Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Suicide methods, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Thinboy00 @199, i.e. 03:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the recent edits you've made to Suicide methods. Although well-intention, the edits are original research and don't belong in an encyclopedia. If you have any questions, reply here or feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your comment[1], Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I understand you'd like your thoughts on suicide known on the page, but your opinions are original research, which is not allowed. Entries should be properly referenced and clinical, not emotional.

Also, Wikipedia pages should be discussed on their talk pages, not through email. If you have a concern, make it known on the talk page of an article and see if other people agree with you. Wikipedia works through gaining a general consensus on disputed topics. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your changes before just readding them, they are WP:OR. I removed your reference to paracetamol because in addition to being improperly referenced, the article you quoted was primarily about accidental overdose and did not verify the statistics and consequences you wrote in the entry.

Again, please don't just add those sections back, I'll be glad to help you out if you have any questions about properly referencing your statements. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 07:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your comment[2], I'm trying to clean up the unreferenced statements, simply pointing to someone else's hearsay doesn't give an editor the right to insert his own. I agree the article isn't a very good one, but if it's going to be on WP, it needs to be taken care of in the proper manner. If you want to list probable outcomes or mishaps, those need to be properly referenced. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your comment [3], I deleted the consequences of what you had added because it was not properly referenced, it was all speculation. It falls under WP:OR because based on what is written, it can't be proved, and thus it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

I can sympathize with you wanting to add things that you think might "save a life or two", but that's not what wikipedia is for. If you'd like to discuss this matter, I encourage you to take it up on the talk page of the article, I'm sure they've been through this before. Thanks! Snowfire51 (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

Phyllis Dobbs is a Woman Police Constable not a Woman Police Sergeant. Proof of this can be found here: [4]

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll give you that one! I just checked (the DVD was still in my player...) and, right enough, no stripes! Can't imagine why but I always had a mental picture of three big bananas on her arm. Oh well; time she was promoted. FergusM1970 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been very patient with your edits in the The Sergeants Affair. However, this one [5] really violates proper behavior. You should never do such a thing and I expect an apology. Mashkin (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. You have violated it at The Sergeants affair. please revert your most recent edit ASAP, or I will have to ask that you be blocked. Mashkin (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see Mashkin report this. Calling the kettle black. Mashkin, you are in another edit war, take it like a man. Can't you guys bring other editors into the discussion. --Shuki (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. Mashkin has spent the last week reverting my edits in an attempt to slant this article in favour of two violent armed groups, both of which were so insane that by launching a series of attacks on the British Army, they effectively entered WW2 on the side of Adolf Hitler. (LEHI actually went on to discuss, with German representatives, the possibility of FORMALLY joining the Nazi side.) My aim, on the other hand, is to make this article conform to NPOV, and Mashkin is systematically obstructing this. So anyone else who wants to join in, feel free! FergusM1970 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lehi on the side of the Nazis? Ok... Quite the opposite. I think the British Army should have been back home defending England than worrying about its colonies. Really peculiar how the British in Palestine became pro-Arab and the Arabs were pro-Nazi, so by your reasoning, the British in Palestine were pro-Nazi as well. And the British kept the Jews from coming to Palestine and shipped them back to their death in Europe. So it seems that the Lehi and Irgun were actually pro-Allies and the British Army in Palestine was not. --Shuki (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at The Sergeants affair. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Shell ^babelfish 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FergusM1970 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was warned by Mashkin that I had violated 3RR, and immediately undid my last reversion. I note (and a look through the article history will confirm) that Mashkin has been systematically undoing the vast majority of my edits to this article in favour of his own original text, which is the subject of an NPOV dispute. I have attempted to reference and explain each of my edits and believe that I have improved the neutrality of the article.

Decline reason:

Thanks for your candor. The block is 24 hours in duration, and is already near to expiration. 3RR is a hard-and-fast rule, and as has been pointed out below both editors received a similar "time out" for the behavior. Please feel free to continue editing constructively--but avoiding 3RR--once your block expires. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Both of you were edit warring instead of using dispute resolution. Mashkin received the same block. Shell ^babelfish 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your position with regard to persecution. You altered the text of Gulshan Esther, stating that if mistreating a person for their religious faith is legal, then it can't be called persecution. I'm struggling to make sense of this position. Is it your opinion that a behavior must not be considered oppressive if it isn't illegal? Unless you can make a rational and persuasive statement, I intend to revert this article to its prior state. Brain Rodeo (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your response isn't sensible. We can agree that in Pakistan the persecution of religious minorities is supported by the government. But we will not agree that the government's support for systematic mistreatment of religious minorities means that that mistreatment cannot be considered persecution. Brain Rodeo (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FergusM1970, I was looking over the M240 article and it's talk page earlier, and saw your comments on there. While I respectfully disagree regarding your position about that article, and don't know enough off hand about the L7 variant, you make a good point about the L1A1/inch pattern FAL's. I wrote up a draft, including some info from the main FAL article, as well. I think I need more info and sources before I can consider putting it live. Judging from your arguments on here, you seem to know some stuff, so I am interested in any input and/or sources you might have that can help me make this article better. Just send any questions/comments/advice to my talk page the draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:L1A1_FAL/L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle Have a good day, --L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please visit us on the Harold Camping article Talk Page to provide your input.[6]. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 04:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Google hits is what we call original research, take a look at WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it was too funny to resist. I hope the old bastard spends the rest of his life being sued by his dupes. My bad.FergusM1970 (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in accordance with the polices on biographies of living people (which includes their talk page), I've had to delete the comment you made here[7]. Sorry about that. Better than someone else coming along and noticing it and dropping a warning message though. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I understand the rules. Even someone as despicable as Camping needs to be protected by WP policy, hard as it may be to swallow sometimes :-) FergusM1970 (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But, there's also another personal point to it. If you never speak something others can claim is clearly your opinion, then it is far less likely that if you get into a content dispute or discussion that anyone can accuse you of pushing your own biases and POVs. For instance, in this case, people may start to wonder whether your content insertions are based off your opinion of Camping and are thus unbalancing the article. It's one of the reasons why (for instance in this article's talk page) I only leave premises that are citable - and on my own userpage, I choose not to list any religious or political affiliations I may or may not have, or my opinion on any religion, sexuality, politics, etc... though, admittedly, I do mention that I like bacon, Star Trek and Iron Maiden; but I suspect people won't presume those affect or bias me in the areas I edit. ;-)

Anyway, I've rambled enough. Thanks for understanding my reasonings for the "retraction" of the comment. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also like bacon and Iron Maiden (who I had the privilege of seeing at Rock am Ring in 2005) but I retired from Star Trek when Kirk did. I make no secret of the fact that I'm an atheist and despise people like Camping, but I think there's enough verifiable information from reliable sources to prove clearly that the world isn't going to end any time in the next 5 billion years or thereabouts, which is why I see no need for WP to treat Camping's idiot "predictions" any differently from someone's hypothetical assertion that the moon is actually a sleeping armadillo called Keith - i.e. while the article should report accurately on what's being said, no weight needs to be given to the idea that any of it might actually happen. Anyway I'm drunk (again) and I'm off to bed. Have a good one. FergusM1970 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only seen them twice (same concert: AMOLAD, on Long Island and in Jersey). Sadly (or fortunately), instead of retiring from Star Trek when Kirk/Shatner did, I went on to help make more TOS. As I don't want to use your talk page for seemingly promotional purposes, all I'll say is for COI transparency purposes, what I am talking about is on my userpage. See you around next time, and thanks for your help in getting rid of the nonsense in the article while adding relevant stuff. I think you and Liberal brought a nice balance of perspective to it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be NEW Jersey. Or should I say Noo Joizy? FergusM1970 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, yes... It was kinda amazing... they seem to have more energy now than when they were younger. Totally amazing shows. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Star Trek and Iron Maiden rock. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting your own editorial spin on the article and also now mis-quoting Camping's "Calendar" by posting that "young woman" stuff. You've got to stick with the source, even if more modern Bibles disagree with the traditional "virgin" wording. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Camping's source is allegedly the Hebrew bible (even though he doesn't speak Hebrew) and the word used there is "Amah," which means "young woman." As for the "begats" it's blatantly obvious what the term means and even more blatantly obvious that Camping is talking complete bollocks. For the sake of balance the article should NOT indicate that Camping's interpretation is equally as valid as EVERYONE else's. FergusM1970 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to go with the wording he's using, because that's what's in the source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the Pentateuch, and it says "Amah." FergusM1970 (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the cited source in the article is what Bugs is talking about. And, he is correct. In these type things, there's three options, (1) write as supported by the cite, (2) find another equally reputable source that has the "correct" information, (3) don't include it at all. And in the case of BLPs, specifically, if there's a known error, and it's deemed it is something even remotely potentially actionable, it simply shouldn't be included at all. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source in the article is Isaiah 7:14, and Camping's reference to the phrase "qara shem" makes it clear that it's the Hebrew version he's talking about, not the Big Colour Southern Baptist Scratch'n'Sniff Bible. Therefore the English translation of the Hebrew bible is, unarguably, "young woman," not "virgin."

Why am I still awake? FergusM1970 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you're making a connection and providing your research into it, which also leads to the presumption that he accurately translated it. If his calendar says otherwise (which it does), then the article has to use his mistranslation as well. Remember, it's not what conclusions the cited source leads you to. It's exactly what the cited sources say... nothing more or less. One cannot jump any farther than that without violating WP:OR. Oh, and I am asking myself that same question... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Perhaps you're troubled with insomnia. I know a good cure for insomnia: Get plenty of sleep.

The thing about the source is that you're putting your spin on how he "should be" interpreting it. What you need to do is (1) stick with his own view on his interpretation; and (2) find an independent source that refutes it. It is not the place of wikipedia editors to do that refutation directly. That's "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "He also points out the use of qara shem in Isaiah 7:14, where it is written..." and what is written in Isaiah 7:14 is that a YOUNG WOMAN will conceive, and bear a son. The article seems to me like it's referring directly to Isaiah, rather than to Camping's self-published excrement. Anyway, I'm off. See you later. FergusM1970 (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't re-interpret his article on your own. You have to find a source for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we're trying to say is you can say "a peanut butter and jelly sandwich will..." for all any of us care - as long as (1) that's what he said, and (2) it's backed by reliable sources. We all know it wasn't a PBJ, but that's not what matters. No matter how correct we are, the only things that matter are (1) how he translated it, (2) and what he said, (3) as supported by the citations. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just saw how you resolved that issue. I think that's perfect! It means those who interpret the word as virgin are not put off, and those who interpret it differently understand it was his interpretaion, and is worded so it takes no position on the matter. Very nice job! Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed like the only viable solution. Isaiah 7:14 quite unambiguously does NOT say "virgin" and it would be unacceptable if the article implies it did by making it appear that Camping's translation matches the original. FergusM1970 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in your particular case, but different jurisdictions around the world handle it differently. Generally speaking, most look at it as part of SR but not controlled by it, although some jurisdictions also have a "Scottish" style vs. a "York" style of Craft degrees. For example, America tends to have the latter, but Brazil has both, and I think France does as well. Your edit would work in the England section, but not in the lead paragraph. MSJapan (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.--John (talk) 06:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to English longbow. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Old Moonraker (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Justin Bieber. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning, Fergus. As I just stated on WP:BLPN, your last edit violates 3RR. However, I won't report it if you self-revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone has now reverted your last edit, so please leave the article alone for at least 24 hours, and then be careful about your edits because edit-warring, even without a violation of 3RR, is not permitted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why we can't report that Yeater has been threatened by Bieber fans? Other threats are reported in the article and I have a reference for this. Why is it so important that any mention of Yeater is kept out of the article? And have you reported Lakeshade for violating 3RR? --FergusM1970 (talk) 00:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the report on Yeater is just a way of getting in the lawsuit. I don't believe it should be included for that reason. I'm not under any obligation to report violations of 3RR or warn anyone they are about to violate 3RR. I'm really doing you a favor by not reporting you because you clearly violated it, so although you may be frustrated, focus on that aspect of the editing issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so important to you that the lawsuit isn't mentioned? It's well referenced and notable. --FergusM1970 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion of the material at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice that a report has been filed at WP:3RRN concerning your edits. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. My edits were all in accordance with WP:BLP and were reverting edits that were NOT in accordance with that. You initiated a discussion on the issue and it became very clear that you had no argument against the inclusion of the allegation against Bieber in the article. As I said, I'm happy to let the big boys sort it out. I am confident that the allegation will stay in the article. --FergusM1970 (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were not, however, in accordance with WP:3RR. I don't see how you can claim that removing the text is vandalism, when reasons for removing the text based on Wikipedia policy have been provided. Since neither side is totally in the wrong, it's an edit war—and yours is the only name I see getting above three reverts. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I DIDN'T claim that removing the text was vandalism. As far as I can see no valid reasons for removing the text based on WP policy have been provided; the allegation is notable, relevant and well-documented. --FergusM1970 (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at Wikipedia:BLPN#Justin_Bieber reason(s) have been given despite your disagreement with them and peoples interpretation of polocies. The current talk should be your focus and not an edit war. As you can see some do agree with you, so why not talk it out some more and see were it gets you. If your blocked then your unable to progress in the discussion thus not adding to your point of view on the matter. Not engaging in consensus building when there is "clearly a disagreement" in the implantation/interpretation of polocies may be considered disruptive editing. All that said I think this is a close call and really not sure of what the outcome of the talk will be. I see your what your saying I just think its to soon for us to be listing all the hearsay. But you never know in 3 months from now there may be a section on his new BABY to be ;-). I do however think that Twitter tweets for random people (even threats) should never make it on Wikipedia as per Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites (that is just an essay but I think hits it on the head as anyone can tweet anything at any time about anything).Moxy (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The baby has been born and the mother has requested a DNA test from Bieber to prove paternity; I assume that will be decided on 15 December at the court hearing. Also I am not asking that we list hearsay; I am saying that we should mention the NOTABLE, RELEVANT and WELL-DOCUMENTED fact that the allegation has been made. It HAS been made; there is no doubt about this. --FergusM1970 (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that was my joke - there will be many claims like this hes only 17. Anyways all you had to do was wait a bit see what others had to say (looks like some more people are stating to agree with). But now your getting blocked :-(.Moxy (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I get blocked I get blocked. Soon enough I'll be unblocked again, but the Justin Bieber article will still say a scutter alleged he got her pregnant. Heads I win, tails they lose. --FergusM1970 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if a block happens the content added by the blocked user is usually removed. Would have been better to talk.Moxy (talk)

It is really a pity that you tried to insert this stuff into the article when it is now revealed that: The 20-year-old, who claims in court filings that Bieber fathered her son Tristyn during a 30-second sex session in a bathroom backstage after one of his shows, originally accused her ex of being the father of the same child This is exactly what the discussion at BLPN was trying to sort out. But despite the obvious existence of troubling signs about the accusations you had to edit-war to add this unreliable stuff into a BLP. I would revert this tripe but I ran out of reverts. If you revert yourself you may have a chance of getting a reduced block. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours. In light of the discussion above where you essentially accept that you'll get blocked I don't think it needs any explanation. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ameriwiki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. reddogsix (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Derry. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Mo ainm~Talk 09:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No OR is involved. The city is called Londonderry. This has been recently (2007) reaffirmed by court decision. "Derry" is only a nickname. --FergusM1970 (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Derry, along with other articles relating to The Troubles, is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2007 Arbitration case, and amended by community consensus in 2008 and 2009. The current restrictions are:

• All editors on Troubles-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions.
• All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.
• Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty.
• Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
• Editors may be subject to discretionary sanctions.

If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. You may also wish to review the arbitration case page. When in doubt, don't revert! Mo ainm~Talk 09:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting, but legally the city is called Londonderry and that's the end of it; this has been confirmed by a 2007 court case. Really there doesn't seem to be much left to discuss. --FergusM1970 (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have breached the restrictions placed on the Derry article, please self revert to avoid being blocked. Mo ainm~Talk 09:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to bully me. What is the legal name of the city we're talking about? If it is in fact Derry I'll revert my edit. Otherwise, well, I'll wait for Poland to admit that Gdansk is really called Danzig as some people claim. --FergusM1970 (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. In fact this should be easy to resolve. What is the legal name of the city: is it Londonderry or Derry? I'm happy for the legal name to be the one that's given first. --FergusM1970 (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Derry shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

In addition to the above read WP:BRD. You really need to understand that there are rules as to how you edit and you are in flagrant breech of several of them --Snowded ^TALK 11:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that, but on the other hand multiple editors are reverting my edits but failing to explain why they are not using the city's actual name. Obviously it's quite easy for several people to put me in a situation where I have to either break the 3RR rule or allow false information to remain in an article. While the people doing this may be within the LETTER of the law they're hardly following the SPIRIT of it. Now, if someone can show me that the city is actually called Derry, rather than Londonderry, we can resolve this quite easily. --FergusM1970 (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that you think you are right, you have to follow the rules and the text is a long standing one. They are following the spirit of the law as well as the letter - you work to get agreement you don;t edit war. Its your choice but it looks like you are going to have to learn the hard way. Your statement won't help by the way. Arbcom only looks at behaviour, not at content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 11:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I KNOW that I'm right, and you know that as well. The city's legal name is not in dispute; the issue here is the sensitivities of people who don't like the laws of the land they choose to live in. I trust that the arbitrators will give appropriate weight to who's trying to improve the quality of information in Wikipedia and who's trying to push a partisan viewpoint. --FergusM1970 (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have a position which has been discussed before and not achieved consensus. I and others would argue that the common name is clear. Arbitrators will not deal with the content dispute, they will (and now have) deal with the behaviour. What will happen next is your edits will be reverted to the agreed stable version. If you revert again, the blocks are bound to escalate. You might want to spend the next 24 hours thinking about that. --Snowded ^TALK 12:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I would suggest that YOU spend the next 24 hours researching what the shithole is actually called. Hint: it isn't Derry. --FergusM1970 (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you need to make a statement here where your actions have been reported. As per the suggestion on my talk page I suggest you self revert and then make a statement that you will use the talk page in future. That why you might avoid a block --Snowded ^TALK 11:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An issue you are involved in has been raised here Mo ainm~Talk 10:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the issue is, as the city has only one legal name - which is Londonderry - but I'm willing to submit to any arbitration process that results in the article becoming more accurate. --FergusM1970 (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for edit-warring, breaking not just the Ireland-related 1RR but also normal 3RR several times over at Derry/Londonderry. "Knowing" you are right does not justify this kind of edit-warring, especially not at a potentially contentious article whose present status quo is the result of extensive prior discussion. I'll leave it to the process at WP:AE to figure out if further sanctions are necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's contentious about it? The article is about a city in the UK. Now, what does UK legislation say that city is called? The facts are clear. --FergusM1970 (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the discussions about Londonderry and I don't see a concensus in favour of not calling it by its unofficial name. I am not happy about this behaviour. --FergusM1970 (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LDERRY for the consensus reached earlier by Wikipedia editors, which is now included in our Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. The consensus applies all article naming on Wikipedia unless a new discussion is held which reaches a different result. Since this compromise has been in place for four years a single editor who knows that he is right and everyone else is wrong would need to start over on persuading everybody. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the discretionary sanctions imposed by the arbitration case on "The Troubles", of which you were notified earlier today, you are hereby banned from editing any article or talk page within the scope of that case for a period of three months (until 6 March 2012). This is in addition to your 24-hour block for edit-warring. You will be blocked if you edit any article within the scope of the case while this ban is in effect. You may appeal this sanction at WP:AE or directly to the Arbitration Committee. Sincerely, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello FergusM1970. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]