User talk:Martinbyrne68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Martinbyrne68, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Direct Democracy Ireland does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RashersTierney (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Murry1975 (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Martinbyrne68 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

The Wikipedia Direct Democracy Ireland Page claims in the Legend that DDI policies are "right wing populism " This is not plainly not true, Its linked to very minor media outdated articles such as and the state funded RTE who are notorious for taking the government line on everything and who have been exposed recently by countless consumer complaints of pro Gov Bias. see likns ( ) I have never had any intention of "vandalizing" Wikipedia pages but this page is very damaging for DDI I myself am left wing and a member of DDI. Raymond Whitehead founder of DDI is left wing as are countless members of the party if not the majority. To allow a page of this high visibility to convey an untruth cannot be allowed. This page which IS incredibly not only allowed by Wikipedia to be maintained by open opponents but protected by Wikipedia despite its untruths. It needs to be corrected in the name of democracy. Its incredible that a parties opponents can pick and choose nothing but bad press about a party and anyone attempting to add balance to the page is banned. Wikipedia could be compared to nothing more than a dictatorial state propaganda service in this instance, the very thing I imagine it was created to oppose.

Decline reason:

We have a policy WP:NLT that is concerned with making legal threats. I consider that saying, as you do below, "Will have to get the party to make this a legal issue!! This entire interaction is being archived for future use." is as close to being a threat of legal action as one can get without serving papers. The standard action by administrators in the case of NLT is to block the account until the threat is clearly and completely withdrawn. Apart from which, "in the name of democracy" is not a reason for anything on Wikipedia, and equally 'in the name of' anything or anyone else too. Verifiability WP:V is a more important concern here. If you withdraw your threat, and show that you understand more about how Wikipedia works than you seem to, then and only then the block may be lifted. After that, if you can produce references to reliable independent sources WP:RS to back up your points, the contents of the article can be considered then. Peridon (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2014 (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.

PS: I am not a member of any political party or movement, and I am not commenting on the rights or wrongs of the contents issue. It is matters of policy that dictated my decision above, not contents or ideology. BTW please sign talk page posts with ~~~~ or click the pen-and-wiggly-line icon at the top of the edit window - this puts your sig and the datestamp on like this: Peridon (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

There were some errors in the formatting of your unblock request. I've corrected them so that the request can be reviewed; as it was the request would not have showed up in the queue. I'll also be more than willing to consider unblocking you myself if you're able to understand the issue and it won't become a problem again.

You were not, to be clear, blocked for your political views. Rather, you were blocked for making inappropriate edits. The last edit you made to the article included the following:


Edits like that are not ever acceptable in an article.

If you believe that an article's content is problematic, you are certainly welcome to edit it to fix that. However, if someone disagrees with you, you may not then keep repeating the same edit. That is called an edit war, and gets nowhere. Rather, you should take to the article's talk page to discuss with other editors what you believe is wrong and why, and try to come to an agreement with them on how to fix it. If you and they are still unable to come to an agreement, we have dispute resolution processes designed to involve editors previously not engaged with the issue and help to resolve it. Also, please note that you will always be required to back your edits with reliable sources. One should not ever make edits from one's personal knowledge or novel synthesis.

I hope that provides a clearer view of why the block was necessary, and what conduct would be expected of you if you were to return to editing? Feel free to reply here, I have the page on watch and will see it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is maintained by opponents of DDI and any time I have edited the page in the past (no matter how small and factual the edit )it has been immediately changed to the original untrue and outdated text. Which is why I added the fore word in capitals this time in order to force the issue. How can Sinn Fein members be allowed to ban all corrections or updates to a rival parties page. Its completely undemocratic. Its a known fact that Direct Democracy cannot be either right wing or left wing. For it to be either would negate the direct democracy system. So how can Wikipedia stand over a known untruth like this surely it flies in the place of everything you stand for.?

First, please avoid speculating on the affiliations or motives of other editors. It is expected that any comments on problems will address article content, not people. I made clear what type of conduct we expect from any editor, which includes the ability to calmly and reasonably discuss article content with other editors, and to maintain neutrality. If you are willing to conduct yourself in accordance with those requirements of participation here, then please let me know. If you are not willing to do that, and are instead going to sling mud, attack other editors and speculate about their motivations, and edit war, this isn't the right project for you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Seraphimblade What mud slinging have I been involved in here?? I have been very calm and reasonable from the very first edit months ago but no updated has ever been accepted by the controlling editors. I expect the other editors to be held to the same standards you are recommending me to observe. namely to "conduct yourself in accordance with those requirements of participation here," Surely a legitimate update with proven published links should be allowable as an edit?? But still an un truth is allowed to stand unhindered. Which is what me and many other people have tried to fix on this page are up against, people who just don't want to listen. Its undemocratic for legitimate updates to a political parties site to be dismissed. Who benefits from this type of censorship of the truth??

Sorry, but this seems to be going nowhere, so I'll have to decline to unblock. You've requested an unblock review, so someone will be along to do that in due course. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disgraceful behavior !! Willing to knowingly allow a blatant an easily proven untruth to stand on Wikipedia!! And unwilling to listen to legitimate complaints on that very subject. Will have to get the party to make this a legal issue!! This entire interaction is being archived for future use.