User talk:J3Mrs/Archive 5

Alverthorpe

Hello, J3Mrs – thanks for chipping in on the Alverthorpe article. I came across it the other day, and have been slotting odds and ends of stuff in during my lunch hour. Do you know the place?

If the article seems to put on growth spurts in unplanned directions, it's because I suddenly discover some source or other and add a few sentences. Maybe after a week or so of lunchtime additions I can start to balance it up a bit (and also shake the crumbs out of my keyboard). -- Euchiasmus (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A few years ago I used to drive through it when visiting family. I did a lot on Wakefield, I might even be able to borrow some books. I'll have a look. :)--J3Mrs (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire

do not say Wallsuches is Greater Manchester,it is not. Wallsuches along with Horrocks Fold are in Bolton but are too far out to be Greater Manchester, Bolton is the only Borough of Greater Manchester to have parts which are adminstrated by Lancashire,other Boroughs such as Bury and Salford are fully in greater manchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.14 (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Username

You've probably noticed this. Interesting! I've been watching your "campaign" — and you are quite right in what you've been saying. Is he/she encyclopaedic? No way (as they say). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Peter, Thanks, it's not really a campaign and yes, I'd just noticed. I have tried to be polite as insults are slung in my direction but some editors just don't "get it" and the editor wasn't that interested in Bretherton until I expanded it. Well perhaps he'll be "hoist by his own petard" but this is Wikipedia so who knows? --J3Mrs (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think he'll carry on in his sweet way, maybe under another user name. I guess some people will never learn what WP is really about. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked! I wonder what new identity he'll try. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And unblocked! [1] I expect the new identity won't have learned what's encyclopedic either.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page (perhaps!)

Hi there. There's a discussion here about the possibility of getting featured lists their own section on the main page. The discussion has turned to presenting a few lists that would represent the quality and diversity of topics that we cover, and a list that you were involved with has been mentioned specifically. It'd be great to get your thoughts. Regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dukinfield

Hi

You edited the Dukinfield page to add "Lancashire coalfield" - I would first like to point out that Dukinfield was in Cheshire and that the Astley Deep Pit, in particular, exploited the Dukinfield Marine Band of coal. Also Astley Deep Pit was its name, not Astley Deep pit mine. The mine was not called this, the Deep Pit was one of three pits on the same mine site. You can read up more about that on Astley Deep Pit Disaster.

I will give it more time once finished with the redirect links I am fixing at the moment, but on first reading it seems that this information was inaccurate.

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Glad to see someone is keeping an eye. This bit of Cheshire is included in Lancashire coalfield which stretched into Cheshire and included Ashton Stockport Dukinfield & Poynton. The name of the colliery was "Astley Deep Pit", I agree, and it had three shafts, (most had at least two for ventilation). A mine in this part of the world usually referred to a coal seam, not the shaft or the colliery. I think the information is fine, seams of coal didn't respect historic county boundaries.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The name of the colliery was "Dewsnap Colliery", listed as Dewsnip from 1847, and the Astley New Pit was the first of the three shafts on the site over the main railway lines from the colliery [2].

In 1875 the Deep Pit name was used for the site and by 1912 it was labelled as "Old shaft".

It may well be that the Lancashire coalfield was a generic term but as it may be a more recent term and, as I am not familiar with that term from the research I did, I will look up the references to check that it did in fact cover the mine and the others by the time it was closed at the end of the 19th century. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking. The pit was developed by F.D. Astley who also developed the Lakes or Victoria Colliery between King St & Birch Lane, hence its name. The colliery closed in 1901 hence "old shaft". There was an engraving in Pictorial World Apl 1874. I have a lot of books & can assure you it is factual.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the pit was "Dewsnap", according to one of the references used in the article this was the name of the railway sidings. The other colliery, the Lakes or Victoria Pit was listed as Dukinfield Colliery which also had a disaster. Astley seems to have disposed of the pits sometime after that. I think this section needs some rewriting to make it clearer. John Astley doesn't appear to be the industrialist, his son Francis Dukinfield Astley (or grandson from looking at the dates) is more likely. I will be visiting the National Mining Museum Library (fantastic resource) next week so I will see if they have anything.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I grew up on the road overlooking Astley deep pit (shhh keep it quiet lol) and played in the shaft heads quite a lot.

The map from the link I put earlier shows the name as Dewsnip Colliery, the same as the small hamlet just up the road. By the early half of the 20th century it had been changed to Dewsnap, and Dewsnap Road. The more modern sidings are on the same side as the Astley Deep Pit, although they were only in existence after 1875 as the earlier maps show.

The ones shown on the map are simply one or two lines in and out from each pit. Although Astley did export his steam engines from there as well via canal and train, his first factory was in Newton although that would have been later.

Did you look at the maps? If you have trouble following the location, the dog leg in the red road, on the lower left side of the right hand map, is called White bridge (sorry local name lol), or Dewsnap bridge, and the dewsnip colliery was just to the left and slightly north of it, and the Astley Deep was on the right and slightly north of it. If you centre that red dogleg on the right hand side, and zoom in 2 or 3 clicks, you should be able to see them on the left map. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar childhood playing around the old workings in Shakerley. I must say it looks as though the deep pit, by the fact that they were deep were sunk after about 1840 from what I have gathered so far. deep mines needed the pumping engines etc that weren't up to such depths until after about 1820. From what you say the later pits were probably on the sites of older, shallower pits sunk where coal outcropped as it frequently did on hillsides. Deep mining in my bit of Lancs most certainly did follow earlier more primitive pits. This is indeed a fascinating subject. I could bore most people for hours. I WILL see what the NMM has and I have added a couple of refs to the Mining Accident reports.

PS The Astley Deep Pit Disaster says it closed in 1901 after 43 years giving it an 1858 opening which I think is reasonable.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still a little unsure as to the new wordings of both the Dukinfield and deep pit disaster pages. I will go over them later when I have more free time. You seem to have rewritten the Dukinfield page to imply that there were just the two mines but there were more than that. There were the two already in there but your editing seems to now imply there were only the two (although it could be the way I read it) but there were also at least two others, the Dewsnip Colliery and the Dog colliery. I do not want you to think I am getting picky with things so will try and fully explain any changes I make.

I am grateful that someone else is showing an interest in Dukinfield and the mines though! :¬)

There was some confusion on the CMRC information in the past, I did enter into correspondence with the curator but will have to search through archived emails in Outlook backups. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere is it implied there were two pits. I attempted to clarify information about the two largest which definately wasn't too clear when I started. The Dewsnip and Dog were neither mentioned by name or referenced. I am still looking though.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel I have said you made it worse, that was not my intent at all as I want to collaborate to make them both better lol.

The Dog colliery is on that map from my link above, about 1/1.5 miles north of Dewsnip Colliery, if you travel north from Dewsnip Colliery (not Dewsnip itself) on the 1875 map you will see lots of open ground and then the map ends, to the northern edge, at a cluster of buildings and Dog Lane, it should be there. As for references for it, it was mentioned in one of my the books I own but I will need a little time to find it. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, if you're still watching. I've found a ref to Dewsnap Colliery from 1853 Manchester Grauniad. It seems on New Years Day 1853 there were 4 fatalities when 4 young men descended the pit to feed the horses. They should not have been there. Some sort of overwind. The colliery was owned by the Dunkirk Colliery Co. and close to Dukinfield Hall. Are you a member of Manchester Libraries? I joined after either MF or PoD suggested it. It's easy to join and the newspaper articles are great. I'm compiling this stuff offline. OPerhaps I'll do an article on the Collieries of Cheshire. that should please Peter Vardy!--J3Mrs (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC) PS You don't have to live in Manchester, I don't.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Are they online? Although born in Dukinfield I now live in Norwich, a bit far to commute! Ah that was it, the Dunkirk Cplliery, damn I knew I had seen that somewhere. They owned quite a few mines if I remember rightly. I was too busy yesterday, and now am in the middle of silly 3RR and legal threat resolution (well hopefully) but promise to try and get some sources later tonight - I have a couple of 19th century books on mining inherited from my grandfather but they are in a box somewhere :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's what you need, [3] and in a week or so the library card arrives. There's some really interesting stuff online, Times & Grauniad, ODNB etc. It's very easy to get distracted in there though. I suppose you could access some of these resources through your local library but it's easy to join this one.:)--J3Mrs (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that! I have registered although making a cock-up after filling in their online survey and double clicking made me miss my Library card number so I cannot login

I will probably have to wait until Monday now for an answer to my e-mail as they do not have an online facility for retrieving details - while they do have some forms they all need ones library card number lol. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Coal in the United Kingdom

Hi, re the above article which I notice that you have just been editing, it strikes me that it might be best just to merge that article with Coal mining in the United Kingdom. What do you think? Rangoon11 (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was just trying to figure out , rather unsuccessfully how to do just that! Can you help? I'm useless at this sort of thing.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess we could just redirect the Coal in the United Kingdom article to Coal mining in the United Kingdom and move the one sentence of text over. I will have a go now. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you much appreciated :-)--J3Mrs (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, all done now. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Darcy Lever

Firstly thank you very much for all the copy edits on the article, I do appreciate the time and effort you have put in to it. The second point is semantics, the article Little Lever gives the 'history' as Manor which is why I called the sub heading that... either way I'm not going to fuss about it, I was just tying to keep it the same. Thanks once again. Phil aka Geotek (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Manor would make a good sub-heading as would Industry in the History section. Interesting stuff but a bit convoluted (I'm still pruning Tyldesley after nearly 2 years!!)--J3Mrs (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the convolution, unfortunately I am more a researcher than grammar student, I can find the facts and reference them, but as you point out, it's more a string of facts than a fully readable article. That's why I am grateful for people like you who can make sense of my ramblings !... thanks again Geotek (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Read it out loud!! it will help you realise what's not quite right!! That's what I do, my family think I'm quite mad. I wait untl they've gone out now. I noticed the article because there were coal mines, someting I'm interested in. --J3Mrs (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night

Puzzled by your last edit. The improvement was because Fawkes was leaving, not guarding, and because gunpowder is more specific than "explosives". Moonraker2 (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It simply was not an improvement.--J3Mrs (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite correct. Parrot of Doom 10:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Do not remove historic information from articles

Social history is important to articles and when references are provided that are valid please do not remove them, if it is an article that is lacking information this helps to build up the article to provide a social history JMRH6 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be about a house. Sounds like an argument I've heard before.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Link? Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The change of ownership in 1938 is worth including, the rest not so much IMO. Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a fan of Bank Hall who likes trivia. See Username above.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do like Bank Hall as I do numerous other places in Lancashire that I know personally and you seem to be deleting information out of such articles like Escowbeck, the numerous Rufford articles and your taking vital information that can be built on out of these articles which may not mean much to you but historically or socially it can be important. I have heard all about you and now I have seen it for myself, and it is quite sad! JMRH6 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"I have heard all about you and now I have seen it for myself, and it is quite sad!" That's the best laugh I've had for weeks. You can't even write correctly as "the numerous Rufford articles and your taking vital information that can be built on out of these articles" proves. If you need help, and you obviously do, then why not ask for it? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My fame is spreading and now I'm a source of hilarity, where will it all end? Only too happy to amuse you MF, Laughter is good for you, I recommend it.:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You will have noticed then the amount of encyclopedic information and reliable neutral references I have added whilst removing the fluff. Look and learn, happy editing.--J3Mrs (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I am glad I know I dont live in a land of fluff and internet like you, I have come accross people like you few before who have nothing else better to do than sit behind their computers all day chatting on computers, the word retired or unemployed comes to mind, but I can only presume. But I shall share my thought on this situation like i have with others in the past. I personally have come on here to see what it is like and frankly you have put me off using this website. I have also heard things about you (no they are not good) even though you think your edits are good they can be quite damaging in the way you word certain articles, giving false impressions by the way some are re-worded and removing crutial dates and factual information. Only because an article doesnt have a reference on every line at the time of your editing doenst mean it isnt true. I have observed your editing and see that if someone makes an edit you feel the need to have the last edit in an article. I believe it is best to write articles that you have knowledge of instead of just editing them for the fun purpose of being awkward and off with people, which I have experienced from you in my short time observing and editing this supposed 'encyclopedia' which will never be correct with people editing it that dont have general knowledge of the topic they are writing about. For example at least I can say I have visited every place I edit, which im sure alot of people that edit wikipedia cannot. Anyway I have a life to live and can do without sad childish, degrading people that mean nothing to me, (shame on you for feeling the need to look down your noses at others too, tut tut,) so I bid you fair well and hope that you will take onboard what I have said and realise that you need to get out this sad little world your trapped in, maybe one day you will see it if you dont see it now, if not POOR YOU! I have had a lucky escape of not getting too involved, You and your little friends can have a laugh about this if you want but it will be me laughin cause im out of here BYE! JMRH6 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No great loss really. Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Sad really, but s/he never really got the ethos of WP.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)