User talk:George SJ XXI

Discussion.

Your Duke of Wellington edits
Hello,

With regards to your two edits here and here. In order for the article to regain B, A, FA, or GA standards the contribs you have made require that you cite specific page numbers to support the claims you have made, rather than full titles, else they may be challenged per WP:CHALLENGE and removed as unverified. Please can you look into this, to avoid claims that the entries are more your own interpretation (see WP:ORIGINAL and WP:SYNTHESIS) than actual remarks made by the authors referenced.

Thank you,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Page 93 of "The Wake of Wellington" by Peter Sinnema, reads:
 * "The war of words that took place between the English and Irish presses during the sixty-five days that Wellington’s body awaited burial was not so much an anomalous contest engendered by the unique circumstance of the duke’s death as it was a subplot in a continuing struggle between margin and center that received a pronounced charge from this circumstance and long outlived it. In this sense, the “resolution” that was Wellington’s death ceremony—its function as a “collective expression of a culture’s imagination”¹—encouraged a working through of national conflict in language rather than in actuality, however unbalanced and ineffective that process proved to be. A better understanding of this process requires a brief step back in history to consider Wellington’s own attitudes toward the country of his birth.
 * In the spring of 1809,Arthur Wellesley (he did not become the Duke of Wellington until 1814) made what was to be his final visit to Ireland. He had temporarily removed himself from London the previous October to return to Ireland, a decision taken on the advice of the Duke of Richmond..."


 * I fail to see how that sums up to: "After his death "the fact that Wellington was an Irishman" became an item of public discourse."


 * Also, please note, logging out to make controversial edits with an IP is against WP:SOCKS and is logged in the revision history. Such actions may be investigated by admins, as disruptive. Please take care not to forget to log in, in future. Readding removed (i.e. challenged) entries anonymously may also be taken as disruptive and lead to your being blocked.


 *  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 01:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Page 166 (part) of "The Celtic Revolution" by Peter Berresford Ellis, reads:
 * "While James Callaghan, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 1976-79, could claim Irish descent, the Duke of Wellington has been the only Irish-born United Kingdom Prime Minister (1828-30). However, Wellington was quick to echo an old Irish saying  'An té a rugadh i stábla ní capal é!'  (Everything born in a stable is not a horse!)."


 * Again, your reference has been taken out of context or misquoted to form an incorrect interpretation. Please maintain a Neutral POV per WP:NPOV, as Original Research is also disruptive in verifying article references.
 *  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 01:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

When you put a citation between tags it automatically lists in the reflist section. I already detailed your books, to the Reference list using the cite book method used on the article, despite your mis-interpretations and obvious repeat attempts to push them through your IP anonymously. This means you only need to reference the authors surname and page number inline. By reverting the citation to your full text info description you are creating a duplication of the title in the notes, which is not required. Please read WP:REF again - there is no "one standard" to be in accordance with when it comes to referencing, you have to follow suit with the article you are contributing towards, and yours are disrupting the article, further to your edits which have been reported. Please refrain from disrupting the article further. The fact that you have not replied to my messages does not do you credit, by the way - wiki expects you to discuss issues with editors, not ignore them and do your own thing. See WP:DR and do try not to disrupt the Wellington article further, there's a good chap.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 02:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Referencing

Reported for Sock Puppetry despite earlier warning.
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/George SJ XXI. Thank you.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 01:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of Discussion on Admin Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 09:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. EyeSerene talk 09:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To reviewing admin: further information at here, in the edit history of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, and at Sockpuppet_investigations/George_SJ_XXI. EyeSerene talk 10:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I did advise you to take the editing problem to the article talk page, where it could be discussed and sorted amicably, between multiple editors. Unfortunately you declined to do so and have consequently been blocked for two days. I strongly advise you to open a dialogue on the article talk page for your reasoning for the contentious edit when your block expires, otherwise the block will be repeated for a longer period. Also please refrain from using anon IP's to continue editing the article or that will result in a permanent block. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The contribution that George SJ XXI made on 28 July 2011 was; ""After his death "the fact that Wellington was an Irishman" became an item of public discourse"" Why Marcus British attempted to discuss this contribution on a User talk page rather than on the normal Article talk page is a matter of speculation. George SJ XXI (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well you certainly know a lot about "speculation" George. Here's the reason: Because you DO NOT pay attention to article talk. It was you who resulted in the article being semi-protected after disruptive edits back on 3rd/4th June 2011, and it was at MY request that the article was semi-pp. We had a "discussion" then on the article talk page - Talk:Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington - you blatantly ignored me, consensus and carried on editing, reverting and POV-pushing like you have been today. On YouTube they'd call you a "troll", on Wiki they call it "disruptive". Either way, you know damn well that you're gaming the system, intentionally mis-quoting sources and concluding your own edits - a form of Synthesis. If you want to be "clever" carry on the way you have been - a permanent block would please me. Or try be really clever, and start making meaningful contributions. No one is interested in your "Irish" bias - and wiki requires you maintain a NEUTRAL POV. So put your Irish-roots behind you, and try editing FACTUAL, non-racial, non-disruptively. If you can't see reason to do that, why are you wasting time on wiki at all? Every disruptive edit you make is time wasted - because it will be challenged or removed. We won't be refunding the time you waste. It is perfectly normal to discuss edits with users on their userpage - article talk is for community discussion, user page for one-to-one without inviting others to step in. Make sense now? You already knew that though, I think. Don't scowl. Ciao,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 10:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The seven reverts mentioned as attributed to George SJ XXI were in regard to his various contributions concerning separate matters of factual content and attribution. Each action was in response to an action by MarcusBritish. The number of actions by the protagonist MarcusBritish in the same time frame were sixteen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George SJ XXI (talk • contribs) 11:58, 8 August 2011
 * I have moved your comment out of the unblock request decline message. The way you had posted it mad it look like part of the decline reason. I am also intrigued by your practice of referring to George SJ XXI in the third person, as though you are someone else. Did you make the edits from this account that you refer to, or did someone else? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your action. The practice of referring to George SJ XXI in the third person is to avoid personal affront. George SJ XXI (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please don't proceed to confuse my clean-up reverts with your disruptive reverts, designed to remove my corrections for your mis-handling of sources, as was explained to you in my messages, seen above. As for my "sixteen" actions - there is no "limit" how many edits a user can make. My edits are all perfectly legitimate and relate to adding material that puts your chosen sources in context and almost direct quotes them word for word, to prevent you adding your own misconstrued interpretation, as noted by myself and other editors. Whilst your edits were evidently pro-Irish, POV pushing, often added in the wrong section, mine were neutral and correctly inserted. The fact that you tried to use lesser-known texts, possibly in the hope that no one would demand a page number, and then verify your edits, was misguided. In an article that has quite high importance for notability, you should expect this. Evidently, I have become the top contributor for the article, in an attempt to guide the article back towards regaining its A-class or GA standards, so naturally you can expect me, as well as other top contributors, to have access to your chosen material: there are 160 watchers for the article, which means not only yours and my edits are widely noticed, but all edits - increasing the chances of a quick revert when you add non-constructive material. Also that you did not want to stick to the established referencing method for the article, and kept reverting the corrected format, was disruptive. Again, detailed above and 100% ignored in preference for you own style: "page 93 onwards" is NOT a recognised reference in ANY style - "onwards" is a vague description, not a clear citation. Disrespect for the established style, which breaks the existing layout, will not make you popular with editors on any article. Learn the ropes at WP:REF first, reference second. You're fighting a losing battle with your "tell-tale" remarks and attempts to game the system - admins clearly have eyes and experience with these matters, so you're not going to win them over with your attempts to point the blame at others - especially not straight after your sock-puppetry. Quit whilst your ahead..  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 16:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think MarcusBritish is being unhelpful, and quite unnecessarily combative. I hope that, when your block expires, both of you can take part in constructive discussions to find a useful way forward. You have made some mistakes, but I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to learn to edit in conformity with Wikipedia practice. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not "combative" at all, thank you very much. You can already see on this page, and on other pages, that George SJ XXI has ignored all my constructive messages. I think you are being too lenient, and that there is no evidence of "good faith" here: Anyone who logs in and out to their IP/account is not "making mistakes" - that's a preconceived notion - or more simply but, misbehaviour - he was circumnavigating the system to push his edits, fact. I have already tried to discuss George's edits back in June on the article- he continued to push his opinion and make irrational edits - several editors got frustrated with his reverts, not just me. As far as he is concerned, there is no room for discussion - it's his edits, or no ones - and his edits are all OR/synthesis based - all of which I have posted and proved above, and he has ignored and added the same edits again and again. That's why the article has been semi-pp, twice. As long as he continues to carry on that way, I will continue to report his actions, challenge invalid edits, and maintain the neutrality of any article he wishes to disrupt. All of which is perfectly acceptable and legitimate action. If you think I'm "wrong", which I'm not as other editors/admins have told me otherwise, then you tell me - why is he blatantly ignoring my messages and pursuing his own bad edits and POV obsessively? Cheers,  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What can and will happen to the George SJ XXI contributions when the Block expires ?. They original contributions by George SJ XXI will be restored. Will they be discussed in good faith on the article page or will they be edited as "vandalism" without discussion, hence leading to another edit war. George SJ XXI (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they will not - because myself and have already determined, and agreed, by looking at your sources, that you have imposed your own interpretations of the books. The books you cited have now been included in the article and quoted almost verbatim - i.e. word for word - this is to deter any further edits pertaining to Original Research, Synthesis, or similar - if you add them again you will be duplicating AND/OR contradicting the content of the article - call it pre-emptive editing. You may discuss your sources and comments regarding Wellington's "Irishness" before contributing them again. I will remove them if I see them as before, because they do not represent the wording of the authors, nor do your cited page numbers support what you contribute. The pages have been quoted above verbatim - followed by your contibs. Further deliberate attempts to destabilise the neutrality of the article will be reported again, in necessary. So I suggest you use your 48 hours to read your sources again, and to understand them better - at the moment, you do not appear to grasp that there are no pro-Irish/anti-English sentiments in those pages which you claim there is. Wiki polices do not allow for Original Research, but do allow for it to be removed and challenged before any discussion. Do not expect anything less of me. Discussions in the article talk history have already reached consensus that Wellington was Anglo-Irish - again, any deviance from this agreement may be removed. What you call "vandalism" I call meeting the decision of the community, not one imposing person who disagrees with them. You have no case, per se.


 * Please note also, that your last message comes across as a "threat" - you are attempting to impose your own terms on the article, which could be reported. See WP:OAS, I quote for your attention: "Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership." Just a fore-warning, given your statement: "What can and will happen to the George SJ XXI contributions when the Block expires ?. They original contributions by George SJ XXI will be restored." would contravene this policy and probably lead you to another rapid block.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  [talk] 23:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The above contribution by Marcus British suggests that he and Richard Harvey control the page; that they have already dealt with the matters without reference to the article talk page and that their decision is final. It may be that the original George SJ XXI contributions should be restored to enable discussion in good faith on the article page by all. George SJ XXI (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Unfortunately for you your interpretation is incorrect. At the current time I have only edited the article four times, two of which were to reverse your current vandalism, the previous two were in January and April 2005 and those relate to the insertion of an image and formatting in the infobox. That is hardly akin to 'controlling the page'. However you have edited the article, using anon IPs, as follows:-


 * 12 edits as George SJ XXI
 * 4 edits as 124.169.190.186
 * 8 edits as 203.173.29.101
 * 4 edits as 203.59.101.44
 * 2 edits as 203.59.156.200
 * 1 edits as 203.59.174.109

You have also used some of those IP's (124.169.190.186) to edit several articles with your Anglo-Irish Vs Irish POV changes. You used a combination of your socks puppets to alter the Battle record of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington on 4 June 2011 to change the wording "leading British military and political figures" first with 203.173.29.101 to:- "leading British and Irish military and political figures" then you logged out and back in with the second IP 124.169.190.186 to further change the wording to read:- "leading Irish military and political figures", totally omitting the 'British' phrasing, which is purely vandalism. You have also used another anon IP 124.148.238.114 to make comments on the 1st Dukes talk page, as though to appear as another person. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Forget to read WP:OAS? "In many cases, a core group of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert unconstructive edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia." - Your edits have been unconstructive.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A duumvirate or perhaps a triumvirate to deal with the matter is proposed by Marcus British as above. George SJ XXI (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Happy reading: Talk:Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington - NB: You asked for it - you got it. ;)  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 00:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

George SJ XXI made good faith contributions. Marcus British made authoritarian edits and may now be seeking to redeem his integrity. George SJ XXI (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies from George SJ XXI; he is not able to reply to points raised on the Wellesey Talk page until his block expires. George SJ XXI (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol, you're a funny man George, but don't give up the day job!  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Intention of edit warring
I note that above you have expressed the intention of continuing to edit war after your block expires. It may help you to warn you that carrying out such a threat is likely to lead to a longer block, so you may like to reconsider. Wikipedia works by collaboration, discussion, and compromise, not by individual editors aggressively trying to push their own preferred versions through. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. George SJ XXI has noted that discussion has commenced on the article talk page. George SJ XXI (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What the hell is wrong with you? First you war edit and get blocked for the use of sock puppets. Then you demand your edits be discussed on the article talk page, not here. And then you revert minor edits made in the discussion you requested - with an IP of all things - and twice! Yet the edits you reverted are nothing more than layout edits to indent and make the conversation easier to read, they don't even change your original, and somewhat pointless, reply. Why don't you get a grip on reality and join the conversation per your request instead of playing silly games, because if you don't intend to actually discuss your edits to the Wellington article, then the discussion is pointless and over - in which case your controversial contribs will never get a place in the article, will they? So come along - you chose this game - now roll the dice! The way you're going, you'll end up getting an indefinite block with no one to blame but yourself.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 12:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Turning into my personal stalker with those Anon IPs now? I'm honoured! Take note of WP:HOUNDING however. TDM. ;)  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  [talk] 02:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/George SJ XXI  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 02:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply by George SJ XXI
George SJ XXI never hid his identity, he moved from being an unregistered user to being a registered user.

The actions by MarcusBritish silenced George SJ XXI from mentioning two items in the Duke of Wellington article. That he was an Irishman. That he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. George SJ XXI (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Contributions: Please do not make comments on this note.

 * Contributions to Article: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

After his death "the fact that Wellington was an Irishman" became an item of public discourse. Reference: The Wake of Wellington: Englishness in 1852; Prof. Peter W Sinnema; Published 2006.

Wellington was the first Irishman to be the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Reference: ‪The Celtic revolution: A study in anti-imperialism;‬ By Peter Berresford Ellis; Published 1993.

Wellington was an Irishman. Reference: Irish History for Dummies; By Mike Cronin; Published 2011.


 * Contributions to Discussion: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

Reply by George SJ XXI. George SJ XXI never hid his identity, he moved from being an unregistered user to being a registered user. The actions by MarcusBritish silenced George SJ XXI from mentioning two items in Wellington's article. That he was an Irishman. That he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

British English notice. An editor MarcusBritish has made a change to the talk page by inserting a notice above regarding the use of British English in the article. There has been no discussion on the exclusive use of British English on this talk page.

The use of British-English for the biography of an Irishman is not appropriate.

Wellington was an Irishman. Please discuss. Please do not edit the contribution without prior discussion and prior consensus.

George SJ XXI (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition of "British English"
British English Read the banner: "this article^ is written in British English"
 * Do you refute that point?
 * Do you dispute anything the banner says?
 * Can you indicate any non-British-English prose in the article, excluding quotes and names, which contradicts this banner?
 * What purpose does your point make?
 * Explain your argument against British-English?
 * Reasons for objecting to British-English in an article that uses it?
 * Are you persistently racist towards the British or is it a hobby?
 * Do you understand the purpose of the banner or do you just like complaining about things disruptively?
 * What form of English are you using? Australian-English or Irish-English - so far I see no differences from British-English in your typing?
 * Would removal of the banner on the article make the prose any less British-English, in which case, does your point actually mean anything?
 * Would you like to rewrite the entire article into another form of English to suit your prejudices?

Maybe this version would suit your tastes better: Irish Gaelic Duke of Wellington

^ Reads "user page" here.

 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 02:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

George SJ XXI cannot write in British English. George SJ XXI (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you "cannot write in British-English"? Aren't you in Australia? Australian-English is virtually British-English with a few American pick-ups and some of its own words, mostly slang which is going to be rarely used on here. I see nothing in your spelling or grammar that resembles anything but British-English, even if you don't intend it to be, it's pretty standard. And even if you do make a minor "typo" during a contrib, another editor who knows or is British can easily correct or copy-edit it to British-English. I don't fully know all American-English - though I know most of the differences, -ize's and such - it doesn't stop me editing American articles. See WP:BOLD.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 02:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree with Marcus on this one. Look at it this way: if it was agreed to put it into what you refer to as "normal English," what, specifically, would you change about the article in question? Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox, you shock me, I just read your earlier comment: "I don't know about the particular person whose biography you are feuding over" - Wellington was the commander who defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. Do they not teach early European history in the US, or just WW1/2? I'd have thought Napoleon would be well know, what with the Louisiana Purchase, and the man who caused his final downfall.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 02:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant the point of contention, that "some people consider him Irish." I have no idea about that and I haven't read the Wikipedia article on him. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

George your comment from the section above:- "The use of ordinary or normal english in Wellington's biography is more appropriate than British-English, as some people consider him to be an Irishman." Plus your comment in this one:- "George SJ XXI cannot write in British English." are most strange. Add to them your insistence on changing the wording in articles from 'British' to 'Irish' and your inane insistence on referring to yourself in the third term lead me to three different conclusions on your editing. The first being that you simply don't understand the meaning of 'British-English'. You may not realise it but on this talkpage you are actually reading and writing in 'British-English', or as you describe it ordinary or normal English. British-English is the description given to the specific way of writing or speaking the language, due to other English speaking countries, like America and Canada, using different ways of spelling some English language words, Such as Colour or Tyre, which in American-English are color and tire. British-English is spoken and written by the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish people born, raised and educated in the United Kingdom. Note the comments on the Hiberno-English article which states that "Hiberno-English (also known as Irish English) is the dialect of English written and spoken in Ireland" and also "Ireland does not have its own spelling rules and "British English" spelling is used throughout the island." The second conclusion I have is that for some reason of your own you object to the word 'British' and are attempting to remove it from articles. The third conclusion is that you are simply trying to wind people up and cause trouble, an action otherwise known as flaming. However whichever conclusion I reach the answer to it is the same:- 'Wikipedia' is an encyclopedia written as a joint effort by many editors in collaboration, where problems and differences which arise are sorted by consensus. Where an editor consistently fails to agree to edit collaboratively and within the agreed consensus then that editor will inevitably lose their ability to edit articles on Wikipedia. To date you have been blocked from editing once for a short period of time with your registered username and twice, for longer periods, with your anonymous IP's. If you continue to edit in the manner you are using then that period of time may be extended to an indefinite period! Richard Harvey (talk) 09:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

George SJ XXI writes in English. George SJ XXI (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What variety, WP:ENGVAR?  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 22:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

None. George SJ XXI (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I would ask you again what you object to as regards the article in question being written in British English. If you can't define the problem other than just a vague objection to anything "British" then you haven't put forth a valid argument to make any changes to the article, changes whose nature seem unwilling or unable to to specify anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Then you don't write English, in which case you have nothing to worry about. Period. English is a multi-national language now, you either use one variety or you mix varieties, and set a lower standard of literacy. There's no such thing as an international "Standard English Dictionary". Those who claim to use "Standard English" are simply covering their backs for the fact they make mistakes no matter what form they attempt, including their local variety. Source: www.thefreedictionary.com/Standard+English. Wiki is designed to support standards, and maintain consistence per article, however - such as British- or American-English - you're just going to have to learn to accept that, because most items will have a variety, even if they don't chose to identify it. The Manual of Style is a great guide to producing quality contribs. I see no reason why any dedicated editor should not want to live up to himself and follow those standards - it is, ultimately, the only way to reach A, GA and FA quality rated articles. And if you chose not to use the MOS and want to write in this "none" of yours - simply put, another editor will simply come along and copy-edit your text to their preferred standard, and that might British-English - if you haven't set or followed a trend, you can't accuse them of vandalism - because it's permitted. It's as simple as that, really.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh [talk] 00:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

here we go again
Trying to re-insert the same material that got you blocked for edit warring doesn't strike me as a particularly wise course of action. You seem to be trying to make a black-and-white issue out of it and simply declare "he was an Irishman." That position appears to contradict the other sources used in the article, including one which qoutes the man himself on the subject: "Wellington was the first Irish-born person to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. However, Wellington was quick to echo an old Irish saying "An té a rugadh i stábla ní capal é!" (Everything born in a stable is not a horse!)." I don't think the "for dummies" series of books could be considered a reliable source for any controversial biographical material, and the other sources describe him as an Englishman born in Ireland, and in fact the BBC, which is a reliable source states "He always denied being Irish". You should stop just inserting the bald assertion that he was Irishman. Instead of edit warring again, you are free to pursue a request for comment, which would invite previously uninvolved users to evaluate and comment on the situation, or pursue some other form of dispute resolution. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This is difficult. The contribution by George SJ XXI was removed by Marcus British without prior discussion and without consensus. George SJ XXI (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Controversial edits require consensus  BEFORE  adding them  NOT AFTER   . Stop attention seeking. Your account is an SPA advocating Irish Anglophobia.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  [talk] 12:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning on logging in
Going forward, please remember to log in. I believe you made several edits while logged out, and that can make some editors think that you're using multiple accounts. As a side note, I'm not sure what you're doing with your talk page here, but you really shouldn't redirect your talk page to an archive. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It appears to be related to a cache issue. George SJ XXI (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving problems reply
I have reverted the page as far back without reverting the move. I'll restore from the archive when I get home. If you wish for me to, I can also set up automated archiving by a bot for you. LikeLakers2 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please restore the whole talk page, with all content as it originally was, if possible. Many thanks.. George SJ XXI (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem! (still can't as my browser on my phone doesn't have copy or paste functions, sorry) Again, would you like me to set up automated archiving of your talkpage as well? Or would you like to do that yourself? Your choice. LikeLakers2 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Talk Page reverted to version prior to attempted archiving issue, with additional newer messages at the end. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for repeated, long term edit warring at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much more clear I could have been with you in the above section titled "here we go again." I told you what the proper way forward was, and you've been warned and even blocked before for edit warring on this exact same issue, and you chose to continue adding in the same edit. I'm asking myself right now why I even bothered putting a time frame on this block as your pattern up until now suggests that when this block is over you will go straight back to just adding in the same edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

W
In 1769

Wellington was not born in Scotland nor of a Scottish family, he was not a Scotsman.

Wellington was not born in Wales nor of a Welsh family, he was not a Welshman.

Wellington was not born in England nor of a English family, he was not a Englishman.

Wellington was not born in France nor of a French family, he was not a Frenchman.

Wellington was an Irishman - Analysis - Logic or Politics
Logic: "Wellington was an Irishman." Reference: Cronin 2011. Observation; 1796 was; Wellington was; Ireland was; Irishmen were; In 1769 Wellington was born in Ireland, to an Irish family - Wellington was an Irishman. Logic is objective and permanent.

Politics: In 2011 to insert "Wellington was an Irishman." is not acceptable. Politics is subjective and changeable.

Consensus: None. The issue of Wellington being an Irishman has been a constant feature of the Wellington discussion page. No consensus was reached or called for on the issue. The constant references by others to a consensus on the issue is incorrect. Action: Work collaboratively and obtain a clear consensus on this item on the discussion page.