Talk:Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

'Office' parameter at infobox
I see no reason why a position on a Committee should occupy this place per these edits 1, 2. Going through the list of other members of the 31st Dáil, it seems this parameter is intended for specific offices, such as Minister, Minister of State, Tánaiste, Taoiseach, Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I can't see a valid reason for an exception in this case. Thoughts? RashersTierney (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. There is no need for chairs of committees or sub-committees to be in the infobox, its just clutter. Mac Lochlainn chair of this committee, is mentioned in the text of the article, which is sufficient. Snappy (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Your first excuse for undoing the edit was the box is for "elected positions" (I assume you meant directly elected). When it was pointed out that other Irish parliamentarians have positions they hold in these boxes that are not directly elected by the people but by the oireachtas and your logic was not being applied consistently, you both resorted to presentational objections such as "clutter" and objections to "committee chairs". If you check the wiki pages of British and US parliamentarians, you will find that if they hold the position of committee chairman or chairperson, it is stated in this box. Why do you insist on a different standard for Irish politicians? Aesthetics is not an objection folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.248.180 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with 'aesthetics'. It's about consistency with similar TDs. RashersTierney (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not ensure that all Irish parliamentarians (TDs) who are Chairpersons of Oireachtas Committees have this outlined in the opening few boxes as is the case with comparative US or British parliamentarians? That would deal with your consistency concern and be a more appropriate approach by comparative international standards. What do you say to that suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.151.53 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At random, going through Category:UK MPs 2010–, it would appear you are just plain wrong. RashersTierney (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is now getting embarrassing. Click on this link http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/ Then pick any committee, check out the membership and the name of the Chairmen. Note the name. Check out their wiki profile and hey presto, their status as a Committee Chairperson is in the same box that both of you pedantically have deleted a number of times because it is "clutter" or that box is for "elected positions". Just let it go folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.51.190 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Stuart_(politician) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Bailey and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Arbuthnot I can continue. Now can we stop this nonsense. It would fit both of you better to spend your editing time on applying the same standards to Irish parliamentarians as elsewhere. — Precedingg unsigned comment added by 109.77.51.190 (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a pointless addition at the infobox. If it actually linked to an article on the particular committee/'office', it might have some merit. Please read WP:CONSENSUS, just to re-cap what that policy actually means. RashersTierney (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have added a link as requested. With respect, I am not sure if the central role of parliamentary committees in our democracies is fully appreciated. Whoever edits the Irish parliamentarians pages should ensure that they reflect their role as Committee Chairs in line with international best practice. If it was "pointless" then why is it the case in the UK as shown to you above and elsewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.64.247 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 7 June 2013
 * You misunderstand. The 'link' I referred to is a Wikipedia hyperlink, not a reference. That he is the Chair of this committee is not in dispute and is referred to in the body of the text, as has been pointed out above. Perhaps it would be a good thing if we had articles on the various Oireachtas committees. So far we don't, as far as I know, but feel free to make a start. RashersTierney (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to add these positions to the infobox, that may change in the future but for now the mention of them in the text is sufficient. Also, a Sinn Fein supporter is suggesting we slavishly following the British example, lol! Snappy (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Folks, you are abusing the Wikipedia process and you both know it. You have both been repeatedly asked why you insist on applying a standard to Irish parliamentarian's pages that is not the case for parliamentarians from other states or countries? Your objections are groundless and pithy. So I will continue to undo your deletions. Feel free to bring in independent editors to mediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.64.247 (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are abusing Wikipedia by edit warring against consensus. 3 editors do not agree with your position, so you can accept this conensus or you can edit war. If you continue to edit war, your edits will be reverted and this article will be semi-protected. Snappy (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So let's recap. Two self appointed serial editors with a clearly limited understanding of parliamentary democracy repeatedly block an edit that is line with international Wikipedia norms for the pages of parliamentarians. When challenged on this, you have both repeatedly resorted to aesthetic justifications rather than engage on the political substance of the issue in dispute as well as more recently, childish taunts about Sinn Féin and the UK. It is just not good enough to block an edit with no viable justification. Consensus is based on reason by all parties participating. I will now cease my response of responding to your belligerent blocking for a short while on the basis that this page is referred/ reverted to the Wikipedia team for adjudication. Please confirm that it has been reverted within the next 48 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.73.40 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's recap. One self-appointed anon editor decides to edit the article, when informed by 3 experienced editors that this was against consensus, they continue to edit against consensus, and ignore the consensus. They then issue legal threats before withdrawing them. Then they issue demands with arbitrary deadlines for the other editors to comply with. Perhaps a trip to ANI is in order. Snappy (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor "Snappy". I have requested a revert/ reference. What are you afraid of? Please do let me know when you have done so. There's a good fella... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.217.174 (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To the i.p. editor....please drop the belligerent tone, as it will not help us resolve this issue. I also can't see how this belongs in the infobox (it's already in the article) especially when there are no specific article on Oireachtas Committees. You have several options here. One would be to create an account, then create the pages on the committees, or if you don't wish to do that, you can create the page and submit it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Another would be to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Edit warring and making legal threats are definitely not the way forward and can lead to editors being blocked and the pages in question locked down. Valenciano (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Valenciano, while I disagree with your opinion on the core issue in dispute and selective criticism of one editor over others, I appreciate your input and attempt at a constructive approach. I have decided to just let it go. Life's too short for circular pedantic debate. Wikipedia is a great resource but limited in that it allows anonymous editors whose agenda, good or bad can not be established and with no demonstrable knowledge of the given subject matter to control information. Very dangerous indeed as evidenced by the arrogance and belligerence from some in this instance. Little hitlers abusing words like "consensus" in a truly Orwellian fashion. I will just monitor their edits closely from here on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.218.176 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Godwin's law already, oh dear. The tone of the IP editor is abusive, belligerent, nasty and threatening. The information in question is in the article, it is staying in the article; they are just obsessed with the infobox. They will now anonymously monitor edits, in a secret, non-Orwellian way..., I suppose? Snappy (talk) 08:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Youtube link
Snappy, If you can show me where the rules of Wikipedia rule out a YouTube link that is clearly not a copyright concern and that is a relevant reference link, then that's fine for you to undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.20.123 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a copyright violation, the video belongs to Houses of the Oireachtas, not a political party. Snappy (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring against consensus. Please desist. There is absolutely no copyright of Oireachtas business. How do you think political parties get to use it? You are now moving the goalposts. Please do not continue edit warring unless you can clearly demonstrate any Wikipedia policy has been broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.147.91 (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @ dynamic IP. You appear to have a WP:COI. Please bear in mind that the article can be semi-protected if this belligerent editing continues. RashersTierney (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly no reasonable basis for this block by Snappy. I see from above that there is a consistent tag team approach that is not helpful. Can you both stop engaging in threats and edit wars? There should be a plausible reason for the undo. Lets resolve this dispute constructively thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.20.123 (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've asked for outside comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a sensible move Rashers. I see from above that it was requested previously after another dispute and resulted in threats from one of the editors. The edit warring has been on all sides. Will be good to get a fresh perspective. Edits and blocks/ undos should have a clear rationale. No editor should appoint themselves the sole right to edit or undo an edit without discussion and an attempt at resolution first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.20.123 (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and btw this also applies to you! (and your many IP addresses) Snappy (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please desist from ongoing edit warring Snappy. I hope that there is no sock puppet or collusion amongst editors taking place on this page and others. May be wider issues to highlight to our fellow Wiki editors than the recent disputes on this page...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.192.242 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? If you suspect sock puppetry, file an SPI. RashersTierney (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring ongoing by new editors. Suspicious? Not a tweet out of you. At some stage someone might ask where your objectivity is. You have rightly sought a fresh perspective and perhaps mediation. And since then, the edit warring has been instigated by non IP editors and you have yet to criticise them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.126.174 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've posted 'Welcome' templates to a number of the IPs to help get you started on how Wikipedia works, but frankly the IP hopping is not conducive to long term and on-going communication. It has already been suggested that you register an account. Click here to see how. RashersTierney (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As you know Rashers there is no hierarchy of editors on Wiki. IP editors are just as valid in their contributions as editors with anonymous handles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.126.174 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. Just trying to get you started. In future I will assume you are fully aware of our policies and procedures, including signing posts. RashersTierney (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

From now on, I will sign off with FAE (Fellow Anonymous Editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.126.174 (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think P O'Neill would be more apt for signing off! :) Finnegas (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP is continuing to edit war, while using the unoriginal wheeze of accusing others of same. Snappy (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. Apart from the Oireachtas footage being incorporated into a party political broadcast in flagrant contravention of standing orders, it is entirely disproportionate and unnecessary as the material is already ref'd to an independent source. In any case, there is no excuse for the relentless edit warring by the IP RashersTierney (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your last edit is on reasonable grounds Rasher. Edit accepted. Kudos to the editor who tidied up the references too. One last thing. Respect IP editors.. They have a contribution to make too.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.213.182 (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is the very antithesis of respect and is against policy. I've asked for the page to be semi-protected to prevent further disruption. RashersTierney (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rashers, It appears my previous post was premature. On checking, the you tube link is in compliance with Oireachtas standing orders as it is a link to the An Phoblacht News video channel and not a party political broadcast. If the An Phoblacht News links were out of order, the Oireachtas authorities have certainly not said so. I will not revert the deletion again as a goodwill gesture. I will await some more discussion .. FAE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.213.182 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
I had to remove a copyright violation from the Donegal SF website. It appears to have been copied and pasted directly in. Yet an ip seems determined to revert my edit.Just to clarify for the ip the issue is not whether the material is relevant it is the fact that it appears to have been copied directly from another website. Thoughts and comments welcome. Finnegas (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. Its a clear cut-and-paste copyvio and was rightly removed. It can of coarse be used as a source in the usual way. RashersTierney (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That biog info is now referenced to the National SF website where there are definitely no copyright violations. Taken from 2007 General election biog intended for public attention. If concerns continue, just reword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.213.182 (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This in no way addresses the fact that the material is a copyvio, or the on-going edit warring. RashersTierney (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rashers, it has been slightly reworded to address any concerns. Do you consider the offensive reference to P O Neill on this talk page and taunting about SF and the UK to be appropriate in dispute resolution? Do you accept that your declaration on the presentation of MP's pages when they are Committee Chairs was incorrect? Do you respect the right of IP editors to have their day and to have opposition to edits explained BEFORE deletion? Why not go for full protection of this page? Why would you not just advise that relevant biog info be reworded rather than completely deleted? Why would you selectively criticise one editor repeatedly? Objectivity? Bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.213.182 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the P O'Neill taunt was inappropriate and should be withdrawn/struck through by the posting editor. I respect the right of editors not to register an account, but that does not give them the right to some sense of immunity from sanctions and to blatantly disregard policy. I find WP:BRD a useful guide on dealing with contentious edits. I'm also getting fed up constantly addressing behavioral issues on an article TP which can better be explained and discussed on a User TP without distracting from content issues. Why in God's name would you see full protection as a solution to anything? The disruption here is due to edit warring IPs. End of. RashersTierney (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As stated above, in the interests of goodwill, this IP editor will not edit this page or delete edits until there has been discussion on this page. I presume all editors will agree to the same. FAE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.213.182 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rashers, are you seriously suggesting that Sinn Féin in Donegal or nationally would object to a biography in the public domain being published to assist this page? This is blatant belligerent behaviour. This is edit warring and censorship at its worst. Shameful. I am sure that at some stage tomorrow, it will be put to bed by Sinn Féin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.213.182 (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That you don't understand or are not prepared to abide by our policy on copyright material is not shameful on my part. I have tried to inform you of our policies and how you have been infringing them. It most certainly is not censorship to blank a blatant WP:COPYVIO. Read up on policy. I'm sick and tired of posting you links, just to have them ignored. RashersTierney (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Time for a Mea culpa Rashers http://www.donegalsf.com/representatives — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.213.182 (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to accept, if you stopped your edit warring. RashersTierney (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rashers. I will desist from edits. I hope you appreciate my frustration and will reinstate the page. FAE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.213.182 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Usable license
Hello. The statement posted here is not an acceptable licensing release, I'm afraid, for us to accept the content on Wikipedia. Please see Donating copyrighted materials - the content must be released under a license that specifically permits reuse (including commercially) and modification. The recommended license reads:
 * The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

Please do not remove the template on the page, but instead simply supply a link here when the usable license is posted. If the license is granted via email, the Wikimedia representative who receives and processes it will restore the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The edit reverts carried out by me (IP editor) were in response to what I believe to be a disingenuous "copyright" complaint from the original editor who had previously engaged in offensive and partisan political taunting as you will see from this talk page (since acknowledged). My reverts were continued in frustration with the most recent editor because I incorrectly understood that it was some type of sock puppetry or editor collusion rather than a volunteer ensuring the copyright integrity of Wikipedia. My apologies on that score.

You will note the editor who filed the copyright investigation is of a mind to accept that there is no copyright issue at stake here.

Copyright rules are in place to protect the creative rights of authors not to censor the republishing of a politicians biography that is clearly of relevance to those who read the page. It is clear from the link provided that of course Donegal Sinn Féin or Sinn Féin in Ireland have no problem with their published biographies that are in the public domain being republished accurately for news or information purposes.

In the event that common sense cannot prevail and their is a strict adherence to policy required then can you advise me of the email address of the relevant Wikipedia representative that should be issued with the permission to republish from the webmaster. FAE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.147.84 (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The common sense approach would be to write the section content in your own words using this and possibly other sources as references. Simple. You should consider appealing your block at User talk:Atticus Maycomb. I'd be inclined to support if it put an end to the endless IP nonsense. RashersTierney (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but these are the Terms of Use of our site. We cannot copy content unless it is verifiably compatibly licensed. (Clearly, the content is not public domain - it bears the copyright symbol at the bottom of the page.) As to the email address - certainly; it's in the link at Donating copyrighted materials: permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org. Please make sure that the person who sends in the license uses an email address that is clearly connected to the publishing site - we recommend using the release at Declaration of consent for all enquiries. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough Rashers and other editors

I offer up this as an alternative text with various new references. Can editors amend or agree to help find a resolution thanks

Civic

Mac Lochlainn was the Donegal spokesperson for the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed (INOU) from 1997 to 2001. He also served on the INOU National Executive from 1997 until 2000 as well as representing the organisation on the National Rural Development Forum. At local level, he was a community director on the Inishowen Partnership Board for 5 years from 1996 to 2001.

He served on the board of InterTradeIreland, the Trade and Business Development Body from December 2007 up until March 2011.

Political

Mac Lochlainn served on Donegal County Council from 2004 to 2011 and on Buncrana Town Council from 2002 to 2011. During that time, he served two terms as Mayor of Buncrana (2005/2006 and 2010/2011) and also served as Deputy Mayor of Donegal (2010/2011) Within Sinn Fein, he has acted as the National Director of Sinn Féin's campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 as well as the Chairperson of the party's National Councillor's Forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.147.81 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not for the moment. Sort out your block and we can discuss it. RashersTierney (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As requested Rashers. Here's hoping for a goodwill response from you in return Atticus FAE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.147.162 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help you out, as I've said many times before. Log in at the User page. If you can't remember the password, say so there. We'll work something out. No more edits elsewhere until we do, please. RashersTierney (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See discussion at User talk:Atticus Maycomb. RashersTierney (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that an email has been sent as requested from the copyright webmaster confirming permission to republish as outlined on the website in question. I trust this resolves the matter. Atticus Maycomb

Can an administrator confirm that an email from the copyright webmaster confirming permission to republish as outlined on the website in question has been sent to Wikipedia and further, that the copyright on the website in question has been amended to permit republication. And can the original text now be restored? Atticus Maycomb (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Has the copyright been amended on the website in question? I can only see "Copyright 2013 Sinn Féin", which does not comply. Can someone post a link to the amended version? Snappy (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The copyright administrator has confirmed that the neccessary permissions have been established in line with Wikipedia policy. Just read the notice under references. It really was a nonsense and insincere objection sustained on a technicality. Time to move on Snappy. Atticus Maycomb (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously. It will not tolerate it in any shape of form. Abide by the rules or on your bike, boy! Snappy (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)