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 ( talk ⋅ contribs) 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 ( talk ⋅ contribs) 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 ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

You are clearly political in your edits and unfit to edit sensitive political topics such as the one in question as you are not neutral. The source is not low weight, it is a poll conducted by one of the country's leading polling companies. You are the one appealing to magic, I provided a source. The poll exists and to call it;s existence into question brings up a more serious problem, you are accusing the commissioning organization of lying. Is that the case because if it is there may be another policy or two that will have to be considered. As I said before not liking a poll result is not reason enough to dismiss it. Are you accusing the Pro Life Campaign of falsely claiming that one of Ireland's leading polling companies conducted a poll on their behalf and/or falsified the results? I think that you are getting excessively personal in your attacks against me and need to back off at once. If you persist I will bring your harassment to the attention of others and they can take it from there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamfoley ( talk • contribs)

Use whatever inflammatory language you like, but if the existence of the poll can be verified neither by the agency that supposedly conducted it nor by reliable independent sources, we have a verifiability problem. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Inflammatory language? Is that an attempt at comedy on your part? You try to be insulting and patronising, you show real bias in your edits and then refuse to accept a poll because you don't like the results. You are not a fit editor for this entry or even this subject and I think it's about time you stood back. The provided link is satisfactory, I note you don't require a similar set of proofs from polls that suit you. Silly really, I don't know why I'm bothering with you. The source is reliable and I say once again, if you are accusing the commissioning body of lying say so. Quid they are I'm sure the polling company will think you for protecting their reputation. However I'll say once again based on these exchanges you are unfit to be an editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamfoley ( talk • contribs)

Since the burden of proof lies on the editor who adds or restores material, you might consider going to our reliable sources noticeboard to ascertain whether the community agrees that press conference remarks from an agenda-based organization are a reliable source for the claim that a different organization did something. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC) reply

Once again, you are not fit to make these kinds of decisions. You are biased and bad mannered, I can continue repeating this for as long as you want.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamfoley ( talk • contribs)

You've already been warned about the 1RR policy on abortion-related articles. Your edit here constitutes a violation of this policy, as you have made two reverts in under 24 hours. Please revert your edit to avoid sanction, and refrain from edit-warring in the future. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I changed my mind and decided to revert your edit myself, since you do not seem to be interested in following policy and it is unlikely that you would have self-reverted. Please be aware that further edit-warring will see you reported to ANEW or ArbCom, which may lead to the imposition of blocks, discretionary sanctions, or other preventative measures. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Go right ahead. Ban me, whatever. You are a nasty ideologue who hides behind "policies" and has no concern for truth. It's people like you who give Wikipedia a bad reputation. I stopped contributing money to the project years ago because of bias by people like you. You have insisted on removing entries with references simply because you do not like the results of a poll. Liamfoley ( talk) 08:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Liamfoley_reported_by_User:Roscelese_.28Result:_.29 – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violation of the 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles, as you did at Abortion in the Republic of Ireland. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Chris (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I have seen your name online as an abortion activist. In online searches, your name is connected with Galway For Life and Pro Life Campaign Ireland. You wrote "There are so many untrue stories being spread by the pro abortion side that a fight back is really welcome" on the Facebook page of Pro Life Campaign Ireland. On Digg, your tweets have promoted Pro Life Campaign Ireland by relaying links to the group's "Our Work" and "Donate" pages (among others) and the main website page, with your addition, "Great source of news on abortion and pro-life ation in Ireland".

At WP:COI, the guideline says: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." I do not see your aim here as neutral; instead it is promotional of anti-abortion causes. Even if you are not actually paid by Pro Life Campaign Ireland, your activities fall under WP:COI#Campaigning, the promotion of a cause you advocate.

In the future please follow WP:AVOIDCOI and refrain from adding or removing information about the organizations you are involved with. Binksternet ( talk) 19:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I am not an activist. I am not an office holder in any pro-life organization nor do I draw a salary from any of them. You can't identify me as one and this attempt to call my character into question is very serious. You have no possible way of linking me with any tweet or any other contribution to a social networking site. I am drawing this to the attention of Wikipedia. Your attempt to identify or "out" me is sinister in the extreme, it is a violation of my privacy and I am interpreting it as a possible threat. Liamfoley ( talk) 10:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

The 
Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "User talk:Liamfoley". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. 
Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the 
request page, the 
formal mediation policy, and the 
guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 March 2012.

Hi, Thank you for taking the time to begin a request for arbitration. Unfortunately, what you had done needed a lot more work before it could be acted upon, so I've undone the request until such time as you can finish it: add a rationale, title, parties, notify them, etc.

On the other hand, it does look like your recent conflict is regarding the topic area of Abortion, which had an arbitration case six months ago. I would strongly recommend you review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion before proceeding, because unless there is evidence of novel dispute(s) presented that cannot be handled under the existing sanctions, your request will likely be declined. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 17:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not seeking arbitration for the actual subject per se, I'm seeking some help regarding the accusations of a conflict of interest and attempts to "out" me, I consider this intimidation and an encouragement to breach my privacy. Perhaps arbitration is not the right route to go, fair enough but I do need a way of bringing this to the attention of Wikipedia and if they are unable or refuse to look into this I will have to seek further counsel before I proceed. Liamfoley ( talk) 17:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Use 'email this user' to provide me with links to the harassment, including specific diffs if possible, and I'll do my best to help. For now, I would suggest avoiding the topic area until I've had a chance to look at things on your behalf. Cheers, Jclemens ( talk) 17:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I'll note that at this point I haven't received any of the evidence I requested of outing or other harassment. Jclemens ( talk) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abortion in the Republic of Ireland. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Do not resume edit warring on the same material that got you blocked before. Binksternet ( talk) 17:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violation of the 1RR restriction on abortion-related articles, as you did at Abortion in the Republic of Ireland. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Moved to: [ [1]]. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 18:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

This 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).

Liamfoley ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Still not certain what the problem is, I added a poll that had previously been deleted without reason, then I undid a revision that removed the poll. I now see form another message that I'm being investigated for sock puppetry. Because the words that were used by another editor were similar to mine. I do not claim to have an extensive vocabulary, none of the words that I use are totally unique or patented. If another editor used similar words! This is a problem that seems to be with ideologues who are spending time editing Wikipedia. In the last few days I've been accused of having a conflict of interest, i.e. my personal integrity has been questioned, now this. If you are confident that I am guilty produce the evidence. If not unblock me. Either way I don't really care, as far as I'm concerned at this stage Wikipedia and it's "professional" editors have no credibility. Liamfoley ( talk) 23:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

Clear and obvious violation of the 1RR restriction that the editor was aware of. There's no way around this one - the block is valid, and I see nothing in the unblock request that even attempts to address this in order to satisfy WP:GAB (although, to be honest, it's near impossible to beat a 1RR violation restriction block) ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 10:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

---

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There's a discussion going on at that article's talk page where it's been pretty much settled that the source is not reliable. As for the sockpuppet claim, you're not going to win this one. A brand new user shows up and makes the exact same arguments as you less than three hours after you reverted. Since the odds of you not being User:AliceGlenn are so slim, User:Kuru erred on the side of caution and blocked you for violating the 1-revert rule. City Of Silver 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't know what teh chances that a new user would turn up but even a very slim chance is not proof that it is me. The burden of proof lies with Wikipedia. While words are not unique ip addresses are, if Wikipedia wants to ban me then it is up to it's editors to produce irrefutable proof that I am AliceGlen This issue highlights a problem with Wikipedia, bullying, "outing" silencing of people that raise questions.) Liamfoley ( talk) 23:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

It's interesting that you agree that there is "a very slim chance" that you are not AliceGlenn. No, there is no burden of proof on the admin to prove irrefutably that you and AliceGlenn are the same person. The admin has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which Kuru did. Reasonable doubt is a lower standard than 100%. See WP:DUCK. City Of Silver 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

So editors get to make this decision? In the world of Wikipedia this may be good enough but not by any neutral standard. This goes to the credibility of Wikipedia issue. No evidence was produced or discussed, the decision was made by one editor and it just so happens to support a colleague. By any standard this is not credible and once again reflects poorly on the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of information or a source of information that can solve disputes. This is nothing more than censorship and abusing privileged as an editor/administrator in order to question the credibility of someone such as myself who is obviously an infrequent and inexperienced editor. Not just have I been censored through this banning, my integrity has been called into question and another editor has admitted that they have trawled through teh internet and tried to identify me, this is nothing more than an attempt to "out" me and intimidate me. In case you have any doubt I am now saying that I am not user AliceGlenn, I am not being one bit ambiguous. If you want to state clearly that I am, that I attempted to mislead and even lied then go ahead but be clear, you are now speaking for Wikipedia) Liamfoley ( talk) 23:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC) reply

One of Wikipedia's guidelines is assume good faith and an admin (I'm not one) might want to take that into consideration. City Of Silver 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

I can't help you with the sockpuppet claims; my block has nothing to do with that. You may not, however, continue to violate the 1RR restriction on that page. Your edit that "added" the poll again is reverting the previous actions on that page - your subsequent revert on that page just that. There is nothing ambiguous about this. I'm sorry that you feel collaborating with other editors is "censorship" and "abuse". You may want to limit yourself to discussion on the talk page of that article until you can take the time to read our policies on edit warring. Kuru (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity: Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch) Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity Free subscription to our informative newsletter Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve Join today!

I'm not really sure why I'm been invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity. Thanks for the invite, however, I don't consider Wikipedia a serious or reliable source of information therefore I'd rather not lend my name to this project. Wishing you well all the same.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply