User talk:Reluctant Jedi
Welcome
[edit]Hello, Reluctant Jedi, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! VikingDrummer (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Unsourced content to Offshore financial centre and others
[edit]Hello Reluctant Jedi, I noticed that you added a lot of content to the article Offshore financial centre and other financial-related articles. I noticed that you deleted some citations, and was wondering if you could add some citations to the new content you added. Most content does need to be sourced, especially if you are referring to 2021 figures and facts. Thanks. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- https://www.ifcreview.com/news/2021/august/international-tax-tjn-founders-quit-as-they-accuse-network-of-wasting-funding/ this is part of a body of TJN work, including Guzman, that are seen to be highly dubious suppositions often repeated in the press. Reluctant Jedi (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- In order to provide some citation context along the thread, here's one that relates to the manufacturing of numbers for amplification of a political position. https://www.ifcreview.com/news/2021/august/international-tax-tjn-founders-quit-as-they-accuse-network-of-wasting-funding/ and respected tax experts who rail *against* tax avoidance each as their life's work, also discuss how erroneous the work of Zucman and TJN is https://www.taxpolicy.org.uk/2023/07/25/tjn/. Given the apparent alignment in combatting financial wrongdoing, doubtless they would encourage Zucman to produce better research that is fact-driven instead of developed hypothesis that does not withstand analysis.
- The foregoing is not a question of my opinion but where this site has a slew of such opinions on the subject characterised as unchallenged and factual, the readers of this site are not being properly served. In fact, it's not obvious that the material I deleted or edited complies with the site's guidelines but perhaps I should have addressed this in a different way - on the talk/discussion part of the site perhaps (with citations, I know! mea culpa)? These underlying numbers are often used by the press and even government officials in some places adding to the problem of the numbers being fundamentally flawed.
- The problem with the inputs that I deleted or corrected is that global efforts against money laundering, tax evasion, government and corporate corruption tend go against inaccurate memes, while the real perpetrators tend to enjoy the distraction created in the melee.
- I am happy to engage on any specific edits you'd query and either provide a citation or suggested modification/deletion of what I had written. It would be useful to have a more complete, up to date and factual body of knowledge in this area. Reluctant Jedi (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- sorry I didn't think to check before but, of course, Dan Needle also has his own page Dan Neidle as well, for reference. Reluctant Jedi (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
There are relevant quotes included but some of the falsehoods that were corrected no longer fit with the citations, particularly where the sources had been quoted already elsewhere for context. Note that just because a closely aligned newspaper like the Guardian quotes a TJN opinion, the repetition does not morph that opinion into a fact. TJN and Murphy are discredited and routinely spout fanciful quotes, supported by flat-earthed style numbers and reports. That doesn’t help explain the real situation for anyone.
November 2023
[edit]
Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- was there a specific piece to which you refer? There is a a thread of related inaccurate work and opinion to these subjects include citations do newspaper articles that are themselves based on disproven data. Which content did you have issue with exactly? Reluctant Jedi (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- is it unfortunate error or disingenuous to ask a user to take an opportunity add citations or review work, while also applying to ban someone because you do not like a record being corrected. Happy to discuss any points I edited or additions I have made, if you're interested in improving the quality of this resource. Reluctant Jedi (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- a wise person once said "if we cannot say much of substance without becoming a carbon copy of the subject's website or of a tabloid news article, it is kinder to our lectrice to say nothing at all". My edits are wholly in keeping with this and I have not been shown otherwise on any addition or deletion. Reluctant Jedi (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Need help with long-term tendentious editing. Thank you. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Long term tendacious editing? There is a threat of emotive opinion being passed off as fact and when factual contact is added or irrelevant content deleted, you try to cancel the editor for not toeing that line? Is this meant to be an encyclopedia or a political opinion tool? Reluctant Jedi (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- The article on OFCs and related involve a large subject involving a global variety of perspectives. The page previously contained a swath of statements that have *proven* to be based on manufactured assumptions and hypotheses. These findings were not by me but by tax experts who are also themselves professionally devoted to combating tax avoidance.
- Indeed Dan Neidle has already unseated a sitting politician for his misdeeds. As experts in the subject matter, he and Richard Murphy, founder of TJN, have taken to pieces the hypotheses that made up the bulk of the Wikipedia page. They are all meant to be on the same side but Cobham and Zucman seem to be exposed for flawed and made up “research” that suits a European colonial narrative convenient for their competition for financial services business (eg look at how Luxembourg is a poor imitation of the fund industry in Delaware or Cayman) while Neidle and Murphy (with whom a variously agree and disagree from time to time) appear to be producing fact-driven data and real world analysis as well as exposing actual wrongdoing. It is frankly too much for me to edit well and I may have done a poor job in you view but this could be done better in discussion to improve the veracity of the page, which is currently (obviously) quite poor WP:NPOV . What remains, now you have restored the previous version and gone straight for WP:AOTE, is not well researched or balanced but has a series of politically partial statements with circular echo chamber citations. I have now found some citations to support what I was initially trying to improve on the page but frankly it could do with good faith honest discussion and a complete overhaul taking into account the evolving fact pattern and perhaps mentioning the international tensions at issue. Reluctant Jedi (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)- what are you doing blocking people for correcting and updating information? Prime example being the Blairmore edits. Please explain which bits were either erroneous or partisan. Why deleted details such as paras regarding Nigel Farage (his own subject altogether!) that are irrelevant to Blairmore Holdings are being objected to? Source articles were added. It's important Wikipedia is a source of information. If you have an issue with a user's edits, why wouldn't those be raised with the user to determine the validity of the information, rather than blocking the user before reviewing the same? Reluctant Jedi (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
unnecessary block
[edit]
Reluctant Jedi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Where other users disagree with any of my edits (which themselves are relatively few and rare), no genuine discussion or query has been made but only an application for a block followed by an arbitrary permanent block. This is not in the interests of having a factual body of work. Where any of my edits can be justifiably be disputed, there is both the function and the opportunity within Wikipedia to do so. Where there are multiple perspectives on a situation, there is clearly the opportunity to state those key perspectives as long as they are justified and backed up. If at any stage, something I have stated is inaccurate, I am quite happy to be corrected and abide by the rules. The "tendacious" accusation is not well-founded. It is fair to say my edits are consistently on a theme but one in which I have a body of expertise and experience but it is not tendacious to query the factual content being watered down or polluted by (disproven or outlandish) opinion stated as fact, emotive and inaccurate slurs. It should not matter to whom the edits in an encyclopaedia are either expedient or inconvenient.
A block of this nature looks reactionary and is not in keeping with this site's stated aims. It is not necessary because the edits I have made are generally backed up and are made with neutral, unemotive language. Grateful for further discussion or review.
There are a number of related pages relating to the topic of international finance that have been written from a particular political viewpoint, citing opinion and often decades-old and outdated tabloid news articles, themselves poorly researched, and adding content not relevant to the subject (eg recently text about Nigel Farage in a page about the unrelated topic of Blairmore Holdings - demonstrating that perhaps the OP had a particular political perspective to make rather to inform in the manner of an encyclopaedia). It should not be controversial to deleted unrelated paragraphs that reside more properly in pages about that individual.
In this recent article, a number of quotes were deleted because the repetition or erroneous claims by multiple parties do not add any weight or context to the claims that were left in. That the claims (regarding whether an ex-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had in some way avoided tax through investing in a mutual fund, and in which matter it is not disputed by HMRC nor another serious source that taxes were always paid both on income and capital gains by the ex-PM and his father) were repeated by other members of Parliament is helpful to the reader; whereas quoting a number of those insinuations that turned out to be false, is not helpful and obfuscates the core issue of whether or not the claimed tax avoidance had occurred. This is the issue central to this whole entry. While imperfect, this quoted article deals with the point to some extent https://www.ft.com/content/cf9ad686-fd76-11e5-b3f6-11d5706b613b. Tax expert who successfully challenged (and politically disposed of) Nadim Zahawi has also researched this matter https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/23/dan-neidle-investigating-nadhim-zahawis-tax-affairs/. He would like nothing more than to produce an expose on the Camerons and Blairmore, or anyone else in the wrong, if there were any truth to the accusations; however, he has repeated stated and reasoned that not only is there no truth to those assertions, but in the context of how Blairmore was set up and run, the accusations also do not even make sense.
There may be a number of other issues which paint David Cameron in a negative light, not least his proximity to Lex Greensill who appears to have committed a massive fraud, but in the interests of having an encyclopaedic account of Blairmore Holdings, it is very difficult to see which of my edits could be disputed on the basis of fact. No factual rebuttals were in fact made of my recent edits, they were just trashed in favour of the inaccuracies from the OP, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines.
Decline reason:
This is not a "permanent block", which suggests removal is not possible, but an indefinite block, which only means you need to convince an administrator to remove it. This request doesn't do it for me; your edits were improper but you don't think so. I think your disruption would quickly resume, meaning the block is necessary to prevent it. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Reluctant Jedi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
incomplete review I am not sure whether this reply belongs in this part so forgive my post if this not in the right area of the site. I have reviewed the reason not to unblock and it appears to have missed my statement that, if one or more of my very few posts is erroneous or poorly articulated, of course I am happy to be bound by the editing rules and guidelines. WP:5P2 One user asked for further citations, but I have not had the opportunity to review and edit those to add citations or improve my edit in some way. Where it has been stated that my edits were improper, does that mean parts of the content or is it a reference back to citations? It would be helpful to be guided to know which ones were problematic and where any inaccuracy or rules transgressions lie in my edits, so that I can tailor future usage in accordance with what you are asking.
Decline reason:
Hello Reluctant Jedi:
I regret to inform you that I am declining your unblock request as it doesn't adequately address the reasons for your block.
Fundamentally, it appears you may not understand that Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. However, I'm sure someone would be more keen to take action in response to your unblock request if you could communicate your thorough understanding of our WP:VERIFY policy and WP:CITE guideline and commit to completing the WP:ADVENTURE before undertaking any further edits following your unblock.
Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia! Chetsford (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
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.
Reluctant Jedi (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
You don't seem to understand our no original research policy. Until you can convince us that you understand how nearly all of your edits violated that policy, you will remain blocked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
unnecessary block
[edit]I can do the WP:ADVENTURE and restate my commitment to WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. If an admin reviews what I had actually written, I was attempting to go back and insert reliable factual citations for the information provided. Many of the deletions were exactly what I had been accused of; restatements from some superseded information that is now incorrect or indeed news articles and reports produced by entities known veracity issues. Conversely, fact check me versus, say, Dan Neidle and his sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) stated I am not here to build encyclopaedia. I would have welcomed polite dialogue to refine exactly what the issues were with my edits.