User talk:Dominick/Archive

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

Welcome[edit]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.


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

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

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 15:20, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Uther, I read through the manual, and I love the markup language. I tried out a few edits of things I though should be right, abd I am very happy seeing how people edited my Saba page by lookinga t the history. I have done some open source C before, but this is a lot nicer. The gratification is a lot faster since it seems people edit the page I change almost instantly. I am going to edit my main page and talk a little about my areas of interest. I think wiki is great and I have a lot of friends from grad school and my professional circles, so the more people who use wikipedia, the better! Dominick 01:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re: EQ[edit]

I'm not sure what link you're referring to. --Mrwojo 19:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

your page :-) Dominick 21:12, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Haiti[edit]

Well, now that you mention Bush-bashing, isn't it curious that the rebellion in Haiti began right around the same time as the 2004 US Presidential election got into high gear? How many weeks apart were (a) Kerry sewing up the nomination and (b) Aristide leaving Haiti? --Uncle Ed 15:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The point I tried to make is that this article should be about Haiti, whose tragedy isn't about elections here. People are already trying to score Kerry points on anything that happens in the world. Bush did not fund the rebellion that drove Arsitide to free, and resign (for all practical purposes). Are you now claiming Bush removed him to provide a sideshow detracting from Kerry? WHy didn't he just pick a third world pill factory as a more dramatic target? Ok, we are too far afield now. Lets keep to the topic (grin). Dominick 20:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My point was probably not relevant to the article - it's more of a "conspiracy theory". In my opinion, the US presidential election is the most important event in the world, and what's more I think all the world's "players" are well aware of this. --Uncle Ed 20:36, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would agree, a conspiricy theory that would make the TLC and the Illuminati envious. If only Bush could command people to rise up like that! --Dominick 20:42, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • And you assume Poppy doesn't have legions of zombies? I've been to Haiti and wouldn't jump to that conclusion. - Sparky
I haven't even got started yet: I believe Rev. Moon has millions of spirit men at his command... --Uncle Ed 20:45, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
ROFL! The Voudon of Bush! I must tell the lodge! --Dominick 21:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sparky stay off my Page[edit]

I'm sorry that Sparky's paranoia seems to have latched onto you. He seems to be very emotional and I have little hope of ever compromising with him. I'm just trying to keep the damage within the norms of Wikipedia. Gazpacho 11:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

pretty mush, thanks for helping Dominick 14:41, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Francis Fleming[edit]

I am deeply troubled by your attempt to cover-up the vile and racist record of Francis P. Fleming. I am going to assume good faith that you did not know one of Fleming's first acts as Governor of Florida was to rollback voting rights for African-Americans, signing into law poll taxes and literacy tests. Furthermore, Fleming had Florida's only African-American judge (James Dean of Monroe County) removed from the bench for the high crime of marrying a white man to a black woman. Fleming was a segregationist, and this should be noted in the Flag of Florida article, or if you do not wish to call him a segregationist, maybe we should cite his record as Governor instead. --H. CHENEY 02:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

wikiflorida[edit]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wikiflorida/ Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif 22:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Starting fresh!

from Lima[edit]

I hope you don't mind me removing your paragraph on the need for a connection with the diocesan bishop for validity of Confession etc. I don't disagree. But SSPX people believe they have got around it somehow, and would object. Since I expect opposition from "Dissenting Traditionalist Catholics" to the revision of the article, I would prefer to omit for the present anything that might even appear to be a value judgement and might provoke reverting attacks. Lima 18:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have made another general revision. I regret I had to remove or change your reference to incardination. A priest, unless laicized, remains incardinated even if he breaks away. It was too complicated to explain in a few words even some of the conditions for validity: for confession, authorization by the bishop of the diocese in question, but diocesan priests who have the faculty for their own diocese have it also for other dioceses unless the bishop there positively excludes them; a priest not incardinated in the diocese in which a marriage takes place can assist validly if delegated by the bishop, the vicar general, or the parish priest (pastor) ... Lima 13:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, priests can change incardination, but they must be incardinated: "Every cleric must be incardinated in a particular Church or a personal prelature, or in an institute of consecrated life or a society which has this faculty: accordingly, acephalous or 'wandering' clergy are by no means to be allowed" (canon 265). Lima 13:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I did not notice that you had written that a priest cannot be laicized. He can. I don't mean that he ceases ontologically to be a priest, but he is treated as a lay person and forbidden to exercise any priestly functions. Laicization can be inflicted as a punishment (for instance, if a priest attempts marriage, even if only civilly, and, refusing to reform continues to give scandal, he can be punished "even by dismissal from the clerical state" - canon 1394) or as a favour granted at his petition. Lima 15:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your query about "true Traditionalists" probably referred to a now disappeared phrase, quoting the opinion of certain people. It gave the opinion of those people, not of the article. It was not meant to be and did not need to be a neutral point of view. Lima 11:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the Google references for "Traditional Catholics" and "Traditionalist Catholics", I think it is clear that Traditionalist Catholics in the narrow sense make up the immense majority of those who use "Traditional Catholics" (some 54 800 times)on the Internet. There are a few cases, scarcely worth mentioning, where "Traditional Catholics" is used of Catholics who have no interest whatever in the "Tridentine Mass". Though "Traditionalist Catholics" appears only some 18 200 times on the Internet, it seems clearly to be the usual term outside Traditionalist circles. Since Traditionalist Catholics are only a minority of the general population - I hope you do not mind me saying so - it appears therefore that the really more widely accepted term is "Traditionalist Catholics". I do not recommend bringing this fact up now in the discussion, but you may wish to keep it in mind. Lima 04:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand "RfP". Lima 16:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what mediation can do. As I understand it, it would only be continuing the present discussion in exactly the same way but in another forum, and with no better result. Why hurry? We have the rest of our earthly lives before us. Impatience takes from your own strength and adds to the strength of those who disagree with you. Lima 04:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not read the draft summary I put forward in the belief that it fitted your idea? Just when I became "converted" to what seemed to be your inclusive idea, have you become converted to an idea strangely like Used2BAnonymous's? Do you really believe that the emphasis or teaching of the Church has changed to an unacceptable degree, one that you cannot accept? It is far too late. I am going to bed. Lima 21:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote on the Talk page from 08:17 on 29 October onward. Please also read my version of the Article itself at 21:09 on the same day, together with my revised version of the "Relations with other Catholic groups" at 08:06 on 30 October. On the Talk page I asked you publicly if you accepted the draft summary that I put forward when I came around to the view you seemed to be holding, namely that an article headed "Traditionalist Catholic" could not be limited to those who take up a position of opposition to the Holy See. Yet you have just as publicly, after that request of mine, insisted on a draft that claims a traditionalist Catholic must pass the litmus test of believing that "either the emphasis or teaching of the Church have changed to some unacceptable degree", in other words, that the present teaching of the Church must be opposed, either for content or emphasis. Isn't that what Used2BAnonymous has been saying the whole time? I suppose that in your hastiness you did not realize what you were doing. But I cannot continue to contribute to the Talk page as long as the contributor who was upholding the position to which I have come round does not publicly withdraw his apparent opposition, along with a public explanation of why he is withdrawing it. Lima 05:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from Paul[edit]

Thanks -- I hope this time there's enough detail to keep the paragraph there. I may also have more material about Corsi. paul klenk talk 22:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Easy with speedy...[edit]

Please be easy with the {{d}} tag. The article on Pygmy Tarsier is a good stub. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missionaries of charity[edit]

Thanks for the correction. :) I just took the picture, and I go by what my experts tell me about where to place it.... -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

The deletion procedure has changed. Next time you nominate an article, please follow the steps here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Coulter[edit]

Thanks for trying to get the talk page back on topic. It seems to degrade into Coulter bashing, or Coulter worship, every so often, and it is good to see people trying to stay on-topic. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I edited an of toppic conversation on the Ann Coulter talk page. You wanted to know what this means:Haar conservatieve commentaar geeft haar een reputatie voor sterke kritiek op het sociale en politieke Amerikaanse liberalisme. Well it means this:Her conservative commentary has earned her a reputation for strong criticism of social and political liberalism. Again I'm sorry that I posted an off toppic conversation. If you got the impression I wanted to bash Ann Coulter you're absolutely wrong. I am one of the few dutch who's conservative. (As you may know our country is very liberal). Regards, and it won't happen again. Geograaf 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Paul[edit]

See my latest comments on the FR talk page. paul klenk talk 18:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Well, I'm not sure what the best approach may be. Why don't you see if there is a consneus to take this to an INFORMAL mediation and then I can create a new page that will hold the discussion so that we can be on neutral territory. I would say that if there is enough consensus that you could suspend the talk page and provide a link to the new mediation page so that all discussions would take place here before bringing it back. Let me know what you think and what kind of consensus there is for this.

Some ground rules that I would enforce:

1) No ex parte communications 2) Be civil 3) I reserve the right to summarilly end the mediaton if it degrades into a fist fight 4) I reserve the right to ask users to leave if I believe that they are hurting the process. 5) I would not be an arbitrator (decision maker or opinion giver) I would just be there to help the parties reach an agreement and try to obtain consensus.

I can't think of anymore now, but let me know what happens and if you want to proceed.Gator1 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created a neutral site at User:Gator1/Mediations/Traditionalist Catholic. I can have an admin delete it if it's not used, but I am ready. What about moving the discussion to a neutral site and freezing the talk page? Any feedback on that or should I just enter the fray and ask what people think.Gator1 20:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Answers[edit]

The earth is a sphere because of gravity, which pulls evenly in all directions pulling debris and smushing the earth into a ball. A forms in nature with no support (ie. a bubble) are round.

More evidence against intelligent design (LOL this is a joke don't take it personally if you agree with I.D.)

Prodego talk 20:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your page[edit]

I'm also a Knight (3rd degree). I'd like to create a category or template for Knights on Wikipedia...would you be interested? On a side note, I admire a lot of stuff I see on your user page. Wow, an associate's in anthropology? Miami Dade CC must be pretty academic. How would you guess your AA would compare with the first 2 years of a BA in Anthro? Wow, do they have an AA in Philosophy? (j/k). Anyway, thanks for all your good work on Wikipedia. Pax et bonum, --Dpr 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Man, inflation takes its toll-after the proverbial "that and a buck" era, now it's $2.00 minimum. In any case, I meant a user template for Wikipedians who are Knights. As for the Catholic stubs, I'll do my best. Thanks for the message. PS Does your "(TALK)" have any special significance? Best regards, --Dpr 15:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for all your help on American green tree frog and your kind comment on the talk page. Both are much appreciated. If you ever need help, feel free to ask me. Warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 21:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my talk page[edit]

User talk:Redwolf24. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharist[edit]

Hello, Dominick. You're quite right – one element may never be consecrated without the other. I believe it would be considered invalid as well as ilicit. What I meant by "separate" was the fact the the priest consecrates the bread and then the wine. He doesn't hold up the host and the chalice, saying, "These are My Body and Blood". However, I worded it badly. I don't quite like the use of the word "enjoyed" for adoration. It doesn't seem quite right for Wikipedia. Can you think of a better word? And by the way, you might like to help out at Ordination of women. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dominick/Archive&oldid=1146368258"