| Revision as of 18:18, 18 December 2008 editDreamGuy (talk | contribs)33,601 edits →Jack-the-Ripper.org?: decptive edit comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:32, 18 December 2008 edit undoArcayne (talk | contribs)Rollbackers26,574 edits →Jack-the-Ripper.org?: cmNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| ::I guess the fact that it's a spam site for a company that sells tours and DVDs, and that the owner of that company was the one who put it here, isn't enough for some people. ] (]) 18:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | ::I guess the fact that it's a spam site for a company that sells tours and DVDs, and that the owner of that company was the one who put it here, isn't enough for some people. ] (]) 18:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Incidentally, watch the misleading edit comments. When you added the link you claimed ''"discussion bears out differently"'' -- what discussion with supposed bearing out, exactly, are you referring to here? Nothing, really, just you deciding to put it back with no discussion. That's deceptive. You've done that in the past with edit comments too. I hope that was unintentional, though just how exactly you could have accidentally imagined a discussion here that never happened is a bit beyond me. ] (]) 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | ::Incidentally, watch the misleading edit comments. When you added the link you claimed ''"discussion bears out differently"'' -- what discussion with supposed bearing out, exactly, are you referring to here? Nothing, really, just you deciding to put it back with no discussion. That's deceptive. You've done that in the past with edit comments too. I hope that was unintentional, though just how exactly you could have accidentally imagined a discussion here that never happened is a bit beyond me. ] (]) 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::Might I trouble you to cite that the owner of the site was the one who added it? Additionally, you note that the link shouldn't be allowed in the article because it sells stuff. I would point out that ''every other link'' there does as well, or links to sites selling related material. Do we exclude those as well? | |||
| :::And I apologize if you think the prior material was "deceptive". I refer, of course, to the prior discussions which you failed to take part in wherein the link was discussed - among a great many other things. I would refer you to the archives which you just recently re-ordered. I am sure you could find the relevant discussion. No worries, I will wait. :) - ] ] 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:32, 18 December 2008
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack the Ripper article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
This article uses British English dialect and spelling. |
 | Jack the Ripper was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Jack-the-Ripper.org?
This link was removed, claiming that it failed WP:EL. I was wondering if some elaboration about how it fails EL could be provided 'ere it be added back in. - Arcayne () 17:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- With no elaboration by the editor removing the link, I have re-added the link yet again. If I am not mistaken, this is a repeat of a similar removal by the editor over the past year. It stays in until a new consensus is established as to the EL value of the linked site. - Arcayne () 17:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess the fact that it's a spam site for a company that sells tours and DVDs, and that the owner of that company was the one who put it here, isn't enough for some people. DreamGuy (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Incidentally, watch the misleading edit comments. When you added the link you claimed "discussion bears out differently" -- what discussion with supposed bearing out, exactly, are you referring to here? Nothing, really, just you deciding to put it back with no discussion. That's deceptive. You've done that in the past with edit comments too. I hope that was unintentional, though just how exactly you could have accidentally imagined a discussion here that never happened is a bit beyond me. DreamGuy (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Might I trouble you to cite that the owner of the site was the one who added it? Additionally, you note that the link shouldn't be allowed in the article because it sells stuff. I would point out that every other link there does as well, or links to sites selling related material. Do we exclude those as well?
- And I apologize if you think the prior material was "deceptive". I refer, of course, to the prior discussions which you failed to take part in wherein the link was discussed - among a great many other things. I would refer you to the archives which you just recently re-ordered. I am sure you could find the relevant discussion. No worries, I will wait. :) - Arcayne () 18:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)