Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:11, 13 October 2012

Template:Archive box collapsible

John Frederick Bateman

I don't know if you're into Victorian engineers or not, but I think Bateman is an article that deserves to be a GA. It's had quite a bit added since I started it, most of it uncited sadly, so that's obviously a job that needs to be done. Do you fancy having a go at it with me? Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, He's the reservoir engineer I think, but as I've just got in, I'll look tomorrow. J3Mrs (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Buggeration! Now I know why so much of the more recent stuff is uncited – it's just been copy and pasted from the 1901 DNB. The whole damn thing needs to be checked and rewritten. :-( Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is in sourced from Bateman's obituary, shown here! J3Mrs (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

For the record, I am placing this notice because you were involved in the discussion, not because I think you are in any way duplicitous.Meetthefeebles (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no point inviting me to run to mummy. You must write the article in plain English if you want it to be a Featured Article and I notice you continue to add incorrect info. I did copyedit the article, I didn't comment at FAC, but had I done so it would have been oppose on the grounds of the frankly awful prose (throughout the article) and things you got just plain wrong. I could list more than a dozen instances of sentences that are frankly nonsense, including from the Lead:

The Industrial Revolution brought heavy industry and it was once the site of a coal mine and a stone quarry. (What is "it"?)

You should engage with people who know what they're talking about instead of playing the victim. There's still an awful lot wrong with it. J3Mrs (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You just can't help some people. There's something about bloody lawyers that gets on my wick. Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I hope his prose is more precise at work :-( J3Mrs (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

One might reasonably hope that a lawyer would at least get his facts right, or am I being too demanding? Malleus Fatuorum 20:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Any lawyer I employed would have to. You aren't too demanding, it's the parallel universe that is wikipedia that isn't demanding enough. J3Mrs (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I overreacted last week and after, three days of feeling like a prat, I just wanted to apologise for having involved you in any way in any of this nonsense and for my part in it generally. It was unnecessary and childish. And for the record, my prose at work is perfect; probably because I am not engaged ordinarily in trying to contribute to an encyclopedia...(j/k) Again, my apologies Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not a problem. A bit of advice based on personal experience, this is not the place to write the definitive history of your home patch, it just needs a summary in modern English. I know because I set out to do the self-same thing on mine. And by the way nobody understands less how this thing works than I do, that is why I am grateful for any help from Malleus who is rarely wrong. As regards the "turnpike", the Old Durham Road, on the original line of the Great North Road was turnpiked in 1747 (Durham and Tyne Bridge 20 Geo2 c12 1747 ) . Does that need to be mentioned? J3Mrs (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Coppull

Hi and thank you for your responses to my efforts to post additional material on the history of Coppull. In my first attempt to supplement the information contained in the wiki entry you deleted my entire entry and told me that uncited material and original research was unacceptable to Misplaced Pages. I entirely understand this and encourage all historical writing to be supported by adequate citation. In my second attempt to supplement the woefully inadequate section on the history of Coppull I provided citations to support every paragraph of my summary history of Coppull. This was deleted in its entirety and a message sent to me suggesting this had been plagiarised from published sources which is completely untrue.

The edit as it currently stands lacks citations and is misleading - there is absolutely no evidence that Coppull was founded as a Brigantian settlement and beyond driving a road through the village, there is no evidence of Roman occupation. In thirty years of studying the history of the village I have not read anything to suggest anyone has ever speculated on a Brigantian conection. The entry regarding the Chisnalls is taken almost verbatim from a paragraph of the Victoria County History and demonstrates no understanding of the broader context of the family, easily accessible in a number of published and online sources. The final paragraph is completely uncited.

I would ask you to restore the comprehensively cited version I submitted on the 25th September, which is significantly more detailed and better supported than the current edit which contains a single citation and some unsupported speculation.

Chisnall (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What you are not allowed to do is copy and paste from other websites, even if you provide references. You copied and pasted a substantial amount of detailed text from http://www.lancashirehistory.org.uk/short%20history%20of%20coppull.htm which is not allowed. Can I just make this point, this is an encyclopedia, not the place to write the definitive history of a place, or indeed the Chisnalls, it needs a summary, which you might notice I have started to do. J3Mrs (talk) 09:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added some more to reliable sources which do not contain original research and will add more later.J3Mrs (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate the work you are doing correcting my lousy prose- and removing the fluff- Coppull Mill, Chorley- my reference from LCC said Coppull near Chorley- hence the mistake. To the Manchester based editors of the LCC it was on the edge of their universe- I surmise that when the courriers took the mail from head office- it was in the Chorley sack. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I did not set out to correct your prose, I just got a bit frustrated when the links didn't work as I expected. :-). I sometimes wish I had no interest in industrial history, or that there were more others who were. I keep thinking I'd like to finish the Wigan list but I don't know anything about Wigan which doesn't help. Coal mines are even more problematic. Such is life. J3Mrs (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So much missing here on Misplaced Pages

I just watched the first episode of the BBC's new series Servants: The true story of life below stairs. What struck me immediately was that the presenter's great-grandparents had been in service, and she likely would have been as well had society not changed. I don't think I would have been though, more likely hanged or transported for insurrection. It reminded me of what motivated me to work on workhouse, and the programme briefly mentioned in passing an extraordinary (to me anyway) magazine called The Servant's Magazine, which I just had to create an article on. Which led me on to this dreadful article, as the magazine was supervised by the London Female Mission. I guess I ought not to have been surprised, but the work needed here seems to be garguantan, and increasing every day. Malleus Fatuorum 20:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Watched that too as we have several servants in the family tree. The branch descended from them is the most snobbish!! I can think of loads of stuff to create but lots of what's here is awful, badly written trivia infested rubbish. It says much about not only this place but society in general. I wouldn't have lasted long in service, when I was 14 I walked out of my "Saturday job" and 21 when I left the second. Nice article, at least its readable. J3Mrs (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility

Hi! You and I (and others) rely much on MF as a source of guidance, advice, support, etc. I see that he is taking a break, otherwise I would have consulted him on this. I think it has been suggested that in the References section, the Bibliography subsection should be formatted with '''whatever''' (the embolden markup) rather than using ";" (the semicolon). I have just submitted a FLC on this topic, and have received comments which led me to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Here it seems to say that for accessibility, we should use the "proper" subheadings, ie ===whatever===, and that '''whatever''' is a pseudo-heading, which should not be used. It says "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup". So do you think we should use ===whatever=== rather than '''whatever'''? This sort of stuff drives me daft! (But I still think that WP should be persevered with for the common good!) Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I remember asking and remember wishing I hadn't. :-( A rummage through my archives left me no wiser. But I think the thread where I asked is here. It has links to other incomprehensible stuff. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. By the way thanks for your helpful citation yesterday.J3Mrs (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Using the traditional headings just makes the contents box appear more cluttered than it should be, so my response to any criticism would be "can you tell me how my method of structuring this article makes it less accessible for you?" Parrot of Doom 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be much easier if there was just one simple citation template and a single method of setting out these things. But its hard to see how something so sensible would happen as the only thing anybody bothers about is if you upset the idiots.J3Mrs (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear (as they say) - and as I have sort of said here. WP is too complicated for "ordinary/simple/normal" editors. But we must still press on, the best we can. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Manchester School of Art (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Canted, Apex, Oriel and Arcade

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

deletion

Why are you being awkward? I will revert it three times and it will go to the top. You've not even given me a chance to improve the article. Its "editors" like you who shouldn't even be Misplaced Pages. You just make it a misery for other editors. I can name a few you have irritatingly bullied over the past couple of years. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you give me a chance to correct the stuff you're not happy with then I wouldn't mind. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Now look what you've done.... Stevo1000 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I do mind. I spend ages writing stuff and referencing it. You just take it and attribute to to yourself. Revert it, the whole lot, and write it offline in your own words. Making personal attacks doesn't make what you've done right and I bet if I'd said nothing it would have stayed forever.J3Mrs (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Well I do mind. I spend ages writing stuff and referencing it." - bloody hell, now that's a bit rich coming from you. I really have heard it all now. You love deleting the work I do and claiming it to be "redundant". You only ever look at what others do and never consider your actions - so, answer this - why should I have any thoughts for you?

You famously hijacked the MediaCityUK page and basically kept the refs I added, put it in for GA status and had the cheek to call it yours. I'm actually quite happy - now you know how it feels and maybe you'll think twice before deleting other editors work. I've spent ages compiling work that you have subsequently derided as "redundant". Stevo1000 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That article was substantially improved. Grow up. J3Mrs (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you learned nothing from the pig's ear you made of that MediaCityUK article Stevo. And so far as the content of the Architecture article goes, this is the top, so behave yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Smithers has arrived. You are both aware Misplaced Pages is copyright-free? Someone could just copy and paste your work for a book. Therefore I cannot understand why you are so touchy-feely about the issue. Why not just write a book about the articles you've done? And that MediaCityUK page, who collated most of those references? Who got the ball rolling? God only knows how you are still on here. You probably have no lives and so your sad existence is reduced to trolling other editors on Misplaced Pages. You should have been removed from Misplaced Pages years ago. Pretty sad really... Stevo1000 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)