User talk:Urselius/Archive 4

Regarding Sir John Slade, 1st Baronet
Hi Urselius,

As I've sure you've seen, the IP editor at this page continues to restore their preferred version of the article. It seems they really enjoy invoking my name in edit summaries, as though it injects some air of legitimacy into their actions... but if you take a look at their talk page, you can see what I've said.

That said...some advice here. At this point you have reverted this editor twice, so you are approaching the 3-revert rule. Before doing so again, consider instead bringing the issue up at a noticeboard, or perhaps request page protection. While overall I disagree with the IP editor's actions, there is some truth in that the wording does not fully adhere to a neutral point of view. Example: "He lacked talent as a combat leader." Better wording could be something to the effect of, "He had a reputation for poor performance as a combat leader." The encyclopedia should not make an assertion that he was a poor leader -- we can and should state that this is/was the opinion of others, backed up by relevant references. I won't give you a bunch of links to policy/guidelines like I did the IP user, because I'm sure you're overall familiar with them, but WP:NPOV is definitely relevant here. Hope this helps! – Erakura (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I tend to act rather brusquely with people who seem to be acting out some sort of agenda, I have had a lot of trouble with nationalistic POV pushing on several subjects. Usually, my reversions stand as the editor is making casual changes. Occasionally, they are more persistent. This editor has deleted sentences supported by respectable citation. When this happens I do react by wholesale reversion, as separating the wheat from the chaff of complex edits is onerous. I do acknowledge your point that there is non-encyclopaedic wording in the article. Urselius (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Erakura, given you are a pseudonymous randomer, who may or may not have a shred of credibility in the relevant areas, depending on who you actually are, it is not easy to see how invoking you confers legitimacy. The point is much simpler: namely, that you are one of the users whose edits have been edit warred out of existence by Urselius (aka, "Report away, I hate Slade"). Despite this delusion, and a mysterious euphemism of Urselius' actions, you have managed to make two good points:
 * i) these repeated reversions do not accord to Wikipedia policy, and indicate foul play by Urselius, who for all we know is nursing a grudge against people with the surname Slade or Wellesley owing to a love rejection or goodness knows what else, clearly nothing to do with Wikipedia or with British military history; and
 * ii) it is remarkable that Urselius needed to be told that phrases such as those you quote above are not appropriate. They are not appropriate, should not have appeared on Wikipedia in the first place, and Urselius' reversion in their favour is vandalism pure and simple - and obviously so, however cutesy and chummy your tone with him may be. This nudge-nudge, wink-wink attitude to Urselius undermining Wikipedia's integrity does not help anyone in the long run. 223.27.212.170 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I presume that you are a descendant or other relative of Slade. I cannot comprehend any other motive for wishing to whitewash this figure, who was condemned by his contemporaries for inefficiency and ineptitude and has been likewise condemned by the vast majority of historians since. You removed a phrase directly supported by the following citation, which you strangely left in place, this is not the action of an editor following Wikipedia guidelines. I shall certainly introduce much more material to the article, all meticulously supported by citation to eminently respectable sources. Urselius (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW "Report away, I hate Slade" as a quotation of my words is a deliberate falsification. What I said was "Report away." Urselius (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalising Sir John Slade page
Urselius, please stop vandalising this page. Pages made by multiple public users (one of whom is an Oxford history don), and also by Erakura, were not a "whitewash". However, even if they were, simply reverting everything, as you have done twice now, is textbook edit war. If you really believe that removing derogatory anonymous opinion, tightening the citations, and bringing up some info from the bottom to make the intro more reflective of the whole were egregious, you were of course free to make the case at the time. However, instead of defending sentences that read more or less like "Slade was really, really bad, and I the pseudonymous Urselius am not a fan at all", which should be beneath the footnotes of a Wikipedia article, let alone the intro, you simply restored them - all of them, even where we, Erakura and another user had agreed they were so obviously not scholarly and so obviously not adhering to red-brick undergraduate norms of academic rigour that we didn't anticipate debate. We have sought to compromise with you (see a couple of changes on the page itself - we have really made an effort, e.g. even going so far as to remove the pre-existing phrase "high rank", knowing that you would likely object to anything that sounded remotely congraulatory), and have absolutely not "whitewashed" Wellington's criticism, which are still there intact. However, it is an insult to Wellington, whom we are seeking to defend here, to suggest that he was so out of sync with the Establishment that Slade was made so senior despite him being anti-Slade. This is the impression you give - that he was simply anti-Slade and ignored by the Establishment. But it is not true, is it? The truth is more nuanced: Slade was celebrated, whether with Gold Medal, thanks of Parliament, etc; Wellington praised him, including in official reports; and yes, he also criticised him. So what? So rather than the page simply reflecting that some anonymous guy called Urselius happens to hate Slade and wishes to recruit Wellington posthumously to his cause, the page should reflect what is accurate, which includes some favourable facts, and some unfavourable facts, about Slade. This is what our changes, and those of Erakura, sought to achieve. Please make any future changes objective and, above all, cited. Or please just let the page be: it sets an ominous precedent, and something which will undermine Wikipedia in the long run, if pages cannot be improved incrementally in conservative, intellectually supportable ways. We note that it was holiday season when you twice (not once) edit warred out of existence multiple changes by multiple users; and therefore we will assume you were drunk when you labelled these changes as a giant "whitewash" conspiracy; however, this behaviour is not tolerable and we expect a little more quality from you if you do seek to make any further imprint on this page. We will also be asking a team to audit your wider work on Wikipedia, since you seem to be more focused on personal agendas than on historical accuracy in your work as we have seen it so far. 223.27.212.170 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * My record on the use of citation to quality reference material within Wikipedia is impeccable, for 28 years I was a professional scientific researcher. I have also received an international prize for an article I wrote on Napoleonic British cavalry. I also have an extensive library of Napoleonic military history works. Seeing that you are an IP address, the pseudonymous slur is rather off target, as you don't even have a pseudonym, just digits. It is obvious that you know nothing of how the British army and honours system of the time operated. So you admit that you have an agenda - "Wellington, whom we are seeking to defend here" - this is definitely not what Wikipedia is about. The quality of my contributions to Wikipedia speaks for itself. Are you using the royal 'we', or are you some sort of cabal? Urselius (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * In the British army of the Napoleonic period promotion for officers was by purchase, rank was bought for cash. Also in operation was patronage, this had influence on attainment of rank and in who was appointed to commands, retained commands and was given honours. That John Slade could achieve high rank, be given and retain field commands, and be heaped with honours, whilst being an inept commander is not surprising, or uncommon. Wm. Erskine was also a Peninsular War cavalry general and he was generally considered to have been insane. Slade had the patronage of Ernest, Duke of Cumberland, as a royal Duke and son of George III, he had huge political clout. Wellington was stuck with a number of inept senior officers, but because of how officers were appointed by 'Horse Guards' (the army headquarters - under another of George III's sons) and because officers had political patronage, Wellington was forced into various subterfuges to be rid of them. Urselius (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)