User:Martinvl/Test

A short text And another short text

x

 * In my view User:FishGF might appear to be doing a thorough job, but underneath I believe that he is trying to sabotage the GA request. The background is that over the last 18 months I have been hassled by sock puppets of the banned User:DeFacto. FishGF's offer to review the article when he was a brand-newly-registered editor did not look right. I sensed a very loud WP:QUACK. Check-User was unable to resolve the SPI request, so FishGF continued with the review. He has since failed the review, but I have resubmitted it.


 * Rather than go through all the areas of dispute, I have described the first one in the review in detail.
 * In the section Talk:International System of Units, we had a dispute concerning section International System of Units. It might be easiest if you follow that particular thread in detail, starting at the bullet-point "The prose in the Writing ...". I think that you will see that his continual demands to refer to "the guidelines" in his suggested text (in italics) detracts from the article.
 * Other disputes are of a similar nature.

MedCab mediation offer
Per the mediation request from Martinvl at Mediation Cabal/Cases/17 October 2011/Metrication in the United Kingdom, I would like to offer to mediate this dispute. If I do mediate, the outcome of this informal mediation will be non-binding. My purpose here is to assist you in establishing a consensus. Please indicate below whether or not you accept me as a mediator. If you do accept, please also include a short statement (preferably below 1,000 words) of what you feel the issue is. Please avoid commenting on contributers in your statement, and instead focus on the content. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

MV statement

 * Accept mediation
 * I understand that we are all agreed:
 * The supermarket chain Asda surveyed their customers and on the basis of this survey, changed their packaging policy.
 * The Consumer Association magazine Which? devoted an article to the Asda survey.
 * Which? is a reliable source.


 * I assert that as it stands, the results of the Asda survey are not encyclopaedic unless one indulges in WP:OR, they do not convey any useful information other than the pricing policy of a single supermarket chain; a chain whose customer base is not representative of the coutnry as a whole.


 * I assert that the Asda article on itself is not reliable as minimal information has been published about the survey. My immediate reaction was that this was a con trick to disguise a downsizing from 500 g to 454 g (1 lb). When the results of any decent survey is published, the methodolgy is also published as a reassuarance that the survey was reliable, not a "Damned lie" (Benjamin Disraeli spoke of "lies, damned lies and statistics"). In this instance such information was not published, so one should look at the survey with caution.


 * I assert that even though Which? devoted a whole article to the Asda survey, it did not give the article a "clean bill of health" – instead it cast doubts on Asda’s interpretation of the results. Since Which? did not do their own investigation, they had to be careful about the libelling Asda, so they they worded things in a roundabout way. Since Wikipedia places more reliance on interpretions from secondary sources rather than quotes from the primary source itself, any mention of the Asda survey must be written in the context the in which Which?'s presented it.


 * In summary, I do not think that this source is worthy of inclusion in Wikipeida, but if it is included, then the inclusion must be in the context of Which? casting doubts on its validity. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

MV statement

 * Accept mediation
 * I understand that we are all agreed:
 * The supermarket chain Asda surveyed their customers and on the basis of this survey, changed their packaging policy.
 * The Consumer Association magazine Which? devoted an article to the Asda survey.
 * Which? is a reliable source.


 * I assert that as it stands, the results of the Asda survey are not encyclopaedic unless one indulges in WP:OR, they do not convey any useful information other than the pricing policy of a single supermarket chain; a chain whose customer base is not representative of the coutnry as a whole.


 * I assert that the Asda article on itself is not reliable as minimal information has been published about the survey. My immediate reaction was that this was a con trick to disguise a downsizing from 500 g to 454 g (1 lb). When the results of any decent survey is published, the methodolgy is also published as a reassuarance that the survey was reliable, not a "Damned lie" (Benjamin Disraeli spoke of "lies, damned lies and statistics"). In this instance such information was not published, so one should look at the survey with caution.


 * I assert that even though Which? devoted a whole article to the Asda survey, it did not give the article a "clean bill of health" – instead it cast doubts on Asda’s interpretation of the results. Since Which? did not do their own investigation, they had to be careful about the libelling Asda, so they they worded things in a roundabout way. Since Wikipedia places more reliance on interpretions from secondary sources rather than quotes from the primary source itself, any mention of the Asda survey must be written in the context the in which Which?'s presented it.


 * In summary, I do not think that this source is worthy of inclusion in Wikipeida, but if it is included, then the inclusion must be in the context of Which? casting doubts on its validity. Martinvl (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Martinvl
It is beyond doubt that Asda claim to have carried out a survey in which 70% of their customers said that they were confused by metric units and as a result Asda would be selling strawberries in one pound punnets. The real question is whether this is encyclopaedic information.

The Asda statement When I saw this for the first time, I reminded myself of Benjamin Disraeli’s quote about "lies, damned lies and statistics" and asked myself “Is this a con trick by Asda to downsize from 500 g punnets to 454 g punnets?” In the United Kingdom, Asda (along with Tesco have acquired a reputation for “sharp practice” and in the case of Asda, their parent company Walmat has its own article in Wikipedia: Criticism of Walmart. I am therefore reluctant to give Asda the benefit of the doubt.

In order for a report such as this to be encyclopaedic, it has to demonstrate some point that the article is bringing across – and a supermarket chain conning its customers in a one-off exercise is hardly an encyclopaedic subject.

Which?'s analysis

Wikipedia normally requires that articles draw on secondary sources rather than primary sources. In this case, the Asda statement is a primary source and the Which? article the secondary source. Secondary sources “rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them” (WP:SECONDARY). What evaluative claim did Which?make? The first part of the Which? article set the scene. The followed the sub-heading "Is buying by weight going out of fashion?" and the Which? Author’s response "I’d even take it a step further and say there’s a whole generation of us who don’t pay attention to weights at all when shopping. Most fruit and veg is pre-packed in supermarkets nowadays so we don’t have a clue what it weights." If this is the case, then why does Asda justify changing to one pound punnets if nobody is taking any notice of the weight?

At this stage, Which? Could have done a formal study to verify the Asda claim, but that costs money, so the author did the next best thing – described her own shopping expeditions to the farmer’s market. Why her own shopping expedition? In this way she would not have to challenge Asda’s figures. Why did she describe the farmer’s market? Simple – if you customers at the farmer’s market. You can find out whether they are buying by the pound, by the kilogram or by number just by listening to them speaking to the seller and you might pick up thought processes of which you were not aware. You can’t do this in a supermarket. I believe that the author was really suggesting to the reader that they query what questions Asda actually asked their customers. It is well-known that the sponsors customer surveys such as the one carried out by Asda can frame the questions in such a way that they get the “right” answer. In short, this paragraph is a statement of disbelief of both Asda’s findings and their subsequent action, but done in such a way that Which? Would never be taken to the libel courts and asked to prove their statements.

The next paragraph continues "But, if Asda’s research is anything to go by, …". Do I detect a note of sarcasm here? Did they really mean "But, if Asda’s research, [which we don’t believe], is anything to go by, …". I suspect that this is what they meant.

Conclusions

That sums up why I think that Which? Magazine was questioning the Asda statement which brings me back to how this was reported. DeFacto totally ignored the Which? dimension in his wording of the Asda survey – he did not try to look for the "analytic or evaluative" claims that Which? made about the Asda statement – in other words he ignored the secondary source and merely used the primary source.

Judging from what the other editors wrote, there is obviously a dispute as to what Which? were really saying. If what they were saying was so obtuse, then we should step back from the Which? article and evaluate the Asda statement on its own merits. In my view, a marketing exercise by a supermarket whose customer bases is skewed towards the lesser-educated members of society is just not worthy of including in Wikipedia.

Response to xxx
The section Reliable_source_examples states: "Statistical data may take the form of quantitative or qualitative material, and analysis of each of these can require specialised training. Statistical data should be considered a primary source and should be avoided. Misinterpretation of the material is easy and statistics are frequently reported ambiguously in the media, so any secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care."
 * I have found a reference on questionnaire design.


 * Section 3 examines types of questions - in particular it draws to attention that where a dichotomous (two options) question is asked appropriate a "Don't know" option should be provided. If a multi-choice question is asked, the question should offer a mutually exclusive and exhaustive list of answer options (that is, the items in the list should not overlap and should cover every possibility).


 * Section 4 advises that
 * [Questions should] avoid ambiguous terms or phrasing
 * [Questions should] not ask more than one question at a time


 * Asda stated that "70% of its shoppers were confused by metric and would prefer products to be labeled in pounds". Given the above references it is incumbent on DeFacto to demonstrate that either the survey followed the guidelines above or that any deviation from those guidelines was inconsequential. In particular I challenge him to demonstrate that:
 * that the question "Confused by metric" was clearly defined (See Section 4 above). In particular, would an inability to answer the question "Since the dimensions of both becquerels and hertz is s-1, what is the difference between them" constitute "confused by metric" or does the inability to answer the question "How many millimetres in a centimetre?" constitute "confused by metric"?  (The answer to both can be found by studying the [SI Brochure).
 * that respondents were given the opportunity to answer "don't care" in respect of whether they preferred metric or imperial units (See Section 3 above).
 * that respondents were able to answer "Yes" or "No" to the question "Are you confused by metric [units]" and to separately answer "Yes", "No" or "don't care" to the question "Do you prefer metric or imperial units". Alternatively he should demonstrate that respondents had all six options in a multi-choice question.


 * Since Asda claimed that 70% answered "Yes" to both of the questions (however they were framed), then it follows that at least 70% answered "Yes" to each of the questions separately (See explanation on Page 86 of AS-Level Mathematics: The Revision Guide: Coordination Group Publications Ltd, isbn 978 1 84146 988 1). If the respondents were given the choice between metric and imperial, it is quite possible that a large number would have chosen imperial, but it they were given the choice between "metric", "imperial" or "don't care" I am dubious as to whether the "imperial" camp would have got as high as 70% - I venture to suggest that the "don’t care" camp would have scored more than 50%. In either respect it is up to DeFacto, not me, to substantiate the credibility of the article.


 * Conclusion: WP:RSEX cautions against including results of surveys as and states "secondary reference to statistical data should be treated with considerable care". The need for caution in this case is fully justified.

The section Reliable_source_examples starts with the sentence “''Material published by a trading organisation is a view of how that organisation looks on itself however it will also have a marketing component and may lack neutrality. If this material is used it should carry a caveat to indicate this risk and should be corroborated with independent reporting if possible.''"


 * The article in the Grocer is appears to be one-sided, otherwise why is the director of the British Weights and Measures Association (anti-metric) quoted, but not his opposite number in the UK Metric Association? On the basis of this, one cannot rule out the possibility is that the article was written as a result of a press release by Asda in conjunction with the BWMA. Given the one-sided approach to the article, one cannot rule either out which places it in breach of WP:GNG.  The Which? column was written within a month of the article in ‘’The Grocer’’, possibly as a reaction to that article. If that was the case, they did not have time to mount a full survey of the whole story, so they could not belittle it – they did however question it through one of their specialist writers who, by writing in the first person, avoided the possibility of legal action being taken against Which?


 * Conclusion: The article in The Grocer appears to be one-sided so the opinions that it expresses should not be taken in isolation, but should be balanced by those of a third party such as those of the Which? expert Hannah Jollife – see WP:NPOV, or better still, this source be discarded.

The quotes from WP:RSEX show that one should proceed with caution even when quoting statistics from secondary sources. The onus of proof therefor falls on DeFacto to justify his additions in lighht of these cautions. Whatever he writes should also take into account areas of concern that I have highlighted.

Is "kilo" an informal form of "kilogram"?
The first sentence of the article kilogram starts:


 * The kilogram or kilogramme (symbol: kg), also known [???] as the kilo …

I assert that the "???" should be replaced by the word "informally", others assert that no adverb need appear at that location.

The background to the argument is that various dictionaries cite "kilo" as an alternative/abbreviation for "kilogram" without any qualification as to its use, but other works state either specifically that it is for informal use only or proscribe its use. The argument itself can be traced back the word "kilo" having been used in the ninteenth century as a shortened form of "kilogram", but in 1960 formal rules pertaining to writing the International System of Units, published by the CGPM, prohibited the use of abbreviations for SI units of measure and therefore implicitly prohibited the use of the word "kilo".

The Wikipedia discussion can be found at Talk:Kilogram. I assert that User:DeFacto and User:VsevolodKrolikov, by insisting that the word "informal" be omitted from the first line of the article, are giving the word undue weight. Since the lede must be capable of standing alone, it is not appropriate to mention the word "kilo" in the lede without clarifying that is not have the level of formality as the kilogram[me] - either a clarification must be present in the lede or the word should not be mentioned there.

International view
 * In 1875 the CGPM, an inter-governmental body was set up under the Convention of the metre to regulate agreements on the kilogram and metre and to administer a home for the prototype metre and kilogram. The treaty was signed by, amongst others, the US Government and, in 1883, the UK Government.
 * Until 1921, the CGPM did little more than to hold the prototypes on behalf of the world community and to allow signatory nations access to the prototypes for verification of their own national prototypes. In that year the remit of the GCPM was extended to include electrical and other measurements.
 * In 1948 the CGPM was requested by the French Government to "establishment of a complete specification of units of measurement".
 * In 1960 the CGPM published the specification for SI which inlcuded rules for writing measurements in a manner so that they could be understood by all nations. These are catalogued in the SI Brochure.  Page 131 of the 8th edition of the brochure states "It is not permissible to use abbreviations for unit symbols or unit names ...". The SI brochure did not specify how the word "kilogram" was to be spelt, but it did state that the word "kilo" was a prefix meaning "1000" and that the symbol for "kilogram" was "kg".

United States view
 * In 1866 the United States Congress gave the metric system a legal status and permitted the use of the word "kilo" as an alternative to the word "kilogram".
 * In 1990 permission to use of the word "kilo" as an alternative to "kilogram" in legal texts was withdrawn.

United Kingdom and European view
 * In the nineteenth century the word "kilo" came into use in France as a shortened form of the word "kilogramme". (OED)
 * In 1972 the European units of measurement directive 71/354/EEC catalogued the units of measure that could be used for "economic, public health, public safety and administrative purposes". This catalogue was consistent with the SI brochure and the recital of the directive made reference to the CGPM. The only mention that it made of the word "kilo" in the directive is as a prefix with the meaning "1000".
 * In 1980 Directive 71/354/EEC was replaced by Directive 80/181/EEC.  The new directive did not change anything in respect of the kilogram.
 * The Units of Measurement Act 1985 implemented the requirements of EU directive 80/181/EEC in respect of the United Kingdom. In particular the UK legislation stated explicitly that the words "kilogram" and "kilogramme" were equivalent in law.  The UK legislation made no reference to the use of the word "kilo" as an alternative to the word "kilogram[me]".

In summary then, the word "kilo" came into use in the nineteenth century, but when standards were tightened up as a result of the introduction of SI in 1960, the word "kilo" ceased in law and in other formal writings to be an alternative to the word "kilogram".

Dictionaries and styleguides
 * The styleguide of The Guardian has the text "kilogram/s … abbreviate as kg" but make no mention of the word "kilo".
 * The styleguide of the The Economist expressly permits the use of the word "kilo" by its journalists.
 * A Canadian Government style guide states explicitly that the word "kilo" should only be used in informal text.
 * The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives a list of meanings of the word "formal" including:
 * "Explicit and definite, not merely tacit"
 * "Observant of forms"
 * "Precise"

Since the word "kilo" is also used in cycling cirles as a shorthand for the 1000 m race, it is self-evident that that the word "kilo" on its own is not "Explicit and definite" and is not "preciise". Furthermore, given the state of UK, US and EU law, it is not "observant of forms". What better way to describe "kilo" than "informal" (ie "Not formal").

In addition, almost all science teachers tell their pupils that the word "kilo" should only be used as a prefix to units of measurement such as "gram", "metre", "ohm", etc. On the basis of the above arguments, I assert that even if the word "kilo" was in formal use half a century ago, it is now only used informally and that in the first line of the article it should be qualified with the word "informal". In view of a reference found by User:VsevolodKrolikov, I assert that it is possible for texts to have a combination of formal and informal language – the style guide used for the document in question defining what informal structures and phrases are permitted.

Finally, what will it do for the reputation of Wikipedia if science pupils who are reprimanded for using the word "kilo" in place of "kilogram" in school projects plead that "Wikipeidia says so" and are given the answer "Wikipedia is wrong!"? Martinvl (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that we are no further in sorting out the use of the word "formal" in the lede of the artcile kilogram. I have therefore posted it at XXXXX and have notified everybody who has contributed to the discussion and also to every Wikiproject who is taking an interest in this article. User talk:LeadSongDog User talk:JimWae User talk:Hans Adler

Coherence
Each variant of the metric system has a degree of coherence – the various derived units being directly related to the base units without the need of intermediate conversion factors. For example, in a coherent system the units of force, energy and power are chosen so that the equations
 * force = mass × acceleration
 * energy = force × distance
 * energy = power × time

hold without the introduction of constant factors. Once a set of coherent units have been defined, other relationships in physics that use those units will automatically be true - Einstein's mass-energy equation, E = mc2, does not require extraneous constants when expressed in coherent units.

The cgs system had two units of energy, the erg that was related to mechanics and the calorie that was related to thermal energy so only one of them (the erg) could bear a coherent relationship to the base units. Coherence was a design aim of SI resulting in only one unit of energy being defined - the joule.

In SI, which is a coherent system, the unit of power is the "watt" which is defined as "one joule per second". In the foot-pound-second system of measurement, which is non-coherent, the unit of power is the "horsepower" which is defined as "550 foot-pounds per second", the pound in this context being the pound-force.

The concept of coherence was only introduced into the metric system in the third quarter of the nineteenth century; in its original form the metric system was non-coherent - in particular the litre was 0.001 m3 and the are (from which we get the hectare) was 100 m2.

Schwalbach

Earth slowing down
Tidal braking slows down Earth's rotation and this, together with a number of other phenomena, is causing the number of SI seconds in a mean solar day to increase by approximately a little under 2 milliseconds every century (meaning a projected increase from the current 86400.002 to 86400.004 in a hundred years time). Other phenomena that affect the slowing down of the earth are the movement of the the Earth's shell relative to its core and changes in Mantle convection.

In addition, events or processes that cause a significant change to the mass distribution of the earth, thereby changing its moment of inertia, also affect the rate of rotation due to conservation of angular momentum. One of the more notable in recent times is the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake which, according to theoretical models, is thought to have decreased the solar day by 2.68 microseconds.

Dispute Overview
The page Manual of Style/Road junction lists catalogues the columns that should appear in a Road Junction List (for example Interstate 10 in California and M25 motorway). A dispute between editors split roughly along UK/US lines has been simmering for a number of years regarding the differences in style of these two road junction lists with the US editors arguing for more standardisation across all of Wikipedia and UK editors arguing that regional differences make such standardisation impracticable.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Are the UK editors being unreasonable in declining to add "location" columns to their RJLs or are the US editors failing to take the UK situation into account? A parallel ongoing discussion on the use of miles or kilometres is outside the scope of this DRN.

Martinvl
A dispute between UK and US editors regarding the use of location columns in road junction lists has been simmering for a number of years. In the early days of Wikipedia the UK and the US editors adopted very different styles of road-junction lists - these can be seen side by side in this 2009 posting by User:Jeni. Minor changes have been made and the current proposal can be seen at.

Chronology

The chronology is as follows: In short there is no consensus regarding the layout and content UK RJLs.
 * 22 September 2006 - page created with the opening text "In hopes of standardizing the appearance of exit lists across the U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject, this exit list guide has been created to give editors ... "
 * 16 October 2007 - Proposal for a UK RJL. A proposal made by User:Scott5114 based on the US model.
 * 11 April 2009 - The actual UK in use posted by User:Jeni.
 * 19 March 2010 - UK example removed from WP:RJL by User:Rschen7754 during a rewrite of WP:RJL. His revised text explicitly excluded United Kingdom roads.
 * 15 August 2010 - revised UK example added by User:Imzadi1979. This version changed the colours used, but otherwise retained up-down format without location columns.
 * 28 February 2013 - template:RJLUK and associated templates published by User:Martinvl. These templates are broadly in line with the UK example as published in WP:RJL
 * 1 March 2013 - Comments regarding the new templates invited by User:Martinvl.
 * 9 March 2013 - UK example removed from WP:RJL by User:Imzadi1979.
 * 9 March 2013 - UK example reinstated by User:Martinvl

Other country's approach

It is often helpful to see what is done in other countries. How different are they? Maybe they get it right, maybe they get it wrong. Can we learn from them or are we ahead of them? Road junction lists in Wikipedia in languages othjer than English follow different a large variety of models. Examples include: In short, many different models for road junction lists exist across the various languages of Wikipedia - some have locations columns, but most do not.
 * Dutch: nl:A1 (België), nl:Rijksweg 16.  Both countries have their RJLs as part of the infobox. Destinations are shown, but no localities
 * Italian: it:Autostrada A1 (Italia) The provinces are shown in the RJL, the regions in the infobox.
 * French: Both fr:Autoroute A1 (France), fr:Autoroute suisse A1 (Switzerland) give the name & number of the junction, but no locality.
 * German - de:Bundesautobahn 1 (Germany), nl:West Autobahn (Austria), de:Autobahn 1 (Schweiz) - RJLs are hidden in the infobox. They can be accessed by clicking "Ausklappen" at the bottom right-hand corner of the infobox.  The Germans have little need for detailed infoboxes; they have a very good site Autobahn Atlas Online which gives them everything they want and more.

Discussion

Although many non-UK editors see merit in the style of road junction list as proposed by the US editors, UK editors assert that due to the fragmented approach to the definition of locations in the United Kingdom, it is not practicable to define a meaningful set of rules to enable the locations to be filled in in a consistent manner. IMHO this arises due to the lack of local knowledge on the part of non-UK editors concerning the UK approach (or rather the British Government's approach) to things.

The United Kingdom does not have a homogeneous system of local government - in addition to the regions (which, apart from London, are only used for statistical purposes), some parts of the country have a two tier system of local government (counties and districts) while others have a single tier of local government (unitary authorities). Some areas are further broken down into parishes, others are not. Ceremonial counties are superimposed on this structure. This system of government has essentially evolved since 1972.

These areas are not used by the Post Office - their postal areas (determined by the first two letters of the post code) are based on large towns and bear no relationship to local government structures. The couinty, where it exists, is the county where the postal towen is situated which is not always the addressee's county. To put this into perspective, the Post Office continued to officially use Middlesex on postal addresses until 1995 even though the county of Middlesex was abolished in 1965 when it was swallowed up by the [[Greater London Council]. Local justice is again based on towns rather than local government structures, but the area assigned to each local court is not tied to local government areas or to postal areas. As a result of this, the British have little empathy with local government areas.

If we are to include localities in British road junction lists, we need to ask whether they are necessary - in an early experiment on the article M62 (2008 version), a significant number of the low level localities are in fact reflected in the destination list anyway, the rest are meaningless to anybody but local people. Moreover, we need ask whether people really want to know the location for local government purposes, for postal purposes (British SatNav systems work on post codes) or for judicial purposes (somebody wishes to challenge a speeding fine). It is quite feasible that all three are different. I therefore believe that it is impracticable to assign locations to British junctions - in everyday language, the junctions themselves become the local area, and alternatively, the junctions are identified in terms of the destination signposted (which are already included in the road junction list).

In short, due to the diversity of naming areas across various administrative agencies in the United Kingdom, it is inappropriate to add location columns since there is no clear indication as to which is appropriate. If one looks at the style of RJL's used in other countries, it is, in my view, apparent that the US model is more location-oriented than any of the other countries which suggests that maybe the US editors are more location-oreinted in their outlook than the European road editors in general - after all what are the destination lists for? Furthermore many destinations are in the immediate vicinity of the junction anyway.

In discussions leading up to this debate, it has been alleged by User:Rschen7754 that I have not been listening to consensus. I assert that there was consensus amongst British editors, but that there has never been consensus across all English-language editors and he and other non-UK editors are the ones who are not listening since they do not have day-to-day experience of what really happens inside the UK.

Circulation
 * User:Jeni
 * User:Ritchie333
 * User:Rschen7754
 * User:Imzadi1979
 * User:Scott5114
 * User:Floydian
 * User:Fredddie
 * User:The Rambling Man
 * User:Gareth Griffith-Jones
 * User:Trillig
 * User:Baldy Bill
 * User:Wilbysuffolk
 * User:Pigsonthewing

The opening text of the page WP:RJL (2007)  "In hopes of standardizing the appearance of exit lists across the U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject, this exit list guide has been created to give editors ... ".  A layout for UK roads, proposed in 2010 has since been adopted (with minor variations). When I tried to implement a set of templates, my work was reverted by an administrator on the grounds of "no consensus". The first sticking point was whether or not there should be a "location column" in the road junction list (RJL). I believe that in the case of the United Kingdom it is not practicable to write rules regarding such a column - the main sticking points being the differences in the way in which the jurisdictions of local government, the postal service and the judicial services are identified and, in many cases, further differences in urban and rural areas. Editors who appear to have little or no experience of the United Kingdom do not appear to be convinced.

Intersections and access points
An intersection is a highway layout that permits traffic from one controlled-access highway to access another and vice versa whereas an access point is a highway layout where traffic from a distributor or local road can join a controlled-access highway. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not distinguish between the two, but other, such as Germany; make a distinction using the work Kreuz (cross) for the former and Ausgang (exit) for the other. In all cases one road crosses the other via a bridge. The inter-connecting roads, or slip-roads, which link the two roads, can follow any one of a number of patterns. The actual pattern is determined by a number of factors including local topology, traffic density, land cost, building costs etc. In some jurisdictions feeder/distributor lanes are common, especially for closer-leaf junctions, in others, such as the United Kingdom, where the roundabout junction is common; feeder/distributor lanes are seldom seen.

A few of the more common types of junction are shown below:

Discussion
I still disagree with the statements relating to the Asda survey and believe that the only way forward is to ask for mediation. A prerequisite for mediation is that we have an agreed statement as to what the nature of the dispute is. I propose that we use the follwoing text:


 * A dispute has arisen as to which text best reflects this source in the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. All editors are agreed that Which? is a reliable source.
 * User:DeFacto and user:VsevolodKrolikov believe that this best reflects the source:
 * Following the results of a survey of their customers in early 2011 - which concluded that 70% of them would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units - the Asda supermarket chain are experimenting with seling produce in round imperial measures again.
 * User:Martinvl has questioned whether this source is really approriate for the article, insisting that if it is, then it is best reflected by the text:
 * Which? magazine also questioned the validity of a survey conducted in 2011 by Asda who claimed that 70% of them would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units by asserting that buying [fresh produce] by weight was "going out of fashion".
 * As can be seen, these two summaries present diametrically opposing views as to what should be written in Wikipedia.

I invite you to agree this text so that I can initiate mediation. Martinvl (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

User:VsevolodKrolikov and User:DeFacto have been blantanly pushing a WP:POV by willfully misrepresenting a WP:RS. In particular, Asda did an in-house survey which was called into question by a report in Which? magazine (Details here). VsevolodKrolikov and DeFacto have persisted in reporting the Asda survey (a self-published primary source) but have supressed by addition of the Which? analysis of the survey. They claim that I am putting my own interpretation on the Which? report. However, any reasonable person, on reading the Which? article will see that these two editors have either have no clue about the meaning of secondary sources ort have been blinded by their own pushing of POV. The two versions can be seen here:.

I have also exhausted other avenues of negotiation, including
 * Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom,
 * Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom,
 * Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom,
 * Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom,
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard,
 * (Now at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Using reports of market research surveys)


 * Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.

I request therefore:
 * The Which? source article be read
 * The two entries in Wikipedia be read
 * My assertion of POV pushing be the two editors be noted
 * Both editors be issued with warnings that by failing to note the very clear criticism that Which? made of the Asda survey, they are pushing a PoV.

The metric system was the name given to an international decimalised system of measurement, first adopted by France in 1791 and that formed the basis of the system of measurement subsequently used by most countries of the world. The system has evolved since its frist inception and since the 1960s the International System of Units ("Système international d'unités" in French, hence "SI") has been the internationally recognised standard metric system.

At the outset, the main feature of the metric system is the use of a standard set of inter-related base units and a standard set of prefixes in powers of ten that could be used to derive larger and smaller units from the base units. Although the intention of the originators was to derive a system that was [theoretically] equally accessible to all people, it has proved necessary for prototype units, under the custody of government or other approved authorities to be used as standards, though it is hoped that by 2015 the last of these prototypes can be retired to the archives. As the system evolved, the principal of a coherent set of units, particularly for use in science and engineering has became an equally important feature.

The system was first developed for commercial use, but its use for scientific and engineering purposes, particularly in the late nineteenth century, resulted in many variations with different choices of fundamental units, but all based on the same definitions of the length (the metre and mass (the kilogram).

Leading up to the gray
The adoption of the gray by the 15th CGPM in 1975 as the unit of measure of the absorption of ionising radiation, specific energy absorbtion and of kerma in 1975 was the cumulation of over half a century of work, both in the understanding of the nature of ionising radiation and in the refinement of measuring techniques.

Wilhelm Röntgen first discovered X-Rays in 1896 and within a few years they were being used to examine broken bones. One of the earliest techniques of measuring the intensity of X-Rays was to measure their ionisation potential in air. Initially various countries developed their own standards, but in order to promote international cooperation, the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU), first proposed as a separate body in 1925, met in Stockholm in 1928 and under the chairmanship of Rolf Sievert proposed that one unit X-Ray dose should be defined as the quanitity of X-rays that would produce one esu of charge in one cubic centimetre of dry air at 0 °C and a standard atmosphere. This unit was named the röntgen in honour of Röntgen who had died five years previously. At the 1937 meeting of the ICRU, this definition was extended to apply to gamma radiation as well as X-Rays. This technique, although appropriate for the technology of the day, had the disadvantage that it was not a direct measure of either the intensity X-rays or of their absorbtion, but rather was a measurement of the effect of the X-Rays in a specific circumstance.

In 1940, Gray, who had been studying the effect of neutron damage on human tissue, together with Mayneord and Read published a paper in which a unit of measure, dubbed the "gram roentgen" (symbol: gr) defined as "that amount of neutron radiation which produces an increment in energy in unit volume of tissue equal to the increment of energy produced in unit volume of water by one rontgen of radiation" was proposed. This unit was found to be equivalent to 88 ergs in air. In 1953 the ICRU adopted the "rem", equal to 100 erg/g as the new unit of measure of absorbed radiation. The rem was directly equivalent to the gram roentgen, but expressed in coherent cgs units.

In the late 1950's the ICRU was invited by the CGPM to join other scientific bodies to work with the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) in the development of a system of units that could be used consistently over many disciplines. This body, initially known as the "Commission for the System of Units" (renamed in 1964 as the "Consultative Committee for Units") was responsible overseeing the development of the International System of Units (SI). SI used the MKSA (metre-kilogram-second-ampere) system of units as its basis and in 1975 defined the SI unit of absorbed radiation as "". The unit was named the "gray" in honour of Hal Gray who had died in 1965.

Reference Links
 * Biography of scientists.

Fairfax
Heraldic visitation of the northern counties in 1530 by Thomas Tonge, Norroy King of Arms, with an appendix of other heraldic documents relating to the north of England : Surtees Society publications,
 * Heraldic visitation of the northern counties in 1530 by Thomas Tonge, Norroy King of Arms, with an appendix of other heraldic documents relating to the north of England : Surtees Society publications, vol. 41
 * IN: Surtees Society publications, vol. 41
 * Published Durham : Surtees Society, 1863
 * Author Longstaffe, W Hylton Dyer ed.
 * Acc. no. SB149
 * Location Durham periodicals shelves   Shelf mark DU/PER

Visitations of the north, or some early heraldic visitations of, & collection of pedigrees relating to the north of England, part 1 : Harvey's visitation in 1552, Dalton's visitation in 1558; pedigree
 * Visitations of the north, or some early heraldic visitations of, & collection of pedigrees relating to the north of England, part 1 : Harvey's visitation in 1552, Dalton's visitation in 1558; pedigrees collected in 1560-61: Surtees Society publications, vol. 122
 * IN: Surtees Society publications, vol. 122
 * Published Durham : Surtees Society, 1912
 * Author Dendy, Frederick Walter ed.
 * Acc. no. 15693
 * Location Durham periodicals shelves   Shelf mark DU/PER

Visitations of the north, or some early heraldic visitations of, & collection of pedigrees relating to the north of England, part 2 : Flower's visitation in 1563-64, pedigrees collected in 1567: Surte
 * Visitations of the north, or some early heraldic visitations of, & collection of pedigrees relating to the north of England, part 2 : Flower's visitation in 1563-64, pedigrees collected in 1567: Surtees Society publications, vol. 133
 * IN: Surtees Society publications, vol. 133
 * Published Durham : Surtees Society, 1921
 * Author Dendy, Frederick Walter ed.
 * Acc. no. SB364
 * Location Durham periodicals shelves   Shelf mark DU/PER

Visitations of the north, Part 3 : a visitation of the north of England c. 1480-1500: Surtees Society publications, vol. 144
 * IN: Surtees Society publications, vol. 144
 * Published Durham : Surtees Society, 1930
 * Author Blair, C H Hunter ed.
 * Acc. no. 15694
 * Location Durham periodicals shelves   Shelf mark DU/PER

SSADM

The war years
Elfstedentocht in the war years



Cassini's maps gave scales in thousands of toise (http://achft.ville-fachesthumesnil.org/ancie_01.php). Index to Cassini (showing boundaries 1792 - 1807) gives both thousnads of metres and thousnads of toise. 

Units of length in pre-Revolutionary France
The mediaeval royal units of length were based on the toise and in partcular the toise de l'Écritoire, the distance between the fingertips of the outstretched arms of a man which was introduced in 790 AD by Charlemagne. The toise has 12 pied (feet) each of 326.6 mm (12.86 in). In 1668 the reference standard was found to have been deformed and it was replaced by the toise du Châtelet which, to accomodate the deformation of the earlier standard, was 11 mm (0.55 %) shorter. In 1747 this toise was replaced by a new toise of near-identical length - the Toise du Pérou, custody of which was given to l'Académie des Sciences au Louvre.

Although the pouce (inch), pied (foot) and toise were fairly consistent throughout most of pre-revolutuionary France, some areas had local variants of the toise. Other units of measure such as the aune (ell), the perche (perch/rood), the arpent and the lieue (league) had a number of variations, particularly the aune (which was used to measure cloth).

The loi du 19 frimaire an VIII (Law of 10 December 1799) states that one decimal metre is exactly 443.296 French lines, or 3 pieds 11.296 lignes de la "Toise du Pérou". Thus the French royal foot is exactly 9000/27706 metres ( about 0.3248 m).

The aune, which was used for measuring cloth had large variations across France. In 1686, when the toise was adjusted (and along with it, the pied and pouce), l'aune de Paris retained it's length of approximately 535.5 mm. A selection of differnt aunes from across France is shown in the table below:

Tesco's practice in 2004 of giving dominance to imperial units based in its assertion in 2000 that 90% of its customers used imperial units, was identified in a 2004 Which? magazine report as a possible means of appearing cheaper than its rivals and condemned by Medical News Today as a "confusing pricing tactic". Following the results of a survey of their customers in early 2011 - which concluded that 70% of them would prefer products to be labelled in imperial units - the Asda supermarket chain whose customer base is biased towards socio-economic group D are experimenting with seling produce in round imperial measures again. A similar survey of 1,000 customers conducted by the Tesco supermarket chain in 2000 showed that 90% of their customers used imperial measures. In contrast, Waitrose weekend, the magazine for the up-market supermarket chain Waitrose only uses metric units.

2 jan 1909 n/a 7 feb 1912 3.8 27 jan 1917 -1.8 12 feb 1929 -10.1 16 dec 1933 -2.0 30 jan 1940 -6.1 7 Feb 1941  0.0 22 Jan 1942 -11.7 8 Feb 1947 -8.5 3 Feb 1954 -5.4 14 feb 1956 -4.9 18 jan 1963 -7.7 21 jan 1985 0.3 26 feb 1986 -6.9 4 jan 1997 -3.6

Reference placeholders
Ref 1 - Good text overview - mainly about the metre

Ref 2 - Nearly 30 pages of tables;

Ref 3 - Britannica (in French) Authoritative

Ref 4 - Cybergroup (table - one page)

Ref 5 - A book, printed in 1913

Ref 6 - 40 page manuscript

Ref 7 - Some pictures:

Ref 8 - Dutch self-published:

Ref 9 - Dutch schoolbook or - Allereerste gronden der cijferkunst: bevattende de verklaring van het ... By Jacob de Gelder

Ref 10 - Military dictionary Lots of useful info (units of measure for captured weapons)

Ref 11 - German WIkiproject (with lists of weights) - Saxony

Ref 12 - German Customs site - dates of Zollpfund 1856 - 1877

Ref 13 - PhD Thesis - zollpfund & lot - pg 19 & 20

Ref 14 - The International System of Units - Its History and Use in Science and Industry by Robert A. Nelson

Ref 15 - cgs variants of units, text description

Ref 16 - Royal Society -

Ref 17 - Flora of the Falklands Ref 18 - Photos of the Falklands

Ref 19 - Stere is stacked firewood also

Ref 20 - Falkland Islands Geography

Ref 21 - Falklands Climate - here "Geologially part of the Scotia Arc" and map

Ref 22 - Time of daya, atomic time, UTC

Ref 23 - Paper by Stephen Gray on Charles Rawden Maclean.

Ref 24 - Early Natal, multiple pages

Ref 25 - ISO 8000-3:2006 (Quantities and Units - Part 3 - Space and time)

Ref 26 - ISO 8000-4:2006 (Quantities and Units - Part 4 - Mechanics)

Ref 27 - ISO 8000-5:2006 (Quantities and Units - Part 5 - Thermodynamics)

Ref 28 - UK/Argentinan claims to the South Atlantic seabed

Ref 29 - Rockhopper update

Ref 30 - Hindhead tunnel geology & boring - pg 30et seq

Ref 31 - Hindhead geology - good description

Ref 32 - Hindhead lengths (Govt report) pg 18-25

Ref 33 - Robert Morden's map of Dorset - - Ratios 1:1.23:1.41

Ref 34 - Robert Morden's map of Hampshire -

Ref 35 - UK Governments implemtation of EU direcitve 2009/3/EC -

Ref 36 - Governemnt report on supermarket oligopoly pg 16 - ASDA strongest in socio-economic group D

Ref 37 - Caroloignian foot was 34 cm Ref 38 - Price Marking Order 1991 - mainly metric, a few imperuial left-over -

User:Martinvl/MOSNUM

User:Martinvl/ExitListSandbox

Read

Read

Read

Read

Read

Read

Read

read, , 

French directory 1816

Battle of Tugela Heights - Map by Churchill -

New Scietnist criticism of Metrication Board's White paper

Metrication Board White Paper

Cockcroft report on education (1982)

Maths in nursing

English language arithmetic book

Cobbs Arithmetick (US 1835) -.

Elfstedentocht History

Dutch Weather (use de Kooy - close to Den Helder)

Air transport:

Useful Wikipedia links
Languages_of_the_European_Union

List of countries by English-speaking population List of newspapers in the world by circulation

Viergötterstein

 * Koordinate: 50.16337°N, 8.52386°W

Neben dem Waldfriedhof in der Nähe des Ostrings befindet sich der Viergötterstein. Dieser Stein ist eine originalgetreue Nachbildung des 1839 in Schwalbach gefundenen Viergöttersteins. Die damalige Fundestelle befindet sich etwa 400 Meter abseits des heutigen Standortes. Der Stein wurde 1981 durch den Verschönerungsverein aufgestellt. Der Platz rund um den Stein wird von einer geschwungenen Mauer aus Gabionen eingefasst.

Historical context
commonSIprefixes

When Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800 AD, his empire included most of modern-day Western Europe including the Netherlands and Belgium. At the Treaty of Verdun, the empire was divided between Charlemagne’s three grandsons and Lothair received the central portion, stretching from the Netherlands in the north to Burgundy and Provence in the south.

Further fragmentation followed and at the start of the religious wars, the Netherlands, still part of the Holy Roman Empire, had passed into the lordship of the King of Spain. Under the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the seven Protestant republics that owed a nominal allegiance to the Prince of Orange ceded from the Holy Roman Empire and established their own confederacy.

In 1792 the southern part of the Netherlands was incorporated into the First French Republic and in 1807 the rest of the Netherlands was incorporated into what had now become the First French Empire. Under the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Kingdom of the Netherlands which included Belgium and Luxembourg was established as a buffer state against France. In 1830 the Belgians revolted against Dutch rule and under the Treaty of London of 1839 Belgian independence was recognized and both states acquired boundaries that are similar to their current boundaries.

A Universal System
The metric system was, in the words of the French philosopher Concerdect to be "for all people for all time". This quote had many implications. Thos meant that the metric system was to be of use to ordinary people, to engineers who worked in human-related measurements, to astronomers and to physicists who worked with tiny numbers. This is epitomized in the range on prefixes that have now been defined in SI.

This also meant that the same system was to be available to all people and therefore to be supranational. To this end, when the French Government were first investigating the idea of overhauling their system of measurement, Tallyrand, in the late 1780's, acting on Concordet's advice, invited Riggs, a British Parliamentarian and Jefferson, the American Secretary of State to George Washington to promote legislation in their respective legislative bodies to work with the French is producing an international standard. In the event, these overtures failed and the custody of the metric system remained in the hands of the French Government until 1875.

A further implication was that a common means of communication that could be understood by all people should be developed. This was achieved by using symbols that are independent of language. Thus the symbol "km" is used in French and British English to represent "kilometre", in German and American English to represent "kilometer", in Italian to represent "Chilometri", in Greek to represent "χιλιόμετρα", in Russian to represent "Километр" and so on.

Industrial considerations
The British industrial revolution dated back to the late eighteenth century and The Great Exhibition of 1851 was a showcase for British and the world's indsutry. The judging of exhibits from various nations showed the need for a standard system of measurement across all industrialised nations. By 1875, when the Convention of the Metre was called, the United Kingdom still the leading industialised nation, producing over half of the world's pig iron but the industrial revolution was taking off in France and more particularly in Germany, both of which used the metric system and by 1890 Germany was out-producing the United Kingdom in pig iron. Certain exported saw this as a need for the adoption of the metric system, but other intersets such as the Lancashire textile industry opposed the adoption of the metric system woud undermine their near monopoly in Asian markets. Good reference

Russian criticism

Base paper Mills et al

Population Pyramid
2006 Census

Unconnected
Mise & Practique reference

Statement by Martinvl
I'm here because Alex79818 posted a note on my page, claiming that I was "a potentially aggrieved editor whose contributions may have been negatively impacted" at Falkland Islands. I have been at odds with User:Pfainuk and User:Wee Curry Monster on two counts.

Units of Measure

The first is the demands that imperial units be given priority in many situations in the Falkland Islands articles even though all the sources cite metric units. User:Pfainuk forced an agreement on units that were codified in WP:FALKLANDSUNITS by unreasonable behaviour when at 21:01, 31 March 2010 he wrote "Looks like I'll have to revert to imperial first for all units after all. People decided to wait until after I implemented before objecting to my proposal. Never mind, if they insist on our remaining at the previous consensus, we'll just have to remain at the previous consensus". His justification was a classic case of WP:SYNTH when at 17:08, 10 August 2009 he wrote "I object to a move to all metric-first: we should use the units in common use on the islands - and the Islanders are generally more likely to use imperial units than even the British are". Since he was unwilling to follow the units of measure used in the soruces (and therefore to honour WP:VERIFY), I raised a request to[merge this article] into WP:MOSNUM (where I believe it belongs), but was frustrated in doing so by, amongst others, the abovementioned two editors. I did not take this to arbitration as I had too many other commitments in real life.

Within the United Kingdom, metric units are used for almost all official government and many non-government purposes. In addition in many United-Kingdom releated Wikipedia articles including Inner Hebrides and Outer Hebrides metric units take precedence. The Argentine also uses metric units. I therefore assert WP:NPOV is best achieved by metric units taking precedence except where it can be demonstrateed that other units were used in the related primary sources (nautical miles for seabed claims, mph for speed limits). In addition, I request that the arbitrators speedily delete WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. Status of the Falkland Islands Government

The second is and the insistance of the abovementioned editors using the phrase "self governing British Overseas Territory" in the article lede without including the qualifying word "internal" even though the British Government and the Falkland Islands Government both use that qualifying word. I have not yet tried to resolve this other than on the article's talk page as I found it too wearing to argue with these two editors. Their arguments in this instance were facile and in my view they were putting WP:POV above WP:VERIFY.

As a British citizen who in real life has family serving in the British armed forces I find the degree of POV pushing in which these editors indulge as unreasonable.

Hindhead Table
The name "stone" derives from the use of stones for weights - a practice that dates into antiquity. The literal text of the ancient Hebrew Law that forbade the carrying of "diverse weights, a large and a small" literally read "you shall not carry a stone (ואבו) or a stone (אבו), a large and a small" - there was no "standard" stone in the ancient Jewish world. In Roman times larger weights that were crafted to an exact multiple of the Roman libra (typically 40) used in commerce were often made of stone. During the Middle Ages, a good-sized rock was chosen as a local standard, but its actual weight varied with the commodity and region. By the late Middle Ages, international trade such as England’s exportation of raw wool to Florence necessitated a fixed standard - in 1389 a royal statute by Edward III fixed the stone of wool at 14 lbs.

Peak prominence and Bloomer's Challenge
Post in Hill_lists_in_the_British_Isles

(Prominence) is a criteria that is used to qualify the separation of should two peaks. Corbett recognised this and in the 1920's published Corbetts Index, a list of a list of "interesting" Scottish hills between 2500 and 3000 ft (2500 ft and 3000 ft) with at least 500 ft ascent (prominence) on all sides. Although Corbett's list fulfilled many criteria, he fixed the prominence of "interesting peaks" at 500 ft.

Modern mountaineers allow for different prominence values use the following classification:

British mountaineers Jim Bloomer and Roddy Urquhart have catalogued all hills and mountains in the United Kingdom with a prominence of at least 100 m (P100 or better) and a height of at least 500 m. Their list has just 3 P1000 peaks, but 155 P500 peaks, 577 P200 peaks and 829 P100 peaks. Bloomer's challenge, which uses the database, is to climb the 158 peaks in the United Kingdom that have a prominence of at least 500 m.

DeFacto
Support: I support the proposed topic ban on DeFacto.

I bore the brunt of his actions in the "Asda" topic last year when he (in which he was supported by User:VsevolodKrolikov) refused to accept that the addition was made to the article Metrication in the United Kingdom was not encyclopeadic. He initially placed this "addition" in the article Metric system, mentioning it once in the lede and twice in the body of the article. I did not have time to examine it properly, so I moved it to Metrication in the United Kingdom and after I had looked at it properly, I tried to remove to. DeFacto objected. The discussion ran over six talk page topics, three of which were attached to the topic:
 * Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_2 (105 replies)
 * Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3 (30 replies)
 * Talk:Metrication_in_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_3 (197 replies)

There is no need to read these threads fully – together they contain over 300 responses of his and VsevolodKrolikov’s WP:wikilawyering during which time he refused to concede that the results of an in-store survey was unencyclopeadic, as was an announcement of a short-lived product launch. I had support from a number of other editors, all of whom eventually gave up in disgust. DeFacto has also been active on a number of other articles connected with metrication – in all of them he has tried to belittle the metric system by introducing adjectives that are inappropriate in the context (for example using the word "certain" to represent "100%" in the articles gallon and stone (unit) - this edit and in this edit), or by inappropriately pushing hard to promote sloppy use of metric unit symbols (in a manner often by market traders, but actively discouraged in schools) in article ledes. One such example was equating "kilo" with "kg" as a shorthand for "kilogram" (approximately 80% of Talk:Kilogram is devoted to this topic) or by introducing the abbreviations "ltr", "mtr" into the article Introduction to the metric system. Revoking these changes is such an exhausting business that I would wait for a week or two rather than enter into a tedious edit war with him. Meanwhile the quality of Wikipedia has been compromised. After he had been rebuffed on the Hindhead Tunnel and WP:MOSNUM articles, he “attacked” (I can think of no better word) the article Metrication in the United Kingdom by deleting one section of the article and adding banners to three other sections (My reinstatement here). This is the sort of behaviour I would expect from a two year-old. After I reverted and he again reverted and then rewrote the section "Legal Requirements", replacing a summary of the law with his own summary which bore no resemblance to the law whatsoever. Again we had an edit war and he reverted my text with the comment "Replaced bad-faith and unjustified restoration of poor quality, inaccurate and unsupported content with something accurate and verifiable (see talk) - more references pending" (DeFacto’s revert diffs) I demanded an apology for abusive language, but none was forthcoming.

Finally, I have wasted a considerable amount of time having to deal with his wikilawyering and abusive language when he is pushing an untenable argument – to the extent that I have wondered whether it is worthwhile spending time as a Wikipedia editor. I believe that an outright topic ban would be appropriate – something along the lines proposed by User: Drmies.

Martinvl (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Darrington to Leeming
This section opened in sections:
 * Walshford to 49 opened in 1995
 * Junctions 43 to 44 opened in 1999
 * When this section opened it ended at a temporary terminus south of the M1. There was a final exit into Micklefield Village for non-motorway traffic onto what is now the access road. During the first week of June 2009, Junctions 44 and 45 were renumbered to 43 and 44. At the same time the existing A1/A659 Grange Moor junction became A1(M) Junction 45. As a result many atlases show incorrect junction numbering for this stretch of motorway.
 * Junction 46 to temporary junction at Walshford opened in 2005
 * Junction 40 to south of 43 opened in 2005 & 2006
 * The northern section of the upgrade, bypassing Fairburn village opened to traffic in April 2005 with a temporary connection with the existing A1 between Fairburn and Brotherton. The southern section, with a free-flow interchange with the M62 motorway opened to traffic on 13 January 2006.


 * Junctions 44 to 46 opened in 2009
 * Work began in March 2009 to upgrade the Dishforth to Leeming section to dual 3-lane motorway standard with existing connections being replaced by two new junctions. As of July 2010, work was in progress on the Dishforth to Leeming section (J49 to J51) and was completed in 2012.

Junctions
Data from driver location signs are used to provide distance and carriageway identifier information.