User talk:MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome to wikipedia. Please respect the rule of WP:CONSENSUS

Otherwise you may be blocked for 12 hours for disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. In particular, Americanisms such as 'lawyer', the failure to make a subject's lead notaable, and WP:WEASEL were not acceptable to me in a biography. I just wouldn't want to see a superior person blocked. - Adam37 Talk 17:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Birkenhead

Please understand, you have shown considerable ownership over this article, and i'd like to suggest you allow the edit i have made to stand. There is nothing wrong with the writing, nor with putting the Lord Chancellorship in the lead; his general "Greatness", which you referred to previously, is not sufficient to explain to our readers why we have an article on him. Thank you. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 20:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that you allow the previous version to stand. The writing was far better as it was, and readers can very clearly see his political offices both in the box sections on the right and further down in the article. I would also point out that the 'notability in the lead' is already clear in the titles that preceded his name (Rt Hon - which only (former) government ministers are entitled to, as well as his Earldom title and post-nominal honours). It therefore makes a large amount of sense to allow the previous, better written version to stand. The notability in the lead was already fundamentally present, is elaborated on in the boxes and in the article, and it reads much better; which is important. - --MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest that you revert yourself, and go back to the version which better shows notability (the reason for the article in the first place). So far, you are showing a bit of ownership, as i mentioned above, which is antithetical to the WP way; i would also suggest that your unilateral statements (it reads much better) is actually your opinion ~ mine differs ~ such as might hinder your ability to work with collegiality. If you have such a strong opinion about the writing style, add the information, at least about the position of Lord Chancellor, in your own words. Thank you. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to say that I have the attitude that my opinion is better than yours. True, my views on the writing are subjective. But equally are your own views on what constitutes the 'notability in the lead'. I disagree that his post of Lord Chancellor was what made him a notable political figure, which was more to do with, as the original writer said, his unequalled friendship with future prime minister Winston Churchill, as well as his personal qualities of wit and oratorical brilliance and dysfunctional living habits. I consider a compromise on this issue to have already been reached with the acknowledgement of his political seniority in 'Rt Hon', attribution of an Earldom and description as a 'statesman' and in the fact that his position as Lord Chancellor is clear for all to see in the information boxes and further down in the article; I do not agree that his holding of that office is what is notable about him, however, and don't see why your opinion should override that of at least two other Wikipedia contributors; I believe the one attempting ownership here is you. Thanks you. Cheers. MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 09:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref

That is not what the ref says though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Per your recent and not very congenial post on my talk page, and your history of edit warring here, please be aware that 3RR applies to both your account and your IP address. If you continue to log out to edit war, you can be blocked. See WP:3RR and WP:EW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you admit on the administrator's noticeboard, you don't have a clue what the protocol is in such an event, so you can dispose of that artificial air of authority on your own talk page. I am not edit warring and until you can bring forward any evidence to the contrary, I would ask you to desist from accusing me of doing so or I shall be forced to seek the mediation of those that do know what they're talking about around here in a case of bullying and harassment. MyNameIsGeorgeNathanielCurzon (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have continued to edit from IP addresses while pretending to be different people, you have been reblocked, this time indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]