Talk:The Nook, Isle of Man

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bedstead Corner and The Nook, Isle of Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712154828/http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/governor-s-bridge-road-scheme-gets-under-way-1-1769847 to http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/governor-s-bridge-road-scheme-gets-under-way-1-1769847

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

BRD Bold, Revert, Discuss
Disputed The issue of independent notability WP:N is very clear that Wikipedia requires;- “evidence from reliable independent sources”  preferably from secondary sources. WP:N, WP:V The sources in the article, including primary sources WP:PRIMARY do not support the “topic” of the current ‘article title.’ This may suggests original research WP:OP and synthesis of sources WP:SYN. This can be demonstrated by the current article title and/or article notability does not  refer to the previous historic corner(s) name(s) which defines the “topic” of the article. WP:N, WP:NOTBLOG agljones(talk)20:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Spurious tagging from a bad faith editor

Disputed BRD Process The editor USER:Rocknrollmancer has previously received a formal warning by an uninvolved editor User:Drmies for the repetitive use of  “laundry lists.” The continuous use  various ‘laundry lists,’ either directly or indirectly, or in the edit summary may be seen as 'supermarket shopping' by other editors.(talk)19:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Disputed BRD Process The summary for the BRD process is that Wikipedia allows editors the discretion, as appropriate, to merge information into other articles. The information in paragraphs 1&2 in respect to this edit can be corrected and inserted into the Signpost Corner article (eg Governor's Hill/Heywood Park bridge WP:GEOFEAT). The “article topic” in these edits  &  can be reverted to its original title of this edit  and converted to a permanent stub article WP:PSA, until the issue of the historic name and land-use relative to the nearby Government House can be resolved. This will not reproduce the current issue of patent nonsense, Original Research WP:OR and synthesis of sources WP:SYN  in respect to the “topic  in the “article title” caused by the ongoing and the inappropriate use of primary sources WP:PRIMARY such as the Road Closing Notice RC062 and the publication MaCauley, (2016)  WP:AEIS. agljones(talk)19:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no Wiki-compulsion to explain or otherwise justify what is an historic name, used widely in sources and documents - these do not have to be secondary
 * Original research is WP:OR, not WP:OP as is regularly pasted-in to many disruptive edits by Agljones
 * The "historic corner" as quoted is now a large feeder-road with landscaped sides, part of general upgrading and development with infrastructure of the surrounding former-agricultural land. There is no incumbance on any WP contributor to account for the economically-driven changes to environment, and/or relate these to former land-use
 * A simple Google searchreturns such evidence as:
 * imprinted postcard circa 1970 on ebay
 * mention at official TT website
 * youtube video entitled "Bedstead to Signpost corner" Bad faith, DISRUPTIVE wikilawyering as many now know to be the norm from Agljones.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)