User talk:75.3.28.188

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 75.3.28.188, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -Severa (!!!) 08:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion and abortion

Hello, 75.3.28.188.

I saw your recent edit on Religion and abortion and read your posts on Andrew c's talk page. One of the central policies of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV, or neutral point of view, which in a nutshell states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."

I visited both of the links which you removed from the "Religious groups supporting abortion rights" section on Religion and abortion. You stated, in your edit summary, that Catholics for a Free Choice is "not an actual religious group." However, on the "About Us" page of the group's official website, it states:

"Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) was founded in 1973 to serve as a voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health."

The "About Us" page of California Catholics for Free Choice, which you also removed, states:

"We are Catholics who believe that all women have the right to make their own moral decisions about abortion."

Members of both groups self-identify as Catholics, and, under NPOV, we take them at their word. It is not Wikipedia's place to comment on whether Christians who support abortion are "good Christians" no more than it is our place to judge whether members of Feminists for Life count as "true feminists."

-Severa (!!!) 09:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Severa above. Also, you wrote to me The article is confusing Christian idealogy like social justice with people who believe in Christianity but are not good Christians like people that support abortion. The last part is clearly just your personal POV. Because of NPOV, wikipedia cannot flat out state that you are not a good Christian if you support abortion. While some people may believe that, and it may be The Truth, wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth. If we have conflicting POV, we can qualify and substantiate statements by saying who holds what view. But we cannot take sides and say one side is wrong. If a group identifies as Catholic, we can include that other Catholics don't consider then "true" Catholics, but we cannot simply remove info because you think they aren't a religious organization. Same thing for pro-choice information in an article about the Christin left. Thank you for contacting me concerning this dispute, and I hope we can work it out. A good thing to do instead of blanking or removing content is to simply improve it, by making it more balanced, or removing non-neutral words or weasel words, impoving grammar, etc.--Andrew c 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT states that Wikipedia is not a "discussion forum" or a "soapbox." That means, basically, that it isn't a place to discuss which point of view (POV) is correct, or to try to promote any POV as being correct. We're not saying that you're wrong, or that you're right, only that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate your position, or my position, or Andrew C's position. We remain neutral, present the facts, and don't take sides. Can you imagine if I edited the article for Kelly Osbourne to dismiss the fact that Osbourne is a singer? I feel very strongly that her vocal talents are questionable, but this is just my opinion, and my opinion of anything shouldn't form the basis for how I edit articles. Sure, I could edit the article to include quotes from critics who dismiss her work, but I couldn't add, "Kelly Osbourne is not a singer." You can edit Religion and abortion to note the fact that the Roman Catholic Church holds the pro-choice belief to be inconsistent with its doctrine. But it would be POV to assert that pro-choice people who identify as Catholic or any other Christian denomination aren't Christian. Removing the links, on the basis that you did, was editorializing. It was presenting one point of view as being absolutely correct — thus it was taking sides, and not NPOV. Wikipedia is written to be inclusive of many POVs. We don't write an article so that it suggests any point of view is the right one or the correct one. We don't suggest that a member of Feminists for Life isn't a "true feminist" because support for feminism is often perceived as being dependent upon support of reproductive rights. We don't comment on whether a Islamic women who doesn't wear a hijab is a "good Muslim," on whether a Jewish person who has reservations about Israel's role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a "good Jew," on whether an atheist who prays or believes in angels is a "good atheist," or on whether a Catholic who supports abortion is a "good Christian." -Severa (!!!) 23:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can a feminist be a true feminist if she pro-choice and doesn't support basic human rights? 75.3.28.188 02:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pronouncements of faith are not comparable to legal citizenship. They are more like declarations of nationalism. One needs a piece of paper to make them a U.S. citizen, but, how do you determine whether someone is an "American?" People will profess adherance to a system of belief regardless of whether the established institution disapproves of them (see Free Zone (Scientology)). We note the controversy, but don't take sides, because that would be POV. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It isn't a place to debate which point of view is correct. The fact is that a number of the edits you have made suggest that you aren't familiar with NPOV. Please familiarize yourself with NPOV and take it into consideration when making future edits. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 20:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page conduct

Please do not alter my comments as you did in this edit. It is against our Talk page guidelines because it is considered rude to put or take words out of someone else's mouth. -Severa (!!!) 22:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing warnings

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You are welcome to archive your talk page. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 09:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

When a new editor comes to Wikipedia, they don't have a User page or a User Talk page. I clicked your IP in the page history of "Religion and abortion" and added the {{Welcome}} template. Unfortunately, I must have clicked the wrong tab, and posted the message to your User page instead. I'm sorry for the mistake. The problem has been fixed and now you can edit your User page as you like. If you had been familiar with the difference between User pages and User Talk pages before today I'm sure you would've moved it yourself, but, seeing as it was my slip-up, I thought I'd set it straight. Wikipedia policy isn't invalidated by this mistake, however, so it doesn't make editing another user's comment okay or invalidate legitimate policy reminders. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia, and, not being familiar with Wikipedia policies, probably didn't intend to trangress policy, but please keep policy in mind in the future. I don't mean to single you out; I am not the only user who has reverted your edits to Religion and abortion on the basis of neutrality (see "Revision as of 01:31, 12 November 2006" by 67.117.145.72 and "Revision as of 05:59, 11 November 2006" by Andrew c). -Severa (!!!) 21:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proceed with caution

Having noticed the recent series of edits (and reverts) at Religion and abortion I intended to offer some helpful tips and (hopefully) useful insights about WP. I noticed two things however. First, Severa has already offered better advice, and phrased it with both more eloquence and greater patience than I could probably muster. I also noticed that your most recent edit was to nominate Christian left for deletion. Given the edits that you've made so far, the content and tenor of your edit summaries, and your response to Severa, I have some difficulty accepting this as a good faith nomination on your part. You have been offered access to WP's policies and guidelines, and you were pointed explicitly to WP:NOT in order to undersatnd that wikipedia is not a soapbox, not a forum for you to discuss your beliefs or pass judgement on others. While I don't want to bite a newcomer, I strongly urge you to proceed with caution and consider your actions carefully. We welcome anyone who is interested in contributing to this project, but I want to warn you clearly and plainly, that tenditous editing or disrupting WP to make a point, will sooner or later result in your account being blocked. Please, review the links that you've been given and try to understand not only the "letter of the law", but the spirit in which it is written. This is a collaborative project, and as editors we work together to write the best articles we can. I hope that you'll join us and work with us towards that end. Respectfully, Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to read my post, it's clear you didn't understand it. The rants you posted on my talkpage are ludicrous; their content is absurd, and their tone unacceptable. I will repeat that this is NOT your soapbox, you do NOT get to pass judgement on others here, and you most certainly DO NOT issue ultimatums to other editors. Epecially on my damn talkpage! There may be editors capable of patience with such foolishness, but I am not one of them. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: It is not acceptable to remove comments from another editor's takpage, not even your own comments. Do not move, or remove comments on my talkpage again. You are coming very close to behaviour that can result in blocking. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 00:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would politely request that you not create multiple threads on my Talk page or the Talk page's of other users. It clutters the Talk page and makes discussion hard to follow. Please try to restrict your comments to one or two topical threads. Also, it's not civil to post messages on my Talk page demanding that I respond to you. I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and, I choose to delegate the time I do dedicate to Wikipedia to many things.
The Catholic Church has the right to excommunicate people and consider them not to be Catholic. The Church of Scientology has the right to claim that Free Zoners aren't Scientologists. No one is claiming that these organizations do no have the right to set their own standard of membership and enforce it for their own purposes. However, whether Wikipedia must also be beholden to observe these standards is open to debate, especially given NPOV. Argument from authority is just one logical fallacy that doesn't carry much weight around here.
The Religion and abortion article already notes: "Catholics who procure or participate in an abortion suffer ipso facto latae sententiae (automatic, literally by that very fact the sentence is incurred) excommunication under Canon law, provided that the person knows of the penalty at the time the abortion occurs."
Wikipedia welcomes editors of all stripes. If you've got a strong interest in Catholicism and seeing that Catholic interests are correctly represented on Wikipedia, I'd recommend checking out WikiProject Catholicism. However, some of your recent actions as an editor need to be addressed. Your nomination of Christian left for AfD cannot be seen as having been done in good faith. It don't mean to toss out threats as you did here but it is this sort of disruptive behavior that can lead to mediation or discipline. These are things that are best avoided through trying to resolve disputes through discussion. Thanks, -Severa (!!!) 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

You have been edit warring on Religion and abortion - try making your case on the talk page and gaining consensus before making any further edits to that article. Your approach has been to revert and war; this is not productive. Please see WP:EW and WP:3RR for policies you are close to violating. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/5/2E/User_talk%7E75.3.28.188.html"