Jump to content

User talk:Dominick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MikaM (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 7 May 2006 (→Hitler article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar
None

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


Old Discussion moved to: User talk:Dominick/Archive User talk:Dominick/Archive2

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

Lyndon LaRouche

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

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

Hello

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

Thanks

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

Florida

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

"Safe Sex"

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

Wikiprojects Catholicism

Something new ... Template:User Catholicism WikiProject evrik 18:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something new as well

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

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

New Catholic Collaboration of the Week!

Template:Catholic voter

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


Medjugorje

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

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

Fisheaters

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

Creeds and Symbols

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

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

USF bomb shelters?

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

Hitler article

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

Preventing an edit war on the saints

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

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

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

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

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

Swedish allotment system

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

Don't put edits over vandalism. This was not hard to find. Dominick (TALK) 16:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly resist your following allegation: "your edits may or may not have been vandalism". Any editor at least a bit familiar with the topic would have known them to be no vandalism. Again, I request you kindly check carefully before simultaneously reverting useful edits - as you yourself just pointed, the actual vandalism was not hard to find, and you found it because you were looking for it - as contrary to me since I was adding content, not suspecting vandalism at that time.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.186.14 (talk • contribs)

Christian Wiki

Hi,

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

We are just about ready to go live!

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

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

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

Talk:Traditionalist Catholic

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


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

Hitler article

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

I was coming here to say the stame thing. Also your edit summary is false. You say "rv to consensus version." That is NOT the consensus version. Its being pushing by Str1977 (backed by ML). All other editors support the version you removed,which is the more balanced and well sourced version. Dont remove sourced material, please. We are here not to push a POV but only report who said what. I find it very disturbing that only the Catholic editors are pushing this POV by suppressing the facts of Hitlers religous beliefs. MikaM 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominick&oldid=51924123"