User talk:DominvsVobiscvm

Welcome!

Hello, DominvsVobiscvm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name.

I've noticed that you have made several edits regarding the Christian faith, and that's great! We have a committed and diverse group of editors in our community with similar interests! Please feel free to ask us questions and interact with us on the various talk pages for Christian topics; we'd love to have you working with us!

If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- KHM03 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Your edits delete important referenced facts that have major news coverage and web sites. You replace them with a huge article on a group Christifidelis and the Dowgiert lawsuit, neither of which has major news coverage or web sites. You seem to be pushing an agenda, not editing in good faith to make the article factual and thorough. Please see my talk on this issue on the mediation page for both John Favalora and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. I have asked the mediator to review your edits as evidence of vandalism.NancyHeise 05:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Constantine

Would you please provide evidence for the santification of Constantine I (emperor)? It is good to adde references for your edits. Bye. --Panairjdde 10:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Guntram

Would you please provide evidence for the canonisation of Guntram, the Merovingian king of Burgundy. A reputable source is necessary since that article is based on many very scholarly works which do not support your case. Srnec 03:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to Christianity

Would you please provide evidence for the conversion of Constantine, other than the somewhat spurious accounts of his death-bed conversion. Until then, you cannot make the claim that he is a convert. --Blue Tie 21:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine's deification

Referring to this edit of yours: Actually, Constantine was made divus, i.e. deified, after his death, and this practice continued for the whole century (even Theodosius I was made divus). This is testified by both coinage (for instance, this one), and Eusebius describing exactly these coins. (And probably inscriptions, too, though I can't think of an example right now.) Varana 14:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medea (film)

I noticed your recent edit summary

This was not Callas's only film; I happen to know she also starred in Pasolini's "Edipo Re"

I also vaguely recalled that she was somehow involved in that film, but it seems from IMBD [1] that she didn’t make an appearance. My impression was that Pasolini had a plan to include her, but that it fell through: but I can’t actually find a reference to that, even; and not on even on the the very extensive www.pasolini.net site. Do you have any sources? —Ian Spackman 11:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a repy I have reverted you edit. But do, of course, restore it if you can provide convincing sources! —Ian Spackman 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

I have reverted your edits to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami because it uses bad language. You are implying that they did occur. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see here), and should be written that way.
--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 04:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you can source this, feel free to place your edit back in the article.

--FastLizard4 (Talk|Contribs) 04:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits removed due to implications within the articles and a lack of source. Please properly source the material before posting and ensure it is appropriate for the article in question and not under the root sex abuse scandal page. Aafm 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic articles generally

What is needed is articles substantiating genuine lawsuits.

But I can't find an article somewhere that says "you are ugly" and publish it under your bio as an "accusation" or whatever. If you entered a beauty contest and came out last, I could publish that information if I could verify that such a beauty contest existed and you were in it. Nonsense is not quotable just because it is published!

Also, they need to be under the right article. If the lawsuit is against the archdiocese, that is where it goes. If it is against Favalora, that is where it goes (and not under the archdiocese). We can't cherry pick the target that we are trying to defame. Not everyone can be tarred with the same brush.

In Wikipedia, 2+2 does not equal 4, if there is no solid recognizable reference.

I've looked at your prior edits which seem to have contributed substantially to Wikipedia. It would be nice if Miami could benefit from that same wisdom as well.Student7 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the Wikipedia standard on verifiability. Statements need footnote reference from reliable sources. Sometimes these are newspapers. Sometimes newspapers are simply promoting rumors that sell papers. Please use discretion.

Please use accurate section titles not merely inflammatory ones.Student7 17:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Edward Catholic Church

If you do not like the Mass as celebrated at Saint Edward, that is fine. However, please provide sources for statements that the parish has been criticized for essentially being a part of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. To my knowledge, it has been celebrated and called a reason the institution went from founding to a building faster than any other within the Archdiocese of Miami. Aafm 16:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone sitting in church might not like the music, but won't the church be empty if no one likes it? As Yogi Berra once supposedly famously said, "No one goes to that restaurant anymore. It's too crowded!" Student7 13:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Favalora

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Recent edits removed due to implications within the articles and a lack of source. Please properly source the material before posting and ensure it is appropriate for the article in question and not under the root sex abuse scandal page. Aafm 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

Please feel free to make comments on the page asking for arbitration for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Miami and John Favalora. [2] Student7 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Favalora, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Favalora.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC).

I'd like to begin, so have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora. Andre (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing, and come to the mediation page. Andre (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are not interested in mediating. If you do not respond to this message by coming to the mediation page and participating in a structure dispute resolution process, I will close the mediation. Andre (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(This response remains after deleting my unwarranted remarks)

I don't know who the heck you think you are, and/or by what authority you presume to ban me. I have not vandalized a single page; I'm simply in disagreement with some other joe-schmoes about what is appropriate for these two articles. DominvsVobiscvm 00:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. My remarks were unwarranted. I have removed the offending accusations. Student7 19:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I would like to converse with you privately. Can you enable your email function, or send me an email that I can reply to? Andre (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Hello DominvsVobiscvm, I'd just like to request that you leave the tags I placed on the above article in place. The article is full of "naked" urls (URLS should never appear in an article's prose), and the references are not done in proper form. Simply typing <ref> </ref> around a URL is not a proper reference. Please refer to Harvard referencing, as well as how to cite sources, which will have information regarding proper formatting.

Finally, while I freely admit I'm not an expert in the area, looking the article over, with attention to all those URLs, it seems few, if any, are from reliable sources. Sources that are affiliated with the church would not be considered impartial, so would not qualify, although most certainly they can be included in the "external links" section.

I appreciate you respecting the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, and anticipate you'll do your best to improve the article, as you seem to be very knowledgeable about the subject. Thanks in advance, ^Ariel♥Gold 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Hello DominvsVobiscvm, I'd like to draw your attention to the changes you made to the above article. You removed a significant portion of valid, properly sourced material, and replaced it with information that was neither properly sourced, nor particularly relevant, material. Please again review the reliable sources policy, as well as how to cite sources. Also, I'd point you to the neutral point of view policy, as it seems at least part of your contribution was not written with a neutral voice. If you would like to add your information to the article, feel free to do so, but do not simply wipe away all other information. Add your information to the existing article, without removing other valid, referenced sections. Thank you, ^Ariel♥Gold 21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to speak to you via email. Please feel free to contact me at NancyHeise@aol.com. Please put in the subject line Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami so I don't think you are spam. Thank you. NancyHeise 04:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. —An gr 22:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not unprotect Roman Catholic sex abuse cases so that you could go back to edit warring. Please use the talk page before adding the material that clearly no other editor of that page considers appropriate. The other editors have brought up very good points on the talk page that you have not addressed. —An gr 06:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all this elsewhere, and tire of repeating myself. That having been said, I am taking these comments to heart, as when I added a footnote to make for an omission Nancy Heise pointed out. DominvsVobiscvm 14:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you addressed this? You have not discussed the issue at hand at either Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami or Talk:Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, and your contributions show that you haven't edited any other talk page at all since May. —An gr 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um . . . you'll find several of my remarks on the Miami Archdiocese talk page, as well as the John Favalora page, along with the mediation page for those articles.DominvsVobiscvm 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's simply not true. You've never commented at Talk:John Favalora at all, and your comments at Talk:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/John Favalora do not address the issue at hand, which is why statements about the Dowgiert lawsuit and the "Miami Vice scandal" belong in an article specifically about allegations of sexual abuse of children, when neither of those events concerned child sexual abuse at all. —An gr 18:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued edit warring is disruptive and you are again about to violate the 3RR rule. You need to engage other editors in the talk pages and find a more constructive way to deal with consensus when it goes against you. We've all been there. I understand it's frustrating, but your insistence on inserting material that is irrelevant and not properly sourced has been addressed on several article talk pages now. Please stop. --Anietor 22:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—An gr 04:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert warring

Your constant revert warring is unacceptable. I've brought up the subject of your behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What to do about DominvsVobiscvm? —An gr 16:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.
Please address comments on the talk page. There are significant concerns about whether your sources would be considered reliable. --Onorem♠Dil 17:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I just blocked your account and unblocked it after I realized I'd missed this last message. I certainly respect Onorem's call and, in all fairness, you did stop after this warning. Nevertheless, at some point you do have to accept that there is a clear consensus against these edits. Pascal.Tesson 05:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued revert warring (despite a fairly clear consensus against your edits on the talk page). Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Pascal.Tesson 18:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Good Example

There is a Wikipedia article on a Roman Catholic archdiocese that has been rated as good or excellent. I have asked other editors to go to the page to see what a good article should look like. It is here: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. We can use that as an example to see what kind of info we need to add to the Miami page to make it better. It looks like we need a lot more content especially in the history section. I don't know how to insert pictures but maybe one of the other editors of this page can help with that. As you can see, even though there are scandals in that Diocese that are much greater than here in Miami, the article does not include that info that can be found on the Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Cases page. Please do not continue to make us all spend our time and energy fighting the unanimously rejected, poorly sourced content you keep adding. We want to make a worthwhile Wikipedia page and would have been there already except for this edit war business. Enough already.NancyHeise 03:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Elizabeth (film)

I would have hoped that you would find a better edit than this one to celebrate the expiration of your block. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that it's not interested in your subjective assessments. Pascal.Tesson 00:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalen College and AALE

The American Academy for Liberal Education has its own article; it should not be necessary to discuss AALE's relationship with the US Department of Education in the article about Magdalen College. This is why I have reverted your addition of the text "As of December 2006, the AALE is barred by the United States Government from accrediting new institutions and programs, following a determination that the organization has been lax in not setting minimum standards for what students must learn at the colleges it accredits." That information is in the AALE article; because Magdalen's accreditation status is not threatened by the suspension the information it is only peripherally relevant (at most) to the Magdalen College article. If you want to add sourced content about AALE, please put it in American Academy for Liberal Education. --Orlady (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Magdalen College (New Hampshire). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Magdalen College (New Hampshire). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Barack Obama. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Acalamari 09:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Biden, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killing edit

I saw your wiki post on serial killing that made it onto the front page of reddit. Meh. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next time just go to the "Unusual articles" page and repost something, that's what everyone else does. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 17:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]