" 

 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"".    
 :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...   

 ==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