User talk:Liamfoley: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
SineBot (talk | contribs)
m Signing comment by 86.46.44.155 - "→‎Your recent edits: "
→‎Your recent edits: again, please follow policy, rather than the whims of your political biases
Line 10: Line 10:
::If it really was carried out by a reputable organization, why can't sources agree on which organization it was and why do neither of the suggested organizations say they conducted it? We need reliable sources, not self-serving remarks. This is true in the Ireland article and it's true in the Coleman article. Again, NPOV requires due weight, not balance; if scholarly consensus is predominantly against Coleman, which it is, then we violate NPOV by making her opinion out to be more widely held than in fact it is. (You could also start persuading the community that you're editing in good faith by not inserting unsourced nonsense into articles such as the claim that Coleman's critics were just overemotional.) –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::If it really was carried out by a reputable organization, why can't sources agree on which organization it was and why do neither of the suggested organizations say they conducted it? We need reliable sources, not self-serving remarks. This is true in the Ireland article and it's true in the Coleman article. Again, NPOV requires due weight, not balance; if scholarly consensus is predominantly against Coleman, which it is, then we violate NPOV by making her opinion out to be more widely held than in fact it is. (You could also start persuading the community that you're editing in good faith by not inserting unsourced nonsense into articles such as the claim that Coleman's critics were just overemotional.) –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


It's very clear who commissioned the poll and who conducted it, that was mentioned in the edit and can be seen very clearly in the link I included, you did take the trouble to look at that, didn't you? If you are calling into question the poll just because you don't like the result that calls your own bias into question. As for the opinions against Coleman, what you mean to say is that the opinions that you are aware of are are against her. You are entitled to your opinion but don't try to bamboozle me with some pseudo intellectual claptrap. You are a completely inappropriate person to be engaging in this kind of debate and as far as I'm concerned this is approaching harassment and if you continue this any further I will bring it to the next level. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.46.44.155|86.46.44.155]] ([[User talk:86.46.44.155|talk]]) 08:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::It's very clear who commissioned the poll and who conducted it, that was mentioned in the edit and can be seen very clearly in the link I included, you did take the trouble to look at that, didn't you? If you are calling into question the poll just because you don't like the result that calls your own bias into question. As for the opinions against Coleman, what you mean to say is that the opinions that you are aware of are are against her. You are entitled to your opinion but don't try to bamboozle me with some pseudo intellectual claptrap. You are a completely inappropriate person to be engaging in this kind of debate and as far as I'm concerned this is approaching harassment and if you continue this any further I will bring it to the next level. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/86.46.44.155|86.46.44.155]] ([[User talk:86.46.44.155|talk]]) 08:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Please stop complaining about other users and instead engage with the content and with policy in ''your'' edits. The fact that you personally agree with an unreliable or low-weight source does not magically make it reliable or inflate its weight. In this particular case, we have a more serious problem: the fact that the poll you cite does not appear to exist, meaning that your repeated addition of it violates [[WP:V]] as well as [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NPOV]]. If you do not have anything to contribute within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, I suggest using your internet time elsewhere, or perhaps editing in a non-contentious area if you feel that you can handle that. (Relatedly, please be aware that abortion is an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion|arbitrated topic area]]; remedies include 1RR, which means that you can revert only once in 24 hours. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:38, 27 February 2012

Talk:Gregory Peck

Replied: Talk:Gregory Peck

Your recent edits

Please adhere to NPOV when you edit. One way to make sure your edits are neutral are to keep in mind due weight, ie. giving views prominence proportional to their representation in reliable sources. Your recent edits to Priscilla K. Coleman and Abortion in the Republic of Ireland have not adhered to this policy. Please consider reverting, for instance, your addition to the latter of a poll conducted by an agenda-based organization. We do not generally consider such polls to be reliable sources; compare the other polls in the section, which were conducted by newspapers, polling agencies, and scholarly bodies. (It would also be better to use quotation marks when you are quoting something, as when you changed the wording of the end of the "Summary" section to quote the amendment.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert the edit relating to a poll which was in fact conducted by a reputable, independent polling company. It was conducted for a lobby group, everyone has agendas, including yourself, so I don't know why you refer to an "agenda-based" organization. I think that it's inappropriate that just because you don't like the result that you ask for it to be reverted. I understand that you are socially liberal, that's your business, bully for you! As for the Priscilla K. Coleman article I believe there tto be a heavy bias against her, hence the edits there, If you were concerned about NPOV you would have worked on balancing that, I note you didn't. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.44.155 (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it really was carried out by a reputable organization, why can't sources agree on which organization it was and why do neither of the suggested organizations say they conducted it? We need reliable sources, not self-serving remarks. This is true in the Ireland article and it's true in the Coleman article. Again, NPOV requires due weight, not balance; if scholarly consensus is predominantly against Coleman, which it is, then we violate NPOV by making her opinion out to be more widely held than in fact it is. (You could also start persuading the community that you're editing in good faith by not inserting unsourced nonsense into articles such as the claim that Coleman's critics were just overemotional.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear who commissioned the poll and who conducted it, that was mentioned in the edit and can be seen very clearly in the link I included, you did take the trouble to look at that, didn't you? If you are calling into question the poll just because you don't like the result that calls your own bias into question. As for the opinions against Coleman, what you mean to say is that the opinions that you are aware of are are against her. You are entitled to your opinion but don't try to bamboozle me with some pseudo intellectual claptrap. You are a completely inappropriate person to be engaging in this kind of debate and as far as I'm concerned this is approaching harassment and if you continue this any further I will bring it to the next level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.44.155 (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop complaining about other users and instead engage with the content and with policy in your edits. The fact that you personally agree with an unreliable or low-weight source does not magically make it reliable or inflate its weight. In this particular case, we have a more serious problem: the fact that the poll you cite does not appear to exist, meaning that your repeated addition of it violates WP:V as well as WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If you do not have anything to contribute within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, I suggest using your internet time elsewhere, or perhaps editing in a non-contentious area if you feel that you can handle that. (Relatedly, please be aware that abortion is an arbitrated topic area; remedies include 1RR, which means that you can revert only once in 24 hours. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]