I have looked at Fireproof mills- I think there is sufficient material around to do a separate article, so the present CM section can be considered as a holding paragraph till we can get the new article on line- it will take some time though. In the meantime I was going to drop it down to below Transmission methods as it seems sensible to keep Water power and Steam together, and Transmission is closely linked to the two - doing it now would cause a edit conflict. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's done now, as it the removal of more hidden notes. The article really suffers from lack of focus. I'm not sure what you mean by holding paragraph but I think it's adequate for this article and I don't want to write another. J3Mrs (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mining Insitute in Newcastle is selling some duplicate volumes and when I saw Volume 1 of the Midland Institute of Mining Engineers in 1870 I thought of you. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/171217378170?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649 Robertforsythe (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not my sort of thing, but thanks. J3Mrs (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, if that's your kind of thing you might be interested to know that archive.org has scans of volumes 11 and 13–18. It's possible that with a bit of poking around for death dates of the authors that the volumes could be added to Commons or even WikiSource. Nev1 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are duplicates. My hunch is fairly strongly they will be out of copyright. The Mining Institute in Newcastle has runs of many Mining Institute regional transactions including its own. Moving at least some to Wikisource would be very desirable and is one of several options being discussed to further its Wiki engagement. The MI is steadily uploading images to Commons using a team of volunteers https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:North_of_England_Institute_of_Mining_and_Mechanical_Engineers . Thanks for your feedback. Robertforsythe (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your revert of my deletion. Not all referenced info is encyclopedic. Readers are quite free to refer to the citation if they want. I still claim that this statement adds nothing useful, and reads like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic entry. Valetude (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are talking utter cack. Time for you to move along and try vandalising something else. Eric Corbett 21:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are in a minority here, messing around with featured articles isn't always a good idea. There is of course lots of really unencyclopedic dross that you could usefully remove elsewhere. J3Mrs (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that might involve some research and a little bit of work, neither of which seem to be things that Valetude is familiar with. Eric Corbett 22:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you still don't get it Valetude, the view of the historian cited is that had the weather not been so favourable there might well have been far fewer protesters, and who can say what the result of that might have been? Eric Corbett 22:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and all of that is conveyed by the first part of the statement: 'The fine weather almost certainly increased the size of the crowd significantly.' However your point about featured articles is valid enough. I didn't know that it was featured. Valetude (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be very much that you know. Eric Corbett 00:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that my relative unfamiliarity with the Wiki procedures is less significant than your flagrant breaching of the Wiki rules of civility. I will not say what I think about people who have to vent their aggression via web-talk. Signing-off now. Valetude (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For good I hope asshole. Eric Corbett 02:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if Valetude had spent the time and effort researching and writing a featured article and having it nit-picked all over by reviewers he might actually sympathise with those who get annoyed and be less likely to drift round "improving" other folks efforts. Maybe he will open his eyes and look for that little gold star at the top. He might even return in a few months to see is anyone is minding the shop. J3Mrs (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I hope you're good. I notice you binned a recent edit of mine on this article. I'm relaxed about that now but I may want to put it back in some form later. I can agree that coal mining occurring miles away has little to do with Huntroyde, I hope to be able to expand that at some point, in a "changing fortunes of the family" kind of thing. However it is the "misleading" bit on your edit sum that brings me here. Can you elaborate? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen you around for a while, I'm not doing much, having much more fun in real life. Although it's nice when someone links articles I have written, I thought the links were just too tenuous. For what its worth, by 1700 the Starkies had abandoned Tyldesley for Huntroyde, the hall became a tenanted farmhouse and was demolished in 1805, so says my History of Tyldesley. I have looked at several sources but none say who owned the estate in the second half of the 1800s when a lot of land had changed hands so it is misleading to suggest the namesake pit was anything to do with the Starkies. Bridgewater Collieries is not the same as Bridgewater Trustees. Bridgewater Collieries was formed to manage the coal mining assets and separate it from the canal management. The trustees owned a good deal of land in and around Worsley so it is misleading to say it became part of the colliery company. I hope that clarifies things.J3Mrs (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the not doing much / busy in the real world front. Also my motivation for continuing here took a dent when I started watching Eric's talkpage as saw the crap he gets! I must confess that although aware that Huntroyde Estate is a sizable landowner locally, until recently I knew almost nothing about the Starkies. Until the weekend I had no idea they had any connection to the Bolton area. For a couple of reasons I decided to do a search of the Lancs VCH for more info on Starkie properties and was surprised to find quite a lot of them. I decided I may as well put it somewhere and am still working through the list. On coal mining: I came across a passing mention (which of course I can't find again now) of someone obtaining a royal charter to mine coal. I'm fairly curtain this never occurred at Huntroyde (odd given the number of pits around here). I struggled with with the wording given lack of info, but wanted to work in the links somehow to remind me later. On Cleworth: VCH (Published 1907) dates the demolition slightly later but says the land was still owned from Huntroyde, no mention of coal mining. There was surely a connection? FWIW I've not seen anything so far to suggest Cleworth was ever a primary residence. On Kempnough: I didn't look too far, just saw Kempnough pit and Bridgewater Trustees. 1876 doesn't fit to well though. Obviously at this stage assumptions have been made. Any additional info you might come across would be most helpful. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC) PS There was more tenuous coal stuff to come in the shape of Snydale Hall, Westhoughton (which had a Starkie pit), but I'll hold off until I know more.[reply]

The Westhoughton pit looks more plausible. I can't help thinking you should move all the Starkie stuff to a separate article, the Starkies of Huntroyde, as there's nothing about the listed building [1]. Going off-topic is one of my pet hates. J3Mrs (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha I could sense you thinking that. I agree that at the moment there is an issue with the Starkie / Huntroyde ratio. But I don't want to end up with two crappy little articles and I'm feeling like I've spent too much time on this already. I'm struggling to find much of use about the Bolton connections. I just wasted an hour trying find a source proving that Rogerstead became the Heaton Cemetery! I do have access to some stuff on the hall so will add what I can there. Also I think I'll split the history section into Huntroyde and Starkie Family S2s as well. Maybe I'll eventually get as far as a new article. A problem is that only two sections of the hall remain, amounting to less than half the building and it has never been open to the pubic. To me the more interesting bit is the Huntroyde Estate Company, which still owns about 6000 acres and is landlord to quite a lot of people. Do you think my proposed changes will salve your discomfort? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm predictable when it comes to staying on topic. There's lots about the hall [2], even a plan including the demolished bits. Short doesn't always equate to crappy. All I really was bothered about were the links that popped up. Best of luck. J3Mrs (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care in changing capitals. "The forest" refers to modern woodland. "The Forest" refers to the anciently defined area within which certain specific laws apply. They are not the same, and it is important to retain clarity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly wasn't clear to me, is there some way of making it clearer? J3Mrs (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a very well written article, and in some places it is confusing. Short of rewriting the whole article, which I'm not prepared to take on, it's more a question of trying to minimise the confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'm interested in coal mining and was just clearing out some verbiage. J3Mrs (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and thanks for your help, but I wanted to maintain the Forest as a capitalised word where it clearly refers to the area in which specific laws applied. More information here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I was looking at that and [3] and wondering what a court of swainmote was. J3Mrs (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal forest#Courts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But ! YOU should not be in charge of edits. why u over me? Evangp (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in charge of edits but I do try to follow policy. The redirect works well and sends the reader to the same information so what's your problem. Find more info and use that for a new article. J3Mrs (talk)

I was just about to 'undo' your revert but you beat me to it! At least it made me laugh! I thought maybe we had a new category of "Hi There!!!" SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea how I did that, I had just looked at your contribution to the Enid Blyton FAC. I have a virus and my head feels as if it's stuffed with cotton wool so I think I'd better leave the computer until I can think straight. Sorry. J3Mrs (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem - you wouldn't believe how many "fat finger mis-clicks" I've managed to make. I only left a message here as I thought it was amusing and it made me smile. I could just picture us edit warring over a "Hi There" category and being dragged to ANI (I probably just have a weird sense of humour). I hope you feel better soon, viruses are horrible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I was just trying to correct the misleading information claiming the BBC now have far more space then they had a TVC. The removal of the comparison to TVC is fine, and far better than wrong information. It's just a 'hot topic' when there are people ready to accuse the BBC of lavish spending when they have actually downsized. Slab Bulkhead (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC

Thats what I thought until yesterday when I was helping a new user at the QSMM Editathon. I used this article, Ingleton, North Yorkshire to demonstrate how sfns worked. I chose Ingle and got egg on my face. No linkage- so I went in tonight and saw that Ingle was the only ref there without a ref=harv, and all the others worked linking the notes with the correct item on the bibliography

So I added it ref=harv, previewed and it worked- and saved and it still worked. I have gone back in after your change- and it doesn't work once more. I assume this is server side, but if perchance it is browser side- I am on Firefox 26, Firefox for Linux Mint. Can you test it again your side and just check- I would prefer not to be right but if we are seeing different results, have you any theories.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The {{cite}} and {{citation}} templates work differently. You need "ref=harv" with the former but not with the latter if you're using the harv family of templates. Eric Corbett 19:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, these things are far too complicated for me to remember. J3Mrs (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tidy up, but I'm afraid I do have one or two questions.

• As I understand it from the various reports I've read, the "goaf" (or "gove") is the waste, not the space, and so it would be correct to say the roof was collapsed onto it, not into it.
• The roof itself may not be the source of firedamp, but it is commonly the collapsing of the same that allows releases from other strata. Perhaps you have better information than me about this particular instance?
• If you want to change "these" to "the" perhaps "the pit props behind the working face" might be clearer, there are after all lots of other pit props in a mine!
• With your permission I'd like to rework the reference to Clanny lamps. Old style Clannys did not have bonnets, it is significant that the owners bought new style Clannys.
• I understand why you changed the internal cross reference to a wikilink, I was working on it when I ran out of time (SWMBO) and had to commit my changes. I am concerned though that it invites one of the Guild of Copy Editors to plaster a {{cn}} tag on it since the last sentence appears to have no referencing at all when in fact the problems of draughts on gauze are discussed at Safety lamp. If you like I'll chase up the citations from the Safety lamp page and add them here.

Sorry for the criticisms, I did note you were far more senior that me so I would appreciate guidance on the above. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, though what seniority has to do with anything, I don't know.

• Goaf. It is my understanding that the goaf or "gob" is the void left by the extraction of coal, but it can also describe the waste that has fallen into it, so I think I am right. [4]
• Maybe although what you wrote doesn't make it clearer.
• I thought it was obvious, why would it be referring to other pit props but it can be changed.
• By all means rework, new-style Clanny lamps or improved Clanny lamps is better than just new.
• By all means add a proper reference but I really did object to the internal reference. The Guild of Copyeditors haven't bothered me in five years. Safety lamps can be linked in See also section, better than the internal link. J3Mrs (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked a number of sites (btw, thanks for the link it looks interesting, I'll print it off when I get a chance), and it appears that you are right for gove/goaf. Checking on one site I rate highly it is "the waste AREA behind the longwall", I'd remembered ".. waste behind...". However, the gob is the waste, so we'll quietly tiptoe away from that one! I'll revisit old vs new style Clannys when I get a chance. I've certainly had {{cn}} tag plastering in the past. Some editors seem to think that every paragraph must end with a citation, even if there are citations within the paragraph and the final sentence is not contentious; it's one of the downsides of being picked for an "on this day" entry. Ah well I'm out of permitted editing time. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the gob is not the waste, it is another word for goaf, certainly in Lancashire. Think about it, gob as a term for mouth, a gaping hole. Different parts of the country used slightly differing terms. I might get citation formats wrong(see above), but I'm much better on content. J3Mrs (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Belle Vue Zoological Gardens know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 2, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Belle Vue Zoological Gardens was a large zoo, amusement park, exhibition hall complex and speedway stadium in Belle Vue, Manchester, England, opened in 1836. The brainchild of John Jennison, the park was intended to entertain the genteel middle classes, with formal gardens and dancing on open-air platforms during the summer, but they soon became one of the most popular attractions in Northern England. Jennison set out a small amusements area in Belle Vue during the 1870s, which was expanded in the early 20th century to become what was advertised as the "showground of the world". Popular rides included the 60 mph (97 km/h) Bobs roller coaster and the Scenic Railway. Grand firework displays were given from 1852 and there was an annual Christmas circus from 1922. The Kings Hall, opened in 1910, housed the Hallé Orchestra for several years and hosted concerts by artists such as Jimi Hendrix, The Who, The Rolling Stones, Leonard Cohen, Johnny Cash and Led Zeppelin. At its peak Belle Vue occupied 165 acres (0.67 km²) and attracted more than two million visitors a year. The zoo closed in September 1977 after its owners decided they could no longer afford annual losses of £100,000. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

86.144.204.88 (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia. I was curious about your motivation behind this revert regarding me improving Wikidata and linking to it. I don't see any hurt in it, and this is the first revert I have experienced in my work with Wikidata and linking to Wikidata through Wikipedia. There's always a first time! I was just curious about your motivation and why you did it. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An inadvertent click that I reverted when I noticed. J3Mrs (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J3Mrs. Saw your interested in British Newspaper Archive access at Talk:Pendleton_Colliery. We got some more accounts, if you want access just apply at WP:BNA, Sadads (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, might do that but not today. J3Mrs (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have an email from 3 days ago with instructions on how to register. Make sure you do so, Sadads (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay still travelling but just done it. Thank you very much. J3Mrs (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly my own fault for touching the article but the edit(s) gave greater conformity between the article and what the supporting reference actually said eg the Guardian article is quite clear that readers were asked to write in about events in British radical history most in need of a proper monument. (VW Driver asking its readers to write and let them know what their favourite VW was , and lots of VW Driver readers saying they have a soft spot for the Jetta is not the same as - and therefore surely should not be reported as - 'a survey for VW Driver finding that the Jetta was the second most popular car in the UK') I would have thought no 2 'memorable but inadequately commemorated' event in British radical history was quite good enough notability without stretching the claim beyond what is supported by the reference

I am tiptoeing away from Peterloo as clearly a bit too 'owned' for my tastes (I only dipped in whilst fleshing out the 1819 Factory Act,because the date rang a bell) but I would ask you to consider why you feel more accurate reporting of sources is not an improvement, and so far from being one that prompt reversion on the basis of your verdict (rather than any identified non-conformance with Wikipedia requirements or guidance) is appropriate. Regards Rjccumbria (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth adding radical but that was wrapped up in other wordy language that didn't improve the article. J3Mrs (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case - as far as I recall - doctrine is that a rewrite for greater concision or more perfect style is the appropriate response. not a straight revert. I (obviously) didn't regard my edits as wordy and a word count on the diffs seems to me to show that your revert restored 28 words and deleted 27 (one of which you are now prepared to consider might be worth adding) . I have said I will tiptoe away, so I will not edit the article; however I would ask you to

• correct the information in the article so far as you are able to bring yourself to do so
• (optionally) do something about the continued use of the 'blue plaque' on the Henry Hunt Wikipedia article
• reconsider your working methods (and in particular the willingness to revert rather than build upon)

Regards Rjccumbria (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said too many words now go away I can't be bothered to read anything longer than a couple of lines. J3Mrs (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about the six chimneys ?86.128.42.255 (talk) 11:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Highly impressed with the quality of your research and effort you've put into St John's Church, Manchester which with some minor work should be approaching GA. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but not deserved. Sitush deserves all the credit, I'm just good at getting under his feet and making work. He's making a fine job of it. J3Mrs (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Edwin Waugh may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Persondata <!-- Metadata: see [[Wikipedia:Persondata]]. -->
• | PLACE OF DEATH = [[New Brighton, Merseyside|New Brighton]], [[Cheshire]], England]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Francis Robert Raines may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | PLACE OF BIRTH = [[Whitby]], [[North Riding of Yorkshire]], England]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Re: the serial overlinker we have both been correcting and warning. I have just been looking at edits done using one of his/ her alternative IP's a few days ago:- 109.157.192.215 and noted a whole raft of edits changing the location of current Greater Manchester locations to Lancashire. I have changed some of these, but then realised that an AWB script may be required to sift through articles and revert them, which I am not particularly skilled at. As you are part of those Location projects I wondered if you may have someone in mind who could do one ? Richard Harvey (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about anything technical, I don't even know what a script is. The only editor who comes to mind is User:Mr Stephen who has also removed a lot of these county changing edits. I find the longer I'm here the less I know. Thank you for help with the serial overlinker. The GM project is somewhat lifeless these days I'm afraid. J3Mrs (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Church, Manchester has been accepted as a GA. Thanks for all of your help with it. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Sitush but if I remember correctly I mostly got under your feet. Well deserved. J3Mrs (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't get under my feet. There were a few edit conflicts but your input was invaluable. So put a notch on your userpage if you do that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're too generous, I only put a notch when I've done most of the spadework. I take pleasure in seeing things like this improved though. J3Mrs (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes difficult to judge how significant your contributions have been even if you didn't put in most of the spadework though. I've pushed quite a few articles through FAC without doing much more than moving a few commas around for instance. Eric Corbett 16:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but I think in this case without Sitush it would still be a stub. Great research in a short time. 16:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your quote from Editor Retention talk: I've been feeling a bit brassed off since the dear leader decreed content doesn't matter
I missed this proclamation; without content Wikipedia would just consist of certain editors ranting at each other without distraction. This would be a pity and I hope we will all continue creating and improving articles. Could you let us know who made such a daft statement and where?: Noyster (talk), 08:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't keep diffs about other folk, (that's for people who aren't here to write articles) but it is the fall-out from Jimmy Wales' speech at Wikiwhatsitsname in London and stuff on his talk page thereafter. He is doing his best to chase off content editors who are good, no excellent, but not sycophantic (rough northerners who tend not to be here on Mondays) and will replace them by attracting a whole lot more editors (I'm not sure from where) who will be compliant and politically correct but who do not necessarily have the same writing skills to dwell in his wikitopia. I'm a bit brassed off with all that's going on here and my useful contributions are diminishing and the sun is shining and I'm going out. J3Mrs (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you sure comment on me a lot. Let's see, I had 1/3 of my edits reverted over a year by two individuals, was repeatedly insulted because people don't like what they think are my political views, had crappy a crappy bio written about me and even had a possible gun threat thrown about at me, among others. (Can't tell when material is redacted so have to assume the worst.) That's the kind of thing that stops editors - male and female - from editing. The sort of thing that led to the GGTF being popular in the first place. It's really simple logic.

[Later strike of nasty rumor whose source I cannot remember:By the way, there's a reference/rumor/joke I saw on someone's talk page last week related to your being Eric's wife. (Sorry, have totally lost track.) Just in case you want to debunk it on your user page if it's not true; or at least declare it publicly in your statements on his behavior, especially at Arbitration, should it actually happen to be true. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think at the very least you need to supply a diff for that Carolmooredc as it is an outrageous claim for you to make otherwise. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given User:Sagaciousphil reply, it obviously is not true and a nasty rumor and I therefore strike it with utmost apology. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Carolmooredc, that is NOT sufficient - you have cast ugly outrageous aspersions with no validity nor provided diffs to support your claim. It appears you feel you can say what you like without any redress whatsoever other than an apparent desire to cause as much offence and disruption as possible. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I appeared a bit uncivil, but I had this thing in the back of my mind for several weeks and wondered why this individual kept saying bad things about me at at least three different talk pages, may six or seven times. I guess you've never had such an experience?? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc: I don't know you from Adam, but there is no need for that. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc: again, if you are now accusing J3Mrs of "saying bad things" about you on "at least three different talk pages, may[be] six or seven times", please supply diffs as these are serious allegations. I'm sure if you thought similar things were being stated against you, the matter would have been at AN/I or some such by now - it cuts both ways, you know. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert: Sorry, I thought your meant the rumor(s) diff(s) which I have forgotten, probably user talk page I was lurking on. In any case, J3Mrs should know what I'm talking about. If they have forgotten already and ask for them, then I'll be happy to produce them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinary rumour! I've never even met J3mrs, much less married her. And before you start another rumour I'm not married to Sagaciousphil either, or to Ealdgyth ... in fact my wife doesn't have an account here and has never posted here. You really need to buck your ideas up Carol, and soon. Eric Corbett 22:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "Mrs" confused some people for whatever reasons of talk page or article exchanges, home base issues (Manchester), or whatever it was they observed. If I see it again I will forcefully debunk it! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc: if I may be so bold, I offer you some free advice; read and act on First law of holes. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Carolmooredc, I expect you to supply diffs for the page you maintain you saw the rumour on AND the diffs of where you claim J3Mrs has been "saying bad things" about you - or are these yet more 'pie in the sky' accusations? The only person who appears confused is you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you J3Mrs? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think that? I am simply stating that if you are going to cast such outrageous aspersions/accusations, you should at least back the allegations up with diffs. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not on a user talk page regarding something they are aware of, unless the user requests it. Get real here. Will only look at J3Mrs messages from now on here. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc, Mr Stephen and Sagaciousphil have said it all really. If you want to start rumours on my page or accuse me of saying "bad things" then you really will have to provide diffs. I want to see them but after that you can keep your creepy rumour-mongering and unsubstantiated allegations to yourself. Maybe when you've found them consider this, if a third of your edits were reverted they mightn't have been up to scratch, if you don't want your political views criticised don't advertise them, you suggested possible references for the bio, and for goodness sake nobody threatened you with a gun or anything else and I'm sure you know it. J3Mrs (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:J3Mrs: Yes, my conflict of interest query should have included the diff, probably from one of 20+ new talk pages I've read in the last 3 weeks ago or so, but it seemed like a 75% true assertion. So naturally seeing the following [#] diffs of very critical statements out of left field, I began to wonder and had to ask.
Per your request, below are the kind of diffs that made me feel there was some sort of WP:Conflict of Interest going on, even if my guess for the possible reason was way off base. (At worst we might be talking about hard-to-prove stealth canvassing among some members of WikiProject Greater Manchester and the anti-civility editors.) However, I see the issue here is your strong POV being your excuse for unnecessary personal attacks. I'd appreciate it if you lighten up.
1. Strong POV against GGTF efforts:

• And for the record I ran an under 10 rugby league team with my female colleague. I fight my corner on my own merits, not as a feminist.[5]
• But I find anything with women in the title so off-putting. Why would any editor want to be directed there? If you think that's what women come to edit then I'm not too surprised at the lack of take up.[6]
• Re:GGTF-related complaint: Coming here/running to mummy is not always a good idea unless you want generate drama.[7]

2. Doesn’t care much about civility:

• My mother used sluttish and slatternly interchangeably. It's a shame perfectly good words take on these politically correct overtones. [8]
• Most editors, male and female never come into contact with testosterone-fueled chest-beating on here because they never find the drama boards. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that women are driven away by "arrogant and abusive types like Eric Corbett". Provide some real evidence and do something about your own dual standards of civility.[9]

3. Gratuitous attacks on/comments in reply to me:

• I'm sure Sitush will be as good as his word but someone else just can't help herself.[10]
• Muck raking over old history is of little interest to those who come to contribute content. If you look for trouble you will find it. This project should really be looking to retain editors who provide content not providing a platform for looking for editors somebody perceives to be rude. The past is done, will picking old sores really produce an encyclopedia?[11]
• There are some editors who can only see incivility in others not in themselves and conflate dissent with personal attack. I thought this project was for discussing broad issues not a place to elicit "simple solutions" for individual forum shoppers.[12]
• I thought it was a reasonable question so I looked and would suggest not a lot. As for civility, it is odd that editors who consider themselves "civil" can only see incivility in others.[13]
• Carolmooredc conflates criticism of opinions or ideas expressed on the project page with personal attacks. As such she is proving to be a net negative by commenting on everything and drowning out more reasonable and measured voices. Until she learns the difference between such criticism and what constitutes a personal attack, nothing will improve.[14]

4.Content is more important than civility:

• Polite doesn’t equal quality.[15]
• Editors with fewer than 50% contributions to article space, some with fewer than 30% seem to be here to create a lot of fuss, mostly from poking their noses into other editors's affairs and peddling self righteousness while considering themselves to be civil.[16]
• Perhaps the vociferous should spend their not inconsiderable energy and time writing or improving an article, that's what I should be doing but I really can't be bothered.[17]

5. Support for civility??

• I think it's worth reading the extraordinary rumour-mongering and unsubstantiated allegations started by Carolmooredcon my talk page.[18]
  

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you Carolmooredc I'd stop speculating about other folks' motives, you are now accusing me of stealth canvassing which is completely untrue and another personal attack. Don't forget when an editor disagreed with you on the GGTF page you accused her of being male, so speculating isn't the best way forward. I am nobody's mouthpiece. I am for recruiting editors, although I think it would be better to recruit editors who write content and am not particularly bothered whether they are men or women. As to conflict of interest I have no idea what you mean, I am mostly here to contribute content.

1.

• Statement not attack
• Statement not attack, women have lots of dfferent interests
• Absolutely true, I do equate ANI with running to mummy and in five years have never instigated a report there, and look at the drama it generates.

2.

• She did and it's what I think, not an attack
• I have seen no evidence of women being driven away. Just so you know editors from the GM project welcomed me, helped me, steered me to my first GA and never asked if I was male or female. They accepted me on merit which is as it should be and something that is in short supply in the encyclopedia.

3.

• You couldn't put it down, you still can't, how many times have you refered to Sitush since an interaction ban was suggested?
• Not an attack just an attempt to avoid unnecessary drama.
• There are dual standards and canvassing, pointing out what I see. criticism not attack.
• Investigated a point in question and that's what I came up with, I can't help it if you don't like it.
• From the Arbcom and what I think, should be discussed there not here.

4. What is an encyclopedia without content? It's a social networking site, and that's not what I want to spend my time doing.

• True the encyclopdia needs content not talk
• True, from my Arbcom statement, my own view, the encyclopedia needs content not talk, to be discussed there not here.
• True the encyclopedia needs content not talk

5.

• I do think your extraordinary rumour-mongering should be seen elsewhere. Why you thought you could make up such a ludicrous rumour is beyond me and you still haven't provided a diff. We are the opposite ends of the editing spectrum, I do content and make statements based on what I read, your list illustrates the point that you conflate criticism with personal attacks We have no common ground, don't bother coming here unless you want to provide the rumour diff because if it wasn't you I'm sure both Eric and I would like to know who it was. Are you going to all the Arbcom contributors whose view you disagree with, you should have raised the point there not here. J3Mrs (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc: In 1979 I worked with a brilliant sensitive teacher who the kids idolised: one Thursday morning he didn't turn up for school and no message. After five days someone went to his house- he had moved and left no forwarding address. Months later we found him and gave him a leaving do- in his speech he said "In this job we must care- but not care too much" "On that Thursday- I realised I was caring too much and had become part of the problem. I was broken", Carol, everything you report that J3Mrs has saids are signs of support, from someone who shares your aims but life experience has taught that a more pragmatic approach is more effective. I would recognise an ally. The areas you edit are important and stressful- but outside the world you have been working in there is nothing above that is offensive. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolmooredc You should take a leaf out of J3Mrs's book Carol and spend more time on here producing content instead of harping on about things. There's a lot of female editors here who clearly find your approach irritating too. One thing I've noticed about you Carol is that you seem to have tremendous energy and potential which seems to be wasted a lot in discussion when it could be used for helping out User:Rosiestep with missing woman writers!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing a photograph implying cooperation with War effort with one of a strike, with comment "more representative" appears biased. especially since the text indicates the LCMF was less militant than other mining unions. I think showing both photos would better depict the realities of the era. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the image I added shows the members not officials in an unusual situation that doesn't illustrate anything in the text. The members contributed to the war effort as well as striking too. J3Mrs (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we should show both...the image you removed does in fact represent the text : it was a moderate union : supporting the war effort reflects this, as reflected by the fact that it was four of its officials representing the Miners' Federation. Rather than replace a photo with one you think is more representative, it is less biased to show both union patriotism and union militancy. Rcbutcher (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree and as the image is in two biographical articles I think it is very unnecessary here. I did not make myself clear, I meant the photograph doesn't illustrate anything in the text of the LCMF article or in fact the MFGB article to which the caption referred. J3Mrs (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 17, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting that out. Yeah File:Albion Mills - geograph.org.uk - 1269335.jpg seems to be a notable one a bit further southeast near Stockport. Nelstrop Albion Corn Mill I think the proper name is. It's quite tricky deciphering which one is which but as the London article at least shows, it's worth it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complicated history, changes of name, use, etc. Helps if you know the area. Mills and pits are my thing. J3Mrs (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, one great thing about it though is how many missing articles appear in the process (like Samuel William Fores) and how much better of we are (provided the twisters are untangled) at the end of it. Very easy to completely mess everything up though, I had a feeling the Ancoats one wasn't exactly on the street and was unsure about the location!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that I was thinking of you when I wrote that. I wouldn't generally go around calling myself a "feminist" as it's just something that should go without saying, but I am just so sick of having such a group of bigots defining the meaning of feminism. Using the correct meaning of the word, Eric is a feminist and they are bigots. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is very nice of you. These attention seeking dramamongering "feminists" are the sort of people I would cross the road to avoid. I have encountered women like this in the real world workplace...and they made life unbearable for a lot of very nice people. I hate the idea of special treatment for women. How on earth is anyone going to be respected if they all they do is whinge. J3Mrs (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I couldn't have done anything here without help getting started and help finishing them off. PS Eric and a banned user, WebHamster did most of the Belle Vue spadework, I mucked in with the pruning shears and a bit of shuffling about.J3Mrs (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so modest also ;) - WebHamster and Eric received their credits already, - sorry I missed you then, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read your last submission again? I'm a bit confused by the language. I think I know what you are trying to say (and agree) but I've read it several times and it just doesn't click for me.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Thanks.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J3Mrs. Thank you for turning one of my signature tiny but well-referenced micro-stubs into a proper encyclopedia article. In future, I will take care to avoid suffering a surfeit of Barons, Bonifaces, lampreys and definite articles. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thank you, it was a pleasure but I've not finished yet. Today I have been constantly interrupted but I will add more when the interuptions cease. J3Mrs (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got involved with Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/map tag status and chanced upon this collection (partition 23). I thought you might enjoy some of the stuff and want to keep an eye on it. Particularly, it was the first time I had seen Lupton. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting @ClemRutter:, I'll certainly bookmark it. Thanks for thinking of me. J3Mrs (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]