This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sarah777. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Sarah. I've been looking into the pan-wiki contributions log that you mentioned on my talk page. Its the first time I have noticed those unified logs. It is rather flawed, as it states your accounts are not unified yet lists all the pan-wiki edits as if they are unified.
It looks like you have an impersonator, perhaps two (you should take it as a compliment, imitation is the most sincere for of flattery, after all). If you take advantage of unified login, you will stop further attempts at impersonation, but I don't think that would do anything about those two old examples. I think the way to solve this is to usurp the accounts. A 'crat can rename both those accounts to somethings else (thereby transferring the block logs to the new name also). Then you could have the Sarah777 accounts as part of your unified log in, and your block logs would be clean.
If you want to do this but need help navigating the usurpation process on meta, let me know and I will can help your draft the request. Rockpocket19:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Is Dublin Airport convenient to you? If so, would you mind taking photographs of the Aer Lingus and Ryanair headquarters building and posting their photographs on here? I am doing a drive to upload photographs of airline headquarters; for instance I uploaded photos of the American Airlines, United Airlines, and British Airways headquarters from Flickr. However I have not found suitable photos of these two buildings on Flickr. Would you mind photographing the two buildings? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to M1 motorway, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jeni(talk)21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
With an edit-summary of 'c', it was impossible to tell what you intended. As it is clearly disputed, please discuss it to reach consensus. Chzz ► 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I see you are continuing to be disruptive, I must warn you I am on the verge of starting a thread at ANI regarding your recent behaviour and actions. Jeni(talk)22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Where was the need for consensus when all the N-roads were changed from N20 road to N20 road (Ireland) ? And do you really think consensus will be forthcoming in the British pov world of Wiki? Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
British bias!
Anyone looking for clear examples just check out the M1/M50 (motorway) series of changes. I changed the M1 from primary use to dab (there is an M1 in half a dozen European countries including Ireland and two in the UK; it was reverted on the basis that the English M1 was the "primary use". I then moved the Dublin M50 to the primary use and within seconds various British editors were in reverting and claiming the move was "disputed". Remember, the original series of N roads was written by Irish editors about Irish National Routes; they were later relegated, without any consultation, to Nx (Ireland) en masse. Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
So in other words, you made a WP:POINT change on the M50 article because your change on M1 was reverted, and then you edit-warred over it. Brilliant idea, that, it's certain to ensure that your point of view gains many new supporters. Black Kite22:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, mimicking behavior you find inappropriate to make a point is the perfect example of a WP:POINT violation. Cut it out please and deal with this through discussion not disruption. Chillum22:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing. Having watched this page since the last incident of potentially POINTy behaviour, continuing in the same way does not seem like the smartest course of action. Ale_Jrbtalk22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
You folk don't understand the dynamics of POV. It is all about relativity; the numerically small can only make their case through analogy or precedent; dismissing it as "pointy" is the refuge of those who care not for WP:NPOV. Justice must be seen to be done, or it isn't justice. After WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT is the greatest threat to WP:NPOV. But WP:NPOV is the one rule that the majority can ignore at will, all the time. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I note the deluge of Admins here when they reckon I'm in error and contrast that with the silence of the poor lambs whenever I have a problem or am under attack by some rogue member of their group. Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Making an (admittedly eloquent) argument as to why you disagree with WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT doesn't alter the fact that they are policies, and if you want them changed, you must obtain consensus to do so. Until then, ignoring them completely for no real reason isn't going to get you very far. Ale_Jrbtalk22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
What I note is an editor who does have a good point to make sometimes about implicit bias on Wikipedia, and then ruins it all by making edits like that which are only going to make people class you as disruptive. Black Kite22:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
An admirable reason. In my opinion, that is in no way what you are doing, and as your attempt is failing, I suggest you re-think your strategy and attempt to come to a consensus on the talk page. If you wish for an article to be moved, and there is opposition to that move (and whatever you think the reason is, the fact remains that the opposition is there), you should use WP:RM and discuss the issue. Remember: your opinion of NPOV, and someone else's opinion, are not necessarily the same; it's one of the problems with that policy. And that, in turn, is what discussion is for. Ale_Jrbtalk23:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, goodnight all, I'm not suicidal so I'm figuring it's time to pull in the horns when I have six Admins on my case:) Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarah I retracted my comment because you said goodnight and I figured it was not needed. If you would like to address what I posted, and then removed feel free to bring it to my talk page. The fact that you have decided to stop this direction of editing notwithstanding I still see gain to be made in a rhetorical discussion on the matter. Either way is fine with me. Chillum23:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I need to gather energy for rhetorical discussion; but I have been seriously neglecting my nuts and bolts work. I want to leave a reasonable legacy when the the evil day comes that the POV warriors succeed in banishing me forever to the grim darkness of Banned from Wiki. And Ale-jrb; failures which locate the cancer at the heart of the project and shine a light on the truth the "community" would rather ignore are not failures in my book. It is consciousness-raising; to improve the project in the area of greatest weakness. Truly, I'm a gem should be treasured by Wiki not a tick on it's a*** that it seeks to eliminate:) Sarah777 (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm a British editor. I haven't bothered to study all of the above in detail, but on the point of the M1 motorway I believe Sarah is correct. The UK M1 should not take precendence over others with the same name. MidnightBlue(Talk)10:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it should or should not, the page has been there a long time, so after the bold/revert process, the correct venue is discuss - either (a) on the talkpage, or (b) at WP:RM - not "try to conduct an edit-war you can't possibly win". Black Kite10:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the application of the WP:POINT guideline to sanction Sarah and the recourse methods offered are all favorable to the reality of a tyranny of the majority, and certain to place Sarah in the role of Sisyphus in the tales of en.wikipedia. I also think that is unfair and sad. Maybe there should be a WP:PACK guideline to protect eloquent but nevertheless doomed opposition to the tyranny. If there is something such as an essay written within the project that guides against blatant rules-based conspiracy against obviously hard working and thoughtful editors, and anyone supportive or in opposition to Sarah can honestly point to it, I would like to know about it. Bravo, Sarah, you are often right but must maintain a fight against an illusory sea of blue rules that manisfests a perhaps subconscious but still obvious bias, I don't know how you do it. Sswonk (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
She is so oppressed here she manages to make people resign or retire through her persistent nonsense. Poor little Sarah though. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Only you Sarah could possibly think that having more people around the project who think there are two M1s in the UK but only one M1 in Ireland [1] is going to lead to an improvement of the project. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I said there were two M1s in the UK; don't recall saying there was only one in Ireland. I know there are two in the UK; not just "think" it. And that's a heap more than you know by the looks of it! Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No need to try and remember what I wrote; I can actually read it. I manifestly did not claim there was only one M1 in Ireland; as you are aware when I say Ireland I take the meaning taken by the huge majority of Irish folk to mean Ireland, the sovereign country. Most Irish people who think "M1" think of the Dundalk road; most Irish people who say "Ireland" mean the sovereign country, called Ireland; not the British statelet. I thought I'd explained this to you many times before? If you need remedial tuition I'll have to start charging. Sarah777 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Through the benefit of exposure I thankfully always know what you mean, but if you continue to talk as if your POV is reality, then other people who don't know you will understandably not have a clue what you are on about most of the time. There are two M1's in Ireland and there are two M1's in the UK. That's just a cold hard fact of life. Now I'm just going to place this redlink here for you to start, to see if you are the one who needs extra tuition or not. MickMacNee (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. You are learning. You can now almost distinguish a "cold hard fact of life" from the concept of "primary usage" per Wiki. A baby step, but before long, if you continue to pay attention, you'll be able to toddle. Sarah777 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, as usual it's you that's not paying attention. Feel free to point out where I've said there was a primary usage of 'M1' anywhere. I was merely pointing out how your POV was more obvious in that request than the alleged British one you are fighting. MickMacNee (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
God you're boring. The M1 (Ireland) is hardly a problem that needs addressing as it resides at M1 (RoI). And most people in Ireland take the M1 to refer to the Dublin-Dundalk road. Read: I said you are learning to distinguish a "cold hard fact of life" from the concept of "primary usage" per Wiki.I didn't say you said the M1 (UK) was primary usage. Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
And I note your poor victimized Jeni has recovered from her fainting fit and after a dose of smelling salts is back pushing British pov with gusto. Like yourself. Sarah777 (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm stumped then if I'm supposed to know what you actually meant by it. You should just stick to the baseless insults, you are much easier to follow when you do. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The thing is Sarah knows the policies, the rules, and the procedures, and chooses to ignore them. And quite often will post something here on her talk page saying "I want this done, will an admin please do it for me?" It was obvious her move of M1 would be deemed controversial and immediately reverted. But Sarah knew this and did it anyway, instead of doing the obvious, posting on WP:RM and following the procedure set out for possibly controversial moves. The WP:RM procedure isn't even all that hard. And if Sarah does follow that procedure, I'd be happy to turn up there and support it, because her argument is correct, just the way she went about it wasn't. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!17:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Bastun, in an alternate universe I'm fairly sure we get along the finest. A little tweaking and you'd be an OK kinda guy :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
If that particular crock was going anywhere on ANI then it really would be time to despair! We either have rules or we have tyranny. Simple as that! Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
GoodDay, don't tell me the EU is going to force Ireland and Britain to switch to driving on the right. When I go to Ireland and the plane makes its descent into Dublin airport, I get such a thrill seeing drivers sitting on the right side of their cars as I know I'm definitely back in the Ould Sod--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC).
Why would - and how - could the EU "force" Ireland and Britain to switch to driving on the right!? (Hmm - maybe it'd be just a makework job - something for the €1.84/hour conscripted European Army to enforce after they've finished giving everyone a compulsory abortion and euthanised everyone over 30...) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
21/12/12 - er, why is that significant? (And apparently Orwell wanted to call his most famous book 1948, but his published wouldn't let him... ) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!10:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
George Orwell, a middle to upper class guy who thought taking a trip down the mines and living it rough in Paris would give him an insight into those worlds. It's like the politicians who live for a week on state benefits and declare they can manage quite comfortably, always easy when you know you will be going back to your more than comfortable lifestyle. It's a very very small insight into those worlds. Anyway, what's happening on the 21st of December 2012 that's so frightening? Let me know so I can try and avoid it. Jack forbes (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
End of the world according to whom? Is that the one where the Mayan calendar-that-counts-down-instead-of-up runs out? I think I've lived through two "This is really it this time, we mean it!" ends of the world already, so I won't hold my breath ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No worries, Bastun. If it does happen I've heard that if you stick your head under the covers nothing can harm you, or so I've been told. Jack forbes (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
When you move pages (as with N2 road and N3 road), could you check the "what links here" page to make sure there aren't any double redirects? I have fixed them for N2 and N3, but if you could do that in future, thanks. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Sarah, whether or not moving those road pages was the proper thing to do or not, isn't for myself to say. But, what's the best move for them? geographic (i.e to Great Britain, the island of Ireland) or political (i.e to the United Kingdom, Ireland)? I'm guessing the former. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
M2 motorway
Sarah, just to check - I presume you are going to fix the 200 or so incoming links to the article on the GB motorway that now point at a dab page? Black Kite19:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
No. They can be fixed over time; as always happens when a road is dabbed. You will still find links to the "N13 road" which someone changed to "N13 road (Ireland)" (along with 50 other roads). These changes were made without opposition because it was understood that dabbing was helpful - even where there were no existing other articles except the Irish version. Sarah777 (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
However, now that it appears that "primacy" is used to give English roads pride of place we need to examine ALL roads on a case by case basis. That is what I intend to do. I'm sure some bot can clean up any loose ends. Sarah777 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe when someone fixes the links to all the original Irish N-roads. I thought you were retired? The tag was simple edit-warring. Sarah777 (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, you know that you're not supposed to remove speedy tags from your own pages. Replacing them is decidedly not edit warring. Please don't characterize it that way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
If you move a page it is incumbent on you to fix the navigation problems that you create. I believe it is a simple job using AWB or similar. IF you are not prepared to do this you should not be moving pages in the first place. (For what it's worth, I believe the move is correct; but you need to ensure it's done correctly). Black Kite19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarek beat me to it. I've removed the speedy tag and asked Jeni to stop. In the meantime, shouldn't there be more entries on the dab page than two? Black Kite19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes Black Kite - It seems I have made a mistake; I have added the full list of M2 roads (bar some Australian repetition). I have no idea how AWB works, must study it. Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) So, just to clarify, db page move as I originally requested has now been carried out? It would have been a lot less fuss if Sarah hadn't chose to disruptively edit war over it :). Black Kite, its worth noting that Sarah has re-ordered your new order, worth a look at, not sure this user understands the concept of consensus. Jeni(talk)20:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Relax everyone - I will not be addressing the road naming conventions any further tonight and apologies to Jeni for jumping to conclusions - no vandalism at all. But I understand the concept of !consensus only too well I fear. Sarah777 (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
M2 motorway should be moved to M2 motorway (Rome), as should all the others similiarly. Afterall, 'all roads lead to Rome'. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sarah. I may be loosing perspective on this (stub) article due to another ed's point blank refusal to engage, while loading the article with info. that properly belongs elsewhere and merrily ignoring every good faith approach. Can you keep an eye out/intervene/improve the situation? Alone and exasperated! RashersTierney (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Just responding, all seems to have settled down. Am away from 'home' myself at the moment - thus the IP. (Downside of letting browsers remember passwords!) Best. RT 86.43.74.143 (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
More on page moves
I first become aware of your page moves due to requested moves concerning many British motorways. I notice you've been moving many pages without first obtaining conensus. Of larger concern to me is that your appear to be showing a bias. You have made changes to N3 road and N24 road (which have both been reverted) to the point to the Irish road on the basis of it being the primary topic despite the existence of major French roads making the pimary topic far from clear. In complete contrast to this you have been moving british motorways e.g. the M1 motorway to M1 motorway (Great Britain) or similar so as to 'Standardise naming'. Surely if you'll goal was to standardise naming, as you claim, then the Irish roads should be at N3 road (Ireland), i.e. with a country name, the same as for British motorways. I'm sure you can see why I am concerned that you may be showing bias even if such bias does not actually exist. I advice you to not make any more page move of road names without first gaining consensus through requested moves. Dpmuk (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The above comment has been deleted twice, but some British POV pushers insist on reverting the deletion. Even though BW comments such as these have been summarily deleted by Sarah in the past. Even though Sarah has specifically told BW to keep away from her Talk page. Even though it's actually a lie - who really cares so long as other editors can try to make arguments based on an editor and not on the content. So Rocky and Jeni, enjoy! Share in BW's mean spiritted and cowardly name calling. And for the (many) admins that keep Sarah's Talk page on their watchlist, funny how this sort of stuff goes unpunished even though it breaches multiple policies.... --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I have made it clear, repeatedly, to BW that his warring on behalf of British pov is unwelcome here. Please feel free to delete any post he puts here. On sight. And thanks in advance. Sarah777 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarah777, you can not prohibit people from using your talk page. You can remove their comments (but not ask other people to), but you can not prohibit them from editing here, nor can you edit their comments. Prodegotalk19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
HK, you've got your vote of confidence. Hey Sarah, do ya have a list of all those motorway articles, that you wish (or have) changed? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
G'Day; I wish to move all roads titled Nx (Ireland) to "Nx national road" (for starters). That way the POV warriors can't keep imposing British pov on countless Irish articles. Sarah777 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the roads within Great Britain should be titled under (Great Britain) & the roads within Ireland should be under (Ireland). BTW, is their a causeway between Ireland & Great Britain? GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarak; I have posted on your page. This is an excellent example of the evil result of having Admins cruising around with uncontrolled blocking powers. Same thing has happened to me from "cruising" Admins and there is no apology, no come-back; no purging of the record. No justice. No fairness. In answer to you daft question - no, I did not just say that. Can't you read? Sarah777 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. PS: I'll be glad to assume administrative powers & duties, but only on one condition - the powers & duties must be absolute. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Neither you nor I nor anyone else should be let loose with unchecked police powers who, in the absence of clear laws, make it up as they go along; acting as judge, jury and executioner. In the style of a drive-by shooter. Though without as much due process as the DBS. Sarah777 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand. Atheists, at the very least, show some logical common sense... Obviously atheists can't be idiots then.... --HighKing (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarah 777 - I currently have no problem with Irish roads being as Nxx national road as I have no preference between this and Nxx road (Ireland). At the moment I see no objections to this but I would be careful how you tread if someone objects. Whether intentional or not you gave me the impression of bias so you may accidently wind people up quite easily.
I find your original reply quite odd and think it failed to answer my question. Although I don't think it was intentional I also find your reply somewhat inflamantory saying 'I'm illustrating a bias' is bound to wind up people even if you then qualify it and make your stance quite reasonable. That said I still don't understand how you consider having N3 road redirect to an Irish road and M1 motorway to be a disambiguation page to both be NPOV as the two stances appear to contradict each other and so only one can be NPOV. You probably have perfectly valid reasoning but at the moment I'm not seeing it and your reply hasn't helped.
If you wish to have the Irish road at Nxx road (and here I'd also refer to it redirecting to the Irish road) and there's other roads with this name then I'd ask that you seek consensus first (probably at WP:RM as I doubt any of the cases will be clear cut. I'm not saying I'd automatically object to any move as I'd treat each case individually, what I am saying is I object to such moves being made without an attempt to seek consensus. In the language of WP:RM I don't think such moves are uncontreversial. Dpmuk (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I also think the same principal applies to British motorways so ask you to seek consensus first for the same reasons. Dpmuk (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, I'll support you to the hilt if I see you being treated unfairly, but it does seem reasonable that you seek consensus, either on a project basis or article by article, for any further page moves on roads that you make. It also seems reasonable that if you ever move a page (after obtaining consensus obviously), that you fix all the links that point to it. Tell you what, if you do that for a month I'll make the barnstar you awarded yourself above official. Believe me, I do sympathize with your idea that small nations get a raw deal sometimes here. But pointy page moves and leaving others to clear up the mess isn't the way to make a positive change here. Take care, --John (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. First Dpmuk: the M1 motorway was a move to standardise the naming; as was done without any consultation to a whole series of Irish N roads. The moves where then defended by reverting editors who have had no previous input whatever into the Irish roads series. When all and sundry pointed out the issue of "primacy" in the case of the M1 ans especially the M2 motorway I went with what I was told was the consensus and am now moving the Irish N-roads to a new primary location based on that consensus rationale. Sarah777 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
John; I have no issue with "small nations". I have an issue with wholesale abandonment of WP:NPOV in order to push British perspective/nationalism on a whole host of Ireland-related articles. This road-naming nationalism is just the latest example of the problem. Sarah777 (talk) 07:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
And, unlike most of the name-warriors and their Admin support group (with hugely overlapping nationalities) I have a vast edit record on roads articles. Some folk merely focus on warring for Britain or defending those so doing. I'm mainly a content person. But I'm not about to be trampled on either. Sarah777 (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer which now makes it clear what you were doing and why and to a large extent I'm convinced you weren't trying to show bias. If how ever you'd thought about it a bit more I'm sure you could have realised that a lot of people would consider your moves biased even if you didn't. I think part of the issue here is your comment "reverting editors who have had no previous input whatever into the Irish roads series" which I have two problems with. Firstly, and I've not looked into this, these people could've had interested in other road series (e.g. France) which your moves were affecting and so could have had a legitimate reason to move the page back. Second many editors, such as myself, may have come at this from the requested moves page. When I see one move that I think shouldn't have been done without consensus I will often look to see if other similar moves have also taken place and this is how I come across this whoule issue. People coming from either of these routes would not neccessary be pushing "British perspective/nationalism on a whole host of Ireland-related articles", but rather trying to apply standard wikipedia conventions. I will admit to being British but I try not to let that influence my decisions. There does however seem to be a certain underlying tension amongst certain editors with this which has complicated matters. Dpmuk (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Right click at start location, select 'directions from here'
Right click at destination, select 'directions to here'
Hover over the 'proffered route' and drag to new 'prefered route'
Select the 'Link' icon (top right)
Select 'Customise and preview embedded map' (I don't yet know how to use the 2 paste options, but maybe you or one of your host of readers and followers .......)
A new window opens. Paste all the stuff into wiki. (I don't yet know how to embed it properly, French style, but maybe you or one of your host of readers and followers .......)
Just be aware that Google Maps has not yet added certain new sections of road, and has erroneously added certain sections that actually haven't opened yet, so it's not entirely reliable. Seighean (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Lordy - I found Honours Maths easier than this - I was confused now I'm not so sure! Re 'proffered to prefered' there was a report on the radio this morning about about a house-fire in which an old man died and the police said that "foul play was not expected". Sarah777 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm...the map is wrong actually; it shows Bride's Glen cut by the M50 - in fact it isn't; there is an underpass - so the R116 takes a bit of a detour! Sarah777 (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I have just reverted your similar moves of N3 road (Ireland) and N24 road (Ireland), again pending the outcome of a centralised discussion at Talk:National primary road#Nx_road_or_Nx_national_road.3F. I really am open-minded on the outcome of this, because Irish roads is an area where you have a lot of experience, and you may be right. But if the change is appropriate, let's do it systematically across all Irish N-roads, and fix all the incoming links. Dong it piecemeal without fixing the incoming links is a recipe for confusion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
I really wish you'd just stay away BHG. We saw where "consensus" leads at the M2, M50 etc. Consensus = British pov. This naming is to circumvent an Irish - British war on the issue, which, due to our generally spineless Admins the NPOV people always lose. Remember: all these roads were originally simply "Nx road"; before anyone started to write about French roads and decided Irish versions occupying primary positions was ridiculous and dabbed them en masse. Something we now see cannot be done to even a single instance of an English road. Again; your intentions may be well meaning but you are naive on the politics to the point of being dangerous. To the project and to WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with Sarah. If someone told me M8 motorway (Scotland) should take precedence over M8 Motorway (Ireland) I would think it ridiculous, or vice versa. Why should English roads be given the primary position? I've heard the usual answers, such as the English roads getting more hits. Hang on though, isn't this an encyclopedia? More hits don't mean greater importance. It gets more hits because there are more English people. Is that the criteria on wiki? Imagine the US built an insignificant road, named it the M1 and it received more hits than the M1 in England. I imagine there would be a number of unhappy bunnies. Jack forbes (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
And, for the record, I'd support naming roads in all cases with the (country) in brackets in the title. It is the only NPOV approach. But as WP:NPOV is clearly either not understood or is rejected by a plurality of British editors we must live in the world we find, not the one we'd wish we found. And the reality is Jack, than on the rare occasions when British pov clashes with American (see Horse chestnut) it is dismissed with the same arrogance and nationalist pov as the British exhibit on Ireland related matters! But I really think WP:NPOV is a better option than the nationalism-by-numbers that currently rules Wiki. I watch with amusement, from afar, how the British version of Indian history and society is being gradually purged from even En:Wiki by the preponderance of Indian numbers despite the support of many Americans for the British position. Hardly the way forward; as many in the Anglo branch of En:Wiki are concluding as they consider toying with the rules to address this "problem" of nationalist pov. Which, of course, is only a "problem" when the prevailing US/UK hegemony is challenged! Suddenly "consensus-by-numbers" isn't really consensus atall atall. (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Country in brackets is the obvious answer. In my experience nationalist pov is frowned upon on wiki. Unless of course it's UK nationalism or US nationalism. Jack forbes (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, I quite agree with you that there is a real problem with British editors who cannot accept that a British road should be anything other than the primary topic. And I quite agree with Jack that hit-counting can be a misleading way of measuring primacy.
The problem, though, is that changing the naming does absolutely nothing to avoid conflict with the British editors. Even if we call the article "N11 national road", it still needs to be accessible to anyone looking for "N11 road", which still requires proper disambiguation of "N11 road". So we haven't solved anything -- and in fact we've made things worse, by giving the an excuse to those who want to push the Irish N11 down to the "others" section of the dab page.
There is one simple, NPOV solution to all of this. Where two or more roads have the same name, disambiguate all of them, without getting caught into circular POV arguments as to their relative importance. That way we can provide a clear path for any readers who land at the undisambiguated title, and (thanks to the bots monitoring links to dab pages) easily find misplaced links and disambiguate them using popups.
Unfortunately, by seeking primarytopic status for the M50, Sarah has played straight into the hands of the British editors whose basic principle is to declare a British road as a primary topic if they can find any excuse to do so. It would be much better not to play their game.
Now, back to the N-roads. There's no conflict there with Britain, because the poor British don't have N-roads, just their sub-standard A-roads (which usually lack hard shoulders) ... so don't conflate that with the motorways dispute. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your proposed solution, as I've said. Re "N-roads" they are important as they illustrate the double standard; it isn't French editors who are reverting my moves here. Apart from you, the other reverts are British. Until I see agreement to the universal dab you propose I'll be maintaining the primacy of the M50; I really don't care if the British want the A661(M) or some such nonsense as the "primary" location for that number - so long as they dab where there is doubt. Sarah777 (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, Northern Ireland seems to be problem. England is a no-go, we use either Great Britain/Ireland or United Kingdom/Republic of Ireland (appearing as Ireland). I'd prefer the former option. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
As NI has the same numbers as are already used in other parts of the UK that means that Mx (country) is probably more practical than Mx (UK). They'd call the M40 (England) and the M4 (England & Wales). Though the M4 may well be the only example of a motorway crossing a national boundary. The M6 (England) becomes the M74 when it reaches civilization :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Love geography and maps and drive a lot. Started with a fascination with signposts and got progressively worse, spreading until it was incurable :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I can understand getting hooked on something till it becomes a little obsessive. I plan to climb all the Munros of Scotland and I've only climbed two to date. I'm already obsessing over it. Jack forbes (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Holy smokers, so as far as the UK is concerned - used England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales. Phew, Okie Dokie as I'm not about to try and persuad the Scots to change their road articles to (Great Britain) or (United Kingdom). GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I like to parade the streets, bowl along, mentally and spiritually absorbing the chaotic urban scene. I did, however walk about the magnificent Scottish Highlands, Jack. That was in 1979, and I stayed at Dornie near the lovely Eilean Donan Castle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Top o' the mornin' Jeanne. It must be after 7.30 where you are? It's past 6.30 here but the time showing for these posts makes it only half five! (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's a relief to see that I'm not the only early bird around here. I have to get up early, check my watchpages, etc, before my kids take over the computer. It's a Sunday so that means no school and no computer for Jeanne Boleyn. I could do with an expresso now. Sarah, they advise us at Wikipedia not to edit when one is drunk (LOL), angry, tired or hungry. I should also add that one should not edit when one is having a bad hair day as it can/does lead to unfettered incivilty mostly consisting of taboo Anglo-Saxon words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've already reminded Jeni that she shouldn't template the regulars. Although I'd be more interested in which exact part of the MOS she's referring to, since the MOS explicitly states A picture may benefit from a size other than the default. --HighKing (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Size was to match the infobox; this is a visual improvement I have made hundreds of times; check out it out. And please stop stalking me. Or I might get cross. Sarah777 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
As for the template HK, I guess Jeni thinks the Blue symbol makes her utterly pointless interventions seem important. At this stage if I corrected a spelling error I'd not be surprised if J slapped a template here and engaged in a bit of mindless edit warring. Sarah777 (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I had never encountered her before until she slapped a template on my Talk page....but I think it's you she has a beef with, not anyone else. --HighKing (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, congratulations! I have just seen that as of 9 September 2009, you are number 506 in the list of Wikipedians by number of edits. I am number 919 which clearly places me in the top thousand. Whew! That's a relief. I can now postpone jumping off my balcony, seeing as I'm in with the In-Crowd at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. But that includes all the edits on this page:) I wonder what percentage of some Admin records are blocks? I must look into that....Sarah777 (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Why?
Firstly please see my comments at Talk:N3 road (Ireland)#Requested move. Secondly I'm wondering why you've changed all the links in toher articles from N3 road (Ireland) to N3 road. Given that the article currrently resides at N3 road (Ireland) (correctly in my opinion as discussed in the requested move discussion) I find such a move to be extremely disruptive as it makes life much more difficult for readers and intends to have been done to make a WP:POINT. Although I sympthaise with many of your points of view, and think that some editors probably have a campaign against you, I do find the way you go about doing things to be wrong. Indeed if you carry on doing things as you currenly do I will consider taking the issue of your conduct further. I'm about to go off and revert all the links you changed. Dpmuk (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The links were changed to N3 (Ireland) an hour ago after I proposed moving the article back to N3. DO NOT REVERT MY LINKS. Sarah777 (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, as per my comment on my talk page, disambiguating the links does not prejudice the outcome of the discussion. If the article is moved from "N3 road (Ireland)" to "N3 road", the redirect will ensure that all links work as intended. If it is not moved, then a failure to disambiguate leaves the links pointing to the wrong place. The disambiguation also assists the discussion, by allowing an accurate assessment of the internal links to the page in question.
Your rapid-fire reversion also undid my disambiguation of other links to Irish N-roads. I'm puzzled that when you have contributed so much to articles on Irish roads (far far more than anyone else, AFAICS), that you don't welcome disambiguation of links to them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point that wikipedia should be as easy as possible to use for the readers, it should not be used to make a point to other editors. Where the article ends up (and indeed when it ends up there) is irrelevant, at the moment the article is at N3 road (Ireland) and so links should point there so that readers don't end up at a confusing disambiguation page when they don't have to. Dpmuk (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Why did you chose to dab all the links within minutes of my proposal to restore the article to it's original primary location? I am missing no point. You are edit warring and you are de facto maintaining different "no-primacy" policy on Irish roads that you can't impose of British roads because you get voted down by British nationalists. If there is a primacy rule in one country there is a primacy rule in all cases; to help the reader. Or we have universal dabbing. Sarah777 (talk) 10:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You are right about one thing; going through the list of dabs you made at least 70% of the articles were created by me - all those roads, towns and villages. And I have getting very very sick of the relentless imposition of British pov, to the smallest detail, on everything we do at WikiProjIreland. It has got to stop. Sarah777 (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Considering your POV appears to be "The Irish roads are clearly primary targets, but the British motorways aren't", how does that make your viewpoint any different from the British editors suggesting the opposite? Answer: it doesn't, which means that your changes will be reverted just like the ones to the Motorways were, until a Requested Move discussion has occurred. You might just find a lot of those people agreeing the the N3 Irish road is the primary target - personally I think it probably should be.
But the real problem here is that, for example, you're basing your move on Google hits, when if you looked at the Google hits for some of the English motorways that want dabbed, you'd find exactly the same thing - that most of the Google hits are about them. You can't have it both ways! Black Kite11:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
"The Irish roads are clearly primary targets, but the British motorways aren't" - could you please show me some diffs to support that daft claim? As that is pure 24 carat bull**** the rest of your post falls. Come back if you find some diffs. Sarah777 (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Some diffs? Certainly. For example, you propose to move the N3 road back based purely on a Google claim that it's the primary target ([3]) - I actually agree that it probably should be the primary, but others may disagree. Thus, you should've just opened an RM rather than suggesting it on other people's talkpages. Meanwhile, for example, you !voted for moving M1 motorway away from the primary [4] , despite the fact that it's Google search returns a better percentage of hits for it than does your N3 example! As I said, you can't have it both ways. And that ain't bullshit. Black Kite14:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is actually. As I have just explained to BHG above somewhere I voted to move the M1 because I was had accepted BHG's argument re dabbing everything. However that vote made it clear that the community were against such an approach and primacy was to be considered on a case by case basis. No contradiction; just chronology. Sarah777 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You see, I don't want it "both ways"; but the mainly British editors who make and enforce the rules here do. Ironically. I say we dab all roads or have a primacy policy based on something other than a show of (mostly British) hands. A policy, rules - that sort of thing. Sarah777 (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
A thought for the day
What we see here is some of the fall-out on the failure of the community to support it's self-declared policy of WP:NPOV. It is but one symptom of a cancerous disease. The disease is described here. Sarah777 (talk) 11:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
When you make a post about somebody at WP:ANI(or anywhere for that matter) you should let the person you are talking about know about the discussion so that they may participate. Regardless of the events surrounding the dispute all parties should know about any complaint against them. Chillum15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Heck Sarah, check out my changes there (sorry, I couldn't do anything with the Infobox version). I've done it for you. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you G'Day. While reviewing your changes I took the opportunity to improve the article by removing some prolific datespam. Sarah777 (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I see Mr Binns is the current ambassador and he has a fine article and is a former Premier of PEI. An acquaintance of yours G'Day? Isn't Prince Edward your habitat?? Sarah777 (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I'm a Prince Edward Islander. Nope, Binns isn't a acquaintance of mine. Saskatchewanians is what they're called (I think). GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I can just about guarantee you that it will get bounced straight back as "content dispute" and/or "insufficient attempts at dispute resolution", as someone who's had that happen himself a couple of times. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, unless it is included in a wider issue (for example some editors have been making noises about starting a "British Isles" RFAR, which I am trying to avoid by restricting page reverts for both "sides") then it will almost certainly suffer that fate. Black Kite17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
B Kite, what is a "British Isles" RFAR? Would it affect the current roads naming issue? (Of course if it were actually called that then it would exclude Irish roads by definition.) Sarah777 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm very, very curious as to what your reasons for your preference are! I hail from Manhattan, and the street I might be partial too might be 23rd Street. We have here many citizens of Irish descent - lovely and lovable people, may I add. So I think I'm neutral on the issue. But I have absolutely no idea as to what the reasons for your preferences are. Best wishes, --Ludvikus (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If no other road in the former British Empire exist with the latter name, there's no need for the parenthetical qualification.
PS2:What about WP:Bold? FUI, I have been (in my perception) the victim of BHG's unfair Banning and Restring my activity at WP. So if I were prejudiced against any WP Administrator, it would be her. But so far you haven't demonstrated any WP rule violation on her part against your work. I'm rather surprised that you are treated with such gentle gloves. It would seem to me that you are engaged in a Content dispute with her. I have found not a single Diff which you posted showing that she did anything wrong, other than disagree with you. Since I don't know you, and have been (in my perception) directly unfairly treated by her in her capacity as a WP administrator (against me as a WP content provider), I should want to side with your position rather than hers. But I'm a person ruled by logic rather than bias. Right now she seems to be 100% correct - except for disagreeing with your view of her WP conduct. Emotionally, I would prefer it the other way around. So I suggest you either be extremely specific about your complaint against her, or abandon your complaint which - judging by my recent return from a two-year Ban, can only be construed as Disruptive to Wikipedia. From all your complaints against her, I cannot believe that it was I who was Banned from Wikipedia for being Disruptive. I hope this is of help to you. But if not - believe me - I would love nothing better than to side with you. But at the moment you have zero evidence against her. In fact, her conduct appears impeccable. So if you cannot give us something to get her with, I suggest you admit that you only have a Content dispute with her respecting Irish roads. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
My complaint was explicit. She dabbed dozens of links to the "N3 road" to "N3 (Ireland)" immediately (within minutes) after I notified her of my intention to restore the article from "N3 road (Ireland)" to "N3 road" and while the issue was under discussion. If you regard such beheaviour as "100%" correct then I can't be responsible for your poor judgment. "I have found not a single Diff which you posted..."; not surprising as I didn't post any. BHG has not disputed the facts, merely made Wiki-laywering, disingenuous attempts to justify this beheaviour. The remedy I seek is that she be asked to restore the links until the issue is settled. If, in your view, my complaint should be met with a two-year ban rather than "gentle gloves" then perhaps we should discontinue this conversation before I say something ungentle? "if I were prejudiced against any WP Administrator, it would be her" - after you were banned for 2 years? "Prejudiced against" wouldn't even begin to describe my attitude to anyone who banned my for two years. You are a forgiving soul obviously so I'm sure you'll forgive me if I ask you to take this debate to ANI. Not here. Sarah777 (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
BHG is extremely fast in her work. And WP does have a rule like this: WP:BOLD. My experience at WP with respect to myself has been an extreme disappointment to me. And she is an administrator who disappointed me maybe most of all (I'm not sure of that, though, since I've had encounters with many Administrators). It is very easy to find my WP:criminal record. If you look more carefully, you will find that I was last Banned for two years by an Administrator who does not wish me to mention his name - so I will not. Another administrator, by the name of Phil, terminated my WP:Sentence, after serving more than a year away from WP, based on my positive wording to the WP:Parol board. On my return, I got into WP:Trouble for my editing historical revisionism related articles. In particular, an administrator, whose name I'll omit because I want to develop a good working relationship with him (and because I know he's now watching me like a big brother, Restricted me from four (4) articles related to this controversial subject. He also posted an ANI about the issue. Not a single ADM came to my defense - to oppose the restriction. But only BHG was familiar with my work (of those who supported the Restriction). And she explicitly voted that the Restriction be maintained - this was a deep, deep, disappointment to me - particularly because she seems to be so able (but not able when it comes to me I think). So I have no reason to be biased in her favor. What I'm saying is that you've not demonstrated any WP:misconduct on her part. In fact, she demonstrated that she's opened a special page designed to study the issue of "Nx road"s. If you like, I'll get you the Diff to that. I think your complaints about her "speed" does not violate any WP rules. Perhaps there should be a Flag prompting an editor to slow down (with a "please"). But at the moment, even if she's wrong on the Content issue of Irish road names, she appears to be 100% right when it comes to WP rules and policy. So I suggest that you drop the ANI against her. But if you insist, you should specify exactly what she's done wrong by a specific Diff. But the better way out - I think - is to find other means which are in keeping with WP policy and rules. I also notice (last time I looked) that the consensus on the proposed Nename/Move issue is Opposed - 100% against you. So my curiosity is about this - how come I've been treated so harshly, whereas you are being treated with kid gloves (except for one editor, woman, who's sparing with you. I'd like to side with you - but you've really given me no evidence for it. BHG girl still smells like a rose! Maybe she should slow down in her editing for your sake. But that's her prerogative by current WP procedures. I hope these observations are of assistance to you - and of course to WP! --Ludvikus (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Sarah was notified of the existence of that discussion by BrownHairedGirl (it's initiator) - see the #N11 and other Irish N-roads section further up this page and it has been mentioned in several other places too. Presumably therefore her non-participation is down to choice not ignorance. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Noticed last night while cruising my watchlist (3,900 articles and growing!) that someone removed Manor Kilbride from the list of towns and villages in County Wicklow. Is there a dispute of some sort? I'll have to check in the vault for pictures as it's years since I was there.
Wow, 3,900 and counting; IIRC you dumped them all some time ago when they were around 1,500. I am trying to stay under 700!! Indeed reverted the removal but we are trying to determine where the Manor Kilbride name comes from buut in my opinion it is the WP:COMMONNAME (a thing of beauty to you) and on my talk page is a discussion about it with many references I have here. Indeed Manor Kilbride is near Blessington close to "The Lamb" with the northern end close to the Sally Gap road (R759) though some internet maps place the name further north on the Lisheen road. Any clarification would be good, especially by photo. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I know it's WP:OR, for which the awesome Arbcom has chastised me! - but - I've always heard it called "Manor Kilbride". (the one near Blessington that is). Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It can't be OR as I have several official sources that use the name Manor Kilbride even though the mapping/topographical sources all use Kilbride. Locally some people do call it Kilbride but that is WP:OR. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As you can see it was taken in winter on a terribly windy day. My boyfriend and I walked from Dundalk across the border into the North. It was a lovely walk even though once we stepped over the border the main road was closed and traffic was detoured onto a cattle path due to a bomb scare.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you - from unfortunate personal experience - that by the rules and powers of WP - BHG is being incredibly generous to you. Again, I must remind you, the most important rule at WP - is "being able to get along." In addition, BHG appears to be in agreement with the view that there are WP policy rules regarding the Road articles in dispute. So it would be nice if you worked on formulating uniform WP rules on how to name roads when there's an ambiguity. That may end the dispute very nicely - do you agree? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Primacy stuff needs to be repealed. Ireland motorways should be titled with (Ireland) & English motorways should be titled with (England). PS: Noting that Scottish motorways are titled with (Scotland); assuming Welsh motoways are simliliar. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Sarah's talk page isn't the place for this debate, but there is consensus that some some British motorways are the primary topic, and there seems to be consensus that roads in England, Soctland and Wales that are not the primary topic should take (Great Britain) as the disambig. It is likley that myself or other editors will be proposing to move the M8 and M9 (the two that take (Scotland) when things quieten down a bit. See Talk:M50 motorway#Content of the dab page (see the second outdent after the collapseable section). Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Bad idea, Thryduulf. Very bad idea.
I would be astonished if any attempt to change the disambiguator from "(Scotland)" to "(Great Britain)" failed to generate a hostile response from lots of Scottish editors -- you may no be aware that the concept of Britishness is not universally adored in Scotland, but there are plenty of editors who'll remind you of that very quickly if you try this.
I won't be around for a few weeks, so I'll probably miss any such attempt ... but before I go I'll note that I think it's a real pity that there isn't more effort among English editors to try to understand the perspective of those in these islands who aren't English. Changing the disambiguator on those two articles does nothing at all to help the reader (there are already redirects from M8 motorway (Great Britain) and M9 motorway (Great Britain)), and a move like that only offends those Scots who asset a non-British identity. Why do this? What would it achieve other than more disputes at a point when things have already quietened down?
Y'know, this is why I may have surprised some ppl by defending Sarah at the RFC. When Sarah makes some WP:POINTy page moves, all hell breaks lose ... but now we have the admin who threatened her with a block posting on her talk page to propose a few WP:POINTy moves of his own. You couldn't make this stuff up. :(
Take if from one who knows. Moving anything Scotland to Great Britain (or United Kingdom) is a recipe for disputes. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't going to do anything more than propose the move through RM based on the discussions at places like M50 that the key thing is that it is the Great Britain road numbering scheme not the English, Welsh or Scottish one and that the non-motorway roads are at (Great Britain) not (Scotland), both roads wholly in Scotland and roads that cross the border. Not that this was in any way directed at Sarah (it's unfortunate this is happening at her talk page), but I honestly don't understand why she would be upset with someone proposing that M8 motorway (Scotland) be moved to M8 motorway (Great Britain)? While there is a case based on google his for it to be the primary topic (I don't know about other metrics), it is not clear cut and so I do not anticipate proposing that and so it would not have any effect on other roads. Unlike Ireland, Scotland is part of both Great Britain and the majority of it is located on the island of Britain. While I agree that it is appropriate for some things to take (England), (Scotland), (United Kingdom), etc, I do not think that roads numbered in the Great Britain scheme and unique in Great Britain are. If there is disagreement with my view then people will be free to object to the proposed move when it is made, and if there is consensus that it should remain at (Scotland) then there it shall remain. Sarah - if this does seem offensive, goading or anything like that to you, then I appologise, but I would appreciate an explain of why so that I may better understand. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No prob Thryduulf - So long as you are not calling for me to be blocked/banned/terminated I am not especially sensitive! Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thryduulf, Sarah can answer for herself, but the reason why I suggested that Sarah would see it as looking like goading is that a time where her conduct is being scrutinised in an RFC/U as a result of all the tensions around naming issues, you (as one of her critics) are proposing something which will generate similar tensions elsewhere ... and which may well end up as English-Scottish row. GoodDay is right -- the Scots can be very noisy about that sort of thing, noisy enough to remind everyone of what placid, easygoing folks we Irish are. :) I have a few scars from having inadvertently trodden on their toes.
Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Sarah proposed those moves? There'd be howls of omigod-she's-at-it-again, and probably calls for blocks for tendentious and/or disruptive editing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
PS Thryduulf, if perchance you do want a bit of mischief, then you could consider renaming the motorways in England to "Mx motorway (Ireland)", because of course most of those mways were built by people from Ireland, the latterday McAlpine's Fusiliers. Probably not a good idea, but it'd sure take the heat off Sarah ... --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
And now we know that even two (2) Irish sisters are in dispute on the issue - did everyone get this revelation? I hail from Manhattan, of Eastern European ancestor, and I'm particularly fond of the the English speaking peoples - all equally. But I'm also very familiar with both Ireland's and Scotland's nationalist feelings at times against the English co-inhabitants of the British Isles. I think this should be what our American president calls a "teaching moment." (I see that's perhaps still a neologism). All this discourse here indicates that WP needs uniform rules on this, otherwise there will be recurrent, or subsequent accusations of "English cultural imperialism" - I'm only surprised that Wales is quiet at the moment. Is that simply because the Welsh know that "all roads lead to Rome"? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ludvikus, I believe you meant Teachable moment, which Obama picked up from the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts regarding a recent police incident involving a Harvard professor. I would remove the redlink you placed above at "teaching moment" but I don't want to refactor a comment not made by me. However, "teaching moment" as far as I know is not a term worthy of an article or redirect. Sswonk (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Why on earth are you here talking of Irish and Scottish nationalism? Please, tell me why you are here? In what way are you trying to help? Jack forbes (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ludo - I'm half Italian (no fault of my own!); I don't subscribe to racist theories of nationality; Irishness is a state of mind. Like being a Corkonian. Only not so bad. (Joke). Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean you, personally. But it was clear to me that issues of nationalism were expressed on that complaint against you (by others). I did see several implications of issues of what might be construed as "British cultural imperialism" (that kind of expression had been used often in USA discourse). So I'm just trying to figure out what the source of the disturbance is all about. I see that BHG is stretching her hand out to you. So I wonder what could possibly keep you from saying - OK, it's all a big misunderstanding, and let's learn how to work better together. Anyway, I like Italians very much too - even half-Italians. I can tell you that I've just asked BHG girl to help me in something. But she just told me she's too busy. It just occurred to me. Maybe she's too busy with you. So if you could make piece with her - maybe I could say I did that - and then I could bug her to help me. She's the only WP Administrator who knows me and participated in my Restriction (unfavorably to me). So since PEACE is the number one priority at WP, I could tell her that I'm like the guy in Palestine (who made the piece among the waring two factions of Ireland) and is now trying to bring piece to the Middle East. Wouldn't that be something? Could you tell her your going to work with her ONLY because I asked you too? That would be a very nice gift for me - and of course for Wikipedia. After that, I'll probably apply to become a WP Administrator. And use this Peace Treaty as proof of my abilities! --Ludvikus (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
PS1:About the last part - I'm half joking. I think I still have too many "WikiEnemies" to get elected. But since Obama got elected - hey - maybe even in Wiki-politics Anything is possible! --Ludvikus (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
PS2:A word to the wise is sufficient. Perhaps you still need a means to vent your frustrations. I can assure you that using my discourse with you - to make WP peace with her - is an excellent instrument to achieve that end - and good for Wikipedia as well. Best to all my fellow Wikipedians, --Ludvikus (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
L, I'm not "at war" with BHG; I have issues about her actions in a single area. In the past we have collaborated happily; we have had some spats. That's life. You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends! I have no idea what the you/BHG issue was and I don't want to know; not because I'm too busy but because it would be inappropriate for me to become involved in a third party dispute involving BHG which is unrelated to my editing area. I'm sorry I can't help but I'm guided by my own light - finding it always the brightest:) I have cast wisdom aside and embraced foolishness as a philosopher suggested. I think he was Greek. Sarah777 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If there was a Greek, he was just copying my favourite work by our Pádraig:
“
The lawyers have sat in council, the men with the keen, long faces. And said, "this man is a fool.", and others have said, "He blasphemeth" And the wise have pitied the fool that hath striven to give a life In the world of time and space among the bulks of actual things To a dream that was dreamed in the heart, and that only the heart could hold. O wise men, riddle me this: what if the dream come true?
Although it might have been pre-emptive copying. Some devious chronological trickery, perhaps. ;-)
Anyway, Ludvikus, Sarah is right. She an I are not enemies, and in fact we agree with each other most of the time, but have a few disagreements — usually on tactical issues, usually resolved. I'm a big admirer of her massive contribution to coverage of Irish geographical articles and especially Irish roads (she's the wikipedia expert on that subject), and of the squillions of great photographs she has taken and uploaded to illustrate them … and Sarah also plays a very important role round here by saying some uncomfortable things which need saying, following GBS's sound advice.
And Ludvikus, Sarah is right too that it's a bad idea to try to drag one dispute into an unrelated one. It can appear to be hounding.
That's all wonderful. So there's no need for that "Report." I'm truly glad to hear you two are getting along. And by the way, I do not need your help in any of my disputes. I just want you guys to remember me when I run for administrator - one day, I hope. If I had any hand in assisting in the de-escalation of the controversy in which you two were involved (on opposite sides), I hope you guys remember me! But if you think I've made 'zero" contributions to the "heated" discussion - so be it. I haven't yet looked at how that "Report" has turned out. And I'm not particularly interested in turnpike issues (that an American "motorway" expression). But I was amazed by the "heat" of the debate. Now I'm sincerely pleased that you two are Wiki-friends? Can I join this duet - in friendship? (or would 3 be a crowd? --Ludvikus (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to M1 motorway, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jeni (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
