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.
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.
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.
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).
George SJ XXI did not engage in edit warring. George SJ XXI made a contribution on 28th July 2011 which MarcusBritish has repeatedly edited without engaging in discussion on the article talk page. George SJ XXI (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
You "did not engage in edit warring"??? I have just counted seven reverts in one article in a little over 24 hours from this account alone, without even bothering to count the edits you made without logging in. Yes you certainly did "engage in edit warring". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2011 (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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, they will not - because myself and Richard Harvey (talk·contribs) 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.
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)[reply]
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:-
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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).
Thank you for your attention. George SJ XXI apologises for the wastage of the administrators time. He does not wish to hide his identity merely to avoid personal attacks on his user page or otherwise. Firstly he contributed as an unregistered user and was blocked (action by MB). Secondly he contributed as a registered user. This resulted in personal attacks on his user page and he was blocked (action by MB). Lastly he reverted to contributing as an unregistered user (in order to avoid attacks on the user page) and was blocked again (action by MB). Please advise as to how George SJ XXI may contribute and avoid continuing personal attack's on his user page or otherwise. 124.169.166.4 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Not seeing a request for unblocking in there anywhere. Please do not evade the block by editing as an ip, you are still able to post on this page using your named account. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
Ok Marcus, now you are hounding. Persistently posting hostile messages on the talk page of a blocked user is about as classy as poking a caged animal with a stick. Please stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't see the hostility in your last few posts here then I suggest you take a wiki-break and try and get some perspective. At any rate, George has asked you not to post about this here right now and I see no valid reason not to respect those wishes.
George, you are correct that once you register an account logging out to make certain edits in areas you have already edited while logged in is textbook WP:SOCKing and is explicitly not allowed. If you want a clean start you can abandon this account and edit as an IP after the block expires, but again you will need to find a new area to contribute in. The point is that you shouldn't have to hide your identity to make the edits you desire to make. That would apply if you were deliberately changing your IP address as an anonymous user as well. If you feel you don't want to be identified with a particular edit, that is probably a good indication that you simply should not make that edit, or at least discuss it on the talk page first. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. George SJ XXI (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "normal" English. The British invented the English language, all other variations of it come from that root. This really isn't something that is worth making a fuss over, see WP:ENGVAR for more details. I don't know about the particular person whose biography you are feuding over, but the fact that "some people" consider him Irish is not a particularly compelling reason to change the way the entire article is written. If you have sources to back these claims they can of course be included in the article. One thing you will find is that many, many Wikipedians are sick to death of any type of nationalist fighting over article content or varieties of English.Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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" [2]. 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)[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)[reply]
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)[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).
On the 22th August 2011 George SJ XXI did not edit any other persons contributions. He made a singular restoration of his contribution of the 17th August that "Wellington was an Irishman. Reference: Irish History for Dummies; By Mike Cronin; Published 2011.". This contribution had been removed on the 17th August without prior discussion or prior consensus on the Wellington's discussion page. George SJ XXI (talk) 8:24 am, Today (UTC+1)
Decline reason:
I'm afraid I agree with Beeblebrox, you will clearl;y be back to trying to force this edit through as soon as the block expires and you seem unwilling to accept the views of other users on your source. I have upped the block to indeterminate. In the sense that you will remain blocked until you undertake to work collaboratively and obtain a clear consensus before making this or any other controversial edit. SpartazHumbug!09:23, 28 August 2011 (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.
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).
This is just a copy-paste of Spartaz's condition above and is not at all convincing. Given the sections below, I an further unconvinced that you would not immediately return to forcing this edit through. If you would like to be unblocked, we need to see what commitments you are willing to make, written in your own words, that will ensure you meet the condition stated above. Hersfold(t/a/c)00:26, 30 August 2011 (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.
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)[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).
George SJ XXI will accept a consensus on the acceptance or otherwise of his contribution. George SJ XXI (talk) 8:33 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
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.
