User talk:Dominick/Archive3

Random

Hi Dominick, here's the confirm, --Isolani 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

Hi, Dominick. On your user page you say, "I often like to look at NPOV-challenged articles, where secondary activist sources imagine they are primary players, to make pronouncements which are not factual." This description would seem to fit the LaRouche article to a tee. I appreciate your interest in it; I am presently banned from editing it, due to previous disagreements with Chip Berlet (User:Cberlet), whose POV is preferred over mine by the present members of the ArbCom. Unfortunately, your changes in the intro have provoked a reaction from Cberlet and his ally, Adam Carr. The intro was probably better off as it was, where the critics were identified, and balanced with a quote from Gene McCarthy. --HK 15:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Hey - good to meet you at the St Petersburg Meetup - not being versed in the dialectic tradition - other than law school :) - I am not sure if your comment to me is a compliment or not. I know I just laid out the issues but made no edit - I just didn't have time yet and wanted to give some suggestions before I got a chance to add to the article Trödel•talk 19:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hey I'm not sure where you are - I've been absent a bit, but I wanted to let you know that I've expended 3 of my reverts on the Fetal Pain article keeping a link mislabeled as a shock site up, but have run out. I also started a discussion which no one takes in account...I hope you'll look it over and re-add the link if you feel it's the right thing to do. Chooserr 01:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things poeple wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Florida

Since you are a member of WikiProject Florida, could you please help review and improve the article for Tallahassee, Florida? I posted the request for expansion and I feel that this article is a little short for a capital city article. Thanks, Krashlandon (e) 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Safe Sex"

The IP 64.12.116.198 has reverted my contributions to the "Safe Sex" article, most of which were an attempt to make it more neutral and get it away from the whole "Use a condom" stance. If you could look it over, and revert it if necessary it would be most appreciated. Chooserr 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiprojects Catholicism

Something new ...

This user is a member of
WikiProject Catholicism.

evrik 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Morning, Dom.

If you are interested, I would like to get a broader conversation started on the CC vs. CC issue over on the Catholicism 101, in part to get other editors into the conv. and in part to rejuvenate Catholicism 101 which has fallen into disuse from what I can tell. Here isthe link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Terminology. Thanks for all your work on WP. --Vaquero100 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Something new as well

USFThis user attends or has attended
the University of South Florida.
Go Bulls!

Mike H. That's hot 00:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

New Catholic Collaboration of the Week!

You showed support for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Remember that voting to support an article implies a commitment to contribute to the article. This week Catholic social teaching was selected to be improved. We hope you can contribute!

I just wanted to make you aware of the new Catholic Collaboration of the Week, and invite you to participate! --Hyphen5 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Medjugorje

Dominick, I've run out of patience with your endless inconsiderate editing of the pages on the subject of Medugorje Medugorje. You have reached the point of being a vandal in your treatment of others' input. Please show more respect for other users of Wikipedia, and exercise more objectivity and honesty. You do not own Wikipedia, stop behaving as if you do. Or I shall lodge an official complaint against you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngc3532 (talk • contribs)

go for it, if that what you think you need to do. I am afraid you are making a bad assumption here. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fisheaters

I'm having problems adding this link,[http://fisheaters dot com/saintsart.html Symbols of the Saints in Art], back to this page, en:Saint symbology. I don't see why it was classed as spam. -- evrik 19:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Creeds and Symbols

Hi, I love the New Catholic Encyclopedia, and I do not want to contradict it in any way. I think that NCE supports what Kelly says. Could you take a look at the article I put in on the Old Roman Symbol? In a way I think that one could say that the Old Roman Symbol is really the Apostles' Creed. It is dated almost into the first century. Kindest regards from a fellow "catholic" drboisclair 17:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate your help Wikifying the Old Roman Symbol article. I am still learning all the ins and outs of the Wikipedia world. drboisclair 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

USF bomb shelters?

I just noticed your post on the talk page for the USF article about the "Spelunkers Club." I'm a current student at USF and I must also admit that I'm a fan of Urban Exploration, so this is of interest to me. I'll add any information you give me to the article. Thanks!--Lwieise -=- Talk to Me 03:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler article

Please revert your last edit. See the discussion. The two sentences I added were made by the source. They are the final two sentences of that quote, and where omitted by Bytwerk. That quote is the final in a chapter conclusion, and the last two sentences are the last two sentences in the author's conclusion. Those sentences are his, not mine. Drogo Underburrow 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war on the saints

It was the established operation of the WikiProject Saints to have a section in the info box on a sample prayer. Some editors have been recently been attacking this in the individual articles.

It is my belief that prayers in a literary or historic context are NPOV. I can understand that some may consider the inclusion of a prayer to be hagiographic, but freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

There is a 3RR about to happen on a number of these articles. I am trying to be philosophical about this, but don’t want to yield the point when what is happening goes against the consensus and borders on vandalism.

It is my understanding that if an editing disagreement occurs that the status quo, in this case leaving the prayers in place, holds until it is resolved. I encourage you to comment on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints. I have posted my thoughts at the village pump.

--evrik 15:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Swedish allotment system

When fighting against vandals, please kindly check carefully in order not to revert useful edits. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.186.14 (talk • contribs)

Don't put edits over vandalism. This was not hard to find. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly resist your following allegation: "your edits may or may not have been vandalism". Any editor at least a bit familiar with the topic would have known them to be no vandalism. Again, I request you kindly check carefully before simultaneously reverting useful edits - as you yourself just pointed, the actual vandalism was not hard to find, and you found it because you were looking for it - as contrary to me since I was adding content, not suspecting vandalism at that time.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.186.14 (talk • contribs)

Christian Wiki

Hi,

Just wanted to let you know about a christianity wiki that was recently started and has now moved to it's own server. Because you are Catholic, I think you would be a valuable member of our team and I'd love to have your contributions.

We are just about ready to go live!

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please take a look and see if this project is something you would like to get behind. the URL is: ChristWiki

-- nsandwich 04:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Traditionalist Catholic

Sorry. I do not think there is anything I can do in that matter that you cannot do better. Lima 10:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fourteenth century" means the 1300s, "sixteenth" the 1500s. Though I am confident you would recognize my reasoning and not be offended, I do not want to correct your reversal, because the paragraph in question needs more rewriting than just that, and I do not feel I have the time just now. Lima 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your tabula rasa move is proving to have been wise. Congratulations and thanks. Lima 18:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Any responses for the Medjugorje page belong there. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hitler article

No one is making attacks on Catholicism when they say Hitler was a member of the Catholic church, so don't take it that way. Please don't erase my edits anymore, they were sourced. Эйрон Кинни (t) 01:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the stame thing. Also your edit summary is false. You say "rv to consensus version." That is NOT the consensus version. Its being pushing by Str1977 (backed by ML). All other editors support the version you removed,which is the more balanced and well sourced version. Dont remove sourced material, please. We are here not to push a POV but only report who said what. I find it very disturbing that only the Catholic editors are pushing this POV by suppressing the facts of Hitlers religous beliefs. MikaM 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Pet Frog

Re: Pet frog, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, point 8. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

From his talk page:

Working on the article, I recovered it from a revert, and it is becoming an actual article. Thanks. Look it over and help out. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just fear that after the how-to material is gone, there won't be anything left. I'll take a look tomorrow, though. Good luck with it. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

From his talk page:

Well a certain amount of "how to" is acceptable, this is about frogs and keeping frogs. Look at Marine aquarium, after we add a chunk of information this can be a pretty decent article. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article, the arrest, please read the Talk pages!

Hi,

We have/had a long discussion about the part of the trial. It seems that you have not participated in such a discussion, at least I have not seen any contributions of yours. I don't want to start an edit war but please do not undo editing without consulting the Talk pages. That sentence is POV, I will not repeat the argument here. Oub 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC):

I.S.

• Could you look at my last couple of additions here. --evrik 19:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Good job with the warnings, I'll keep an eye on that user's contribs if you think it will help. Kaisershatner 20:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Listcruft/songcruft

Hi, I noticed your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics and ask you to visit a new discussion I have started, User:DGX/listcruft, about similar articles. Thank you! DGX 22:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in User:DGX/listcruft. The descision has been posted. Thanks again! DGX 13:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexican hate groups

Hi Dominick, I am trying to get a consensus on this page. Right now it looks as thought the AFD will fail, as some want to delete and some wish to merge (thus no consensus). I see the content as being clearly POV, but not everyone does. Can you take a quick look at this page again and expand upon you comments. I would like to see either an outright delete, or a merge, but right now we are headed towards neither. Thanks much Brimba 15:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the expanded comment:) I changed my own vote to this: "I will change my vote to from Delete to Merge. I see the content as being extremely POV, however that does not seem to be the consensus, and I do wish to see some sort of consensus." Thanks again, Brimba 15:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Humm, had to change my vote again after what you placed on my talk page. I am so use to seeing Penam writing horribly one sided stuff, it never accrued me he may be correct once in a while, or that he might use a valid source. Thanks for the clarification. Brimba 15:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Thought I was alone. But how could that be with a billion of us. Keep the fairth, brother. Vaq.

"True colors"

My only difficulty with you with regard to the subject at hand is that not only cannot you understand that an alternative viewpoint exists, but that one even can exist. You need to be aware that the facts you're insisting on are by no means universally agreed upon. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotect Benedict?

Hi, Dominick. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. Did you mean Pope Benedict XVI or Early life of Pope Benedict XVI? They've both suffered a bit of vandalism from IPs, but probably not enough to justify semiprotection. I'll keep an eye on both. I originally didn't have Early life on my watchlist. I think I just went there the first time because I was following an IP (probably the one you're thinking of) who was engaging in borerline vandalism. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 09:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Saint's Star Award

For outstanding contributions to Catholicism pages on Wikipedia. God Bless you in your efforts! MamaGeek Joy 14:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Time for a 3R at Miracles at Lourdes?

Can something be done about what is going on at Miracles at Lourdes? Isn't it time for a 3R or something? Because she keeps putting that stuff back in. She accuses "Catholics" of putting stuff back in. Even practicing Catholics don't necessarily just believe everything they're told (Jesuits) and I am a very, very lapsed Catholic with serious issues with the Church on birth control, the molestation thing, priests marrying, and female clergy. But try telling her that. I wouldn't mind straightforward "criticism" or a list of some of the issues that were brought up at the Commission, but her writing is extremely unprofessional, un-scholarly, and gives a very POV flavor. --Bluejay Young 08:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to be patient, but enough is enough. Mediation requested. --Bluejay Young 00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Greyhawk deities

Please see the talk page. Let me know if you have any specific questions regarding this matter.--Robbstrd 22:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder to go vote by June 7 for the Catholic Collaboration of the Week. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.

Early Christianity

In a matter of hours, I leave on a journey of just a couple of days. Perhaps you would like to keep an eye on Early Christianity. Lima 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote in progress to move Counter-Reformation to Catholic Reformation

This move makes sense because Counter-Reformation implies that that the movement was against reform. Rather as a reform movement within the Catholic Church, it is most precisely known as the Catholic Reformation. This is now the more favored term in academic theological circles.

Please stop by talk:Counter-Reformation for the vote. Thanks, --Vaquero100 19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment

Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. —Mira 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

INC WikiProject

I'm sending this to you as you've edited the Iglesia ni Cristo article substantially. As coverage of INC at Wikipedia continues to grow, and the need to make sure related articles are held at a high standard of Wikipedia article quality, I've proposed a new WikiProject dedicated to INC. If you're interested, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects#WikiProject_Iglesia_ni_Cristo and sign your name. A temporary example of what the project page will look like is at my userspace. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 09:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote!

This is a reminder to go vote for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration. Current nominations:

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 03:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the Catholic Collaboration Effort. Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration. Current nominations:

Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 12:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

U2B

U2B seems to be back again as an anonymous editor. Three reverts in a day must be avoided. Lima 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Saints infobox

That was NOT a helpful contribution. Spondoolicks 22:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispensationalism

Why do you keep reverting to the old "4 basic tenets" on the dispensationalism page? It is not an accurate description of dispensationalist theology. See "21 The four basic tenets" on the talk page. Lamorak 14:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you help?

There's a Request for Comment at Talk:Opus Dei.

After going through the process which led up to mediation (here), a mediation that resolved that the majority POV is the view of experts such as John Allen, Jr. and Benedict XVI, the main opponent of the article replaced the old article with his own personal version, and then asked for an Request for Comment.

Kindly give your comment. Please. :) Thanks and God bless. Arturo Cruz 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei

Dominick-- thanks from coming to help out at the Opus Dei article. I greatly appreciate it-- we need all the eyeballs we can get. I wasn't totally sure what you were asking in your post on the talk page, but I took a stab at answering it, but don't hestitate to ask for more examples if I wasn't totally clear or didn't exactly get to the heart of what you were asking.

Also, let me especially ask your opinion on one thing, since I see you're a very active member of Wikiproject Catholicism. Do you know of any good images on Wikipedia of His Holiness John Paul II, alone, circa 1982? RIght now, we're using this one, which is a beautiful image to be sure, but it's from 1997, and not quite the same as the image of the energetic People's Pope who made Opus Dei the first and only personal prelature in 1982. I'm been looking around Wikipedia for a good one of him from that era, but I haven't found one. Do you know of any? There are of course lots of good images OFF wikipedia, but I wouldn't even begin to know how too look off-wikipedia for one that complies with whatever copyright restrictions we have to go by.

On a side note, my brother is the Grand Knight for his council so.. small world! :) --Alecmconroy 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Moritification in OD

Thank you SO much for your help in going over the citations for the article. Between all of us, we've got an excellent shot at FAC, and there is nothing in all of wikipedia I find more rewarding than that. I'll talk about all the directly article-related stuff on article talk page, but as to whether the issue itself about mortification in Opus Dei-- the answer is yes, they do choose to do some limited, safe forms of mortifcation as a way to offer their suffering up to God. I don't think there any controvesy about that-- i.e. that isn't just something the ODAN-types say. The Opus Dei website briefly touches on this[1], but for fuller descriptions you need to go to sources like the news reports or Allen's excellent book on Opus Dei.

You mention that the member of Opus Dei you know don't perform flagellation-- this doesn't surprise me, since that is a practice which I believe is mainly/exclusivey performed by the numerary members of Opus Dei. And in my experience, even the numerary members I've spoken with tend to be humble and private about the practice-- not needing to bring it up or brag about it or anything-- prefering instead to keep it between themselves and God, as a private sacrifice done for Him.

I'll look for some more citations on that subject, but I don't think saying that some OD members practice mortification is particularly controversial. Mortification has a long history within the Church, and has been used by many notable saints throughout history. It's really not unlike the sorts of penance one performs after the sacrament of confession or the typical sacrifices on performs during the observance of Lent.

What is controversial, however, is to claim that OD's practice of mortification is somehow "wrong" or "bad". Certainly, that is the opinion of some, and while we must make a mention of that POV, we need not treat it as anything but an opinion.

Anyway, I'll get back to finding better citations. :) Thanks again for helping out. --Alecmconroy 03:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Diocesan Infobox

To the members of the WikiProject Catholocism

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!