User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 1

RE: Bolton
Thanks for your message. I just dabble here and there but don't really have much time or inclination for any further. Maybe sometime in the future I'll be able to seriously improve the Bolton area articles. -- HLE (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wakefield - Trinity Walk
Howdy! Just saw your edit on Wakefield in regards to the Trinity Walk development in Wakefield. I thought it was North East of the City Centre but my mind went blank, so I put 'east' to be on the safe side! Nice to know I'm not going crazy! Cheers! BNC85 (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know why it said south east :-( but I admit to looking at the map. Glad you spotted it :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2010
As you have been so helpful in editing some Yorkshire articles (thanks for all the hard work), I thought you might be interested in having a copy of the latest WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter. --Harkey (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Delivered January 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.

Walkden Yard
Hi J3Mrs, just read your additions to the Walkden page and specifically about Walkden Yard. I just wondered which part of Walkden Yard do you think was in Little Hulton? As far as I'm aware the whole of Walkden Yard was to the east of Tynesbank and therefore entirely in Walkden. I've never seen a map that suggests otherwise either, have you any conflicting sources? Regards GRB1972 (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, is the ref I found. I can change it if you like, no problem.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I found this old township map is this any clearer?--J3Mrs (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi J3Mrs, it's good stuff! I think the website is just put together by local interested historians and it's really interesting though lacks any other sourcing. The map is more interesting, I note that it shows the boundary of the Little Hulton parish. Interestingly it states in the Lancashire Volumes (1907) that parts of Walkden are in the Little Hulton Parish whilst the majority is in the Eccles parish. That makes it no clearer I know! GRB1972 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Complicated bit of the world. St John's church is built off Bolton Road, just in Walkden with a Little Hulton Parish. I think it's because Walkden as a built up area came late in the day compared to LH or Worsley. I like these unfashionable bits of old Lancashire! I'd really like to copyedit the Economy section, it's a bit repetitive and I don't think shop names are encyclopedic, wonder if anybody would mind.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgot to say much of the land was owned by Bridgewater Estates so I don't suppose the boundaries mattered too much.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is an interesting part of the world and a bit idiosyncratic! If you go further up Bolton Road past St John's you'll see a another church, a Methodist Church which has a Walkden address as well as on Manchester Rd East, well into Little Hulton, you have Walkden Methodist Church and you use to have Walkden Moor Methodists. I have Maps from the 1840s that shows Walkden Moor to be further west than the current Walkden town centre, in fact it's virtually the top of Hilton Lane! In the opposite direction you'll see other anomalies e.g. St Mark's Primary School, slap bang in the middle of Worsley village has a Walkden address (check out it's last 3 Ofsted's) and add to that that the Royal Mail doesn't even recognise Walkden at all as all M28 numbers are listed purely as Worsley! The boundaries for the Walkden North and South council wards also offer a different view. I agree wholeheartedly about your comments about the economy, I haven't edited any of that, I just added the references that were already there. The whole thing needs an overhaul and I'm really pleased you're involved.GRB1972 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I hadn't really intended to do much, but I just edited the first sentences and I'm a bit worried there won't be much left if I carry on :-( You obviously know the area better than I do so perhaps a joint effort :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I was born there and go back to see friends so I like keeping an eye on it, there's a lot of change afoot in terms of retail with Tesco supposedly building Europe's biggest supermarket and the redevelopment of the Ellesmere Shopping Centre (again!) currently taking place,  , and there needs to be as in 2009 it was allegedly the 3rd worst affected town by the recession in the UK! Anyway, I agree a team effort sounds like a plan! :) GRB1972 (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great, I made a little start but really I wanted to delete it so at the mo I am sitting on my hands. If you like maps here's another that can go somewhere in the article, just as complicated as you said.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I did it. Hope it reads better. Now for refs--J3Mrs (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ready for GAN yet?
Do you not think that Bolton's about ready for a GA nomination? It looks pretty good to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well............ It needs a decent picture for the info box and something to replace the Post Office that isn't mentioned in the text. I thought I could do with a book to fill in some details and the notable people section (which I loathe with a passion in every settlement I edit: rant over) needs rewriting. So if anybody wants to help... I don't live in the area or I would go out with my camera, and borrow a book. But you have made my day saying you think it's ok :) I'm hopeless at judging my own work.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a nice piece of work. There a a few paragraphs that need to be cited, like the last couple of Culture and society, but overall this deserves to be a GA. Go for it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't write most of it and mostly pruned Culture and society so I'll look for some (more) references :( Still needs a decent picture. --J3Mrs (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try and help. Let's do it. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not? I still feel guilty about editing Wakefield --J3Mrs (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgive you. I've done some work on Yorkshire related articles myself recently. Make the nomination and we'll see it through. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I did that. You realise I won't sleep tonight now :( By the way I think there's a poem about Hull, hell and Halifax which is gibbett related. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here it is --J3Mrs (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's an interesting story to be told there. From what I've read, most of those executed had stolen textiles, which had to be laid out to dry in fields in those days. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Cakes and wine, or wine and cakes? I'd go for both, a better balance. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think goods to the value of 13 pence. I have gone for the cakes & wine, wine & cake option. I'd better shop tomorrow. I'm just thinking I'll have to give up GAs or I might put on weight :( I've found two more refs.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Does every single sentence need citing? This isn't much fun :( --J3Mrs (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. What needs citing is non-common-knowledge facts, statistics, quotations, and anything you think someone else might find difficult to swallow, like "Bolton was once voted the eighth wonder of the world". Even I couldn't swallow that one. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I've definately had enough for tonight, a shower of cite tags (doesn't look too good at GAN)is enough for me to start on the wine, which I think I might even though it's late. My problem is the bits (ie quite a lot) I didn't write. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There doesn't seem anything too major in the comments, and while sourcing can be laborious there's only one "citation needed" tag left (you can always cheat and remove that sentence). I'm confident it will get through. I think it deserves to anyway! Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find the Sleepers link :( What happened to the help MF???--J3Mrs (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll probably have to remove the link or go for Sleepers. Being a redlink won't be a problem. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I mean I can't even find the word in the text! I have no idea what it's about until I do. --J3Mrs (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that Bolton was being reviewed until just now. I can be so very slow sometimes; I'll take a look. The main thing is "DON'T PANIC, DON'T PANIC". :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise it was the reviewer until I'd had my little moan. I've been busy since. I'm off now until tomorrow. I've already panicked, Nev1 has been looking after me. --J3Mrs (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you're in very good hands. Just wish he'd look after me as well. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I really must learn not to panic!!! but I really was taken by surprise, I thought I'd have a week or so to read it again but now it's over and done with and the GM project has another GA. I have to say that was the worst experience yet mainly due to the timing. Will you do the honours and put a sticker on the map. --J3Mrs (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well done! I didn't expect it to be reviewed so quickly either, so I missed the whole thing. Luckily Nev1 was on the ball though. I'll add the sticker for Bolton. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, I have a section to write yet for Astley if you'd like to have a look, I'd really appreciate your opinion. I've written quite a lot about some of these smaller settlements around the area (especially the ones nobody else would ever write, Shakerley, Little Hulton, Boothstown, one leads to another when I'm bored) but there's very little to compare then with. --J3Mrs (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Astley's coming along nicely. I'd probably consider moving the Damnhouse and Morleys Hall stuff from History to Landmarks, which is looking a bit thin anyway. The smaller a place, the more difficult it can be to get the same amount of information on larger places, so I'd probably also consider merging some of the small sections if they can't be expanded much beyond their present size. A combined Demographics and economy section, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

yum yum


andyzweb (talk) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Manchester Town Hall
Thanks for that. Seems it might be a chapter from the following book? http://www.routledgearchitecture.com/books/Re-shaping-Cities-isbn9780415492911 Pit-yacker (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Parish Church of St George, Tyldesley
Hello; thanks for asking me to look at this article. I'm no expert on anything in particular, but I have written a lot (too many?) articles on churches. I guess I've developed my own idiosyncrasies, and will try not to persuade you too much with them. It's a nice start, and is already much better than many church articles around. Incidentally, I've corrected the coordinates, and changed "archdeanery" to "archdeaconry". You are very much following the pattern I have used - history, then architecture, then anything else interesting. I would personally move some of the more "historical" material from Structure to History - the extension in 1886, the fires, etc. This will give you a chance to "firm up" the architecture section. Unless you have any local sources, Images of England gives you good basic material. Incidentally where did you get "Early English perpendicular" style - it's not in Images which just says "Gothick". Have a look at English Gothic architecture; Early English and Perpendicular relate to separate periods (separated by Decorated). Strictly speaking it's Gothic Revival architecture. The Buildings of England series (Pevsner) has an article on the church, but it's not all that helpful (interestingly Tyldesley is in the Liverpool and South-West Lancashire volume). I note that the west gallery is still present. There is a website about them here - and I can't find a reference to Tyldesley - perhaps you ought to tell them! This is a good website for bells, and it includes Tyldesley here. This site can give info on organs but does not say much about Tyldesley - here it is. For information about churches generally A Church Near You can help. If you like money conversion templates, this one is fun - (£0 as of 2024), - you just put in the value and the year in the appropriate places. There is little info I can find about the present state of the church - staff, services, etc. and even if you know this info, you have to find a reliable source to use for citation. I've rambled on a bit, but some of it might be helpful for this and other church articles you tackle. I like your photo. Hope you don't mind if I make the odd edit/addition if I spot anything. Good luck (church articles are much easier than geography ones). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the GM people are a bit expert and enthusiastic, and this can lead to them being a bit intimidating, but their hearts are in the right place and they are "good" for WP (and us). Cheers. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean "obsessive and demanding". Go on, we can take it! lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, all that and more, but you don't scare me! --J3Mrs (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I thought I was having a private conversation with you! They're not "scary", but they have high expectations.  The main thing about WP is to enjoy it, have fun, and do things "properly".  MF does not tolerate fools; so if you're not a fool (as you are most certainly not), you're OK.  And it's not only good fun, but we're providing something useful for the outside world, something that will live for perpetuity. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for your message. You will find a complete list of promoted GAs here. The ones with which I was involved are St Mary's Church, Acton, St Mary's Church, Nantwich, and St Mary's Church, Nether Alderley (the common dedication is a coincidence). You will find more church articles in the same (Architecture) section and others in the "Religion, mysticism and mythology: Religious movements, traditions and organizations" section. Your article is coming along nicely, although a fair way to go yet if you're thinking of GAN (and why shouldn't you?). I've a few thoughts to offer, but am going out soon, so will come back to you within the next day or so. Cheers. PS There are some church articles in "Category:Church of England churches in East Sussex" largely by another editor whose work I seek to emulate. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So here's a few thoughts. The lead will have to be longer, but the best time to do this is when the article is nearer completion, and then you can compose it as a summary.  I have switched from infobox:religious building to infobox:church for similar articles.  It gives potentially more information, including, when you can get it, the names of the vicar/rector, etc.  I've had a go at doing one for this article here; if you prefer it, just copy it across; if not, no problem.  There's no need to link "England".  "diocese of Manchester" leads to a disambig page; you need to clarify the link.  "They" don't like short paragraphs (1 or 2 sentences); combine them when possible.  The last three paras in the Structure section really belong in History.  I'll try to add a bit about the fittings and furniture from Pevsner.  To get to GA you'll need, I think, something about the present day activities of the church; don't know where you'll get this; and you'll need some published references.  I've added a category, and project banners to the talk page, and reassessed the article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Award!
Well thank you, I never even thought about it.;-) I'd rather have a little green sticker for getting Astley to GA but I'm stuck :( --J3Mrs (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all! I might seem a little superficial, but it is a sincere thank you and a gesture for you to keep up the great work (Wigan's neglect on WP:GM always worried me you know...). I'll see if I can help with Astley - at a glance the groundwork is there, it's just lacking a bit of magic. --Jza84 | Talk  13:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do know it's sincere, and I am touched that someone appreciates my efforts, and I know Astley is nearly there but I am just rubbish at finishing things off.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little ignorant to Astley so I've struggled with some of the details. However, it gives me the advantage to do a good thorough and honest peer review. I've left one on the talk page. I've also put it on my watchlist. --Jza84 | Talk  19:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was grateful you had a look, I never expected this! Obviously I have not made Astley clear to the uninitiated.:-) First thanks for the Lead, I have put right what was not obvious to you in it. I think I can put most of the rest right. Like most of its neighbours Astley only appeared in the early 1200s. It never was as industrialised as its neighbours in spite of having the biggest pit. It seems to have completely avoided English Civil War, Wars of the Roses, Black Death. Population figs I have found only appear combined with Tyldesley and I have looked I promise. And yes Astley was in the West Derby hundred, Warrington was a manor not a hundred.

I'll take my camera next week when I visit my mum, let's hope its a fine day. I'm no PoD but I have a few geographs to my name. I rather like that canal pic! I don't mind brutal by the way, MF does it so well! Only way to learn. I will excuse my sloppiness by saying, 1, I am old(ish), 2, I am technophobic, 3, I type with 1 finger, 4, I frequently lose my specs. and I am the world's slowest editor!!! But thank you.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition of images
Well done on your addition of images of Leeds. Your picures may be better placed on Commons as they can be used on any Wikipedia project and can also be put towards the database we are building of such images. I would recommend you take a look around the database and add them to that. They can still be used on Wikipedia (in all languages). Don't worry if your not familiar with the categorisation protocol as there are many users who can ammend any errors. The images you have allready contributed will be moves as and when, so don't worry about that. Don't hesitate to ask any questions of me.

Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bank Street external link
You mean the maps that already exist on the Bank Street and North Road articles? I don't find the pictures in that article to be particularly relevant either. Furthermore, the prose of the article adds little to the content of our article anyway. Therefore, I don't believe there is any need for that article to be linked to. – PeeJay 15:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the maps in the BBC article is of North Road and one is of Bank Street. As you can see, we have exactly the same maps in those articles; in fact, I think the BBC may have actually copied the images from Wikimedia Commons for use in their own article. As for the other images, you can't actually see anything football-related going on in them as they're so small! Finally, I don't care about links on other article because they don't affect the impropriety of this link on this article. So as I said before, unless you can find a specific fact that the BBC article can be used as a citation for, it adds nothing to the article and shouldn't be included. – PeeJay 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear
You're becoming as fearsome as me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey! You told me that! I do remember odd things! Anyway I hate seeing good things spoiled! :-) --J3Mrs (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right, keep it up. BTW, what do you think of the bridge article? I've got half a mind (don't you dare say anything) to nominate it at GAN; there can't be much more to be said about it, surely. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it!! I have watched it and can't believe how much nit picking it has attracted. I didn't think it would have given you so much grief. Sorry about that. By the way I have decided to become more assertive in my old age. I don't think the category pedestrian crossing is appropriate either. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate either, so I've removed it; I hadn't noticed it was added. Don't worry about grief, I get that no matter what I write about. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Another editor added something else, so I changed that too. I can't remember what I changed it to but it's the best I could come up with. The word spurious came to mind. --J3Mrs (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Equally amazed
I'm equally amazed that we managed to make what has become a pretty good article out of Tickle Cock Bridge. If you come across any other wierd, bawdy, or just plain whacky topics, then just call the Malleus-PoD team – if you can find them. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who else would I possibly think of! :-) I really enjoyed the Wife selling too. You can do me a favour in exchange. Look at the last few edits at Bolton and tell me if I'm being unreasonable. I can take it from you! --J3Mrs (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do. Stand by. Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with you, and so I've reverted the most recent changes. Be careful not to get drawn into an edit war though, as 3RR is applied pretty indiscriminately without thought by most wikipedia admins. Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's why I asked for a second opinion from someone I really do respect. I really wouldn't have minded if you'd said I was being a pain. Apparently I am most of the time in real life. Too set in my ways to change now.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If I'd thought you were being a pain, you know that I'd have told I thought you were being a pain. Like you, I ain't gonna change now. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Who'd have believed it. Your pedestrian underpass is now a GA! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!! You said you were thinking of GAN, That was quick. And it's in Yorkshire you owe the GM project one now. And by the way there's nothing pedestrian about me!--J3Mrs (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll let you into a litle secret. I've never been to Castleford, and I've really got very little idea of where it is. Yorkshire you say? I did my bit for the GM project with the 1996 Manchester bombing, but I'm wondering when the work on Didsbury is going to take off. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You most certainly did your bit. Castleford is positively horrible, I've been twice but once was to a RL match so that doesn't count. I've written too much about Yorkshire, Wakefield, Rhubarb Triangle but I'm going to try and improve Sandal Castle which is where I was told about that bridge :-) You appear busy and I am amazed at your patience with the Donner Party, still a GA is worth a couple of glasses and in my case a cake. --J3Mrs (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have several times over the last week thought "Oh fuck it" with the Donner Party FAC, but we'll see how it ends up. I think I may go for something a little less exciting next. Maybe Husband selling. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody would buy one but it might make the main page next April 1st. --J3Mrs (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.
No of course I don't mind, thanks for helping out, appreciate the help. Tomlock01 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand prose can certainly be improved. Regards South Stand, it was the main stand at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you're edits look great too. We're gradually making progress - even if a few backwards steps are slowing it down (I'm sure you know what I mean).Tomlock01 (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a classic mistake to take an article straight from GAN to FAC. I say that as someone with experience of both; they're very different places, with very different expectations. Tom ought to have sought the advice of regular editors of the page before nominating at FAC, but he didn't. How much more damning can it be to have the main editor of the article say he doesn't think it's ready? The FAC nomination is going to crash and burn, no matter how much we might try to fix up the prose. Hopefully a lesson learned. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, given the rapid improvements in the article that took place in the hours after it was nominated for FAC, I'm happy I nominated it. In my opinion, people often take this whole thing too seriously. It got nominated, it got opposed, it got withdrawn. So what? One of my favourite quotes: "Develop success from failures. Discouragement and failure are two of the surest stepping stones to success" (Dale Garnegie). Cheesy, but true.Tomlock01 (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wakefield
Hello. I noticed you removed the Chantry Chapel of St Mary photograph from the Wakefield piece. The reason I added it is that although there is a photograph of the bridge, I felt that the facade of the Chantry Chapel is so unusual that it merited a look – and it certainly can't be seen in the bridge photograph. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It certainly is an interesting place, I have visited but the photograph is dark and does it no justice. Chantry Chapel would actually make an interesting article, I might just do that if I ever finish Wakefield. The facade is a reproduction I think. The inside is lovely, I have photographs somewhere. I'm hoping to get Wakefield to GA sometime so I was being a bit picky with photographs and there are still sections to illustrate. I might even try to get a better photograph. --J3Mrs (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your point about the photograph. I was trying to find a better one, but that was the best geograph had to offer right now. A better photograph that showed the facade would be a wonderful addition to the piece, I think. Good luck with the push to get Wakefield to GA. Incidentally, I agree that the Chantry Chapel would be a wonderful stand-alone entry. It would make a great piece for DYK.MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Stonegate
Was Stonegate part of York back in the 16th century, when Guy Fawkes was born? Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. I have noted the irony that I've ended up doing more work on Yorkshire articles than I have on GM articles over the last few months. The world has gone mad! :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I know Stonegate is a street in York, not far from the church where he was baptised. I think it was also a ward in times past. I walked along it today. There is a Blue Plaque in High Petergate. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't read what the plaque says. Is that pub on the site of the house where Guy Fawkes was born? Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It says underneath the picture, "GUY FAWKES BORN HERE APRIL 13th 1570 The notorious gunpowder plotter who attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament on November 5th 1605. He was hung, drawn and quartered in Westminster London January 31st 1606." Sorry for delay in replying, long day. By the way I think house is a better word than "cottage" for York. There is apparently another nearby house on the corner of High Petergate and Stonegate that also claims to be the birthplace.--J3Mrs (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Clitherow
Sorry about that, the category hierarchy had "Yorkshire saints" within Category:Northumbrian Saints which in turn is in Anglo-Saxon Saints. Part of what I am doing as I go through these articles is fixing the hierarchies of the categories within Anglo-Saxon England. Some categories that aren't necessarily inclusive are categorized poorly for this topic field. Thank You. Sadads (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edith Jackson
I reverted your edit for the time being, as unfortunately the source doesn't say what her name was while married. It was almost certainly Fawkes but I can't really say for sure, but I doubt she was Edith Jackson while married as the source also uses "former". What about 'nee' or similar? Parrot of Doom 19:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's just that "former" sounds odd. I just looked them up on the Mormon site and it gives Blake ??? Edward FAWKES OF FARNLEY Birth:  1535   York, Yorkshire, England,  Death:  14 JAN 1579

Marriages: Spouse: Edith BLAKE  Family, Marriage: 1560, York, Yorkshire, England. This is however the Mormon site and it is not noted for its accuracy :)--J3Mrs (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's confusing. Its probably safest to go with Fraser's "Edith Jackson" right now since she's a bit of an authority on the matter.  I wonder if Edith remarried a few times?  Puzzling. Parrot of Doom 20:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined now to believe that Edith Blake is the correct name of Fawkes's mother. Edith Jackson was after all the name Fawkes gave to his interrogators, but he also said he came from Nethergate and that his father's name was Thomas. Why would he lie about his father's name but not his mother's? That doesn't make any sense to me, so I think we should go with what the ODNB says. I think Antonia has got it wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the ODNB says Jackson but other sources say Blake. I've also been discussing this on PoD's page, (I'm very untidy). . I only said I thought former was unnecessary, I think the convention when naming parents is just to state the mother's maiden name. However I may not be right. (btw I agree about house, it's just that cottage seemed so inappropriate in York)--J3Mrs (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The ODNB does say Jackson, you're quite right. My mistake. I still incline towards Edith Blake though, as I just don't see why Fawkes would lie about everything except his mother's maiden name. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to note ...
... that the effort to get this article up to FAC has stalled. I guess some editors prefer to have everything their own way, instead of listening to reason. BTW, I'll leave you to deal with the transformation of Bolton into a beguiling holiday destination. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not surprised, not interested. Don't abandon me to Bolton! I am not Rovington's favourite editor as I seem to remember cutting some other stuff that was unnecessary. I made a suggestion on his talk page. Bolton, holiday destination, don't see it somehow. I might finish off Astley sometime, that isn't a holiday destination either although I know where they sell good cakes there. --J3Mrs (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got my eye on Bolton, so don't worry, you're not on your own. I'm sure Nev1's watching it as well. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Commons
What was the difference between uploading File:Earthwork and motte Lowe Hill.JPG here (as you did) and uploding it to the Commons (as you should have done)? &mdash; RHaworth 07:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked you a question above. You did not answer it. Please always upload free-use images to the Commons. In the case of images from geograph, please use Magnus' tool. &mdash; RHaworth 06:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at Commons & Magnus tool, I thought them too confusing and I do NOT wish to log in anywhere else. Not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is a computer expert. I uploaded from the page I was working on, if this is the wrong thing to do it is Wikipedia's fault, not mine. Please do not leave me any more messages as I have not broken Wikipedia and the answer will always be the same. -- J3Mrs (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I simply do not understand how uploading to the Commons can be even fractionally more confusing than uploading here. I offer you one more enticement: consider, for example, File:Tyldesley Town Hall.JPG. You uploaded this. It was deleted as "media file available on Commons" but it is not now immediately obvious where the image is. If you had uploaded it to the Commons yourself, it would still be accessible via your upload log and probably via Daniel's tool. Having said that, I will mark you as selfish and stubborn and trouble you no more. &mdash; RHaworth 01:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If I believed that there was any justice in wikipedia's governace than I would have no hesitation in demanding that you were desysopped for this and the many other similarly abusive comments that seem to have become your modus operandi. I give you fair warning though that if you persist in your abuse then I will be at the head of those calling for you to be sanctioned. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "I simply do not understand how uploading to the Commons can be even fractionally more confusing than uploading here"; if that is the case RHaworth, might I suggest that you take a moment of your undoubtedly valuable time to find out why that is the case? Perhaps ask a question or two. Opportunities to make a user interface more friendly should not be dismissed out of hand because you don't understand. That's your failing, not someone else's. It is easy for people who have done something hundreds, perhaps thousands of times to forget how difficult or involved it was the first time. Nev1 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think RHaworth's last sentence says more about him than it does about me. I may be wrong, but I thought making personal attacks on other editors was frowned upon. I attempted to reply politely but now feel extremely harrassed by his remarks. I will say once more I feel confident adding content to Wikipedia, but its workings completely baffle me. I do NOT wish to have any other accounts or passwords and do not wish to upload to the Commons. As he feels he can make rude assumptions about me I would hope that RHaworth would respect my wish not to post on this page.--J3Mrs (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I find using Commons easier than using Wikipedia. It is an amazing source of media files; if I want an image for an article or list, I have a look on Commons, and often it is there.  Then by using its file name you can insert it into your article.


 * To contribute to it, all you have to do is to register, and give a password, and you can immediately upload anything from your own hard drive; a bit of practice and it's easy. Then you have shared your material with the rest of us and we can use it too.


 * You're not at all selfish but, just like a lot of us, confused by technology until we have become practised with it. And you're not the only one to suffer from the keyboard of RHaworth; I've had my punishment from him in the past, as I guess many more have.  Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Astley, Greater Manchester

 * Lead
 * "The Astley Mosley Common ward of Wigan MBC had a population of 11,654 in the 2001 Census." It's not immediately obvious what the relastionship of this ward is to Astley. Presumably all of Astley is within it, but does the ward cover other areas as well?
 * Done that


 * "... its textile factory closed in 1955 ...". The previous paragraph talks about a "cotton mill", but "textile factory" seems a bit broader than that. Is it the same place?
 * Done that


 * History
 * I can see the temptation to include the account of the Damhouse in this section, but it doesn't work for me. At present it's a subsection of Middle Ages, but it begins with a sale in 1606, which is quite a bit later than most people would accept as being even in the Late Middle Ages, but it carries on until 1994. I'd strongly suggest moving that material to the Landmarks section.
 * What about calling the Middle Ages section Manor as there's a lot in Damhouse about other things and dropping the Damhouse heading?
 * I think that would be a lot better.


 * Geography
 * "By convention, Astley spans an area of ...". "Convention" is a strange word to use here. Whose or which convention?
 * Done that


 * Governance
 * "Today, Astley and Mosley Common form an electoral ward ...". I always think it's best to timestamp this kind of statement, as in "As of 2010, ...".
 * Done that


 * Transport
 * "The Astley coal mines had a railway system, Gin Pit Colliery Railway was linked to the Tyldesley Loopline at Jackson's sidings and to neighbouring Bedford Colliery and Speakman's Sidings." There's something wrong with this sentence, but I can't decide whether there should be a fullstop after "Gin Pit Colliery Railway", or if there's a missing "which" after it.
 * Done that


 * "A boatyard was established by Lingards Bridge." This is potentially slight ambiguous. When I first read it I thought that "Lingards Bridge" was the name of the man who established the bridge boatyard.
 * It probably was but I'll try to clarify
 * Sorry, I meant established the boatyard.


 * Landmarks
 * "The Hall passed through the Legh and Wilkinson families until it was sold to Tyldesley Urban District Council for purposes connected with the disposal of sewage." That "for purposes connected with the disposal of sewage" sounds rather mysterious.
 * Awful isn't it, I'll change it.


 * Public utilities
 * I think a little about policing (GMP presumably, do you know which division?) rubbish and sewage disposal, public library services, healthcare centres, nearest hospital and so on would be a useful addition.
 * you never suggested that for the others but ok, I'll find out.
 * That's because you've got a lot better at writing these artcles now, so I'm pushing you a bit. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than the points I've mentioned above (you can consider the Public utilities section an optional extra if you like), I think this would make a creditable GA, and I don't see why you ought not to be pretty confident in nominating it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My sister is looking up the boatyard. I did Public Services. Thank you so much for your time, I didn't mean to take you away from your new articles :-), why new articles? Tomorrow I might even visit Damhouse, they do exceedingly good cake. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless you create lots of new articles some around here consider you to be a bit of a deadbeat, or worse, a wikignome. Heaven forbid! @lol: Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you up for it?
Depending on how Astley goes, how do you fancy taking one of your articles to FAC? It'll be tough, it always is, but obviously I'll help. Only fair to warn you though that you might need to order extra supplies of cake if you say "yes". ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As you may have gathered stress and I are incompatible. This seems like a big step. Can I think about it?--J3Mrs (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, but if you think it might cause you unnecessary stress then forget it. Your articles are plenty good enough as they are. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not really stressed, yesterday I was annoyed. Today I am a stalker! but I'm not stalking you. If Astley doesn't prove too much of a problem, as you've been generous with your time, I will probably say yes, depending on which one you think has the best chance. I take it that this is not a legally binding contract.:-) --J3Mrs (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no rush, take your time. You might want to check with Peter I. Vardy, who commented above on the Commons nonsense. He's had some "issues" with FAC in the past, with his Runcorn article. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter has helped me before, (I only consult the best) so I looked up Runcorn and read the reviews :-( and Peter remained so composed, could I do that? Then I looked at Atherton and decided there were bits even I could see, (I'm sure there are more), which took an hour and I'm sure the expert nit-pickers would have a field day. I daren't look at the others! :-) The editor who thought Bolton wasn't touristy enough thinks I'm stalking him because I dared edit Rivington Pike. I think I'll have to work on developing a much thicker skin or a duck's back.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to put words in Peter's mouth, I feel I'd be fairly safe in saying that his view would be that improving a lot of articles is better than concentrating just on one. And I have a lot of sympathy with that; you know the effort it takes to get an article through GAN, now double it for FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Malleus is correct...and yet getting the "badges" can be seductive. Even I have been seduced into working towards one FA and 16 GAs (plus a few lists and topics); and am about to subject myself to another FAC soon! Malleus (and Nev1) are right in saying that you can learn a lot in the process - if you can take the pain. But at the end of the day we are writing an encyclopedia for the benefit of its readers, now and in the future, so the badges should really be incidental (IMO).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I often say that good enough is good enough, the best ought not to be the enemy of the good. FAC takes a lot of effort, and maybe it's not always worth it. I've written quite a few GAs that I never intend to take to FAC, because I think they're good enough as they are, Trafford Park for one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I won't bother with FA and it's nothing to do with the two of you. I hurt my foot and spent yesterday at the keyboard. I thought I'd improve the Rivington article that was in an awful state. Got some great help but them another editor, well...... The outcome of all this is I just don't think I'd survive the FAC process, it's hard enough trying to keep Bolton at a decent standard without it becoming overloaded. I have learned a lot, from you Peter and MF, Jza84 and Nev1, and I know how little I know. I am actually very proud of those little green stickers but doubt I have the temperament or the will to indulge in the flagellation it appears to involve. I'm also extremely flattered, MF, that you even thought it possible, I cherish that too. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably the right choice, to be honest. I think that geography articles are amongst the hardest to write anyway. Have you thought about trying your hand at a good witchcraft trial? Lancashire was chok-a-block with them during the 17th century. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I like Geography articles, there's an available plan and I think I'm almost doing it on autopilot!!! Have a look at what I did to Rivington. I think I'm treading on toes there. Anyway I thought witchcraft was your forte. I wouldn't dare tread on your toes. :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I just worked on a few witchcraft articles to try and raise the bar a bit; I never expected to have to write them all. My time here is about done now I think. It's a toss up whether I just get bored and finally piss off or some admin plank decides to start another fight with me, which will inevitably end with my last ever block. Keep up the good work. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Astley, Greater Manchester
Hi J3Mrs, you better get so cake in tomorrow (and some wine for MF). Just in case. :-) Pyrotec (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again, have abandoned cake in favour of chocolate, fewer crumbs. The wine is in stock. I think MF likes beer.--J3Mrs (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, again. I've been a member of the Chocolate Testing Club for well over 8.5 years (I've forgotten when I joined), so I could not agree more. However they were not needed after all. There are a couple of broken web links, but I've passed it without a hold. Congrats: A good article as well as a Good Article. I see you took most of the pics as well. Pyrotec (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that was painless, I had help! Jza84 and MF. I would send you the chocolate, but I think I'll have it to celebrate. It's near where I came from and my very aged parent still lives locally. Nobody else would ever dream of writing about the ancient townships of Leigh parish so some odd compulsion drove me to it. Thank you for your kind words, I will endeavour to fix the links.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rivington
Yep, its looking better. Some slight changes in text maybe needed later but its good as I write - thanks. (Rovington (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC))


 * I thought you may find this section from Wm Fergusson Irvines 1904 work interesting, I forgot I had this, it was scanned by a relative back in 2002 or 03 and its been sat on my web site but not linked, its located at | Wm Fergusson Irvine on Place Names  a small size file and its scan level makes the text far easier to read than the later scan online.  He mentions both variations of name in his work, but also notes two names for Rivington Pike, neither are included in the Pike article. Its an interesting read if you are interested in place names. Let me know what you think,  regards --Rovington (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations for Horwich
Hello, could you assist by adding the citations for the Horwich article, a large sections was citing 'History of Horwich, its legends and its Church', Thomas Hampson, 1883, Horwich Chronicle office, now available at Bolton Library. There is a large block of text missing the citation. Thanks in advance --Rovington (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Book citations need page references. I simply don't understand your referencing system. I can put the book into a bibliography but I can't add page numbers. --J3Mrs (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The simplest way to add page numbers is by using the template .  It is simple to complete; in this case  and add the page number; do this for every citation.  You can see how this works in an article such as Commissioners' church.  It's quite clever because if you click on the reference in the "Notes" section, it jumps to the specific book in the "Bibliography" section.  If there are two authors (or more) just expand it in this manner -   To see this at work have a look at 14 Prince's Gate, London.  It even works with multiple authors, and then comes out as "Name1 et al".  Very simple and clever.  Try it.  --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Peter, you explained that far better than I ever could. I have cited loads of books but the problem is I don't have the page numbers, the other editor, I presume, has the book. My biggest problem here is I simply don't understand what I'm doing, I just do it and use what I know works for me. I'm probably far too idle to take an interest in something that has little appeal. Perhaps the other editor can do it now as I have put the book in the Bibliography for him. --J3Mrs (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It sure is a problem if you don't have the book! Cheers.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)