User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 4

Sorry, for some reason I was thinking of the Lancaster Canal :D Koncorde (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

give me some advice on how i can make my edits constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.212.45 (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've been playing around with a structure to organise this article around, and I think I'm beginning to see the wood for the trees now. At least some of the wood anyway. What I'm trying to do is to bracket the Oliver Twist/living conditions stuff (which still needs to be expanded) between two historical bookends: when and why did workhouses come about and when and why were they abolished. Except possibly for the social and legal context for the growth of workhouses there's still a lot to do I know, but I'm waiting on a few more books from the library. There's been so much written about workhouses that I don't want to be seen relying too much on any one author. I'm not expecting you to read the article, I just wondered if you had any thoughts on its general organisation. Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been following its progress so only needed a quick read, and I think you're about there structure wise. Any thoughts of their legacy? It's so much simpler and focussed than what you started with, I'm surprised you even asked. Engels, I think I provided a link on your page somewhere, is contemporary and pretty damning. We've been to retrieve my books from gloomy Greater Manchester only to return to the slipy-slidy byways of Yorkshire, horrible weather, hey ho. Back to the coal face.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

As you know, it's easy to get too close to a story, and maybe miss something, so a second opinion is always good. The legacy of the workhouse is an even more complicated story than their beginnings in the labour shortage following the Black Death. I'm not even sure that there's a legacy story to tell in a way, perhaps rather an evolutionary story, a growing awareness among social reformers from about the 1850s onwards that poverty wasn't a personal failing but an economic misfortune, culminating in the National Insurance of 1946. (And what a sorry article that is, on the single most important piece of social legislation ever. It would be so much easier if there were some strong supporting articles.) Increasingly workhouses accommodated mainly the elderly and the sick, local authorities were encouraged to take over workhouse infirmaries and turn them into municipal hospitals, and national insurance benefits were introduced for the unemployed, a return to outdoor relief in a way. Insofar as Engels is relevant I think it could only be to demonstrate that living conditions for the poor not living in workhouses were in many respects even worse than inside workhouses, at least in terms of healthcare and education, something I've already tried to tease out in the article. Thanks for taking a look. I think I'll go do something else now until the books I've ordered arrive, hopefully next week. Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to say there was considerable resistance in some areas to setting up the PLUs, Salford for example didn't set up until 1838.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

There was resistance in some places, you're right, especially in the industrialised north IIRC. That's certainly something worth mentioning. Malleus Fatuorum 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

my edits are not unhelpful they are 100% correct.the Boundaries didnt change Greater Manchester is not a county so i wont accept that boundaries changed because they didnt,why dont you just accept that boundaries didnt change and Bolton and Bury are still in Lancashire,so get your facts right you stupid idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.212.45 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now the snows melting you may be interested in looking at History of coal mining when you get your books back. I added some stuff to it a while ago but it's not something I know a lot about and it's in too much of a mess for me to sort out. Richerman (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Don't you just love women who don't mind getting dirty? :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think I'd be wise to not answer that :) Richerman (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I discovered Coal mining in the United Kingdom, which was unreferenced and in parts wrong, but is probably more my cup of tea as now I've rewritten the beginning is a blank canvas. I have retrieved my books all about Lancashire but the National Mining Museum is reasonably near and has a library which I could use. I understand it's funding has been lost from next spring. It's worth a visit to go underground even though it's on the dark side, (literally). Keep digging the holes MF :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You'd miss me if I wasn't here. Go on, admit it. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 12:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course I'd miss you, who else would put me straight? Mind you there are times when....I'd better not say that. And I'd not be the only one.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can be very irritating. I know that because my wife not infrequently reminds me, but I ignore her opinion because she's a woman. I'll get my coat. Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You'll need it it's cold out. I'll shut the door.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, who's this guy I just found with his head trapped in a door? Anyway, moving swiftly on....you might find this book useful. There's a lot of it available online in google books as it's a reprint of an out of copyright book. I used it to add some stuff to the history of coal mining article. Richerman (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

That'll teach him! I don't think! Thanks for the link, I'm almost embarrassed to say we have a copy of Galloway Annals of Coal Mining vol. 1. I might snaffle some of your stuff. By the way I have extracted some stuff on schools Prestwich addresses with from the Bury site so that section can be expanded later today. Am I right in thinking you and MF are members of GM night owls? Perhaps shortage of sleep accounts for his strange observations about women.--J3Mrs (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

We certainly are. I tend to log on sometime after my wife goes upstairs to watch TV in bed and often don't get to join her until much later than I mean to but Malleus always seems to be up even later than I am. However, whereas I tend to open my mouth and get into trouble with bad jokes all the time I sometimes hesitate before writing them down, whereas Malleus is fearless :) Richerman (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article Elizabeth Tyldesley is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Tyldesley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H66666666 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I was rather staggered to see this nominated for deletion yesterday when we have articles like this one routinely accepted as notable. I'm not knocking draughts, but you can hardly compare it to being abbess of a significant English convent for 39 years. But it looks so far like it's headed for a snow keep anyway, so hopefully no harm done. Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was a bit surprised, and well, a bit/lot put out as it was originally nominated for speedy deletion. I asked the nominating editor, who registered yesterday, if there was a reason, but didn't get a reply. C'est la vie on wikipedia.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's what I meant by "hopefully no harm done", harm to your motivation. You have to be suspicious of any new editor who knows his or her way around CSD/AFD and all the rest. It's probably just someone you recently pissed off trying to get their own back by being annoying. But you say, c'est la vie here. I think the thing that's most pissed me off about my time here so far was all of the furore around Wife selling's April 1 appearance as TFA. Not because of the inevitable vandalism or (understandable) accusations of hoaxing, but because it ended up with me being accused of mysogeny ... on the other hand now I come to think of it I wasn't too impressed at being accused of colluding in the dismissal of an arbitrator when Grace Sherwood's TFA imploded. On the whole I think that we have to rely on our own emotional resources here, as whatever you do is likely to have someone up in arms about even the most trivial detail. I used to be a little too thin-skinned about my contributions here (I'm not saying that you are, and I don't think that you are), but I eventually came to realise that's a chink in your armour that others will see and exploit. But I'm beginning to ramble, I know. All I really wanted to say was that I hope you'll keep on doing what you do here so well, and to wish you a Happy New Year. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Piss somebody off, moi? Well I suppose I could have:-) I am developing that thicker skin, I'm not too clever at quoting wikipedia policies like some editors can but I know what's right. Elizabeth Tyldesley has some impressive supporters, you, Nev1 and Peter I Vardy and some others I haven't come across before. I'm not put off, put out, maybe. Happy New Year to you and yours, and happy editing, let's not let the b*****s get us down in 2011.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll go with that. Happy New Year. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Peter and for your support, and Happy New Year to you too.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested in this. [1] Page 4. I'm very interested in coalmines and the Leigh area , I hope you don't mind me interfering.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I hope this finds you well! I think "positive interference" is one of the things that you have to accept as an editor around here, and its particularly welcome when you find someone who has interest in a subject and knowledge of an area. I will make a read of that ref later, must get and do some work now! By the way, there are clearly other collieries in the area, but as this one was the last to close, there is much better information and nice pics in commons for it. If I have a crack at some others, would you be willing to bring some further knowledge? Best Regards, --Trident13 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm having a crack at the Manchester Collieries, Westleigh is on the Wigan coalfield but I'm sure I can "interfere" when I can. Nice to find someone else interested in coal. I think I know where I can find some refs. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. THanks for your input, it is much appreciated. Please feel free to edit/update as you feel fit. I have asked the Theatre archivist to write an article to expand the section. I will upload this when it comes through. Don't worry about the photos. I am a photographer and will deal with this when the weather improves. All the published, copyright photos are out of date due to work at the theatre. I will make one or two amendments to your up dates to correct errors later today, but apart from that thanks. Whurwulf (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, nice to see you around again at our remote end of the 'pedia. I just want to express my personal thanks at you coming along to help out at the Evesham GA. Do stick around, we're going to need much more of your expertise! --Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's very kind Kudpung. Expertise isn't the word I would use. Hope all is well with you.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, J3Mrs
You left a message on admin TFOWRs' Talk on the 3rd of January re. a deleted "New Manchester" article. If you haven't already heard, TFOWR hasn't edited since November 5, "overwhelmed with real-life issues" apparently.   FYI - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed the change you made here to one of my early FAs. Ignoring the fact that you introduced a redlink (naughty, naughty you!), it strikes me that as a European Union Special Area of Conservation site it deserves its own article rather than being linked to the townships. After all Risley Moss has its own article, although it is in Cheshire, so probably a bit posher. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Risley Moss, on the site of a former Royal Ordnance Factory, posh?? Anyway it's REALLY in Lancashire, isn't it? (Just like Widnes). Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that MF I will fix the redlink. I'm not myself at the moment, I'm rather stranded in a chair following op on foot and can only visit the PC occasionally as its location is not condusive to keeping foot elevated. I will hopefully be more mobile after the weekend, or perhaps someone should buy me a laptop. I see Peter is trying to offload all the grotty bits of Lancashire that were dumped in Cheshire in 1974 in an attempt to make it less posh. PS you could have fixed the redlink, it's only a comma, your specialisation I thought :-)

I've been to Risley Moss many times, and apart from the horse flies that try to eat you alive it's really rather a nice place, not at all grotty. Maybe wikipedia will supply you with a laptop? I hope your foot recovers soon anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

PS. Thanks for humouring me by creating the article. Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia only appears to supply grief. Foot is fine as long as it's elevated, I am lethal on crutches:-( I can't carry anything (like a drink). Who says I'm humouring you?--J3Mrs (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that's great, thanks. The article definitely needs expanding - it's really just a question of who will get round to it! :) But that is a very good resource, nice one. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your support at FLC for List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England which has just been promoted. Another FL for GM! Now working on the East of England, the biggest list, with plenty of red links still to sort. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well done Peter and I can't say I'm surprised. I don't always notice what is going on and nearly missed it. We often pop into Holy Trinity in York which is an oasis of quiet in the city and near to a restaurant we like to visit. Keep up the good work.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Courcelles 21:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be getting on nicely with this. Surely the opening sentence of the lead isn't right though: "Ladyshore Colliery, originally named Back o' th Barn, was a coal mine situated on the Irwell Valley fault ....". You explain in the Terminology section that a mine is a seam of coal. Anyway, your industry is shaming me into getting back to the stuff that I've started on but not yet finished. Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write much of that article, just linked a few bits and bobs I was working on. Looks like PoD started the article and others joined in. As an article it lacks focus. I was thinking earlier today the Fletchers, whose family members operated pits all over the Lancashire Coalfield needs an article, not just a section here, maybe the terminology needs hiving off into an article too. Not my industy, my dad's! Nice to see you getting your hands dirty though. What happened to Workhouse, I've linked it to a few articles. I don't think I'll ever finish anything, too much of a butterfly brain.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've got all of the books I need to finish off Workhouse here on my desk, and they're staring at me rather accusingly; I really must try and knuckle down to it. I agree with you about the Fletchers, they definitely deserve an article.

I don't know if you're familiar with User:Dr. Blofeld? He and I had a little disagreement over a GA review a week or so ago, and as a result his talk page is on my watch list. I noticed a little while ago that he'd blanked his user and talk pages and stuck up that black retired sign. Not that that necessarily means very much of course, but I was curious to know what had prompted his decision and I ended up at Jimmy Wales' talk page[2], where there's yet another discussion about why relatively so few women (about 15% apparently) edit wikipedia. Apparently the good Dr. got the hump when Jimmy called him sexist or some such. But I was wondering, as you've got first-hand experience, why is it do you think that so few females edit wikipedia? Is there something that puts off women more than it does men? Or something that attracts men more than it does women? Or perhaps women generally are just too busy doing more important real-world stuff? Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think wikipedia should be more concerned with the quality of content than whether it's added by male or female. I have no idea what attracts me to edit, except that I hardly ever watch TV and I like to exercise my brain cells. I do all the real-life stuff too, but my family is grown so I'm relatively "free". We visit museums and galleries, read and travel so I suppose I see writing about places and history as an extension of that. To be honest, I don't think I know many women who would want to edit or many men. I do know that I still barely know what I'm doing when it comes to anything beyond wikilinks. Perhaps it's too technical for my generation who were brought up with blackboards and pen nibs.--J3Mrs (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. I see no more reason to be concerned about the relative numbers of male and female editors than I do about the numbers of left and right-handed editors. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply