J3Mrs

Hi there Missy! Long time no see. I was thinking of you tonight as I was thinking of my Leadville, Colorado article and how much you helped me with it. J3, would you be interested in doing a copy edit for an article I mostly wrote, White Cliffs of Dover? At the very least it needs British English but perhaps a lot more. I don't know what came over me to write about something I know nothing about, not being English and all. I can only guess that I've always felt some sort of connection because when I was just a wee girl of four my daddy was injured in the war (WWII) and our country's emotional state was very strongly affected by news of the war, which I suppose made a strong impression on me, as young as I was. And then when I looked into it and saw the geological aspect, well it was right up my alley. I really enjoyed working on it. But I'm sure it could use a copy edit. Reading it right now I see that the lead seems a tad confusing which I will try to fix if you're not interested in doing a copy edit. Hoping all is well with you and I remember how enjoyable it was to connect with you for a short time. It would be so nice to be able to drop by for coffee (or tea? LOL, you being English and all...). Let me know. Gandydancer (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Just read the article again. I see that the lead problem was something added and not something I did. Also, now I remember my connection as I read about the "bluebirds over the White Cliffs...". That song was very big in the U.S. at that time and I remembered it, which is the connection. Also, I see that the last four "In song...ect." have been added - please chop as you see fit. Gandydancer (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Long time no see indeed! I hope life and Wikipedia is treating you well. You stirred memories of a most enjoyable holiday with good friends when we visited Leadville. Dover isn't that familiar to me, but I have seen the white cliffs and sailed out of the harbour a few times, and obviously I will look it over. J3Mrs (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Few initial thoughts, What do you think?

• Too many images
• Separate History section
• Move Dover Castle & the museum to History, maybe even Vera Lynn and the dong as well
• I think I'd move Samphire Hoe Country Park to Ecology

I'll do a bit more copyediting. J3Mrs (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm very happy with everything so far. Your plans sound good except I'd really hate to see any of the images go. I worked very hard on them (there are a lot at commons!) and I find them all important. Which ones do you think should go? Gandydancer (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Exmoor ponies s one. Anyway, I'll go through it an then do the reorganisation. If I change the meaning, just change it back. J3Mrs (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well that's not going to happen! That is one of my favorites. J3, you need to know, I'm a cowboy at heart. In fact when I added that section I had a chat with editor Montana, our in house horse expert, about those ponies. Also, ecology is very important to me as well and I was ever so happy to find that they are being used as a natural way to return the "chalk grass" areas to their natural state. All that and then I even found a picture too!, so I was very happy.  All in all I really learned a lot from writing that article. We have nothing like that in this country. I may be including a lot that is not needed in the article but I figure I wrote it so I can do what pleases me. It is all the things that I would want to know and see if I were to visit the cliffs. Gandydancer (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'll just keep on copyediting. Near to where I live Highland cattle are used for a similar job on some rough woodland. Keep the pics if you like, we'll tidy the prose and reorganise the paragraphs. J3Mrs (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are doing such a great job. I don't write very well but I know good writing when I see it. Gandydancer (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've had a bit of a reorganise, just undo/move whatever you don't like. I expect the history could be expanded but I haven't got the resources. Sorry I'm hit and miss but you couldn't have asked me at a busier time. I'm hoping for a quiet life after this week. J3Mrs (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well I am just as happy as can be. It is so nice to see my hard work turned into such a professional article. There is one little thing... I see that you did not include mention of Vera's "bluebirds" when you said, "Bluebird is an old country name for swallows and house martins which make an annual migration to the continent, with many crossing the channel at least twice a year." in the ecology section. I'd give it a try myself but it is not at all an easy thing to do. About the history, yes I do remember that there is more, for one thing there is more about the caves. If you find anything please add it. History is important. In my country we seem to have lost all sense of it. It should be a way to be grounded and today's kids, and plenty of the adults as well, seem to have lost all sense of who and what we are. J3, would you be interested in doing another copy edit for me? I wrote David Archambault II and I know it needs to be edited just because *I* wrote it...sad but true.   He is a good person and deserves a good article. Gandydancer (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

J3, I need to add that I want you to be very frank - if you have no desire to do this copy edit but hesitate to say so as it may possibly hurt my feelings, do not hesitate to say so. I am more than happy that you did this one and would not at all expect you to be interested in any other that I may request. My reason for asking you is that in the first place I see that you are a very, very good copy editor and in the second place, I thought that it may help to have an opinion from a person from another culture take a look at this article. A comparison (yesterday I took a look at your (very impressive) list of articles) may be your article Bedford Colliery disaster where you discuss in the Inquest section a mention of the "face" of the mine. I have no idea of what that may be and that section is confusing to me. Gandydancer (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Really sorry I wasn't around for a couple of days, I've been waiting for an engineer to fix my internet connection, and we've had good weather for the first time in months so had a day out. I see that during my absence the article has been edited by a real expert. I'm better at shuffling things about. I'm usually frank and now I'm back, I'll look at the other article. Thank you for looking at one of mine, I'll need to do some work there too!!!! J3Mrs (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I scooted through it, BLPs aren't really my thing and I'm not as good as you think but I hope you approve, I don't go through citations like the expert, who I am sure could improve it further. You shouldn't do yourself down, everything needs copyediting, I frequently copyedit my own stuff, especially when prompted. J3Mrs (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't consider myself to be any kind of expert; like all of us I hope, I'm learning new stuff every day. I could go on hacking at the White Cliffs, but I'd like to be sure before I do that I'm not upsetting Gandydancer. Eric Corbett 10:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can consider whatever you like Eric, but so can I. I have never seen any edit you made not improve an article. And I learned something too, after all these years it seems accessdate is now access-date, more fiddling.... oh well. J3Mrs (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You don't need to change anything, as accessdate still works as an alias to access-date. I just change it defensively, against the day that the alias becomes deprecated. Eric Corbett 11:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

J3, thanks for your work at the Archambault page. It is good to know that he now has a good article. About your articles, I was aware that many of them had to do with coal mining. I am wondering, are you per chance the daughter of a coal miner? As you likely know, most of our coal mining was done in the eastern parts of the US. I've never lived in a coal mining area, however my interest in the early unions in this country have made me somewhat familiar with coal mining. To this day coal miners are used like disposable machinery and now that the industry is almost extinct the many former miners have turned to drugs. See this article for example: [1] (I'd like to wring our goddamn current president's neck for not only giving them false hope that the industry will return but refusing to lay out any federal money for drug treatment and the other things they so desperately need.)

J3, I read another of your articles, Bank Hall Colliery. I kept wondering what on earth a "colliery" was since I've never run across it though I am fairly well-read. I looked it up and found this:

In the United Kingdom and South Africa, a coal mine and its structures are a colliery, a coal mine a pit, and the above-ground structures the pit head. In Australia, "colliery" generally refers to an underground coal mine. In the United States, "colliery" has been used to describe a coal mine operation but nowadays the word is not commonly used.

@Eric, are you kidding? Perhaps there are more talented people here but I don't know who they might be. As I said to J3, just because *I* don't write well doesn't mean I don't know it when I see it. It will be interesting to see what you do with the cliffs article. For now, Gandy Gandydancer (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've not edited for a week or so but having seen this conversation today you've got me at it again so I hope you don't mind if I butt in with few comments. First of all, I agree there are too many images all crammed together, I would take out the view from France, the horseshoe vetch and the peregrine and either remove them, or at least move them to the gallery. I've edited the life cycle of the Adonis blue as there were some errors in it, and used a better citation. I was interested in the mention of bluebirds which I presume is a somewhat oblique reference to the song. I've seen it said that the the bluebirds reference in the song was possibly about the country name for swallows and martins, but the fact is that the lyrics of the song were written by an American who'd never been to Britain so it's unlikely he'd have known this. The truth of the matter seems to be that he just didn't know that you don't get Bluebirds in Britain see: [2]. Also, the first few sentences of the second paragraph in the Geology section aren't supported by the reference given to the Doggerland project. And shouldn't there be somehing in the lede about the White cliffs' importance as a symbol of Britain? see [3] and [4]. Once again, sorry to butt in but, since seeing this conversation, I've even had to do some research and correct some uncited speculation in our article (There'll Be Bluebirds Over) The White Cliffs of Dover. Richerman (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gandydancer, now you've got me thinking about those colliery articles, perhaps I should add a note for those of you who don't live here. Your definition of collieries is spot on as are your thoughts on my heritage. Not many editors seem interested in coal so I thought I'd do some.

Hi Richerman, another long time no see but always good to see you around. Thanks for getting interested. I think both Eric and I have just copyedited what was already there and I too have been thinking about the bluebirds, I always thought they referred to air crews. I've left the images alone at Gandydancer's request and I know the lead is short. I don't think she wants to put it forward for any sort of review but wanted it tidying up. I'll look at the other articles later. J3Mrs (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

It did say in the article about the song that the bluebirds referred to the aircrews - which seems to be a commonly held assumption - but there was no supporting citation and I couldn't find any evidence for it so I took it out. I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure what was in the writer's mind. I did see that you and Eric had been working hard on the article so, apart from the butterfly stuff, I just made a little tweak changing cliff's to cliffs' as the white cliffs aren't singular. It seems surprising that the article for such an iconic landmark was so poor before Gandydancer came along - had it been 'oop north' we'd have sorted it out long ago :-) My last big push was rewriting suffragettes which was in a pretty poor state despite being rated as high importance on the feminism and womens' history wikiprojects. It says a lot really. 09:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right, we would have sorted it out good and proper, just like we did with the Peterloo Massacre. And ironically I don't think that Gandydancer is even British! No shame in that of course, but perhaps surprising that an American had to come along and do the heavy lifting for us. I've long been rather embarrassed by the state of our suffragette articles, so I'll be very interested to see what you've done with that. Eric Corbett 10:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah yes Eric, those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end! I've by no means finished with Suffragettes yet but, having finished Emmeline Pankhurst's autobiography, I should get back to it. I spent ages originally trying to fend off people who wanted to list every American suffragist even though most of them didn't call themselves suffragettes. It turned out that the term suffragist redirected to suffragettes so I redirected it to womens' suffrage and made the article specifically about the UK and Ireland with a nod to the USA which I will expand a bit. I learned a lot from researching the subject, particularly that the term suffragette has been appropriated retrospectively by suffragists all over the world - even in Australia where women had the vote long before the word was invented. I'd be very happy for you and J3Mrs to help out where you could, but with your previous problems with our feminist contingent I expect you will want to avoid that one like the plague :-) Richerman (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You surely know me better than that! Contrary to what you read in so much of my bad press I'm very sympathetic to the feminist cause. In fact I believe that Gandydancer would call her herself a feminist, and she's never said that she has a problem with me or my attitude towards her. The quotation at the top of her talk page sums up my attitude perfectly. Having been reminded of our Peterloo Massacre adventure I find myself wondering about what happened to Jza84. I suppose that we all, or at least the lucky ones among us, were encouraged by a more experienced editor when we started out, and Jza84 played that role for me, encouraging me to write the Trafford Park article. But I'm digressing, sorry J3Mrs. Eric Corbett 13:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I do know you better than that of course, and I know that many of your friends here are feminists, but I seem to remember some time ago after the big arbcom spat, when you (and the rest of the Manchester "gangbangers") were accused of all sorts, you said you were going to avoid articles on feminist subjects - but maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, as you say, that quotation on Gandydancer's page sums up the way we should be going, onwards and upwards! Richerman (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Digress away! Gandydancer strikes me as the sort of person I can relate to, someone who edits whatever she likes, the banner is spot on. Jza84 was really helpful to me too, in a rather scary, encouraging but put me straight sort of way. I was sorry when he stopped editing.

Re this article, I'm still in favor of all the photos. I would not favor adding any to the gallery if a decision is made to delete any of them from the body. Eric's opinion should decide the keep/delete question, as that would make it a 3 to 1 opinion. Perhaps my opinion differs because as I said above I view the cliffs from the vantage point of a tourist's visit rather than a local's opinion. About the history, I was aware of some of it but as an American if was difficult to get into more. I do remember that the Roman light house seemed important but I felt that I was not ready to open the Roman occupation up with what little I knew, especially considering that perhaps the British did not consider the cliffs of much importance (judging from the coverage in the article). Gandydancer (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm not "voting" to remove anything, I was asked to copyedit. There must be something more on invaders and on fortifications, the history is what's lacking. J3Mrs (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I did not mean to insult you or anyone else. Please do not not take offense. I feel like an outsider here and only comment on my opinions. I agree that more history would be a good thing. Gandydancer (talk)

You most certainly haven't insulted anyone and I have taken no offense whatsoever. I really, really don't want to upset you because I realise this article is special to you. You are definately not an outsider and I feel bad that I made it seem that way. J3Mrs (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I might be able to add a little history based around the castle, which would also incorporate the Roman lighthouse and possible Iron Age hillfort. How much detail would be useful? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's a very kind offer :) As the article is about the cliffs, I think it just needs a brief summary. Thanks J3Mrs (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gandydancer, you've improved this article beyond measure from what it was originally and you're certainly not an outsider. My comment about images is just a suggestion, but if you're happy with as it is that's fine. I wouldn't want to come in and change things when you've done all the hard work. Richerman (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to you both for the kind words. I'm aware that some Brits think that Americans are very egocentric (if that's the right word, anyway you get what I mean), and for good reason - they are. We're brought up to be that way. On the other hand many Americans believe that the English are snobbish, and they may be right about that too. I know that Eric understands all of this by that great little joke he made above.  

Richerman, about the geology section it seems to me that the ref covers it though I did add that the seas covered much of Europe as well. That info came from the source that I used for the fossils info. Re Richard's offer to add some history, as I wrote the article at first I felt I needed to justify even the ecology on top of the cliffs, as though it is something quite apart from the cliffs. I gradually got over that dumb idea and added more and more. Perhaps it could even use more about the restoration of the chalk grasslands. Same for the history, I can't imagine that I wouldn't be very happy to see more detailed info about it. I like articles that reach out and pull many aspects of the subject together under one roof. I do that in the articles that I write (perhaps too much of it) because that's how my mind works and that's what I like to read. Looking forward to new additions... Gandydancer (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Gosh, I hope that none of you thought that I was saying that any of you are snobs! I didn't mean that at all! Gandydancer (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Certainly not, I thought we had upset you. I'm sure progress will be made but not sure how quickly. I'll look for something too but I have a walk to lead this morning and visitors this afternoon. J3Mrs (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Gandydancer: Sorry it's taken me more than a week to get to this, but I've finally added a few sentences to the history section. I've tried to keep the detail fairly high level, and to emphasise the symbolism of the cliffs ‐ the book I have to hand doesn't go into that much sadly. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've just done something that some may regard as controversial, which is to introduce an infox so as to contain one of the map images at the top of the article. I wouldn't normally be an advocate for infoboxes, but in this case I think it works.

I've also combined two of the butterfly images into one, and this may the appropriate place to say that I've come down on the side of those who think that there are too many images, probably two too many. I'm going to leave the article for now, to let all that sink in. Eric Corbett 11:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well that makes three saying too many photos. I'm guessing the falcon is seen as not needed. While important to me since I see it flying out over the cliffs in my mind's eye and the fact that most people are familiar with this bird since it is well known that it is the fastest animal known, there is no good reason for it. The second one may be the second photo of the cliffs that I included to show the layers of flint. I would not feel bad at all to see those two go. If the vetch is seen as not needed, that could go as well. It is now situated differently but when I included it the idea was to show how the green and yellow caterpillar used the coloring of the vetch to hide from predators, a tactic I find of great interest in all animals. But it could go if others do not like it. The ponies should stay come hell or high water, IMO.   Gandydancer (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK, you can open your eyes now. I like the peregrine falcon picture as well, so it's still there, as are the ponies. But I have deleted two images, the vetch and the photo from across the channel. I've also moved a few bits around, and I think the final layout will take shape as the history is fleshed out. Eric Corbett 14:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

You really made me laugh Eric. It is so nice to find people with a good sense of humor. I don't feel bad to see the France image go though it did set the area up for me in a "geographical sense", which is about the best way I know how to say it. I'm really happy - and very surprised! - to see you kept the falcon. For me the falcon establishes a "feeling" of the area that I find hard to explain. When I look at that picture I feel like I'm standing right on the cliffs on a balmy day, smelling the ocean, and looking out over the water. Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone think the old name for Britain, Albion, alluding to the white cliffs deserves a mention somewhere, but where?

I've added it to the History section. Whilst looking for references for that I found this article which is interesting and has some more that could be added to the history section, particularly the reference to the Fan Bay Deep Shelter which is under the cliffs. There is an article about that here. I love the bit in that article about the 'latrinalia' graffiti where it says "If you come into this hall, use the paper not this wall. If no paper can be found then run your arse along the ground". Not sure we should use that in the article though :-) Richerman (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I knew there had to be more out there. I hope Gandydancer likes the additions. J3Mrs (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I certainly do like the new additions! Our discussion about the article has drawn me into doing more reading about the WWII stuff that drew me into the article in the first place. What a godawful time it was. I had no idea that England was so heavily bombed. I just finished watching the Wartime Farm series on YouTube and was totally fascinated with everything I saw/learned. I would love to get into particulars but I suppose that this is not the place for that. Anyway, re our article I am wondering if the heading Second World War is appropriate? Perhaps it should be split into a symbolic and a war part, especially if we add to the war part? Also, thanks to Richerman's link I learned about the England Coast Path - should this be included? And, I see that we need to change the "quality" and even perhaps the "importance" status? Gandydancer (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think the headers are ok for now unless the section alters significantly. The coast path is a good idea, could even be a section. You are enthusiastic....you'll be visiting next!!! The chalk downs are lovely, I've been through Dover which is a very busy port many times, the bits you drive through aren't attractive. I visited the castle years ago and several places round about. I have walked on the South Downs which are similar. My favourite bits of the coastal path are in Yorkshire and Cornwall. J3Mrs (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

TiB chat 17:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I've ordered a book so I won't need anything at present but thanks for a kind offer. J3Mrs (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peak District, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Castleton and Matlock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have added you to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians#J. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

2 edits after June 2018. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

remembered --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

This editor would be surprised how often I think of her--some people just stand out and she, like Eric, is one of those people. Hi J3, I hope all is going well for you in these difficult times. Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

J3Mrs are you coming back to Wikipedia? See the improvements to Thorncliffe, West Yorkshire and Old Lindley. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Whitley Lower v Whitley, West Yorkshire I'd point out that there was also Whitley Upper which until 1 April 1938 was a parish and even urban district so while the area in general may be called just "Whitley" its right to use the settlement's name for the village and former CP while "Whitley Upper" for the former CP and urban district. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Manchester Town Hall windows.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 07:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply