Desmond FitzGerald
Welcome edit
|
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I've no idea how this user talk works or what you mean by an edit war.
I don't know if you're a Fine Gael official or some sort of Enda Kenny fan or something.
Nor is it clear where you get your information about him or why you are selective in what you cite.
When I have edited an entry what I have said is factually correct.
I know for a fact Garret FitzGerald didn't rate Enda Kenny and still didn't rate him even after the election in 2011. I now for a fact Enda Kenny is claiming expenses for a Dublin property that doesn't have the original mortgage outstanding (I asked him) I know for a fact (it's public knowledge) that Enda Kenny also receives a top of of €54k from Fine Gael paid out of the leaders allowance it receives for the functions its leaders office carries out and it's not meant to be for the personal benefit of the leader. I know for a fact that there has been no actual savings on ministerial transport costs. It is a fact that since 2002 alone Kenny claims an average of €4,500 tax free every month through the expenses system. Added to the tax free dig-out from FG equates to €1million in tax free expenses alone since 2002.
This can all be verified and is all in the public domain.
- Accepting that you don't know what edit warring is (that is why it is linked), and that you think other editors here are pushing a bias, you need to stop reverting immediately and start discussing or you will be blocked. If you have something to say in relation to the Enda Kenny article you can do it here, as previously explained. RashersTierney (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Point of View at Enda Kenny edit
Several of your edits at this article have been contested by reverts. Rather than attempting to re-apply them directly, you should instead take the points you wish to make at the Talk Page, where you can seek to achieve a consensus more to your liking. RashersTierney (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
September 2012 edit
Hello, Desmond FitzGerald, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. RashersTierney (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- What? I'm sure Wiki records can see that any edits I made were all from the same account - either in my office or at home but through the same account albeit on a different computer. I would also mention there are loads of mistakes on the Kenny profile which are left as fact and not followed up on so I can only assume Snappy/Rashers are people with a particular agenda. I would just like things to be accurate. Unfortunately I don't have hours and hours to spend on the internet but I'll certainly make the effort to understand the rules so that the changes I make won't be alerted by some people who seem to have decided they have the right to decide what is a fact or isn't. On whose authority I'm not sure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmond FitzGerald (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 September 2012
- Well, no, not really. Registered editors are expected to use their account when making edits. You are correct in your assessment of Snappy and Rashers, and the majority of editors here. The agenda is to build an encyclopedia. If you need help in contributing too you need only ask. Good luck in getting up to speed with how things are supposed to work around here. Also, please remember to sign discussion posts. RashersTierney (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Enda Kenny, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Kind word edit
Hi,
First, welcome and I hope you continue to contribute.
Rasher's asked to drop a line with some advice with regard to editing and keeping neutral on Wikipedia. I'm not against the contributions you are making and I'm not going to get involved on the Enda Kenny page but there are some policies and guidelines I think you'd fair better familiarising yourself with.
Like any community of people who work together, regular contributors to Wikipedia often to refer to these by esoteric terms.
One is verifiability (akak WP:V or "verifiability, not truth"). This means that on Wikipedia we are not actually interested in the truth of a matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which is a collation of information already published elsewhere. For example, you may know something about Enda Kenny to be true (e.g. your statement about a mortgage for a house in Dublin). But unless it has been published elsewhere already, it is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. For "verifiability", we rely on reliable sources (aka WP:RS).
Verifiability has several extensions. One of these is that even if we have reliable sources, we can't combine different sources to generate a statement that neither actually said. This is called "synthesis" (aka WP:SYN, WP:OR, or origianl research). For example, a source may exist to support the statement that "Kenny remained on the backbenches of the Dáil for almost a decade". Another may support the statement that he made a "low contribution to legislative efforts". However, if no source supports the statement "Kenny remained on the backbenches of the Dáil for almost a decade due to the fact he made such a low contribution to legislative efforts" then it cannot be included. This includes jointing two statements to together with words like "however", "despite this", "none the less", etc.
All of the above goes double for articles that deal with subjects who are living people (aka WP:BLP, or biographies of living people).
Finally, a core policy for Wikipedia is that articles be written from a neutral point of view (aka WP:NPOV, and contributions that are not seen as being may be described as being "POV"). This means that articles fairly represent the balance of views in reliable sources with regard to a subject.
I think your contributions have the potential greatly benefit the neutrality of the Enda Kenny article but I think they need to be more considered with regard to the policies and guidelines I've outlined above. I'm sure you understand the need for policies like this.
On a unrelated subject, using one's real name for their user name is not recommended for reasons outline here.
Welcome again. I do hope you stay around. And I'm sorry if it feels like you are being bombarded with lots of rules and being made jump through hoops.
Kind regards, --RA (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Who controls the truth!
- So for example I can edit to show that Kenny has not taken a pay cut by using the various published articles in all Irish newspapers confirming he did not and that he also gets a dig-out on top of his salary as the source?
- If so, why is it Rasher/Snappy have been allowed be so selective in deleting my edits leaving a falsehood and I'm not allowed correct it? Interesting.
- So presumably it's ok to delete something that's factually wrong instead of correcting it as it's still not clear to be how one person is allowed dictate the 'facts' at the expense of other verifiable facts.
- Then I have to get someone to write an article about his Dublin mortgage and the myth that ministerial transport costs less?
- I've read some of Rasher and Snappy's other postings - reading them I'm surprised they haven't been offered jobs in Pravda.
- I'm quite happy to use my real name as I'm not hiding anything nor have I said anything that isn't true or that can't be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmond FitzGerald (talk • contribs) 20:17, 16 September 2012
- I'm not going to discuss Snappy or Rashers. Nor am I going to discuss any issue to do with the "Enda Kenny" article precisely. Rasher's asked me to give you some advice on editing and that's all I'm going to do.
- At a glance, I think you would be a great addition to Wikipedia. However, a thing that frequently happens to contributors such as yourself, who are knowledgeable and passionate about a topic, is that they get themselves into conflict early for lack of experience on the practices of Wikipedia and end up being (or feeling like they are) driven away. That's really unfortunate for both Wikipedia and potentially great contributors.
- So, if it's OK, I'll show you some of the ropes. What you do with it from there is your own business. What say you? --RA (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)