User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 8

Chorlton Poor Law Union

I've made a start on our (GM) Poor Law Unions with Chorlton, and I think it could one day be part of a nice series. Have you any plans to put your list of Lancashire Unions into main space? Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean now? I think I got very bogged down looking for the coordinates and I need to reference it. :-( But, yes, I'll do a bit of work on it. It'll need some sort of introduction too. Chorlton is a great start though. I started Leigh Union workhouse. Do you think they ought to have matching titles? I have been sent some old newspaper cuttings I ought to expand it with. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean whenever you think you're ready. I'm not sure that unions ought to have co-ordinates though, as they cover pretty big areas. As far as titles is concerned, my feeling is that we'd do better to focus on the Poor Law Unions, with supporting articles for significant workhouses, like Withington Hospital or Southwell. What are your thoughts? Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)I think anything geographical should probably have coordinates, but to a level of precision which reflects the fact that it's a large area. PamD 09:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking, it might need some rejigging then, but as the coords are for the union workhouses I won't waste them!! It won't be instant as I'll be away from the computer quite a bit over the next week::::Re: PamD's point above, I'd argue that Poor Law Unions weren't geographical, they were administrative, but as even parliamentary constituency articles here have coordinates that might be an argument I'd lose. It still seems somewhat ridiculous to me though, and doubly so in cases like the Chorlton Union, and likely many others as well, where individual parishes came and went. The only thing I can think to do is to give the coordinates of the first workhouse built by each union. Or perhaps the coordinates of the administrative offices. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates are really only relevant to the workhouse locations as the PLUs covered large areas. I've asked the library about getting a copy of Social administration in Lancashire, 1830-1860 by Eric C. Midwinter, but who knows if and when it will turn up here on the dark side.. I'm not around much after tomorrow until Tuesday so I hope the GA doesn't materialise.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's almost certain to. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the coordinates are useful as identifying what part of the world an article relates to, so that someone could algorithmically pick out articles in some area they were interested in - given the WP is global, the PLUs covered relatively tiny areas! There are coordinates in the Grand Canyon and Jakarta articles, to pick a couple of random examples of large places. Pick a spot roughly in geographical centre of the PLU and give a low-precision coords. (There's a helpful table about precisions and areas somewhere but I haven't seen it lately... thought I might have it my sandbox but haven't.) PamD 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Chipping in)This could be it - Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision--Harkey (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The workhouse coordinates will be more than sufficient for what I have in mind which is more historical. I find stuff like that bewildering and off putting.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added coordinates to two decimal places to the Chorlton article, which ought to satisfy those who want them. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of these articles is fairly local, if you need any photography then please don't hesitate to ask me, even if it's just a patch of bare earth. I'd be happy to help. Parrot of Doom 22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a very kind offer. I have the start of a list in my sandbox but it is very incomplete. All contributions more than welcome:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks J3Mrs for helping to promote MediaCityUK to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City of Manchester Stadium

I noticed you doing some work on this (it's on my watchlist) and thought I'd take a look to see what was going on. To me it looks like a very marginal FA, and if I came across it at FAC I definitely wouldn't be supporting it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally went to Maine Road when Bell, Lee & Summerbee were playing (showing my age there) so I've always watchlisted it. It had far too many words so I just got rid of some and offered a word of advice as it seemed to be drifting.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been a United fan I'm afraid. God knows how this article ever got through FAC; I can only assume that it's changed quite a bit since then. Malleus Fatuorum 00:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got swept away in the crush for the exit at Old Trafford when I was about eight, rescued by a policeman and reunited with my uncle, very scary, I wouldn't go there again. Those ****** turrets have been annoying me all day. --J3Mrs (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's changed a lot. When I used to go regularly there was no cover on the Stretford End, and of course no seating, just those crush barriers you used to get crushed against. When I went back a few years ago I was amazed to find that there were now even bars in the ground, where you can get a (rather expensive) pint of lager. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I know, season ticket holders in the family:-( I'm not a City supporter I spent my teens on the terraces at Bolton standing up behind the goal. Bit disillusioned by football now there's so much money involved.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the turrets are still there: "The stadium would have been mostly a larger version of the current CoMS, but with more access ramps and turrets". Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's nearly as convoluted as that place in Salford. The architecture section is very thin.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd added the turrets back but changed the numbers. :-( --J3Mrs (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service award

This editor is a
**Veteran Editor II**
and is entitled to display this
**Bronze Editor Star**.

In recognition of your 20,000 edits and 2 and a half years' worth of contributions to Wikipedia, I hereby award you the Veteran Editor II Service Award. Please display the medal with distinction and pride. --Sp33dyphil © • © 23:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have I made so many edits? I must get out more but thank you.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tin tabernacles

Hi – I know you're interested in these (as am I), having seen conversations on Peter Vardy's talk page. I noticed today that one near Manchester has just been listed by English Heritage: St Paul's Church at Strines (well, not particularly near Manchester, but just within GM!). There's quite an extensive history in the listing info; looks quite interesting. Anyway, just to let you know! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I read this and was distracted and didn't reply. Yes I do like them. Peter is doing a grand job with the list, nice to see others taking an interest. Unfortunately I can't find many in my neck of the woods.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same down here in Sussex sadly: I can think of one in current use (at Woodmancote, near Southbourne) and one which has been converted into a house at Westergate. Another survived until about 2008 in a place called Vine's Cross, but was controversially demolished; many villagers wanted it to become a village hall or similar community facility. We have a few interesting wooden chapels, and even one that appears to be a converted Nissen or Quonset hut, but they're not quite the same! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure?

Please go read this section of my Talk Page. In the discussion there, I am clearly under the impression that I am talking to "Steve" - the person I genuinely believed is behind both of those accounts. Note, and note well, that he does not correct me, nor is he at all offended or confused by my reference to him by what I was assuming was his other id. It is quite possible that this confusion amused him so he didn't let on; but IMO it is much more likely that I am right. I hadn't read the User and Talk pages of "Mr Stephen" until your recent CoMS Talk Page comment caused me to, and I admit they are very different from the comparable pages of the other user. But then again, none of the User and Talk pages on any of my Wikipedia accounts look much the same either, so that doesn't prove anything. If I have indeed confused two separate people, clearly "Mr Stephen" cannot take any offence here because he entirely to blame for actively - one could even say, mischievously - contributing to that confusion. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 23:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you believe they are most certainly not the same person and for you to even think they were shows no judgement whatsoever. I will inform Mr Stephen that he is being discussed. And Mr Stephen is to blame for your idiocy, are you joking?--J3Mrs (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was an indirect personal attack on Stevo1000 - who BTW should also be informed that he is being discussed on this page if you were at all fair-minded - and was quite uncalled for. The rest of what you wrote is a personal attack on me. Please stop it right now. I don't have the time nor energy to go and read and compare old posts and edits by these two users; I would rather use my time at Wikipedia more productively than that. But I do know from past experience that these two users frequently edit one after the other on the CoMS article - so without investigating the history of each user any further it was an easy mistake to make. And I had no reason to investigate any further because the dual-identity posting (as I assumed it to be) appeared to be done in a very open and non-disruptive way. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go awayJ3Mrs (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so childish. You are the one who made an issue of this. I am also going to notify the other Steve that he is being discussed here.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 00:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you didn't bother to do the simplest check, such as looking at user or talk pages, is no one's fault but your own. Nev1 (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you to go away, you can discuss whatever you want, but not here. You are not blaming me for your own name calling now go and do it somewhere else.--J3Mrs (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just insult someone and then tell them to go away. You raised an issue, I admitted possible culpability and corrected it. I came here to show you why I made that mistake. How am I blaming you for anything? My initial post was quite polite and I simply asked you if you knew for sure based on the interchange I had had. The nature of your response to it was inappropriate. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, J3Mrs is free to do just that. You should heed her instructions, and not post here again - even to reply to this post. Parrot of Doom 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your advice not to post again ... exactly how is that conducive to good communication? It's one thing to make that request of someone that is being disruptive and unproductive, but hardly appropriate for someone that has politely asked you a question ... nor AFTER you've invited someone else to possibly participate here. I am quite happy to move this entire topic to my Talk Page where no censorship exists and leave a redirect to it here. Which will take yet another edit. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry ^Talk 01:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect anybody to alter topics after I have replied or remove topics from my talk page especially those I have asked not to post here.J3Mrs (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert, and I'm sorry you've had to deal with this. Astonishing. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just several of many insults that he has sprayed around, I'm afraid. I can't see him being here long. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, after skimming through the verbiage, still refusing to accept responsibility. If I were him I'd throw away the spade and stop digging. Unfortunately I'm no longer astonished.J3Mrs (talk) 09:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Choir of Leeds Parish Church

Was certainly in need of some pruning, and you're obviously still working on it. But I think you've oversimplified in "Choristers": can't say the choir is made up of boys and then discuss the Gentlemen, who are certainly part of the main choir - position of the girls is a bit more iffy. I leave it to you! PamD 11:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pam, I'm losing the will to live, please change whatever you think unclear. Perhaps the Gentlemen should go first.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a go after you've finished, tidy what seems appropriate - no point both working at once, and I ought to be doing umpteen other things today! PamD 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that to remove the whole section on SImon Lindley is undue lack of weight! A cut down paragraph with a "Main" link would be appropriate. (Do you know the man or the choir? He is quite a character, larger-than-life in person, as well as in over-inflated WP prose!) PamD 12:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's linked, and yes, I know who he is! The article is about the choir, hLindey has his own article with exactly the same words, I copyedited it!!!! Also unreferenced. It strikes me as a vanity thing.J3Mrs (talk) 12:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for noticing :) Some articles/tables formerly at statistics.gov.uk seem to be beyond my ability to find at ons.gov.uk – maybe they are gone forever from the UK goverment's web site, to be remembered only at archive.org. Ah well. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem I've come across before is that when parish/constituency boundaries change then information on the old parish/constituency tends to get lost. Which is quite annoying. And of course we've got the 2011 census results to look forward to, with all the updating that'll entail. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I don't think. :-( I'm a bit busy and somewhat demotivated at the minute. But still, I can look forward to the census data and be even less so. I tried to keep to the old parishes when I did Leyth, Bent & Bongs but luckily it's only the constituency boundaries that have changed there. I thought of trying to finish Horwich but it's all data that needs collecting and apparently it's not particularly "vital". Although I don't do FAs, the vital articles business has rather got under my skin.

Greater Manchester

Hi, yourself and Nev1 recently got rid of my edits regarding Greater Manchester, although you were kind enough to suggest why. (Removing non existent problem?) I was simply highlighting the situation that is; some people refuse to understand the facts regarding what county they actually live in. I sometimes receive letters through the post that say "Manchester, Lancashire" and my mother gets "Stockport, Cheshire" on most of her mail. When on certain websites, on inputting "Manchester" the county is pre-populated with "Lancashire" - In the same way some people of Bolton, Oldham and Rochdale insist they are still in Lancashire. I just thought Wikipedia would be the perfect site and indeed forum to comment on this chronological / cartographical faux pas.

Best regards, Mick, Withington 90.222.159.97 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the perfect site for anything of the sort, an encyclopdia is for facts, not points of view and should provide correct information rather than essays in confusion.J3Mrs (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An "encyclopdia" (sic) as you put it is for facts, so is it wrong to simply document the fact that since the 1974 act, a large proportion of the demographic of Greater Manchester simply do not know their correct address? Surely an encyclopaedic piece of information, and not "an essay in confusion." - The situation we are in here (your righteousness / my willingness to contribute time and effort for free) is perhaps the reason Wikipedia has such an esoteric reputation. 90.222.159.97 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.159.97 (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me butting in, but there were a few issues with the edit. Your edit can be summarised by the final sentence "All these people are mistaken, however, as stated before, their respected boroughs are all in Greater Manchester." It's a bit redundant as the second sentence of the opening paragraph says the same. We want to get the facts across without being repetitive. Noting that letters sometimes still carry "Manchester, Lancashire" isn't really the kind of thing you'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nev, thanks for the reply. After your re-edit I had a second look and removed the "people are mistaken" bit, then tried again. Surely the whole thing about an encyclopaedia is the advancement of knowledge, and maybe the odd random fact? In fact when I search for something I want to know everything about it. Encylcopaedias have never been regarded as de facto simply because of the nature of the edit and indeed their form of publication. Noting that letters sometimes still carry "Manchester, Lancashire" is the kind of random historical / geographical fact that is perfect for an encyclopaedia. I have been on some Wiki pages with the most expendable additions. Regarding Wiki again, I'm not a big contributor and the whole thing is questionable by its existence. If you (the editors) already know all the facts about everything then why is it open for editing? Just what is the point of Wikipedia? Is it not true, that the border changes implemented in 1974 have still not impacted on the general public? That modern day computer systems still print labels from forty years ago? I resign, disheartened. I'll leave it to you. 90.222.159.97 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.159.97 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC) 90.222.159.97 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

90.222.159.97 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC) 90.222.159.97 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

J3Mrs, sorry I corrected your comment. I was just making it grammatical but I shouldn't have if that's how you want it. Haldraper (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go and play elsewhere. Please don't post here again. J3Mrs (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]