Jump to content

Talk:Brian Crowley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 83.70.230.150 (talk) at 02:42, 14 July 2013 (→‎Illness and attendance: Links are not dead : A cause generates an effect which must be cited for balance.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIreland Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

This page is a little short of information. I'm interested in this guy because I've read that he wishes to become President of Ireland, my home country.

However, the page only includes information that he obtained a degree in law, that he was nominated to the Seanad, and that he subsequently became (and remains) an MEP.

What has he actually achieved to merit the highest post in the land? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.173.227 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music Industry Lobbyist

From the article: 

"European Parliament approved a report drafted by Brian Crowley to extend the copyright term of music recordings from 50 years to 95 years"

So we know that Crowley was easily influenced by a lobby group, the recording industry, who are acting in their own self interest. Fifty to 95 years copyright extension, is madness and reflects on Crowley's credibility as a peoples' representative. Seemingly he favours the recording industry instead of the the music consuming public.83.70.242.79 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament Contributions

To determine what Brian Crowley stands for in the context of his seeking the Presidency of Ireland, it is necessary to see his parliamentary contributions over his several terms there.

If the record of debates in the European Parliament is searched online for contributions by Brian Crowley, there are questions asked, but little record of other contributions. Previous editors did not point to any significant contributions other than the copyright issue. 83.70.250.168 (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 25 2011

I have reverted your unexplained deletions (editor Snappy), from this article. The facts that you removed are accurately cited and relevant to the individual's profile. Please explain your edit, which removes accurately referenced fact. Please be aware of the editing guidelines in policy NPOV, which requires controversial edits to remain, but not to be removed by an editor who disagrees. 83.70.252.221 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Octanis, I presume. Snappy (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name calling is abusive. Please desist. Please address the facts, which are accurately stated. You may not revert edits that are accurately sourced and you are required to edit to substantiate your view by your providing alternative constructive edits in conformance to WP:NOR principles. Crude reversion is not constructive. From NPOV the policy is to;

"Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
83.70.252.221 (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is another name for and is redirected to NPOV, which states that; "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." Editors are required to substantiate their view by providing alternative constructive counter arguments in conformance to WP:NOR principles. To remove an item without quoting counter arguments is spurious and in breach of NPOV 83.70.252.221 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling you by your username is abusive? How so? Stop adding an unbalanced section on one issue in a 17 year career. This is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Another editor has also reverted your edits, so desist from edit warring. There is no consensus for your changes. If you persist in edit warring I will seek page protection for this article. Snappy (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assertions that I am "your username" is abusive. There is nothing unbalanced in my contribution. Please address the substantive issue. Edit to inform. Edit to improve the article. Reversion of accurate fact is contrary to NPOV. The items listed, which you are reverting are validly sourced and are in accord with informed editing. To revert unilaterally is unacceptable and is in breach of NPOV. Please provide counter opinions. Your assertion that "There is no consensus for your changes" is not credible as no other editor is providing factual edits, or discussing the article's content except to delete, in contavention to NPOV which states
Editors are required to substantiate their view by providing alternative constructive counter arguments
83.70.252.221 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus for your edits. As I already said its per WP:UNDUE. Supported by another editor. Snappy (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Snappy, Your edits by reversion do not seem appropriate. As anon editor says WP:UNDUE is a link to NPOV, which says that controversial edits may not be removed, but must be augmented and improved. Do provide factual information on the subject and do not instinctively revert as there is nothing incorrect in the anon editors contribution. Tayana (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So Tayana, is pretending NOT to be the IP above. Hilarious! Snappy (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE redirects to a specific part of WP:NPOV entitled Due and undue weight. Have a read and report back. JonCTalk 21:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked atWP:UNDUE as you suggested, which is unambiguous in saying; "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. "There is no conflict with my previous assertion in the policy as mainstream media articles were quoted in article. Tayana (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tayana/Octanis/Zubenzenubi/Current IP are identities of a well known sockpuppet. Ask user:Garda40. You will be banned for sock puppetry if you persist in this behaviour. Snappy (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is incredible hubris in the attitude and presumption of unsubstantiated opinion in the assertion of Snappy. Threatening other editors is totally naive and the tone of reversions of accurate fact is contrary to NPOV The fundamentals of editing is the statement of documented fact, not abuse of those who do so. Such behavior is unacceptable editing. 83.70.239.67 (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please desist in your editing per WP:UNDUE, they will continue to be reverted by me and other editors if you persist. Snappy (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing is removal of fact. The facts are relevant and its removal is in breach of NPOV. Please stop threatening editors who are providing fact. Please improve, don't remove valid information or attempt to browbeat others. 83.70.239.67 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for your edits. The consensus is for the current version as it stands now. Snappy (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is unambiguous in saying;
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. "
Please explain your 'consensus' in that context. 83.70.239.67 (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one supports your changes. They're POINTy and lend too much weight to certain aspects of the man's career with a view to discrediting him. Not to mention poorly formatted and unencyclopaedic. JonCTalk 06:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is pertinent. To supress such an edit is in breach of NPOV. To counterbalance any edit, other editors should seek sourced mainstream opinion to substanciate their editorial viewpoint. To accuse an editor who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV

From WP:POINT
"However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it, which is the only type of behavior which should be considered "POINTY""
Octanis (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What ever happened to Zubenzenubi? RashersTierney (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the substantive issue. Do not be abusive to other editors. Your reversion is in contravention on NPOV Please explain your edit in the context of:
An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is pertinent. To supress such an edit is in breach of NPOV. To counterbalance any edit, other editors should seek sourced mainstream opinion to substanciate their editorial viewpoint. To accuse an editor who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV
Octanis (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for these changes. Please also be aware of WP:3RR. Also, when I wrote "Octanis, I presume" at the start of this section, I was told that this was "abusive and to desist". It turns out that I was right all along. Apology, please! Snappy (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you not understand in this:

An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is pertinent. To supress such an edit is in breach of NPOV. To counterbalance any edit, other editors should seek sourced mainstream opinion to substanciate their editorial viewpoint. To accuse an editor who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV Octanis (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop "reverting per talk page". There is no consensus for these changes. Snappy (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is incredible hubris in your assertion. What does Snappy not understand about editing an article that provides validly sourced information.? A basic principle is editing with reliable citations and to disabuse another editor, who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is pertinent. Deletion of such an edit is in breach of NPOV. To counterbalance any edit, other editors should seek sourced mainstream opinion to substanciate their editorial viewpoint. To accuse an editor who is accurately editing, as being disruptive is in breach of NPOV WP:UNDUE declares:
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. "
 Octanis (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you do any other tricks or just this one? It's not very interesting. JonCTalk 06:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above is abusive of another editor, which is in breach of fundamental editorial guidelines. Please address the facts and do not abuse those who edit accurately in a manner that is different to your viewpoint. Octanis (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for these changes. Snappy (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note WP:UNDUE, which is unambiguous in saying; "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." An edit that is validly sourced to reliable references is relevant. If your editorial viewpoint is different, you must provide counter edits, but may not delete on spurious grounds. The question of consensus of validly sourced material is trite per WP:UNDUE. Please edit to reflect alternative opinion to support your view. Deletion of validly sourced edits as being not in accord with a putative "consensus" is in breach of WP:UNDUE and NPOV Octanis (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edits have not been removed because they are negative, but because of a determined effort to skew the article by overwhelming it with selectively partisan comments. Edit warring while logged out is unlikely to produce a new consensus on this. RashersTierney (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illness and attendance

From 2011 to 2013, Crowley had trouble with sores on his legs arising from his paralysis. IP 83.70.230.150, using dead links, is adding the "fact" that because of this illness, Crowley had a poor attendance and voting record. Imagine that, a wheelchair user, who is ill from complications of his paralysis and so cannot attend parliament. If he had no excuse and was just a poor attender of parliament, then there would be no problem adding this info. This is very pointy editing. Snappy (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links quoted are not dead
http://www.aislingtwomey.me/democracy-and-declarations-the-cost-of-an-mep/
works as does
http://www.votewatch.eu/en/brian-crowley.html
There is cause and effect. To remove is in breach of NPOV and reversion accordingly is warranted.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Crowley&oldid=564174243"