User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 10

Boddingtons
I've noticed you doing some good work at the Boddies article, and I've tried to help out there as well. My overall feeling is that the text can be sorted out with a bit more work, but as I said at the article's FAC, I think the referencing is shambolic; it'll never get through FAC in that state. There seems to me as well to be a general confusion throughout the article as to whether it's an article about the company or about the bitter. Which I have very fond memories of (the bitter, not the company), and why the FAC caught my eye. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I am incapable of anything technical, I can only help a bit with words. I saw a message on the GM page and like to help there if I can, especially as the GM crowd (who all seem to have vanished) have helped me more than I can say. Looks like Mr Stephen is pitching in too. I know someone setting up a craft brewery so I wish there had been more about the beer! J3Mrs (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be interesting to look at the history of that GM project, which does seem to have gone from being one of the most active to almost moribund. But I guess nothing lasts for ever. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to help out but I'm torn between lots of work this year, and a new article that I think will take some considerable time to do justice. Besides which, Boddies is rank. Parrot of Doom 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like it now either ... it was a teenage thing. But I still have fond memories of Melanie Sykes in those adverts. Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not quite moribund, the life-support system switches on occasionally, either that or they rise from the dead, see above. {PS PoD I looked at what you're writing - that takes me back) Mr Stephen looks to have sorted out a lot of references too.J3Mrs (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want moribundity, look at the Cheshire project. Anyway, GM folks, take a look at this.  --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I expect the Cheshire project does better work than most projects Peter, you should know, you do most of it! And as to that another "Wow"! I wish I had your patience. J3Mrs (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me mss J3Mrs Who do you think you are to undo all my good work on the Astley manchester page I Live in astley vilage and And evrything i sed was tru so who do you think you are to change my work !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.158.179 (talk • contribs)


 * Someone who, unlike you, has some idea of what they're doing? Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Church of Saint Mary, Whitby
Would you like me to add you to the creator/expander for DYK? I was thinking something along the lines of "...that St Mary's Church,Whitby was the setting for a scene from Bram Stoker's Dracula?" with the awesome sunset picture I put in the infobox.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You can if you like but I don't do DYK any more and I only expanded it because I hate popular culture sections and I thought the church, which I know well, deserved more coverage. I was very pleased to see you had created the article but I think something about the church as well would be nice.J3Mrs (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll add you, you nearly doubled it.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

George Gissing
I noticed your copyediting of this article. Nice work! I have a habit of including redundancies when editing articles, so it's helpful to have another editor's eye making things more concise and readable. Take care, Moswento talky 18:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you're welcome, it's been on my watchlist for a while. :-) J3Mrs (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Church of Saint Mary, Whitby
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you going to put this on your userpage? I understand if you don't want to, but you certainly deserve it, you've done the most work on the article.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget (Re: 1996 Manchester bombing)
Just in case you've forgotten/didn't know, this article is under a 1RR restriction, and as you're the registered editor then if the anonymous IP reverts you and you revert back it'll be you who gets blocked.

The problem is that both English and British are arguably correct and arguably incorrect, as the span covered by that introductory background sentence is from 1603 (when Ireland came under English control) to 1920 (when the Republic was partitioned from Britain). I went with British control rather than English to avoid the implication that Ireland was under English control in 1920. Anyway, be careful; anything to do with The Troubles is a minefield for the unwary. Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't know, so thanks :-) J3Mrs (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Images
Please consider indicating you license the Middleton Circus Image as CC-BY-SA.

It's already been useful in fixing some data in OpenStreetMap.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Deckham
I noticed you picked up the GAN comments on this article. We must have picked it up near simultaneously :) Thanks for the copy-edit the other day (I've been largely away from here for the last few days since I finished the Middleton review) and thanks for helping me make those little amendments today. Meetthefeebles (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it'll be ok, I left it on my watchlist, I noticed the error he pointed to first was mine. :-( Here's hoping, good luck. J3Mrs (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Middleton Circus.JPG
It seems that the licence wasn't added by you but by a different user, see. Could you confirm that you agree to license the image under the current licences? That is, GFDL 1.2 or later and CC-BY-SA 3.0. Images are frequently deleted if the licences were added by someone other than the uploader, see Commons:Template:GFDL-presumed, and it would be unfortunate if your picture ends up being deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how to do this and would prefer my images were not uploaded to the Commons. J3Mrs (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Lancs NUM bagde.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lancs NUM bagde.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited River Irk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burgess (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) 04:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Saddleworth Moor
I see you reverted my edit to Saddleworth Moor. My reasoning was that (given the perennial media interest in the Moors murderers, particularly at the moment) well-meaning editors will continue to expand this section, and my subheading and template were an attempt to forestall that (I understand the use of summaries with a link to a main article; not everyone does). I was trying to help; without something like this I fear that you will be fighting a losing battle trying to stem the tide. If you feel strongly, I think you should at least add something about it to the talk page, otherwise this will continue happening. Like it or not, I think it's undeniable that Saddleworth Moor's main notability is for the Moors murders, so (a) I'm not surprised that there's a tendency for this section to grow, even though I understand why you and others might wish it otherwise; (b) with nothing on the talk page, even careful editors are likely to edit as they see fit (most people won't look at edit summaries in the article history, they'll just dive in and edit); (c) personally I think my edit was beneficial to the article and a subheading is justified. I was essentially following the guidance at WP:SUMMARY which seems highly relevant to this situation. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a link, it does not need more. I am willing to remove information as WP:UNDUE. Who reads the talk page before editing? I don't and neither does anyone adding this stuff. It would be more useful to add relevant material about geology, flora and fauna but subheadings in such a short article can only inspire editors to expand it. J3Mrs (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Copied to Talk:Saddleworth Moor, which I think is the best place for this discussion. For what it's worth, I read talk pages. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good for you but unfortunately most dont.J3Mrs (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Butting in, I think there's an argument that a "main article" template could be used in an article about, for example, a notable tributary of a larger river, but there's no obvious connection between moorland and murder other than the actions of Brady and Hindley. I agree with J3Mrs, a link to Moors murders is fine.  You might not believe it but I walk up there occasionally, and there are hundreds of members of the public enjoying the view.  I doubt any of them go up there for any other reason. Parrot of Doom 19:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Tyldesley
Nice addition that new Public services section. I just popped by to see if you were aware that you've got a couple of sources missing from the Bibliography: Poole (2002) and Youngs (1991). Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I have been meaning to update it for ages, and finally got round to it. Thank you for tidying up after me. The Public services section was easy as I only had to check the refs from one I did elsewhere. 07:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)~

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tyldesley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Urban district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Soliciting your opinion
I've just finished a GA review of Carr Hill, nominated by an editor I think you're familiar with. I'm wondering whether you, as a relatively neutral observer, think that I demanded too much during the review, which you can find here. Be as forthright as you like, you won't hurt my feelings, as I'm convinced the article is way better now than when it was nominated, which is all I care about really. Malleus Fatuorum 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey ho, I must admit to being a bit nosey and looking in and correcting a spelling, as I extensively copyedited another article in that neck of the woods, Sheriff Hill which has remarkable similarities to Carr Hill. The editor writes rather like I did when I started, including too much detail and making it very local with street names etc. All good but not necessarily encyclopedic. He reviewed Middleton, Leeds which I largely wrote, but did not nominate, and gave me an interesting time demanding councillor's names and climate tables. I nearly walked away and had I not visited an old colleague to borrow the books, I would have done. I virtually had to rewrite it once I'd got my head round it. I've never been comfortable having my work reviewed and I've been lucky to get help from you, who are indeed demanding and Jza84, who was equally so, and others from the GM project. Most of what I've had reviewed has been "gone over" by someone more capable than I am, except Middleton. If an article is to get a GA sticker, I see no reason why a review would not be rigorous, I would expect it to be (that's why I avoid them). It strikes me some little green stickers are given out rather too easily. And you did rather a lot of copyediting rather than expecting someone else to do it for you!J3Mrs (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two editors who stick out in my mind from my early time here, Jza84 and Nev1 (well, there is a third, but all I'll say about Epbr123 is that I hope I never turn into a monster like him), both of whom are sadly now gone. It was Jza84 who persuaded me to join the GM project, which was really then quite a productive hotbed, from which I learned so much. There are still a few embers burning though. Malleus Fatuorum 17:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jza84 was really helpful and a tough taskmaster. The GM members all helped me when I started, I thought you all were so knowledgeable and all a bit scary until I realised none of you were. You were all rigorous which is what this project lacks. I learned a lot from the project too, (but nothing technical I'm pleased to say :-) ) I used to agonise over pressing the save button and having re-read Tyldesley I was right!J3Mrs (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)