Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:24, 23 July 2012

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

CZECHIA

Don´t be funny, you are not able to write it correctly and want to teach me ("Chech Republic" to "Chechia", haha, you are illiterate), Czechia is correct one word name of the country. The name is registered by the United Nations and included in the UNO Gazetteers of Geographical Names from the beginning of the modern Czech state in 1993. Your "Wikipedian" consensus is a consensus of "Confederacy of dunces". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.80.140.32 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Bentham Bias

Please stop lying about the Vaneechoute et al eBook published by Bentham. It is NOT self-published. Bentham approached Vaneechoutte, not the other way around. It WAS peer reviewed (as much as most editored scientific works are) as at least one eminent authority reviewed it.

I understand that you are skeptical of the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" but I do not understand why you are so opposed to readers interested enough in the idea being able to discover that the proponents of the idea(s) have published a scholarly textbook with the latest thinking about it. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Baltic Languages

Man, you live in Poland, but you do not know that Lithuanian language, like Latvian, has practically nothing in common with other Slavic languages! This is in contradiction to the popular belief by many westerners (thanks to the occupation!), who have a bias (thanks to ignorance!) to somehow affiliate us with Slavic languages. Where the hell does this group of Balto-Slavic branch in the Indo-European language family come from!? There was never such thing as one Balto-Slavic language which separated into two, as opposed to possible speculation with Latvian and Lithuanian languages. You should know, that for instance, Hungarian language has way much more stuff borrowed from Slavic languages than Lithuanian or Latvian. Why isn't it then Finno-Ugric-Slavic Group? This kind of grouping is quite an insult to the Baltic separate identity and should be first corrected in the Indo-European family branch from single Balto-Slavic languages into two separate Baltic and Slavic and then, exactly for the same reason, emphasise that Lithuanian language is ONLY similar to Latvian, the other Baltic language (as opposed to popular (and very offensive!) belief).

If you claim to be free and objective encyclopedia, please, do not only rely on some American linguists (who probably never even heard Lithuanian or Latvian as opposed to Russian) and look at this chart released by Lithuanian Science and Encyclopeadia Institute: http://www.musicalia.lt/meli/animacija.php?AId=23&id=55. Peace, bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RammyJuice (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 October 2011 (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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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:

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 Misplaced Pages. 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!

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 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 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)

At an international conference I'm organizing a special session for science translators (in June next year in Tallinn). Would you be interested in participating and, perhaps, giving a short talk on a topic closely related to science translation? I already have three submitted abstracts of short talks but would happy to have one more.--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Links to CRARG website from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's mission and its achievements, and I do not want to do anything that is contrary to Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's linking policy. I assume that Misplaced Pages policy doesn't bar links to a website that contains information that pertains very directly to the subject matter of the Misplaced Pages 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-- CRARG's website now includes a page with information concerning the history of its towns of interest (and, I believe, eliminating anything that advertises or publicizes CRARG). http://www._____.org/history-project.php (For the underlining in the website, please insert "CRARG"; I wasn't allowed to post the website address because links to CRARG have been blacklisted.) As you will see, more work remains to be done on that page -- more history may be added, and CRARG members have been asked to supply their own information -- but I think that this version of the page satisifies Misplaced Pages policy as I understand it. Please let me know if you agree; if so, I won't need to bother user:piotrus and user:kotniski. Conversely, if you see other issues, I'll report them to the website operators for their consideration. I envision an external link to this history page from each the Misplaced Pages pages for each of the towns of interest described as something like "CRARG - Jewish History and Genealogy for Town X." At a minimum, it should be appropriate to cite this page as a reference to the Misplaced Pages articles on these towns; accordingly, I ask that the CRARG website be removed from Misplaced Pages's blacklist for that purpose. Thanks again for your help, and for your efforts in upholding Misplaced Pages's policies. JeffWexler (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at Signature in the Cell

It looks like you've been around the block enough that I don't need to leave the template about the three revert rule here. It looks like there's an edit war you're a party to at Signature in the Cell. It's time to take the issue to the talk page; if a third opinion or other dispute resolution is needed, go ahead and start on that, but please lay off the reverting. I left a similar message at User talk:Asteckley while reminding him that, by definition, it takes two parties to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Hatton

Thank you for your AfD participation at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tom Hatton. Since you made your initial comments, the article has been substantially revised by the editor who requested that it be restored after previous PROD deletion. Please reevaluate the article and see if your !vote in that AfD reflects your assessment of the updated article. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Poland

Just to make sure you're aware, there's a WikiProject Poland. You should put it on your watchlist and of course any contributions/suggestions there would be much appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you a Catholic?

Are you sure you are American, for your entries and constant vandalizing of my entries on Sudetenland and other themes, are beyond your field of science. It is not wiki policy to refer to every year or word or name chosen, if there is an original source for this. This is the same of the Eger imperial free city. It seems you pursue an anti-German goal here. I am merely removing highly POV Polish additions and things written in bad English.Smith2006 (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, if you look undernearth your cellar in Polish-annexed Breslau, you may find the massacred German original owners buried in concrete by the Urząd Bezpieczeństwa or UB.Smith2006 (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Brand page: Would you like to help?

Hi Dominus, I think the next stage of developing the Leonard R. Brand page will be an examination of his being notable as a person BIO rather than an academic WP:PROF. Would you like to help? With Hrafn taking a break, we are going to need some critical input. I have also asked User:Hunter Kahn if he can help. (He has provided input before. His user page says he's taking a break. Hunter has an excellent editorial record.) You have also been involved in the past. We could use your help, if you have the time. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Question removed

I'm just letting you know that I removed this ref desk question that you had replied to, in case you like to be notified in such cases. I explained the removal on the talk page. Red Act (talk) 11:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Cerejota 05:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I am a student teacher, living in Free State, South Africa, and I would really like to keep in touch with a proffessional teacher from overseas to help me with some teaching techniques, and how to handle certain classroom situatios. Thank you in advance, and by the way, I am an English-Student-Teacher As i function (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to contact me either on my talk page wih any questions you may have. I'd be all too happy to help if I can. If you have Skype, you can also message me at leonex666 Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Article on Swami Budhpuri Ji rewritten

Hi Dominus, this article that is being considered for deletion, for several reasons (as you are well aware of), has been rewritten. Kindly review and suggest improvements. You will find it here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Swami_Budhpuri_Ji/Temp....thanks.Svechu (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dominus. I am glad for your interest in the issues surrounding the deletion of this article. Would you please advise me what next could I do, for as you must be aware the article has been deleted, and I believe that the rewrite of which was given no weight in the deletion (at least there are no reasons stated explicitly for the same). Anyways, I have requested admin TP, to provide some reason why the rewrite on the talk page was not considered as a valid entry to wikipedia. But your guidance would be highly appreciated, for as you can judge, this user is relatively new to Misplaced Pages. ThanksSvechu (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dominus, thank you very much for your clear message. I'll try to understand the various things you suggested, and would get back to you for further clarifications.Svechu (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I live in a country where our past history has left behind some horrible side effects, and more especially on our educational systems. My concern lies on the many students who fail between grades 8 to 12, there are many our-aged students, who tend to become rebelious toward teachers whom are young. how can one handle this sort of behaviour, and still avoid cussing, yelling andor any sort of violence? As i function (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Need more detail at RfC

Can you add more detail to the RfC at Astrology. A few editors have commented that they would like to reply, but need more specificity. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ 14:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Presentation at 10th Anniversary of Polish Misplaced Pages

It's a pity you didn't come to Poznań to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Misplaced Pages. As you can see in the anniveresary conference programme, I had an oral presentation there about the positive and negative effects of Misplaced Pages on translators. I can send the slides to you by e-mail if you wish. Among the various problems, I mentioned also "voivodeships". The conference participants now uderstand the problem and I hope that together we can finally solve it, for the benefit of the people who use Misplaced Pages or read translations from Polish or listen to Polish interpreters. Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You can also listen to my presentation. Niestety na sucho, bez slajdów. Aha, nota bene: Michał Boym żył w XVII w. i napisał Flora Sinica - pierwsze wiarygodne zachodnie dzieło o przyrodzie Chin (po pół-baśniowych opowieściach Marco Polo). Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Neckbrace

I suspect the new account User:Neckbrace on the astrology article is a sockpuppet, but I'm not certain of the master account. Note his first two edits served to trivially bluelink his user and talk pages, which often is not a good sign. Any thoughts? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Astrology

Stop being a troll and use the talk page. Skeptics, I swear… --Ludwigs2 13:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

best practices

you'd best discuss this revert in talk. --Ludwigs2 16:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 71.204.179.212 (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Insinuations on Sexual preference talk page

"Pretty much a moot question since, according to the reliable sources we have, only a handful of experts in the relavent field consider either "zoosexuality" or pedophilia to be sexual orientations in the same sense as homesexuality or heterosexuality. They obviously don't find that classification useful. Pretty much the ONLY people out there who do are a few pedophiles who want to equate pedophila with homosexuality in order to gain acceptance, or masses of religious fanatics that want to equate homosexuality with pedophialia in order to condemn it."

I resent the implied insult. Information should not be censored because someone may abuse it. That article is pretty much a reflection of political ideas rather than an encyclopedic overview of the topic. Since ICD 10 defines paedophilia as a disorder of sexual preference, it must be included in an article on that subject, and given more prominence than some fringe idea about the auditory system's role in homosexuality.

enwiki is degenerating into a propaganda tool where facts are subordinate to ideology. Dictated by populism, the strength of interest groups, and the doctrine of skepticism.

Take astrology for example, the only mention of it on Galileo's page is: "His multiple interests included the study of astrology, which at the time was a discipline tied to the studies of mathematics and astronomy." There are horoscopes preserved that he made, there is sufficient evidence that this was not merely a scientific discipline. (example)

I don't advocate anything but the facts and the science, whether or not they are embarrassing sometimes and do not fit with the message we like to put across. I've always been skeptical about pseudo-science, but now this skeptics movement has made it into an ideology, and everything's fair to spread the word, often by people who've never picked up a science book in their life. On almost any page that has to do with pseudo-science, I see people being selective with the facts, just so the "believers" wouldn't have any argument they could use.

And on a side note, I don't care much if astrology, ghosts, tea leaves reading articles or whatever contain too much "believers" stuff. No one will be convinced either way by reading wikipedia. It worries me much more that I can't trust any article about anthropology or archaeology on wiki. Looking for important publications in the period 1990–1999 in anthropology? Right... And after checking one "study" used as source in the sexism article, I've given up on psychology. How long before taxonomy becomes politicised? I had a look at the article, I can't f*** believe it! And the only section tagged as well!?!!

gonna watch Jon Stewart doing his Glenn Beck routine to calm down. DS Belgium (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Few or no other edits template

Hey Dom, I would be cautious about using that template outside of the RFC as it could lead to accusations of bad faith, and thus drama. Nformation 18:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Hey Dom, I don't know how knowledgeable you are regarding gender issues, but I've seen you do some work on homosexuality so I thought you might be able to help with something. Currently the lede mentions sex and gender as relating to homosexuality and there is a discussion regarding the topic on the talk page (currently thread #3). I'm going to do some research to see if I can find a better source than what is being used, but I'm curious if you have any knowledge of the subject that might add something to the discussion. Nformation 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction

Hi, DV... I just read your comment here. You attributed a quote to me when that quote is actually from Elinruby. Just a clarification, although I doubt it influences your overall opinion -- might confuse other readers though. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've redacted my comment accordingly. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Some Civility Please

The tone of your comments on the Astrology Talk talk page is not conducive to a spirit of collaborative editing and I believe this has intimidated editors into leaving the page in the past. For example, after misquoting Jimmy Wales here, which is a simple error, you used his subsequent (corrected) quote to justify your remark: "Which doesn't change the fact that Correlation is worth less than used ass-wipe ..." Now this is a description of a Journal of which the editor (as a new WP editor) has contributed to this debate on Jimbo Wales's Talk page, as you will know since you were part of the thread. Your offensive description was way out of line with the tone and implication of Jimmy Wales's comment and it's not right abusing his remarks in this way. I consider it tasteless invective, unnecessary, profane and disrespectful. WP:NAM WP:EQ WP:CIVIL The reason I am commenting here is that after I had asked you to reconsider these comments on the talk page, you shamelessly reiterated them and I don't want to devote more space to this on the main talk page. Robert Currey talk 23:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please watch the offensive remarks

I just made a comment on the astrology talk page asking you to cease the insulting remarks that are not directly relevant to the content of article. I have been direct because I suspect you were being deliberately provocative. I have informed you before that I don’t enjoy having to search for any sensible comment you might make from the surrounding baggage of insulting remarks. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I find your remarks offensive. Why the zealous crusade anyway? We are only reporting on a subject; none of us are responsible for its existence or influence. Sometimes it helps if you don't post spontaneously, but wait a little until the desire to be provocative has passed. If your point is a good one it will hold up without insults -- Zac Δ 00:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Spartacus

Would you mind reverting the last edit there? I'm at three reverts, and the anon is basing his edits off of misrepresentative statements about me, the consensus in the article, and WP:ERA. Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian, this is not acceptable and you know it. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And you canvassing is acceptable? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

So two wrongs make a right by default? And that isn't canvassing. He made the original grievance, and would help with your debate. You seem to take all this very personally, what exactly are you taking to heart? We're just trying to sort out a problem. It's not a game. 94.194.34.10 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice regarding User:Stephfo

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Administrators Notice

I have reported you to the Administrators Noticeboard here for your WP:3RR violation. Your behaviour is not conducive to collaborative editing. I know you are very familiar with WP:RULES, but you are not remembering that there is no WP:DEADLINE. Robert Currey talk 08:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you offer a voluntary self-ban from the article for the period of a week in lieu of a block William M. Connolley (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

John Hartnett

You're welcome. I love your username. Is it a cross between the Latin "Dominus vobiscum" and the German "Wo bist du?" --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientists

I just wanted to point out that I concur with your assessment regarding scientists. I have found that most scientists I know have a very, very lax understanding of scientific philosophy - especially medical doctors - and this is something that has bothered me greatly in my university. I think most many of my professors get it, but honestly I find far more insightful and educated people on WP talk pages than I do in my peers - most of whom haven't the slightest idea of what methodical naturalism is, yet claim to be researchers! Part of getting a BS or above should be at least 15-20 credit hours in metaphysics and epistemology . Ethics I can do without hehe :). Nformation 03:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification

You have been named an interested party at a request for clarification, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Pseudomedicine

Hey Dom, what do you think about creating a category called "pseudomedicine" for things like Water ionizer? I know we have pseudoscience, but I'm thinking that pseudomedicine might add a bit of needed specificity. Nformation 22:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami

The above AfD has been nulled due to sockpuppet-related issues. You're welcome to comment at the new one - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Srivatsa Ramaswami (2nd nomination). Cheers, m.o.p 06:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo redux

See follow up Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review requested --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Romance people

Hi, why are you reverting my edits without prompting any conversations and using strong words like fringe and unsourced? I don't think your attitude is warranted and in any case, not collegial. The Hutsuls and Gorals articles discuss the connections with the Vlachs (i.e. Eastern Romance people), and at least the phrase in the Hutsuls article is properly sourced. The Category:Vlachs and Category:Eastern Romance people are now merged/one and the same. Adding the articles to that category doesn't assert that the Hutsuls and Gorals are for sure 100% Eastern Romance people, but that the topic of the article and the contents it is related to that category. Happy holidays!--Codrin.B (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you delete my question?

I'm not an English speaker, and I don't know the answer to my question. If you know the answer, please answer. Anyways, I don't understand what's rude in my question. Please assume a good faith before deleting an innocent question, and if you can answer it, I will even thank you. 77.124.232.245 (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, please note that your deletion is being discussed on the RD talk page here. --Viennese Waltz 10:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wroclaw

Wroclaw is not "considered part of Silesia" WHAT? Actually you should really think about that for a second time. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the Polish and the German definition of Silesia diverge on that. However, do you say, there were no autochthons in Wroclaw, thus we shouldn't mention their role in post-war Poland? I would agree with the first claim but the article currently mentions explicitly how the new authorities welcomed the local Polonia. To understand the background of such an event, it's necessary to mention the importance of an autochthonous Polish population in post-war propaganda. HerkusMonte (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This (now offensive) term is not used towards Wroclaw Polonia -it is used towards Kashubians and Silesians mostly.unsigned edit by User:MyMoloboaccount

The "role of the autochthonous population was not as important, even though it was exaggerated". Exactly, and the article currently exaggerates the role of the autochthons in Wroclaw. Without mentioning the propaganda purposes, we just repeat post-war propaganda. HerkusMonte (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S.:Did you read Silesia ?

Kamusella doesn't write about this wiki article. You are engaging in OR and SYNTH.User:MyMoloboaccount

Also it's worth remembering that University of Opole distanced itself from his theories

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For your edits and reasonable comments. User:MyMoloboaccount

Pay for publication

I don't think it is that unusaul for a journal to require a fee from the author. While I'm sure the peer-review isn't great in a journal that covers everything from economics, science and the arts, I wouldn't go as far as to say it does not exist, I'd say the peer-review is a disaster though. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Answers Debate

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making presumptuous statements about me. The conclusion that I have an agenda simply because I argue for a source is not founded. Furthermore, your opinion about competency to edit here severs nobodies interest, and given that, I have trouble understanding why it is offered. I am offended that you accuse me of 'not listening' to others. In every response I wrote I listed out what people had said and then I offered explanations for why I didn't agree with them. How is that listening? I am the one that should be complaining about not being listened to. I offered logical discourse throughout that entire debate and hardly any of it was even attempted to be refuted by others. That is what frustrates me so- I repeatedly offered logical explanations that were never logically addressed- let alone refuted. My impression of the entire process is that logic can be ignored so long as you get a few other people to ignore it with you. I will hope that another editor opens the discussion again. --Fictio-cedit-veritati (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

i made my edits because i.p. 188.118.132.61 had made edits saying that the pages were Christian Folklore without adding anything about it so i mainly reverted that i.p's edits 121.219.184.138 (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. B——C_ritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Freedom to Marry

Please heed WP:BURDEN and stop reverting me without discussion. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." NYyankees51 (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dominus Vobisdu reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: ). NYyankees51 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum - 3RR

Rick Santorum - 3rr - Youreallycan 21:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've reverted my revert. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Or I thought I did. Apparently EC with you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, B——C_ritical 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like suggesting that big banks should be broken up, or that corporations shouldn't have personhood. Not a useful suggestion given the way others are currently thinking, but I was serious. You can think it was lame if you wan :P B——C_ritical 05:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to be editing with you too. We certainly seem to agree on stuff a lot. Different personal styles on a page seem to get more done... does that mean I'm the good cop? B——C_ritical 06:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI

There is a discussion at WP:AE following on from the WP:ANI thread on cold fusion. Mathsci (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ANEW

NYyankees51 has neglected to notify you: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I beg your pardon. 15:53, 16 February 2012 NYyankees51 (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary

Usage of "contraception" over "rights" has already been discussed at Talk:Rick_Santorum#Title_of_subsection. Regarding the omission of hatnotes, the onus is on you to discuss any objection, not just to revert and say WP:IDL. I'm trying to help this article get past this neologism rough patch, following WP:CYCLE. I'd appreciate your help. —Eustress 00:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at WP:AN regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob)". Thank you. --В и к и T 00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Judgeking (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sig on ANI

You forgot to sign, I'll wait until you've done so to leave a comment. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing

Stop removing genuine questions from the reference desk. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellowstone93 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Police officers charged criminally in Canada

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Police officers charged criminally in Canada, you will be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been reverted and marked as vandalism Because This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's deletion policy.Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion. Theworm777 (talk) 01:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

corpse redirecting to cadaver

hi. i hope it isnt canvassing to ask your input on my move request at cadaver. it is on the talk page here. it seems that cadaver should redirect to corpse, since corpse encompasses both. if not, plz disregard this. thanks. i ask because you seem to know about medical stuff. -badmachine 02:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of corpses, a heads up on this. Best B——C_ritical 18:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, please look up the definition of "it". It is improper to use it in this manner when the gender of the person has been identified. Sinc the gender has been identified the proper term is "him". Arzel (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The wedge strategy

Dominus, we are currently revising the defense section on the talk page. Since you seem to be on at the moment, you may want to have a look at it as it may be added in the near future. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

RfM

I, too, am shocked by the way the RfM was closed. However, let it rest for a few days until cooler heads prevail and we have time to formulate clear responses. I'm still mulling over mine. Meanwhile, we can use your input on Talk:Wedge strategy. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm too disillusioned with the way that RM closed to really continue editing here in a seriously involved matter. Thank you for the invitation but from here on out I don't plan on spending much time doing much but reverting vandalism and obvious factual errors. Good luck with the dispute, I hope it goes better than GCN. Nformation 09:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		I have been trying to figure out the name of that song you just identified for me for a good six months, and it only took you a very small fraction of that time. With many thanks, I award you this Reference Desk Barnstar. Ks0stm 00:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Please self revert you last edits - Jerusalem is subject to WP:1RR sanctions. Anyway, if you want to start making major changes to the lead you need to start a discussion first. The Saint Helena point has already been discussed at length - her visit was the starting point for the veneration of the city by christians. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - saw your revert. Please also revert your second edit as well and start a discussion re Helena if you feel strongly? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Exodus

Hi Dominus and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Couldn't help but notice your baseless "revert" at The Exodus article with your misplaced comment that "When discusssing history, we use academic viewpoint" since this topic is important to three RELIGIONS: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The main record has always been and remains the Hebrew Bible particularly the Pentateuch. Not sure how much you are familiar with these religions, their beliefs and the religious texts that have recorded the events of the Exodus from the time it happened over 3,300 years ago until the present. Sure the category of "history" includes everything, but then again so does the category of "religion" and as long as articles are written from a NPOV with relevant sources, you cannot dismiss a so-called religious POV because it clashes with a secular POV since WP includes ALL POVs. Thanks for your understanding and feel free to ask anything you like about Judaism at WP:JUDAISM and someone will try to help you. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus' Crucifixion

You have reverted an edit I made regarding the date of Jesus' death ] . You have left intact the year as being 33 C.E and removed the date of Friday, April 3rd. The issue with this is that it is a scientific fact that the Jewish calendar date of Nisan 14, the date of the Passover and the day that Jesus was put to death, corresponds with Friday, April 3rd in the year 33 C.E. and could only be a different day if the death occurred in a different year. However, astrological data points to the year 33 C.E. as being the year of Jesus' death, and this has been the conclusion of several researchers on the subject and not just Newton alone, who by the way came up with two different years and put forth 34 C.E. as his "chosen" date, due to his religious convictions. Therefore the date of Friday, April 3rd has gained wide support as the actual day of Jesus crucifixion because it has scientific backing as well as fitting into the biblical timeline. I therefore request you restore the date or at least discuss it in talk before arbitrarily removing it. Willietell (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The year in which the crucifiction happened is far from settled, and the date of 33 CE is purely speculative and only accepted as an approximate date by most scholars, and only then with a wide margin of error. Dating it to a particular day is even more specuative, and does not have any scientific backing at all. The scientific consensus is "insufficient data". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to tell you this, but you are misinformed, perhaps a little more research will help you to become better informed on this particular subject...perhaps reading the cited source from 1991 will aid you in this endeavor. Willietell (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring warning.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Testament Christian Churches of America‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You should feed on this. Where are your talk page comments??? --ER 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

Cheers, Dominus (: B——C_ritical 23:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Straight Pride

Stop reverting. If I see another revert from you, I'll block you myself - you've made far too many over the past day or so. Discussion is happening on the talk page, just let it progress. Worm · (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Dominus. Thanks for your counsel on my talk page. When my day ends, I will study it. I am pleased that we have entered into a rather substantial discussion on the Straight Pride talk page. There is another editor who has agreed to be like a mentor to me. (As you have as well.) He has agreed to look over the discussions at Straight Pride and provide some counsel, mainly to help me think further. He has asked for a few days to examine the discussions. Let's agree to not make major changes to the article for at least a week or so. Thanks for your help. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Heya, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban you have raised the issue of a topic ban. I have also requested an interaction ban on Yrc from interacting with me, as he has been warned previously about harassing myself when was editing under Off2riorob. So there is the harassment issue to take into consideration, and I think an interaction ban on my self is warranted in the circumstances. Could you please take a look at my request at the above, undoubtedly you will see it anyway, just wanted to give you a heads up as you have commented there already. Cheers, Russavia 04:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Coordinated_voting_by_Fringe_Theories.2FNetwork_participants_in_AfD_and_other_debates".The discussion is about the topic Coordinated voting by Fringe Theories/Network participants in AfD and other debates. Thank you.—Romulanius (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

AAH

Understand that you don't mean to attack anyone. What I really want to verify, as one who studies AAH's history and reception, is whether it's still considered a fringe or has entered the stage of proto-science. Apparently WP is not the right place for this, or the question itself is meaningless except in a retrospective sense. Anyway thanks for your comments :) Chakazul (talk) (list of RS for/against AAH) 16:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dominus Vobisdu. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 00:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Joyce Banda discussion

Hi Dominus, my rationale for involving you in this discussion is your past offer to help me think about issues. We are having an interesting discussion re: the Joyce Banda article and cited sources. You will find on the talk page a section examining one of the sources used. Your input is of interest to me. We have often differed on matters and that is more reason why I am interested in your thoughts. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

the Earth

You've got to be kidding: "Moon" and "Sun" are not proper names and therefore we do not capitalise them unless they are at the beginning of a sentence. So yes indeed we do say "the moon" and "the sun" but we only incorrectly say "the Earth". "Earth" is a proper name when it refers to the planet Earth and therefore it is capitalised and not to be preceded by the definite article. We do not say "the Mars" or the Jupiter. Sheesh! Mfhiller (talk) 06:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I'm not sure that I understand the source of your complaints regarding my recent posts regarding the word "Earth" in relation to the Creation/ Evolution Controversy. Yes I have tried to change "the Earth" to "Earth" several times but given that it has met objections I took my concerns to the Talk page. Your most recent response is upsetting given that you accuse me of not understanding English. It is a pretty strange accusation given that I was directly quoting from The Chicago Manual of Style - is that what you are calling BS? In any case I thought I should raise this with you first before I make a formal complaint. Mfhiller (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

No response? I am going to go ahead and undo your arbitrary closing of the "Earth/ the Earth" talk on the basis that you chose to exclude a scholarly source as BS. This is not how, since at least the pre-Socratics, one goes about winning an argument. Mfhiller (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about my editing. All edits are made in good faith... I'm new to Misplaced Pages and, yes, have pushed some limits. I'll apologise now just once (and yes the word "apologise" can be spelled with an "s"). Let me say one thing regarding my choice of, as you call them, controversial subjects: I'm not looking for a fight. I already have an interest in the controversial subjects you mention (e.g., Nietzsche, Heidegger, Riefenstahl, Bonhoeffer, Nazism, holocaust denial, etc.). You can't assume ipso facto that I am only here, editing Misplaced Pages, from my choice of subjects, that I only want to create problems. Hugs and kisses. 65.93.202.27 (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

Woodeligh School

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

homophobia = homo+phobia  != etymological fallacy

That intro has something odd about it (and do we need to mention that homophobe and homophobic are related to homophobia as words) but whatever.

The point was that the term homophobia has a literal source and that current common usage is usually different than the literal. (Yet it's not always different, so it's not both a logical and semantic fallacy. Not at least as some absolute "etymological fallacy", as you seem to suggest.) This is one issue the intro might clarify. Indeed, the start of the article covers that to some extent, and those paragraphs are no more an etymological fallacy than pointing it out in the intro would be.

We know the coined term broadens "an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people." (fear) to cover just about anything showing "prejudice against (fear or dislike of)" regardless if such feelings are not there, mild, harsh or extreme. What the literal is still applies though; the literal isn't a matter of use or meaning other than pointing out where it comes from. This is clearly stated in the references as well. Origin: 1960s: from homosexual + -phobia (Origin: late 19th century: from homo- 'same' + sexual) Origin: 1955–60; homo(sexual) + -phobia (homo(sexual) + -phobia.) from homo- (2) + -phobia.

Besides that, the subject of the source of and the meaning of the term from various angles (pro and con, literal and figurative) in usage and how it might change isn't anything new either. And acceptance of the neologism (literally new speech) isn't universal either. We could say then that homophobia might not always mean what it does now, but as long as it exists it will be literally comprised of homo- and phobia.

If your point is that typically homophobia as a term isn't actually referring to a real phobia, that is correct. The the definition and description is clear on that. If your point is that homophobia never means fear of sameness or fear of homo-, is never used to describe a real phobia, isn't ever used literally, and isn't ever potentially misleading in meaning? That's somewhat debatable; but the literal meaning of the phrase isn't. Should any of that be pointed out in the intro? It might be helpful. 19:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A comment regarding Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

—Northamerica1000 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

Lord, where are you, you have deleted my one vote on this page. I did not vote twice.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Dominus," would you assist me by showing me where it is on the page. I do not want to be accused by some of reverting three times. Please show me where my vote is on the page.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, and I humbly apologize. I will also apologize to Chooyoo.-Drboisclair (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to start an edit war

Please do not attempt to start an edit war as you appear to be doing at Your revert is not very constructive, please instead attempt to reach consensus by contributing to the discussion found here . Your input is both sought and welcome, but please attempt to remain civil, thanks. Willietell (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mu (lost continent)

uH, nO IT ISN'T. yOU MISSED SOME INFO. --82.4.229.82 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Asexuality as a main sexual orientation

Dominus Vobisdu, please see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Asexuality as a main sexual orientation about the validity of User:Pass a Method adding that asexuality is "a main category of sexual orientation" to the Heterosexuality, Homosexuality and Bisexuality articles. Obviously, comments on the matter are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV headers

Please don't revert NPOV changes - it is only a claim of evidence - the diffs are debatable hence the need for the ? - thanks - I realize you are angry / upset or just don't like me but please do not allow your dislike of me to affect neutrality - Youreallycan 19:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed an arbcom case related to the mailing list that you are alledged to be coordinating with. You can review the case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Anupam_.26_Bobrayner and provide a statement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Proforma

You may know from AFD, but I happened to mention you at ANI. JJB 18:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Religion, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 13:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove sourced content as you did at Religion, you may be blocked from editing. Pass a Method talk 13:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ayurveda

Hi. Good noon! I have asked for help regarding ayurveda article over here, here and here Please give your opinion if possible. ThanksAbhijeet Safai (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Rational-Wiki

For one thing, Rational-Wiki is not a neutral source; if we're going to link to Rational-Wiki in articles about subjects that they also cover, we might as well link to Conservapedia in articles they also cover. Additionally it is my understanding, based on a private email exchange I've had with a fellow Rational-Wiki sysop, that the leaders of that wiki desperately want to have references to their wiki spammed in Misplaced Pages articles. We are not a source of advertising; they need to go elsewhere if they want to advertise their wiki. It is for these reasons that I'm going to go ahead and take that link back off, unless you can think of some really good reason why we must link to Rational-Wiki in the secular religion article. PCHS-NJROTC 22:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct. It's a wiki and not a RS here. Otherwise good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Count du Monét

Considering the geographic area the Baltic languages are connected to (and unfortunately the trouble it tends to breed on here) and that the new user has about 5 edits Count du Monét (talk · contribs), yet throws around WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and other terms like nothing, is it possible this user is a sock? I figured I would ask you what you thought since you have a much longer history on the article (Indo-European languages) than I do. Heiro 07:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

It is very nice to see as how you are trying to keep the article of Ayurveda clean! Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Denialism

I can understand the revert on the Creation Science and Creationism articles - I see they have been disputed in the past and there was no consensus to remove them. But I think you should add reliable sources backing up the categorization, rather than just reverting. With The Heartland Institute, on the other hand, there is nothing at all in the article, and it definitely needs a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 07:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg 01:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Murzyn

Hello, you just reverted an edit of mine. I had added an extra ref, did you check that? Was there a problem with it? You didn't mention it in your edit summary. FYI, consensus was that the info was fine (i.e. the info had been stable) before two editors deleted it recently. Moreover, you say the cake is "non-notable", is this (with a different but recognisably linked name) not a sign that it's notable? It's published by Super Express.Malick78 (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi again. I still don't understand the problem with the above. Do you think the cake is not notable? What's wrong with the above link, for example? Malick78 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I still don't think the cake is all that noteworthy, nor that the sources you give are sufficient to establish noteworthiness. It's jsut one of hundreds of minor pastries in Poland, nowhere near as popular or well known as sernik, szarlotka or murzynek, for that matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just proposing a passing mention, not an article of its own. Hence, notability can be of a lesser scale. The cake is much better known than the pigeon 'murzynek' mentioned, or the strawberry. Those are accepted because they are mentioned in a dictionary; that the cake isn't (though it is made by thousands of people, and sold in hundreds of shops), is just a strange anomaly. Malick78 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Vassula Ryden". Thank you. --Sasanack (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and 3RR

Within the last couple of hours you have three times reverted additions to the Astrology page which comprised a number of thoughtful and time-consuming contributions I made which sought to improve the content by offering factual corrections and references to reliable sources. Please undo your last edit so that I don't have to report you for violation of the 3RR rule. If another editor approves of the wholesale removal of all my edits, this will also allow them to demonstrate that they take the same approach as you do. -- Zac Δ 04:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference desk

Why did you remove my request from this page you animal? Morgan Katarn (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

From a page watcher, because Misplaced Pages isn't a dating site or place to ask for advise on where or how to pick up women. You might also want to read up on WP:NPA, as calling someone an "animal" is very much over the line. Heiro 22:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Animal is not a bad word. Don't take it personally. I've reported you. Let's see what the admins say about this for removing my request. You can also copy it and place my request somewhere else. Morgan Katarn (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad words are allowed here, calling people names is not. Report me or the person whose user page this is all you want, I have a feeling you will see a boomerang coming your way. Heiro 22:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry. I don't want you getting blocked but just if the admins agree with your remove. Morgan Katarn (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think, our case is done. Sorry, it was a bit of a misunderstanding. Morgan Katarn (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Astrology

Hey DV,

Do you have a copy of The Cosmic Perspective? It's an astronomy text book we currently use as a source on the astrology article. Recently I discovered that there is a decent section (a couple pages) summarizing how modern sciences assesses astrology. Anyway, I scanned the two pages and have it available as a PDF. If you're interested in a copy I can email it to you if you enable email on this account and send me a message (you can't send attachments through the WP email system and so I'd need you to send me a mail so I can respond directly). I'd like to do some work on the science section and I think if we all have a copy it'll be easier to work with. Also, I'm not sure what to do about the RFC - it expired without being closed and since I'm involved I don't want to try and attempt to read consensus. I posted a request at requests for closure but no one has acted on it yet. Ideas? SÆdon 22:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh you must be tired, I was offering to send you pages if you needed them, I have a hardcopy :). SÆdon 23:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop bullying

Before initiating a formal complaint of bullying, I am supposed to try to discuss the issue with you here, so here goes...
You accused me of disruptive editing and threatened that I would get banned if I continued to edit in the manner that I did on the astrology page. This is a crystal-clear violation of wp:noedit. I made my edits before there was any consensus, and in my edit summary I invited Saedon to revert me if he didn't agree with my INTRODUCTION of the issue on the talk page. This whole issue came up because Saedon reverted me at the same instant that I opened up the new section on the talk page. I mentioned this bizarre coincidence both on the astrology talk page and on my user talk page, immediately before your bullying tirade. I don't know if it is possible for you and I to pull back from the brink here. The ball's in your court.--Other Choices (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you took the time to actually read the policy you are quoting. It says:

"Some no-edit orders are acceptable. For example, those that instruct others to properly follow Misplaced Pages guidelines are allowed." My warning fell squarely within that clause.

As for whether your editing was disruptive, it clearly was, per WP:EW, WP:DE and WP:TE. You added controversial material that was controversial, added it a second time after it was reverted, and then added it a third time before getting consensus on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, you are supposed to discuss AND GET CONSENSUS on the talk page first before reverting.

As for your accusation of WP:BULLY, it is groundless. You were warned that making such accusations is a serious violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and to read WP:BOOMERANG.

You were also reminded to read WP:IDHT, which seems to be a major source of your problem. Your edit was found non-constructive and not based on WP policy by five seasoned WP editors.

Of course we can "pull back from the brink", as you put it. But only if you familarize yourself with and conform with WP policies and guidelines. I offered you a lot of honest criticism good advice in my post to you. In good faith. Like I said, the appropriate response would be to spend a lot more time listen than talking until you grow a little hair on your chest. I highly recommend finding yourself a mentor. Like I said, I can help you with that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Dominus Vorbisdu, I filed a formal complaint of bullying here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bullying_by_Dominus_Vobisdu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding FRINGE communities

I quite simply can't believe it; I guess they fail two of the key criteria of modern knowledge formation: exposure to challenge and community by discipline instead of belief. Every scholarly Marxist I know exposes their beliefs to a general disciplinary community, not to an ideological one—and even when the journal is restricted in scope, say, Historical Materialism it certainly isn't restricted to Historical Materialists who believe X but not Y just like us. It is shocking. It is criminal. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Article of Ayurveda

I am going to add a new section as Important concepts in Ayurveda where I plan to add concepts like Prakruti which are central to Ayurveda. I have been discussing the same on the talk page for quite a long time and I haven't found any contrary idea. Should I go ahead? Your help is needed. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups

Hi DV You may not have seen that we now have a sub-page of RSN where massive overuse of poor or dubious sources can be flagged up and dealt with. We have been looking at Answers in Genesis, and are now making some progess. I was thinking that you might like to look at the science articles where it was used; those are now all cleaned up, but there are still quite a lot of articles that relate to the argument over young earth creationism and "intelligent design". If you want to cast your eye over them you may have suggestions on what is needed. You may also want to comment on the processes that we are trying to develop. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record..

It wasn't a grammar fail, I just read it wrong. :P – Teammm 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I know. It's hard to parse with two adjectives modifuing two nouns. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was only because someone was annoying me and my brain went on a read and re-read tirade. lol – Teammm 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see the headlines tomorrow: "Road rage hits Misplaced Pages". lol. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A response to your remark

I see no point in responding to this comment of yours on the Astrology talk page since my post is self-evidently recommending that editors address issues collaboratively, and demonstrating my own willingness to do so. I have considered very seriously that I should be instigating a formal complaint against you, (for incivility, wiki-hounding, bullying and generally editing in a disruptive manner designed to create hostility). When I made that post I had taken the decision to forget all past incidences in the hope that a new approach will put an end to such negativity. I sincerely hope this can the case. -- Zac Δ 13:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Query?

Dominus Vobisdu, would you mind weighing in on the Talk:Fellatio#POV opinion removed discussion? It's mostly between myself and another editor and it looks like we need yet another outside opinion. And since you are an experienced Misplaced Pages editor, work on/look after sexuality articles, and we have interacted very rarely thus far, it makes you an ideal candidate to weigh in. The discussion shouldn't even still be going on, since the issue about the debated line has been settled. What the debate has mostly been about is whether or not cultural views on fellatio -- in this case, why people may or may not engage in it -- should be included in the article. If you are willing to weigh in, please read both sides (as much of it as you can stomach, since there is some squabbling involved) before weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. It doesn't appear that your opinion is still needed. You can of course still weigh in if you want, but I figured I'd go ahead and update you on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Itsmejudith‎

You did notice she's blocked for a week, didn't you? Not sure what I think about this. Raised it at ANI. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting you to stop stop acting disruptively against the spirit of Misplaced Pages

This is a formal request for you to stop acting disruptively against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. With regard to this, the consensus for major development and replacement of unreferenced, early-20th century text was determined on the talk page of the article, which was rescused from a proposal for deletion on the basis that I would personally commit to this task if no one else was willing to do so. It has taken until now for me to be able to find the time to begin that task. Throughout the process, now and in the past, I have done my best to keep a note of major changes on the talk page, even though no one else has contributed to that page for a long time. It is without doubt that the edits I have made have brought significant improvement to the article, and as a result, most of the commentary is up to date and offers good quality references. There is still a ot more work to be done and some areas are still need of much improvement. I am still working on this task, but your wholesale reversion of any editorial contribution I make to Misplaced Pages - which has been consistent, dramatic and aggresively enforced over several weeks - makes it impossible for me to progress the article further.

The question you need to consider is - what changes do you consider to be innapropiate and why? I requested you in an edit summary to please work collaboratively and identify any specific editorial concerns on the talk page. If you care about WP policy or the content of the page, you will make the time to look and discuss, and not simply revert in an instant the hard work of other contributors who are doing their best to improve the quality and usefulness of the content. Even if you believe there is a technical argument that I have crossedn a policy by developing the article by myself, please remember that it is one of the five pillars of WP that the principles and spirit of the rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires us to make exceptions to the rules so that common sense prevails. So please give some kind of justifcation for changes you want to make and identify issues if you believe that any exist. If you can't be bothered to do that, then I ask you to not disrupt the work of other editors who are willing to develop, discuss, identify issues and respond to them appropriately.

I am now going to return the content to how it was before you reverted all the changes I made. I will have no reluctance to discuss specified issues on the talk page if you want to raise any legitimate concerns. If you simply undo everything again, I will raise a formal complaint against you and your refusal to work with me collaboratively, as I requested you to do yesterday. -- Zac Δ 13:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

"Evolutions influence in medicine and psychology extend FAR beyond these two narrower fields"

When you apply the theory of evolution to medicine you're practicing the field of evolutionary medicine. It's a "narrower field" insomuch as it actually incorporates the theory into the practice of medicine. Evolutionary medicine is a separate field from applied medicine, i.e., prescribing drugs and performing surgery. You don't need to know a single thing about evolution to perform a heart transplant. Readers are going to want to know how evolution is applicable to medicine and psychology, so wouldn't it make sense to link to the relevant articles? --50.46.252.252 (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have started a discussion here. I await your input. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

just a hello

I noticed you posted on the ref desk that you live in Poland. I'm a Pole living in Australia, I was only 7 in 1984 when I left, but have been back a few times since to visit. Having a look at your page you look like you're into science and skepticism, which is something we have in common, and food. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say I'm an "excellent" cook, but I make a pretty decent kotlet mielony  ;) I'm not a scientist either, but the older I get the more I wish that I had been ;) Anyway, just saying Hi to a fellow critical thinker. Vespine (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't use talk pages to make personal attacks

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Astrology, you may be blocked from editing.

Read up on WP:TALKNO and see today's discussion on the astrology talk page. Hopefully you'll act quickly to put that right (it has to be the last time you indulge yourself like this). -- Zac Δ 16:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Which personal attacks? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Zac, please review WP:DTR. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dominus, in the interests of Misplaced Pages I had hoped you would delete the comments I objected to a few days ago. As I pointed out your statements about Rick Tarnas and Nick Campion were unsubstantiated. On Jess's suggestion I agreed to let the matter drop and have waited for you to make a similar gesture by removing comments that you cannot support. I could find more inaccurate comments made by you on the astrology page if I were to go through it. Jess also made some very helpful suggestions about what I should do in this situation. If the comments about Tarnas and Campion are not removed, I shall have no option but to follow her suggestions. Minerva20 (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thought you might like to know about this

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

New Testament Christian Churches of America

A consensus was reached at User_talk:JGabbard. Please undo your edit posthaste, thank you.JGabbard (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Exodus International

Hi, your help was appreciated. For the full discussion/disruption leading to this copyvio accusation then please look at the bottom section of User talk:Worm That Turned. Thanks and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 09:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The material on link on the talk page is a copyright violation. It is far too close to the source. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for rewording it. The fact of the matter being i would have done it myself had any other editor have called it plagiarism. So thank you and have a nice day ツ Jenova20 10:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Trans4life

The user should clearly be reported, having WP:Edit warred across several articles and having changed solidly sourced definitions to biased, poorly-sourced definitions using the bisexualindex.org.uk as one source. This source clearly does not trump scholarly sources or even GLAAD sources. As you've seen, he or she particularly changed text in a biased manner regarding pansexuality and asexuality. Yes, pansexuality is generally subsumed under bisexuality, but that does not mean that a user should edit Misplaced Pages articles to impose his or her views that there is no validity in distinguishing the terms. I've reverted the editor on some articles (three in my case so far), but I don't believe that the user is likely going to stop this type of editing. 41.219.180.202 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Safety concerns in Ayurvedic medicine

Dear Dominus Vobisdu,

Good morning! I do appreciate the concern regarding medicines. I am a doctor myself and do understand the seriousness of this issue. My opinion would be to create a separate article named - Safety concerns in Ayurvedic medicine and expand it including both views. But what I felt after seeing the article is - Ayurveda is not only regarding what has been stated in the article. It is much more and many important concepts are lacking in the article. I wish to write them with your help. I will be more than happy if you will help me in that. But you are simply not allowing any kind of change in the article! I would like to discuss this with you. I have tried to discuss many issues like prakruti on talk page but I have not seen your opinion on it. I would like to know your opinion. I am sure that without your help we will not be able to make article better. I would like to request you to give your opinions on different issues regarding article.

By saying that, I dont mean that you should give favorable opinion. Whatever is your opinion, I respect it. But it is necessary to come to conclusion. I hope that you will extend your help by giving your some time for the article. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to thank you for your help at WP:RSN Re: Nazareth. As an engineer, I am a bit out of my league when discussing archeology, but it just didn't seem right that Misplaced Pages says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ and yet nobody can point to any actual scientific evidence that establishes that. Again, thanks for your input. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Refactored?

Hi, Dominus Vobisdu. Maybe I'm being extraordinarily dense, but I've pored over the diffs separately and together and can't tell exactly what you did here. It looks as if other editors' comments got shifted around quite a bit. Would you mind explaining? Rivertorch (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)