User talk:Dominus Vobisdu/Archive 4

Query
I was asked what you were trying to do here. Can you explain, please? --John (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you explain, may I suggest you read thisand this and note that John has reverted posts on the Talk:Acupuncture page. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redacted, yes. It looks like you are off-line. On your return, please don't make any more edits like this or you will be blocked. Thanks, --John (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

polish names
Maybe you could link to the regular at that blog? It would be totally unobjectionable, and we could replace the contentious comments with a mere "this guy's an expert" statement. μηδείς (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated WP:BATTLE behaviour on alternative medicine topics. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --John (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Harsh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It does seem a bit much for a first civility block. But there's nothing that can be done about it. DV just needs to sit it out and resolve to do better at playing the Wikipedia Game. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ayurveda
Hi. As someone who has edited this article recently, I am bringing your attention to a proposed set of restrictions at Talk:Ayurveda. I see this action as necessary to allow harmonious editing at the article, and to prevent more blocks going forward. Best regards, --John (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Hi, history about homeopathy is a valid content. --Pediainsight (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please, return the content to its place. --Pediainsight (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to return the content if you do not introduce it in his place. --Pediainsight (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Howdy
It's good to see you have resumed editing. Welcome back. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Got a bit burnt out by fringe proponents. Our policies make it far too easy for them. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say the same. Good to see you again! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And thanks for keeping an eye on the article. (Even if we disagree on other ones :P I still think it'd be good to have a well-sourced piece on abortion in art and literature, but I doubt I would ever be up for writing it.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks a big bunch. It's great to be editing again. Our disagreements are always handled in a civil manner, so they don't bother me at all. I like your sense of our sourcing policies. Keep up the great work! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Offensive speech
Removed your offensive comment here where you could use a lot better words. Kindly refrain from making similar comments again. You have been blocked before for personal attack and Talk page abuse. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC) rephrased
 * tps Nothing offensive in that description of the article, don't be silly Blades. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Knew it was coming, that's why didn't reverted again. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to read and at least try to understand WP:NPA again too. You obviously don't understand it based on the comment you made above. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rephrased, that's because I was more thinking as much about the previous incident, as he's aware of it. Still relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection, Blades, to a perfectly reasonable assessment of the quality of the article concerned. The assessment that it is complete and utter bullshit is quite accurate and appropriate. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are talking about the assessment of article, I would agree there. That's why I was already removing, and would still do until it is standardized. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationism
Difficulty finding a citation? Dan Watts (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
Due to your involvement in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism article, I invite you to an arbitration request discussion. Please write your statements in your own section, and reply to other people's statements in your own section. --George Ho (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a reminder, the evidence phase of the case is now open, and as a listed party you are encouraged to add evidence. Evidence that is not brought to the attention of the arbitrators risks not being considered, and the evidence phase will close on the 2nd of February..  If you do not wish to contribute evidence to the case, the committee may consider your response in the initial case request as your evidence; if you wish to take this option please let me know and I will convey it back to the committeee.  If there is anything else I can do to assist on this case, please let me know.  On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Please reconsider
I notice that you deleted your strong comment, and it would have been wise to refactor it, but it contained some good stuff. Please restore the good parts. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I agree with Brangifer's principles, I'd recommend caution. I respect both of you very much as editors, but it seems there is a rather asymmetric risk of blocking for personal attacks - lately, I have seen advocates issue a string of personal attacks on multiple pages without the slightest worry of getting blocked as long as they have a couple of allies - so now is time to be calm, civil, evidence-based, and to maintain the moral high ground. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do I get the feeling that my request is completely misunderstood? I'm recommending leaving out anything negative and keeping the good parts. That is being very cautious. Isn't that a good idea? -- Brangifer (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bobrayner is correct especially in this topic area: the situation is asymmetric. I see very little in your edit that could survive the pruning necessary to avoid putting you into danger. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * and it has already been reported to admins. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 01:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ??? I guess we must be talking about different things. Where is this other issue occurring? Diffs please. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Diff: Really, just don't go there. Make your points as dispassionately as possible, focusing solely on specific edits and without characterizing the subject matter in general. Keep in mind that you're playing with a handicap here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I guess I'm not familiar with the bigger picture here. There must be some prior history to justify such a strong reaction to something that wasn't even a personal attack. To me this was a single, rather strongly emotional, comment, which was self-reverted. No big deal and end of story....but apparently there's more. Was this part of a habitual pattern of emotional comments? When looking at the tattle tale/complaint (a rather extreme thing to do, and an example of stupidly creating more disruption, rather than defusing a situation), I would consider the source, a very fringe editor who generally defends fringe subjects and defends pushers of fringe POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This was more than two weeks ago? Feels like only a few moments ago actually, and the situation remains the same with the lunatic charlatans. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Christianity and Sexuality case: workshop phase extended
Dear Dominus Vobisdu, this is a quick notice to advise that the workshop phase for the Christianity and Sexuality case has been extended until 15 February. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the proposals being offered in the workshop, and feel free to participate either in the workshop itself, or in discussion on the talk page. Please also take note of the other dates on the case, with the proposed decision due on 22 February. Please feel free to drop by my talk page if you've any questions. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Arbitration proposed decision
Hi Dominus Vobisdu, in the open Christianity and Sexuality arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 16:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality closed

 * Copied from one user talk page on Lankiveil's behalf. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

An arbitration request regarding actions of some editors in the Christianity and Sexuality topic has now closed and the decision can be read here. The following remedies have been put in place: For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC).
 * 1) User:Esoglou and User:Padresfan94 have been site banned.  Both users may appeal their bans after one year.
 * 2) User:Roscelese is indefinitely restricted from making no more than one revert per page per day (except for indisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.  They are also prohibited from making rollback-style reverts without providing an explanation, and from engaging in conduct that casts aspersions or personalises disputes.
 * 3) User:Dominus Vobisdu is admonished for edit warring.  In addition, they are restricted to one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss content reversions on the article talk page.  This restriction may be appealed after twelve months.
 * Copied from one user talk page on Lankiveil's behalf. --George Ho (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

clarification please...
I was looking at an old Afd, and took a closer look at this reply you left.

You wrote: "Just like to point out that your second point is not entire compelling. Changes on watchlists generally give the section of the article that is affected."

I don't turn on beta features, because I edit some non-WMF wikis, and I don't want to get used to advanced features, available here, and not there. I want to stick with the vanilla features available even on wikis using older versions.

At first I thought you were referring to an advanced feature.

But, as I wrote this, I think I know what you refer to, after all.

When an editor edits a section of an article, file, whatever, and doesn't specify an edit summary, the section heading will be used as their edit summary. Is that what you were referring to?

This default won't be used if the contribor uses their own edit summary. It doesn't prevent false positives.

But thanks for taking my comment seriously!

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Dominus Vobisdu hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since January 16, 2015, so don't expect a response. YoPienso (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well I hope they are enjoying how they fill their spare time.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yea, i hope they are enjoying their space time rather than defending 6 year old comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:622:1C4A:342B:666A:647B:7ABE (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)