User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 12

Thank you for your support for the list of Lancashire churches. The review had got a bit "stuck". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's made it to FL. Now for Cumbria! Thanks again. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Peter, never in doubt. :) J3Mrs (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your recent edits regarding Wigan. Unfortunately I have had to reverse your good faith edit regarding Orrell. The area is not designated officially as a town or village rather simply as a component area of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan. Additionally as the eastern section of Orrell directly adjoins Pemberton (an integral area of the town of Wigan itself) using the "3 miles west of Wigan town centre" helps the reader to understand a) the areas proximity to the town centre and b)the better explain how Orrell and Pemberton are one contiguous residential area.

Wigan Council seem to have a propensity for over complicating geographical designations ! We had major issues with the Wigan articles several years ago and we have finally it seems come to a consensus regarding them.

I am originally for the area myself so take a keen interest in keeping the articles updated. I hope to work alongside you on them soon. Happy editing !

Thanks Man2 (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it back with a reference from the WMBC site and clarified its unclear (to me at least) relationship with Wigan town centre. J3Mrs (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your message. The designation if town on the MBC website is a recent addition. Previously the council did not designate areas as towns or villages (hence the confusion ). As this is not a verifiable designation through the website I agree that it should be now left as town. I will advise future editors if the change also.

Regarding your point about the significance of the town centre. Orrell does not have the traditional town "boundaries" one would expect to see. There exists essentially one contiguous area from Orrell on the west of the borough to Ince on the east. This was originally included by consensus back in c. 2009. It was put in place to inform the reader of the differentiation between Orrell and an area such as Standish or Shevington, in relation to the town of Wigan itself.

Of course if this consensus has now changed I am happy to comply.

Again I look forward to working on the articles with you in the future

Thanks Man2 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I have typed the above on a mobile, apologies for the terrible grammar! The above should of course have read that this is now a verifiable designation not that it is not one !  :-). Man2 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, my take on it, whatever Wigan MBC says, is that all settlements are something other than a "component part". Anyhow I have spent some time looking for online "stuff". Hopefully it will improve a bit in the next week or so. J3Mrs (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just been taking a quick look at the 'about the borough' saw croon of the MBC website. In the traditional spirit if confusion by the council they have listed a "Billinge and Winstanley" and "Shevington and Appley Bridge". These of course constitute four separate places and no explanation is provided to show why they are grouped together. Appley Bridge is not within the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, rather it is in West Lancashire, additionally the discription of Billinge has included "Billinge Hill" which is within the adjoining Metropolitan Borough of St Helens.

The problem we now have is determining what to list Billinge and Winstanley as. The first point is that "Billinge" refers to Billinge Higher End as the village if Billinge itself is within the Met Borough of St Helens. The site of "Billinge Hospital" was in the Met Borough of Wigan called Higher End or Billinge Higher End. As you mentioned previously it is your opinion that areas are more than simply 'component parts' or 'districts' of a borough , as the council have not designated Billinge or Winstanley as villages or towns, what is your feeling regarding how we should go ahead with the designation on the article?

Thanks Man2 (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only referenced it to the Wigan site because it used the word town and you appeared adamant it wasn't. Mostly you have to apply common sense regardless of what Wigan says. J3Mrs (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I apologise if I appeared adamant. As you can appreciate we have had so many problems with the Wigan articles in the last few years that I am keen to keep them as accurate as possible and within consensus. On the whole I think they are approaching a good standard now however I do feel its important to iron out seemingly insignificant details simply to prevent multiple re-edits. The issue of Orrell is a long-standing one. Several editors even objected to the inclusion of the phrase 'suburb' in relation to the area. It is fortune that we now have an authoritative source for the designation and thus the issue can be put to bed.

I only bring the issue of Billinge and Winstanley up as a result of having no verifiable way of confirming their designation. As it stands we cannot call them a town or a village (despite the fact both began as villages) and as you rightly assert 'area' or 'district' is too vague. The fact they are grouped together on the MBC website could lead some to assume they are in fact the same place. I fully agree that a degree of common sense is required when dealing with these articles, however I am reticent to designate either a specific title until it can be cleared up. Billinge Higher End does not possess the traditional boundaries of a village, nor does Winstanley.

I do recall working alongside you on these articles several years ago and I'm sure you recall the issues with had with an editor called 'JemmyH', fortunately it appears they no longer contribute. Hopefully we can establish an updated consensus regarding designations asap.

Thanks Man2 (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man2 - the reason I no longer contribute is because of know-it-alls, like you, reverting every contribution I gave. Just like you automatically reverted this editor's post, because YOU didn't agree with it and wish to hold a Wiki Monopoly. And you know nothing.

For instance, you say, "Billinge Higher End does not possess the traditional boundaries of a village, nor does Winstanley." Well, Billinge Higher End was (still is) a part of Billinge. Winstanley was / is a manor / place / township (call it what you will) in it's own right. These places have been marked out with boundaries, and named, for almost a thousand years, yet you and your sort want to take away their identities and replace them as a constituent part of a council / local government area which has only existed for less than forty years.

In favour of the other editor, Orrell has been Orrell for almost a millenium. It is not Wigan. It does not directly adjoin Wigan, as Pemberton is not Wigan, it's Pemberton. A separate town from Wigan, divided by a river and open land, it joined Wigan to create the Wigan county borough (local authority area), it did not become part of Wigan 'town'.

You must learn to separate, in your head, historic named places (towns, villages, hamlets etc.) from 'the council'. A 'place' does not lose it's identity because a different local authority takes over control.

And the Metropolitan Borough of St.Helens is just 'St.Helens'. ie. without the local authority a 'town' called St.Helens would not exist.

No wonder Wikipedia is full of rubbish.

PS: If you have difficulty understanding anything other than council areas, read through the 'History of Lancashire' volumes. In there you'll find all the individual places described without a mention of any metropolitan council areas (borough = council area of authority. look it up) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.205.195 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted your thoughts on the contiguous nature of Orrell to Pemberton. I noticed your recent edit in the lead to the article (from "The area today forms a predominantly residential suburb along with the adjoining area of Pemberton" to "as is neighbouring Pemberton" and wanted to speak with you regarding how we should go about clarifying to the reader that the two areas are essentially the same residential mass. Do you feel that a)the point is needed and relevant to the article and b)if so, how we should best go about placing it back in there?

Many thanks Man2 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Have you had any further thoughts on the above? I don't want to edit anything until everyone has had the chance to contribute their interpretation.

Thanks Man2 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've not been here much over the last week. I don't really think it needs nuch, I'll look now but this should be predominantly about Orrell.J3Mrs (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orrell and Pemberton are separate places. Both are parts of the Metropolitan Borough of Wigan, both are under Wigan council, although neither of them are in Wigan. Both are in Greater Manchester, although neither is in Manchester. Both are in Liverpool diocese, although neither is in Liverpool. Orrell is IN Orrell and Pemberton is IN Pemberton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.205.195 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to thank you first off for the great cleanup you did on this page. It really was a mess after the school marketing director got in there, and I wasn't sure anyone would want to put in the time and effort to sort out the good from the bad, which it looks like you really did a great job of. One thing I wanted to point out though was this old revision, which has two sections that were deleted by the COI editor and got lost in the shuffle afterwards (Financial Worries and Notable Alumni). Do you think either is worth re-adding? InShaneee (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, no problem. I don't usually go for notable people but I might in this case, I wouldn't bother with the other but it's up to you. J3Mrs (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recent claims in the Wigan article I have made this edit [1] to the Wigan Warriors article that makes the same claim. Might be worth seeing if we can find a reputable source otherwise we're going to get stuck in an edit-war with the IPs GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 15:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wigan is a good article and not the place for unsupported claims, I thought about asking for it to be protected from anonymous edits. It's up to the editor to support his claim not us but you can look if you like. J3Mrs (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that the article is about the building, which I understand. However, you have provided a list of memorable events, so if you are going to mention any of Bob Dylan's then I think you should also mention why the 1966 concert was controversial. Otherwise people (like me) might wonder why the first one (which I attended) is not mentioned. Easiwriter (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done it. :) J3Mrs (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you were doing some work on this article. I have just upgraded it from Start Class to C in a couple of categories. I think it is nearing B class but needs a bit more referencing. Not every sentence in a paragraph needs a reference if they have all come from the same source, but the major statements do.

I have left a couple of suggestions on the talk page. Amandajm (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hale, Halton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Historic counties (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manchester School of Art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the recent edit to this article. You beat me to it! I have left a note on this "Contributors" Talk Page, as they have had 99% of their edits reverted. Kind regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I see that this contributor has deleted my constructive comment to them on their Talk Page and relace it with "stop moaning"!. I also note that they appear to be in an edit war on the Windy Hill page. Do you know of admin who specialises in the Manchester area that can put a stop to these actions? Kind regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep my eye on a lot of GM articles. It is a strange quirk of Wikipedia that anyone can edit including those who only make things worse. I only know User:Keith D but his page says he's away. Sorry. The editor is good for my edit count. J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your help. I'll see if the "contributor" re-appears, if so I'll contact User:Keith D or one of my admin pals in the US. It is such a pity that folk who only make things worse are allowed to edit. Thanks for your help. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand anyone's motivation for vandalising articles like this. Moors murders is one of the few (perhaps the only) articles to be fully protected before its appearance as TFA. It'll be a very long time before people in the Northwest forget what happened. Parrot of Doom 23:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right PoD, the trouble is they either just don't know what they're doing or they don't care. By the way it's good to see you and MF collaborating on your very interesting article. J3Mrs (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feels just like old times: working with PoD and an ANI report for personal attacks. Malleus Fatuorum 12:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never actually intended to create that article, I wanted to do mortsafe some justice. But as I delved into that, I realised there was a much more interesting story to be told. Parrot of Doom 00:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never come across the term mortsafe before I read the article. You're never too old to learn. J3Mrs (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused about Charles Hadfield now, as the 1868 Times article definitely identifies him as the publisher of the Manchester City News. But as you point out, the ODNB says that he was initially employed by the paper, before becoming its editor. I wonder who's right? Obviously needs a bit more digging. Malleus Fatuorum 13:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After putting a spanner in the works I was about to offer a spade but I see you have sorted the problem, nicely done. J3Mrs (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Hadfield's ODNB entry it didn't seem likely to me that he was a publisher, but on the upside there are a few other Manchester newspapers mentioned in that article, such as the Manchester Courier, to which there are a surprising number of potential wikilinks, so I may create a few more stubs. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually quite pleased with that article now; it'll never be a GA/FA, but it's the best account you're likely to find anywhere about the Manchester City News. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be writing DYKs next. It is indeed a fine account and is linked to some interesting subjects. J3Mrs (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you'll ever see me do another DYK. I lost patience with that copyright violation factory ages ago. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started that article on the Manchester Courier, and it led me to the fascist rector of St Stephen's Salford, Hugh Stowell, another one who has an ODNB entry but no article here. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The story of Manchester Jewry also seems to be an interesting one; so much missing. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strikes me there's more missing than present and correct. I'd do some more collieries but ........ J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the GA inclusion proposal passes, we'll have you writing DYKs in no time :) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it, and I've got no idea what the "GA inclusion proposal" might be. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and a couple of others are drafting a RfC here following on from a proposal that showed support last year.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck with that, but I think both DYK and GA have lost their way. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I feel this might be the thing to bring focus back to both of them; the DYK project for emphasizing quality over quantity, and the GA with the increased overview that comes from main-page exposure.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 01:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I keep forgetting to add those GM project tags. I really do wish the GM project was a bit more active, as it once was. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. It would be nice if one of your admin stalkers would semi-protect Didsbury from the IP who likes very short leads. J3Mrs (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Best, Mr Stephen (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Stephen and I tidy up a bit. Well Mr Stephen is just as likely to tidy up after me. We should write something or finish something or something. J3Mrs (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to get around to Bury shortly. I'll make you a deal - if I sort Bury out, you can do Stockport :) Parrot of Doom 22:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have the advantage. :) I have at least visited Bury (railway, market, ...) but only ever scooted through Stockport on the M60 and on the train. Perhaps Mr Stephen can help. I'll try but am promising nothing. I'll see if I can get hold of a book. J3Mrs (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stockport would be quite a bit of work I think, just to find reliable sources for what's already there. I've always found geography articles among the most difficult to write, as there's just so much to cover. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only book worth getting is Arrowsmith's. Slap a few cn templates around and I'll see what's in the book. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the right track using Arrowsmith, I think he covers just about everything including a bit of geography. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a start soon and it looks like Mr Stephen has the book. I like settlement articles except for demography and economy, and of course "notable" "celebrities" :( J3Mrs (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, looks like you've got your work cut out with Emley .Malleus Fatuorum 15:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like a challenge. J3Mrs (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot better. You like a challenge too :) I'm trying to sort out the refs, now that is a challenge. J3Mrs (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is looking a lot better, largely thanks to you. Referencing is key, as you know. I'm really pissed off that I forgot to add a citation to the second paragraph of the workhouse article's Management and staffing section, 'cos now I've got to get all those fucking books from the fucking library again, and try to find that fucking quotation. Malleus Fatuorum 09:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My library has new hours, ie open less often, but "providing a better service" according to the idiots in charge at the council. J3Mrs (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat annoyed about your preremtory reversal of my contribution to this article. There is nothing very interesting about a building unless you are an architect. What is interesting are the details of the people who live there.

Maybe I can find some of your contributions not to my liking.

Plucas58 (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the whole article? Much of what you wrote is there and referenced. This is not a list of MPs or barons. It has reliable refs not genealogy sites. J3Mrs (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noted this disruptive editor has again reverted corrective editing of his work, after our separate warnings today. I have reverted and reworded the Greenfield article and uploaded an OS map of the area showing the Peak Park and GM boundaries, which will help to show he is incorrect in his geography. I have added the map to the following articles:- Chew Reservoir (Greater Manchester), Dovestone Reservoir, ‎Saddleworth Moor and Saddleworth. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These people always "know" best. I can't be bothered to communicate with them except by template, they always try to make you sound like the bad guy. Your additions are indeed very useful. The Greater Manchester -> Lancashire contingent get quite indignant and are excellent for upping one's edit count. J3Mrs (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

without the capitals you are incorrect! Evangp (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Featured Article, they weren't required then and aren't now. J3Mrs (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So because it is a "featured" article it is allowed to be incorrect?? Evangp (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you've written a featured article you'd realize the reviewers don't miss anything. So it's correct as far as I'm concerned. J3Mrs (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very wrong, the "T" needs to be capitalized, you don't own the article. Lets open a debate. Evangp (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The version that went through FAC did indeed have the "T" of "The Who" and so on capitalised, which I think is correct in this context. Malleus Fatuorum 20:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time I've been wrong and I don't suppose it'll be the last :)(though the Halle Orchestra hasn't got a capital T so live in a state of confusion, please don't explain, I'll never remember) J3Mrs (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]