User talk:Dominus Vobisdu/Archive 2

RfM
I, too, am shocked by the way the RfM was closed. However, let it rest for a few days until cooler heads prevail and we have time to formulate clear responses. I'm still mulling over mine. Meanwhile, we can use your input on Talk:Wedge strategy. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm too disillusioned with the way that RM closed to really continue editing here in a seriously involved matter. Thank you for the invitation but from here on out I don't plan on spending much time doing much but reverting vandalism and obvious factual errors.  Good luck with the dispute, I hope it goes better than GCN.  N o f o rmation  Talk  09:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem
Please self revert you last edits - Jerusalem is subject to WP:1RR sanctions. Anyway, if you want to start making major changes to the lead you need to start a discussion first. The Saint Helena point has already been discussed at length - her visit was the starting point for the veneration of the city by christians. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - saw your revert. Please also revert your second edit as well and start a discussion re Helena if you feel strongly? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Exodus
Hi Dominus and welcome to Wikipedia. Couldn't help but notice your baseless "revert" at The Exodus article with your misplaced comment that "When discusssing history, we use academic viewpoint" since this topic is important to three RELIGIONS: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The main record has always been and remains the Hebrew Bible particularly the Pentateuch. Not sure how much you are familiar with these religions, their beliefs and the religious texts that have recorded the events of the Exodus from the time it happened over 3,300 years ago until the present. Sure the category of "history" includes everything, but then again so does the category of "religion" and as long as articles are written from a NPOV with relevant sources, you cannot dismiss a so-called religious POV because it clashes with a secular POV since WP includes ALL POVs. Thanks for your understanding and feel free to ask anything you like about Judaism at WP:JUDAISM and someone will try to help you. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus' Crucifixion
You have reverted an edit I made regarding the date of Jesus' death []. You have left intact the year as being 33 C.E and removed the date of Friday, April 3rd. The issue with this is that it is a scientific fact that the Jewish calendar date of Nisan 14, the date of the Passover and the day that Jesus was put to death, corresponds with Friday, April 3rd in the year 33 C.E. and could only be a different day if the death occurred in a different year. However, astrological data points to the year 33 C.E. as being the year of Jesus' death, and this has been the conclusion of several researchers on the subject and not just Newton alone, who by the way came up with two different years and put forth 34 C.E. as his "chosen" date, due to his religious convictions. Therefore the date of Friday, April 3rd has gained wide support as the actual day of Jesus crucifixion because it has scientific backing as well as fitting into the biblical timeline. I therefore request you restore the date or at least discuss it in talk before arbitrarily removing it. Willietell (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The year in which the crucifiction happened is far from settled, and the date of 33 CE is purely speculative and only accepted as an approximate date by most scholars, and only then with a wide margin of error. Dating it to a particular day is even more specuative, and does not have any scientific backing at all. The scientific consensus is "insufficient data". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to tell you this, but you are misinformed, perhaps a little more research will help you to become better informed on this particular subject...perhaps reading the cited source from 1991 will aid you in this endeavor. Willietell (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on New Testament Christian Churches of America‎. 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: 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.
 * 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.

You should feed on this. Where are your talk page comments??? --ER 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

Cheers, Dominus (: Be— —Critical  23:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Straight Pride
Stop reverting. If I see another revert from you, I'll block you myself - you've made far too many over the past day or so. Discussion is happening on the talk page, just let it progress. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Dominus. Thanks for your counsel on my talk page. When my day ends, I will study it. I am pleased that we have entered into a rather substantial discussion on the Straight Pride talk page. There is another editor who has agreed to be like a mentor to me. (As you have as well.) He has agreed to look over the discussions at Straight Pride and provide some counsel, mainly to help me think further. He has asked for a few days to examine the discussions. Let's agree to not make major changes to the article for at least a week or so. Thanks for your help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban
Heya, at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents you have raised the issue of a topic ban. I have also requested an interaction ban on Yrc from interacting with me, as he has been warned previously about harassing myself when was editing under Off2riorob. So there is the harassment issue to take into consideration, and I think an interaction ban on my self is warranted in the circumstances. Could you please take a look at my request at the above, undoubtedly you will see it anyway, just wanted to give you a heads up as you have commented there already. Cheers, Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 04:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Coordinated_voting_by_Fringe_Theories.2FNetwork_participants_in_AfD_and_other_debates".The discussion is about the topic Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Network participants in AfD and other debates. Thank you.—Romulanius (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AAH
Understand that you don't mean to attack anyone. What I really want to verify, as one who studies AAH's history and reception, is whether it's still considered a fringe or has entered the stage of proto-science. Apparently WP is not the right place for this, or the question itself is meaningless except in a retrospective sense. Anyway thanks for your comments :) Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 16:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda discussion
Hi Dominus, my rationale for involving you in this discussion is your past offer to help me think about issues. We are having an interesting discussion re: the Joyce Banda article and cited sources. You will find on the talk page a section examining one of the sources used. Your input is of interest to me. We have often differed on matters and that is more reason why I am interested in your thoughts. :)    DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

the Earth
You've got to be kidding: "Moon" and "Sun" are not proper names and therefore we do not capitalise them unless they are at the beginning of a sentence. So yes indeed we do say "the moon" and "the sun" but we only incorrectly say "the Earth". "Earth" is a proper name when it refers to the planet Earth and therefore it is capitalised and not to be preceded by the definite article. We do not say "the Mars" or the Jupiter. Sheesh! Mfhiller (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I'm not sure that I understand the source of your complaints regarding my recent posts regarding the word "Earth" in relation to the Creation/ Evolution Controversy. Yes I have tried to change "the Earth" to "Earth" several times but given that it has met objections I took my concerns to the Talk page. Your most recent response is upsetting given that you accuse me of not understanding English. It is a pretty strange accusation given that I was directly quoting from The Chicago Manual of Style - is that what you are calling BS? In any case I thought I should raise this with you first before I make a formal complaint. Mfhiller (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
 * No response? I am going to go ahead and undo your arbitrary closing of the "Earth/ the Earth" talk on the basis that you chose to exclude a scholarly source as BS. This is not how, since at least the pre-Socratics, one goes about winning an argument. Mfhiller (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about my editing. All edits are made in good faith... I'm new to Wikipedia and, yes, have pushed some limits. I'll apologise now just once (and yes the word "apologise" can be spelled with an "s"). Let me say one thing regarding my choice of, as you call them, controversial subjects: I'm not looking for a fight. I already have an interest in the controversial subjects you mention (e.g., Nietzsche, Heidegger, Riefenstahl, Bonhoeffer, Nazism, holocaust denial, etc.). You can't assume ipso facto that I am only here, editing Wikipedia, from my choice of subjects, that I only want to create problems. Hugs and kisses. 65.93.202.27 (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Woodeligh School
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

homophobia = homo+phobia != etymological fallacy
That intro has something odd about it (and do we need to mention that homophobe and homophobic are related to homophobia as words) but whatever. The point was that the term homophobia has a literal source and that current common usage is usually different than the literal. (Yet it's not always different, so it's not both a logical and semantic fallacy.   Not at least as some absolute "etymological fallacy", as you seem to suggest.)  This is one issue the intro might clarify. Indeed, the start of the article covers that to some extent, and those paragraphs are no more an etymological fallacy than pointing it out in the intro would be.

We know the coined term broadens "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." (fear) to cover just about anything showing "prejudice against (fear or dislike of)" regardless if such feelings are not there, mild, harsh or extreme. What the literal is still applies though; the literal isn't a matter of use or meaning other than pointing out where it comes from. This is clearly stated in the references as well. Origin: 1960s: from homosexual + -phobia (Origin: late 19th century: from homo- 'same' + sexual) Origin: 1955–60; homo(sexual)  + -phobia    (homo(sexual) + -phobia.)       from homo- (2) + -phobia.

Besides that, the subject of the source of and the meaning of the term from various angles (pro and con, literal and figurative) in usage and how it might change isn't anything new either. And acceptance of the neologism (literally new speech) isn't universal either. We could say then that homophobia might not always mean what it does now, but as long as it exists it will be literally comprised of homo- and phobia.

If your point is that typically homophobia as a term isn't actually referring to a real phobia, that is correct. The the definition and description is clear on that. If your point is that homophobia never means fear of sameness or fear of homo-, is never used to describe a real phobia, isn't ever used literally, and isn't ever potentially misleading in meaning? That's somewhat debatable; but the literal meaning of the phrase isn't. Should any of that be pointed out in the intro? It might be helpful. 19:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A comment regarding Forward (generic name of socialist publications)
— Northamerica1000(talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications)
Lord, where are you, you have deleted my one vote on this page. I did not vote twice.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Dominus," would you assist me by showing me where it is on the page. I do not want to be accused by some of reverting three times. Please show me where my vote is on the page.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, and I humbly apologize. I will also apologize to Chooyoo.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to start an edit war
Please do not attempt to start an edit war as you appear to be doing at Your revert is not very constructive, please instead attempt to reach consensus by contributing to the discussion found here. Your input is both sought and welcome, but please attempt to remain civil, thanks. Willietell (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mu (lost continent)
uH, nO IT ISN'T. yOU MISSED SOME INFO. --82.4.229.82 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation
Dominus Vobisdu, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV headers
Please don't revert NPOV changes - it is only a claim of evidence - the diffs are debatable hence the need for the ? - thanks - I realize you are angry / upset or just don't like me but please do not allow your dislike of me to affect neutrality - You  really  can  19:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case
I have filed an arbcom case related to the mailing list that you are alledged to be coordinating with. You can review the case at Arbitration/Requests/Case and provide a statement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proforma
You may know from AFD, but I happened to mention you at ANI. JJB 18:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Religion, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Pass a Method  talk  13:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove sourced content as you did at Religion, you may be blocked from editing. Pass a Method  talk  13:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Hi. Good noon! I have asked for help regarding ayurveda article over here, here and here Please give your opinion if possible. ThanksAbhijeet Safai (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Rational-Wiki
For one thing, Rational-Wiki is not a neutral source; if we're going to link to Rational-Wiki in articles about subjects that they also cover, we might as well link to Conservapedia in articles they also cover. Additionally it is my understanding, based on a private email exchange I've had with a fellow Rational-Wiki sysop, that the leaders of that wiki desperately want to have references to their wiki spammed in Wikipedia articles. We are not a source of advertising; they need to go elsewhere if they want to advertise their wiki. It is for these reasons that I'm going to go ahead and take that link back off, unless you can think of some really good reason why we must link to Rational-Wiki in the secular religion article. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. It's a wiki and not a RS here. Otherwise good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Count du Monét
Considering the geographic area the Baltic languages are connected to (and unfortunately the trouble it tends to breed on here) and that the new user has about 5 edits, yet throws around WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and other terms like nothing, is it possible this user is a sock? I figured I would ask you what you thought since you have a much longer history on the article (Indo-European languages) than I do.  He  iro  07:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
It is very nice to see as how you are trying to keep the article of Ayurveda clean! Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Denialism
I can understand the revert on the Creation Science and Creationism articles - I see they have been disputed in the past and there was no consensus to remove them. But I think you should add reliable sources backing up the categorization, rather than just reverting. With The Heartland Institute, on the other hand, there is nothing at all in the article, and it definitely needs a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Murzyn
Hello, you just reverted an edit of mine. I had added an extra ref, did you check that? Was there a problem with it? You didn't mention it in your edit summary. FYI, consensus was that the info was fine (i.e. the info had been stable) before two editors deleted it recently. Moreover, you say the cake is "non-notable", is this (with a different but recognisably linked name) not a sign that it's notable? It's published by Super Express.Malick78 (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I still don't understand the problem with the above. Do you think the cake is not notable? What's wrong with the above link, for example? Malick78 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I still don't think the cake is all that noteworthy, nor that the sources you give are sufficient to establish noteworthiness. It's jsut one of hundreds of minor pastries in Poland, nowhere near as popular or well known as sernik, szarlotka or murzynek, for that matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just proposing a passing mention, not an article of its own. Hence, notability can be of a lesser scale. The cake is much better known than the pigeon 'murzynek' mentioned, or the strawberry. Those are accepted because they are mentioned in a dictionary; that the cake isn't (though it is made by thousands of people, and sold in hundreds of shops), is just a strange anomaly. Malick78 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Vassula Ryden". Thank you. --Sasanack (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and 3RR
Within the last couple of hours you have three times reverted additions to the Astrology page which comprised a number of thoughtful and time-consuming contributions I made which sought to improve the content by offering factual corrections and references to reliable sources. Please undo your last edit so that I don't have to report you for violation of the 3RR rule. If another editor approves of the wholesale removal of all my edits, this will also allow them to demonstrate that they take the same approach as you do. -- Zac  Δ talk! 04:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference desk
Why did you remove my request from this page you animal? Morgan Katarn (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From a page watcher, because Wikipedia isn't a dating site or place to ask for advise on where or how to pick up women. You might also want to read up on WP:NPA, as calling someone an "animal" is very much over the line.  He  iro  22:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Animal is not a bad word. Don't take it personally. I've reported you. Let's see what the admins say about this for removing my request. You can also copy it and place my request somewhere else. Morgan Katarn (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad words are allowed here, calling people names is not. Report me or the person whose user page this is all you want, I have a feeling you will see a boomerang coming your way.  He  iro  22:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. I don't want you getting blocked but just if the admins agree with your remove. Morgan Katarn (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, our case is done. Sorry, it was a bit of a misunderstanding. Morgan Katarn (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Astrology
Hey DV,

Do you have a copy of The Cosmic Perspective? It's an astronomy text book we currently use as a source on the astrology article. Recently I discovered that there is a decent section (a couple pages) summarizing how modern sciences assesses astrology. Anyway, I scanned the two pages and have it available as a PDF. If you're interested in a copy I can email it to you if you enable email on this account and send me a message (you can't send attachments through the WP email system and so I'd need you to send me a mail so I can respond directly). I'd like to do some work on the science section and I think if we all have a copy it'll be easier to work with. Also, I'm not sure what to do about the RFC - it expired without being closed and since I'm involved I don't want to try and attempt to read consensus. I posted a request at requests for closure but no one has acted on it yet. Ideas? S Æ don talk 22:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh you must be tired, I was offering to send you pages if you needed them, I have a hardcopy :).  S Æ don talk  23:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop bullying
Before initiating a formal complaint of bullying, I am supposed to try to discuss the issue with you here, so here goes...

You accused me of disruptive editing and threatened that I would get banned if I continued to edit in the manner that I did on the astrology page. This is a crystal-clear violation of wp:noedit. I made my edits before there was any consensus, and in my edit summary I invited Saedon to revert me if he didn't agree with my INTRODUCTION of the issue on the talk page. This whole issue came up because Saedon reverted me at the same instant that I opened up the new section on the talk page. I mentioned this bizarre coincidence both on the astrology talk page and on my user talk page, immediately before your bullying tirade. I don't know if it is possible for you and I to pull back from the brink here. The ball's in your court.--Other Choices (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would help if you took the time to actually read the policy you are quoting. It says:

"Some no-edit orders are acceptable. For example, those that instruct others to properly follow Wikipedia guidelines are allowed." My warning fell squarely within that clause.
 * As for whether your editing was disruptive, it clearly was, per WP:EW, WP:DE and WP:TE. You added controversial material that was controversial, added it a second time after it was reverted, and then added it a third time before getting consensus on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, you are supposed to discuss AND GET CONSENSUS on the talk page first before reverting.
 * As for your accusation of WP:BULLY, it is groundless. You were warned that making such accusations is a serious violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and to read WP:BOOMERANG.
 * You were also reminded to read WP:IDHT, which seems to be a major source of your problem. Your edit was found non-constructive and not based on WP policy by five seasoned WP editors.
 * Of course we can "pull back from the brink", as you put it. But only if you familarize yourself with and conform with WP policies and guidelines. I offered you a lot of honest criticism good advice in my post to you. In good faith. Like I said, the appropriate response would be to spend a lot more time listen than talking until you grow a little hair on your chest. I highly recommend finding yourself a mentor. Like I said, I can help you with that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dominus Vorbisdu, I filed a formal complaint of bullying here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bullying_by_Dominus_Vobisdu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding FRINGE communities
I quite simply can't believe it; I guess they fail two of the key criteria of modern knowledge formation: exposure to challenge and community by discipline instead of belief. Every scholarly Marxist I know exposes their beliefs to a general disciplinary community, not to an ideological one—and even when the journal is restricted in scope, say, Historical Materialism it certainly isn't restricted to Historical Materialists who believe X but not Y just like us. It is shocking. It is criminal. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Article of Ayurveda
I am going to add a new section as Important concepts in Ayurveda where I plan to add concepts like Prakruti which are central to Ayurveda. I have been discussing the same on the talk page for quite a long time and I haven't found any contrary idea. Should I go ahead? Your help is needed. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups
Hi DV You may not have seen that we now have a sub-page of RSN where massive overuse of poor or dubious sources can be flagged up and dealt with. We have been looking at Answers in Genesis, and are now making some progess. I was thinking that you might like to look at the science articles where it was used; those are now all cleaned up, but there are still quite a lot of articles that relate to the argument over young earth creationism and "intelligent design". If you want to cast your eye over them you may have suggestions on what is needed. You may also want to comment on the processes that we are trying to develop. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record..
It wasn't a grammar fail, I just read it wrong. :P –  Teammm  (talk · email) 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I know. It's hard to parse with two adjectives modifuing two nouns. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was only because someone was annoying me and my brain went on a read and re-read tirade. lol –  Teammm  (talk · email) 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see the headlines tomorrow: "Road rage hits Wikipedia". lol. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A response to your remark
I see no point in responding to this comment of yours on the Astrology talk page since my post is self-evidently recommending that editors address issues collaboratively, and demonstrating my own willingness to do so. I have considered very seriously that I should be instigating a formal complaint against you, (for incivility, wiki-hounding, bullying and generally editing in a disruptive manner designed to create hostility). When I made that post I had taken the decision to forget all past incidences in the hope that a new approach will put an end to such negativity. I sincerely hope this can the case. -- Zac  Δ talk! 13:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Query?
Dominus Vobisdu, would you mind weighing in on the Talk:Fellatio discussion? It's mostly between myself and another editor and it looks like we need yet another outside opinion. And since you are an experienced Wikipedia editor, work on/look after sexuality articles, and we have interacted very rarely thus far, it makes you an ideal candidate to weigh in. The discussion shouldn't even still be going on, since the issue about the debated line has been settled. What the debate has mostly been about is whether or not cultural views on fellatio -- in this case, why people may or may not engage in it -- should be included in the article. If you are willing to weigh in, please read both sides (as much of it as you can stomach, since there is some squabbling involved) before weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. It doesn't appear that your opinion is still needed. You can of course still weigh in if you want, but I figured I'd go ahead and update you on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith‎
You did notice she's blocked for a week, didn't you? Not sure what I think about this. Raised it at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting you to stop stop acting disruptively against the spirit of Wikipedia
This is a formal request for you to stop acting disruptively against the spirit of Wikipedia. With regard to this, the consensus for major development and replacement of unreferenced, early-20th century text was determined on the talk page of the article, which was rescused from a proposal for deletion on the basis that I would personally commit to this task if no one else was willing to do so. It has taken until now for me to be able to find the time to begin that task. Throughout the process, now and in the past, I have done my best to keep a note of major changes on the talk page, even though no one else has contributed to that page for a long time. It is without doubt that the edits I have made have brought significant improvement to the article, and as a result, most of the commentary is up to date and offers good quality references. There is still a ot more work to be done and some areas are still need of much improvement. I am still working on this task, but your wholesale reversion of any editorial contribution I make to Wikipedia - which has been consistent, dramatic and aggresively enforced over several weeks - makes it impossible for me to progress the article further.

The question you need to consider is - what changes do you consider to be innapropiate and why? I requested you in an edit summary to please work collaboratively and identify any specific editorial concerns on the talk page. If you care about WP policy or the content of the page, you will make the time to look and discuss, and not simply revert in an instant the hard work of other contributors who are doing their best to improve the quality and usefulness of the content. Even if you believe there is a technical argument that I have crossedn a policy by developing the article by myself, please remember that it is one of the five pillars of WP that the principles and spirit of the rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires us to make exceptions to the rules so that common sense prevails. So please give some kind of justifcation for changes you want to make and identify issues if you believe that any exist. If you can't be bothered to do that, then I ask you to not disrupt the work of other editors who are willing to develop, discuss, identify issues and respond to them appropriately.

I am now going to return the content to how it was before you reverted all the changes I made. I will have no reluctance to discuss specified issues on the talk page if you want to raise any legitimate concerns. If you simply undo everything again, I will raise a formal complaint against you and your refusal to work with me collaboratively, as I requested you to do yesterday. -- Zac  Δ talk! 13:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution
"Evolutions influence in medicine and psychology extend FAR beyond these two narrower fields"

When you apply the theory of evolution to medicine you're practicing the field of evolutionary medicine. It's a "narrower field" insomuch as it actually incorporates the theory into the practice of medicine. Evolutionary medicine is a separate field from applied medicine, i.e., prescribing drugs and performing surgery. You don't need to know a single thing about evolution to perform a heart transplant. Readers are going to want to know how evolution is applicable to medicine and psychology, so wouldn't it make sense to link to the relevant articles? --50.46.252.252 (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I have started a discussion here. I await your input. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

just a hello
I noticed you posted on the ref desk that you live in Poland. I'm a Pole living in Australia, I was only 7 in 1984 when I left, but have been back a few times since to visit. Having a look at your page you look like you're into science and skepticism, which is something we have in common, and food. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say I'm an "excellent" cook, but I make a pretty decent kotlet mielony ;) I'm not a scientist either, but the older I get the more I wish that I had been ;) Anyway, just saying Hi to a fellow critical thinker. Vespine (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't use talk pages to make personal attacks
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Astrology, you may be blocked from editing.

Read up on WP:TALKNO and see today's discussion on the astrology talk page. Hopefully you'll act quickly to put that right (it has to be the last time you indulge yourself like this). -- Zac  Δ talk! 16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Which personal attacks? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Zac, please review WP:DTR. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, in the interests of Wikipedia I had hoped you would delete the comments I objected to a few days ago. As I pointed out your statements about Rick Tarnas and Nick Campion were unsubstantiated. On Jess's suggestion I agreed to let the matter drop and have waited for you to make a similar gesture by removing comments that you cannot support. I could find more inaccurate comments made by you on the astrology page if I were to go through it. Jess also made some very helpful suggestions about what I should do in this situation. If the comments about Tarnas and Campion are not removed, I shall have no option but to follow her suggestions. Minerva20 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know about this
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New Testament Christian Churches of America
A consensus was reached at User_talk:JGabbard. Please undo your edit posthaste, thank you.JGabbard (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Exodus International
Hi, your help was appreciated. For the full discussion/disruption leading to this copyvio accusation then please look at the bottom section of User talk:Worm That Turned. Thanks and have a nice day ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The material on link on the talk page is a copyright violation. It is far too close to the source. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for rewording it. The fact of the matter being i would have done it myself had any other editor have called it plagiarism. So thank you and have a nice day ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Trans4life
The user should clearly be reported, having WP:Edit warred across several articles and having changed solidly sourced definitions to biased, poorly-sourced definitions using the bisexualindex.org.uk as one source. This source clearly does not trump scholarly sources or even GLAAD sources. As you've seen, he or she particularly changed text in a biased manner regarding pansexuality and asexuality. Yes, pansexuality is generally subsumed under bisexuality, but that does not mean that a user should edit Wikipedia articles to impose his or her views that there is no validity in distinguishing the terms. I've reverted the editor on some articles (three in my case so far), but I don't believe that the user is likely going to stop this type of editing. 41.219.180.202 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Safety concerns in Ayurvedic medicine
Dear Dominus Vobisdu,

Good morning! I do appreciate the concern regarding medicines. I am a doctor myself and do understand the seriousness of this issue. My opinion would be to create a separate article named - Safety concerns in Ayurvedic medicine and expand it including both views. But what I felt after seeing the article is - Ayurveda is not only regarding what has been stated in the article. It is much more and many important concepts are lacking in the article. I wish to write them with your help. I will be more than happy if you will help me in that. But you are simply not allowing any kind of change in the article! I would like to discuss this with you. I have tried to discuss many issues like prakruti on talk page but I have not seen your opinion on it. I would like to know your opinion. I am sure that without your help we will not be able to make article better. I would like to request you to give your opinions on different issues regarding article.

By saying that, I dont mean that you should give favorable opinion. Whatever is your opinion, I respect it. But it is necessary to come to conclusion. I hope that you will extend your help by giving your some time for the article. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
I just wanted to thank you for your help at WP:RSN Re: Nazareth. As an engineer, I am a bit out of my league when discussing archeology, but it just didn't seem right that Wikipedia says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ and yet nobody can point to any actual scientific evidence that establishes that. Again, thanks for your input. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Refactored?
Hi, Dominus Vobisdu. Maybe I'm being extraordinarily dense, but I've pored over the diffs separately and together and can't tell exactly what you did here. It looks as if other editors' comments got shifted around quite a bit. Would you mind explaining? Rivertorch (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Adding, clearly you're an experienced editor and know about the 3RR, but what's happening at LGBT parenting is edit-warring (even though I don't see the 3RR broken) and I filed a case to get it to stop, so I'm required to notify you about it. 17:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan
I thought he'd been blocked 17 times, not 19. Did I miscount? Prioryman (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 7 and 12 is 19. Unless someone made a mistake formulating the RfC. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * D'oh! I'm just being thick. Don't mind me. :-) Prioryman (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Mbreht SPI
Your comments are invited here: Sockpuppet investigations/Mbreht. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Dear Dominus Vobisdu, the sources in Energy Medicine are reliable. Please, inform me for you position and this important for me. Mbreht--Mbreht (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Zoophilia and the law". Thank you! Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  01:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverted
Note that I've reverted your re-merge here: Ground_regulatory_system and have instead put the article up for deletion (I was in the process of the AfD but it got malformed). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw that and was just about to revert myself, but you beat me to it. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

a/an
Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 17:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * uvula question. 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, the list has been revised and extended. Would be great if you could check the 'h' section, especially if you know of any 'an h' combinations that are not listed. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that how you define "there is no hurry" ?

 * DV.
 * First, you blow the revert I had just made... TEN MINUTES EXACTLY after it was published, and you have the nerve to give me a lesson on the theme : "Take your time... there's no hurry" ??
 * For your information, I reinstalled the abstract about the Gallup study after having taken the pain to open the discussion about it on the "Atheism" talk page ---a thing that Wolfie didn't even care of doing, before deleting my work... on the basis of his own decision alone !


 * Tell me : who carefully avoids the discussion, and who got it started on the right talk page ?
 * So... I would appreciate that you, DV, let the things be discussed openly without interfering.
 * Besides... how do you think the "community of contributors" will be able to reach consensus, as you say, if you begin by censoring the very content of the matter ?


 * And anyway.. Who's talking about the necessity to "reach consensus", in the first place ? There is, as far as I know, absolutely no dissensus over the content itself, and it's legitimity inside WP ! !
 * So.. What's the meaning of you advising me to "get consensus first" ? I remind you that Wolfie didn't even try to contact me in time before blanking my entire contribution.


 * That's why I request from you that you cancel at once your last removal of this study.
 * I invite you, as I invited Wolfie, to go to the "Atheism" talk page, read my explanations, answer them (as you apparently look interested in atheism..) instead of brandishing your scissors before even taking the time to know what's actually going on.
 * And then, you can come to me and tell me about "consensus". Ok ?
 * Thank you.
 * --Mezzkal (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Chill out. You made a bold, and quite large edit based on a convoluted source. Wolfie reverted, based on WP:WEIGHT. You started a discussion on the talk page. So far, so good, on both your parts. But then you reverted before giving anyone a chance to read through your edit, your response and the study it was based on, and respond. That was not fine.
 * And cut the confrontationalism. My revert doesn't mean that I oppose the addition of the survey, though I do have some concerns (and the same for Wolfie's reversion). Give other editors a chance to read the study so that they know what you are talking about. I sort of agree with Wolfie that the addition was a bit long (the article is already bloated) and put too much weight on one study, but with you, too, about the value of adding global data of recent origins.
 * Stay calm, and assume good faith. I'm sure the study can be added in a way that satifies most editors. Like I said, there's no hurry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Akin
I hear what you are saying in regards to the other sites and I'm awaiting further input, but Akin's own site is different. Why did you feel the need to remove the link to his book/commentary on John? Why the need to remove the reference to the Great Commission Resurgence? Why remove "from Alcohol"? Referencing a man's own words on his own page is certainly relevant. Homosexuality is an important topic that Akin has expressed view about. Why would we not want to record this in wiki? Please help me understand your position on Akin's site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toverton28 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding Dominus. I still have a different opinion.  Baptist Press is the second largest religious media outlet in the country, second only to the the Catholics media wing.  As a religious news organization, BP never publishes articles that disagree with what Southern Baptist perceive as orthodox.  Therefore BP articles represent Southern Baptist, a denomination of 16,000,000 people.  Pardon my forwardness, but I simply do not understand how you can stand by the following quote "We don't really know if it is representative of Akin's own thought."  Akin wrote the article???  How could it not represent his thought?  I believe the following quote stresses your main objection: "it is logically incoherent and, sorry to say, rather amateurish."  I understand how you feel.  That said, Akin is a notable evangelical.  His scholarly credentials are unquestioned.  I believe his views out weight your opinions of his work.  Akin's opinion is widely shared throughout the evangelical world.  He articulates basic systematic theological thought.  This is worthy of a wikipedia article.  On another matter, do you object to my other changes made to Akin's article that do not include homosexuality?

Toverton28 (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

cumin
Sorry, was looking in your edit history to see if you were doing anything interesting. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Answering from my profile talk
Seems this is the place for answering what you write in my profile.

Thanks Dominus for your advice.

Should I go with my request to the requests page (for Homepathy) as indicated now that was denied here? Or will you give me access to it? (read-only is fine) I won't change anything before asking, although I'll find somewhere else to ask. It seems people prefer to delete no explanations, rather than discusing the changes before are made.

After the differences with other more dangerous articles which are not so bombarded as this one (up to google's description) I'm rather more interested in who and how that info gets to google, as research. So now that someone changed the lede for homeopathy silently, I'd like to know who and why the silent. Secrecy is not suppossed to be found here, or at least doesn't help for "how many times do we have to tell you…" if you know what I mean. Thanks.Sergiozambrano (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! The discussion concerns the Christian right. Psalm84 (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words
Which does not equate to "abiogenesis is harder than reported", as you stated in your edit summary. That is YOUR conclusion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "One reference suggesting abiogenesis is harder than reported" was my edit summary. That was drawn from "known to yield a lower abundance of sugars and especially amino acids" so WHO is cherry picking? (My conclusion was not stated.) Dan Watts (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi
I posted on Wroclaw talk page some info and materials you might find interesting.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Caution
Dominus Vobisdu, I draw your attention to WP:TALKNO, and in particular "Do not threaten people:" and "Do not claim to be an administrator or claim to have an access level that you do not have."

I will not indulge your ego by pointing out that my comments on the recent Homeopathy page take up very little space compared to the near-rabid responses of the other commentors. I trust that this bullying behaviour of yours is an anomaly. Mrdavenport (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Mrdavenport, while you are busy looking at WP:TALKNO, see "No personal attacks"; that includes claiming someones comments are "near-rabid" and your hints that someone is bullying. Or how about "Do not misrepresent other people", since Dominus never claimed to be an admin though you hint that he did. Editors can give you warnings; often it is even mandatory before action takes place. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Input on wording for causes of sexual orientation?
Hey, Dominus Vobisdu. Do you mind weighing in on the Talk:Homosexuality discussion? You are familiar with some of my editing, including LGBT topics, and therefore have a sense of how I generally work. That goes vice versa. I'm coming to you now because I get the feeling that as soon as "environmental factors" is mentioned, a few editors get the impression that the person stating that is some religious conservative. I think MrX initially thought that of me, but he came around to my level of understanding once I explained the facts, and now another editor seems to have gotten the impression that I'm trying to state that homosexuality may be caused solely by environmental factors (as in social factors).

As I've made clear, most scientists believe that sexual orientation is determined by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors. That is not stating that sexual orientation is a choice or that it can be solely due to environmental factors. The keywords are "combination" and "complex interplay." The sources make clear that sexual orientation is not a choice, but they (two of them) also very clearly state that they believe that it is not determined by any one factor...but by a combination of all of these. Because of all this, WP:Consensus at the Homosexuality talk page last year was that we should not state that sexual orientation is only genetic/hormonal when no authoritative source on sexual orientation states that. And as I made clear in that extensive discussion from last year, it is not up to us to determine what the researchers mean by "environmental factors" or "environmental influences"; they don't specify what they mean by it, but they do give weight to both "uterine environment" and "sociological factors," while making it very clear that they don't definitively know what causes sexual orientation. That is all that I am doing at that article and other articles about sexual orientation when it comes to the topic of reporting the causes of sexual orientation -- is following what most scientists state on this topic.

The only problem with the current lead of the Homosexuality article that I have, aside from the oversourcing of two lines, is the "especially with regard to early uterine environment" wording; this is because it is WP:SYNTHESIS for the reasons noted on the talk page. If the lead stays that way, I won't mind much...since it has been returned to its state of not reporting that sexual orientation is only caused by genetic/hormonal factors. But I did want to try to get others to see why that wording is not best. So far, MrX is the only one there who has acknowledged that; he brought up the WP:SYNTHESIS issue first. Although I saw that synthesis problem from the start, I decided not to remove it because I didn't want to get into a big debate about all of this again. And yet...here we are. Flyer22 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion
A discussion on an issue with which you have been involved is at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned on an arb page entry.
Here is a link that should work. Regards. --Africangenesis (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that section link does not seem to work, you go to the arbitration enforcement page and search your username or mine.  --Africangenesis (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)