User talk:Dominus Vobisdu

Hi everyoneDominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorin Olteanu

A simple Google search would have shown that Sorin Olteanu is a well trained classical philologist, not an urologist. Your argument concerning what you called "fringe science" is thus rendered moot. Please revert yourself, as I can't discern between all those edits permformed on the Thracians article. Best. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

See talk page? Where, mine, your or the discussion page? Bee specific, as well as you should be with you editions. I think if you are American you know nothing or very little about Silesia. It must be other power than knowledge which drive you to do the contradictions. What it is? --Cleaghyre (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote v quotation

Hi, I'm putting this on your page as well as the article talk page in case you're not watching it. I think your reversion was a mistake. quote n 1. (Business / Commerce) an informal word for quotation http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quote

Merriam-Webster doesn't even give a definition of quote as a noun. Yopienso (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see I didn't look far enough in Webster's. Sorry. Yopienso (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Evolution: can a biochemical characteristic be considered a "trait"?

I see that you are an "American microbiologist", so, presumably you can provide good reasons for undoing my edit (13:36, 17 January 2011) of Evolution.

My edit contained a ^{[dubious - discuss]} warning which resends to the section Can a biochemical characteristic be considered a "trait"? of Talk:Evolution.

Please provide your argument, backed up by valid citation, before you attempt to undo my edit again.

Miguel de Servet (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Preferably and procunciation

It's not POV, but an opinion of many translators (not only Belczyk), who want their translations to be understandable rather than literal (in accordance to the EASE Guidelines). The reference is not immaterial, as it has been displayed on that page for 8 years and has affected oppinions of many translators since then. I'm also surpised that you changed "ts" to "c", because "c" is displayed as a square. In IPA, "ts" is the correct notation of this consonant.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that this literal translation appears also in texts outside Wikipedia, and in interpreting. Translators and interpreters tend to forget that this is completely incomprehensible to most foreigners. Unfortunately so far there has been no authority on translation but Wikipedia starts to become such an authority. That is why I think it is very important to write "preferably" here. Or, perhaps, "understandably" if this is more acceptable than "preferably".--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks for your explanations. I now understand you better. However, I don't quite agree with you. If we think that something is stupid, we should try to change it. Even if it seems too late. I tried to change the literal translation of województwo in Wikipedia several times but my edits were always reverted. But this time I added the refernece for the first time, as I now know the procedures better.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-). Best wishes to you, too.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Autonomy

If you have a source that it was revoked in 1935, please add it. I only know of the 1945 act.--Kotniski (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

It seems you have gotten yourself drawn into a rather wild revert war with User:LUCPOL over the Silesian Voivodeship (1920–1939) page. Now, I know LUCPOL can be a nightmare to deal with, and some of his edits were quite obviously unacceptable, but I'm sure you are aware you're still not supposed to go beyond 3RR, right? I'm just about to slap a rather large fish on LUCPOL, just not sure what to do with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since I see you have otherwise a track record as a positive contributor, and I've just indeffed L. anyway, let's leave it at that then. By the way, cool username.  :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ip 190.80.8.6

Thanks for your note, and for checking on the problem. I doubt the LaRouche editor is the same person who did the vandalism. I suspect that the IP is being used as a proxy, and I'll post on the proxy noticeboard when I have a little more time. Cheers,   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Origin of concept of ID

Hi. I'm interested in your ideas, but think further discussion on the article talk page may be inappropriate. (If you disagree, feel free to paste this in over there.)

First, though, your chiding tone is wearying. This:

Trying to trace a direct line, or even an indirect line, from modern ID back to any school of religious thought from the Age of Enlightenment would be an exercise in patience, if not futility. I therfore think that there is no reason to even mention Natural Theology or any other Enlightenment-era school of thought, except in passing, as I have done.

is well and good. The puzzle is why you seem to be blaming me for what has been in the article for years (I only checked back as far as Nov., 2008):

In the early 19th century, such arguments led to the development of what was called natural theology, the study of nature as a means to understand "the mind of God"... Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century is seen as a development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.[44][45][46]

You have only just removed this long-standing bit of information; why do you chide me for asserting it is true? Further down in the article remains a statement that I understand as my "reaching" or "harking back" idea: . . .they want a redefinition of science as a revived natural theology (My bold.) or natural philosophy to allow "non-naturalistic theories such as intelligent design".

Again in a chiding tone you allege my "concept of the topic of this article is too expansive," ignoring the fact that I was in favor of cutting out some of the history and applauded your doing so. Also, note this exchange:

A section should be added to the article mentioning atheistic intelligent design and it's proponents. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I used to think, but have accepted that the scope of this article is not that broad. I understand atheistic intelligent design, if there is such a thing (Raëlism? Probably too fringe.), belongs at Teleological argument. Yopienso (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

After considerable discussion in which I had no part, a week later I wrote:

Raëlists claim both to be atheists and to believe in Intelligent Design. "The atheist 'Intelligent Design Theory' offers a rational solution to the age-old debate between God-believers and evolutionists."

This is covered in the Raëlism article: "Raëlianism is an atheist religion that believes, not in God, but in extraterrestrials." It should not be ignored here, imo. So we could revamp this article to cover "Intelligent Design" wherever it has a foothold, rename it so it covers only ID as espoused/endorsed by the Abrahamic religions, or add it to Teleological argument. My instinct is to intelligently redesign :) this article to include Raëlism and let the Intelligent design movement article cover the mainly, though not exclusively, Christian ID movement that actively pushes for creationism to be taught in American public schools, leaving Teleological argument free of any fringe stuff. Yopienso (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of fighting consensus, and am happy with your recent changes. All the stuff you just removed made the article seem to include more than the DI version; you have helped focus it.

You wrote,

You seem to be clinging to the phrase "when virtually everyone believed in intelligent design", and, for the life of me, I can't figure out why. I hate to put it so frankly, but you have failed to convince me that Enlightenment-era Natural Theology and similar schools of thought have anything at all to do with modern ID at all, except perhaps in a very tenuous, trivial sort of way that does precious little to inform the reader about the topic of the present article.

I specifically answered your question on 23:30, 11 May 2011. Why do you think the Natural Theology bit was there for years under the watchful eye of Dave souza if it is so foreign to the article?

If you think about this you may realize we are pretty much on the same page and can work together fruitfully.

Regarding the fork--and here I felt you were engaging, not chiding--there are many, many splinters of Christianity. There is no monolithic Protestant belief, although we could find a majority consensus along with a myriad of violently dissenting minorities. When you say there was a "complete break," do you mean all Christians embraced evolution? Certainly they did not. Even the NCSE doesn't make that claim:

This final break with traditional belief was psychologically the most difficult of all. To some, this meant that God was no longer required to explain the formation of new species. Most disturbing of all, God was not even required to explain the formation of humankind. Some reflective theologians realized that the strictly literal view of the Creation had to be abandoned as knowledge about nature and natural processes grew more detailed. The Church of England, in fact, accepted evolution by natural selection within a few decades of the writing of The Origin of Species.

"Some." What about the rest? What of Charles Spurgeon and Samuel Wilberforce and many others?

Anyway, I'm glad the article is making more sense. Yopienso (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply on my talk page. Now I see why this article is so confusing: there is not a consensus about its topic or about the history of ID. Yopienso (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Intelligent design. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Latinisation (USSR) Jay Richards Seroglazovo culture List of sign languages by number of native signers Transformation language Marjan Mashkour Unlocking the Mystery of Life Bernard Acworth A priori (languages) Spoken language Daughter language Texan English Russian Sign Language Werner Gitt Duncan McNeil Tuchola Landscape Park Zaldapa Charles Edward Mudie Maritime Sign Language

Cleanup Getae Etruscan cities Volsinii Merge Co-operation (evolution) Evolutionary biology Great Russian language Add Sources Paeonian language Death of Osama bin Laden Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton Wikify Krobyzoi South Asia Language Resource Center Saldense Expand Capidava Dacian language Theistic evolution

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Add. A.McIntosh

Ref.: "Reverted chnages by User: stephfo to last version by User:Hrafn for reasons given by Hrafn and lack of reliable secondary sourcing.
->I regard your requirement for secondary sourcing on own claim of certain person for argument add absurdum - can you please explain why secondary source should know better than person himself what he claims? Sounds like logical fallacy to label a statement of person as "Citation needed" and then keep erasing that reference based on argument "lack of reliable secondary sourcing". It is demonstarble the Wikipedia is full of references of claims of certain persons to their own papers. --Stephfo (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pls. Check also: "If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source." in Wikipedia:Citation_needed.--Stephfo (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

Hello and welcome Dominus Vobisdu! Thank you for your contributions related to Poland. You may be interested in visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland, joining the project, joining our discussions and sharing your creations with our community.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Pls. Accept my apology

Add."By chance I happened to be over at the ANI notice board on an unrelated matter, where I saw that Stephfo had filed a notice against you, but had failed to notify you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)" - I did not know the rule is that I should notify the person. I hope you will notify in future also when someone files a notice like this against other users:" Just putting the board on notice that on Objections to evolution User:Stephfo has been WP:POINTY and has probably crossed 3RR at this point (I would do the report myself but I really hate putting together 3RR cases) as both his username and User:88.88.83.52. He appears to be a creationist attempting to push his POV and if you check out the talk page I think you'll see immediately why I'm bringing it here for attention. I'm also not quite willing to make the accusation, but his writing style is reminding me of someone else, I'll wait and see if anyone else picks up on that before I mention any names. Noformation Talk 01:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)" Thanx a lot in advance--Stephfo (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly false accusations

I'd like to ask you regarding your statement "I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC) " related to topic "Creationist views on the Second Law of Thermodynamics" why there is no answer by you on my following Q: "Would it be please possible to enlist the three major fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry you have managed to find in that text? Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"

Do you acknowledge that you do not have anthyng real to demonstrate the validity of your claim and consequently are withdrawing your argument or do you need some more time to recall your original observations? Please, clarify. Thanx in advance.--Stephfo (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no answer because an answer would be pointless. The paper had already been rejected on other grounds (primary, self-pub, not notable, no representative, etc), so asking what scientific errors it contains is purely academic and beating a dead horse, which seems to be your specialty. Answering would be a waste of my time, and I don't plan on wasting any more time on a most uncivil editor like you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Please explain what in particular you regard for uncivil so that I can improve. People might have different views what uncivil means, for someone it is asking to confirm the truthfullness of declarations, for others it might be ungrounded accusations that are providing no evidence whatsoever.

2. What exactly is regarded as self-pub in given paper?

3. What is regarded as not notable?

4. No representative of whom?

5. Are you declaring in other words that you used the tactic of fabricating a charge to make your argument stronger knowing that later you will be able to declare any request for demonstration of your claim for pointless so that you can state virtually anything you want without bothering if it is actually truth?--Stephfo (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Poles

to według ciebie Lechici i język polski, biologia i historia kultury, oraz publikacje PAN nazywasz nacjonalistycznym szitem ? (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal comment

This comment is, in my opinion, very condescending and hostile and doesn't appear to facilitate cooperation, compromise, and collaboration which are requisites for productive editing in the wiki. Please address the edits, not the editor and avoid pejorative comments. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

against "voivodeship" again

Please see the discussion at Talk:Voivodeships of Poland.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your insightful comments there. May I once again invite you to WT:POLAND? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Wedge Document

DV, you insist on reverting my edits on that page without any justification of your revert, without actually spelling out that you have reverted, and without engaging in a discussion on the talk page about it. This is unhelpful behaviour and I would appreciate you adopting a more constructive approach. I am not attempting to be disruptive (as your edit summary insinuates), I am trying to improve what strikes me as a very POV article. MissionNPOVible (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that you didn't hesitate to call in the cavalry! Pathetic. MissionNPOVible (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvass

Hi Dominus, wanted to drop you a note about Homosexuality. The editor in question only posted a notice at the Homosexuality article. They did not post a notice at any other related articles such as Religion. This selective notification is a violation of WP:CANVASS "an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." – Lionel ^(talk) 12:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My, I wonder how that article is related, Lionelt, indeed that might be violation of WP:CANVASS. I posted a neutral message to a directly related article's talk page, in compliance with WP:CANVASS.

@Dominus Vobisdu - thank you for explaining the guideline to Lionelt and restoring my notification --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 13:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC).

Poznań

Really funny. I also translate for Maciej Giertych's Institute of Dendrology (which belongs to PAN, not UAM in fact) as well as for UAM, AR and many other institutions. I'm very glad that you like Poznań. I hope to meet you here some day - please let me know when you come. And thanks for the tip! Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Links to CRARG website from Wikipedia articles for Polish towns

Dominus-- The Czestochowa-Radomsko Area Research Group ("CRARG") website is devoted to Jewish genealogy and history in the area of (not surprisingly) Czestochowa and Radomsko, Poland. CRARG is a nonprofit 501(c) organization that indexes Polish records and makes them available to members. I added the CRARG home page as an external link to the Wikipedia articles on towns that had a substantial Jewish population. You flagged those links as spam and took the links down. Would the external link be appropriate if, instead of linking to the CRARG home page, I instead linked to the CRARG page for the town to which the article is directed (see, e.g., http://www.crarg.org/czestochowa-poland-jewish-records.php)? Those pages generally include some history concerning the Jews of the town, as well as a list of Jewish surnames for that town. Those pages also include information about CRARG membership, which I assume to be the reason that you flagged the links, but I suspect that one of the principal reasons why Wikipedia users are interested in articles about these towns is because their ancestors came from these towns and they are interested in learning what genealogical information may be available for those towns. I appreciate Wikipedia's mission and its achievements, and I do not want to do anything that is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and practices. Thank you for your time and your assistance. JeffWexler (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

======

Dominus-- Thanks for your quick response, and for your explanation. I'm seeking clarification to see whether the operators of the CRARG website could, if they chose, modify the website in a manner that would satisfy Wikipedia's linking policy. I assume that Wikipedia policy doesn't bar links to a website that contains information that pertains very directly to the subject matter of the Wikipedia article containing the external links simply because the website belongs to an organization that solicits members; instead, the policy bars links for the purpose of advertising or promoting the organization. Accordingly, if CRARG had a stand-alone website providing historical and geographical information about a town, I assume that a link to that website wouldn't violate the policy against advertising or promoting an organization. (I recognize that the website would need to satisfy other requirements as to the specificity, relevance, and reliability of content.) Similarly, I assume that the policy wouldn't be violated if the same content were on a web page on CRARG's website as long as that web page did not link to pages that publicized or advertised CRARG. Would the result be different if CRARG had a web page providing the same information (without overtly advertising or publicizing CRARG), but had links to other pages on the website that "advertised or publicized" CRARG by referring to its genealogical mission and soliciting members? I can see policy arguments going both ways. . . . Thanks again for your assistance and insight. JeffWexler (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

==

Dominus-- Thanks for getting back to me. CRARG has been in the process of modifying its website to include more historical information concerning the towns in its area of interest. When CRARG has an exemplar web page for one of those towns, we'll get in touch with user:piotrus and user:kotniski to determine: (1) whether the information on that web page meets Wikipedia guidelines for citation as external references; and (2) if so, whether the web page is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies against advertising or promoting an organization. JeffWexler (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)