User talk:J3Mrs

Curious about a revert

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)

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

BNA Access

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)

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

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)

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

Curious about a revert - Peterloo

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Award

	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)

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)

September 2014

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 edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

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)

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 edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

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)

Serial overlinker

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)

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)

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

St John's

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Content doesn't matter"

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)

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)

Blame game?

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

[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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.[1]
• 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.[2]
• Re:GGTF-related complaint: Coming here/running to mummy is not always a good idea unless you want generate drama.[3]

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. [4]
• 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.[5]

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.[6]
• 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?[7]
• 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.[8]
• 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.[9]
• 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.[10]

4.Content is more important than civility:

• Polite doesn’t equal quality.[11]
• 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.[12]
• 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.[13]

5. Support for civility??

• I think it's worth reading the extraordinary rumour-mongering and unsubstantiated allegations started by Carolmooredcon my talk page.[14]
  

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