User talk:98.191.14.194 - Wikipedia


7 people in discussion

Article Images

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Storrs, Connecticut, you may be blocked from editing. History shows the talk page shows there isn't consensus for a move. stop. R0paire-wiki (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at XL Center. R0paire-wiki (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect @R0paire-wiki, take a look at the facts. There is no basis for any claim of disruptive editing, because in fact, Storrs-Mansfield is the correct name for this community on multiple counts. You, nor any other user, has no right to ban anyone for editing in the upmost truthful way on Wikipedia, with a full slew of official and suitable references as I have. Storrs-Mansfield is the official and truthful name of the community that includes the University of Connecticut. By reversing any edit that includes the correct name of Storrs-Mansfield, you yourself are being disruptive. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Then please enter into discussion at the articles' talk pages to convince us that the name is not only official but also the name commonly used to refer to the community. —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@C.Fred, did you take a look at any of the many official and community-based references I properly added to the article to support the edit? Recall that many of them were from official Town of Mansfield documents and webpages - and refer to the number of businesses, utilities, and bespoke references.
There is no need for "convincing" since this is the correct and truthful name of the community. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
By your logic, where is Mansfield? —C.Fred (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Once again, it is not "by my logic", but the truth - to wit: The Town of Mansfield lies approximately at 41 degrees, 49 minutes north and 72 degrees, 15 minutes west by longitude and latitude, encompassing the entirety of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas ZCTA5 06268, ZCTA5 06269, and ZCTA 06250 (in the Census sense) and ZIP Codes 06268, 06269, and 06250 (in the Postal sense) anchored from the south by Windham, from the west by Coventry, from the north by Willington and a small portion of Ashford, and from the east by Chaplin. Mansfield lies approximately 25 miles east of Hartford, 25 miles north of Norwich, and 35 miles west of the Connecticut-Rhode Island border.
Storrs-Mansfield exists in the ZIP Code area of 06268, which completely encompasses 06269 as well.
Mansfield Center exists in the ZIP Code area of 06250, due south of Storrs-Mansfield.
The Town of Mansfield is the municipality that controls these three areas. In Connecticut, there does not exist a county government system (anymore).
Census-designated places within the Town of Mansfield include Mansfield Center and, in question, a CDP labeled "Storrs" that importantly does not geographically contain half of the businesses or residences in the true Storrs-Mansfield! CDPs, as famously and commonly known, only exist for statistical purposes, have no legal standing or quality, and do not line up with official boundaries or ideas. ZIP Codes, not only supersede CDPs legally, more importantly represent the actual sense of community and town in which people live and businesses operate.
Also, remember that in New England (including Connecticut), towns and cities are considered differently than where you're from. Did that answer your question? Look, it's obvious this isn't vandalism and is rooted in verifiable and official sources. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
And you did not add any references when you edited University of Connecticut—which, per their website, is in Storrs. —C.Fred (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not true.[1][2] 98.191.14.194 (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you attempt to make disruptive edits to Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:R0paire-wiki. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Please seek consensus on the talk page of Storrs, Connecticut for your edits, instead of attacking my talk page with fake warnings. R0paire-wiki (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@R0paire-wiki You're the one that's mass-undoing correct information, perpetuating falsehoods. The edits in question have many numerous official and substantial references and citations and it is inappropriate to undo such edits. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are also reliable sources stating Storrs as it's own place. You need to achieve consensus, especially when the talk page previously shows WP:COMMONNAME did not support such changes. R0paire-wiki (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
When it comes to place names, here you are choosing "who to believe". Do you believe the municipality, who actually governs, maintains, manages, and regulates the community in question - at the local level?
Do you believe the US Postal Service, which maintains the official resource of community place names and boundaries at the federal level?
Do you believe the citizens who actually live there, do business there, or visit?
Do you believe Cousin Sherm, who hasn't even heard of the place before the discussion?
In this case, everyone agrees - and the official sources are there - the truthful place name is Storrs-Mansfield. It's actually cast in metal on the Post Office itself. It's on all of the town materials and official addresses. You can't argue with that. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter if you use that name, that is WP:OR - Wikipedia is based around WP:RS; and forming consensus when an edit is disputed. It is evident not "everyone agrees" based on the fact previous edits at Storrs, Connecticut did not achieve consensus. Even your edits to the University of Connecticut are disputed by it's own website.[3]
Having to get consensus for disputed edits isn't up for debate, it is a policy as part of the Five pillars. R0paire-wiki (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Encyclopedias used to be publications of fact and truth. A reliable resource. Looks like that's not the case, at least in some element, anymore. If everyone in your circle called Nowheresville, ID "R0pairetown, KY" that just isn't correct.
The reference you attempt to use to corroborate your idea that "Storrs" is the name literally leads to an Error 404 Page Not Found screen. That's not going to work, buddy. Remember that the USPS is in charge of addresses and place names. I can claim that UConn is in Gurleyville, CT. It isn't, and it isn't in "Storrs" either.
Hell, someone who enjoys playing devil's advocate really should suggest the use of Gurleyville. Haha. Remember that Storrs-Mansfield is corroborated in official and community-based references en quantity. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 02:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, it isn't original research and as is known - the Town of Mansfield references, which are verifiably and independently official and reliable, list the name as Storrs-Mansfield. That is enough on its own.
It's the town name. How can that be original research when numerous citations were properly referenced in the article? 98.191.14.194 (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Link has been fixed, and this discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Consensus needs to be achieved before editing, and I'll leave it there for now. R0paire-wiki (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
How is it that other edits of truthful, referenced and cited, and commonplace knowledge are not challenged by such a "consensus" policy. Let's say that everyone agrees, or comes to this magical consensus (involving editors and others who do not live in, have nothing to do with, and have maybe never even heard of Storrs-Mansfield) and they all agree that the wrong answer is the one to go with.
Any shred of credibility Wikipedia can lay claim to would be extinguished, by allowing such a claim to prevail. Storrs-Mansfield is the correct name.
How about I start a similar claim that bananas aren't yellow. Let's see how far that goes... Yikes. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  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 controversial changes and 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. You have already been asked to use the talk page for discussion. Please use it, as it is part of the fundamental bold, revert, discuss cycle. Rusty 🐈 02:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rusty Cat, I understand that some ping went off and you've placed this message on this page - but it's patently unfair that you also haven't placed the same exact message on the users engaged in the discussion on this page, users involved directly with the changes/edits/reversals on the articles in question, or any future involved stakeholder.
By not placing the same democratic warning on their pages, being that they are taking just as much a side as I would be in the theoretical "war", you are presenting that Wikipedia has itself declared the correct stance, and that such stance isn't "mine".
There is no edit war. There is only editors, individuals, who overstep their bounds and remove truthful, verified, and referenced information. I assume you are a competent editor and can thoughtfully process evidence and information. Storrs-Mansfield is the correct name of this community as shown in official Town of Mansfield documentation, and by the USPS who is the federal (highest) authority on place names and addresses. Yes, even above the Census.
Storrs-Mansfield is the correct and truthful name. So, please remove this message and any equivalent type warning, as there really is no edit war. Or, if you feel the message has to remain you must place it on all the other user's pages. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't necessarily matter here who is the federal authority on place names; often on Wikipedia the commonly used name will be used rather than the authoritative name, and those two can differ. Rusty 🐈 03:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, if some amount of significantly measurable individuals started consistently using "Gotham" to refer to New York City you're saying that Wikipedia would then use that name? Seriously?
Well, on that note, every instance should actually read "The Basketball Capital of the World". In full.
That's not really a watertight philosophy. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Since you mention Gotham/New York. WP:COMMONNAME is the reason that the articles for the five counties of State of New York that are part of the city of New York are referred to by their *Borough* name, not the county name. It is far more common to refer to Richmond County, New York as Staten Island, so the article is at Staten Island. Similarly for Manhattan, when was the last time anyone referred to New York County...Naraht (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
98.... you're engaged in a legalistic argument, but that's not relevant here. Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:COMMONNAME) argue that we refer to places by their most common names, not by a name applied by some legalistic government entity. There may be a valid reason for the USPS to designate the post office that serves Storrs as the "Storrs-Mansfield" post office (possibly because it serves both places), but this does not mean that the residents of Storrs regularly refer to their hometown as "Storrs-Mansfield". You're also arguing against consensus: you appear to be the only person who believes this change is worthwhile, while multiple editors have come to argue the opposite point. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
By saying "the residents of Storrs" in your reply, that disqualifies you from being an impartial editor in the matter.
If everyone suddenly started calling the town where you live "Banana, WV", you're telling me that you're going to let it pass? Anyone in this discussion who supports any reference to a singular "Storrs" must support the replacement of any and all references to Winston-Salem to just "Winston", Wilkes-Barre to just "Wilkes", Milton-Freewater to just "Milton", and so on. Otherwise, that's capriciously unfair. 98.191.14.194 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Further, you've linked to the Town of Mansfield website, which lists their address (again, a USPS oddity) as Storrs-Mansfield, but you neglected to drill down on that page to find the Discover Mansfield page, which links to the downtown Storrs event calendar, part of the Downtown Storrs website. So, the village itself calls itself Storrs.

Re: Winston-Salem and Wilkes-Barre, these are the common names by which everyone calls these towns. But the common name by which people (not legal entities, but actual people) call Storrs is Storrs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

References in this section

edit

References

  1. ^ "ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06268" (Often erroneously listed as "Storrs", the correct name of this community is "Storrs-Mansfield".). United States Postal Service. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: United States Postal Service. p. ZIP Codes 06268 and 06269. YOU ENTERED: 06268 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT
  2. ^
  3. ^ "Storrs - Main Campus". University of Connecticut. Retrieved 2024-09-20. ...Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3088

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

From the internal search at uconn.edu, there are 77,000 hits for Storrs 326 for "Storrs Mansfield" (same 326 hit when searching for "Storrs-Mansfield") and most are either mailing addresses or off campus private housing. Naraht (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rusty Cat, R0paire-wiki, C.Fred It appears the editor has also made changes as 137.99.143.57 . Naraht (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding editing contrary to community consensus. The thread is Storrs-Mansfield. The discussion is about the topic Storrs, Connecticut. Thank you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
You've exhausted my patience. If you continue, the next block will be for a lot longer. Take the advice offered by other editors, and drop the attitude. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Let's take a recap here:

I've made an edit, that corrects a place name, and provides a wealth of verified official and secondary sources to support that edit. That's all normal and accepted Wikipedia practice - you can't argue with that point.

Other editors undo the edit. And I am the one you are saying is in the wrong because, what, I have actually explained myself? It is NOT "I am right and you are wrong" - if you actually read ANY of my replies, it is "This is verified in official and appropriate sources, and as a matter of fact, other editors made this into a bigger deal than it has to be."

If that was the conduct noticeboard, everything I have said is in fact appropriate, since it deals with other editors removing the truth. It's not an opinion here - we're not claiming that bananas aren't yellow. This is the treatment I get for wanting to improve Wikipedia and make sure that correct information is presented?

The article talk page is not the appropriate place since it's facts we are dealing with, not opinions. If a municipality announced an official change of place name for a town, city, or community would Wikipedia not allow that change to be published? Seeing as how this is already the official name, we have to go through this process? You are incriminating me for thinking I should be editing pages to include correct information. Yikes.

@Acroterion, why is it you feel your opinion holds more editorial weight than fact-supported edits?

 

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).

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

Request reason:

No one has responded to the facts presented. This matter is not an edit war. It is an example of Wikipedia editors reversing edits which improve articles based on correct, official, and truthful information - with properly added citations in the article, supported by numerous accurate and substantial primary and secondary sources. It is an example of reversals without the inclusion of replacement citations. It is an example of "consensus" disregarding official sources and the overwhelming community usage of this name. And most of all it is an example of editors involved who do not live in, have nothing to do with, and have maybe never even heard of the community in question or, if they have, they have not made it clear. (The only example is a single user on the board, where the user who blocked me originated from, who claims they've visited.)

The official and legitimate name of the community anchored by the main campus of the University of Connecticut is named Storrs-Mansfield. This community, encompassed by the areas of ZIP Codes 06268 and 06269, was named after early settlers Major Moses Mansfield and the Storrs family, both of whom owned a majority of land in the Town of Mansfield. The other community within the municipality is Mansfield Center, encompassed by the area of ZIP Code 06250. ZIP Code 06269 was established as a boundary of the University of Connecticut property, including but not limited to its use in the USPS' mail contexts, but it doesn't exist outside of 06268 as it were.

Storrs-Mansfield does not have its own municipal government. The Town of Mansfield is the municipality and is actually the smallest entity of distinction at the state level. Storrs-Mansfield is commonly considered a village, but it is not incorporated.

The argument hangs on the fact that there is a census-designated place with a name label of "Storrs" which does include a boundary within the village of Storrs-Mansfield and town of Mansfield, but itself does not include businesses, residences, or significant features associated with, identified with, and labeled as being in Storrs-Mansfield. (Or, for the sake of the argument, in "Storrs" either.) The other example used in the discussion was "Downtown Storrs", which is not an official name nor is it commonly used. The area that the editor was referencing is officially referenced as the Mansfield Downtown Partnership.

As is common knowledge, and is not in dispute here at Wikipedia, census-designated places do not have any legal status or standing, being created exclusively for statistical purposes. In fact, their use have actually been superseded by the Census Bureau themselves in favor of ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. In our case, Storrs-Mansfield is encompassed by ZCTA5 06268 and ZCTA5 06269, and Mansfield Center is encompassed by ZCTA 06250. Census-designated place boundaries, geographies, and names do not have any relationship with or bearing on local or state government and do not match with what citizens and community members know to be their community. This is the case here. Place names are arbited by and are supremely determined by the United States Postal Service and it is inappropriate to use a census-designated place name when it does not represent a majority of what the article is actually about, and in both cases, the actual community at hand.

When corrective edits were initiated here on Wikipedia, correct and verifiable references were included that were properly cited in the article. These included official sources, from the Town of Mansfield, which corroborated and accurately listed the addresses of municipal and town-related facilities as being in Storrs-Mansfield. The references also included listings from local businesses, utilities, and federal entities which all support the name of the community being named Storrs-Mansfield. Storrs-Mansfield is the official and supported name of this community. When other editors reversed these constructive edits, they did not provide any verifiable or official sources to support the destructive edit.

Storrs-Mansfield ( storz-MANS-feeld) is a village and census-designated place (CDP) in the town of Mansfield in eastern Tolland County, Connecticut, United States.[1][2][3]

It is clear Storrs-Mansfield is the commonly-used name to refer to this community.

The only reason the thread on the Administrator's noticeboard exists is because editors, or groups of editors, prefer to drive away constructive, corrective, and truthful edits. I have seen numerous replies to the discussion by editors who say something along the lines of "The residents of Storrs refer to the town as Storrs." This disqualifies those individuals from participating or having a binding opinion on the subject because any response like that has bias. It immediately assumes a resolution, and, in support of an incorrect and unsubstantiated name. Some other editors came from wherever, most likely due to a ping somehow, and placed warnings on me. But it's patently unfair the same exact message haven't been placed on the users engaged in the discussion on this page, users involved directly with the changes/edits/reversals on the articles in question, or any future involved stakeholder. If I am getting warned for making corrective edits referencing properly the truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, any and all editors reversing the same must have the same warning notice placed on their page. By not doing so, being that they are taking just as much a side as I would be in the theoretical "edit war", you are presenting that Wikipedia has itself declared the correct stance. You cannot do that, during an open matter. You cannot favor one editor over the other, especially in the case of the TRUTH PREVAILING.

There is no edit war, because editing Wikipedia to be more truthful is not against the rules.

In the United States, there are many towns and communities with double placenames. By allowing any of these and not Storrs-Mansfield, which is corroborated by official and substantial references, Wikipedia contradicts itself. Anyone in this discussion who supports any reference to a singular "Storrs" must support the replacement of any and all references to valid double placenames like Storrs-Mansfield, lest they be hypocritical and not credible. Any administrator which continues to allow this contradiction, and does not allow the correct and truthful name of Storrs-Mansfield, would no longer be considered responsible in their ability to uphold the facts over an opinion.

I have posed the question to the other participants of the discussion: What if the town in which you lived was capriciously referred to as something else? "Banana, USA" may just be where you are reading this. And if enough people start using that in turn of phrase, then all of these users would be obligated to adjust each reference to your town to "Banana, USA". That is wrong and of course would never happen. What if people just start creating false claims and perpetuating them? This happens all of the time, and it's obvious that this discussion is not rooted in vandalism or malfeasance. It is and was inappropriate to single me out for trying to improve Wikipedia by making corrective edits in reference to this place name - by attempting to block and reverse my edits, which also contained substantial constructive changes, by attempting to place numerous and many warnings on me claiming that I am being disruptive "when things weren't going your way", and by not treating ANY of the other editors in the discussion the same way as I have been.

I am making every effort to improve Wikipedia, being an online encyclopedic reference of distinction. It is clear there are many policies in place designed to maintain accuracy and truth. Why then, are we even considering a discussion of an untruthful place name?

Editors have continually attacked me for attempting to add verified, referenced, supported corrective edits. Anyone who attempts to reverse my truthful and corrective edits should have the disruptive editing process initiated unto them, because if I have been blocked for editing correct and truthful information, it is only fair that anyone involved in the discussion have to go through an equivalent message notice and process.

Storrs-Mansfield is the correct name. It is an abuse of administrative ability and power to silence and censor my factual and verified edits. The banning of my ability to correctively edit Wikipedia is a personal attack. The facts have been presented and it is the OTHER editors who do not agree.

Since when did Wikipedia promote falsehoods? I posed a completely valid question on the talk page of the user who banned me: Why have I been kicked to the curb, and anyone else in the discussion had NO notice or warning of equal value placed on their page?

When I do so myself, because that is fair, why does he have the right to block me? He does not.

References

  1. ^ "ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06268". United States Postal Service. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: United States Postal Service. p. ZIP Code 06268. YOU ENTERED: 06268 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT
  2. ^ "ZIP Code Lookup Tool - 06269". United States Postal Service. Storrs-Mansfield, Connecticut: United States Postal Service. p. ZIP Code 06269. YOU ENTERED: 06269 - RECOMMENDED CITY NAME: STORRS MANSFIELD CT
  3. ^

98.191.14.194 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

The merits of your arguments are not so much the issue as is your attitude and behavior. You seem to be saying "I'm right so everyone needs to listen to me". That's not how we do things here. You don't get to impose your will just because you think you are correct. Wikipedia isn't about truth, it's about what can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. If you think your ideas are backed by Wikipedia policy, you need to convince other editors of that in a civil manner; if it doesn't work, then it doesn't work and you'll have to live with that. You don't get to edit war, use Wikipedia as a battleground, issue revenge warnings, or make personal attacks. I think you're very fortunate the block was only 48 hours. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2024 (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.

As 331dot notes, you were blocked because you're treating every venue on Wikipedia as an opportunity to post verbose walls of text in support of your case, without reference to Wikipedia policy on such matters, and conspicuously avoiding the only place where you should make a much briefer argument; the article talkpage. Additionally, you were blocked because you have been treating other editors as opponents to be denigrated and defeated, rather than colleagues to be persuaded by politely making a case within the frame of Wikipedia policy for such things. You have abused your unblock request, which should be solely devoted to describing your understanding of your behavior and how you will henceforth comply with expectations for future conduct, to relitgigate a content matter.Administrators don't arbitrate content disputes. Your overwrought behavior is the issue here. See WP:BATTLEGROUND.Pointing out the relevant policy, WP:COMMONNAME isn't an adjudication of your content dispute, it was meant as help to show you how to frame your argument. If you don't choose to accept that advice and just want an argument, you won't be allowed to edit. You're wasting volunteer time by not bothering to listen to advice. Acroterion (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
IP I strongly suggest you read the essay 331dot linked to WP:NOTTRUTH. While it might be an essay and you might find slightly differing essays, NOTTRUTH is a reasonable summary of how things end to play out generally to the extent that I'm certain I'm not the only one who's eyes started to glaze over once I saw you bring up "not allowing the truth to prevail" and all the many reference to "truth" you made on ANI. By long experience, I think many of us know that once someone starts to bring up the truth, it generally means they have no idea how things work on Wikipedia, and often what they're trying to change isn't support by sources, or our policies and guidelines. If by some chance this is an exception where the change you're making actually should be implemented, you need to learn how to argue your case based on our policies and guidelines not based on it being the truth or the official and legitimate name or whatever else. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you or @Acroterion have problems with the many MANY sources I've provided, and did so before any of this, bring it to the article talk page. I was FLAGGED for being disruptive by adding references!!! 98.191.14.194 (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your conduct is the issue, not the referencing, and your avoidance of Wikipedia process and policy in favor of repetitive demands. That you keep deflecting those concerns is another problem. Wikipedia has ways to reconcile this kind of issue; you have made no attempt to understand how that is done. Acroterion (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's amply clear that you haven't read or understood the advice you've been given about how to constructively approach your proposed edits. If you don't make the effort to understand the encyclopedia's policies on naming styles and appropriate ways of approaching disputed content, the next block will be for a substantial amount of time. You have been wasting a great deal of volunteer time by insisting that the encyclopedia must accommodate you. Acroterion (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply