User talk:DonaNobisPacem

Please click here to add a new comment section.

Welcome!

Hello, DonaNobisPacem, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

I saw your edits and contributions and I liked them. Keep up the good work, Dona Nobis Pacem! Lafem 08:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious for a Mason's POV - I know Mackey asserted that Freemasonry WAS a religion in his History - is this claim taken seriously? I know his book seems highly regarded by many Masons/in Masonic literature, but other Masons seem to detract from his work. Opinion?DonaNobisPacem 20:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do regard Mackey's work highly (never having read the whole thing, admittedly), but in this case, he is very much mistaken. I had my own firmly developed belief in God before joining Freemasonry, and nothing I have heard in Lodge has changed it. See the BC Grand Lodge site for a much more eloquent explanation than I can give.--SarekOfVulcan 22:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah, I figured that might be what you were trying to say...but that's not true either. In 1153 he was in France, yes, but he hadn't started writing his chronicle yet. He didn't start that until the 1160s when King Amalric commissioned it. It's true that he wasn't at the battle, but he was friends with many of the people who were there so his information is generally pretty accurate (although it is also true that he doesn't like the military orders very much). Who is the Damascene chronicler, by the way? al-Qalanisi? If so, he wasn't actually in Ascalon at the time, and he only mentions it very briefly. Maybe it was ibn Munqidh, who actually was in Ascalon, but I can't remember if he mentions it specifically. Adam Bishop 08:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, al-Athir too, that's interesting...I don't think I've read anything by Barber about the Templars. I know the name, but the military orders are somewhat beyond my interests :) I'll have to look it up though - there are some specific episodes I am interested in, like the Templars vs. the Hashshashin. Thanks! Adam Bishop 17:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, are you a Knight, or are you just interested in the subject?--SarekOfVulcan 22:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a 3rd degree Knight myself....DonaNobisPacem 06:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me with Catholic League (U.S.) and William A. Donohue. Anti-conservative Catholic and anti-Catholic POV keeps being introduced (by a Catholic, no less). Thanks JG of Borg 17:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you finally got the instruments added! :-)--SarekOfVulcan 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that :-/ DonaNobisPacem 15:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

{Babel-7|en|de-1|fr-1|rc|piano-4|trumpet-2|ubx-5}

I took out one set of brackets for the sake of space, if that's ok - yeah, I was just reading the babel page and figured out I could have done that after my 100th edit - but I wasn't sure if I could insert my own creation using the standard babel box. Speaking of which, any idea how to shrink down the LaTeX formula? I suppose I could find an image to use instead....DonaNobisPacem 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never worked with LaTeX, so no idea there. Is there an external app which can take your LaTeX and output to PNG? (re: if that's ok - hey, it's your talk page! :-) ) --SarekOfVulcan 16:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know I shouldn't have said anything either, but I was in a sufficiently bad mood on Wikipedia last night that I couldn't restrain myself. Adam Bishop 16:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, DNP- I appreciate your focus on the facts on the Knights Templar page. I still think that the references to the assorted Neo-Templar groups should be deleted, or put on another article, but I can't fight that battle right now. Once the holidays are over I won't have much time to come here any more. TAB 66.156.107.108

Because you list yourself as Catholic I thought I would inform you of a particularly offensive image on the Penis page, or the subject in question. It shouldn't belong here, and the diagram is enough for me. If you feel the same please remove it, or help fight the case on the talk page. Chooserr 05:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments, being deleted from BlueTemplar's page, have been moved here for the sake of record keeping.

Hi BlueTemplar13 - while I look forward to your input and discussion on the Templar page, I would suggest refraining from personal attacks on religious denominations. To ask if a Roman Catholic can be unbiased towards the Templars is perhaps justified, but many of the comments made fly directly in the face of Wikipedia's civility guidelines. I hope we can discuss and better the article without letting personal bias interfere!DonaNobisPacem 16:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the civility guidelines, under examples it lists (as a more serious infraction) religious slurs. In your commentary, you wrote:

"I am sorry, I do not need a red candle to tell me Jesus is with me" - a slur against the Catholic belief in the "True Presence" (ie, physical presence) of Christ in the Eucharist

It also refers to rudeness. You wrote:

"Boy I am glad I live in the States, Rome has no power here. Do I believe in the Divity of Christ? you betcha! But I do not believe that one must pay homage to a human being in order to have a personal relationship with the savior. I do not believe that one must be "Educated" in order to recieve the eucharist. Jesus offered his followers bread and fish without cleansing them (the followers), and without reservation. He offered salvation to a prostitute, and murderer, and a thief on the cross without going through some arcane and grandiose ritual."

This is simply an opinion on Catholic belief, and not a very informed one at that, intended to belittle Catholic teaching.

"You mean to tell me the throne of PETER, the infallable seat of Rome "bowed to pressure" at the whims of a worldly king?"

Again, a comment meant to insult a person Catholics hold a great deal of respect for. Both of these comments, as well as the general tone of the posts (particularly the first) can easily be considered to be rude.

I do not wish to carry out a debate on the merits of Catholic belief on the Templar page. I welcome your input; I am again simply asking that you identify particular points (ie, quote them) from the article you have issue with and argue your POV on the talk page, quoting your sources. If none of my edits have been arguable to you, then there is no need to discuss bias - and if there is, it is done by discussing the point in question, not by vague accusations of bias that are unsubstantiated against a user. I hope our debate on the Templars can continue in a more civil tone. Thanks. DonaNobisPacem 07:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time choir member, I was surprised not to find Weston Priory already on WP. Can you think of anything else to say about it that isn't copyvioing their website?--SarekOfVulcan 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Adam Bishop 17:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DonaNobisPacem, I don't know whether you want to get involved but I am having trouble on Abortion, as others constantly are removing valid information, e.g. in this edit. Could you please have a look. Cheers, Str1977 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal here. Please take a look. --JASpencer 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm not sure where you are - I've been absent a bit, but I wanted to let you know that I've expended 3 of my reverts on the Fetal Pain article keeping a link mislabeled as a shock site up, but have run out. I also started a discussion which no one takes in account...I hope you'll look it over and re-add the link if you feel it's the right thing to do. Chooserr 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Donanobispacem. Can you be so kind as to give some feedback on this: Introvigne photo and quote.

Thanks a lot and regards. Thomas S. Major 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement combines several quotes: "prime target" appears in his interview with Messori on Opus Dei. "stigmatize" comes from his article which he translated into English as Labelling...(see one of the footnotes) "return to religion" is from his article on Opus Dei and the Anti-cult movement.

It does not come from the Encyclopedia itself. The articles and interview do not have covers and so no image...

Can we transfer our comments to the talk page so it can be on record? Talk Opus Dei Thanks a lot for the immediate feedback! BTW, ok to your suggestion! Thomas S. Major 07:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the penis pic is going to be removed, but I do thank you for trying anyway. Chooserr 02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DonaNobisPacem will never be a knight, he can play all he wants by putting on a cape but there will only and always be only one Order and it will not add to your "recognition" because everyone already knows it. He will never see the inside of a Lodge room, he will never partake in the true traditions of the order. By your nature you are subversive to the true ideals of free thought, education of the masses, and intolerant of other faiths or other opinons. Instead of debating you would rather paste and copy, and if there is not an annotated referance you are dismissive, and brand others as extremeists instead of researching it yourself. Instead you simply say "I do not agree with it, so I am getting rid of it". That is neither the characteristic of a scholar, or a gentleman. Instead it shows a keen ability not to be able to think outside the box. A lawyer would have a field day with you.

Well I have had enough, I am done, goodday, and goodbye.

Not quite sure where this came from...... DonaNobisPacem 20:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL You have to love how the mind of a conspiracy theorist works! --Loremaster 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rant above is really strange?! Stopped by to say that your comment on Penis was very gracious. Not something you always see on Wikipedia. Hope you didn't take my comment to be too bossy. Sometimes, straw polls and Rfc can be brutal on WP, with rude comments piled high! Hated for you to suffer through that for nothing. --FloNight 22:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DNP, just saw your comments. Thanks for informing me about this. Was out of town for several days. I just took a peak at the long discussion and wow! Looks like a wonderful battlefront. I will need sometime to digest it though since I have to catch up with work I left behind. I will be very very glad to help. Thomas S. Major 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DNP, my opinion might initially be a disappointment for you, but I hope after you read and think about it, it will be good news in fact.

Based on my analysis and my own experience at the Opus Dei article, my recommendation is to allow the minority POV in. My reasons are the following: (1) I believe it is not original research, the guy Giovanni quotes scholars for this theory, for something to fall under original research Giovanni himself should have thought it up, (2) if there is at least two heavy weight scholar then there are significant representatives" of a specific POV, thus it is not fringe or extreme POV; significant representative is a specific NPOV rule, (3) it is even good for the information of people who could have heard of those attacks that they get to know how to answer them. This is perhaps one of the most important reasons. Of course, this entails research and work but it is worth it, as we have shown in the Opus Dei article. Anyway, the majority POV will always have greater space to explain itself. In a sense it is an opportunity for scholarly "apologetics". (4) it is good that Catholics not give the impression that we are "suppressing" a theory which have reasons (1) and (2), if they do really have these bases, of course.

Although yes I would prefer that a scholarly reply to this minority POV be prepared before giving it full permission for insertion.

Well, this is my frank assessment. I hope it ended up as good news. Of course, the whole assessment depends on the solidity of the premises (1) and (2). Thomas S. Major 09:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP 64.12.116.198 has reverted my contributions to the "Safe Sex" article, most of which were an attempt to make it more neutral and get it away from the whole "Use a condom" stance. If you could look it over, and revert it if necessary it would be most appreciated. Chooserr 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, DonaNobisPacem. Great to hear that! Thomas S. Major 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DonaNobisPacem, it's been sometime since I wrote you.

I saw your userpage warning and so I ended the title of this section with a question mark. It's up to you if you have time to look into this issue at the Opus Dei talk page on Introvigne's affiliation to Opus Dei.

Since it is all about neutrality and affiliation to Opus Dei, it might be best if somebody who has not been so connected with the article on Opus Dei answers the persons involved. Thank for whatever contribution you can give, no matter how late you see this. Lafem 05:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to act, DonaNobisPacem. The matter has been solved. Lafem 02:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DonaNobis. Sorry to see your goodbye message, but good to know that you'll still be checking in from time to time. We'll miss you. Thanks, anyway, for all you've contributed, and maybe you'll make an occasional edit at weekends or during holidays.

By the way, just in case you're not aware of this, some security changes were brought in recently, making it impossible for you to receive e-mails from other users through the e-mail this user link on your user page unless you actively enable your e-mail again. If you go to "e-mail this user" from your user page, you'll see that it's disabled. If you've decided that you don't want people to be able to e-mail you through Wikipedia any more, fine. If not, then you should go to your watchlist, see the notice at the top, and follow instructions. You'll then get an e-mail from Wikipedia, giving you a link to open. Once you click on that link, your e-mail will be enabled. The instructions at the top of your watchlist page will be removed in the next week, I think, so if you come back after that, and want to receive messages, you'll probably be able to do it through my preferences at the top of the page.

Best wishes. AnnH ♫ 17:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're still around! AnnH ♫ 20:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's frustrating, and suggests that the message somehow didn't get across. I may have been a little high-handed, but deleting comments explaining to you how rude it's considered to delete people's comments here is... somehow less than promising. There are several admins keeping an eye out by now, so he'll either realize that when in Rome... or he'll piss off the wrong Roman before too long. I do think we should be vigilant about restoring any comments he removes from Talk:Abortion. I'm less worried about his talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing good work. Good proposal for the main definition. Some people want to focus on the pregnancy being aborted and forget that its actually the development of the conceptus that is aborted - by killing it in an induced abortion. I have decided to pretty much keep to the talk pages. I realize I will get nowhere editing the actual article. I would appreciate your comments here [1]. Goodandevil

Good to have you back, but you may want to take it easy as it is rather frustrating at the moment. Sadly the Masonic editors are really going to have to deal with their little problem on their own, and they don't yet (with one exception) seem to realise how ridiculous he makes them appear (see this little edit summary) for the tone that he uses with them. I have a feeling that they may be rather junior in the setup while their little problem isn't. JASpencer 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-lick keeps removing my comments from his talk page. My comments are not personal attacks and violate no policy. One is a warning about misbehavior, and the other is advice. Good 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info on Freemasonry. I've just fixed it. Was not able to do much about the Knights, for I hardly know anything about it. But will pray that it gets resolved. And I will check it once in a while. Lafem 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having a hard time trying to remove the last paragraph from the "Religious views concerning condoms" section or whatever the exact title may be. I believe it is inappropriate, because it does not really concerned with condoms, but instead talking about the controversy concering "Sexual Education". I would hope you'd be willing to view it, and remove it if you too feel it to be inappropriate. Chooserr 00:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need a break. I've had somes stresses in real life recently, and, now is not the best time to enter the fray of an editorial dispute on a very contentious issue. I'm not going to leave Wikipedia, just the Abortion page, at least until things cool down a little. I even filed a request for protection . I'm going to be optimistic and assume that the RfC will work out and that, ultimately, it will be better in the long run to let things run their course than try to force things through now. I'll probably hang around History of Abortion instead. Thanks for the support. -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 09:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DonaNobisPacem, thank you for telling me about the outrageous edits. By the time I got there someone had removed it. I looked through the article history and found them. Amorrows sock puppet is annoying, for sure. FloNight ^talk 01:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the SP are him. He makes and someone blocks them on an ongoing basis it seems. --FloNight ^talk 05:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Anti-abortionist and thought you would be interested (seeing your merge proposal on the anti-abortion movement ariticle). It isn't an active article, and it may be a good candidate for prod-ing.--Andrew c 02:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See abortion talk page. I hope you will adopt with the exception of the word "nonviable".____G_o_o_d____

Trying for a cabal? As far as I'm concerned, the four of you get one vote together. Alienus 07:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in with your view on this abortion wikipedia poll. ____G_o_o_d____ 08:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed some of your commentary regarding professors saying not to use wikipedia because it changes so much etc. While i was in university, the use of an encyclopedia as a source for information was forbidden. One could use an encyclopedia article to get an overview, and then use ITS sources, but, in general, they weren't sources themselves. Similarly, wikipedia shouldn't be considered a source for a college/university level research project, but a source of sources, which is why the standards for verifiability exist.--Vidkun 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've been under the same standards - we are not allowed to use encyclopedias as sources, either. What they were warning against was using Wikipedia as a source for sources - as often the sources listed are not at all good, or are biased/fringe views (take a look at the history of some of the sources used on the Knights Templar pages, for instance). In the case of mathematics profs, I'm not talking about research - they were warning against the use of Wikipedia as a source for formulas/extra info (basically, they told us to go find a text on the subject instead). DonaNobisPacem 18:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're pretty spot-on. I mean, I find errors in tone, usage, and fact in pages I check that I know anything about, I see extremely dubious information being passed as fact on pages I know less about, and so I don't find it hard to believe that there are plenty more errors I'm not seeing. —Casey J. Morris 01:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNP... As you may know, JASpencer and I are having a minor argument over how to present quotations that support statements made in the various Freemasonry related articles. JAS preffers to include them in the citations, as footnotes, while I feel they should be included in the main text. Would you be so kind as to check out my sample section at Catholicism and Freemasonry/example and compare it to the same section at the Catholicism and Freemasonry article. I would be interested in your oppinion (as well as those of all the editors of these articles) as to which style you prefer. Feel free to pass this on to any one you feel would give an honest oppinion. (sent to all regular editors of the Freemasonry related pages) Blueboar 18:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial-birth abortion. ____G_o_o_d____ 12:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a peer review for the Knights of Columbus article, with the hopes of making it a featured article. Any help you could give would be great. Thanks! Briancua 13:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Add.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! do you know thecatholicguide.com? it's a sort of catholic english wikipedia. Please feel free to look at www.kathpedia.com (german) and www.enciclopediacattolica.it (italian) too. DonPaolo (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]