Jump to content

User talk:Dominus Vobisdu/Archive 3

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


Talk

Hello there, and I just wanted say thank you, for the removing the rest of non Western horoscopes information I was just about to say this was noted on the WP:Help desk on section Astrology, and Marketdiamond reported some possible way to help out for qualifiations for mythology and folklore for Greek and Chinese heritage information, but you already removed for other further suggestions, unless you can help by using reliable references for a more about mythological sources, otherwise, thanks anyway.--GoShow (............................) 18:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Why Notable Pisceans is irrelevant trivia?

I had added a section in the Pisces (astrology) page called Notable Pisceans. I was planning to add to it as and when I discovered a Piscean worth making it to the list.

Yes, it is trivia, but I would like to know why is it "irrelevant"? All the data is verifiable in Wikipedia itself.

There are Wiki pages for each day of the year, and each page lists notable people born on that date. For example - March 1. So why not under a Sun-sign?

I think it makes the page more interesting and the facts are all correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.178.64 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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 "Australian Christian Lobby". Thank you! Sam56mas (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you still interested into following this discussion:Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Australian_Christian_Lobby_discussion? — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Not at all interested. Never was. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for the fast response. Good editing. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirection of Astrology sign articles

I noticed that you redirected all the articles for individual zodiac signs (such as Cancer (astrology) to Astrological sign. There's already been a note of consternation from a reader at the Reference Desk about this. Was this action taken after a community discussion? LukeSurl t c 13:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've suggested Talk:Astrological_sign#Redirection_of_Western_Zodiac_signs as a centralised place to discuss this. LukeSurl t c 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

ACL

I appreciate the heads-up and have left a comment to the troublesome user on the article talk page, but please mind WP:CANVASS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And I thought this edit was rather uncivil. StAnselm (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Youreallycan and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Rschen7754 04:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

YRC edits

By any chance, did you save a copy of the edits on YRC's user talk page before they got oversighted last night? Please drop me an email if you did. Prioryman (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wish I had. I would have posted it with your name removed on the ANI if I had. Sorry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
OK. It would also be very helpful, since you saw the edits in question, if you could describe their nature on AN/I and why you reverted them. It's understandable that some people are frustrated that they can't see the evidence but I think it would help if those who did see them could explain what they saw. Prioryman (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk page comment

I'd like to respond to your comments on the ESP talk page, but don't know how. Am I able to make a reply to your comment there, or must I respond here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdsg1 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You should normally respond on the specific talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've put my recent edits to the Witherspoon Institute (regarding the Regnerus study) back in. The edits are intended to provide a more balanced approach to a controversy, as is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If you think any of the edits are not sufficiently neutral and would like to make some changes in these edits, that's fine, but please remember that we are dealing with matters that can be seen from more than one perspective and that the article should not be making a case for claims against Witherspoon or the study.

Thanks,

egoldstein84Egoldstein84 (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. As it stands, the article presents an extremely one-sided view of a controversial issue. I would appreciate your assistance in making it as neutral as possible. I agree that we should not simply be undoing each others edits, as this is counterproductive. If you think my edits do not serve the goal of neutrality, please feel free to alter them in a way that will really serve this goal Best, Egoldstein84 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)egoldstein84

Neutrality doesn't mean showing all viewpoints as if they are equal. On wikipedia we give due weight to the views most prevalent in the sources; particularly the independent and secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you but ...

You posted this [1] in the wrong place. I presume you meant Dennis' page. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Checking my edits is not stalking. I've reposted in the correct locoation. Thanks for noticing this and bringing it to my attention. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a second look

I've removed nearly all the crap from Natural breast enhancement, and replaced it with reliable sources with significant coverage. Can you have a second look at the AfD, to either confirm your choice, or change your mind. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

A request for arbitration in which you were named as a party has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Wobistdu

Hi, Dominus Vobisdu. You don't know me, but I've seen you around, and noticed your cool username. A year ago I created myself an alternative account called User:Dominus Wobistdu (so to speak a German version of yours ;-)), just on an impulse. I've never edited from it, excepting two very bland and harmless edits to create the userpage and talkpage respectively, and I guess I probably won't now. (While I sometimes use some more or less playful alternative accounts, I like them to have a "bish-" element in their names, to avoid unintentionally deceiving anybody.) If you have any interest in having an alternative account with a silly name for some purpose, you'd be welcome to take over Dominus Wobistdu. I don't see how there could be anything improper about it, given that I've (for practical purposes) never used it, and that you would of course immediately change the password when/if you got it.

Just let me know if you want it, and I'll give you the password privately (you'd need to enable the wiki email feature for that). If you don't care about it, please just ignore this. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC).

Scientology

This looks like an article you might like to edit. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for spotting that! [2] IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop and UNDO

Please do not go through and change the indents ... you're changing orders, and what you're doing is entirely inappropriate. I'll give you a few minutes to revert yourself (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's coatrack

Hello, Dominus Vobisdu. You have new messages at Talk:Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

[3] You fail to understand that the current article is a COATRACK. --87.79.108.207 (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ian Stevenson

Hi Dominus, could you go to the talk page, please, here and explain why you believe Almeder is not a reliable source? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - MrX 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Enlightenment

Hi Dominus Vobisdu. I've started a WP:SPI on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raul7213. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm getting paranoia, but how about User:Minerva20 and User:Tim-Addey09, both related to User:Logical 1? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There's an odd fascination with science running through several of those user-accounts:

Following the edits of User:151.196.95.163, I came at Shear strength_(soil).

And there's more:

So, what do you make of it? My bet (and more than just 2 cents) is that there are a lot more connected. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This may be another one: Special:Contributions/Octavious88 Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I've started a second SPI on him Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Octavious88, because of his support for Raul7213, and his comments on the "Schliemann model", both at Talk:Enlightenment (spiritual). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

LittleBenW

Hi there,

I noticed you trying to talk sense to this user in his endlessly rambling BLP RfC. I also noticed him concealing your comments, along with mine, under one of his many arbitrary cuts. Having told him earlier that I was minded to start an RfC on his actions, I now find that I can't work out how User RfCs work, or whether one would be the right approach in this case. I'd welcome your views as to what, if anything, should be done. Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Hi,

Not sure what you mean by consensus here. It's clear from the Talk page that there is no consensus either to describe CS as a pseudoscience (ie "it's a fact") or to insert a modifier (ie "it's the mainstream opinion" or whatever). The link you gave clearly indicates in favour of the modifier as far as I can see: "with in-text attribution if in doubt" (ie whether to describe something as "pseudo-"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, should have signed in with tildes on the post above.89.100.155.6 (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your well reasoned discussion re improving the alternative medicine article

Thanks for your well reasoned discussion re improving the alternative medicine article, resulting in air tight MEDRS sources for the lede first two sentences, and RS for the first paragraph. Now lets see if we can keep the content and sources from being slowly removed as appears to have happened in the past. Thanks again. :) ParkSehJik (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

National Catholic Reporter

I'm afraid that I didn't understand your "synthesis" comment/explanation on your undoing of my text readdition, particularly since the edit that, while doing many other things (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Catholic_Reporter&diff=503303569&oldid=503299885), also removed what I readded, did not - so far as I can tell - synthesize anything in that section (Position of the Church); it merely removed the Edward Peters-related stuff entirely. Please explain. PsychoInfiltrator (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are you removing my edits?

You write: "apologetics, undue weight, unreliable source." I don't know what you mean by apologetics. Does the fact that Peel was a Christian Scientist preclude his opinion from appearing? Who says? "Undue weight" is your personal opinion. As for "unreliable source" Harper and Row are a reliable mainstream publisher. You posted a whole ream of stuff on my page pertaining to the Wikipedia policies. The policies are subject to interpretation. (However, if there is any clear violation of the policies on my part, I'm happy to take note of that and act accordingly. But you'll need to point to the specific wording that I'm infringing.)89.100.155.6 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion

You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you commented at one of the articles or AfDs that are cited in the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your message on my talk page. - s t a r c a r (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies

I made a bad assumption at Intelligent Design and ended up wasting quite a bit of your time. Thanks for bearing with me until I figured it out. I won't make that mistake again.

Abashed,

GaramondLethe 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

.. and I'll add my own. This was a pointless edit, thanks for picking it up. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genealogical relationships of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

As this article says "This page is intended to reflect the page Genealogical relationships of Presidents of the United States." I am notifying all those who !voted in the AfD for that article about this AfD discussion. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

..


Seasons greetings to you and yours
Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo

Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Good to see you back, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Jive

You want jibe, not jive.
(and then drown your sorrows face down à la Garfield in a pan of lasagn� . . .)
Cheers -- Elphion (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: love your user name -- Elphion (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Welcome back! Your sage edits have been sorely missed... bobrayner (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus nationality dispute

Hello Dominus, I have noticed your recent contribution to the Copernicus dispute and I feel sorry for reverting you without a giving you a reason. This article has been hounded by nationalist disputes for many years with probably Megabytes of pure discussion on the talk page. These wars slowly decreased and for three years the article was almost free of these petty wars and a version that was accepted by both sides became stable. In February however, the account User:Astronomer28 began a mission to write a biased version to make him appear Polish. The current version is highly nationalist, emotional and historically dubious:4 of the first 3 sentences are now advertisement for his side in the lede and in the nationality section all pro-German arguments were deleted by Astronomer28 allegedly for reasons of size (of course...). I tried to edit with Nihil novi for a balanced third new version of the lede, to which I reverted [6]. Before that, this was the version before Nihil novi and I edited [7], the old version with just corrections. This is how the stable article looked before Astronomer28 [8]. Which do you prefer?--walkeetalkee 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

    • this not your article, you can't remove my edit without giving a convincing reason. can you give a reason for that???. HERE is totally different article you don't want to add this quote in R.D article this is anther story, but in article which called "Cultural Christian" you can't add a quote that R.D regards himself as "Cultural Christian" which backed my more than three and under a paragraph called "USAGE" and you still and you cliaming that it's "trivial" to put it here, This is not justified. This NOT R.D article we are in a different article discuss befor you removing and give a convincing reason, We are not in a dictatorship place that you remove whatever you want, By the way you violate the policy of "The three-revert rule".--Jobas (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Dominus has not broken the 3rr policy, but if you (Jobas) add it again, you will. You, however, are edit warring to shoehorn this WP:UNDUE trivia into several articles. Heiro 00:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
i don't brok any policy here.--Jobas (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
ok i see, i'm reading the policies, those sources about R.D regards himself as Cultural Christian. but also it's singnificant to topic of R.D?? here is Anthropological Journal of European Cultures call him http://books.google.co.il/books?id=IsOTtxVRIiUC&pg=PA284&dq=cultural+christian+richard+dawkins&hl=iw&sa=X&ei=oGpjUe_mO-be7Abbn4Fg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cultural%20christian%20richard%20dawkins&f=false "From a Darwinist perspective, militant atheist and “cultural Christian” richard Dawkins" it's a neutral and reliable source?--Jobas (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you failed to notice the "scare quotes" around the words "cultural Christian". They are there for a reason. And it's not a discussion, just a vety brief mention. Again, please read our policies. Everything I, and the other editors you have been discussing with, will make perfect sense once you understand our policies. And you're arguments will make sense to us. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Puppetry?

Is it me, or does it seem as if there is some sock or meat puppetry going on at Jim Wallace (Australia) and Australian Christian Lobby? - MrX 12:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User page draft will be deleted

Per the discussion [9] it was determined that the efforts that you participated in at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia had lead to the conclusion that there was not enough content to overcome WP:DICDEF and so instead of an article, the term will be a redirect to Wiktionary.

I will be requesting a deletion of the sandbox draft that you contributed to. Please feel free to contact an admin to have it restored and moved to your user space if you wish to continue working. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That was very kind of you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mozart (train) AfD

Mozart (train) is up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mozart_(train). Please make your opinion there known, in light of what everyone has said already. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul - STOP

I'm telling both you you now to stop. You are at WP:3RR and this is a content dispute. Even if you get reverted again. Come on, you don't want to be blocked and you know better - what's the rush in any case? Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

the spirit of '43, reliable sources, & the definition of "original research

hello;

i noticed that you have decided to become involved in a dispute between myself & another, just in time to prevent that other user from violating the 3R rule.

now, in looking at you contribution history, you have NEVER worked on that article before, & show no particular interest in disney topics, or the history of american animated films; so, i am assuming that your convenient appearance as at the request of the other user. under the circumstances, i do not think that it is an unreasonable assumption.

now, setting that aside & getting the the facts of the case:

1. you are (badly) misusing the term "original reseach". when a stated claim is supported by independent external sources, then a claim of "OR" is automatically invalidated.

2. you claim that the sources cited are "unreliable".

the sources i used were IMBD & the Internet Archive

IF you are going to claim that these sources are "invalid", then please show me EXACTLY where this is stated in wikipedia's policies.

thank you for your time & attention in these matters.

Lx 121 (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring

As per Wikipedia policy, the correct procedure is for people to go ahead and edit articles (not to get consensus before the revert) and for people who revert to provide an explanation for their revert. No explanation was given for the revert. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_to_%22no_consensus%22L

THEY (including yourself) are antagonizing me by violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies and making unexplained reverts. If you all followed Wikipedia guidelines and policies, the edit process would be much smoother and positive.-Eris Lover (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Your lack of civility is demonstrated in your lack of desire to follow the above posted guideline. If you were wanting to be civil, you would not have reverted with a 'no consensus' (paraphrased) explanation, but would have, rather, left the original edit in place and demanded that Mann Jess provide an explanation for his reversion. If you want good faith, then you must act in a way that gives me a reason to have it.-Eris Lover (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Reverting pages with no more than a "not consensus" is NOT civil. So, perhaps you need to read those policies you linked to? -Eris Lover (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Rollback at Schirmer Abduction

I rollbacked your edit as you stated in your last edit summary to use reliable sources, but you added a paragragh that wasn't even sourced. Here was the last change you made. If I'm in error, take it to the article talkpage and we can examine the references.--MONGO 04:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind..I looked again and saw some Youtube ref and another that looked unreliable...so I reverted back to your last edit.--MONGO 04:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate language

Language like "silly stunt", as you used at User_talk:Sminthopsis84#Artemisia, is inappropriate. Sminthopsis84 may or may not be right in his/her edit, but should not be responded to in that way. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

San Gregorio

Hallo Dominus Vobisdu, I wanted to thank you for your corrections at the San Gregorio article: I am Italian (from Rome), and at the moment I lie in bed with 39 C., so maybe I should just stop editing, because my English - always bad - is becoming worse and worse. :-) Just 2 remarks: a memoriale is an anonymous letter, not a post hole. And please give me a little more than a week to find the source for this info, since now I am in Zurich, but most of my roman books are in Rome. Anyway, the post hole is clearly visible on google street view on the side of the church opposite the Tiber. Ciao, Alex2006 (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know if I will manage: here is snowing and raining without interruption since six months: I wonder where the global warming went... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Hallo Dominus, of course you are right! With my last energy I looked for a source and then fainted in bed... :-) The source which I read in Rome describes this hole as a place to put anonymous denunciations (there are still a few of them in the center of Rome) but, because of the destination of the church, I think that the usage now mentioned in the article is more probable (and also nicer :-)). Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Motors and grounding

What's inappropriate about asking a question about electronics? People ask for information that has practical implications there all the time. It's not about the product per se, it's really a question about wiring. And I've asked for practical advice there lots of times without that reaction. Be——Critical 14:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Photophobia (from Greek φῶς — phōs, "light"[1] and φόβος — phobos, "fear"[2]) /ˌfəʊtəʊˈfəʊbiə/

You said last year "First of all, the word homophobia is not composed of "homo-" and "phobia", and does not mean "fear of the same"."

Just as with photophobia, with homophobia we know quite well both what the primary word sources are and what the literal meaning is. They're constructed essentially the same way too, but the article for the first points out where it comes from and what it means literally in the opening, where the second waits a few paragraphs to bother mentioning it. Seems perhaps a bit biased.

Yet I'll certainly agree the first doesn't currently in use mean fear of light any more than the second currently in use means fear of same; but I said the second literally meant that -- and it does. The same way the first literally means what it literally means.

We also know the origins of the term homophobia, which originally was closer to (essentially was) the literal meaning. We also know how to deconstruct the words that are constructed with homo meaning same, deconstruct them into other words where the usage is similar or the neologisms are essentially analogous. 1969, "heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay." 1971, "psychological aversion to homosexuality". Thus using fear in the neologism is not any of erroneous, a semantic error, or required to be used in a clinical sense, to be a valid use. Literally the first is "sameness"; biological sex in this case. Literally the second is "irrational fear"; even if feelings involved never actually rise to that level. In current usage it is much broader, "non-heterosexual" with "general fear and fear-like feelings" or "psychological aversion". Even less than that, from mere dislike or disapproval to anything lacking full acceptance and total embracement. Sure, of course, in reality it's hardly anywhere near the level of fear, and it's not just homosexual it also includes bisexual, transgendered, transsexual, transvestite, and feelings involving or related to any of them. In other words, it means just about anything anyone happens to want it to mean. Subverted towards a particular usage by one cause or another, if you will.

So then even so more as a political and emotional term, homophobia encompasses any slight dislike or disapproval for LGBT behaviors and anything related to LGBT matters. To the point where even gay men commenting that other gay men are total queens is homophobic, or even lesbian women calling other lesbian women bulls is homophobic. It's rather interesting socially, but that's another subject too. It's also a common result with terms that morph into vague directionless phrases that can mean just about anything in any context, ones like this one that are essentially no longer directly linked to their original meanings. Especially ones like this one that having in many ways been co-opted to have a negative connotation, to use to emotionally attack others as being bigoted and intolerant and wrong. Which many are, but that's another subject too.

In the end, yes, of course, certainly, like most terms are or become, homophobia is far more and very much less related to than the sum of its literal components. Yet nevertheless it is comprised of homo (just as its source is, just as the slang is used, etc) and phobia. Literally. Period, end of story. The term also reflects that in its origins, it is a term invented to connote a fear of same sex, a psychological matter of being perceived as being gay when it isn't the case. (Being slightly anxious or not liking the idea is hardly fear either, but we still use the word fear even though it really doesn't apply. Language is so watered down these days.)

Plus that, your arguments and my rebuttals notwithstanding, the article itself essentially says the same thing anyway.  :) 

 Coined by George Weinberg, a psychologist, in the 1960s,[11] the term homophobia is a blend[12][13][14] of (1) the word homosexual, itself a mix of neo-classical morphemes, and (2) phobia from the Greek φόβος, Phóbos, meaning "fear" or "morbid fear".

Yes it's a year later and no it doesn't matter, but I was looking over things and thought I'd say hi.

--Sln3412 (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Naturalism (philosophy)#“[T]hat there is no ‘purpose’ in nature”

Hi. Apparently, you misunderstood my motivation behind the discussion. Questioning the legitimacy of a statement made in an article is often necessary for improving it and doesn't have to equate to forum babble. Now, while I've been suggested to provide reliable sources to back up a negative proposition—a dubious suggestion in itself, I beg your pardon—why not provide a source for its affirmative variant? Some claims on Wikipedia require sources; others, whether being common knowledge (e.g., the French Revolution began in 1789) or common-sense inferences (e.g., Muslims qua Muslims are members of a religious, not racial, group), do not. This is noted in the lead section of WP:OR. EIN (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

New at AN, huh?

Hope you have better luck with microbiology. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

KW, is this really necessary? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics

Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You Gutted the TIGHAR Article

You removed more than half the article and 11 of the 14 sources.

Despite being a newbie I am fully aware that some editors will try to whittle an article down to nothingness and then argue for its deletion because it “hasn’t gone anywhere”. If you and Binksternet insist on vandalizing the article then just go ahead and nominate it for WP:PROD. 68.74.163.157 (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the policies which you have listed. Telling you to delete an article which you have decided to destroy is not a “personal attack”, however accusing me of a personal attack when I have not made one is. You deleted references to Discovery, National Geographic, and Courthouse News (which you described as “trivial”) as well as a number of primary sources which were utterly uncontentious. In the prose you deleted nearly everything that TIGHAR has done in the last two decades that has made the news.

I have been following TIGHAR’s antics for the last five years and know that it has the potential to attract TIGHAR fanatics, TIGHAR haters, and proponents of “Japanese capture” theories. I was perfectly happy for TIGHAR not to have a Wikipedia page, but when someone created one I thought it best to step in and try to guide it in the direction of neutrality. The way I had the article written it read like a list of facts which had little potential to sell or attack TIGHAR’s theory. If left in its present state it will invariably attract POV pushers on both sides and become an attack piece or an advertisement, which is why I’d prefer it were deleted.

Oh, and don’t ever threaten me again. If you want to accuse me of personal attacks you will have to answer to accusations of vandalism, which will be pretty had to do after you deleted more than half of a (well soured) article (without bothering to discuss it at all) because you’ve independently decided that the article shouldn’t exist. There’s a pretty big difference between “being bold” and deleting something because you don’t like it.

That said, I’m trough with this crap. I didn’t come here to argue with a few senior editors who feel that they WP:OWN the wiki and can operate without achieving consensus.

If you’re too much of a WP:DICK to admit that you’re wrong, then TIGHAR can be your problem now.

I’m out. - 68.74.163.157 (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tendentious editing at The Exodus. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Arzel constant attacks and not assuming WP:Good Faith. Thank you. Dusti*poke* 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Dawkins

Don't ever patronize me again. 12.228.43.221 (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

DR/N

Hi DV! Please find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Acupuncture#Medical procedure?. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

sorry to bother you with this but please see the edits on the talkpage and article of Frederic William Henry Myers and the abuse comments on the talkpage, I need some help on this issue, hes been deleting sources and claiming Wikipedia is biased. Doubter12 (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Next time I suggest you read the NPOV tag. It specifically states to NOT remove until resolved. Arzel (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing Han-Nom

Please stop with your repeated blanking of this article. If you think it should be deleted, propose an AFD. This is just vandalism. Kauffner (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Silesia

Please stop reinstating disputed material and seek a consensus. Rsloch (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Alcuin

Thanks for your efforts in trying to bring about some return to civility and moderation in this article. Appreciated. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

On the Silesia page I was reverting an edit made by a sockpuppet and clearly stated so in the edit summary. I do not require a consensus to do that. Perhaps you could revert the page back to how it was before the sockpuppet got hold of it rather than feeding it.Rsloch (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons ANI

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Matzoon (yogurt). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read the rule WP:VANDALISM. The information is based on sources. If you have any other information about the origin of the drink, then bring sources. Now your actions is vandalism--Lori-m (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

'No way to get consensus' No way to get consensus with factual information that is referenced in the entry itself you keep changing on Homosexuality/Violence against gays and lesbians. The information is in the same report in regard to the percentages on that entry, this information is being misrepresented misleading the public to believe these are physical attacks against gay men, that is not true it is a composite involving "In the UCR Program, the victim of a hate crime can be an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole." This does not follow Wikipedia's purpose as clearly defined in its own requirements of information entry. Explain this to me how a misrepresentation of information that is clearly spelled out in the reference connected to this entry can remain on Wikipedia? Reference 247 FBI Hate Crime Statistics 2011 Methodology, In the UCR Program, "the victim of a hate crime can be an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole." Ranleewright (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

28 Consensus

No way to get consensus' No way to get consensus with factual information that is referenced in the entry itself you keep changing on Homosexuality/Violence against gays and lesbians. The information is in the same report in regard to the percentages on that entry, this information is being misrepresented misleading the public to believe these are physical attacks against gay men, that is not true it is a composite involving "In the UCR Program, the victim of a hate crime can be an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole." This does not follow Wikipedia's purpose as clearly defined in its own requirements of information entry. Explain this to me how a misrepresentation of information that is clearly spelled out in the reference connected to this entry can remain on Wikipedia? Reference 247 FBI Hate Crime Statistics 2011 Methodology, In the UCR Program, "the victim of a hate crime can be an individual, a business, an institution, or society as a whole." Ranleewright (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Ranleewright (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead as opposed to body which already has plenty of criticism

More than half the entire body of the CM article is criticism. Ought we have 80% of the lead also be iterations of what is already in the body of the article? Also I assume someone must support this creature, but zero percent of the entire article seems to be weighted in that direction. WP:NPOV requires some pretense of balance, if I recall correctly, but I find essentially none in that article. Even Adolf Hitler has to meet NPOV, if I recall policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this on my talk page instead of the article talk page? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I wrote to you to address a specific concern you appear to have. I also posted on the article talk page, so I am unsure why you appear to be distraught. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
And I responded to your posts on the article talk page, which is where the discussion belongs. It doesn't belong here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

user:Jimbob Williams

I have already opened an SPI on this user. Regards -- Taroaldo ✉ 08:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

trolling on talk cold fusion

You should stop trolling on the talk page or I will report you for it.

84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

84.* do not delete talk page comments unless they are clearly disruptive. This comment was not such a case, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your attempts to recruit editors with similar viewpoints

Information icon Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Acupuncture. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. -A1candidate (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with asking other editors to give their opinions but please do it in a neutral manner and not as you did here , here, and here. -A1candidate (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not revert other editor's comments

Do not revert other editor's comments. This is only permitted under certain circumstances such as cases of gross offensiveness which Esoglou's weren't. Thank you. Anglicanus (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks can ALWAYS be deleted. I have invited Esgoulou top repost using civil language. Give him a chance to do so. And if he does so, I will answer his question. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
They are clearly NOT personal attacks in any way at all. Anglicanus (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
They are certainly not an invitation to discussion in any way at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as an administrator I can tell you that this was not in fact a proper removal, and continuing to do things like that can also get you blocked. You can remove almost anything you like from your own talk page, but the circumstances under which it is appropriate to do so on article talk pages are considerably more narrow. This looks to me like a content dispute, not a personal attack despite the fact that they mentioned you by name. You don't have to reply to it if you don't think it merits your attention, but removing the entire comment and edit warring over it is absolutely not acceptable. Please be more careful in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You've been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dominus Vobisdu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, I did indeed unintentionally violate 3rr. I'm always exceedingly meticulous not to do this, as my block log shows. Apparently lost count because two separate groups of edits were involved and I probably didn't realize they were on the same article. Of course have no intention to continue edit-warring. Thanks. Also, the blocking adminstrator mentions "multiple violations of 3rr on Intelligent Design over the past week". There was only a single incident, with only a total of three reverts besides this in the last week, and no reverts before that until back in June. Can the block log be amended to reflect this? Thanks again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

What is far more important than the technicality of whether or not you violated 3RR is that you understand that edit warring is always the wrong thing to do. If you find yourself counting reverts to make sure you don't breach 3RR, you have totally missed the point of the edit warring policy. Edit warring never helps, it always makes things worse. That is why we don't tolerate it, whether you breach 3RR or not. However, I will speak to the blocking admin about ammending your log. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FWIW, it's only 24 hrs. My advice is go away from the wiki for a while. Go for a walk, go and speak to some real people. Be nice to them, and they will be nice to you too. Sometimes this can seem to be the most important thing in the world, but it isn't. Trust me, it isn't. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

quoted at FTN

FYI, your assessment of Whitfield as a reliable source (from Talk:astrology) has been quoted at FTN.--Other Choices (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

acupuncture

Dominus, I don't think my edits are unreasonable and yet you immediately revert me over and over without explanation. My edit regarding placebo is appropriate to the sources, same reasoning you use to justify your many edits. It seems like you are just baiting me for a pissing match. Its really not worth it. I would appreciate it if you would accept my reasonable removal of a perfect example of original research, or improve the edit by qualifying the claim. Or just keep edit warring if that really makes you happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbxue (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No reply? Surprise surprise. You have been blocked from editing at least one page in which you have sought out conflict. You have a clear history as a disruptive editor. Herbxue (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"unreliable sources"

Hellow.
Why had You removed Sarfati and Thompson from Further reading in Objections to evolution? This article is about critic of evolution theory and so that sources are agree with subject. Sarfati was mentioned in article several times. William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) was entomologist and director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, his work (i.e. link) is verifiable.
What's the trouble? It seems to me You are engaging in censorship. --Максим Пе (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Meyer article

There seems to be an 'edit war' going on between you and an unregistered user 65.12.180.156. 3 times of do/undo on 13 August, 2013. The same user also deleted a big piece of my entry on Meyer's newest book, with reason that I don't necessary agree. And he added another piece that I have question. I think we should bring in administrator to arbitrate. And the article should be temporarily locked to settle this. What do you think? Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This IP user deleted a lot more than the content related to the 'dubious source' in his/her claim. I wrote the detail in the Talk page in the Meyer's article. Speaking of agenda, isn't it funny that the one with the agenda will throw the first stone? Ginger Maine Coon (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake

FYI. Vzaak (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Raising concerns about reliable medical sourcing @ Annonaceae wiki page

Please explain why medical journals - peer reviewed literature should not be considered "reliable"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annonaceae Prokaryotes (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

ID dispute resolution

As you know, we have frequent disputes on the Talk:Intelligent design page that focus on distinguishing Intelligent design from the teleological argument. I have started a new section on the dispute resolution noticeboard for this and listed you as a participant in these disputes. If you have some time, please stop over and explain what your proposed resolution is and why you believe this to be the case. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Intelligent design". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Fallacies of Wiki Editing

You recently left a long rambling post on a talk page about why you were the expert on many subjects and therefore your conclusions were valid. I could not follow your logic honestly. I spend a lot of time in the garage and occasionally the car is in there also. Does that make me an expert on cars? I am illustrating a fallacy that because someone is "around something" ie. history specifically Christian history therefore they are an expert on that subject. I am no expert on microbiology however my sister is on biochemistry and currently is a professor of medicine. I keep up with her and know more than most about many biology, chemistry, and oncology. I do not know anyone who would want me as their doctor though and the law would put me in jail for practicing medicine without a license. My point do not claim to be something your are not or claim some expertise in something you have no professional training in. I believe you can follow my logic here. History is not equal to microbiology. I could go on but then I would be rambling. Oopps! Respectfully 208.54.40.235 (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello

You did so much good work. We miss you. Are you still around? bobrayner (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Traditional Chinese medicine". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Pisces (astrology)

Hello. I see that you've removed sourced information from the article Pisces (astrology), with the edit summary that you were removing fringe theories and unreliably sourced information. However, the information was reliably sourced by a multitude of sources and was providing the mythology behind the astrology sign, which appears necessary for an astrology article. If you have any questions or comments, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. KJ «Click Here» 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

The following message left on my talk page may be of interest to you too:

"This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)"

Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read up on policies

I recommend you to read WP:NPA, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:CIVIL. You seem quite happy to violate all of them as you see fit.Jeppiz (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

Seriously?[10] See archived Talk:Acu, and Vzaak's note at the end of the very long thread at WT:MED -- I don't remember you being part of either. Where's more recent consensus the other way, or are you just reflexively supporting QuackGuru? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 09:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC) edited 09:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc James is looking at the history now, and the history doesn't support you (either on consensus or depiction of sources). Don't think I'm some little clueless woo-pusher you can trample all over; I'm a scientist who went on to study acupuncture before we knew what we do now, and I understand exactly what the literature says about efficacy (read my COI declaration). Please either justify or revert your edit, or I will escalate to a noticeboard. I strongly suspect you were just reflexively supporting QG and/or opposing me, and that kind of conduct is completely unacceptable. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 11:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominus_Vobisdu/Archive_3&oldid=1232488531"