User talk:Duke Of Dirty Dancing
Welcome Duke Of Dirty Dancing!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| To help get you started, you may find these useful: | When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
November 2019[edit]
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Michael O'Neill (footballer), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Just a friendly heads up[edit]
A friendly notice that there is a 3 revert rule within 24 hours on Wikipedia (WP:3RR), however in regards to Troubles related issues, which nationality is, there is a 1 revert rule within 24 hours in place as mentioned here. You have now done your one revert so I would suggest you don't do any further ones and discuss the issue at the articles talk page. Mabuska (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
That's okay. I am finished with Wikipedia, and its revisionist mentality anywas. There is no point being part of a community that does not (or rather cannot) accept fundamental truths. Liam Neeson, Jamie Dornan, CS Lewis. All openly self-declared Irish figures, yet Wikipedia seems to think otherwise. The British have always whitewashed Ireland and its peoples' accomplishments, and this site is no different. But that's okay. Wikipedia can have its cake and eat it, but I know I'm on the right side of history. (PS: Neeson is Irish) Duke Of Dirty Dancing (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
September 2020[edit]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Arnaut Danjuma. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
August 2021[edit]
Hi Duke Of Dirty Dancing! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Great Famine (Ireland) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Britishfinance. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.
I refer specifically to your edits here, here and here. If you are reverted, please discuss with other users on the article talk page – don't just reinstate the reverted edit. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 18:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, harassing Britishfinance (who seems to be inactive now anyways) wasn't my intention. The reality in relation to this user is simple: they are a notorious bad-faith who used Wikipedia to spread anti-Irish misinformation. This user is well-known within Irish circles for this reason, and it is why articles that they have editing/created relating to Ireland's corporate tax are unreliable and are to be considered inaccurate.
Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that a handful of historians arguing that the Irish famine wasn't genocide equals the MAJORITY of historians agreeing that it wasn't genocide. This is a completely inaccurate claim that needs to be removed as soon as possible for the purposes of accurate reporting. Duke Of Dirty Dancing (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Ultimately, what I am doing is promoting transparency, but seemingly there are those with 'clout' within the Wikipedia community that seem to disagree, and want to enable the spread of false or misleading information, which is gravely disappointing. Duke Of Dirty Dancing (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Corporation tax in the Republic of Ireland. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
You should stop allowing false information to freely disseminated on your site, in that case. Duke Of Dirty Dancing (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ireland as a tax haven, you may be blocked from editing. Hi! You are not entirely a new user, but anyway, welcome! You are clearly passionate about the points you work on, including redact - but you must understand and follow the encyclopedia's policies. You cannot just remove material you do not like, or agree with, when that material is supported by genuine references - you must provide counter-references. You must also avoid attacks on individuals, focus on the facts. At this point your actions, including posting personal attacks on one editor to multiple pages, are becoming disruptive. Please dial it down, perhaps editing in another area - we certainly can use the extra hands. SeoR (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
You are connected to Britishfinance. That is why you covering up for the anti-Irih agenda on this site.Alas, I will most likely be blocked from editing now. It was nothing personal, and I never set out to troll. However, falsehoods can never be accepted. Goodbye. Duke Of Dirty Dancing (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi! And no, I'm not. I only "met" Britishfinance long after they started their Wikipedia career, after I - like many others - noticed some very active, and well-researched, editing. My editing interests are quite different. That editor clearly had a lot of experience relevant to certain topics, and if they produced detailed or lengthy work on some of those topics, they did really seem to try to do it with a proper base - as, for example, Paul Krugman seemed to recognise with one key article. That Ireland sometimes taxed particular companies at sub-1% rates is a matter of public record, as is Ireland's listing as a jurisdiction with taxation issues by various scholars, and we all saw it happen again recently in talks about global taxation policy, where Ireland ended up somewhat isolated - but the articles do also present the Irish Governement, IDA and other positions. And no one says it's just Ireland - the Netherlands, Luxembourg and other places also do special tax deals. There is no factual basis for attacks on the editor - and to say they are well-known for anything seems a stretch, even in business circles, and certainly nothing about any agenda is proven, unless you have some evidence to present. I do see that you have been blocked for a short period, but you are very welcome back - and you are free to debate the points... but next time, please go through the issues on the relevant Talk pages first, then try to agree, if appropriate, revised wording in advance. This is a sensitive area, but if you want to present a different perspective, you must come with research and report citations for that other perspective, not just delete large chunks of articles. Good luck, SeoR (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)