::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.... --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 14:39, 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.... --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 14:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::: What policy did i breach, if it did breach any policy i will undo the edit myself. If sarah asks me to remove the comment i will, if she removes it herself i would not readd it. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 14:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
::: What policy did i breach, if it did breach any policy i will undo the edit myself. If sarah asks me to remove the comment i will, if she removes it herself i would not readd it. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 14:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: BW, I suggest not feeding the troll. Just ignore them. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Jeni|<font color="deeppink">Jeni</font>]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Jeni|<font color="deeppink">talk</font>]])</sup> 14:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
They're threatening to ban you for an entire bloody year at Arbcom. Absolutely f**k*** outrageous!
Show them your article creation list, Sarah, I think you probably have the record.
Sure you lose your rag from time to time - but don't we all, especially when faced with extreme provocation and wind-up merchnats....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind editors that the ArbCom ruling does *not* result in an article title lockdown for 2 years, but instead is to agree a "process" whereby agreement is reached. A vote for "F", in my view", is a vote to *not* agree a compromise, and a vote to *not* solve the problem.
I'd like to endorse this statement from High King.
I would like you to read "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". It is my hopes that the content of this guideline will help you make your point about Wikipedia administrators in a less disruptive fashion. I also hope the content is taken by you as a warning regarding the results of proving points disruptively instead of productively. Peace. Chillum03:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read it. And it seems as relevant to the blocking of Vk and my response on his page as say, The Book of Job. Maybe you could help me here by telling me which bit you feel would help me? Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at ANI is resolved.[1] I agree with Chillum, and Georgewilliamherbert to some extent, but I would like to point out that Sarah777 is a good editor. Sometimes good editors get blocked by admins for no good reason, and people do get angry. Sarah, you should protest peacefully. BTW, I like this example. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had a wee chat about me I see? Sorry I missed it. Chillum, I think I have had to chastise you before for a bad block on me - let's hope you are not thinking about another one. As for Todd, well, leopards and spots etcetera. (I hope these reflections on the poor quality of some Admin decisions aren't blockable). Because I clearly did not disrupt Wiki to make a point. I made a point on an unjustly blocked editor's page about an Admin whose page reads like a sewer outflow - yet who blocked an FA editor for "incivility". Seriously, when Admins start testifying for one another they are like the cop who alleging assault by the accused told the judge "he attacked my fist with his nose and flung his skull against my baton". Yeah. It's that bad. Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction Sarah, I never blocked you, I adjusted an existing block to prevent you from using your talk page to engage in personal attacks. Considering you behavior at the time this adjustment likely prevented you from getting your block increased. I am yet again trying to prevent you from getting blocked by asking you to look at what you are doing and comparing it to the community standards for behavior. Chillum22:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things Chill; you could be right about that adjustment, tbh I don't really hold any serious grudges against you bar the fact I can't get your code to work in my mono-thingy. As for threats, well, this is my response:
Jeepers, it sure looks to me like your comment was a restrained and somewhat jovial response to the highly confrontational, pointy, and hostile F-Bomb dropping engaged in by an Admin. Yet I didn't see any of this outrage expressed on their talk page. Is this a case of admins looking out for their own or what? I hope I'm missing something and GWH can clue me in?
Anyway, as far as I can tell, the over-the-top reactions to your comment Sarah are wholly unjustified, and the many pointy, bitey, and accusatory attacks pointed your way are quite abusive and disruptive. That type of smearing is really unhelpful and I hope GWH will do more to put a stop to it. I very much hope your editing experience will be more pleasant in the future Sarah. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My own belief, if one is entitled to such things on Wiki, is that the OTT reactions are part of a POV campaign by a - heck, let's call them a cabal - of anti-Irish Admins. Getting folk opposed to their particular take on WP:NPOV to "leave the project" appears to be what they do. "Civility" is the licence to kill. Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can present evidence that a group of admins is conspiring to target any ethnic group on Wikipedia then please compile your evidence. Until such evidence is presented then such ugly accusations are not appropriate. Every action by every person is documented here, so if there is such a conspiracy then it should be easy to document. Chillum23:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chillum I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm not very familiar with the content disputes involved, but I have noticed a double standard in enforcement and a lot of push being put on the group of editors on one side of the dispute. I have no way of knowing editors' ethnicities, but it does appear that there are many British editors with strong points of view and a group of Irish editors that has very much been put on the defensive.
That being said, I don't want to feed into any paranoia or to connect any dots. We have to assume the best. So let's focus on the real problem, which appears to me to be a series of unconnected dots where editors and in many cases admins are going after those they disagree with rather than proceeding through appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms (which I'm the first to admit, suck).
As far as I can tell Sarah's note was a collegial pick me up to another editor who had been targeted, so the accusations of disruption are clear violations of the civility guideline (see the section on misrepresentations). The very unbalanced and disproportionate response by those with tools against those without tools (and the ganging up) is also very troubling.
If GWH and others are serious about wanting to promote civility, they need to start with the po po and look into why many of them behave in such an unhelpful, disruptive and abusive manner. Once there's a more collegial environment at the top, and standards of enforcement, collegiality and helpfulness are improved there, I'm confident there will be less of a desire and need to use bad words to alleviate the stress and tension of trying to navigate the gang warfare. This seems especially clear in this case, where the profane F-bomb dropping by an admin went without comment except for expressions of support (and that was in a case where they were pointed at an editor in a dispute not dropped ironically to lighten tension and to point out the humorous irony while dealing with the burden of unfair enforcement). And yet when Sarah used the same profanities in a collegial manner, all hell seems to have broken loose. So I ask again, what gives? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the accusation that is ugly, it is the reality that is ugly. You hardly think veteran Admins are going to be silly enough to leave "beyond doubt" diffs? They block "civilians" (me being a case in point) without any such "evidence" - based on "patterns" and "histories" and self-fulling "records". There are Wiki-essay's on that topic as it relates to non-Admins. If a certain editor is involved in sanctioning a number of Irish editors who take a similar general perspective on WP:NPOV then I suggest the onus is on the perpetrator to demonstrate that there is no bias. Surely Admins must be held to higher standards than the plebs, seeing as they are set up as judge and jury in areas such as civility where the "offences" are totally subjective and proportionality or parity are non-existent. I'd be more impressed if you devoted your time to the various Admins whose actions are unacceptable, who make WP:POINTY blocks and clearly revel in their power to clobber productive editors . That is a target rich environment to use an Americanism. I shouldn't need to point you to particular examples. Sarah777 (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, when I saw that heading, it seemed clear you (Sarah) were making a point, though I didn't see it as a WP:POINT. It was mildly provocative and not particularly constructive, given the block had expired days ago and everyone had moved on, but hardly disruptive. Further, it was no more provocative and no less disruptive than the liberal overuse of "fuck" by Pedro in the first place, which was also done to make a point (but not a WP:POINT).
A small group of Irish editors feel persecuted by Admins reacting to their lengthy block logs (and perhaps, to some extent, that is justified), in turn they react to such blocks with outbursts of anger which results in further blocks, which is cited in justification for future blocks, which results in further anger.... Its a classic vicious circle and a difficult one to break. But what we can do is stop propagating it needlessly. Both sides can work on that by:
Admins - stop rising to every slightly incivil comment with warnings (read: threats), especially those made in response to admin actions
Sarah et al. - stop baiting admins with taunts, you are linguistically skilled enough to effectively criticize any admin action without resorting to personal attacks
Guess what? in any given kerfuffle, only takes one of these to occur to break this cycle. If you take turns then everything should work out fine and you both still get 50% of the satisfaction. Rockpocket01:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Rock - see that? Took some time out and now all is peace and quiet! (I hope, haven't looked at d'oul watch list yet - almost afraid to....) Sarah777 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main culprit was a malformed link in the ANI notice above, which I changed to correct formation and made work properly. I also reduced the padding left and right on the chartreuse navigation section at the top from 200px to 10px, but Sarah I left the previous coding there inside an HTML comment for you in case you want to go back to the previous look. Sswonk (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For my usage, pedroed-up is an oblique reference to that actual topic at the ANI linked above. Read the ANI and links to understand. "You really pedroed that up, big time" where SNAFU becomes SNAPU (thx BL). Now, Sarah, in googling may have found reference to the incident involving baseball player Pedro Martinez in which, during a bench-clearing brawl, he noticed rotund 72-year old Don Zimmer, a coach on the opposing team, charging at him full speed. Martinez is thin as a rail and smallish, so rather than be stampeded he defended himself by grabbing Zimmer's head and tossing him to one side.[2] This has entered urban slang in some quarters as "He got pedroed", i.e. stopped unmercifully by someone grabbing by the head and throwing to the ground. Are you better off? Full of Americanisms, but Sarah got a laugh so I'll go with her interpretation, if that is it, for how one handles charges. Sswonk (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My God, we are separated by a common language! Though GBS was discussing England and America, that groaner got me coming from an Irishwoman just as badly. I had absolutely no idea what a Zimmer was and had to search around. That's so Pedroed up! Sswonk (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odder still: If someone had asked me (till I read the article) where the term "Zimmer frame" came from I'd have sworn it was an Americanism! On this side of the pond a "walker" is something you put a baby in from about 6 months till they can walk by themselves. Sarah777 (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up the playful confusion found in this thread and perhaps the past couple of months in general for you, I've created an icon I called "the Gubu", of course you could change it to "the Sarah777" but I have some Irish in me and I think it covers my disposition at times as well. Apt name, or not? Sswonk (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh then if there are extinct volcanoes I stand corrected. My understanding was that only a country on a fault line could have a volcano. But I'm definitely not a geography wiz. Ikari (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your doppelgangers
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [4] is going to lead to an improvement of the project. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What policy did i breach, if it did breach any policy i will undo the edit myself. If sarah asks me to remove the comment i will, if she removes it herself i would not readd it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_(cropped).jpg)
