier today to the 7-11 discussion page.