User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 9

Old Trafford
Hi J3Mrs,

I take your point about Gtr Mcr being too a big area to say Old Trafford'a a part of it. The thing I find odd is the claim that Old Trafford is "an inner city area of Stretford". I know people who live in Old Trafford and others who live in Stretford and to me, and them, they are adjacent but separate areas. Haldraper (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It helps if you bring sources to the table. The Victoria County History notes that in 1911 Old Trafford was part of Stretford and statistics.gov.uk includes Old Trafford in its data for Stretford (first link in the search). Nev1 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How about just saying that Old Trafford is a part of Stretford, Greater Manchester? J3Mrs (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. Nev1 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're wrong but as you say I need to find some sources to back up the fact that they're separate areas. Haldraper (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Trafford Council certainly seem to regard Old Trafford and Stretford as separate areas. Haldraper (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A neighbourhood forum doesn't prove anything. If you're saying Old Trafford isn't part of Stretford because it has its own forum, by that measures Altrincham North and Altrincham South wouldn't be part of Altrincham. Nev1 (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Same happens in most councils. This is a map of the township boundary.J3Mrs (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nev, I was thinking more of the fact that the two are separate wards whose separate boundaries are shown on the map on the Trafford council website. Haldraper (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * J3Mrs, the township map on the GENUKI website shows the boundaries before 1850, not the current ones as on the Trafford website. Haldraper (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The map you linked to shows ward boundaries, not township boundaries. Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Old Trafford isn't a ward, in fact it's part of the Longford ward. Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Old Trafford is covered by the Clifford ward. Haldraper (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected, it's part of both wards. Nev1 (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Vision of Britain thinks it's in Stretford too. .J3Mrs (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Stretford Town Hall is in Old Trafford. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, and Trafford Council gives its address on their web site as Trafford Town Hall, Talbot Road, Stretford, Manchester. Not Old Trafford. The bottom line Haldraper, like it or lump it, is that Trafford comprises four townships: Altrincham, Sale, Stretford, and Urmston. Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is MF whether these townships have any legal or official basis any longer. I know they did before 1850 but they surely have been superseded by the modern constituencies and wards?

The original (1879) Stretford Town Hall was at the corner of Chester Road and Edge Lane; Trafford Town Hall in Talbot Road only dates from 1931. Haldraper (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The consensus appears to be that it is part of Stretford so I will move that pointless tag. J3Mrs (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Four editors consider it to be in Stretford, which is covered by several wards. Haldraper has provided no evidence to the contrary but continues to revert. How long does the discussion have to continue before he realises he's wrong?J3Mrs (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The clearest evidence that they are two distinct areas is that they're in different postcode districts: M32 for Stretford and M16 for Old Trafford. The boundary between the two along Warwick Road takes account of this so that the Cricket and Football Grounds are, as their name suggests, in Old Trafford whereas the town hall on Talbot Road is in Stretford. Haldraper (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All that shows is that there are two different postcodes, saying that shows Old Trafford isn't a part of Stretford is stretching it. There are parts of Altrincham with a Warrington (WA) postcode but it's still part of Trafford. I can't help feeling this is a re-run of discussions WP:GM had four or five years ago. Nev1 (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nev, I'm not sure your Altricham-Warrington analogy really stands up. Presumably the person who drew the boundary between the M16 and M32 postcode areas didn't do so arbitrarly but to reflect the division between Old Trafford and Stretford on the ground. Haldraper (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Postcodes are for the convenience of the Post Office. This is becoming tedious.J3Mrs (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mosley Common, M28 is part of Tyldesley, M29. It happens all over. Oh and it has an 0161 dialling code while Tyldesley is 01942. J3Mrs (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes J3Mrs, the guy at the post office just closed his eyes and drew a line. The fact that Old Trafford cricket and football grounds are in M16 and Stretford Town Hall in M32 is pure chance. Haldraper (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're getting into the realm of silliness, they drew the line with their eyes open. J3Mrs (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of drawing on postcodes and internet forums, can you present a reliable source that says Old Trafford is not a part of Stretford? So far the weight of evidence is against you. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nev, you're asking me to prove a negative there. I doubt anyone has written "Old Trafford is not part of Stretford", just as no one has ever written "England is not part of France". On the other hand, I still haven't seen any evidence that it is, apart from a map showing that they were part of the same township before 1850. The "internet forum" you refer to is actually Trafford Council website's defintion of the areas covered by its wards. Haldraper (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to have been following this discussion as demonstrated by the fact you think the forums are based on wards. I recommend reading this thread top to bottom and all the links. Nev1 (talk)


 * You're not being asked to prove a negative. If you believe that Old Trafford is distinct from Stretford, then present a source that says so. Parrot of Doom 16:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "can you present a reliable source that says Old Trafford is not a part of Stretford?" asked Nev. If that isn't being asked to prove a negative, I don't know what is. Haldraper (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well look at it in a postive light and do as PoD suggested.J3Mrs (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about J3Mrs, and neither I suspect have you. Haldraper (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comprehension skills are of no interest, but I would prefer you not post insults here. J3Mrs (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Old Trafford was in the Stretford Municipal Borough until 1974 when the whole of Stretford including Old Trafford was incorporated into Trafford. That Stretford is covered by several wards is simply a reflection of the size its population. This, as I pointed out earlier, is a much more recent map. 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rossendale Valley
Hi,

I notice you've done a little with this article. Have you noticed my rant on the talkpage? Although I am now aware that the name is in common use, I still find it a bit ridiculous. I've been trying to find a source that will explain A> When and why someone felt sticking the Valley on the end was a good idea? B> Just how far it extends? Any ideas? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just get rid of spam. I hadn't read the talkpage and have no idea when the name was adopted. However there is no river Wensley in Wensleydale either, just the village.J3Mrs (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't the Rossendale bit I have any issue with, I don't know where the Rossen comes from, Red or Rose maybe, but it's been around for centuries. And I believe there is the odd dale out there that isn't named for a river. Rossendale Valley is much more recent, and I don't know of anywhere else where inhabitants forgot the dale means valley, and it is bugging me that I can't find out why it seems to have happened here? Oh well I guess I find out one day --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The etymology is Celtic apparently, Valley is of course redundant. I'll keep my eyes open on our travels.J3Mrs (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Two asides, with apologies for their tangentiality. There is an area of Yorkshire called "Snotterdale" and the apocryphal story is that some early BBC reporter turned up there and asked a local for the name of the "dale" he was in. Their response was "Snotterdale", meaning that he was fundamentally incorrect because "it is not a dale". The reporter reported without understanding the accent, and the rest is history. The second aside does actually have an article here - Great Fryup Dale. Back in the days when I used to spend a week or two hiking around the area, we always made sure to pitch our tents out in the wild there, purely so that we could have a great fry-up in that dale for breakfast. Even the supposed veggies made an exception for that one (& it certainly was not an exception made on the basis of my cooking ability using a meths burner). - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No apology required, been to Great Fryupdale, though never fried bacon, could never be a veggie as I'm particularly fond of good bacon. Love the North York Moors, it's where we had our honeymoon, many moons ago.J3Mrs (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Rossendale
More often than not, you revert the spam at Rossendale before I get to it. Good work. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Luck. J3Mrs (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Somerset Coalfield
Thanks for all your copy editing of my prose on Somerset Coalfield. In one of your edit summaries you ask "Should wash houses be washeries" I think this depends on whether it was a place for the miners to shower or a place to wash the coal - I'm checking a couple of sources for clarification.&mdash; Rod talk 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, a pleasure, I'm fascinated by coal mines, hope what I've done is ok. Sometimes I'm not 100% clear and I've been gathering a few thoughts which I'll post when I get to the end. You've gathered a huge amount of info. Great stuff. PS Bath houses were pithead baths :-)J3Mrs (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got almost all the sources used in front of me at present (some of them from the local library) so if I can answer any queries fire away. On the wash house v washery I've checked Down & Warrington (p 188) which has a paragraph on the "Washery" and opens "In 1909 the copnstruction of a coal-washing plant was begun..." going on to describe the equipment and the problems encountered with it. Therefore I guess washery or washeries is the correct term & you are right about Bath houses.&mdash; Rod talk 20:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts:
 * Geology; Smith section should be last. Which estate did Smith work for, needs clarification.
 * Happy for you to change the order, but I think he did his early work on the geology of the area is worthy of a mention. He worked for the Strachey's who owned Sutton Court.


 * Transport; Is this bit "For Somerset, the turnpike phase began in 1707 with the establishment of the Bath Trust, but it was not until the middle of that century that other trusts serving the coalfield were formed. The Bristol Trust, part of which passed close to the western boundary of the coalfield, was established in 1727, but it was of little importance, as Bristol was never a significant market, having its own coalfields on the Bristol Coalfield at Kingswood Chase and Coalpit Heath, and easy import of coal from South Wales." really necessary?
 * The improvement in the roads (brought about by the turnpike trusts) is significant. The nearest large centre of population, & therefore market, is Bristol so I think it is worth a comment that little of the coal from the Somerset Coalfield was sent there because transport costs from other sources was cheaper.


 * Paulton Basin. First sentence is about canal so is it the canal basin? I'm a bit confused. If it started Paulton canal basin...J3Mrs (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see why that would be confusing with synclines being called basins & terminal canal wharves being basins as well. In this particular case it is the canal basin that served..., so please feel free to change the wording to make it clearer.&mdash; Rod talk 22:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications, I've done a bit more now but am stuck on "The southern side of the basin served Brittens, Littlebrook, Paulton Ham, Paulton Hill, Simons Hill terminating at Salisbury Colliery.". Something is missing, either another tramroad or the canal?J3Mrs (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK how about "The southern side of the canal basin was connected to the pits at Brittens, Littlebrook, Paulton Ham, Paulton Hill, Simons Hill by a tramway which terminated at Salisbury Colliery." Does that make better sense?&mdash; Rod talk 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's much clearer, thanks. 21:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nico ditch
You appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please limit yourself to helpful edits194.70.181.1 (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As do youJ3Mrs (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have read the talk page, and as a consequence I reverted the original research that had been added by 194.70.181.1 before you did. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what really brasses me off about wikipedia.J3Mrs (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the only thing that brasses you off consider yourself fortunate. "I've got a little list – I've got a little list ...", but I'll spare you the details. The opening of that song is also apposite, or at least I think so: "a victim must be found". Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, just one from my list :-). The list goes up to really, really, really............ J3Mrs (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Why can't they improve the dross instead of the good stuff?" To answer your rhetorical question, perhaps because that would be seriously hard work? BTW, I visited the library earlier today and came across a recent booklet (45 pages) by Norman Redhead, GM's county archaeologist, on Bradford, with some interesting extra details on Bradford Colliery. It's part four in a series called Greater Manchester Revealed, which is worth a look if you've not already come across it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My local library is dreadful, and the world doesn't extend beyond Yorkshire. If I want something on pits I usually rely on my own books or visit the coal mining museum, which is ok but I think the old Salford Mining collection went to MoSI so it's not ideal. I'm not writing anything at the minute, just tinkering. J3Mrs (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Greater Manchester Urban Area
Hi,

Not quite sure why you instantly reverted this edit ? Calling the Greater Manchester Urban Area a metropolitan area is simply incorrect, it's an urban area (as its very name implies). Happy to take this to the talk page if you feel strongly about it, but it didn't seem that controversial?

JimmyGuano (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably because Manchester does lie in a metropolitan area, I agree the urban area is something else.J3Mrs (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hollingworth Lake
I left you a reply on my talk page. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Good manners perhaps seems rather old fashioned here
The user who filed this obviously neglected to tell you. I've already given my opinion there, can you guess what it is? Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And you can guess what mine is as it's unprintable. I shan't bother to respond.J3Mrs (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just another of Wikipedia's innumerable toothless yakking forums, so I wouldn't bother about it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, and to be reported by such a prolific contributer, oh the shame I may never revert again. Oh dear that's the red talking. :-)J3Mrs (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a really strange feature of this so-called community that anyone who's contributed significantly is expected to accept unconstrained abuse from those who haven't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So I've gathered. I really think it's a shame featured articles aren't protected, it would avoid most of the shenanigans from the pov pushers.J3Mrs (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all of us who produce significant numbers of FAs are administrators, perhaps not even most of us. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A philosophical question for you
It's seemed to me for a while now that any subject can be viewed fractally, in that the more closely you look the more detail there is to see. And which of us is qualified to know whether that detail is now or will ever be "important"? With that in mind, I created the Bradford Colliery Brickworks article yesterday, half expecting it to be speedily deleted. But it reminds me once again that the strength of Wikipedia isn't in its big articles, but in its small ones. Discuss. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I could hardly disagree having created all those colliery articles, which incidentally mostly forked off my first article. I noticed your brickworks, and yes it's important so I put a GM banner on it. What's important to me might be of no consequence to someone else, but the reverse is true too, and as you say, who's to judge? (Although I do judge what I consider to be trivia or pov pushing in articles.) There are so many interesting related snippets for which wikipedia seems an ideal repository like PoD's bridge and Sitush's botanist, just two I've enjoyed recently. And what about the amazing stuff Peter I Vardy writes, wow! J3Mrs (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

And another one. Why is this kind of vandalism allowed? Are we all supposed to stand guard over everything we've written, and be accused of ownership, or are we supposed to just stand by and watch it revert to the crap that 99.9% of Wikipedia articles are? As you know, I agonised over that article for months and months, and it was only through the gentle kicking and guidance of several editors, including you, that I finally managed to get my arse in gear. You spotted this most recent vandalism, but on another day you might not have done. This "anyone can edit" idea just stinks. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have frequently reverted all sorts of crap on the GM articles and I watchlist quite a few of yours & PoD's. It is indeed most irritating. I wouldn't let anybody edit unless they could demonstrate the ability to write a simple sentence in the past tense. I'm just going to revert some on Manchester as I can find no source. I think I've said before they should be protected. J3Mrs (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If I thought there was any chance at all of changing anything here I'd propose that all GAs and FAs were automatically semi-protected; that might at least serve as some kind of a reward for the effort. But there isn't, so I won't. Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And let me add, without sparing your blushes, that your input to the GM project has been immense. Long may it continue. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I've met my nemesis on the Lancashire Coalfield, it's far too big, and dare I say, important. Truth is I haven't got much motivation at the minute, maybe I need the proverbial boot up the backside. And nobody invited me to your meetup either.J3Mrs (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, I didn't know that, and I'd be delighted if you could spare an hour or two to come along. It's not my meetup anyway, and I only agreed to go along because ... well I'll tell you tomorrow. ;-) What's your poison? Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh I don't know about that, I haven't walked into a strange pub on my own for years now.J3Mrs (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never been to one of these meetups either, and I asked the obvious question about red carnations and so on, and Sitush kindly emailed me his mobile number. Think about gender imbalance! I'll be standing by the front door anyway, with a pint in my hand waiting for someone to collect me. If you need mobile numbers for when you arrive just email me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or email me your mobile number and I'll email you mine. I promise, no heavy breathing calls. Malleus Fatuorum 21:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest I'm not sure but we'll see. If I do come I'm not hard to spot, white hair, black coat, puzzled expression.J3Mrs (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds just like me! Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I just got back from the meetup, and I have to say I was overwhelmed by the generosity and friendship. I was a bit apprehensive, but it was all good; I even got to meet the fabled Iridescent, and Richerman, and ... you wouldn't have been the only girl there. I won't bore you with the details, but I really hope you can make the next one, which I think is in April. I'm certain you'd enjoy it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad you had a good time. I chickened out I'm afraid. With a bit more notice I might. :-)

The Lowry and Controversy on entrance policy
Hi! I was rather disappointed that you so summarily removed the addition to The Lowry page about the story about their attitude to youngsters entering the building "without supervision". It was the Salford Star that first brought the "unwritten policy" to light - and it has since spread wider, not just The Guardian. Are there other museums with a similar policy? As far as I know, none of these museums actually have it written on the websites or on their front door. So is this story worth including in Wikipedia? I would argue YES. It shows that the buildings are more than bricks and mortar and unveiling ceremonies. See, for example: Yerba Buena Center for the Arts --TTKK (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree, as I said in the edit summary many museums adopt this policy towards unaccompanied youngsters (written or unwritten) and a stunt by the Salford Star, even if it was taken up by the Guardian, doesn't deserve coverage. And I read the sources and considered what was there before removing undue reference to a stunt. I also consider undue weight has been given in the article to which you linked. J3Mrs (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with J3Mrs, if this develops into a bigger story than a line or two may be warranted, but right now it appears to be a storm in a teacup and not deserving of mention. Parrot of Doom 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And I absolutely disagree with J3Mrs. Where exactly is the evidence that "lots of galleries apply a similar policy regarding unaccompanied children"? So, just because it was a 'sting' arranged by a local paper why does that make it invalid and just a "stunt". It's exposing real injustice. And it's perfectly notable. A so-called public Art Gallery has become the preserve of those who wear the right clothes and are the right age? how pathetic. I don't see why we have to disregard a totally legitmate story carried by a national newspaper just because one editor decides they know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.200.196 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will copy this discussion to the GM Project page, in the mean time I have reverted it. J3Mrs (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm relieved to see someone above disagree with you, J3Ms. It is interesting to see, also that you think my contribution to the controversy of the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco a case of "undue weight". What today may be seen as simply a "cultural building" for "the people" in fact went through a huge battle lasting decades where "undesirable locals" who protested the project were removed. Now, with the passing of time, the story has entered the history books - a rightful phase of embarrasment for the building. As "The WikiProject Greater Manchester Award of Merit" winner you can, I realise, keep out all critical voices - as brought up by the local newspaper Salford Star. As the unsigned contributor above asked: 'Where exactly is the evidence that "lots of galleries apply a similar policy regarding unaccompanied children"?' It's sort of endemic of the non-entry for the building that the current final sentence reads: "In 2005 The Lowry brought its ticketing operation in-house to generate additional revenue to support its work. The Lowry created Quaytickets, which also promotes and sells tickets for smaller arts organisations and Manchester International Festival." It reads more like an advertisement.--TTKK (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As this conversation has continued elsewhere, I see I am not the only one who disagrees with your edit. I do agree about the last sentence and will remove the advertising. J3Mrs (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Green Child
Hi. I was rather surprised you reverted my edit about Bob Barker in the page about the Green Child. I happen to know Dr. Bob Barker personally (the author of the article within the book cited in the article) and he is not a "poet and artist" (probably the result of picking the first information when googling his name), he is a "lecturer and historian". The edit was constructive and correcting an error in the article. Please assume good faith. Earlofcambourne (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you find a reliable reference you can of course revert it. Your assertion is simply not good enough. As for AGF, I always do for well referenced additions. J3Mrs (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you locate the referenced information that proves that the author of the article is a poet and artist? It would be interesting to know why this erroneous information was created in the first place?  Please feel free to remove this edit again, but I will just contact Dr. Barker and ask him to correct this himself.  Then you will be able to have the discussion with him. Earlofcambourne (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mustering. You are quite right, my original edit did mention the paper.  I looked at the description of that myself when I made the original change.  However, I briefly talked to my wife who referred to it as an article (she's Dr. Barker's daughter) so I decided to remove the reference to "paper".  Anyway I am struggling to find a way of proving this without violating my father-in-law's privacy (or indeed my own) I suggest if you want more proof you email him yourself - you can find his address on his website House Stories I hope this helps.  Thanks for being a gatekeeper on this page but it is not unheard of for some of the original information on an article in Wikipedia to be incorrect. Earlofcambourne (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I was almost certainly the one who described Bob Barker as a "poet and artist", but I honestly can't remember where I saw him described as such. Looking again at Herbert Read Reassessed I see that Barker is described as a lecturer in philosophy, so your "lecturer and historian" seems fine to me. As to whether his contribution to the book can be described as a paper, well, Amazon describes the book as a collection of papers, which is probably why his chapter was described as such, but perhaps they could more accurately be called essays? In any case, I think your changes were reasonable, and I certainly wouldn't revert them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks MF, Google books didn't allow me to see everything I needed to see so I will add lecturer and historian. J3Mrs (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for sorting this all out. This has been a very useful experience. Earlofcambourne (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

MediaCityUK
Hello. You removed a couple of references/citations for the MediaCityUK article about BBC Radio 6 Music moving some of its programmes to MediaCityUK up from London's BBC Western House. Those other references are needed since they all as a group present a cogent and full picture of the shows, not just one single show moving up to MediaCityUK. There was a contention by another editor which had needed support and hence I added citations. I think they should go back in. Cheers. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, one ref is enough, two were almost identical and one was about the weather. This is really just a small bit of an article about MediaCity, the whole development, not BBC programmes.J3Mrs (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. The "weather girl" article about former GMTV weather girl Clare Nasir is really about her and her husband, BBC Radio 6 Music presenter Chris Hawkins relocating to the Manchester area because Chris' show will be broadcast out of there instead of London BBC Western House. Another editor questioned if only the Maconie/Radcliff show was moving, as the prior article was only seemingly about that show. I had to add that Chris' show is moving up as well as some others. That's why the other references which I had to dig up were inserted. The one article is not sufficient to make the point. See this dialogue: Talk:BBC_Radio_6_Music --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

If you take my point, I will add at least the one article. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not take your point, maybe an article on Radio 6 needs more but not this one. Every presenter moving to Salford does not need a ref. J3Mrs (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me be quite clear. The one article referenced doesn't say a show from BBC London is moving up to the new Manchester facility. Chris Hawkin's show, an original show from the launch of BBC Radio 6 Music, is moving up there as pointed out in the article. This makes the point that some of the London-based shows are moving up which is what the other editor was dubious about. I've been editing Wikipedia since January 2005, and I don't think I'm off point on this. I'll ask an admin to look at this conundrum. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a history of Radio 6 it is a mention to say staff moved to MediaCity and it does not need three refs. J3Mrs (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't belabour the point with you. I've asked someone's opinion on it. I see what you're saying but I don't think you see what I'm driving at. I've done the best I can to explain it. We've reached a dead-end. I truly regret it's turned out unsatisfactory and badly as a discussion amongst editors. I've been sorely tempted to just put one more reference back (the piece about Clare Nasir/Chris Hawkins from The Daily Express) into the article but am waiting for another opinion. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I will try again. The scope of this article is about the whole development that is MediaCity not the individual companies that now occupy it. The place for detailed histories of BBC departments is in their own articles, which are linked to this one. A good deal of effort by several editors was expended in getting this article to Good Article status and it involved getting rid of excessive material about the BBC. You are attempting to give undue weight to a detail that is important in another article but just needs a mention here.J3Mrs (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good. Thanks so much for trying. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

April Manchester WikiMeet
I am rather taking your name in vain in this thread on Malleus Fatuorum's talk page. So now you know! You have been mentioned in despatches and, really, it would be great to see you. Photographs are not compulsory, so you need have no fear there. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So I see, I'm busy in real life just now but I'll definately think about it. J3Mrs (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe
I have spent a lot of time recently on this article about the man who founded the Lancaster architectural practice that became "Paley and Austin" with many variations of those names. As you know, they designed many of the 19th and 20th-century churches in the Northwest. Sharpe was also involved in many other ventures. I have submitted it today as a FAC here and you may like to have a look at the article, and also make comments if you wish. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never reviewed a FAC before but as it's you I'll take a look when I can as I'm visiting friends just now. Sounds very interesting. :-) J3Mrs (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Drop
Well said. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm, yes! Thanks for that. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome Peter. I just noticed your new article, wow. :-) I expect it's safe as it's more than two minutes old. J3Mrs (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Bradford Colliery
There was was some activity there today, as you obviously know, and it led me to look at the whole article again.

I don't know about you, but sometimes when I look back at something I worked on a while ago I think "Oooh, could gave done a bit better there", but I didn't feel that at all in this case. No doubt it could be improved, but I still think we gave it a damn good shot. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. There is much of what I've written that needs improving. I do like that article though. I ought to do more, like Peter on the churches, and maybe I will. My problem is the collieries topic is so vast and a bit like eating an elephant, the more I do, the more there is to do. :-( J3Mrs (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Robinsons Brewery
You're right. It was actually Henry Robinsons Brewery, not William Robinsons, another article we don't have. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It was taken over by Magee Marshalls of Bolton, another article that's missing, but won't be soon! J3Mrs (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Chorlton-cum-Hardy
While your opinion is of course welcome, the talk page is the place to express it. You must avoid the impression of competitive or worse, disruptive editing. That is why we have fora for debate. 212.121.210.45 (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And since when did Trafford Council have a vested interest in Menachem Begin? Great to see our council tax being put to such good use, "anon" ip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.205.167 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)