Text Julian

I have deleted your user page. It is intended for basic information about yourself or your Wikimedia-related activities. Although a lot of leeway is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not a personal website, blog, or social networking medium, nor should it be used to promote yourself, or host a fake article, CV, or lengthy biography.

Please do not be offended, and please feel welcome here. I encourage you to help build the encyclopedia. If there is anything you ever need, just ask. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wiki How. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Derry, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Valenciano (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tóraí (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You clearly aren't here to contribute to the encyclopedia and per this edit this isn't even your main account. Go back to your main account and request an unblock and show that you aren't just here to troll and screw around at the RFC. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ricky can you please do me a favour and block the other account instead. I can't remember the password for it. And by the way, I don't see why you think I wasn't here to build an encyclopaedia. I read through the talk pages and concluded that one side had been pushing their point of view under the guise of policy. They were trying to say it was a common name issue. But if opinion is so badly divided on what the common name is, then how can you enforce a common name? It looks to me as though one side get their opponents topic banned or blocked.Text Julian (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Julian, I think you need to use the unblock request template, as outlined by Ricky81682, to get an administrator's attention. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cordless Larry, Thanks for your help, but I won't be requesting an unblock. The haste with which Ricky pandered to Torai was sufficient indication to me that the project is corrupt beyond repair. It was quite evident that I was not abusing multiple accounts, and even to use the word 'multiple' for the word 'two' was malicious. My only remaining concern, which is beyond my control anyway, is that this kind of corruption has been ongoing since the article was first created many years ago. Has there by any chance been a long line of editors advocating the use of the official name and then getting blocked on suspicion of being an earlier blocked editor, simply on the demand of the opposition but without a shred of evidence? And will this practice continue? Will the next new editor who comes here, and who hasn't edited before, and who advocates using the official name, be blocked because he/she is whistling from the same hymn sheet as previous blocked editors? Does wikipedia never stop to think that the reason for this dispute going on for many years is because they didn't insist on using the official name at the outset? If I were allowed to edit again, I would only have one line of argument, which is that it is a lie to claim that this dispute is about common name. At the beginning, and in good faith, I drew attention to the childrens' rhyme "Londonderry, Cork, and Kerry, spell that without a 'K'. But I soon realized that the argument about what is the common name is only a decoy. If there is no agreement on what the common name is, then how can it be enforced by policy? It's all just a numbers game right through to the ones who can block accounts, and unless more unionist editors show up, it's pointless. So they can keep their block. But do me one last favour. Please be my proxy at the repeat RFC and vote for changing the title to Londonderry. I'd be grateful to you if you would please do that. Julian Ringland Text Julian (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

As I suggested on the article talk page before, while some editors may be using WP:COMMONNAME as cover for their political bias, some of us are genuinely trying to follow policy and the evidence. Please see my comments presenting evidence of use in sources, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Cordless Larry, I appreciate that you are in good faith, and that you have been doing some sterling research, but you miss the more general point that the whole principle behind common name is, that where the official name is so long and cumbersome that it is virtually never used in everyday conversation, then you use the common name. That is not the case with Londonderry. Londonderry is easy to say and the margins as between amount of usage of each are too narrow to have a clear cut case that the common name should be used over the head of the official name, especially as the official name contains the most significant feature. Anyhow, I can see that you are genuinely interested in this subject so let me recommend to you a chapter which will help you to better understand what is really driving this dispute. It's a chapter in a book called "The History of England" ( http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/macaulay/england/siege.htm ). It's the chapter called "The Siege of Londonderry". It's about the best account of the siege in existence. It goes into graphic detail about the heroics of Colonel Adam Murray and his brave sorties beyond the walls into enemy territory. If you read this chapter you'll understand why Londonderry is like a Jerusalem to the unionist population, and then you'll better understand the malice that lies behind efforts to drop the word 'London' from the name of the city. You should read it. You'll enjoy it. But this is the last you'll hear from me. Remember to do me that last favor and be my proxy at the repeat RFC. Don't forget! Text Julian (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think proxy voting is allowed. Just to clarify, WP:COMMONNAME isn't about what name is used in everyday conversation, but "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". The difficulty comes with trying to assess which name is used most in those sources. Thanks for the reading suggestion, but I'm more than aware of the local politics. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Larry, OK. But more importantly, read "The Siege of Londonderry" by Lord Macaulay. You can read it here http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/macaulay/england/siege.htm And give Dubs Boy and GoodDay a copy too. Keep up the good work. Text Julian (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The question I have is whether you are here to actually discuss the naming of the page of Derry or if you're just out to argue and pick a fight about it. Calling this a battle "exclusively to do with Irish republican activists" won't get you far and that's why there were ArbCom sanctions on these kinds of discussions because people refuse to stop acting like children. This site isn't for people to right great wrongs. The RFC is a disaster with just pages of "it's WP:COMMONNAME"/"no, it's not" and rather than actually discuss the points at issue (namely, Google sources showing which is more common, book sources about the history of the name, actual your know sources about which name is more common) it's the same name-calling and childishness that's taken over these topics for years. If the only argument you have is that everyone who disagrees with you is either a brilliant activist or someone tricked by said activists, then you're in the wrong place and your kind aren't wanted here. If you are actually serious about something here, then show an ounce of effort in treating other people with respect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply