User talk:Thomas Aquinas

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Spinboy 04:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Username
Hello. Wikipedia has a guideline against using "the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure or event" as a username. Please change yours. CDThieme 3 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, Gamaliel is also the middle name of a president named Warren Harding. 1921-1923. I think he should keep the username. Эрон Кинней  00:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The relevant policies on usernames can be found here: Username. The rationale for avoiding the names of well-known figures is to curtail the confusion which would ensue if, for example, it appeared that Dolly Parton were contributing otherwise uncited material about the history of country music. I doubt anyone could be misled to believe that Aquinas himself is actually now editing Wikipedia. Dystopos 23:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Aquinas IS DEAD! Any scholarly person on Wikipedia would know that the Saint is deceased, and how would that lead to confusion? The rules should be, "alive celebrities, or religious figures". Эрон Кинней  00:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's what I said. Dystopos 05:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested
You might be interested in this current vote: Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics -Doohickey

Have you seen these?
Votes for deletion/List of Catholic Actresses and Actors and Votes for deletion/List of Catholic Criminals Doohickey 16:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Question
Criticism, especially in these fora, is often taken for pure ad hominem attack or quackery. I just wanted to present something, with all due respect. In the cosmic scale it is not an important matter but it is nonetheless non-trival. You state, "I prefer that an article be objective to its being neutral". I just wanted to ask, does this jibe with the Wikipedia guideline of NPOV? Personally I agree with your views, but those who come to Wikipedia sometimes have to set aside some personal views. A "neutral" writing can, if well done--and I'm certain we are capable of it--demonstrate the truth-power of our views while retaining NPOV. My least thought is to be offensive...please accept this as intellectual provocation at worst, and pardon my tongue.

Thomas, I heartily suggest (at the risk of sounding hypocritical after this critique), though, that you take note of a suggestion/exhortation I have posted. Thanks for listening to my ranting; I do encourage you to take up the latter suggestion. Best wishes in Christ. --Dpr 04:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality
I don't really know what to do but two article I thought weren't neutral and need editing are condoms (because of the application picture) - I'm going to suggest it be deleted but would appriciate your help. Chooserr

On the Catholic Church of Wikipedia
As you have described yourself as a Catholic, I thought I would alert you as a co-religionist to your opportunity to delete the particularly offensive article, Catholic Church of Wikipedia.--Thomas Aquinas 21:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not an administrator, and I'm neutral either way. --Bryan Nguyen | Talk 22:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have seen it and I agree that it is offensive. Why hasn't this been AfDd before? I notice that it isn't strictly an article. Maybe a petition to move it? --Elliskev 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"Catholic Church of Wikipedia"
It offends me both as a Catholic and a Wikipedian. If someone wants to post this garbage on their own website, that's their right, but it has no place on WP. I will vote for deletion, and thank you for the message. Paul 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notice. I had just registered a complaint when the "project" started and then ignored it. I hope I have stirred the pot in the RfD. patsw 04:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. --Dpr 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't believe they've voted to keep the thing. Ugh. --Dpr 19:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fetal Pain
A few weeks ago I suggested and added a section to the Abortion page on Fetal Pain. Not much seemed to come of it and it was quickly deleted. There were many talks following it, which unfortunately I was unable to participate in. I wanted to know if you could possibly help get it back on the map. Here is one of the more POV versions I'd made (the NPOV one was lost in the reverts). Maybe if you could get other catholic wikipedians to protest it's removal add to it and reinstate it we can get somewhere. Chooserr
 * Thanks for letting me know about this. From my study of neuroanatomy, I am skeptical about fetal pain as early as 7 weeks.  The central nervous system is so immature that cognitive appraisial (such as pain) would probably not be possible.  Check out this study: Benatar, D & Benatar, M. (2001). A pain in the fetus: toward ending confusion about fetal pain.  Bioethics, 15 57-76.  I can email your the pdf version if you like.  I found it on EBSCOhost. According to the study fetal pain may not be possible until the 28th or 30th week of gestation.  However, several studies say different things on the subject.  I definitely think that it deserves to be mentioned in Wikipedia; However, I don't think Abortion is the appropraite page.  Pre- and perinatal psychology might be more appropraite.  If it is going to be included, then it needs to be sided by more the "Abortion Facts."  It is a bit biased.  If I can help, just let me know.  Thanks again.  -- Psy guy Talk 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way, thanks for correcting my spelling on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Catholic Church of Wikipedia. We may be on different sides of this issue, but I hope that we can work cooperatively and be civil. -- Psy guy Talk 23:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being so civil in MfD. Some have been insulting, but you have been able to defend your position by taking the high road.  I admire that.  I hope to see you around the site more. -- Psy guy Talk 18:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

A Message to Pro-Life Wikipedians
The section "Foetal Pain" (Fetal Pain) has been deleted from the Abortion article. Could you help restore it? If you would like to see what was deleted, go to my talk page, scroll to "Fetal Pain," and click the provided link.--Thomas Aquinas 22:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir, - Couldn't find your version, apparently deleted. But I did find Choserr's version, and I would only suggest that the article be inserted into main Wikipedia as its own entry, expanded and linked to from within Abortion. Then you could either protect it or ask for protect for it, if things get problematic.


 * Perhaps, this may help: I had found a Powerpoint presentation "In The Womb" from an Italian hospital on the MangaloreanCatholics list[httP:://groups.yahoo.com/group/mangaloreancatholics]. I am certain that the moderator (Paladka) would be willing to mail it to you.


 * Regards. WikiSceptic 03:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, Thomas.I don't understand.I didn't tamper with that fetal pain page. Btw,I've been grounded, so it's no computer use for me for this week.

Peace, Ding Xiang

Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 09:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

BC Prob
There is a problem with wikipedians changing the Euripides pages dating system to BCE/CE... especially SlimVirgin. I want to explain the situation incase you can help...I originally tried to change a wikipedia page from BCE/CE to BC/AD User:Shanes told me it's wiki policy to use the dates out lined by the creator of the page. I searched and found that the Euripides page originally used the BC/AD dating system and changed it with a summary. Now others are putting it back to BCE/CE. Can you help? Chooserr


 * Thank you for your help, I was told that I would be blocked if I were to edit that page again even though I was right and it originally impemented the BC/AD dating system. User:Shanes told me once that it was wiki policy that you couldn't change the dating system from what the creator used...I've found plenty of articles that have. If you are curious you can find them if you check my user contributions. Thanks again, Chooserr


 * Sophocles,

Had BC/AD until 2 days ago when it was changed. After being banned I promised - I'm not sure who exactly, but I did and don't want to break it - that I wouldn't revert unless theres been some discussion on the matter. So if you would like you can add your opinion. Thank you, Chooserr

Fetal pain update
Greetings TA. Alerted by you to the removal of the above section from the abortion article, I have set about to provide a NPOV section which aims to address both sides to the argument. Please have a look and tell me what you think. Brisvegas 02:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-Life
My pro-life babel...has been nominated for deletion. A babels purpose is to tell the other person quick facts about you. That is one of them. If you could help vote I'd appreciate it. Thank you, Chooserr
 * I also nominated your no-french template too, please stop making these things, thank you--Aolanonawanabe 04:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Luckily it got off the hook. HiddenSociety


 * I liked both of them, thank you. JG of Borg 03:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus
Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! I've seen a few of your edits on the Jesus article, and reverted some because they do not meet NPOV policy.  I'm Christian too, but it's important to respect the neutrality of Wikipedia and not try to evangelize in the articles.  Try to use terms everyone can agree with: call Him "Jesus" and not "Christ", since some people do not accept the title "Christ" as applied to Jesus.  We can of course continue to believe that He is Christ, but where there are neutral terms let's be sure to use them.  It's also more appropriate not to capitalize pronouns that refer to Jesus, since again the capitalization is a sign of reverence that a neutral encyclopedia cannot use and remain neutral.  The idea is to write an objective article, not to promote your view.  Plenty of other outlets exist for that purpose, and I heartily encourage you to use them. Alanyst 21:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You said on my talk page:
 * While the title Christ is arguably more biased in Our Lord's favour, I believe that it may be used neutrally and interchangeably with the Holy Name

Please understand that people who do not believe Jesus is Christ often do not consider "Christ" to be an appropriately neutral (or indeed, from their perspective, accurate) term to apply to Him. We have the blessing of being at liberty to disagree with their point of view, but we ought to seek to use terms that other editors will be able to use as well. Using the word "Christ" will simply encourage someone else to change it, while using "Jesus" will be equally accurate and neutral from our perspective, while remaining acceptable to those who do not believe as we do.

Similarly, regarding the capitalization issue, if we acknowledge that some people believe Jesus is not divine, then we must also acknowledge that using the reverential capitalization excludes that point of view, and therefore is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It behooves us to respect others' beliefs, and we can do so without weakening our own. You can read and write the uncapitalized pronouns with the same feeling of reverence that you do with the capitalized ones; if your motivation is to proclaim the Christ, again I urge you to do so in a more appropriate venue than on Wikipedia. Alanyst 22:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it offensive that they use BCE/CE dates on the Jesus article because I was told that you can't use BC/AD on Jewish, or Moslem articles. Also as a further offense they put 6 AD/CE instead of AD 6 (CE). Six "the year of our lord" doesn't make as much sense as "the year of our lord" six. Non-user

Catholic Church of Wikipedia
Vote to delete User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia at this page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sam Korn/Catholic Church of Wikipedia, and tell other people to do the same.

Pro-life Alliance
The article Pro-Life Alliance has been nominated for deletion. Chooserr

Can you help
I would appreciate help with watching LIFE (Charity) and Central Catholic Library both of which I feel have merit and are only being classified unencyclopedic because the "editor" has a grudge against me. Chooserr

Anti-Anonymex2
Anti-Anonymex2 is leaving Wikipedia. You are listed as a friend on his user page, so I thought you might want to know. --TantalumT e lluride 20:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This type of censorship makes me sick
Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-life
The Pro-Life organization Student LifeNet is up for deletion. If you would like to contribute to the discussion in progress you are more than welcome to do so. Chooserr 17:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

BC AD
Euripides has been changed to BCE/CE despite its long history of BC/AD dates. Chooserr

Contraceptive patch
Sean Black has removed an informative section from the Contraceptive patch article describing a law suit which is currently taking place and some of the risks involved in using such barbaric devices. Since you are listed as Pro-Life I was wondering if you might restore the original version, for I don't personally want to get baited into a 3rvt ban. Thank you, Chooserr 07:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

CAoW
I think it would be a good idea for you to join the Catholic Alliance of wikipedia, which is a pro-life voting group on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 21:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

CAoW
Sorry to double-post, but anyway... Since you are listed as a Roman Catholic, I figured I'd send you this. Catholic Alliance of wikipedia has been nominated for Deletion. Please vote and/or tell other people to vote to keep this organization on wikipedia. --Shanedidona 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Penis
Because you list yourself as Catholic I thought I would inform you of a particularly offensive image on the Penis page, or the subject in question. It shouldn't belong here, and the diagram is enough for me. If you feel the same please remove it, or help fight the case on the talk page. Chooserr 05:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Conservative_notice_board
Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if you might be interested in The Catholic Wiki Project? It's a fairly new Catholic POV wiki. Speculative catholic 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ron Burgundy
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Ron Burgundy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 02:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)