Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IVoteTurkey (talk | contribs) at 12:18, 6 December 2004 (→Jack the Ripper complaint). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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)