User talk:J3Mrs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cotton mills[edit]

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)

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)

Volume 1 1870 of the Midland Institute of Mining Engineers[edit]

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. Robertforsythe (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not my sort of thing, but thanks. J3Mrs (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Robert, if that's your kind of thing you might be interested to know that 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)
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 . Thanks for your feedback. Robertforsythe (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
There doesn't seem to be very much that you know. Eric Corbett 00:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
For good I hope asshole. Eric Corbett 02:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
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)


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)

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)
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.
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)
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)
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)

Forest of Dean[edit]

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)

That certainly wasn't clear to me, is there some way of making it clearer? J3Mrs (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Royal forest#Courts. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

But ! YOU should not be in charge of edits[edit]

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

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)