User talk:75.3.2.96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Bobby Sands

Please stop adding the Catholics category. See Category:Roman Catholics, where it states that people should not be added simply because they were Catholics. One Night In Hackney303 19:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please stop, before you break the three revert rule. One Night In Hackney303 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Sands

No, he isn't a hero to all Irish Catholics, he's a hero to all Irish republicans. He is not notable for being a Catholic, it is tangential to his notability. One Night In Hackney303 19:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Bobby Sands

It is true that Bobby Sands was a Catholic. It is true that he was and is a hero to the Catholic people of Ireland. However, he is not famous for his Catholicism but for his Irish Republicanism; Irish Republicanism has always insisted that it is not sectarian and is totally inclusive of all Irish people. People should not be added to Roman Catholic categories unless it is their Catholicism which makes them notable. Sam Blacketer 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Judaism is different in that it is an ethnic group as well as a religion. There are frequent discussions at Categories for discussion on whether "random intersection" categories should be kept. Please don't accuse me of being racist towards the Irish. My mother's family is Irish which makes me as Irish as Seán Mac Stíofáin. Sam Blacketer 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

You have also been reported here for breaking the three revert rule. One Night In Hackney303 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. You may resume editing after the block expires, but further violations will result in longer blocks. Kafziel Talk 20:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2007

Ok, accusations like these are just not on. Please try to remain civil here, and assume good faith on the part of others. Consider this a warning regarding personal attacks against your fellow editors - Alison ☺ 00:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have to stop this

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors as you did to this talk page and if you continue to vandalize, I will report you to the administrator. 68.5.224.107 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack the other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 68.5.224.107 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please don't. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ☺ 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok - that's enough. You have had every opportunity to stop being so downright rude. You were repeatedly asked to stop by multiple editors. A page prot was requested a few days ago because of your revert warring, which I turned down (I got involved here because I patrol WP:RPP) because I felt you needed a second chance. You were given that and look what happened - Alison ☺ 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have been blocked from editing for my opposition to racism at wikipedia. 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I promoted no POV but only wanted to see the inclusion of facts that were troubling to some RACIST editors who insisted on keeping them out and supressing Irish history. 75.3.2.96 02:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I am Irish, as it happens - from Dublin. I had family incarcerated for their activities during the Easter Rising. As the notice says, you have been blocked for revert-warring, POV-pushing and incivility/personal insults. You are, of course, free to challenge this block with an {{unblock}} request but bear in mind that you've been reported to WP:ANI once already today - Alison ☺ 03:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish challenge the block.

The reason that I had to do what you claim to have blocked me for is because of the racism from certain members and the refusal for you or any other wikipedia admin to do anything to stop them. I was blocked for fighting racism. 75.3.2.96 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney's reasoning is illogical.

One Night In Hackney is not removing Jewish categories from people who are not notable for it. He is specifically sabotaging the pages of Irish Catholic Republicans.

There is only two reasons for Hackney to be doing what he is doing, ignorance or hate. I don't think One Night In Hackney is ignorant, though. He is clearly attempting to suppress Irish history because he hates Irish people especially those who stood up to England.

75.3.2.96 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I'm a member of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject and spend the majority of my time on Wikipedia creating and improving articles about Irish republicans. That makes sense doesn't it? One Night In Hackney303 20:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't improve them, you sabotage them. Why do you wish to remove factual content from the articles? The fact that you think removing relevant content from an article is an improvement really shows how senseless you are.

A racist Irish-hating bigot like you should not be allowed to edit any articles about Irish Republicans. 75.3.2.96 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is proof of sabotage, you removed Catholic from the Paddy Quinn article, that he was born into a Catholic family. His family is as Catholic as they are Republican, yet you remove it.

And you are trying to apply a standard to articles of Irish Republicans that is applied nowhere else on wikipedia. And you haven't given any reason why Bobby Sands should not be in the Irish Roman Catholics category other than it being your opinion that he was not notable for being a Catholic.

You are removing facts from articles not because you are ignorant, but because you are filled with hate.

If your standard for Bobby Sands to not belong in a Catholic category is followed for all religious categories and all people, you'd have to totally do away with the categories by religion because no one would qualify for them. Yet, we don't see you removing religion categories from any other people, only Irish Catholic Republicans. 75.3.2.96 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Who's Booby Sands?? :-D - Alison ☺ 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "A racist Irish-hating bigot" - y'know, you've done enough of this name-calling for today. I'm extending your block for 24 hours and restoring the messages you're persistently deleting here. Blank this page again and I'll protect it - Alison ☺ 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alison, why don't you give Hackney a warning for removing factual and relevant content because it does not fit the POV he wants to get across. Huh? Why don't you warn him? Is it acceptable to just remove any content you see on wikipedia that does not fit a person's POV (in Hackney's case, a racist POV). 75.3.2.96 20:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Your accusations and name-calling are unproductive, unwarranted and vexatious. And you know it. Taunts of racism are a pretty serious matter, far as I'm concerned. Hackney wasn't revert-warring, Hackney wasn't adding POV to articles. Hackney wasn't bad-mouthing other editors. QED - Alison ☺ 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sabotaging articles is fine, name calling is forbidden. So when my ban is up, Alison, you won't have a problem if I remove categories from various articles even if they belong? It'll be okay as long as I don't do any name calling? GET SOME SENSE, ALISON. 75.3.2.96 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ALISON, This is not how you do it.

If someone posts a comment and then decides to remove them after they post them, just leave them removed, you do not have to readd them, a person may decide after they make a post that they don't want to make it. I have seen admin do this many times, post comments, and then take them down. If I am breaking a rule by removing comments right after posting them, then so do many admins. Go after them, not me. But I am probably not breaking a rule, you are probably just a new admin.

Alison, you must be a very cruel person, to see that someone puts up a personal attack, and then a few minutes later decides to take it down and no one has responded to it, and then you come and put it back up again. I decided that I did not want to personally attack anyone, so I removed it, and then I guess you thought that person deserved to be personally attacked and readded my comments. I am referring to the talk page of Fred Hoyle. This was very cruel of you to do and very uncommon wikipedia practice. But I guess you were just looking for a reason to ban anyone that isn't loyal to your queen, you traitor. 75.3.2.96 20:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • This is not your talk page. You do not own this IP address. Those comments and warnings are there for a reason. "But I guess you were just looking for a reason to ban anyone that isn't loyal to your queen, you traitor." - this marks you as a troll, plain and simple. Personal attacks, based on absolutely nothing. I'm now semi-protecting this page against your time-wasting name-calling. If you wish to contest your block, please send an email to "unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org" - Alison ☺ 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)