User talk:Dominick - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pitchka (talk | contribs) at 23:51, 15 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:51, 15 December 2005 by Pitchka (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Fix spelling and grammar None More... • Learn how Fix wikilinks

More... • Learn how Update with new information

More... • Learn how Expand short articles

More... • Learn how Check and add references

More... • Learn how Fix original research issues

More... • Learn how Improve lead sections

More... • Learn how Add an image

More... • Learn how Translate and clean up

More... • Learn how

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

NPOV enforcer's hitlist

Ah, User:NPOVenforcer has added you to his enemy's list on his User page. Welcome to the club! The few, the proud, the people who have pissed off NPOVenforcer!! Kit 05:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added a great deal of supporting detail, evidence and information on the user's behavior to your RfC, as well as the second endorsement. Kit 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

User:NPOVenforcer has been blocked because of his hitlist and choice of username according to a notice on your RfC. I have asked the admin responsible (User:Ral315 if removing the hitlist would be appropriate at this time, or if we need to wait till after the RfC. Kit 06:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ral315 removed the enemy's list. Kit 06:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Lima

No, I am not "done with" it. Matters like this are never solved in just a few months. For me, I feel no need to be impatient while awaiting the solution. Impatience is counterproductive in relations with others and takes from personal peace of mind. Lima 13:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean by "how about my objection to the least part of DSL4?" "Least" probably means "last", and "DSL4" must mean something else. I know of no objection you have ever raised against any part of DSL4, which I wrote to present your idea and which I wanted to call DSDL1, putting D for Dominick first. Lima 19:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

DSU12 says that, in the rest of the entry, the two terms "are used" (not "are used only") in the narrow sense. So the terms can be used in other senses also. Perhaps it is best to accept DSU12. Or do you prefer to spend several more months on a section that you were once in a great hurry to get beyond? Lima 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Cannot paragraph 2 be understood in the following sense: "The terms A and B are more exclusively used — and are used, even if not exclusively, in the rest of this entry — to refer to ..."? Lima 05:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't feel like entering a quarrel with Used2BAnonymous especially at this moment when we are hopefully about to enter a discussion that may resolve objective (not personal) matters. Lima 05:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping an eye on my user page! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Various issues

Hi, Dominick. Apologies for ignoring you for so long. I did receive your messages. I'd be quite interested in Traditional Catholic if I had more time. It is on my watchlist, and has been for some time. I think you did very good work on Karl Keating. Interesting that he seems to have made one anonymous edit to it himself.

I've been looking at the Scott Hahn article, and I see that he's categorized at the bottom as being a member of Opus Dei. Do you know if that's accurate. I've never heard that. By the way, I've started an article on Kimberly Hahn.

I was very glad of your appearance at Terri Schiavo.

Regards, Ann Heneghan 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOVenforcer back?

You stated that NPOVenforcer is 'back?' As far as I know, the block on this account has not been lifted. I don ot see any activity from him here or on the IP address he was using before. Has he switched to a new account or IP? Unless he picks another name like 'NPOVenforcer', he is perfectly allowed to return of course, under the conditions of a "block." Kit 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect, for reasons I outlined on my Talk: page. NPOVenforcer may very well come back at some point, but I do not believe he is currently amongst us. Kit 05:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

CfD

If you got a minute can you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. Thank you. nobs 22:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I see you don't like sui iuri missions. There are currently about 11 of them in the Catholic Church. One is the Cayman islands, another is Tokelau. I am new to this game, so I may foul up the communication.

Thank you

Thanks for your help at Category:Soviet spies. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance. nobs 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, Dominick.

Your signature came out all wrong at the AfD page. There was some bug or change of software at Misplaced Pages recently, and people had to reset their signatures as a result. What you need to do (I think!) is go to My preferences at the top of any page, and then replace your entire nickname with ] ], making sure that the "raw signatures" box is checked. Then save. Thanks for your reply to my recent message. I wish I had time for all the Misplaced Pages articles I'm interested in. I have Traditionalist Catholic on my watchlist, so your name appears quite regularly when I refresh the page. Cheers. AnnH 15:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic

Please jump in. We can use more eyes to fix this article. Right now you may wish to look at the Talk archives. Dominick ] 14:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dominick - Thanks; after I had added, I read the talk page prohibition not to add without first discussing and realized that I would probably get a tongue lashing, but I am relieved. Thanks once again. WikiSceptic 16:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

INC article.

Misplaced Pages's adminstration is all over this. The situation is out of hand. I only wish the INC members who used to post here still do, but I don't know what happened. I seriouly hope this person isn't Emico. If it isn't, Emico will be taking the blunt of this guy's posts, and I'll feel so sorry for him. As far as anon's concerened, we've tried everything to get him to be civil, but nothing will work. I don't need to state the obvious about his stance on Misplaced Pages.

Jondel sent me this message to my talk page, you may want to follow it as well. User talk:Lbmixpro#Don't entertain the Trolls. --LBMixPro 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you check out what I wrote at User talk:Woohookitty, there's evidence this anon is User:Starbucks, who is banned. I'd suggest us take the actions at WP:BAN. --LBMixPro 00:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I'm nominated at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Lbmixpro, could you take a moment to vote if you have the time? --LBMixPro 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced

The only reason I've had to place these links on several pages is because several pages don't have reference sections. I was simply acknowledging that the article doesn't follow WP:CITE. How are readers supposed to know which external links are just links to "other related sites" and which external links are sources? This isn't just my opinion either. I discussed this thoroughly with members of Arbcom and Wikimedia. It's just that I am the only one of us that is going through the tedium of adding the actual templates. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:53

Hiya D! You might not have noticed but the St. John Lateran is located at the Italian version of its name, thanks to a four person vote in April, even though English speakers worldwide (except in the US) don't use the Italian version of the name. I've proposed a vote to move the page back to its original location. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano. Please drop in and vote. FearÉIREANN\ 05:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Traditional Catholic

No problem, but I only wanted to vote after I understood the issue. Thanks for helping to clarify. I hope we can someday soon get the whole article nicely done. JG of Borg 23:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You can view the draft consensus vote at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox. If you have any suggestion about or opposition to this draft, please respond here. Note that opposition to the vote itself is best left on the Traditionalist Catholic talk page, where it will be read by the other voters. Thanks. // Pathoschild 03:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ! understand what you mean... difficult thing in this case is remembering to go back to old edits to see what has been deleted. Better to add a description of changes so to be able to see this quickly... Not mentioning Marcel Lefebvre in an article about traditional catholicism and Society of St. Pius X, nor his excommunication, is, of course, historical revisionism... Kaliz

The rough consensus vote has failed to achieve any clear agreement. Do you have any opposition to formal mediation? // Pathoschild 19:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dictionary of the Catholic Resistance

Please review and comment. Regards. WikiSceptic 14:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I intended to build up on the text, and will, though I have seen that you have begun to "New-Church"-ize it! WikiSceptic 16:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

New Church is the Roman Modernist sect, the fake Catholic Church, led by the Modernist antipopes, presently Fr. Joseph Ratzinger. It is a label used by its own writers, and I have a book with that name, though I will have to really dig for it. Regards. WikiSceptic 17:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course Fr. Joseph Ratzinger holds the keys of the Vatican (but does not own them); he holds them just as Anacletus II and Clement III did! As Pope St. Pius X said to the French Hierarchy, when the Freemasons of France began to play games with the Catholics, "Let them have the churches, we will pray in the streets!" (paraphrase, not exact quote). Of course, one who understands Catholicism will not live under the illusion that physical possession of the Vatican determines who is, and who is not, pope; the Vatican became the residence of the Popes only about a thousand years ago! Regards. WikiSceptic 17:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hatchet job

Dear Dom, — Thanks a lot for the hatchet job on the Dictionary! It becomes quickly obvious that you have not the foggiest idea of what the Traditionalist Catholic movement is all about, or anything about its factions, parties, schools of thoughts, except perhaps cursory acquaintances with terms like "Integrists" and "Rad-Trad". Those two terms are the only ones that I can give you credit for, since I had forgotten them. Your most amazing alteration is to label people like Scott Hahn, Jesse Romero, David & Joseph Moreaux as members of "Independent Catholic Movements". And you claim to be "Catholic"! I suggest that you hie yourself to the Moreaux webpage double fast. Ignorance, they say, is bliss; believe me, 'tis not always so!

Thanks once again! I had thought you mature and intelligent, but I am now tempted to think that perhaps you are just another child prattling about things he does not know about. I hope it is not so!

Yours in the deepest disappointment,

WikiSceptic 17:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask you to review and comment; I did not ask you to do a hatchet job. That is to say, since it is a Misplaced Pages article, it may be edited by anyone, but a hatchet job is still a hatchet job. But what I am driving at, main point, is that before one comments or edits some text, he should have some real knowledge about it. With great respect, I must say that you demonstrate an obvious lack of that in this article.

The need for this entry was real. I have been fighting for more than a year against stupid entries that "record" non-existent or fictious "Trad-Cat" sects like Militia Christi and Holy Family sect; there are indeed, "Trad-Cat" sects, and this page chronicles them. Since no other page does that, it is both an improvement and supplies a lack (See my satire on this subject)

What are the articles you think need attention? I have been working on many over the past days, all relating to "Traditionalist Catholicism" If you provide me a list, and if I find that I have anything to contribute, I will.

Regards, and apologies for any hard feelings,

WikiSceptic 18:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Matt Drudge

Your revert of link vandalism was nothing of the sort. The old link was dead and replaced with a web version of the article maintained by the original article's author. Please be more careful in future edits. Rkevins82 21:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RC-stub

My reason for prferring that the category be renamed to Category:Roman Catholic Church stubs instead of Category:Roman Catholic stubs is that the parent category is Category:Roman Catholic Church so a preference should be given to the full name in the stub category. The implied parent of your preference Category:Roman Catholics does exist, but would narrow the scope of the category to just the people of the church which is not what is being sought. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

BC watch

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

Catholic Project / Traditionalist stuff, etc

I'm a bit busy the next two weeks with finals - after that I'll really try to dive into the stuff though. JG of Borg 03:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Charges

Why not? i don't know how it works though. I'll be busy also, but that shouldn't stop. Depends on what the charge is. Kaliz 16:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I go with what Kaliz said. Just let me know where I have to be. JG of Borg 17:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Used2BAnonymous is not only link-spamming but misrepresenting the views of all Traditionalist Catholics with her link-spamming claiming to be exclusive. Is there anywhere I can support you with this, Dominick? JG of Borg 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My are ef aye

My adminship request was successful!
Thank you Thank you so much for your support of my RfA. The results of the request was 18/0/1. With the help of your support vote, I am now a bona-fide Misplaced Pages sysop/admin. I pledge to use my newfound powers for the good of Misplaced Pages and its editors. If you have anything to tell me, dont hesitate to "speak on it"!. --LBMixPro

revert war/content fight

Please consider engaging other editors more vigorously on Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation before removing their edits and communicating only via edit summaries. My perception is that there is a difference of view based on the interpretation of "traditional Catholic" (historical positions of the Church) vs. "Traditional Roman Catholic" (the group of clergy and adherents who are of the opinion that the main Church body is, since 1962 I believe, a heresy). I'm not clear on which position you're arguing "t/Traditional Catholic" means, and I think that your failure to communicate that concisely is what's leading other editors to disagree with your position (whatever it might be). Until there is agreement on how to differentiate between these two ideas (or agreement that there is no difference), the content/nomenclature controversy will continue, ad nauseum, until someone takes drastic action or make a technical mistake in violation of policy, at which point completely unrelated allegations are going to be made, and feelings hurt and the like. I'd like to encourage you (and the other editors involved) to try harder to hash out your differences civilly, and then edit the article to reflect whatever consensus you arrive at. Tomer 06:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dominick Used2BAnonymous 06:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Speling

No werse then mien! :) --Elliskev 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro-life celebrities category up for deletion!

Hi, I see that you are listed as a Pro-Life Wikipedian, well the Pro-life celebrities category is up for deletion. Category:Pro-life celebrities The abortion zealots don't want anyone to think that any celebrity is actually pro-life. Dwain 23:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)