User talk:75.32.36.79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:One Night In Hackney and Domer are both using wikipedia to make a point by reverting edits I made to articles on subjects they have no knowledge about, they only wish to remove additions I made.

Alison, can you please explain to me why Catholics are the only group singled out by Wikipedia to have to have special circumstances for categories to be created about them? Whenever I ask this question, people like Domer will usually just make the claim that it's a personal attack. Anyone that notices the guidance Domer is trying to add to Catholic categories and how he will remove relevant categories from pages will see that he is clearly biased against a certain group. Why is it that admins allow his bias to spread across wikipedia? Why is nothing done to stop him from giving wikipedia a prejudice bias? 75.32.36.79 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

First point; you're the Bobby Sands guy[1] from earlier this year. This I know. You were perpetrating the same disruption back then and were repeatedly blocked back then, too. Please try to assume a certain good faith on the part of your fellow-editors. Both ONiH and Domer are reasonably knowledgeable, far as I can see. - Alison ❤ 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't answer why Wikipedia is allowing a bias against one group but no one else.

On the parent Category:Roman Catholics it has the following guidance “Members of the Roman Catholic Church, either past or present for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related their notability”. The Category:Irish Roman Catholics, is a subcategory of Category:Roman Catholics, therefore the guidance would be the same. I did not add this guidance to Category:Roman Catholics. In addition I have warned you about your personal attacks, and tried to be reasonable about it too. Now I discover you have been doing this before! Thanks Alison. --Domer48 08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domer, can you help me?

I was about to leave a comment on your talk page when I found out I was blocked. The comment was asking for help, now that I am blocked, I will need your help even more.

A user is removing a comment I left on his talk page at User talk:One Night In Hackney. I made an edit with the same purpose as your edits, to remove categories that do not make people notable. I removed the category, he readded it, I commented on his talk page, he removed it, I put it back, he removed it again. Could you exlpain to him how categories and notability works? I would really appreciate it. I am willing to work with you on your goal as long as you apply your reasoning consistently to all categories. Thank you. 75.32.36.79 22:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Category talk:Irish Roman Catholics

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Domer48 08:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Domer48 08:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Domer48 22:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To edit, please log in.

Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, please contact unblock-en-l for assistance. If possible, please use an email address issued by your ISP or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Comments: Putting a halt to pointless disruption.

Rklawton 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Back again, I see, and still attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make your point. Please don't do this, and please stop making personal attacks on other editors. Note that the category you are warring over is only for those " for whom their membership was or is a defining characteristic or related their notability", regardless of your unilateral attempts to change it (yet again) - Alison ❤ 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

As I type this, it turns out that you've now been blocked for disruption. When your block expires, please bear in mind what I have been saying here - Alison ❤ 22:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Alison, thank you for your help, but I must let you know that the guidance did not apply to the category we had the disagreement over. The official guidance I was presented with by Domer applied to religious beliefs, not membership in religion. As I said on the talk page at the category, that guidance would be valid in an Irish Thomist or Irish Theist page, but it did not apply to Irish Roman Catholics because that category is about membership and not individual religious beliefs like theism/atheism or thomism or calvinism. 75.32.36.79 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how adding a valid category to someone's page is trying to make a point, it's just trying to include useful information in an encyclopedia. If this is not the policy of wikipedia, then fine, it should be applied to all categories, not just certain ethnic groups. 75.32.36.79 22:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to view the criteria for inclusion carefully. It's been repeatedly pointed out to you already, but you are ignoring this. I pointed it out again, above, but you've ignored me, too. Indeed, you've already repeatedly tried to unilaterally change the criteria today [2][3][4] so I know you're aware of them yet disagree. These things are decided upon through a process of dialogue, debate and compromise, not through revert-warring as you have been doing - Alison ❤ 00:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion that I disagreed with was the one Domer was trying to add. I did not disagree with the criteria that was presented to me as official. I have said that if the category were about personal beliefs, then I agree. This category is about membership, not beliefs. Please respond to this point: People hold membership in a religion the same way they hold citizenship in a country.

I also never encounter any of this bias or inclusion rules being added to any other ethnic groups. There is a specific group being targeted here and wikipedia should stop it.

Another important point is: Whether or not a person's religion is a notable characteristic for a person is hard to determine, it will come down to an individual editor's opinion. Isn't it just simplier to include everyone that is actually a member instead of deciding who is notable for it and who isn't. Why isn't who qualifies for any nationality category done like that? If someone is to be put in an American category, then they should have to be notable for being an American, who would be able to determine that? The inclusion rule applied to Catholics is subjective and it makes way for people like Domer to remove it from any article. 75.32.36.79 00:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)