Talk:Bible John - A Forensic Meditation
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Rumours about Vallely? edit
Untitled edit
Do we have anything more definite that can be cited? I don't think wikipedia is really the place for 'it is rumoured' comments. Mrph 22:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bible John-A Forensic Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051104053053/http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/unsolved/bible_john/index.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/unsolved/bible_john/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Rewrite edit
I personally found this synopsis-proof, being hard to write up objectively without over-detail. Any thoughts on whether the lead and other sections cover the basic content adequately, or does anyone want a go at writing one? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)