User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 13

John Nevison

In John Nevison you removed my refs to Padgett and Fletcher saying that you were replacing them with reliable refs. Are you saying that Padgett and Fletcher are unreliable? Why? If they're not reliable why has it taken you so long to supply "good" refs? In any case I have looked at ODNB and whatever you think about that organization it is not perfect. Even they make mistakes. Please do not remove refs without a proper explanation. I don't care how long you've been doing this you need to have a little more respect for other editors. Jodosma (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You jump to far too many conclusions and I'm rather immune to being lectured by someone who demands respect. In my book respect is earned. Nevinson was on my watchlist but I had made few edits and was reacting to the shower of citation needed tags. For your information it is not necessary to cite the lead if it is cited elsewhere and it is not necessary to cite every sentence. You arbitrarily changed the referencing style for something completely hideous. Those references weren't required after I researched the article and referenced it without turning the article blue. They could be added to a Further reading section. J3Mrs (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And altering things with a "Thank you" edit summary is rather underhand. J3Mrs (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologise for my rashness and take your points about citations, I was going to get rid of the [Web] style anyway. I will get better as time goes on; however I still think that the reflist in John Nevison looks better using only two columns rather than three, until the such times as the article may become bigger and have more citations. The "orphan" at the top of one of the columns looks strange. Ciao : ) Jodosma (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your personal preferences have proved somewhat poor and if you continue to press them they will be overturned. These things are best left to those who know what they are doing and, for what it's worth, the refs look ok in my browser, I have no "orphan". J3Mrs (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry if I caused any offence by my stupid remarks. They were uncalled for and unacceptable. Please accept my apology. I don't usually use "respect" in that way; it was a rush of blood at seeing my refs being removed. I'll be more constructive (and productive) in future. I've left another note on Malleus's talk page should you wish to see it. Please forgive me for being so crass. Jodosma (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd just get on with it. I learned about referencing (and a lot more) by copying from people who know how to do it, like Malleus and several other good content editors. J3Mrs (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bretton Hall dab page

In this edit you added two extra blue links - disambiguation page entries should almost always have only one blue link per entry. PamD 18:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Just one more thing I didn't know and will no doubt forget. I can't be bothered to learn the rules, they are of no interest. Content is what I like.:) But thanks for putting me right :) J3Mrs (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Uxbridge

[1] Very good point, and I'm surprised at myself that I missed it. I think in my defence that I was rather taken aback at how the article seemed to peter out after the History section, but of course that's no excuse at all really. Thanks for watching my back. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I often read Geography related GANs especially if they're in Britain, I sometimes think I should review one, but then I wake up. That one did start well but as you say petered out. I think there's a lot more info about Uxbridge out there somewhere. J3Mrs (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You really should try reviewing one, I'm certain you'd be great at it. The only "mistake" you could make really is to demand more than the GA criteria demand, but I often step over that boundary. If you're still not convinced, we could do a joint review or two, until you find your feet. Wikipedia really does need reviewers like you, whether it knows it or not. Malleus Fatuorum 10:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I only think I should, I really know I shouldn't, I'd only upset folks, even more than I do now. I have little patience and it seems a lot like real work. J3Mrs (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were a Yorkshire lass? They're almost as tough as the Lancashire lasses I used to know. Whatever you do here is likely to upset someone, but who cares? Pick any article you like and I'll help with the review and take any flak that's going. It's water off a duck's back to me. Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I was born and bred in Bongs and am a proud Lancastrian in this alien county (which I rather like). Calling me a "Yorkshire lass" is rather like waving a red flag at a bull (stubborn Taurean) and not very likely to get a positive response. J3Mrs (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a typically stubborn Capricorn, so what I do is to charge at things. I think you might enjoy reviewing. It's a sure way to get more better articles more quickly, but obviously you must do whatever you think suits you best. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I also read articles that are already GAs and get really cross about the poor quality of some reviews, you may or may not be surprised that not all settlements have Geography sections. I'll give it some thought but I would never expect you to take flak for me. J3Mrs (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite prepared to take the flak for you if necessary as you find your feet with reviewing, but I know that a gritty Lancashire lass like yourself will soon get comfortable with it and won't need my help or encouragement. For me, and I suspect it would be the same for you, a GA review is a collaboration between nominator and reviewer, at the end of which pops up a much better article than the one that was nominated. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There's not much at GAN that interests me, one that caught my eye was so awful I wouldn't know where to begin. I'll keep looking. I don't think all reviewers share your collaborative views. J3Mrs (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Never mind about other reviewers, we know how it should be done. When you find an article that captures your fancy (in fact I have a couple I'm thinking of nominating myself, which is why I started reviewing again, but don't let that influence you) let me know, and I'll make certain you're treading in the footsteps of giants. My tip would be to look at articles written by editors you know to be pretty solid. I could mention names, but I'd probably forget someone and upset them, so I won't. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, from your comments at the Uxbridge review I'm certain you'd make a great reviewer. I'm itching to get that review done and dusted, even to the extent that I've offered a stub geography section. There's no doubt it was far too focused on history before, but I think it's close now. Given the vast scope of settlement articles it's always difficult to know when enough's enough. I was sorry to read that the dry-ski slope has been demolished though, I spent many happy evenings there. Which reminds me that I have a vague recollection there's a large Polish war memorial nearby that doesn't seem to be mentioned. Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Beware

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Regards, Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Templating the regulars, that's nice. J3Mrs (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A war generally has two sides, whether made up of regulars or conscripts. A war's not nice. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please go away, you're no help. J3Mrs (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What I meant to say was take your patronising claptrap and............. J3Mrs (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for being as understanding as ever. And glad that a very able editor was able to come to your assistance. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you were about as much use as a chocolate teapot so go and find somebody else to follow around and don't come here any more. J3Mrs (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Health & Morals of Apprentices Act 1802

Thanks very much for your edits on this article. The article reads much better now you made your changes. Thanks very much =) Staceydolxx (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If you keep making edits taking away characters there will be nothing left! :P Haha.. thanks for taking the time to look at it; I really really appreciate it =) Staceydolxx (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Its fascinating, just the sort of stuff I'm interested in. (Cotton mills, coal mines, etc.) Keep up the good work!! J3Mrs (talk)

Heads up

Hi, I just noted your newbie welcome to AvrilParamore27. He's not a newbie. Just another WP:Sockpuppet of Jameslovesavril / Jameslovesavrilavigne for Disruptive editing. I noted it was created on 14 May for Block evasion when Jameslovesavril was blocked for seven days, on 12 May, by Anthony Bradbury. Now it has been blocked he will no doubt create others.. Richard Harvey (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Free Trade Hall

I got the book on the Free Trade Hall back out of the library, so I'm going to see what I can do with that, with your help hopefully. Eric Corbett 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not? But not tonight I'm out for a curry. J3Mrs (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thursday night is curry night in our house too. Wetherspoons do a great deal on curries with a free drink thrown in. Eric Corbett 15:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We've had Wetherspoons curries but this one is in a restaurant that does rather nice starters. J3Mrs (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Bolton dialect edit

Hello. I notice that you altered my edit to the article on Bolton. I'm not sure if you realised that the reference is for the part where Shorrocks says that the Bolton dialect is clearly distinct from Salford and Manchester, so it's not really an appropriate reference in its current form. You say in your notes that Bolton dialect is also distinct from Wigan or Leigh, but that's not what it says in the reference. (In fact, Shorrocks says that Bolton and Wigan are similar. Leigh is not mentioned.) I think that the sentence is worth restoring. It may seem obvious to someone from this area, but someone else would not expect the mere 10 miles between Bolton and Salford to make such a large difference on dialect. Epa101 (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Anderson Boat Lift

In Anderton Boat Lift it is ungrammatical to say that the boat lift "was undamaged" when one of its cylinders failed. "Undamaged" is an adjective, not the past tense of a verb, so saying "my car hit a tree but was undamaged" is like saying "my car hit a tree but was red". Put another way, you can say "the accident did not damage the boat lft" but it is ungrammatical to say "the accident undamaged the boat lift"," You could say "remained undamaged" but "was not damaged" is both simpler and clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Only in your opinion. [2] J3Mrs (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Not so. Wiktionary agrees with me that "undamaged" is an adjective whereas "damaged" is a verb. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary is hardly a reliable source, but I agree with you that "undamaged" is an adjective. Where we disagree is in the grammatically of "No-one was hurt and the lift's superstructure was undamaged", which is undoubtedly better than your rather clunky "No-one was hurt and the lift's superstructure was not damaged". You may not like the alternative, but to claim that it's ungrammatical is absurd; as we're describing the lift's superstructure an adjective is perfectly appropriate. Eric Corbett 14:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a tag team who don't understand the difference between a verb and an adjective. I will fix the grammar in the article later. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• It's easier to say nothing and vanish when you're wrong, and wrong you most certainly are. If you took the trouble to scroll down the link I provided you would have seen examples of usage... but you obviously didn't. J3Mrs (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely a lack of understanding on display here, I agree. I would strongly advise you not to attempt to "fix" the grammar later, as your language skills are clearly not up to it, even if there were anything to fix. Eric Corbett 15:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, J3Mrs. You have new messages at Talk:Evesham.
Message added 02:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Revisions

Glad you enjoyed doing them however as far as GA is concerned it does not state that links to other wikipedia articles must not be included. The links are there to give readers not editors clear directions to retrieve relevant and current information held here if you just decide to remove links to key information about media city then you are denying the purpose of what an encyclopedia is about. Whilst it is an article about a development its is not written as an architectural building study.The Peel group rent out the space to tenants such as the BBC and it now operates one of its major national operational business divisions there (BBC North Group) if you feel that's not important enough information then maybe you should convey that to some of the 15 million license payers who are are served by the BBC North group who I would imagine do read stuff about the BBC on here.--Navops47 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I maintain that this is about the development not the BBC. I never said it was an architectural building study, whatever that is. Most of the BBC articles are linked, hopefully not now overlinked, but the BBC is not the focus of this article. There are many other facets to the development but you are giving WP:UNDUE to the BBC. There are plenty (linked) BBC articles to satify the licence payers. J3Mrs (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree if you look at the PDF file alone in the external links section by the developer themselves there is an innumerable amount of references to the BBC if you feel that the two viewpoints should be separated then maybe it should be two articles Media Production at Media City UK and Media City UK Retail Development as they would then be two things one dealing with media production and the other architectural development of media city UK so if that's not an option both strands have to exist with the same article as Architectural, Mixed-use development and Media Production all have to exist in it or you expand it by including more stuff on the buildings and retail side either way you are restricting access to knowledge by readers and readers alone--Navops47 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Peel are selling space on the site, I'm not and neither am I restricting access to anything. Most of what I removed was either already there or commentary. The BBC has numerous links, there is a BBC article, this isn't it. This is a general article about the development, its architecture is mentioned but it is specifically not just about the retail, the hotels, offices, or every aspect of the BBC or any other company that operates from there. You are of course at liberty to write another article but I think you'll find you would merely duplicate other articles. J3Mrs (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK this is obviously going no where I get the overall impression that this could escalate and I won't engage in that. If you look at the section within the Salford Quays article it clearly states MediaCityUK is a 200-acre (81 ha) mixed-use property development on Pier 9 of the Quays with a focus on creative industries. It was developed by the Peel Group. Its principal tenants are media organisations including the BBC. The brownfield site occupied by the development was part of the Port of Manchester. Your interpretation is inncorrect in fact I don't know where your coming from define "development" if it is a general article that should be stated clearly in the forward summary which it is not this is my final say on the matter happy editing! and good evening.--Navops47 (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the development not the tenants. Is that clearer? What is a "forward summary"? You are the one making incorrect interpretations and bloating the article with BBC related overlinking. As you say, Happy editing. J3Mrs (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's hope that really was Navops47's last say on the matter. Eric Corbett 19:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've only come home to repack my suitcases, I can't wait to go away again. Oh and good to see you back. J3Mrs (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Only temporary I'm sure. I'll be blocked again for something or other soon enough I expect. Enjoy your holiday. Eric Corbett 20:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

M62 bus fire

Hiya, I fully agree with your removal of the detail. My initial thought was to delete it entirely, but thought I would try just editing out the weasel words and unsourced comment from the editor, then leave it to others for notability considerations. If anything the recent hen party coach accident at J32A, which made national news, involving the death of one and injuries to 20 other women, and a Major emergency service turnout, including six air ambulances, would be more notable. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of the same incident, but I'm sure there have been more. No way was it worth its own section. Thanks for your support, I expect it will be put back. J3Mrs (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Weirs Lane

Hiya, just wondered if you had spotted this:- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weirs Lane, seeing has how you made a comment on the article talk page prior to the AfD being started. Richard Harvey (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no I've been away for a couple of days, I'll take a look. J3Mrs (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Chorlton-cum-Hardy

I think that's going to be a tough nut to crack, given all the trivia supporters. As it happens I could walk to Chorlton if I wasn't so lazy, but I'll be in the library there tomorrow to see what I can find. Eric Corbett 23:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That comment about walking makes me feel rather ashamed given the distances people walked to get massacred at Peterloo. Eric Corbett 23:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You should walk, I do, it's good for you and expect you'd get back in one piece. I've not been around regularly this summer, holidays, yo-yoing across the Pennines, train, M62, walking canals, and got interested in a Roman fort sans article. That's what I was going to do yesterday until I got distracted. I might get on with it later but now I'm going do a bit of cutting back in the garden while it's still dry and then make some jam. Get your walking shoes on! J3Mrs (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, which fort was it? Nev1 (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Slack Roman fort but I didn't get far. It'll keep. J3Mrs (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I should walk more, you're right (I even bought some new walking boots recently) but I'm rather an impatient person and it just takes so long. Anyway, it's become very apparent to me that this Chorlton article is probably missing more material than it contains, especially when those crappy sections at the end are whittled down to something sensible. I've just started a new Landmarks section for instance, but we've still got nothing on Economics or Demography. How anyone could defend what was there before as even a half-decent article is a complete mystery to me. Eric Corbett 13:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You could walk round Chorlton (you could walk fast, it doesn't take as long) and take some decent pics! You're right, it's more muddled than I first thought and didn't even have Geography until the other day. I don't think Economy will be huge as it seems mostly residential cf Flixton. I think Population might be interesting, there are some figures but no ref and Vision of Britain only gives 4 figures. They'll show when house building really got underway. The Public Services section is.......... well, read it. Still more to get rid of, so far I've incorporated one notable person into the text. Long way to go but we do seem to be reading from the same hymn sheet. I might get off the tram next time I go to Didsbury. J3Mrs (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree about the piccies- don't replace the one 'Shadow of a garden gnome.jpg' its probably got mystic meaning. While you are in full flow- have you noticed the large number of road names that also occur in Heaton Moor/Heaton Chapel, there could be a DYK there. For instance Albany Road/Buckingham Road, Egerton Road South etc. Keep up the good work. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please accept my unqualified apologies if it appeared I was baiting you. Perhaps my levity was inappropriate. Genuinely welcome advice from more experienced contributors. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it appeared you were baiting Eric. Don't play the innocent here J3Mrs (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The sting.

Its a close call but any reason?

Shouldn't there be section about the nature of Lowry's work? Then we can tie in the significance of the sting?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying, I've been away from the computer with an eye problem. I don't think the sentence requires it's own section I fact I don't think it even warrants including but you'll have to look back through its talk page to see why. J3Mrs (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

[3] I despair of this place, I really do. It once seemed like such a noble enterprise, but it's been overrun by officious dickheads. Eric Corbett 18:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Very strange definition of OR, why not ask for a ref? I'm not sure how you can use a book not yet published though. Crystal ball? J3Mrs (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That's just about the worst GA review I've ever seen, particularly given that I know the article was given a look over by the curator of Northampton Museum's concealed shoe collection. Still, the GA reviewer knows best. Eric Corbett 19:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsworth

Thank you for all the work you are putting in regarding the Unsworth article but I have a couple of questions about some edits you've made recently. Firstly in regards to Blackford Bridge being in Bury, I'm not sure that it isn't also in Unsworth, I know its not exactly in the middle of Unsworth but if you check the address of the golf club, you will see its listed as being on Blackford Bridge, and also in Unsworth. Also if you check this area profile by bury council, the border they have drawn goes over Blackford Bridge, leading me to beleive that it is at least half in Unsworth, and therefore part of Unsworth. Due to this I am also quite positive that the Bridge Inn was indeed once a part on Unsworth.

Also I am just wondering why you removed the inscription from the war memorial, it doesn't seem particularly irrelevant to me seeing as it was written on behalf of the people on Unsworth. Jamez1502 18:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind the original Roch crossing is slightly west of the modern Blackford Bridge, here. That bit of history may effect boundaries. Parrot of Doom 18:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I dont think that affects the boundaries from a closer look at the area profile by Bury Council. Remarkable photo though, did not know what existed. Is that adjacent to Roch street? Jamez1502 19:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, walk down that street and you'll find it. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You said it was the oldest public house in Bury, you can't have it all ways. Is the bridge the boundary? The reference you gave to Grace's Guide doesn't make it clear. The inscription on the war memorial is not particularly notable or encyclopedic and can be seen on the citation. J3Mrs (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ive found that the appartments that stand in the place of the pub is called 'River Rise' and hast the post code BL99TD, which is "( Bury District (B); Unsworth Ward; England )". So assuming the pub had the same post code as the flats that are there presently, this would place it within the boundaries of Unsworth. As for it being the oldest in Bury, I got that one from the citation so perhaps it meant the Borough of Bury instead. The more I look at Bury Council's maps from the area profile, the more I am led to believe the River Roch is the actual border, at least for the part we are talking about. Jamez1502 19:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Assuming isn't how Wikipedia is written, it needs to be verifiable. J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, you can't use postcodes to identify boundaries; they're simply an administrative convenience for the Royal Mail. Eric Corbett 20:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well I've done some research regarding the boundaries of Unsworth. On the comparison image you can clearly see that ever since the early Unsworth boundaries were recorded, the north western border runs along the River Roch which correlates exactly for the area Blackford Bridge crosses. However the lines are slightly thick so if we take a closer look at this image by the UK local government boundary commission then we can clearly see that that the border runs through the very centre of Blackford Bridge, placing both Blackford Bridge and the former Bridge Inn as part of Unsworth. Jamez1502 18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well if you were paying attention you'd have noticed I'd already added that map to the references. J3Mrs (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

In actual fact the reference you place is what led me on to that particular part of my comparison map, so thank you. But that aside, considering all the resources I presented would you now be prepared to accept that The Bridge Inn and Blackford Bridge are part of Unsworth? (I don't want to place it back if there is any dispute about it actually being in Unsworth) Jamez1502 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Done J3Mrs (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bramhall

Hi thanks for getting in touch regarding ILoveBramhall.com as an external link. I'm confused as to why mine has been removed. My website is relevant to Bramhall, as it shows all the things going on, features, interviews with local people and business and community groups listings. I don't understand why mine has been removed but other website BramhallWeb has stayed as they are both similar sites, though mine is more current and relevant, especially as I have the feeds from twitter and face book too. Please take a look at the websites and see what you think Look forward to hearing from you soon Wendy Ilovebramhall (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on what can be added to External links Wikipedia:SPAMLINKS#External link spamming and your edits breached it. Your username indicates that you are promoting your own website which is not allowed. J3Mrs (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi thanks for clarification, but please explain to me why the other website is allowed to remain on, what is the difference between us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovebramhall (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The information you require is in the link I provided, a little further down, Wikipedia:SPAMLINKS#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. J3Mrs (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems very unfair, I'm still confused when it is a website full of information about Bramhall, I will pop it on without the link, that should be okIlovebramhall (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Taken from your website - "iLoveBramhall.com, a website which highlights Bramhall based businesses, services and people". Copying that text also appended a url to my clipboard. Your website is clearly there to help local business, not readers of an online encyclopaedia. The other link has been removed. Parrot of Doom 23:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Unpleasantness

I do not appreciate the accusations:

• "Your explanations make it perfectly clear that you don't value any opinions but your own and you will move heaven and earth to get your own way....." J3Mrs (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• "You really do enjoy writing these walls of prose to justify getting your own way. Is this article just about your preferences Amandajm? That's the way it appears....". J3Mrs (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

These accusations are unwarranted and amount to bullying.

In the second instance, you plainly required an explanation, and when you got it, referred to it as a "wall of prose".

I have copy/pasted this from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles for your benefit.

In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If the behaviour continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.

Such is the case in my relationship with the Wells Cathedral article. I have yet to come across another editor on Wikipedia who has a sufficiently in-depth knowledge of English Medieval architecture to contribute in the way I do. I have come across several editors, like yourself and Eric, who appear to think that brevity is better, or that using the terminology that a news article might use is to be preferred.

You are dealing with someone who draws fine lines between "most..." and "the majority of...", and between "the construction of the cathedral..." and "the building of the cathedral....". The fact that you do not perceive a difference is, in my view, your shortcoming, not mine.

Contrary to what you have said, I have shown myself welcome to accept the majority of Eric Corbett's edits, (along with the edits and suggested edits of others) and have rejected very few. Why then are you harassing me over an edit which I reject, but have actually left in place, because of a consensus of opinion?

Your conduct and accusations amount to bullying. I cannot help but presume an agenda.

Amandajm (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks, [I unwatched this article here]. A quick look at your modus operandi is to confound others with walls of text and accuse others who are acting in good faith of exactly what you are doing - bullying. (Bullies usually play the bullying card first as a tactic to deflect from their agenda) Your opinion of your ability to write an encyclopedic article is much inflated, now go away and don't return. J3Mrs (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of St James, Didsbury, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oratory (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) 09:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Mine rescue

I have appreciated the way you have entered into fine tuning the Mine rescue article. It certainly needed this. I would however like you to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mine_rescue&diff=584509840&oldid=584509745 and the two versions there. If I read things correctly your verdict on my introducing the link to the T Y Hall breathing apparatus was that this was a "bit off topic". That is really inexplicable to me. The work that went on at the North of England institute was remarkable. Penetrating mines gases was all about Mine rescue and it is some feat to illustrate a set from 1853. I would ask you please to re-instate all the material I had added about the T Y Hall set. It is very easy to find me personally on the internet. Google Robertatforsythe will work. I am happy to discuss off page and in email but I do intend that the work from the North of England institute which was pioneering should be available for all to appreciate. That is the point of Wikipedia. Robertforsythe (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Was it actually used? If it was it would be interesting but as presented it was just your way of putting the institute into the article. If it is research put it where it in the institute article. I am not interested in finding you on the internet as I find what you have written to be overly promoting the institute, with which you have a connection, at the expense of neutrality and balance. My "fine tuning" added more relevant info and turned refs into citations, don't patronize me. J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do struggle greatly with the rapid personalisation of your language. I don't understand why the issue of whether it was used is relevant. It was a very detailed investigation into the matter in 1853. I could ask you whether you are aware of detailed investigation into breathing sets elsewhere in that period? The way you have changed the text puts the development of the breathing set some 30 years later. Robertforsythe (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So it was an essay and not used, perhaps it belongs in the breathing apparatus article. I mentioned safety lamps but only in passing. An encyclopedia article doesn't include everything, it links to relevant articles and it certainly shouldn't promote places just because we have links to them. I have seen displays of apparatus etc. at the NCM but have not used the article to advertise the fact.J3Mrs (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In what way was promoting a place happening? Was I promoting the Houghton site in drawing attention to their centenary? There is only one issue here and I would very much ask we hold onto it. A major piece of research into the issue of breathing in dangerous mine situations was published in 1853 and it is easy to provide illustrative evidence of this. It came from one of the great learned institutions in the land. Why would Wikipedians not want to know about this in the context of Mine rescue? Why would scholars of the subject not want to know they can come to Newcastle and consult this early work of absolute relevance to Mine rescue? I am not going to revert your changes. I am asking you to, on the only ground that this is entirely relevant content to the subject.

If you can access photos of apparatus at Caphouse it would be entirely proper to add them. Museum collections which people can access to understand the Mine rescue story have a definite role in the subject, perhaps even a new header, although it might take time to populate. If you look at my Wiki Commons contributions, you can see I uploaded ten images of Houghton and then used one. Other images include vintage apparatus from Beamish. It would be sad if this editing discussion looked like a conflict between North East England and North West England. I certainly added material from Yorkshire (Tankersley) and Scotland. So please re-instate the T Y Hall content, clean it up by all means. Editors who can help others by copy editing are a fantastic asset to Wiki. Robertforsythe (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I corrected what you wrote about Tankersley and I have added pictures to other articles from Caphouse without promoting it. I have written several half-decent articles about coal mines without attempting to promote myself or anything else. I have no intention of reinstating anything. I thought about it before I removed it and don't respond to brow beating. It was an essay for goodness sake. What I have written is from secondary sources, books and reliable websites, I am not here to add essays. J3Mrs (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean by essay that it was only a manuscript? It was much more than that. I gave a link to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Young_Hall%27s_plan_for_Penetrating_Dangerous_Gases.jpg . The material including the illustration was published in Hall T.Y. On Penetrating Dangerous Gases. Trans NEIMME, Vol.2, p.87, Newcastleupon Tyne, 1853. So it is in the printed published transactions of a great learned institution, in only the second year of that institution's life. That is a significant item of secondary material which anyone can consult and it is absolutely relevant to the subject. Please re-instate. Robertforsythe (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems more like a primary source to me. J3Mrs (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

How can this possibly be a primary source when it is was published in the transactions of a learned institution? Said institution has both the archive essay of 1853 and the publication. The link to the illustration is to the publication. This is what a learned institution published in 1853. That is what this dispute seems to be about? Is it primary or secondary? All the linkage was to the secondary printed published work? It a downside of Wikipedia that disputes escalate. That is not my world and that is why I will not revert your changes. However I would warmly invite you to either find the publication in your locality or travel to Newcastle and study it. NEIMME is a welcoming institution and I am sure you would be given coffee. Robertforsythe (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's what learned institution do, publish primary sources. Anyway I've move on, why don't you? J3Mrs (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a lesson that so many here seem incapable of learning. For Robert's benefit, in a scientific context for instance, we should be relying on review papers, not on the primary sources reviewed by those papers. Seems straightforward enough to me. Eric Corbett 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The best of it is that this guy was employed as a wikipedian in residence. Good job I know when to dig my heels in. Taurus the bull signing out. J3Mrs (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I am of course Capricorn the goat, not afraid of butting heads. I wonder what the qualifications are for being a wikipedian in residence? Unemployed and unemployable? Eric Corbett 21:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fletcher references

Thanks for your work on Matthew Fletcher (mine owner and engineer). I hadn't finalized a couple of items, so I guess things seemed a little unbalanced. One thing puzzled me. You seem to want to exclude non-print references from the bibliography, and list them only in individual citation notes. While I appreciate that commercially published sources would be preferable to the web sites of amateur historians of mining and industrial archaeology, I don't think these need to be excluded unless we have better references or we doubt the veracity of these ones. Certainly, my understanding of the "reference notes plus bibliography" style is that the aim is to briefly cite specific sources each time they are needed to support particular statements, and then provide a single detailed reference in the bibliography. The examples I see here seem to support that. Is there a problem if I restore web sources to the bibliography? Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A bibliography is by definition a list of printed books and to add self-published websites to it gives a false impression ie they are published books, which by the way is what I thought until I investigated. There is a citation that gives all the information so I don't see your problem. I would disagree with you changing it because it gves a misleading impression as to the veracity of those references. Books are books whatever wikipedia thinks. J3Mrs (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)