Talk:Seán Sherlock

SOPA issue
I have been asked on my talk page to confirm whether I have a conflict of interest with the SOPA issue. The answer to that is no, I would never edit an article with a COI. My only concern is the quality of sourcing and the neutral point of view. The IP user has removed content sourced to reliable newspapers, and returned the article to a state where it contained only a link to stop SOPA Ireland's website. The use of that website would be acceptable for trivial details solely about that organization, it is not a reliable source about details like the nature of the changes to legislation or whether or not Sherlock "Became a centre of controversy in Ireland". The current state of the article is unsatisfactory because there are plenty of reliable sources about this, I don't see why it is necessary for this paragraph to have no references to reliable sources when they are plentiful. I will not revert the changes now because I don't want to get involved in an edit war. If there are no explanations forthcoming, I will revert it then. Quasi human  &#124;  Talk  19:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional sources are of value. However as the stopsopaireland movement was created in response to Sean Sherlocks role as a minister and is in effect a result of this work as a minister it is entirely relevent.

I suggest that other references and text are added *without* seeking to remove the pertinent link or valid commentary regarding the initial introduction of the statute without publication or debate.

Hope we can wind up with a better article. I am not a member of any Irish political body or agency employed by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that while it acceptable to talk about this group, it is not acceptable to use their website as a reference to facts about the issue. We have a version in the history with references to reliable sources, there was nothing preventing you from adding to or altering that, you decided to revert it outright, why? Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  20:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was reverted as the edits made did not include relevent pertinent facts expressed in the shorter and simpler original phrasing 1)The statute in question was originally to be signed into existance without publication or debate 2)The sentence stated that this action on the part of Sean Sherlock caused the Stop SOPA Ireland movement ref 'StopSopaIreland.com' to be.

This the edit removed vitually all the orginal content including key facts which you may verify at your discression.

Please note that the assertation that the statute is intoduced as a matter of EU law is opinion and interpretation being cited by Sean Sherlock to justify his method of introducing this statute. A recent ruling by the European court of Justice in fact explicitly condems the type of generalised monitoring by ISPs required to enable the proposals inheirent in the statute and made possible by it's vagueness.

"Additional sources are of value. However as the stopsopaireland movement was created in response to Sean Sherlocks role as a minister and is in effect a result of this work as a minister it is entirely relevent.

I suggest that other references and text are added *without* seeking to remove the pertinent link or valid commentary regarding the initial introduction of the statute without publication or debate ie. leave the exiting text as it stands with reference link and append any additional text you have beneath that without removing it.

Hope we can wind up with a better article. I am not a member of any Irish political body or agency employed by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC) "

This statue means that it is possible that any reference to copyrighted material on wikipedia could cause wikipedia to be blocked for Irish internet users. In relation to wikipedia itself - it had a clear anti SOPA stance and in fact participated in a 'blackout' to protest the introduction of similar legislation in the US. It is bizzare that this should be an issue c=fo contention in any way on wikipedia.


 * First of all, you should read WP:NPOV this is an encyclopedia, articles here should be written from a neutral point of view. The community here may have decided to protest against SOPA, but we would not allow our articles to be compromised by points of view that we may hold. The link you are keen to keep is already in the external links section of the article, and there it should stay, but it should not be linked within the article, our external links guideline recommends against this practice. The edit removed key facts because I could not find reliable sources to verify them, if you can, you could have added them.


 * EU law was not mentioned in my edit, so I don't see how it is relevant. I am not interested in individual opinions on the merits of the legislation, I am interested in the citing of sources to verify content in the article, I have yet to see you add citations, all that I have seen you do is revert, to the extent that you have far exceeded the three revert rule even after being warned by me. Your behavior is disruptive, stop it. This discussion is going nowhere, I will revert back to the old version. You are welcome to add referenced content, but if you remove content again, I will report this edit war. Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  21:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would be pleased to have a neutral third party examine the matter. I see no reason for you to have decended on the original text and delete and rewite it - you have again choosen to understate the petition signature numbers which at the time of your posting (today) 30 Jan 2012 stand at 76323 and your wish to remove a link to the stopsopaireland.com as a refernce (which has in fact the petition numbers on it) is incomprehensible. You have substantially altered pertinent information on the method of the introduction of the statute and original text and in effect deleted it, repeatedly and in a manner that shows bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.61.99 (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can ask for a third opinion at WP:3O in the meanwhile, as a compromise, I would be willing to allow the change in the petition numbers using that ref as long as it is formatted correctly, ie., inside tags. The only reason I decided to change the text was because it was poorly sourced. Thanks, Quasi  human  &#124;  Talk  21:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have started a thread at the BLP noticeboard, see Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Quasi human  &#124;  Talk  23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Expenses and Salaries
I think all Irish politicans expenses and wages on public record should be in these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.51.237.184 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)