Talk:Jack the Ripper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack the Ripper article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Note: The official spelling of the formal name is correct with the -ize ending, which had been discussed in the past.
Good article Jack the Ripper was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
This article was the showcase article of the London Portal in November 2006.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] New edits

This is just tedious. I show up to edit the article and fix some improper capitalization, change the "Writing on the Wall" to "Goulston Street Graffito" as it's called by the authors in the field, point out that the nickname was not "saucy Jack" but "Saucy Jacky" (as you can see in Saucy Jacky postcard), remove a fiction reference that is already covered in the Ripper fiction article, and someone just blind reverts all of it without any sort of justification, falsely labeling it "vandalism" and putting a fake "vandalism" warning on my talk page like he thinks I should get in trouble for actually editing an article.

This kind of nonsense just can't fly. If someone disagrees with one or more things in an edit, change those things. Blind reverting the whole thing to add several indisputable errors in grammar and so forth back in just to be contrary is completely against the Wikipedia standards. I know that there are some people here with personal conflicts and histories who just like to do blind reverts, but I would hope any editor here who cares about Wikipedia in general would not put up with this nonsense. It's likely this editor will just continue to blind revert, so I would hope some sane and reasonable people would admit that I am capable of making good edits and put those back. DreamGuy (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And now Arcayne blind reverted also (he and Colin are the two with the most consistent pattern of such disruptive and bad faith behavior) with the edit comments of "please take the time to discuss your edits before you make them, pls" -- yeah, well, some of those edits are bloody obvious if you look at them, and as described above. How about Arcayne discuss his reverts before he reverts? OR is it just Arcayne thinks he owns the page and will continue to blind revert anything and everything I do just because I do it, per his standard history here? DreamGuy (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You are making out like some great injustice has been done to you. For the record, it wasn't a "blind" revert...2. I have no personal conflict with you..3. I don't believe that I have ever reverted you before today...so what are talking about? And please stop attacking the other editors as well...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a revert of every change I made without even looking to see whether they were good changes or not, which included several changes that even someone like Arcayne had to admit were good edits once he bothered to actually look at them instead of just hitting the "undo" button as a kneejerk reaction. That's the definition of a "Blind revert". Trying to claim otehrwise would mean that you looked at the changes and specifically choose to undo several capitalization changes, sources, spelling fixes and so forth because you preferred them to be wrong. If that's what you are saying, then you need to stop that. If you aren't saying you intentional readded all of those errors, then you blind reverted. You also falsely labeled my edits "vandalism" which is extremely uncivil, bad faith, and not to mention an outright lie. Please go read the actual policy before you make such accusations again. It's not an attack on you to point out accurately what you did. If accurately describing your behavior makes you feel attacked in some way, the problem isn't that I pointed it out, the problem was your behavior. DreamGuy (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With respect, you have been an editor long enough to know that how you react to edits is almost as important as the edits themselves. Characterizing edits with summaries such as:
  • "leave an article alone for a while and it's filled with nonnotqable trivia and bad capitalization and so forth"1
  • "undoing a blind revert -- people have to stop just undoing whole edits for no reason"2
  • "falsely labeling my edits "vandalism" in no way demonstrates good faith"[1]
doesn't endear you to those editors who (I would presume) you would wish to take your edits in god faith. You may wish to consider a less confrontational tone with both your edits and edit summaries and when reverted, follow [[W{:BRD]] by heading immediately to the discussion page. Assuming that people are "blind" in choosing to revert your changes is the very definition of bad faith. Your first edit after more than a month away should not contain an edit summary about how everything went to Hell in a handbasket simply because you were not around to "protect" the article. If you want good faith, you need to give it. Good faith doesn't mean we ignore bad behavior. Now, I am not saying your behavior is necessariy bad, but it is uncivil and demonstrates bad faith. Those qualities are not going to endear you to others - others you must edit alongside. You, I and other people have bumped heads on this article before; you need to take specific care when interacting with us, as none of us (yourself included) need/want a rehash of our prior disputes.
That said, let's look at your edit:
  1. "alias=Saucy Jacky " - I am not sure why we need a no-wiki about this; if the Saucy Jack moniker is explained in the article, then the alias is self-explanatory. If it isn't in the article yet, then it should be added, with appropriate sources. (update: it is explained in the article)
  2. "Some of Swanson's notes on the case survive and are a valuable record of the investigation" - I actually agree with this edit, as it is a better grammatical transition.
  3. "The Goulston Street Graffito (section retitling)" - I do, however, disagree with this, as Goulston Street isn't necessarily a helpful section title, as most readers will not know Goulston Street from High Street, but they will know about the writing on the wall. As the article is to be for both the uninitiated as well as the Ripper fan, using a more general section title pulls both types of readers into the section, whereas the the specific name of the street only serves to confuse the reader.
  4. Whilst the writing was found in Metropolitan Police territory...(word substitution)" - I am of two minds on this, as using 'whilst' is an outdated form of the word 'while', its a bit more prose-y than the rest of the article. We are writing an encyclopedic article, not a sonnet.
  5. "and the highly unusual "misspelling", that the Ripper most probably was of French-speaking origin.Pall Mall Gazette, December 1st 1888" - I have no issue with this, as citations are always a good idea.
  6. "An early instance of criminal profiling" vs "An Early Instance of 'Profiling'" - I also think that this is more appropriate, as the new section title is more explanatory.
  7. "The growing importance" - a better choice of grammar.
  8. "After the murder of Catherine Eddowes, Assistant Commissioner (removed "Sir" as he did not receive the title yet) Robert Anderson requested police surgeon Dr. Thomas Bond" - Whether or not he did, the article is looking back at the matters; referring to the people by their titles - even retroactively - is appropriate. Also, there was the removal of the criminal profiling link to Dr. Bond, which incorrectly redirects to a Thomas Bond who died more than a hundred years before the first Ripper-related murder. A pretty interesting consultation, if I do say so myself.
  9. "(in no-wiki) this line is nonsense:" - we don't do that here. Ever. If you wish to challenge the edit, you come to the discussion page and discuss it. Period. Comments like that almost instantly get you reverted, as they are bad faith attacks on the contributor who added them.
  10. "Many theories" - again, a good grammatical choice.
  11. (removal of Judas Priest and From Hell references from pop culture section) - unexplained removals almost always get reverted. As they specifically (and not tangentially) refer to JTR, they should remain. Of course, you can always take the time to discuss this.
You also fixed a citation, added a book and removed an external source. In the case of the latter, it is the very same external source which you have not found a consensus for removal in the past. If you can offer new and compelling arguments why it does not belong, then argue them. Do not simply remove them and get upset when others revert the unexplained removal.
All of this 3RR action on your part could have been avoided if you had chosen to discuss your edits here first. As some of them are perfectly appropriate, they might have gone unchallenged. Some of the others would have been, as I am sure you are intelligent enough to realize. Work with us, and not in spite of us, and you will find a more hospitable editing environment. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As per the post above, I am re-adding the info which is least likely to be controversial in nature, namely that info of a grammatical and citation nature (adding or fixing citations, not the removal of such). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of your edits may have been fairly obvious, others were clearly not. You "blind removed" a citation from the 'Goulston Street' section. The issue has been discussed before. And I'll say there should, quite obviously, be some quote made from Stephenson's text in the Pall Mall gazette, as there are no other contemporary articles of a similar kind.
And there is no generally agreed term for the writing on the wall at the Model Dwelling. The perhaps most highly regarded authors in the field - Stewart P. Evans, Donald Rumbelow, and Philip Sugden have been calling it the 'Goulston Street message'. The more recent use of the term 'Goulston Street graffito' tends to relate to the position that it is not a 'message' of any evidential value. Neither of these terms may be neutral. But at the time of the murders the writing on that wall was in fact called "the writing on the wall". ΑΩ (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne that some of your edits aren't contested which is why I responded with this on my talk page;
There were good faith edits made over the last few days..I fixed the wikilinks on one of them after verifying..they are notable..meaning that there are objections to SOME of your edits. Try doing them in a more granular fashion using edit summaries and then some may stick but doing a whole batch in order to disguise the same old things that you edit-war over won't work. I'm willing to roll with any consensus that may be met on the article's talk page. Good luck with your editing...

Please work with us...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New edits (arbitrary break 1)

Funny, the two people claiming that I should work with them are the two editors least working with anyone. Both editors have falsely labeled my good faith edits as "vandalism" and have implied that my edits were bad faith. This is simply inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia editors.
Regarding some other things that were reverted by these editors and some other topics mentioned above:

  • "Saucy Jacky" -- The name is Saucy Jacky, NOT Saucy Jack. That's the correction I made, and I left a note so people could go check the spelling. Arcayne above seems to have completely missed the explanation and talks about not referring to the name correctly or that maybe it's not in the article. It's in the article, but it's Saucy Jacky, not Saucy Jack. This is a completely obvious edit for which there's no possible reason to object to.
  • "whilst" -- Arcayne objects to this change with sarcastic remark about not writing a sonnet. This article is written with British English, and "whilst" is used in several other locations throughout the article. I changed it to remain consistent.
  • "Comments like that almost instantly get you reverted, as they are bad faith attacks on the contributor who added them." That is utter nonsense. It was noted so people could see that it was wrong and not accidentally add it back in later. People making good faith edits can still add material that is simply out and out wrong. Arcayne just likes to label everything I do "bad faith" so he can go run off to complain in an effort to wikilawyer his way to getting what he wants. So stop trying to invent up.
  • "All of this 3RR action on your part could have been avoided if you had chosen to discuss your edits here first." No, no it couldn't because the regular editors were blind reverting anything and everything I did regardless of talk page comments, notes added to the article explaining why the actions were needed, as well as notes to the edit of the article itself. All these things have been explained, or, for the grammar and so forth were self-evident to anyone who looked at the edit in good faith instead of blind reverting it because I made it. You keep talking about discussing things on the talk page, yet you're the ones reverting without talking here first. So you have no room to complain.
  • Goulston Street Graffito -- Arcayne above claims that the line is for people unfamiliar with the case so we can't use techinical terms, yet this is an encyclopedia where such terms are explained. If we couldn't use names and refs average readers wouldn't be familiar with there'd be no article to start with. "ΑΩ" claims there is no agreed upon term -- I have cited three extremely key books that prove that this is the term used in the field, but there are also several others. He also claims that "term 'Goulston Street graffito' tends to relate to the position that it is not a 'message' of any evidential value" -- this is nonsense. That is a very recent argument made by a couple of online posters and generally not any actual Ripper authors. "Graffito" in no way implies that the writing was not evidence, it's an accurate and neutral description suggesting that this writing was on a wall or other outside object instead of written on paper or elsewhere.

In short, I have made the edits again, and added extensive references. The people who blind revert for no reason and falsely label my edits "vandalism" need to work with the rest of us, the ones who care about accuracy and Wikipedia standards. Any attempts for them to portray themselves to be acting in good faith while they post attacks, mischaracterize other editors' actions, and talk a talk about working together while not making any reasonable effort to do so is just a waste of everyone's time. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This kind of bickering will get the article locked, again. DreamGuy, you have long asked for an uninvolved editor to come along and take a look at the article. Berean Hunter fits that description, but, since he happens to disagree with you, he's suddenly a bad editor? When will this end, DreamGuy? When can a compromise be made and stick? If you won't accept outside opinion, what will you accept? --clpo13(talk) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Berean Hunter's first edits were to blind revert all of my edits, including a whole bunch other editors later admitted were good edits when they actually looked at them, and to falsely label them vandalism. That does not at all appear to be the action of an uninvolved editor, and certainly not one making reasoned decisions. DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I will simply like to point out that this "DreamGuy" also has been accusing me of being one Howard Brown.[2] Though 'accusing' may not be quite the right word; perhaps rather "conjecturing", and rather ineptly. Slightly amusing, and weirdly flattering in a way, but surely also expressive of a somewhat... less than rational approach ? Possibly dreaming some how ? ΑΩ (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh... this is funny... Howard Brown emailed me at my personal (non-Wikipedia) email account asked for help restoring a link to his own blog he added (or had added on his behalf, he is unclear) asking for my help to restore it... This being the same link that User:ΑΩ added. Is that an *amazing* coincidence or what? DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is going to be instructive for all of us to follow Kbthompson's advice here and try to focus on the edits and not the editor. If an editor thinks another is guilty of sock-puppetry, the place to make those accusations is over, thattaway. Otherwise, let's keep it off this board. Even if a specific editor feels that they are facing uncivil commentary (and conventional talk isn't working), go find an admin or take it to AN/I. This is not the 'DreamGuy is once again being a pain in the ass' or 'Colin and Arcayne and all their sock-puppets are "blindly" trying to take o'er the world via this page' article; it is the JTR article. Let's confine our comments to the subject at hand. Let's not mischaracterize the edits of others as "blind," "nonsense" or in otherwise unflattering ways, as it's often incorrect and almost always uncivil. People who cannot hold their tempers, or at least their tongues, are going to find themselves blocked (or back in front of ArbCom). And, please, lets not have any of that 'he made me be uncivil' tripe - we are all (hopefully) toilet-trained and completely in control of our own behaviors. Assume ownership for your own civility and follow the Golden Rule; if you cannot, you are going to be very unhappy with the consequences. That goes for everyone, myself included.
That said, I'll address DreamGuy's replies to the edits (and I won't be replying to the ad hominem attacks by him; he should feel free to report me to AN/I if he feels I am acting in bad faith towards him because - again - this ain't the place):
  1. Saucy Jacky - actually, I take a hit on this. It is the correct usage of the nickname, and not 'Saucy Jack.' My apologies for that, but there remains the question as to whether this is actually notable, or if there are not other monikers he/she/they were known by.
  2. whilst - actually, the very reason why the term was replaced is because it is overused elsewhere. Defending the usage (or utter replacement for 'while') as being a British English article is rather faulty on its merits, and quite likely promulgated by a uniquely American characterization of British idiosyncrasies. They don't always wear bowler hats and say "tally-ho, old chap"; Brits just speak funny - they do not live in a time warp. They do eat blood sausage; feel free to make fun of them for that. :)
  3. Goulston Street Graffito - I am unconvinced by DG's argument as presented above. First of all, the usage of the term 'graffito':
"The word graffiti is a plural noun in Italian. In English graffiti is far more common than the singular form graffito and is mainly used as a singular noun in much the same way data is. When the reference is to a particular inscription (as in There was a bold graffiti on the wall), the form graffito would be etymologically correct but might strike some readers as pedantic outside an archaeological context. There is no substitute for the singular use of graffiti when the word is used as a mass noun to refer to inscriptions in general or to the related social phenomenon. The sentence Graffiti is a major problem for the Transit Authority Police cannot be reworded Graffito is ... (since graffito can refer only to a particular inscription) or Graffiti are ... (which suggests that the police problem involves only the physical marks and not the larger issue of vandalism). In such contexts, the use of graffiti as a singular is justified by both utility and widespread precedent." 1
As this is the English Wikipedia, let's use the term that is in use more, please. 'Graffito' is primarily used as an archeological term to denote ancient writing or "a rude decoration inscribed on rocks or walls", and is inappropriate for this usage (despite what some amateur writing yet another book on JTR might wish).
Secondly, I am uncertain how using the specificity of the street name in the section title is going to be more effective for the casual/average/uninitiated reader than the more generalized 'Writing on the wall' title. The specificity as to where the writing was found is better confined to within the section itself.
Before anyone replies, remember that WP:BRD has three specific components: making a bold edit, waiting to see if it is reverted, and then discussing the difference of opinion until a consensus is found. Anything else leads to edit-warring and lost tempers finding their way to a noticeboard. If you don't like the way the article looks, make an edit. If you are reverted, discuss it (and not simply posting your opinions here and re-adding the reverted material - which is a proclamation and not a discussion) and build a consensus.
If someone feels the article is being owned by one or more editors - and this is worth italicizing - take it to an admin. Chances are, you aren't being objective, and an admin who doesn't give a rat's ass about JTR will be able to render a neutral opinion. Or, you can seek mediation, or Third Opinion. This article discussion isn't a pissing contest. No one - not even the most wiki-addicted of us - is smarter than anyone else in the room. Period. Thinking thusly is an almost sure way to get schooled somewhat fiercely. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've provided a reference for the usage 'Saucy Jacky'. 'Saucy Jack' was a fictional rock opera based on the life of Jack the Ripper mentioned in the film Spinal Tap...so I guess in terms of popular culture this name could also be classed as an alias...Colin4C (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


  • When people capitalize "Historian" in the middle of a sentence and then reverted it back for no reason as part of a blind revert, it's clear that this action is not being done with the best interest of the article at heart.
  • When a section is tagged as needed references for claims of facts in that section, and i add several references, and those are all removed and the tag demanding references is placed back, it's clear that this was not being done for any good reason but simply to revert a change I made because I made it.
  • When someone disputes something is called by a specific term in a field and is given three clear cut references PROVING that it is the case, arguing that some dictionary has some definition of one of the words that might be interpreted to mean something or another is WP:OR -- The term is what the experts use. Your own personal opinion about the term is not relevant. We went over this in the past with "Ripperologist" and so forth. The term is the term, I have proven it's the term, insisting that you don't want to use that term is completely irrelevant and shows that you are more interested in pushing your own ideas onto the article instead of following what the authors have to say.
  • Devoting a huge section of this article to a minor theory about the meaning of a word in a graffito, including a huge block quote, when that argument is not only obscure but directly contradicted by another source in a better position to know, removing the source proving it wrong, restoring this long, pointless quote and so forth is clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight to a nonnotable idea. This is not an article on every last theory anyone ever had about the meaning of the word Juwes, this is about the overall Jack the Ripper crimes.

It is ridiculous that the same couple of people keep blind reverting the entire article back to an old version to remove all sorts of changes that have NOTHING to do with what they are even discussing on this talk page. This is nothing but major WP:OWNership issues and obstructionism. It's also ridiculous that some people seem to think that they can ignore what documented citations prove the experts in the field have to say and replace it with their own ideas.

This needs to stop, and I honestly don't know how things will ever improve when blind reverting the whole article is rationalized away as the right thing to do. I have just as much right to edit this page as everyone else, but apparently I can't even make what are completely unobjectionable improvements without somebody with a personal conflict reverting it all in one fell swoop every single time. That's not editing in good faith. That's not even close. DreamGuy (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New edits (arbitrary break 2)

The recent bout of edits (or rather, reverts) seem to have a bit more substance, although some of the same problems still exist. I've taken the liberty of fixing them, and addressing the changes here:
  1. victims=unknown, generally five are agreed upon - 'at least five' is more concise. The dissent as to the actual number is addressed within the article.
  2. occured - incorrect spelling; Dictionary.com's notes1 that the spelling is correct. Checking "occurred" renders a definition, whilst "occured" does not.
  3. This was the first "Whitechapel Murder," according to the book Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow (removal) - no explanation was offered for this removal, either in the edit summary (which of course is the wrong place to do so) or here in discussion. Without discussion (or the resulting consensus), it doesn't get removed.
  4. "The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have been suggested to be part of a series of murders, called the "Thames Mysteries" or "Embankment Murders", by a single serial killer.[1] Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers active in the same area has long been debated.[2] (removed and replaced with cn tag dating it as April) - we don't remove cited information without discussion and resulting consensus. That's a given.
  5. Other alleged Ripper victims <nowiki--not all of the following cases were murders, so can't say "other murders"--> (re-titling) - normally, a no-wiki is unnecessary when the editor making the changes does so after posting in the discussion page or operating from a consensus. As the section deals with other possible victims, it refers to possible murders. The killer certainly didn't kill the possible victims with moody thoughts, grape-flavored lollipops harsh language. If there are entries in the section that do not belong, it is in the article's best interest to discuss why they don't belong, instead of trying to work around the apparent disagreement with their inclusion. Towards that end, I've retitled the section, "Other possible victims".
  6. Goulston Street Graffito (re-titling) - I've made my points in regards to this matter in the previous section. The contents of the section can explore the citations involving the usage, but the section is a signpost to readers unfamiliar with the touchstone words that the amateur Ripperologists use. The block text (from a reference source) was used to illustrate that "graffito" is being used incorrectly in this case. Now, if there is a specific and convincing argument to include it, address it below. The citations offered as reasoning for changing the title and using a grammatically and genre-incorrect term doesn't serve us, the encyclopedia or the reader.
  7. historian (capitalization) - this is a correct application of grammar.
  8. Skinner and Evans citation (removed from "An early instance of criminal profiling") - again, we don't remove citations without discussion and consensus.
  9. Many theories about the identity and profession of Jack the Ripper have been advanced. None have been entirely persuasive - I think the previous version was better and flowed better: "Though a great many theories about the identity and profession of Jack the Ripper have been advanced, no one person has been conclusively identified as the killer." Let's get some feedback on which is preferred, instead of playing a revert-game.
  10. The 1976 Judas Priest album, Sad Wings of Destiny features a song about Jack the Ripper entitled "The Ripper." (removed) - again, this needs to be discussed.
  11. the Ten Bells (reverting the removal of a redlink) - there is no article on this establishment. Until one is, we don't need a bright red link telling us that we have no further information about it. Perhaps someone could write the article.Y
It is instructive to point out that the excessive usage of no-wiki is considered an example of instruction creep, which unnecessarily crowds the edit page. By simply discussing the edits here in the page called - curiously enough - "Discussion", we can all comment on the ideas that are being set forth in these no-wiki commentaries.
Again, let's stick to addressing the edits in a polite, professional manner, instead of running about and accusing folk of OWNership issues, editorial blindness and grand conspiracies. If an editor thinks others are blind, then it is his responsibility to illuminate his edits in such a way that everyone can see. Repetition (aka edit-warring) is not a substitution for discussion. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to say that, though it may surprise people to hear me agreeing with DG, that I think 'Goulston Street Graffito' is better than the 'The Writing on the Wall'. The latter is somewhat vague and allusive, whereas 'Goulston Street Graffito' is more precise and could possibly be used as a subsidiary article heading (maybe combined, in the interests of economy, with anything else of significance known about Goulston Street). The urban and social geography of the streets of the East End are a burgeoning area of interest in Ripper studies (vide the recent published book 'Jack the Ripper and the East End'). However I am not going to make a song and dance (or rock opera) about this and will abide by the conscensus. Colin4C (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


  • "at least five is more concise" -- It's also a clear case of POV-pushing. If we need concise then "unknown" is far better than "at least five".
  • "occured - incorrect spelling" -- THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP CHANGING IT TO THE INCORRECT VERSION?!?!
  • "no explanation was offered for this removal, either in the edit summary (which of course is the wrong place to do so) or here in discussion" -- Both of these statements are incorrect. My edit comment "no need to name a single book for ref on first Whitechapel murder, as all books on topic have same info, made it sound like only this one" explained that edit, and I don't need to explain every edit on the talk page before making it, especially not when it's explained in the edit itself. If you'd pay attention instead of just undoing anything and everything I do just because I do it, you'd realize it. You don't WP:OWN this page. You don't get to insist that every single minor change needs an explanation, and you don't get to demand WHERE the explanation by placed.
  • "we don't remove cited information without discussion and resulting consensus" YOU ARE THE ONE WHO REMOVED THE CITED INFORMATION *I* ADDED. You don't even pay enough attention to know the difference between what you changed as part of your blind revert and what I changed as part of my edits. This is ridiculous.
  • " As the section deals with other possible victims, it refers to possible murders." At least read the section before making completely incorrect claims. Annie Millwood, Ada Wilson and Annie Farmer, all listed in that section, were attacked by a knife (or allegedly anyway with Farmer) but did not die from that attack. If they did not die as a result of an attack there's no way it can be called murder. The Whitehall torso discovery and Elizabeth Jack, also listed in that section, also aren't necessarily murders, as they could have died under some other circumstances that the people who disposed of the bodies didn't want the police to find out about, such as a botched abortion, as has been often suggested. Fairy Fay by most accounts never existed at all, so a nonexistent person can't be murdered. Of the SEVEN cases in the section you insist upon being called "other murders" ONLY ONE can be proven to be a murder, and AT LEAST THREE can be proven to NOT have been a murder. If there's even only one case in there that isn't a murder, "Other murders" would be an inaccurate heading. And complaining about the fact that I added a comment tag there explaining the edit there is just ridiculous. And your response that "The killer certainly didn't kill the possible victims with moody thoughts, grape-flavored lollipops harsh language." as an explanation for why you think "Other murders" fits there shows that you are highly uncivil and not even paying attention.
  • "Goulston Street Graffito" you claim "the section is a signpost to readers unfamiliar with the touchstone words that the amateur Ripperologists use" -- again, you obviously did not even look at the content of my edits, as I provided THREE sources that showed tht the term was used by experts who are NOT "amateur" Ripperologists. As far as your block quote in which you claim that "Graffito" is an inaccurate term, you're just plain wrong and you don't get to declare that words used by the professional experts on the topic are wrong anyway. Wikipedia goes with what experts say, not whatever some online guy who thinks he's smarter than the experts say.
  • "historian (capitalization) - this is a correct application of grammar" -- No, no it's not. You don't just randomly capitalize "historian" for no reason.
  • " I think the previous version was better and flowed better" The one I changed it to is the "previous version." "no one person has been conclusively identified as the killer." is a new version, apparently added recently within some instance of blind reverting, and seems to be worded to suggest that people have been identified but not yet conclusively.
  • "The 1976 Judas Priest album, Sad Wings of Destiny features a song about Jack the Ripper entitled "The Ripper." (removed) - again, this needs to be discussed" No, not really. All instances of music titles and fiction have always been omved to the Jack the Ripper in fiction article so as not to clog up the main article. In fact six months back when you were blind reverting you eventually agreed that music and fiction needs to go to the other article, so it already has been discussed and you already agreed, you just are ignoring that as part of a general blind revert of all changes.
  • "Until one is, we don't need a bright red link telling us that we have no further information about it" That might be a good strategy for See also items, but it's standard practice to include links on items for which articles should be made so that people can see it there, realize the article needs to be created, click on it and make it. See WP:RED.
  • " If an editor thinks others are blind, then it is his responsibility to illuminate his edits in such a way that everyone can see." Sorry, but when you aren't even looking at the content of your edits to see what you are doing (going so far as to think in some cases that changes *you* made were ones I made and arguing against them) and ignore edit comments, comment tags added to the article and previous very clear explanations on the talk page, it's impossible for me to illuminate my edits beyond what I have already done. It is YOUR responsibility to see what YOUR edits do to the article and not just assume any edits some other editor makes are bad. It is YOUR responsibility to read comments and explanations already offered. I can't make you see what's starting you in the face but which you refuse to look at. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuous blind reverts as an organized pattern of obstruction

This is just so tedious. Arcayne even admitted in the edit comments to his most recent blind revert of the entire article to remove all of my recent edits that even he admits that some of the edits were good, so there's absolutely no justification for removing all of the edits.

He claims that I have to discuss changes and gain consensus before I make them and that he is justified in reverting everything I do otherwise.... this is simply not true. I do not need to establish consensus before I fix capitalization errors, spelling errors, and misleading section titles for example (the "other murders" section including one or more people who were NOT murdered). I do not need to sit here and talk people through some long explanation of why when a tag in a section of the article requests that a statement have a source cited to back it up that I feel it is perfectly reasonable to go in there and add sources. Yet ARcayne keeps removing them and claiming that i have no right to make edits until he approves of them first.

Anyone who has been editing here for any length of time should understand that blind reverts are simply unacceptable and that repeating them is a major violation of WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and countless other standards of conduct here. If you disagree with a change to a section, you go in there and change THAT part, you don't go and undo every single last thing I ever do, including a whole string of things that nobody could possible object to.

This needs to stop. And if Arcayne is unwilling to stop blind reverting the whole article to his last version every time I make an edit, just as he was warned against doing more than six months back and which caused the article to be locked, then other editors need to stand up and take responsibility to undo his blind reverts and show a good faith effort that they are here to actually make improvements to the article instead of participate in a longstanding personal grudge. And if other editors do not even attempt at trying to take reasonable steps here to end Arcayne's longstanding animosity form holding the article hostage, then there's no way anyone can even try to claim here that there's been a real attempt at consensus building and working together. DreamGuy (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the various parties could take a single section of the article and see if there is any area of agreement on content. I don't find it helpful that the article cycles through two editions; including, I think, some unintended consquences, for instance, why have you excised the ref "Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner (2001) Jack the Ripper: Letters From Hell: 29-44"? (No, you realised and corrected)
I think both parties have much to offer this article but get very frustrated by the large scale changes that recur on a daily basis. You both need to find a way of working together. Kbthompson (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that edit was that I went back and checked individual edits between the times Arcayne blind reverted me looking for individual edits that were good so that I could re-add those by hand. I saw Colin's edit and went to readd it but missed the second instance of the source being added. I don't know if at the time I decided that the second case of citing the reference was unnecessary as the same source had already been cited at the top of the page for the same claim or if I just missed it. But the thing is that I do go back and double check edits afterwards, and that this wouldn't have been a problem if Arcayne would stop blind reverting every single last thing I do for no reason, including a bunch of edits that he apparently even agrees are good ones. Back when this page was protected last fall I said we need to make it clear that blind reverts are unacceptable, and Arcayne (with the help of a new editor) is still doing it. There is no possibility for any good faith work on this article when spelling corrections, added sources, very clear section title changes and so forth are all wiped away by a guy jumping to click the Undo button every time he sees my name without bothering to look at the content. DreamGuy (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Which "new" editor? Me? I challenge you to support that statement with diffs. You are accusing the new editor of "still doing it". ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down everyone, please don't try to throw allegations around (even oblique references) and try to concentrate on content and not allocating blame. There's a problem here and it's better to solve it through discussion than the inevitable article locking and clagging up the noticeboards with counter-claims of bad behaviour. The things I would suggest for this situation are:
  1. Obtain consensus before changes
  2. Let someone else make the changes required
  3. Make incremental changes that are easy to agree
I hope that helps. Kbthompson (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add that we should welcome new editors who wish to work on the article. Too often they're driven away by the constant bickering. There needs to be a co-operative environment that moves the article forward. Much time has been spent on it, and it's still not even at GA. Kbthompson (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm calm. I'm kinda laughing about it because he just threw a tantrum and went over and BLIND reverted the Whitechapel article in the hopes to draw attention and maybe bait someone in. Dg must subscribe to the "Do as I say not as I do" philosophy. He can't support his accusations...Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to give DG credit for communication. You may be able to garner some support that way and I might agree with you on some points. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, let's try it as Kbthompson suggested. Let's address the problems one section at a a time, starting with the sections wherein DG has made consistent reverts, starting with the subsection below. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

[edit] Victims (from infobox)

Please discuss the following options

  1. "victims=At least 5"
  2. "victims=unknown, generally five are agreed upon"
  3. or an alternative?

Discussion:

  • I'm inclined to brevity, but since the infobox heading takes two lines, there's no real penalty to using the longer version - (nitpicking) 'u' should be capitalised for consistency. Kbthompson (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I prefer the first one as well, as it is brief. The phrasing notes that there is some debate as to the actual number that is best expressed within the article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Prefer the first for simplicity. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Might I mark this as resolved (the first choice, as it seems to have been the option favored by all three respondents?) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you may...Colin4C (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Other possible victims" (section title)

Alternatives:

  1. "Other possible victims"
  2. "Other victims in the Whitechapel murder file"
  3. or an alternative?

Discussion:

  • No 2 as it is more accurate and specific. Colin4C (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I'm inclined to brevity - particularly in headings - but there's a risk of some confusion with the next sub-heading; so it would need to be 2, or 3. Generally, headings should be as succinct as possible - with distinctions explained in the text. Kbthompson (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, the briefer one, and it could be said that this section and the one below it could be combined. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
But the murders in the section below were never included in the Whitechapel Murders file. Combining them would confuse the issue. Colin4C (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Combining them would be a mistake, the Whitechapel ones are in the same area; the others are increasingly unrelated to the Ripper cases. I think this article is best focused on the attributed Ripper murders, the investigation and the murderer. Kbthompson (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • #2 -- I agree with Kb that the article should keep focus...other possible victims will have all kinds of unfounded inserts possible...⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, combining them would be considered a mistake; sorry for muddying the question. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So, where are we at with this question? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone is agreed on #2. Colin4C (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pinchin street torso (text)

Alternatives:

  1. ""The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have often been suggested to be the work of a serial killer, for which the nicknames "Torso Killer" or "Torso Murderer" have been suggested.[citation needed] Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers of uncertain connection to each other (but active in the same area) has long been debated.[citation needed]"
  2. "The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have been suggested to be part of a series of murders, called the "Thames Mysteries" or "Embankment Murders", by a single serial killer.[3] Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers active in the same area has long been debated.[4]"
  3. or an alternative?

Discussion:

  • No 2 - as it is referenced. Colin4C (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Referencing could be achieved, but I can find only one Google ref to "Torso Murderer" in this context - everything else is to the Cleveland Torso Murderer; so 2 then. Kbthompson (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 2nd one because it is referenced & I think it reads a little better. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would point out that there are a number of problems with this statement. First, who is suggesting that the Whitehall Mystery and the Pinchin Street Murder are related to JTR? Secondly, there are entirely too many citations being added to the article from Casebook.org for comfort. As there might be a CoI from one of the editors (who apparently works on that site), it might be best to avoid - or at least minimize the contact with that particular site, which seems full of information that doesn't readily provide the provenance of the information it is providing (what specific citation offers the suggestion that the Torso Killer and JTR might be connected?). Depending on the answers to these questions, I will offer an alternative to the disputed text. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm and I've just noticed that the logical connection between sentence one and sentence two of option #2 is entirely not clear. If the "Torso Killer" is the person alleged to have carried out the "Embankment Murders" this should be spelt out more clearly and explicitly. Colin4C (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If the ref can be tied back to a specific page number, then the sentence could be clarified (so, 3 then ...). Kbthompson (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Does someone want to have a crack at reworking the sentence, then? I'd like to resolve the matter and move on to the other bits. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
How about:
"The Whitehall Mystery" and "The Pinchin Street Murder" have been suggested to be part of a series of murders, called the "Thames Mysteries" or "Embankment Murders", committed by a single serial killer, dubbed the "Torso Killer".[5][6]Whether Jack the Ripper and the "Torso Killer" were the same person or separate serial killers active in the same area has long been debated.[7]
  1. ^ Gerard Spicer, "The Thames Torso Murders of 1887-89"
  2. ^ R. Michael Gordon (2002), The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London, McFarland & Company ISBN 9780786413485
  3. ^ Gerard Spicer, "The Thames Torso Murders of 1887-89"
  4. ^ R. Michael Gordon (2002), "The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London", McFarland & Company ISBN 9780786413485
  5. ^ Gerard Spicer, "The Thames Torso Murders of 1887-89"
  6. ^ Jack the Ripper: A Cast of Thousands
  7. ^ R. Michael Gordon (2002), "The Thames Torso Murders of Victorian London", McFarland & Company ISBN 9780786413485

Colin4C (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Clues found in Goulston Street

DreamGuy claims that the term 'Goulston Street Graffito' is the one used by experts on this case. I say it is untrue. There may be some authors, possibly 'experts' on all or some sides to this case, using that term. DreamGuy says he has been providing three sources for his claim. In that case I'll say they should be explicitly mentioned here, under this heading, to better further a rational discussion of this matter.

Authors Rumbelow and Evans do not use that term in their book about the Scotland Yard investigation, except when mentioning "the possibility that the wall writing was simply a piece of graffiti". They are otherwise referring to it as 'writing' or 'message'. There can hardly be any doubt at all that these two authors, both of them former police officers and lifetime investigators of this case, must be the perhaps foremost experts, especially as their collaborative work on the police investigation is (as far as I'm aware) the only special study of its kind. The extensive references made to it in the article rather proves it's unique importance.

I'll say this all makes it quite obvious that the "Graffitto" heading represents a POV tendency. The reinstating of it has also been performed several times under the guise of fairly constructive minor edits - further evidence, I'll say, that the major edits violates NPOV. (The same might be said about the removal of the Stephenson quote) Finally, I'll say the mere fact that neither the "Writing" nor the "Graffito" heading fully cover the subject of that section indicates a general POV tendency. Two possible clues were found in Goulston Street - the bloody apron piece and the chalk writing on that wall. The more obvious clue is in fact the apron piece. Both of these clues should, ideally, in some way be suggested by the title. ΑΩ (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Until it's cleared up, I have altered the title to the more neutral "Writing on the Wall." I know Colin also liked the Goulston reference, but the point is that the text within the discussion explains where the writing took place. I will also alter the writing to reflect that graffito is not a widely used term. writing works just as well, and most folk, reading the article, would think we've misspelled graffiti. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Following ΑΩ's suggestion, maybe the sub-heading above: "The Clues found in Goulston Street" would be an acceptible compromise sub-heading for insertion in the article? This would be more specific, definate and accurate than the vague 'Writing on the Wall'. Colin4C (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that Goulston Street isn't going to mean anything to those not knowledgeable about Ripper stuff. The need for specificity in the section title is negligible, especially when there is ample information within the section text. Maybe a different title would be helpful and bridge the gap between the vanilla 'writing on the wall' and the somewhat esoteric and inaccurate 'Goulston Street graffito'. Maybe the actual statement about how 'the Juwes are not the ones...', etc.
As well, I am quite opposed to the usage of the 'graffito' descriptor, as it is usually used to refer to ancient writings or images in the field of archaeology. It seems a hijacking of a legitimate (and relatively obsolete) term to add legitimacy to what is essentially a group of interested amateurs (with an occasional interested expert) and not an actual scientific field. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 11:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] Remember that's also a PoV. I don't think sprinkling an unusual use of the word throughout the text is particularly helpful, but if a reference can be found for its use in the established literature then I have no objection to a phrase such as sometimes known as the Goulston Street griffito being added. I agree that it is not a helpful way of describing the scrawled chalk message for the lay-reader, and its not a word that appears in Chambers (for instance). Better perhaps to use message (and its synonyms) to describe the marks - after their first introduction. Kbthompson (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems the 'message' wasn't actually 'scrawled' either, which means there may be even less reason to call it 'graffito/graffiti'. There's a witness description saying that it was "in a good schoolboy hand" and a report referring to it as being written "in an ordinary hand". (Detective Daniel Halse & Ch. Inspector Swanson) Perhaps it could be worked into the text somehow, or a quote be made from the official statements. ΑΩ (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Where I come from the word 'graffiti' is a very well known term - reflecting a very widespread phenomenon of British urban life in the 21st as in the 19th century. Maybe there is a scientific study of it out there? If so, we could note whether 'graffito' is the term of choice for a single message. Colin4C (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed very common were I come from too. A couple of weeks ago the main entrance into the (late 19th century) building where I'm living, was sprayed down with silver paint by some narcissistic egotist. It is in fact my impression that this phenomenon is common in most modern urban cultures. When did it become quite common, or very common ? There has, as far as I'm aware, been made no serious studies of it, specifically relating to the late 19th or early 20th century. Encyclopedia Brittanica does mention one specific instance from 1930's Germany: SA troops guarding a Jewish-owned business in Vienna shortly after the Anschluss. And yes, the 'graffito' word is there. But they still use the plural when referring to that piece of "wall writing", also relating to anti-semitism. There's another example there of the more common and rather more innocent variety known from our own times. Perhaps that could say something about the changing function, and rise, of "wall writing" in modern urban culture. ΑΩ (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The usage note for the dictionary term (as seen in Dictionary.com and taken from American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed, 2006) might prove useful here (bold text is added for emphasis):
"The word graffiti is a plural noun in Italian. In English graffiti is far more common than the singular form graffito and is mainly used as a singular noun in much the same way data is. When the reference is to a particular inscription (as in There was a bold graffiti on the wall), the form graffito would be etymologically correct but might strike some readers as pedantic outside an archaeological context. There is no substitute for the singular use of graffiti when the word is used as a mass noun to refer to inscriptions in general or to the related social phenomenon. The sentence Graffiti is a major problem for the Transit Authority Police cannot be reworded Graffito is ... (since graffito can refer only to a particular inscription) or Graffiti are ... (which suggests that the police problem involves only the physical marks and not the larger issue of vandalism). In such contexts, the use of graffiti as a singular is justified by both utility and widespread precedent." 1
- Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign last week)
Just found this interesting snippet from the Anti-Catholicism article mentioning anti-Catholic graffiti in London in 1850:
"The re-establishment of the Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in 1850 created a frenzy of anti-Catholic feeling, whipped up by the newspapers. An effigy of Cardinal Wiseman, the new head of the restored Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy in England, was paraded through the streets and burnt at Bethnal Green and graffiti proclaiming 'No popery!' were chalked up on walls". Colin4C (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Note that chalk was used by graffiti writers in those days in preference to marker pens - presumably because the latter had not yet been invented...Colin4C (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And chalk writing may have been better suited for brick walls.
It is an interesting example. I'll say that context confirms my impression that the activity of 'wall writers' may have been depending more on singular events back then. And they may have been representing a more conscious political effort. I'll say though, that a Protestant's chalking up 'No Popery!' on walls during a political-religious campaign should not be thought of as "just another piece (or more) of graffiti". And if an article were to be written about it, I'd say "Writing on the Wall" might have been a proper headline (for a Protestant paper, certainly), providing a relevant connotation. Perhaps it may be compared, to some specific forms of wall writing in our own times.
I could mention one example from my personal experience, though it may be judged,at best, to be too "original research". Where I live, during the prelude to the invasion of Iraq there was sort of an 'anti-American wall writing campaign'. The character of it contrasted quite clearly with regular 'grafitti', and the relative uniformity of it made it fairly obvious that it most probably was a premeditated effort made by one person, possibly acting on behalf of a group, or maybe (but less probably) the work of several 'writers' acting in unison. Quite interestingly, the message was perceived to be at least slightly ambiguous, and the most conspicuously placed 'pieces of writing' were even removed by about the same speed and efficiency as the writing on that wall in Goulston Street. For lack of a better word it might of course be thought of as 'grafitti'. But I actually think it would be better to think of it as 'Writing on the Wall', in the allusive, biblical sense. It did not at all seem to be the work of any regular 'grafitti writer'. In fact, it somewhat reminded me of Detective Halse's description, of the "good schoolboy hand". ΑΩ (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A couple of years ago I noticed some ancient graffiti on a public building in St Albans urging the Americans to get out of Vietnam...Hopefully, local archaeologists have put a preservation order on it...Colin4C (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I would submit that one man's 'ancient' is another man's young adulthood. I am thinking my Uncle Gerry, who served two tours in Vietname, would likely take considerable exception to being deemed 'ancient'. Its a matter of relativity and proper definition of ancient. - Arcayne (cast a spell)
I mean ancient in terms of surviving graffiti. Anybody seen any older stuff which still survives on location? "Vikings Go Home" maybe? Colin4C (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"Whigs out!" - the best ones' used to be the semi-conversations "George Davis is innocent" - two years later (on second conviction) - "No, he's not .." added. On appealing the first conviction - "still" added to first bit. A wall in Mile End (to get back within 1/2 mile of the subject - said "Peasant's Revolt 1381" - although I doubt the graffito's claim to antiquity. The Tower of London has several examples of graffiti carved into the walls of cells.
The oldest I've seen, is Viking graffiti carved into a tomb on Orkney. They broke into a neolithic tomb to survive a snowstorm and literally added the runes "holfir Kolbeinsson carved these runes high up" in the stone (see Maeshowe). Sorry, what was the subject of this page? Kbthompson (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol. yep. The subject was teh usage of 'graffito', I think. I would prefer to argue about San Francisco Burritos, though. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

-1 for me on graffito. Enough has already been said for which I couldn't add to...is it my imagination or are we missing somebody? Colin ΑΩ, you are right about chalk doing better on brick..now, how do you get it off?..quick, quick, before my neighbors get home. 8^D ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Vinegar works wonders. As well, slices of bologna on a car's boot lid can serve rather well to ruin the metal for all time.
And no, you aren't mistaken, someone has not chosen to contribute to this discussion. We needn't worry excessively about it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)