Talk:John Martin Scripps

familly error continued

In response to Resurgent insurgent's comment on september 5th "How do you know that he never had a daughter named Lara?", I am obviously in a position to know. I find it quite interesting that somebody as well read as you obviously are, would use a newspaper article from the british tabloid press to insinuate a fact. I understand how you are striving to create a stong factually relevnt article, but you must understand that the press is not the most reliable source of information. I know that this information is incorrect, and this goes for other parts of the article too. However the only part I care about, is the statement that highlights Lara as Scripps's daughter. The only way I can prove this conclusively to you, is to A) present you with her birth certificate B)Leave you in a room with her real father ken C)let you speak to her mother. So which would you like me to do for you?

These are the facts as they stand, you can't prove Lara is related to Scripps, therefore remove it from the article. Secondly, any modifications made to your article were not done with malice, just done in a state of upset and fury at how an individual somewhere in the world, can connect a serial killer to somebody on the basis of the tabloid press. It wouldn't be the first time the newspapers have invented a story or modified it to sell more papers (one can look to pierce morgan for proof of that).If you are still not convinced leave me some way of contacting you, to discuss this away from public view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.6.133 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So how do you like the info box, which now does not state "daughter - Lara"? Resurgent insurgent 06:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

That is all it needed, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.175.11 (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Big Concern

I notice that the story is largely told through quotes from the book by Tan, which we then turn around and state was significantly fictionalized. Ouch

I suggest somebody go over this story very carefully to sift the evidence from the court proceedings from the fiction, and re-word some of these paragraphs "according to a book by journalist Tan" or something.

I find Scripps' final notes to be heart rending. No consolation for the victim's families, but heart rending all the same. Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added lots of detail regarding the Trial, each one backed up by an archived Singaporean newspaper article WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

'They won't hang me. I'm British.'

Does anyone have access to this book to decide the context of the above quote, and whether it warrants inclusion in the article? Berry-Dee, Christopher (2013-05-23). Talking with Serial Killers: A chilling study of the world's most evil people. John Blake. ISBN 978-1-84358-617-3. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added a link to a newspaper article regarding the interview in question WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

response- wikipedia is supposed to include "notable" and "relevant" details. this is a direct quote from the subject of this article and is extremely famous. what is your question really even asking? in what way would this quote NOT warrant inclusion in the article?