Hi Taxingtothepoint! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Cupper52 (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Taxingtothepoint. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((request edit)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop revert warring. Wikipedia has a three revert rule policy; except in case of vandalism, a user cannot revert the same article more than three times within 24 hours, and users who violate this rule or otherwise engage in revert warring may be blocked from editing. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting yourself. You need to prove the following edit "It should be noted, tax avoidance planning is 100% legal in the United Kingdom and should not be confused with tax evasion, which is not and carries severe penalties. HMG \ HMRC have in recent years introduced a new category of 'aggressive tax avoidance' is a, not correct, b, not factual, c, does not represent the position in the UK, d, requires a source when the rest of the para has no source?

I could go but really stop being a pedant. Oh and by the way, the owners of Wiki keep asking me for donations to keep the website going and you're doing nothing to encourage me to contribute financially. Signed taxingtothepoint::::

• Again, stop revert warring (even when you believe that you are right). Several other users have also removed the claim from the article. And note that you have already violated the three revert rule. (Instead of repeatedly re-adding the claim, you should discuss the change on the article talk page.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As for the factual accuracy of your claim, I understand that this is a matter of definition. Tax avoidance refers to schemes which are either legal, or at least not expressly prohibited by law, while tax evasion is willful failure to pay the tax, which is illegal. But in any case, the section wasn't written in encyclopedic style (see the manual of style) - for example, "it should be noted" is a meaningless word filler, and "100% legal" is emotive language intended to persuade the reader/listener - an encyclopedia doesn't need such rhetoric devices (see also the policy of neutrality). And I say that it's off topic in the article - the article is about a specific UK law/regulation, not about the terminology of tax avoidance (the article already explains that the scheme in question was originally legal and eventually the loophole was closed, and links to the article tax avoidance which explains the difference from tax evasion). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, when you make a post at the talk page, you should sign yourself by adding ~~~~ after your post; this produces the user name and the date and time of your post. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked you from editing BN66 for a week. Discuss matters on the talk page. If you continue edit warring after this block expires or you edit war in other articles, expect longer blocks from the site. On a further note, see our policy on original research -- you must cite a reliable source for your claims, which you have not done. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer, which is another reason why Wikipedia articles are not supposed to say "this is 100% legal." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]