Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:20, 10 December 2004

I've deleted a welcome message and several posts from someone upset that I removed links to her site that were inappropriately added to several pages. If you feel like reading those, they are in the history.

Please add new comments below.

DreamGuy 01:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Bloody Mary (person)

I have found a number of other web references for the idea that Mary I of England and her failed pregnancies may have something to do with the legendary Bloody Mary. I put links inline. It may be a conjecture, but it isn't original with me.

I've finally turned Bloody Mary into a disambig page, although Bloody Mary (person) discusses both the epithet for the queen, and all of the various fictional/legendary characters that use the name. -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, from my reading, only one of those links endorse the idea that Bloody Mary came from the queen, and that was the email from someone who heard it when they were 12 or something. The problem was that the paragraph suggesting that as a possible origin took up just as much space as the rest of the section put together, so it was getting a lot more space than I think it deserved. Now that it has a new page with expanded information and different wording it looks a lot better, because the mention becomes an aside instead of the majority of the text. DreamGuy 05:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Gwine

Thanks for looking over Scipiocoon's contributions. I'm bothered by the casual use of words and phrases like "darkish dialect" and "smoky entertainment." I'm at work, and can't roam the Wiki as freely as I can at home. Glad someone else is watching out. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Joyous 13:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper complaint

This is Misplaced Pages NOT Ripperpedia. Keep the Jack the Ripper stuff in its proper place and don't spread it all over the place.

(Added heading and signature since person who made comment had it in the Gwine section.) So why does some anonymous person seem to think he or she gets to choose what's the "proper place" for things? I assume this is the same person complaining that articles about, say, William Withey Gull mention that that they are primarily known these days for being named by various authors as Jack the Ripper candidates. This is their primary claim to fame. The fact that it's mentioned is one of the most notable things about these people, so mentioning that (and the reasons why the claims are ridiculous) definitely belong in those articles. This has been the opinion of several people who moved the in-depth details out of the main JAck the Ripper page, so it's not like it's only my belief and this anonymous unregistered person is the one representing th will of wikipedia. What's even funnier is he says this to me after I moved the bulk of the Jack the Ripper suspect info out of Lewis Carroll's article into an article about the solitary bok that made claims against him. Every other suspect has been named by mutliple authors with claims that are much more widespread. 80.43.205.224 has nothing to complain about, and I'm not going to worry too much about the opinion of a rude person who doesn't even know how to properly add a comment to a user page or doesn't bother to register. DreamGuy 22:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Stop getting personal. You say - "Please stop blindly reverting articles without even trying to respond to explanations on why changes were made" - I haven't been doing that, I have only edited the Cornwell article and re-instated your removal of relevent information about her book and I have clearly explained why in the edit summary - Why do you keep removing it?

If you'd read the talk pages you would see why I keep removing it. There are two pages covering the same info, duplicating content and often contradicting each other. The topic needs to be covered in one central place, and as Sickert has a variety of theories allegedly linking him to the Ripper crimes, with Cornwell's just being one of them, the Cornwell page isn't the place to merge all that info together, so Sickert is where it goes. The theories are the things he's most noted for these days, not discussing them would be completely ridiculous. You "clearly explained why in the edit summary" is basically saying the same thing over and over without looking at the talk page that explain to you why what you did is wrong. Read it, pay attention, and stop putting your biases in the way of cleaning up articles. DreamGuy 10:35, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

IF Sickert wasn't even in the country, then there is no way that he could have been the Ripper, so why are you tainting his name this way? As I keep pointing out to you, if this was a Ripper centred wiki then great, let's put everything on the Walter Sickert page, but it is NOT. This is a general purpose encyclopaedia with biographical entries that are meant to be taken seriously. Why are you filling biographical articles with speculation that can have absolutely no foundation in fact, because some bint has sold a few thousand books blackening his name? It makes ABSOLUTE SENSE to put information about Cornwell's book on her page. If this duplicates other information in Misplaced Pages then so what!? How many pages say that Germany invaded Poland in 1939? I'm sure that information can be found in hundreds of articles. Granted, there are other books that claim that Sickert was the Ripper, but again if he wasn't even in the UK at the time then they also contain bogus information and are not factual, so why treat them as if they are!? IF there are contradictions then fair enough, let's weed them out before restoring the information to the Cornwell page - Turkey

You really need to read about Misplaced Pages policies before making changes here. For example, you have now violated the Three revert rule by arrogantly switching back the Patricia Cornwell article. This means you could be banned. Your complaints make no sense. Information about Cornwell's book is on her page in the changes I made but you kept reverting, in a summary and a link to Sickert's page, where it is discussed in more details with other accusations. AS already explained, we should not have large amounts of text duplicating and contradicting other articles covering the same facts. Your example of a single point of information mentioned in multipe articles is a bad metaphor, as this is an example of going in depth on the same theory and dispute in more than one place. I am not tainting Sickert's name in any way, I am objective discussing the fact that he is most notable for being names as a Ripper suspect and describing the pros and the cons, as encyclopedias do. Apparently you completely decided that one argument is 100% right, and because you believe that the other side shouldn;t even be mentioned at all in the article discussing the person. Your bias is clear and painful. Now please take some time to read the info for beginner's on how this site works. DreamGuy 11:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

He is notable for being a prominent artist of his day (you seem to be unaware of this). He painted a picture called "Jack the Ripper's Bedroom", he lived in Whitechapel, but he was almost certainly in France when the murders happened. Therefore such accusations are almost certainly without foundation. Occams razor suggests that he was not the Ripper. I understand that the issues surrounding Sickert's alleged guilt should be discussed somewhere, but NOT in the main entry about his life and works. THIS is not the correct place to put rumours and speculation which cannot be taken seriously by seriously minded people. Misplaced Pages is not The Sun or the News of the World and it is not Ripperpedia. Please do not view everything from the perspective of the Jack thr Ripper murders. What are the contradictions you keep going on about? IVoteTurkey 12:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand that he was a somewhat prominent artist back in his time, but that's not what he is most notable for these days. He would have been completely forgotten to everyone but scholars of the history of art if it weren't for the Ripper accusations. What you don't seem to follow is that your conclusions that he should not be considered the Ripper are just your opinions. Expecting your opinion and only your opinion to be refelected in the articles here is a drastic violation of the NPOV policy and completely contrary to the concept of an objective encyclopedia. Now, would you stop harassing me by posting the same arguments over and over on my talk page and the talk pages of all the various articles for which you are ignoring the concensus of several editors in your crusade to sweep notable Ripper accusations under the rug. DreamGuy 02:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

How is it an opinion, to conclude that since he wrote letters from France at the time of the murders, then he could not have been in England in order to commit those murders. To claim otherwise is a logical fallacy. Opinions have nothing to do with it. Where is this "concensus" <sic> of which you speak? I see no such consensus. IVoteTurkey 05:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are misinformed on the facts concerning the points of the controversy. Sickert didn't write letters from France at the times of the murders. Other people wrote letters mentioning that he was in France on vacation at two dates (not nights of the murders) during the month that three of the canonical Ripper murders happened. That's not proof he was there all that time or that he didn't travel back to England on the actual nights of the murders. It's your opinion that he couldn't be the killer and your opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in his article. Obviously the fact that the article was written and edited by several people putting that information there and by others saying an in-depth accounting shouldn't be on the main Ripper (or suspect) article means there is a concensus that it should be on Sickert's page. If you are unwilling to recognize that fact, that's your own issue. You already placed comments on the talk pages of several articles, there is no need for you to continue to post this nonsense on my talk page. Go read up on Sickert's lide and on Misplaced Pages policies (specifically NPOV so you can be better informed. DreamGuy 09:31, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ok I have misinterpreted the point about the letters but it amounts to the same thing. Good grief you do realise that we are talking about before the age of the motor car and high speed trains or the channel tunnel. Where in France was Sickert's family residence? I find it extremely hard to believe that he could have nipped across the channel committed a murder and then nipped back. Today using the Eurostar it takes 2 hours 35 minutes to travel from London to Paris. In the 1880s it would have taken an entire day. It it patently ludicrous. IVoteTurkey 11:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You sure are highly opinionated for a topic you don't know all that much about. And that's not the only thing you've misinterpreted. You've also drastically misunderstood the purpose of wikipedia. It is not here to print only what your opinion finds reasonable. Encyclopedia articles present all sides objectively instead of simply just deciding not to mention the thing that the person is most famous for because you happen to think it's ridiculous. You still haven't even attempted to understand NPOV policy or how encyclopedias work. Now, for crying out loud, you're already posting all of this on the talk pages of the articles in question, you don't need to embarass yourself any further by posting more on my talk page. DreamGuy 11:27, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

My opinion or your opinion doesn't enter into it! It's a matter of cold facts that pretty much everybody of repute discounts the theory that Sickert was the Ripper. You INSIST that that Sickert is most famous for being a Ripper suspect, when in fact he was a prime mover in British Impressionism. Why should biographical information about what Cornwell did take up several paragraphs in an article rhat is about Sickert? You are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. IVoteTurkey 11:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but it's not shared by myself, the previous editors of the Sickert page, the person who locked the Cornwell page to try to reach a compromise, or the people who moved the information out from the Jack the Ripper page. I have repeatedly asked you to stop posting this in my talk page when there is already a talk page with someone trying to mediate a solution. Your continual posting here just further demonstrates your lack of any desire to try to work towards a reasonable solution. You should be grateful that you weren't banned for violating the three revert rule, stop pushing your luck. DreamGuy 12:07, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I do wish you would stop using the condescending, aggressive and threatening tone, I really really do not appreciate it. I really must insist that you desist with it. The situation regarding the Sickert page has evolved over time if you look back in the history you will see that the Cornwell stuff has crept back in. The Cornwell page was locked at my request, to stop you from continually reverting it. You don't have to reply to this if you don't want to. IVoteTurkey 12:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Funny, as you were the one reverting it without explanation and violating the three revert rule. I don't have to look back over the history of the Sickert page, as I was one of the people who helped make it. Several editors on that page and the Ripper page(s) obviously did not object to the info being there instead of on the list of Ripper suspects, so your opinion that it should be removed is clearly out of step. If you don't appreciate the attitude you've brought upon yourself, the simple solution is for you to start following Misplaced Pages policy and to stop trying to blame me ("you don't have to reply") for your bad behavior. DreamGuy 12:46, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Election Controversy Article NPOV

Please help us improve areas that have NPOV problems on the election controversy article, if any. What specifically do you see as problems? Did you read the discussion when the parent article recently survived VfD? I find it ironic people that are voting to delete the article because of NPOV or size concerns have not helped out on the page or mentioned their concerns on the talk pages. Nothing has changed with their points and rhetoric since the parent article survived VfD. The page history will prove that Netoholic's claim clean up-ers are being reverted is false. zen master 18:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Patricia Cornwell

Could you please summarize your view on Patricia Cornwell on its talk page as outlined in the protection section there? -- ] 12:54, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I summarized them there, thanks. I'm kind of upset that the version that was protected is only the way it is because the other person violated the Three revert rule, but oh well. I tried to look into how to get him temporarily banned for that but could find a way to report that. For my future reference, how does one do that? DreamGuy 02:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ripper victim

If I remember correctly Gordon is a new member. He might not be aware of the policies regarding moves. And I could be wrong, but I think he hasn't had all that much time to respond. He was busy editing the reference sections. I'll talk to him and change the link as soon as the page is moved. ] 21:59, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, he's new. He's been going through and changing it to Catharine other places too even after seeing my concern on his talk page at least (as he responded to it, though he may have missed the explanation). I have no problem with waiting for it to be cleared up, but then if he starts hunting down all mentions of "Catherine" on other pages (suspects, famous prostitutes, people famous in death, etc.) it's just that much more to undo later. The article was previously on an article with the correct spelling, which he has since forwarded to the new one he made, so would we have to have the original deleted and the new one moved? DreamGuy 22:04, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title on the Ripper letters template, technically speaking the postcard wasn't a letter, but you're right. The title was misleading. I'll keep an I on the Catharine links and see how it goes. ] 08:37, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Election article NPOV tag

You're probably getting sick of being asked, but I need to know: where in the talk page is there specific objections to the NPOV of that article? I need to know to work out whether the page should be locked or not if too many reversions happen. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, mine are in at NPOV Tag and Cleanup Preliminary Discussion -- and all I got for my trouble were peope ignoring it and insults by a guy who keeps taking the tag off. I could make a ton more, but, honestly, I only have so much time in a day to spend on something I don't get paid for, and the bias is so blatant (especially with people trying to get the page deleted for being too biased) that it should be obvious. DreamGuy 13:10, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Dreamguy, it looks like Ta bu shi da yu posted on your talk page about NPOV, not me. Though I did post on one of election controversy article's in question's talk page and I agree with his question. Your accusations against one frequent editor of the articles may be correct, but still, there has been very very very little reverting of POV clean ups, Snowspinner is the only person I recall really adding to or cleaning up the article with a one sentence addition. Please list specific instances of POV of other clean ups being reverted? Talk page discussions absolutely do not count as evidence for the very serious accusation that edits were being reverted, people who think there are problems with the articles really need to stop using hyperbole. zen master 18:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)