Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dominick/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment | Dominick

1 Top
2 merger
3 This seems clearcut to me
4 EWTN Screen Shots
5 Comments on Outside view that were moved from the page
6 Second moved comment (By U2BA) from main page to talk page
7 An outside view
- 7.1 Some thoughts on what I see here
8 Commentary and senseless trolling
9 Other commentators
10 New evidence of coordination from thrid party site
11 This is just nuts!

[edit] Top

No, Dominick, how could this be "in response to your writing an RfC" when it was I who was told to make one against you first? Just because you got yours before I did, after having read those recommendations to me (made by Gator and Pathoschild), is meaningless to my motivation for creating this project.

No, I do not add links to various pages at the Fish Eater's site to just anything. I did mistakenly add it to ONE disambiguation page ("Bells"), but realizing the error after seeing your removal of it, did not attempt to re-add it. Other than that, there is not ONE occurence of adding links to pages that are not on topic. Not ONE. The links and their placements speak for themselves, as does your reason for removing them ("extremist traditional PoV").

Sorry, but Malachias111is not an administrator for the Fish Eaters (not "Apologia") forum.

There is only one website; it is Fish Eaters. It was formerly hosted at www.kensmen.com/catholic; it now has its own domain. The site also has a discussion forum. Anyone can go read the pages you keep going on about, but good luck trying to find the problems.

I don't know what dealings you may have had with Gator in the past, but I am the one who approached her for assistance in dealing with your behavior. [1].

Yes, Pathoschild refused to continue the vote, but what makes you think it was because of me or my so-called "meat-puppets" -- "meat-puppets" who'd been posting here before I got here?

None of your allegations are "substantiated" in my "own words."

As to evidence of your calling traditionalists "Vatican-bashers," "Rome-haters," Pope-bashers," not "official Catholics," "Dissenters," "militant": I've given some, but one can find more all over the Talk Pages for and in edits of the Traditionalist Catholics entry.

I don't have a "group."

It doesn't matter that you attend the traditional Mass (Andrew Sullivan likes it, too); you are not a traditionalist Catholic, you are a conservative Catholic -- at least in terms of how the phrase is used the immense majority of the time. (a clue: traditionalist Catholics don't go around praising Nostra Aetate and acting as a fan club for Ann Coulter and the Sean Hannity. That is what conservative/neo-conservative Catholics do).

Whether sedevacantists have "left the Church" begs the question of what it means to be IN the Church. They think they are in the Church. Who are you to say they're not?

I gave evidence for your deceptive reverts, Dominick. You do it all the time.

No, it's not that you "applied WP:RPA" that warranted the complaint about your moving stuff from talk pages; it is your considering anything you find unpleasant or disagree with as a "personal attack."

"Linkspam" has a definition. Look it up. Linking to perfectly relevant and informative pages -- non-commercial ones at that -- does not qualify. It doesn't qualify any more than linking to EWTN or New Advent or Catholic Answers repeatedly when warranted would qualify as such, and this should make you happy or else you'd have to consider yourself a "linkspammer." Used2BAnonymous 12:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no point in debating you. This is what I want. Immediatly stop linkspamming wikipedia articles with links to your own websites. Quite reverting content that doesn't agree with your own personal PoV. If the content doens't make sense, then edit it, and work constructivly for consensus. Other that that you are welcome to edit you little website/blog to your heart's content, you are not welcome to control content here. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

User2B's links are relevant and on topic, so it's not "linkspamming." She offers her own POV, and it's understood as such. So her links are perfectly legitimate.--Inquisitorgeneralis 00:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read the wikipedia policy on monograph sites edited by one person, they are not considered primary sources. Your association with her on the forum liked from her page that directs attacks on wikipedia here not withstanding, you should be able to see the problem with not using primary sources to write articles. Thanks Dominick ^(TALK) 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have SIX moderators, Dominick, you mammaluc'. And there is a difference between an external link and a SOURCE. Now go away and LEAVE ME ALONE. Used2BAnonymous 01:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

This kinda explains why they would want to come here and make sure wikipedia links to your site. At the risk of feeding the troll, I will try again to explain this to you. I was pleased to edit pages here, and I was happy to add the traditionalist view that was lacking in the pages. I find it funny that others here consider me a hopeless reactionary, and you all consider me a outrageous liberal. Please don't paint this as a stalking, when I see that link here, I am going to apply wikipedia policy. If this is about your personal PoV, the link stays, and when you are just link spamming according to the wikipedia definition, it will be removed. You have six people indebted to you, who you can direct to come here and make it hard for people to work here. I made what would satify me clear to you. External links should not be linked becasue they have "information' they are linked to support the article. This is not a link farm. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You're just a piece of work, aren't you? First you bitch "because" my site is a "monograph" (ridiculous choice of words considering the definition), and now you bitch because you THINK that anyone who comes to this page and isn't on your side of this argument is just doing what any meatpuppet would.

Rather than funny, I find it sickening that others consider you a hopeless reactionary. Just goes to show how far we've fallen.

You wouldn't know spam if it crawled up your nose and laid a thousand eggs. Any link to my site (even if I didn't add it in the first place) is "spam." No, it's "irrelevant." No, it's a "blog." No, it's "POV." No, it's a "monograph." You've tried ALL of these, Dominick. "A trad site just has to be something bad 'cause I hates it!"

And, BY THE WAY, I don't have anyone indebted to ME; I am indebted to THEM.

Now, as to external linking:

What should be linked to

Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one.
Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of an article. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. See Wikipedia:Cite your sources.
An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible.
On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

DO you understand the difference between a "SOURCE" and "FURTHER READING"? Let me tell you then:

External links/Further reading

The External links or Further reading section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Where there is a references section, editors may prefer to call the external links section "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further reading section may contain items that are not online.

And here's a big clue for you: if I am linking to my OWN WEBSITE, there's a good chance I am not "citing" it as a "source" since I WROTE it. Now LEAVE ME ALONE. Used2BAnonymous 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And this is what I want. I want for you:

to stop characterizing links to that site as "linkspam" and to stop deleting them and reverting to eradicate them
to work on consensus (if you're not going to go away and work on entries you might know something about)
to stop insulting traditionalist Catholics
to stop trying to redefine the very term "traditionalist Catholic"
to stop pretending that we just have nooooooooo idea what the Church taught before Vatican II when you don't like those teachings or when those teachings contradict your idea of what "traditionalist Catholicism" is. With regard, say, to the Church's teachings on Jewish-Catholic relations, interreligious dialogue, etc., there are old catechisms, preconciliar encyclicals, and plenty of books published before Vatican II and with imprimaturs that explain Catholic thinking. What is in those catechisms, encyclicals, and books constitute "the traditional Catholic view." These things are a question of fact, not "opinion" or "point of view." If you don't like the traditional teachings found in the aforementioned items, then fine. But don't pretend there is no traditional Catholic view, don't go around accusing me of being "POV" for stating those views when I am stating those views as traditional Catholic views, and don't go around not holding those views while pretending to be a "traditionalist Catholic" so you can take over an entry on that topic and subvert it, slandering traditionalists as you do.

Other than that, you are welcome to edit your little entries to your heart's content. But you are not welcome to smear me, slander me, lie, obfuscate, and hound me across Wikipedia, deleting and mischaracterizing perfectly good content and links simply because you don't like traditional Catholicism or certain traditionalist Catholics.

BTW, the website you characterize as "little" is almost 600 pages large, plus forum. I have no blog. I am very curious, though, as to what it is that pisses you off sooooooooooo much about that site. Seriously, what is the matter with you? Used2BAnonymous 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your site is fine and dandy. The problem is that you insert links to your own site as if it was authoritative. It is not. You are welcome to insert links from other sources. Wikipedia policy states this as Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_not_be_linked_to and refers to WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming:

Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.

That is the objection to your site here on wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is anything ever authoritative on Wikipedia? Not usually. Use2B's links are informative, and that's the important thing.--Inquisitorgeneralis 00:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, there is no excuse for removing those links. They're not out of place on those entries at all. Just back off some and forget about this vendetta. As your page says, "Be happy! That's official policy!" And you really should read some of those old catechisms and documents. It's no secret what the church has always taught about certain things. Malachias111 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a vendetta, it is a problem when the operator of a site inserts links in wikipedia, furthermore, where the site was left, where I put "one traditional view" or language to ensure the reader this was not the view of every traditionalist, the reverts occured. Other places links from the vatican were replaced with fisheaters/kensmen domains, which are not at all authoratative. When the site is refereed, or from a source involved and monitored by the Church then we can say it is authoritative. Fisheaters in one opinion, and not at all the Church's opinion. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is what it says, Dominick: What should not be linked to

In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.
Sites that primarily exist to sell products.
Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
Sites that require payment to view the relevant content
Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content
Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Each link you've removed is relevant, on-topic, informative, and not put there "to promote a site." My mission in life, Dominick, is to teach about and defend the Catholic Faith and to bring souls to Holy Mother Church. I will prudently use any avenue I can to do this in a manner that plays by the rules. I am not inserting links to the site's index page (except in one or two places where that makes sense, on very general entries such as "Catholicism," for ex.). I am not inserting links to various pages of the site in entries that have nothing to do with the information linked to. The links are not being added by some bot; they are added by me, one at a time, and it has taken HOURS of my time to do so. The site requires no flash or java to use. There is no advertising at the site with the exception of one ad to the 1962 Missal sold at a bookstore and which is there in trade (the publishers sent me a Missal in trade for a link on the "Books for Catholics" page). Nothing is sold at the site (aside from a handful of books through Amazon). I do not charge for anything at the site (I do accept donations, however, but you can bet the house that it doesn't cover what it takes to keep the site up and running). It COSTS me when people visit the site! The more visits, the more I PAY in bandwidth. And why? Because I want people to learn about the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church built upon the rock of St. Peter. This "internet apostolate" is "what I do"; it is my thing, my mission, and I will protect my work and will not break the rules (not knowingly, anyway). Now, why would you, as a Catholic, have some issue with this and waste my time, forcing me to baby-sit these entries when I could be teaching? I hate debate. I hate it. Read the links you've removed, Dominick, and tell me why you, as a Catholic, would not want people to see them. Tell me in what way I benefit temporally from having people click.

I find it disgusting that two Catholics -- two Italian ones at that -- have to be at such odds with one another as to come to this. What kind of witness is this? We should be on the same side!

In the spirit of this season, and in His Holy Name, I beg pardon for my sarcasm (though I can't say I will never be sarcastic again, because that is how I react to frustration; when it's "be sarcastic or kill something," I go for the former, though I do try to be funny about it). I doubt you and I will ever agree politically (I'm a paleocon), and I think you are not a traditionalist Catholic (which is not an insult of some sort; some of my favorite people in the world are conservative Catholics or not Catholic at all). I know for a fact that you don't truly "get" the attitudes of most trads (the ones you would call "extremist militants") with regard to our hierarchs, and think you have read one too many "anti-lidless eyed" type blogs without looking -- at least carefully enough -- at traditionalist arguments, but I want for there to be peace. Handing you the pipe... Used2BAnonymous 16:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You make too many assumptions about who you are dealing with. Merry Christmas. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I never replaced links to the Vatican, Dominick. The only place this is remotely possible is in the Traditionalist Catholic entry itself, in the listing of "Traditionalist beliefs," where I worked offline, adding links to the encyclicals referenced, and copy-pasted that work into the edit panel. Used2BAnonymous 16:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

One instance of this is here. I don't go hunting down every link you changed or added to your website. I even found a link you added to a disabiguation page. I was working on resources fisheaters links when you started saying harassment. I intend to continue that task, since fisheaters is not as reliable a source like the Vatican, Catholic Answers, papalencyclicals.net, USCCB.org, or EWTN. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That link to the Vatican website is (or at least was) dead, and that's why it was replaced. It "defaults" to the Vatican's index page and doesn't go to the document. But generally speaking, REFERENCES like that should be switched. Links to further information on a topic shouldn't be, and it is this that is the issue. Used2BAnonymous 20:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I made my point. Links to your personal website, even if it purports to hold any sort of a Catholic position, fails the published criteria for Wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Links to Used2B's page are just fine.--Inquisitorgeneralis 00:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, there is nothing wrong my site. It is what it is, clearly states what it is (http://www.fisheaters.com/contact.html], and doesn't claim to be an organ of the Curia. It is PACKED with solid, reliable material that one cannot find anywhere else on the internet (at least not put together the way it is). It is as much of an "official source" as catholic.com, newadvent.com, ewtn.com, etc. I think if you actually looked at it, you might even like it (well, except for the Jewish-Catholic relations section, which a lot of people don't "like" if they're new to the topic). Used2BAnonymous 20:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No I beg to differ. It is herdly on the same plane as other peer reviewed sites. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "same plane" and "peer reviewed" (who are the "peers" who "review" EWTN, Catholic Answers, New Avent, etc.?), but the site is fine, accurate, and well-researched. Don't hate it because it's beautiful LOL Used2BAnonymous 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice: this has been added to the "Evidence of disputed behavior" section on the project page:

This indented text is being added after Dominick made his response below:

From the history page for the entry "Eucharist":

02:52, 16 December 2005 User:Srleffler (rv. The page he removed doesn't look like a blog, and seems to have lots of relevant information.)

01:56, 16 December 2005 User:Dominick (RM BLOG)

The page Dominick removed and labelled a "blog": http://www.fisheaters.com/mass.html

Used2BAnonymous 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] merger

These two RFC's are obviously about the same dispute. They should therefore be merged. -- Natalinasmpf 08:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me whether they are merged or not, but I wouldn't know how to go about doing such a thing... Used2BAnonymous 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This seems clearcut to me

Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.

That's not allowed. That's what U2BA does. That's not allowed.

Dominick is being a good editor by removing them. I support him for it. JG of Borg 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You didn't read what I wrote: the links aren't being added "to promote a site"; I gain nothing temporally by people clicking on those links as the site is not a commercial one (it costs me when people visit that site). The links are added to provide further information on the given topic, and each link added (with one sole exception where I erred and do agree with Dominick) has been perfectly relevant. Besides which, Dominick began removing those links before he even knew enough about me to stop referring to me as "he" when the contact page of the Fish Eaters Website, personal profile at my forum, etc., clearly refer to my sex and to my husband, etc. Further, all I'd have to do is post at the site's forum what has been going on and Catholics from Norway to the Philippines to Italy to Oregon would be glad to re-add the links -- without my asking them to since I'm sure they'd be accused of being my "affiliates" or something. Come on, JG; this is what Malachias111 said it is: a vendetta. Let's stop this stupid war, act like Christians, and prepare to enjoy Christmas. Used2BAnonymous 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Malachias111 is a puppet of your's... maybe not a sockpuppet, but definitely under your control. That is irrelevant, however.

Promote: to further the cause of. You are promoting not only your site, but your ideology. That is admirable, but wikipedia is not for that. I probably wouldn't have a problem with the spamming if you didn't post the links as "the" Traditionalist Catholic view... for you must be aware of the other sites out there, the other groups, etc, who also hold (different) views. A simple change like "A " from "The" can make all the difference.

As for the "stop the vendetta" - when you are willing to compromise and accept that you do not dictate content to appear here, Dominick and others would be more than happy to work WITH you to improve articles (and add links in a NPOV manner). Is there a reason you are not willing to compromise? Oh, and you do know that if you post on your site asking for others to spam (and violate policy), you are just bringing yourself down faster. Not a good idea. Let's all work together on this and reach an equitable compromise. JG of Borg 07:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Malachias111 is a "puppet" of mine?? He is under "my control"?? Oh, wow. Is this because he is a traditionalist? How is he any more under my "control" than you are under Dominick's? You had nothing to do with the Traditionalist Catholic entry (debate about which had been raging on for MONTHS), show up 11 days ago, and are now buddying up with Dominick after he asks you to, and use his language to claim there is no single "traditionalist Catholic" view about certain things. Am I accusing you of being a "puppet"? No. But I wish I'd be afforded the same courtesy.

Let me ask you this: are there teachings that have always been taught by the Church or not? It's madness to say that what the Church has always taught is not "the" traditionalist Catholic view of things. When it comes to prudential matters, such as "should one go to Mass at SSPX chapels?" or "is Benedict XVI a true Pope?" and such, obviously there is no one "traditionalist Catholic view" -- but when it comes to the Eucharist, to Purgatory, to the customs of All Souls, ecumenism, and such things, there is a traditionalist Catholic view, and one can find it in old catechisms, encyclicals, and books with the imprimatur. Again, these things are not a matter of "opinion"; they are a question of fact: what has the Church always taught. The answers are out there. And my site is pan-traditionalist and stays away from the "SSPX-FSSP-ICK-Independent-Sede" debates.

I am not "promoting" anything by providing links to further information on relevant pages. Obviously, links to a traditionalist site would have the traditional views and ways of doing things, just as a link to a Muslim site would have the Muslim ways of doing things, and links to Jewish sites would have the Jewish way of doing things. It's not as though the links are mislabelled, for ex., "Click here to see the Hindu view of this topic."

I have been trying for months to "improve articles" and "add links in a NPOV manner" -- but this is what I've been dealing with.

I wouldn't "post on [my] site asking for other to spam" and just got done saying I wouldn't have to ask traditionalists to put the links back up; all I'd have to do is relate what has been going on here and they'd put the links back up of their own volition. You know as well as I do that the spamming policy refers to commercialism, posting off-topic stuff, etc. Come on, JG. Used2BAnonymous 08:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Also, in the first place, I'm not the only one who's added links to the site!

Notice of further text added to "evidence" section of project page:

This text added also after Dominick's response below:

A. From the History page for the entry "Eucharistic Adoration":

16:56, 16 December 2005 Dominick (?External links - LEts remove it, it does not meet wikipedia source quality guildelines, as it only is a monograph.)

The link in question? this page

B. From the History page for the entry "Novus Ordo Missae":

1. 16:57, 16 December 2005 Dominick (?External links - rm conspiricy theory monograph)

The page in question? this page

2. 16:57, 16 December 2005 Dominick (?External links - rm monograph website link)

The link in question? The Mass: Introduction this page

Used2BAnonymous 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EWTN Screen Shots

Question for Dominick: You removed a link to two screen captures of EWTN's "Ask an Expert" Q&A. The screen captures in question are of Fr. Levis saying that the Novus Ordo Missae is a "complete fabrication," followed by an edited version of that answer. I would like to see proof of this "denial." Seattle Catholic linked to the "complete fabrication" post with a link entitled "EWTN Expert on the Novus Ordo Mass." Traditio.com and Novus Ordo Watch (two sede outfits) also linked to it. But most importantly, I "reported" on it before any of them and saw the Q&A posts -- both of them, the original "complete fabrication" post and the edited version -- with my own eyes at EWTN's website. One of those screen captures at the link you deleted is my own; the other was taken by someone else. If EWTN is "denying" this, then some serious liars work for them. So: did EWTN lie on top of editing Fr. Levis's post? Used2BAnonymous 10:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It was alink to your website. Nobody else carried it, and Fr. Levis was incorrect in his writing. Thats the value of a review site, unlike your website that nobody edits but you. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about "nobody carried it"? I did, Seattle Catholic did, Traditio did, Novus Ordo Watch did, Angel Queen forum did. It was talked about at neo-conservative forums as well. And I saw it with my own eyes! Please! Now, are you lying about EWTN denying it or is EWTN lying?

And I have no idea what you mean by a "review site," but if you think my site isn't "reviewed," you are incorrect. Used2BAnonymous 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a link from a legitimate news source (Seattle Catholic?) about your screenshots. Something a little more balanced than a page with no explanation (or a 404 which your link gives). JG of Borg 17:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Seattle Catholic didn't write about my screen captures. They linked to Fr. Levi's original post with a link entitled "EWTN Expert on the Novus Ordo Mass." With regard to Fr. Levi's original answer and the edited one, I can produce about 200 hundred witnesses and send you a sworn affidavit if you'd like. Used2BAnonymous 18:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Even so, the premise is that EWTN feels the Novus Ordo is a fabrication, or this priest is defying the Vatican. Either premise is wrong. The Q and A section was to answer people many EWTN explanations are peer reviews, this one was as we.. That's the advantage of not having one editor on your website. When an error is made it is corrected. Please, your site is your own creation, and is in violation of wikiguidelines to use it as a source. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Seattle Catholic is not affiliated with the Archdiocese of Seattle" - looks legitimate to me - not. Come back when you have a real article from a real source (recognized, legitimate, and above all, encyclopedic) which actually covers this. JG of Borg 18:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I want it on the record from Dominick: Dominick, are you lying or is EWTN lying? Used2BAnonymous 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I can consult your website to find out. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Or you can consult with EWTN and ask them if they edited it or are denying having edited it. I just sent this note to them at viewer@ewtn.com. I know it won't benefit you because no matter what they say, you wouldn't accept a screen shot or eyewitness testimony, so I recommend writing to them yourself:

Hello,

I am deeply disturbed to have heard from a Wikipedia editor named "Dominick" that EWTN has denied editing a certain post by Fr. Levis in the "Catholic Q&A" section of the EWTN website. The URL of the Q&A exchange in question is: http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=4&Pg=Forum6&recnu=92&number=447626

I read the original version of Fr. Levis's answer, which read:

"Dear Gem, The NOvus Ordo Mass was a complete fabrication or product of its creators, a point of contention within the Church since it has few if any roots in the Tridentine Mass. This point is very important to our present Pope. I have no idea what this priest means by his prioritizing the new Mass over the former. In America at present, no priest is to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without permission of his bishop, without an Indult from the Ecclesia Dei Commission of Rome. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis"

I saw that the answer was later changed to the present, "Dear Gem, in America at present, no priest is to celebrate the Tridentine Mass without permission of his bishop, without an indult from the Ecclesia Dei Commission of Rome. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis."

Now, I know this edit happened. Fine. But I am extremely bothered by this rumor that EWTN is denying having changed it. I am hoping this rumor isn't true. Can you set the record straight?

Thank you!

Used2BAnonymous 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why am I arguing a consipiricy theory with you? The answer removed the word "fabrication", since the word is misundersttod by people with an axe to grind like you. You can defy Rome on your website all you like. You can post what you like. You may NOT use wikipedia as a vehicle to boost your hit count. I intend to continue removing your links where they are added incorrectly, as they do not meet wikipedia's criteria as a source. This is the topic, and this is what I think you can't comprehend. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the answer to this whole thread is:

I think I am done here. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, seems clear-cut to me. It'll be interesting to read U2BA's response to EWTN's "denial of the facts," though, lol. Back to improving the Wikipedia JG of Borg 19:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a conspiracy theory, Dominick. It was a fact that Fr. Levi wrote X, and EWTN later changed it to Y. You turned it into something nasty with your assertions that EWTN "denied" it. And that is basically calling them liars, because thousands of people saw what I saw. Not only did you call EWTN liars, you slandered me in the process.

I am not using Wikipedia to "boost (my) hit count," so whatever. And I am not the only person who has added links to my site. It is a site that is valued by many people; I get thousands and thousands of hits a day from people all over the world (even Vatican City once in a while). You can try to put me down and defame my work, but you'd only be making yourself look foolish by removing links while throwing out words like "conspiricy" (sic) or "monograph." People can go to the links you are labelling as such and can see what you are up to. And a link in the "External Links" area of a page isn't a "source."

JG, I don't think EWTN did deny it. I think they have more class that that. At the very least, they are not totally stupid. Used2BAnonymous 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me know when they email you back. Otherwise, there is nothing but your word that they edited it, and, with no reason given (though none is necessary, as the original answer was not appropriate.) Regardless, it doesn't belong linked to either, all it, as a screenshot, is, is a no-explanation conspiracy allegation that has no place on Wikipedia. It's certainly not notable, even if it is true. JG of Borg 19:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I saw it with my own eyes on EWTN, and Seattle Catholic, and a couple other places. It was discussed for a little while on the net. If it isn't notable, then I wonder why EWTN would have gone through the trouble to edit most of it away.Heliotropium 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

JG, no, there is more than my word. There are thousands of people who saw it. Every other trad site on the Net linked to it and then pointed out the edit after the text was changed (well, of course, any trad site couldn't be worthy enough to count, though).

I don't know why you two keep bringing up the concept of a "conspiracy"; it has nothing to do with "conspiracies." It is a simple matter that Fr. Levis expressed his opinion, and then that opinion got edited. Only one editor is required for that, not a cabal.

I'm also not sure why you think Fr. Levis's opinions and the apparent "panic" over it has "no place on Wikipedia" -- not even on a page devoted to the Novus Ordo Mass. When traditionalists say the N.O. Mass is a fabrication, we are called "Rome-haters" and such. When Fr. Levis, an EWTN expert does it, trads get happy to have some support -- and then he gets edited. I think it's notable. All trads think it's notable. But I guess what trads think is notable doesn't matter because trads don't belong on Wikipedia, apparently; anything we do is shot down, mischaracterized, labelled "POV" even if it is labelled "Catholic" or "traditionalist Catholic," etc. No trad site is good enough, huge long pages of relevant material are written off as "monographs" (!!!)-- seriously, it is quite sickening. Meanwhile, the anti-trads, Chabad, other Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. can have their links to explain their practices and opinions. Sounds fair and balanced to me! Used2BAnonymous 19:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Show me something referencing this alleged censorship from something that is not a blog, forum, or a site made by you. Then I'll believe it. And it's still not notable as a "rumor." As for NPOV - the problem is you don't understand the difference between "the" and "a". Some traditionalists do not believe as you do. "A" or "One" is much more appropriate for linking to your site. JG of Borg 20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The only "rumor" is the one Dominick just started by accusing EWTN of denying having edited that answer by Fr. Levis.

Sites that just linked to it without getting a screen capture will only have a link to the text that is presently there. This is because EWTN changed the text. I showed you Seattle Catholic's page that linked to it, but if you click the link, it will take you to the present text, not Fr. Levi's original answer. Now, if you can think of any reason why Seattle Catholic would link to Fr. Levis's edited answer, then let me know.

Why do you think welovethenovusordo.com would link to it? Why do you think Catholic Answers would link to it or talk about the edits and want that information spread far and wide? There is no site that YOU would consider "legitmate" that would link to it because it is an embarrassment to conservative Catholics. And, frankly, I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not. The screen captures are there. I saw Fr. Levis's original post, as did did anyone else who visited EWTN's Catholic Q&A that day, and I saw the edited version which anyone can see now. You are not the King of Wiki anyway.

Yes, I do understand the difference between "a" and "the." But I don't think you understand the difference between things that have always been taught by the Church (these are things that are "the") and prudential concerns, opinions, matters of taste, etc. The dogmas of the Faith aren't a matter of opinion; they are what they are. Obviously "some traditionalists" do not believe as I do when it comes to many things. Some are sedevacantists, some are a little "Puritan" for my tastes, some are a lot Puritan for my tastes, some like whisky while I prefer gin. But all agree on the dogmas, on the importance of Tradition (intrinsic or extrinsic), and that the revised liturgical rites are not good enough, whether valid or not, whether we have a Pope or not.

But if you're so intent on putting "a" in front of every link to my site, why don't you do the same for Chabad links or something? My site is pan-traditionalist and is rightly labelled "traditional" or "traditionalist." Used2BAnonymous 21:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You should be banned from Wikipedia for spamming. This conversation is over, and Dominick has my unconditional support. JG of Borg 21:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is your seeing Dominick get busted in an outright lie, and supporting him in it. Used2BAnonymous 21:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is you not providing proof of that (though claiming to), and continuing to push your POV without consensus or consideration. EWTN reply to you yet? Didn't think so. Merry Christmas JG of Borg 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, how many witnesses do you need? Let me know and I can try to arrange something. Where should I send my notarized affidavit? The screen shots aren't good enough as they are, should I blow them up to poster size?

No, EWTN hasn't responded to me yet. Have they responded to you? And happy new year. Used2BAnonymous 21:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, JG, I asked you some questions. Used2BAnonymous 01:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I know, I shouldn't feed the troll.... gah...

Well, how many witnesses do you need?

One, who's unbiased.

Let me know and I can try to arrange something.

You seem to be getting enough meat-puppets on here as it is, that's alright! We're better off without them.

The screen shots aren't good enough as they are, should I blow them up to poster size?

Along with the email from EWTN admitting their editing, and the one that says it's notable enough to be on the Wikipedia even if it was.

JG of Borg 01:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, then it's impossible, because any traditionalist Catholic is "biased" to you and couldn't possibly report accurately about what he SAW. Some crazy virus went around a few months ago that made trads go wonky and start hallucinating. They reported on their websites and forums and blogs what they had just seen at EWTN. They linked to it and talked about it and even screen-captured it. But it was all delusion, rather like that tulip bulb fiasco, and to cover their shame, one of the more talented traditionalist Catholic graphics artists got out his trusty PhotoShop and went Soviet.

Chyeah. And you two have the NERVE to refer to anything at MY site as "conspiracy"?

In any case, the eye-witness and reports and screen captures and mentions at blogs from the day Fr. Levis's post was put up at EWTN -- all these things matter not, because JG of Borg didn't see it, and he's the only one who counts, really. If we don't prove it -- with what exactly? how does one prove that a link used to say X even though it now says Y? -- to King JG, then that is really too bad for us.

I think YOU are Dominick's meatpuppet, quite frankly. I didn't want to accuse you of it, but well, hurling slander about is catching, and your showing up 11 days or so ago, in the middle of a huge fight, to a topic you know and apparently care nothing about except to hate it, your buddying up with him to delete links to my site, etc. -- it's all pretty convenient.

Now, if you wouldn't trust a screen capture, why would you trust an e-mail as reported by me, a trad? You know allllll about us and our PhotoShop experts and propensity for tall tales. Write to EWTN yourself. If they write back to me, I'll report it so you can ignore it, though. I want your life to be fun and exciting, and really, what would you do if you didn't have ole U2BA to kick around any more? I'm so glad chivalry isn't dead. Used2BAnonymous 02:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Stop with the victim complex. Slander...hah. You may not realize this, but I've been active on Wikipedia much longer than 11 days... try almost a year? I entered the debate when I thought I was educated enough on the issue. Traditional Catholicism is beautiful, as are the many varied groups that practice it. Besides the hateful ones, of course.

Dominick was correct, and he obviously understands the policy of the Wikipedia much better than you do. Chivalry != giving into extremist traditionalist views and allowing them to be posted on Wikipedia unchallenged and as a pushed POV. You were unable to prove that the edit by EWTN actually occurred, and you were unable to find an unbiased (or less-biased) source. Regardless of that, it's not notable in the slightest.

I actually am finding I have no problem with ONE of "your" links when they are presented as "a" view, not "the" view, which you still don't get. I'm fine with the one on Eucharistic Adoration for example. I can see you going to "fix" it, now, in fact. "It's not a view, it's THE view!" I can see it now...

Of course, it is still a violation of policy and shouldn't have been allowed on anyway. But it does seem to have useful info, so I'll leave it there.

I can't hit all the points I want to, so I'll stop here, and just ask you to go back and read the Help pages, then maybe you'll understand why your policies on editing here are not correct.

Oh, and I wonder how often your real, personality-cloned meat-puppets will return. Don't worry, they're watched also, they won't slip anything by in violation of policy.

I do not plan on returning to this page again, it's a waste of my time. I hope you somehow find what you are looking for.

Merry Christmas JG of Borg 02:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"Complex" my ass. I've been dealing with this stuff for MONTHS now.

I never said you joined Wiki 11 days ago; I said you showed up at the trad entry then. (see? That sort of reading comprehension is what cause you to slander me by asking "why don't you add the 'Seattle Catholic' article you claimed covers your fake screenshots?" That's pretty good, man! Publicly accusing me of lying TWICE with only 14 words. Nice.)

What do you mean by "extremist traditionalist"? The same thing that Dominick does -- even though he doesn't know a thing about traditionalism? "They haaaaaaaaaaaaate Rooooooooooooome!" That's deep.

I've read the Help pages, and even quoted them above since it seems Dominick can't distinguish between a "source" and "further reading."

Let's face it, pal, I am to "spammer" what your neighbor calling you on the phone to sell you Girl Scout cookies is to "telemarketer." I didn't break any rules; you two are nitpicking, and harrassing me.

As far as I'm concerned, there'd be no "a" or "the" involved in the links. It'd be "traditional Catholic" period (hey, do you do anything about those links in which EWTN isn't clearly labelled "a neo-conservative view" and such? Just curious. You'll note that Dominick hasn't been too concerned about the following links at the trad entry I see you two are busy, busy, busy working on:

Outline of Treatise A Prescription Against Traditionalism
"Traditionalist" and Schismatic Catholics
Phatmass Catholic Defense Directory (Enter "traditionalist" in Search)
On the Validity of the Mass of Paul VI
‘Traditionalist’ Errors Syllabus Part II – On the Mass

How come there are no "one neo-con view" labels all over these? Better git on that! And do you know who put those links in there??? Maybe they're --- linkspam, oh no! I think that Phatmass one is a "Blog" even! Has anyone "peer reviewed" these sites???????

I am positively delighted that you'll be watching all of "my" lovely "meatpuppets." They'll all be watching you, too, in an endless loop of meatpuppet gazing. Perhaps if all you meatpuppets were to limit yourselves to staring at one another, other people could get some work done. (Could you do me a favor, though? Don't let any of them escape my control, will ya? Sometimes they get off their leashes, and when they do, they always try to jump the fence.)

Not coming back? I'm all broken up inside. Please, don't go. Please. I'll do anything.

Chappy Channukah. Used2BAnonymous 03:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What a nice traditional response. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Response from EWTN

No one at EWTN with authority to do so has commented on the matter, so “EWTN” cannot have denied editing the question.

God bless.

Colin B. Donovan, STL

Vice President for Theology

Eternal Word Television Network

Used2BAnonymous 21:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the screenshots are not notable enough to include (as they are they possible opinion of one priest who, as you have noted on your discussion board, has some theological oddities). They are not nearly notable or informative enough to belong in an encyclopedia entry. Interesting non-committal email they sent, however. JG of Borg 21:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A contributor made a strange response to a QnA, they fixed the answer to conform to the correct Catholic Theology. Nobody thought to comment on it. What are they suppose to do, fashion a press release because some contributor made a bad comment? Dominick ^(TALK) 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a "strange response" and has nothing whatsoever to do with "Catholic theology." He offered his opinion about the Novus Ordo Missae, and that opinion was later censored. Of course no one expects EWTN to fashion a press release because of the editing, but they might have to now that you have publicly accused them of lying by denying having edited it. At least EWTN's good name is cleared, no matter whether or not the screen shots belong in Wiki's entry on the Novus Ordo (and I think it does because it is of great interest to traditional Catholics who are forever being told that their believing what Fr. Levis believes is "defying Rome" and such, which it isn't.). Used2BAnonymous 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Outside view that were moved from the page

(see: Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.)

Outside view

I think we all appreciate that external links are open to abuse. Many people insert links in order to try to boost traffic and credibility for a site, others use them as a sort of offsite POV fork. I would normally judge whether a link should be included by the likelihood of the site meeting WP:WEB, or whether it offers separate and unique insights (e.g. the archives of some collectors' groups, which have many copyright pictures or comprehensive and well-sourced information which is nonetheless too trivial, or too obsessive, for inclusion in WP).

I can't see much evidence of that in this case. The site seems to me, as an outsider, to be a "me-too" site. Alexa ranking is >400,000 (compared to 11,132 for catholic.com, cited above), and there is little evidence that the site is regarded as an authority by the wider Catholic community. In fact it's kind of hard to find any sites linking to fisheaters.com at all. That Alexa tanking, incidentally, was below the scale altogether until the linking started on WP, and is headed back there now by the loks of it.

So whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, it is easy to defend the removal of these links. I would likely have done much the same, not that I hold myself up as a shining example.

I also note the following page: [2], encouraging people to come along and hold up the traditional catholic end, as it were. I have no problem encouraging editors, I do it myself on Usenet all the time, but in the context of this RfC it caused me some slight unease, carefully worded though it is.

I don't know enough about this dispute to support either side, as yet, but in respect of the linking and reversion I should say that the reversion is entirely defensible in context.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

The above from Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The site just moved to a different domain and there is no information for it at Alexa but the basics. You have to look at its old domain to get any stats: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=kensmen.com/catholic/ Used2BAnonymous 18:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And while you're there, compare traffic details with envoymagazine.com; crisismagazine.com; cin.org (Catholic Information Network), catholic.com (where their lows and my highs almost touch), etc. Used2BAnonymous 19:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I checked the properties for the HTML file "evangelize.html" on my hard drive; it was made in May of 2004 and has nothing to do with this RfC in any case. Used2BAnonymous

P.P.S. http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=579513&highlight=visits -- and those are old.

P.P.P.S. Urchin stats from today:

Urchin stats: fisheaters.com

Date Range: 12/12/2005 - 12/18/2005

Range Total: 31,667 Daily Average: 4,523.86

Used2BAnonymous 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You didn't do yourself any favours with that. Alexa rank is still over 200,000 and No. 1 site linking in is Wikipedia which I would say amply supports the idea that you are linkspamming. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Try Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22www.kensmen.com/catholic/%22

And when you're done doing that, tell us where one can get, for ex., the information on this page anywhere else on the net: www.fisheaters.com/beingcatholic.html Used2BAnonymous 19:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Wiki is the first referrer to newadvent.com: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:newadvent.com/&url=newadvent.com

The second referrer to catholic.com: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:catholic.com/&url=catholic.com

Wiki is the fourth referrer to ewtn.com: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:ewtn.com/&url=ewtn.com

That's sort of how the web works nowadays. Used2BAnonymous 19:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Traditional Catholics are a minority in the Church. If you expect us to get Alexa rankings on par with EWTN, you'd be nuts (for now, anyway). But we exist and have a right as much as any religion to have our beliefs and practices explained. Would you take down links to pages about the religion of the Chippewa or something because Alexa says they're not "important" enough? And the numbers I have ain't so bad -- and they get bigger all the time as people move toward tradition. Used2BAnonymous 19:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

P.P.P.P.S. Can't help myself; you got me started:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=newadvent.com

Traffic Rank for newadvent.com: 659,077

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.kensmen.com/catholic/

Traffic Rank for kensmen.com: 200,807 (old domain)

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=fisheaters.com

Traffic Rank for fisheaters.com: 415,734 (new domain. As said, the site just moved on Advent Sunday)

Used2BAnonymous 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: It's newadvent.org not .com - http://info.alexa.com/data/details?newadventcatholi&url=newadvent.org

Traffic Rank for newadvent.org: 8,480 JG of Borg 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, there goes that theory! They own both .com and .org, apparently. I always use .com (why wouldn't the traffic ranking be the same for both? I don't get it) Used2BAnonymous 20:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of this stupid revert war is this at its center. "Should an editor include links to their own site?" Someone agrees and she decides to plaster the accusation on the RFC. This is a RFC, request for comment and this is on the wrong page. It should be on the other page. This person supports my actions of removing the links to fisheaters, because it doesn't conform to Wikipedia standards for inclusion, and that is exactly my contention. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, you are being very, very transparent. You take down this link to my site from the entry on Brigid of Ireland -- http://www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterepiphany2a.html -- and replace it with these THREE:

Please. Nothing says "conforms to Wikipedia standards of inclusion" like an automatically playing midi file. And that third site is a commercial one. Do you know the lady or something? Used2BAnonymous 23:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You are all too transparent:

Update: U2BA noted that the domain name recently changed. The former domain name (kensmen.com) has Alexa rank > 200,000 and Wikipedia is the major site linking in which in my judgment supports the view that U2BA is linkspamming. - Just zis Guy, you know?

Ha Dominick ^(TALK) 02:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you missed a few of my post scripts above. I wrote:

P.S. Wiki is the first referrer to newadvent.com: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:newadvent.com/&url=newadvent.com

The second referrer to catholic.com: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:catholic.com/&url=catholic.com

Wiki is the fourth referrer to ewtn.com: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:ewtn.com/&url=ewtn.com

Now, who is "linkspamming" for them? Do you plan on taking down links to newadvent.com, catholic.com, etc.?

Now, contrary to what Alexa says about my site and New Advent and catholic.com, etc., here are my top 10 referrals:

1. (no referral) 11,185 38.89% 2. www.google.com/search 5,934 20.63% 3. search.yahoo.com/search 1,587 5.52% 4. images.google.com/imgres 1,110 3.86% 5. www.google.ca/search 547 1.90% 6. google.com.mx/imgres 543 1.89% 7. google.co.uk/search 531 1.85% 8. www.symbols.net/christian/ 498 1.73% 9. search.msn.com/results.aspx 348 1.21% 10. www.ask.com/web 308 1.07%

I'd be glad to give an admin or arbitrator I trust (like Pathoschild) my passwords so he can verify this himself. Now stop harrassing me, Dominick. Quit with your POV censorship of all things traditional Catholic. Used2BAnonymous 08:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And here's the Referrals Drilldown

1.(no referral) 11,185 38.89% 2. www.google.com 6,034 20.98% 3. search.yahoo.com 1,724 5.99% 4. en.wikipedia.org 1,363 4.74% 5. images.google.com 1,113 3.87% 6. google.co.uk 650 2.26% 7. google.com.mx 559 1.94% 8. www.google.ca 548 1.91% 9. www.symbols.net 499 1.73% 10. search.msn.com 415 1.44% Used2BAnonymous 08:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, you might want to take down that link to the Knights of Columbus that you used to replace my link. Look at what Alexa says about that site you chose: http://www.alexa.com/data/ds/linksin?q=link:kofc.org/&url=www.kofc.org/ Used2BAnonymous 08:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Eliminate search engines, and wikipedia is your only real site in your top ten list. No referral means the user took pains to hide the referring page, is a bot, or uses an old browser. Search engines do not use search engines for ranking. You can't seem to fault yourself for breaking rules, and admit you were wrong. All you can do is appeal that you were "slandered", "stressed" or "stalked"; look to yourself it is because you have the audacity to coordinate a wikipedia war, you are linking in your personal domain to boost your page ranking, and you can't seem to take any criticism or editing without a longwinded irreverent screed on how you are being "persecuted". You don't know the meaning of the word.

File an arbcom proceeding, please. You have involved a lot of people who all tell you the same thing, linking this site is a "red flag", the link is "not notable", you are displaying "uncivility", and most of your traffic is "lead by wikipedia". All these support my contention. I further think your recent banning was justified, as you were using a Hannukah greeting as a slur. Dominick ^(TALK) 11:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, the SITE JUST MOVED TO ITS OWN DOMAIN. Can you not understand that? I gave you a link that showed sites that linked to the site at its old domain; that is all I can do. Give it a few weeks before you go about intimating that nothing links to me but Wiki.

I gave you the Urchin stats for my site and have said that I would give an admin I trust the passwords so what I have said can be verified: most of my referalls do NOT come from Wiki, and even if they did, as per Alexa, you have to say the same thing about New Advent.com, the Knights of Columbus site you link to, etc.

"No referral" includes bookmarks, Dominick. Do you want me to look up how often favicon.ico was requested?

I broke no rules. I, AND OTHERS, have added relevant links to various pages of my site at relevant entries. Even on your talk page, your attention was directed to a post at the site's forum in which a forum member, Jarrod, went to add a link to this site here at Wiki. Whether I add the links or someone else does, you consider it "linkspam." You have been going through and eliminating links, no matter who adds them, mischaracterizing and lying about them in the process.

I said nothing about "persecution," so don't portray me as some drama queen. I am upset (hence my sarcasm) at what you are doing because you are slandering my life's work, wasting a LOT of my time, and depriving Wiki readers of some of the best Catholic pages out there (if I do say so myself). Their relevance and quality speak for themselves. Now please, leave me alone. Let's make peace, forget about this madness, and just move on.

And using a Hannukah greeting as a "slur"? You are really digging now. Come on, Dominick. Used2BAnonymous 12:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You use Wikipedia to drive your page ranking up, and your traffic up. Wikipedia is not a external linkfarm. If you need Wikipedia to conduct your life's work, then you have proven my point.

You yourself made the pages that direct people to revert war at Wikipedia. You did this all by your self. You can't blame me for that either. You also made posts on your forum that you control, and directed people who you are working with at that forum to come here, and coordinated them to attack the vote for consensus by making 100 one word edits. So far those people have not been back for anything.

You curse at people. You throw sarcasism in like your Hanukkah wishes and bame me for your bad behavior. You are the one telling me what my own motivations are, when you have had one purpose here, you "life's work". Your "life work" is bringing out the worst in Catholic traditionalism, and causing others to paint traditionalists as lunatics. You give them ample ammunition for this argument.

You then post a quotation from the Psalter, [3]. Why would you post that? Are you talking about Satan, "the evil man", who is evil, me? The admin who blocked you for what, the third time you were blocked? Who do you want damned, Me? The admin that blocked you? Who is the enemy of God, your enemies? Even worse your outburst after being notified of a ban blocked many AOL users, because you wanted to imply you were being opressed by the devil.

So who is portraying themselves as persecuted? You did. All by your self. You have nobody else to blame for your behavior, your tantrum because someone told you no. I am telling you no.

I plan to remove links where they do not belong, because they are not notable. They have no life other than the traffic you are leaching off wikipedia. This is a proven fact from your own posting. It shall not continue. If you have facts then go to your sources. I can see leaving your link on the traditional page, perhaps as an example. Everything else is done better on other pages, with peer review, and responsible linking practices.

If you would like to contribute like any other wikipedian that is your privilige. If you want to continue shutting out opinion that doesn't match your own, I am going to no permit that as well. Other Wikipedians have done the same thing. I had nothing to do with them, but I am heartened that they see what I see.

You wanna act nasty, well then get used to being blocked. I imagine you are going to go through posting the whole Holy Office. I fear that you are going to be watched closely, and I will be too. I have nothing with which to concern myself. I imagine it is a matter of time before you will run afoul of the authorties here. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said I needed Wikipedia to conduct my life's work; I said that you are using Wikipedia to slander it.

What page of mine directs anyone to conduct "revert wars"? Prove your assertion.

Where did I direct people whom I am "working with at that forum to come here" and "coordinate them to attack the vote for consensus by making 100 one word edit"? Prove your assertion.

I haven't cursed anyone, though I readily admit to being sarcastic.

I was banned once for an "anti-semitic" slur --- said slur being my having said to JG of Borg "Chappy Channukah" on this discussion page. The one who banned me rightly and kindly apologized for it after another administrator intervened. The incident is forgotten.

Why did I post portions of the Psalter? Because I felt punked-on after your incessant lying about my site and my being banned for no good reason, which the admin who banned me admitted and for which he apologized.

I plan on removing links from where they don't belong, too. But my links belong where they are.

You are the one shutting out opinions other than your own; I don't follow you around removing links to sites I don't like.

Now, please, let's end this nonsense. Used2BAnonymous 13:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Read my RfC for proof, and read the comments from an outside party. I guess he is slandering you as well. According to you, anyone not agreeing with you is slandering you. Your links belong only as an example of traditional activism. They are not original sources, you compiled them from other place. You are not an authority IN Catholicism, you dont hold a position besides as a layman. You are not a authority ON catholicism, as nobody but you have published your work. If there was a journal article you can cite on Catholicism then I welcome you to cite it on the correct page. In short, your pages are your own opinion, and everyone has an opinion. You don't get to ride the "wikipedia link gravy train" to get your site ranking up.

I have a plan, and I intend to carry it out. If wikipedia is not important to your work thats great. I will use a third party proxy to grab your site, and use your sources. If they are actual authentic sources meeting with wikipedia criteria, they can be used to substitute your link. I will continue to do what I was doing before you came on the scene.

Go back and read your language. The words you use are not appropriate for someone who claims to be a traditionalist. I sure would not use the term "my ass" or worse in public. I sure would not be telling someone what their motivations are or what I think thier political leanings are. Frankly, I don't want anything to do with you based on your incongruent behavior. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, for the day when you don't have anything to do with me. Used2BAnonymous 14:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. One is whether there should be links to dissenting opinions (particularly when the dissent is being covered by consensus in the article); the Wiki policy on that is pretty clear per WP:FORK - I can't see as it makes any difference if a POV fork is on or off Wikipedia. If your argument is that your presentation of the dissenting opinion should be linked, I would say you are wrong per this policy.

The other issue is whether your site should be added as an authority. As far as I can tell, your site is not authoritative - it has a low Alexa rank (old or new domains), few sites linking in (new or old domains), most of those linking in are blogs and forums, there is no evidence that your site (under the old or the new domain) is widely viewed as an authority. catholic.org is widely linked, widely discussed (e.g. on Google News and BBC News), its contributors are widely quoted on mainstream news sites. So here, too, I would say that your site does not merit linking.

I have no axe to grind here, I am simply stating the criteria by which I personally would judge the validity of linking an external site. You might be more persuasive if you were adding a link to a single article on which you have particular and specific expertise, but that's not what's happening. This is by no means a complete list:

That is a hell of a lot of links for a site which would not qaulify for WP:WEB, and I would say that list blows away any pretence that it is your opinion which is being censored, since there is little or no controversy surrounding many of the subjects covered. And as I say, that is not a complete list. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The notability on that page is talking about making entries about websites, not linking to them for further reading. Malachias111 16:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second moved comment (By U2BA) from main page to talk page

[edit] Original list

Update: I have just realsied the scale of the problem. Here is a subset of articles to which U2BA has added links to her site:

[edit] A more complete list

Sorry about the length, I didn't want to lose the diffs above and it's a bit late in the evening (or rather early in the morning) for grep syntax. There's a couple missing still, I'll add them later. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continued...

Some, such as the Bell dab page are clearly irrelevant to the context and purpose of the page - I would say that the Bell page is prima facie evidence of linkspamming. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The bell page was an error that has already been admitted to. Read more closely. Now, are any of the links on those pages irrelevant to the topic, not informative, etc.? THAT is the only issue. Used2BAnonymous 14:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not the only issue. For every single article there are potentially millions of web pages which are "relevant". In this case what you are adding is a link to a very specific point of view on the subject. As far as I can see that is functionally indistinguishable from a POV fork. And look at the sheer number of articles you've linked in (one mistake? Out of how many? I counted well over 50 articles linking to your site!). I'm sorry, but I am simply not convinced. Your site is clearly not an authority, in the way catholic.org is, yet the widespread linking seems to be asserting some kind of parity. This is no different from a commercial organisation linking its website in any and all articles which are even tangentially related to what it sells. It is no different from thrillnetwork, whose article was deleted as non-notable per [{WP:WEB]] and who added a linkn to thrillnetwork to every visible article on a rollercoaster or amusement park - well, it's somewhat different in that the sheer scale of your linking is vastly greater than any other example I can find. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Errors that repeat are no longer errors. The inclusion of the link, is not merited by Wikipedia standards. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, the error didn't "repeat," whatever you could possibly mean by that.

Guy, what "dissenting opinion"? How are ex-voto customs, the customs of St. Barbara's day, etc., "dissenting opinions"?

The site isn't being added as an "authority." There are citations ("sources" used IN the article as REFERENCE) and there are "further reading/external links." I have written on this discussion page about the differences between the two.

None of the links added are off-topic, uninformative, etc. Conservative Catholics don't OWN "bells" or "St. Barbara's Day" or "votive deposits." Used2BAnonymous 14:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, but like Guy (sic) said, your site is not an original source, and not notable as an authority, if I may I added not unique. It isn't just me. You need to understand on topic, and informative is not the entire question. Frankly, many sites where a vatican document is linked through a third party website, it gets changed the same way. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Linkspammed to a disambiguation site: Relics wiki history

Added to a page where no mention is made of any Catholic rite, and no other links: Ritual purification wiki history

Added out of context: Symbolism wiki history

Added again top link in the article, by her AOL IPVeil wiki history

A few seconds of googling the articles, and I found a few easy ~~a pattern~~ "repeat errors". Dominick ^(TALK) 16:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not an "original source"? It's mine, and I'm original. Not unique? Find a site like mine anywhere. The editors of The Revealer, put out by New York University's Department of Journalism and New York University's Center for Religion and Media, like it enough to link to it, calling it "an excellent introduction to the 'traditionalist' Catholic movement." It's been cited in "Dressing with Dignity" (TAN Books). A man at Harvard wrote to me and called me, wanting to expand it and turn it into a book organized around the liturgical year. I mean, I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but if you expect the editors of "America" to applaud my site -- well, for sure that won't happen for obvious reasons, will it?

There is a difference between a SOURCE and an EXTERNAL LINK FOR FURTHER READING. This has been pointed out. You are removing links for further reading, saying they don't qualify as a "source," but such links don't have to qualify as such because they are not used as such.

If there is a link to an encyclical, it should, if possible (they only go back to Pius X), be linked to at the Vatican website. Who is arguing with that? But that is not what is going on here. You take down this and replace it with [99]; you leave unmolested such links as A Prescription Against Traditionalism and Traditionalist and Schismatic Catholics -- come on, Dominick. You are out to prevent people from going to my site because you have a problem with traditional Catholicism. That is the only explanation for this. Used2BAnonymous 16:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Anything on a disambiguation page should go, Dominick. But the rest? Come on: a page on veiling doesn't belong on a page on veils? A page on Catholic symbolism doesn't belong on a page on symbolism? A page on churching doesn't belong on a page on ritual purification? Get real. Used2BAnonymous 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your page on veiling doesn't beling there, because it is not an authority. This page would, belong. Your page on Catholic Symbolism doesn't belong on Symbolism. This page could be used, it could belong. Ritual Purification could have a link, IF there was any traditional rite of Purification, but this rite could be link for blessing, and it belongs. Your site is not on the order of the "Catholic Encyclopeda" (1917). From this site,

On January 11, 1905, Charles G. Herbermann, Professor of Latin and Librarian of the College of the City of New York, Edward A. Pace, then Professor of Philosophy in the Catholic University, Condé B. Pallen, Editor, Rt. Rev. Thomas J. Shahan, then Professor of Church History in the Catholic University, and John J. Wynne, S.J., Editor of The Messenger, held their first editorial meeting at the office of The Messenger, in West Sixteenth Street, New York. Between that date and April 19, 1913, they held 134 formal meetings to consider the plan, scope and progress of the work, besides having frequent informal conferences and constant intercommunication by letter.

You have how many editors? How many imprimaturs? Do you even have one work with an imprimatur? It is important because that would tell me that your work was at least reviewed by someone other than you.

Like I said, not notable. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have six people working with me.

A site doesn't have to be an "authority" to be linked to as further reading, Dominick. What's the "authority" for the site with the embedded midi file, or the page "A Prescription against Traditionalism" and such? Wiki isn't an organ of the Curia anyway.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is one thing; its web presence is another, because error and editors' additions go in. Nonetheless, I don't go about removing links to that website. My site's pages on veiling or churching, or what have you, include information that the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't.

Websites aren't given imprimaturs, so your question is moot. Used2BAnonymous 16:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You have six laymen, who are not notable experts, officials in your church, or even published outside your domain. Like I said, it isn't just me, total strangers are supporting my assertation. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

And I'd say that yes, actually, sites do need to be authoritative in order to be linked under "further reading." There is no practical limit to the number of sites whose authors consider them relevant to any one subject, there must be a good reason for including any link. In this case a number of the links appear to be only tangentially related to the subject matter. In others they give the appearance of POV pushing. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An outside view

A couple of comments from an outsider to this issue:

First off, I'm not Catholic, so I don't really care too much about subtle doctrinal disputes within the Catholic church. I have reverted the removal of one of these links, because the link seemed relevant to me, and didn't seem to fit the comment on the edit that removed it. I wasn't aware there was a debate going on about it here. I'm not particularly on any "side" of this debate, but would like to see it resolved one way or another.
WP:WEB seems irrelevant to this discussion. That guideline sets the standard for whether a website is notable, which is only required if there is to be a Wikipedia article about the website. Websites need not be notable to be included as External links at the end of an article. Websites also need not be "authoritative".

There's a lot of text above, and much of it seems to be just back and forth argument between the two sides. I would appreciate it if both sides could give a simple explanation, of why they feel that links to this site should or should not be included as external links. If you need to be specific, talk specifically about the link on the Eucharist page, since that's the one I've seen.--Srleffler 04:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

She owns the domain fisheaters. The page gets about 5% of the hits from linkspammed wikipedia referrals. She is using wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting traffic to her site. It didn't merit inclusion on many pages it was tossed onto. At this time, a few editors are realizing the depth of the problem. My other complaints were about her pages from her domain directing people here for revert wars and PoV twisting; and the problems with her being civil. My outcome was not more linkspamming, no more reverts to shut out people, no more being nasty. You can see the previous and less popular RfC I filed on her, before this one. Dominick ^(TALK) 04:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Srleffler, read the top of the project page. What is going on here is the censorship of traditionalist Catholic pages, instigated by Dominick who hates traditional Catholicism and has a few friends around here. I spent most of this morning looking at the censored pages and find nothing wrong with any of them--not their content or where they were linked. There are a lot of links because it is a super big site that covers almost everything traditionally Catholic. Dominick wants to replace links to that site with links to EWTN or something because they're more "official", but EWTN doesn't give the traditional Catholic view of everything. Even the wordings of prayers are different, the language is different, the rites are different, and there are few places to find all that. The Fisheaters website is not only good for traditional Catholics, but its presentation of traditional Catholicism would be valued by historians, religious studies people, people interested in the arts... I don't see why they are doing this at all and think it is pathetic. (maybe people wouldn't be nasty if you stopped toying with them and lying about them, Dominick) Malachias111 14:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's one view. Another is that a person with a particular set of opinions has added links to a patently non-notable website (per WP:WEB to at least a hundred articles, many of which have no other external links, sometimes more than one link per article. I can understand linking, say, the Catholic Encyclopaedia to that number of articles, but not a site which has no obvious claim to authority, despite once having over 30 people online at once in its forums. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts on what I see here

It seems to me there is plenty of bad conduct on both sides here.

I see a lot of personal attacks going on, particularly from the anti-fisheaters side although there are some going the other way and I haven't done a careful survey. This is really unhelpful, and certainly does not increase the credibility of the people doing it. See WP:RPA for an explanation of why this is bad for Wikipedia.
The pro-fisheaters do seem to be pushing an excessive number of links onto Wikipedia. "Notability" and "authoritativeness" are not requirements for external links on Wikipedia (WP:WEB notwithstanding), but almost no website merits more than a half dozen links no matter how good it is.
On the other side, the anti-fisheaters probably should not try to expunge all links to fisheaters from the wiki. Some of the material on that site is clearly well-written and relevant. While it is written from a particular POV, that is fine for an external link, particularly for articles where there are other links that present other points of view. As long as the pages linked stick to presenting the "fisheaters'" beliefs and practices without being polemic, it ought to be possible to have a few links to relevant pages on the fisheaters site.
I suggest the following compromise: the pro-fisheaters camp should look through their links and find maybe a half dozen that link to pages that simply present their beliefs and practices without polemics, and which are strictly relevant to the subjects of the article they link from. Post the list here. Perhaps we can get the anti-fisheater camp to agree on a small number of reasonable links.
It would be helpful if the people running fisheaters would remove material from their site that encourages edit wars and revert wars. The wikipedia community discourages this kind of behavior, and calling for it does not improve your odds of success here.--Srleffler 00:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and candor. I wish you would look at the person attacks. Malachias wants to call me liar 8 times a post, and a papist a few, but I didn't think I was making many at all, I agree the count both ways is non-zero. If a comprimise is possible, it would be on cessation of hostilities and reverts by the fisheater attackers. At the Talk:Traditionalist Catholic page and archive you may get a better sense of this. The archives have when I found the "wiki war" pages. Dominick ^(TALK) 01:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we deal with the question of the links to fisheaters.com separately from issues of personal attacks and the overall editing of Traditionalist Catholic. No matter what you think of their views, or the edits they are trying to make to the article, their views are surely notable enough to justify the inclusion of a few links to their site from Wikipedia. --Srleffler 14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement, with the proviso that the fisheaters mob actually take the time to discuss on the Talk pages why their links are particularly relevant and why their site should be viewed as an authority for this information> Yes, that sets the bar higher than for other external link additions - but of course other external link additions are not as widespread, and not repeatedly re-inserted with no attempt at individual discussion. Past behaviour indicates a period of probation, if you will. As I said before, I do not discount the possibility that fisheaters links might be valid, especially in the discussion of traditional Catholicism. On the other hand, we do not allow POV forks within Wikipedia, and we shouldn't allow them by stealth through external links either. If, for example, dissent exists over interpretation of certain liturgical issues, it should be documented, with a note of its extent, in the main article, and links should make it clear that they are to a dissenting site. And for the record I make no judgment re Dominick here: just because one side has been (to my mind) unreasonable certainly does not mean that the other side has been reasonable. If links are re-added without explanation, especially by anonymous IPs, then I will' continue to remove them as probable linkspam. The Talk pages of the six to which links were re-inserted this morning each have a section for discussion. I suggest that U2BA makes use of this, and re-inserts the links only when the article editors agree that it makes sense, as a demonstration of good faith (curiously apt given the subject!). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't call you a "papist" because "papist" isn't a problem. I am a papist. I called you a papolator, an idolator of the Pope, and this fits because you see any criticism of any cleric evidence of anti-Rome hatred.

Seffler, his evidence for a "coordinated attack on Wikipedia" is this: 1. this page on the site http://www.fisheaters.com/evangelize.html 2. this thread in their forum http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=694938 A3. and this thread in their forum: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=811703&trail=15#11 There is nowhere any encouraging of revert wars. Dominick is not telling the truth; he is throwing stuff out there with accusations, hoping nobody will check out what he is saying.

Those pages look like a coordinated attack to me. Particularly the one with the header "Wiki War!" at the top. Yes, they are careful to discourage overt abuse of Wikipedia, but they still promote edit warring, which is not acceptable.--Srleffler 14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

How many links are too many if they're all relevant? That is the question. All of these are relevant:

a link to the page "Religious Life" [100] from the entry "Nuns."
a link to a page on Twelfthnight [101] from an entry called "Twelfth Night".
link to Epiphany customs [102] from the entry "Epiphany."
another link to the page called "Religious Life" from the entry "Religious Order."
link to site's index page [103] from the entry "Catholicism"
link to the site's index page from the entry "Apologetics"
link to page on the Feast of St. Anthony [104] from the entry "Anthony of Padua."
Removed link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid [105] from the entry "Brigid of Ireland."
Removed link to page called "Votive Offerings" [106] from the entry "Ex-voto."
Removed link to page on the Day of the Dead [107] from an entry "Day of the Dead."
Removed a link to a page on Catholic funerals [108] from an entry called "Requiem."
[109] from a page called "Immaculate Conception"
Removed link to page on Purgatory [110] from the entry "Purgatory"

From the entry on John the Baptist ([111]
Labyrinth ([112]
Lent ([113]
Litany ([114]
Liturgical year ([115]
Marriage ([116]
Mary Magdalene ([117]
Michaelmas ([118]
Novena ([119]

How are any of these not relevant? The links aren't going to the Fisheaters site's main page; they are going to specific pages with specific information, and the pages in question are well-written, well-put together, and informative. None of those links are polemical, and none would offend any mainstream Catholic if they'd actually read them instead of putting it in a "trad box" and hating it for nothing. What good is it to have a link to the main page of the site on the page "traditionalist Catholics" if a person is reading the Wikipedia article on St. John the Baptist and wants to know about THAT topic? If the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, then external links like these for "further reading" should stay. Or if they shouldn't, then someone should write up policy that informs people about how many links are too many. People putting up relevant links on "too many pages" shouldn't be smeared as "spammers" if there is no policy in place.

Dominick is even taking down a link to that site from the entry traditionalist Catholics! This boils down to religious differences that Dominick can't respect, and it's turned into high school all over again with this "let's get Fisheaters" clique. It really is pathetic. Malachias111 08:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You ask "How many links are too many if they're all relevant?". My answer is: about seven. Only the biggest, most notable websites should have more than a half a dozen links from Wikipedia. Your site should probably be linked from Traditionalist Catholics, and a few other key Catholicism pages, and that's it. You shouldn't expect to have a link from each page that deals with a Catholic topic, to the equivalent page on your site. Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. --Srleffler 14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Why seven? Why not eight? Where's the policy on this and how is it fair for these people to accuse U2BA of "spamming" when the pages in question are non-commercial pages that are totally relevant? Shouldn't information be the issue? And who's to enforce anything if even seven links are allowed? These two vandals are taking down any and all links to Fisheaters no matter what. And U2BA isn't the only one who's added links to that site (which is notable and big -- do a site map there). I've added links and I've seen that others have added links. What if she is allowed to add seven and someone else comes along and adds an eighth? I don't understand this alleged policy or how Dominick and his pals can get away with doing what they are doing. I think it's repulsive. Malachias111 15:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not seven vs. eight. It's why should there be more than one, or two. There isn't a specific rule for the number, but posting even a dozen links immediately trips everybody's "spam radar", even if what you are doing isn't spam. The best policy/guideline reference I can give is How not to be a spammer, in particular points 1 and 5.--Srleffler 15:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Mistake: two of the links go to the main page -- on the entries for "Catholicism" and "Apologetics" which make sense. Malachias111 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am leaving them alone on traditional Catholicism and Catholic

Let me repeat what I said elsewhere:

All personal attack cease, no more screaming "liar".
All reverts cease.
Any inkling of coordination someplace else ceases.
If any anonymous user adds the link it will be reverted.

I expect to see some good faith the other way as well. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary and senseless trolling

Indeed Guy, that is one view.

This view from Malachias111 is also full of assumptions. I am a traditionalist. I hate my friends and fellow Catholics I see at Mass, I guess. I have nothing at all to say to thse people, except they are wrong in a lot of places, among them who is worthy of the title Catholic and worthy to claim being a traditionalist. Every instance of problems that I had mentioned before was met with hysterical accusations of me making things up, making up rules, or censorship. This is an example on the part of U2BA and her friends of transferrence. I didn't get involved with the issues on traditional Catholicism on a lark to shut out thier content. I started editing that to add those who attend indults, and do not desire to angrily confront Roman authority in the Church. I added this view and replaced some things that made some traditionalists of a "lesser" rank. The reverts started and she was blocked. The reverts started as soon as she came out and the page was protected. Anyone can look at the history and see who is actually telling stories .

The central issue was they were coordinating a stike against wikipedia from the third party website, to "take back the net". They started out to conduct a "wiki war". She also started to PoV fork and add her links everywhere and anywhere. At that point I have been accused of "stalking", "hating Catholics", "Hating traditionalists", and other "crimes"; they all have one purpose, to validate the gross violation on the part of these "psuedo-traditionalists" of the rules of civility, wikipedia, and the proper behavior expected of every Christian.

I am relieved other editors here see the problems for what they are, and are taking action. I am not happy that we could not talk this out and get this coordinated group to stop. Eventually, if it does not, the site will be software blacklisted. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can read the discussion pages for the Traditionalist Catholics entry to see what went on. You were trying to turn that article into a page that bashes tradition instead of just putting your arguments against them in the right section.

Your evidence for some coordinated attack is http://www.fisheaters.com/evangelize.html, a vague call to arms to get traditionalist Catholics motivated to edit Wikipedia pages. You HAVE been stalking U2BA, lying about her, lying about her site, making up accusations, kissing up to administrators so they will do your dirty work for you, and so many other rotten things it is hard to know how to count, and the reasons why are revealed in your post : "angrily confront Roman authority in the Church"--that is how you see any criticism of what goes on at the Vatican because you're a neo-con papolator. You even stooped so low as to accuse EWTN of lying, accuse U2BA of making an antisemitic attack for saying "Chappy Channukah" to a Catholic on this talk page, accuse anyone who agrees with her of being a meat puppet... Your style is to throw enough stuff at the wall and wait for something to stick. I hope you are proud of yourself. Malachias111 17:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Your evidence for some coordinated attack is http://www.fisheaters.com/evangelize.html, a vague call to arms to get traditionalist Catholics motivated to edit Wikipedia pages.

That, and the forum postings. One forum posting in particular that starts with the two words, "wiki war". ANother posting below that tells people to come here and revert war. If you look at that and you and your M.O. you see they match pretty well. Linkspamming here is in the rules. The issue is you can't read them and follow them.

'You HAVE been stalking U2BA, lying about her, lying about her site, making up accusations, kissing up to administrators so they will do your dirty work for you, and so many other rotten things it is hard to know how to count,'

This is all hyperbole. You obviously haven't looked for yourself.

'that is how you see any criticism of what goes on at the Vatican because you're a neo-con papolator. '

Another personal attack. You make yourself look so bad not much need be said.

'You even stooped so low as to accuse EWTN of lying, accuse U2BA of making an antisemitic attack for saying "Chappy Channukah"'

I said that EWTN made an error, you obviously listen to her ranting and make the conclusion she is correct without looking for yourself.

As far as her banning for "anti-sematic attack", the totality of my action was a reply. Scroll up and read it. An admin came along and did all that, without my knowledge. The more senseless attack was above that, and after the fact I commented she said it sarcastically. A person took offense, and banned her. She then blocked a large number of AOL users for posting from her IP while banned. Nice job following rules. Banned means banned.

'Your style is to throw enough stuff at the wall and wait for something to stick. I hope you are proud of yourself.'

I am, I have a lot for which to be thankful. Little of it involves Wikipedia, or my web work. I am so glad you looked at both sides and made such a reasoned response. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have watched you for months, and you lie. You didn't say EWTN made an error, you said they denied editing the priest's response. It is in the edit summary for Novus Ordo Missae. The "Wiki War" thread is a pretty much a repeat of the "Trads, Take back the Net" page: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=694938 And the Purge thread is about that, with no calls for people to revert anything: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=811703&trail=15#11

You throw stuff out there and hope people won't check it out. Well I have. And you lie in the same way you take down links to that site and call it a blog. It is blatant for anyone who will look.

That administrator didn't come by him/herself and ban anyone for saying "Chappy Channukah" to a Catholic. I am not buying it. You're an instigator and a liar. You hate traditional Catholicism and want no links to that site left. If you can leave the links up to those cheap websites that you've left up and selectively remove links to Fisheaters, you prove yourself to have a problem with that site itself. I read all the links you and your high school gang have removed, and they are all fine. Anyone reading this debate just has to read the links, look at the pages they are on, and ask himself what the problem is. And to the guy who said to find other links: try to find better ones on the topics, and make sure they are traditional. Malachias111 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Read it for yourself. Take back the net page

Now, a word of warning: you might make a long entry only to have someone change it or "revert it" -- i.e., to edit the page back to an earlier version. All you have to do is "revert" the page back. To do this, click on the "Page History" link at the bottom of the entry you want to revert, then click on the TIME AND DATE of the entry you want to revert to. When that page loads, click on the "Edit Page" button as you normally would to edit a page, and then click "Save Page" at the bottom.

Prepare for a few revert wars, and keep an eye on your entries.

The wikipedia guideline tells us: Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles

I am glad you are debating such a liar. Read the title of this page, Request for Comment. We invite comment from outside parties. An admin came by read that and got mad. I don't care if you buy it. Your credibility dies with every post you make here, telling me I am a liar. Total strangers are coming to the Request for Comment and agreeing, not with words but action; people I never heard from are reverting the linkspamming. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standard. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the rest of it, liar: http://www.fisheaters.com/wikipedia.html: "Do not revert a page more than three times. This is frowned upon and can get you banned." Total strangers? I've seen the talk pages. Malachias111 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

People who edit Wikipedia are appalled by the page. I think I am done here.
You obviously have your mind made up by another person. Do not feed Trolls. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other commentators

SOme admins have been working this problem cause by this person, and her cohorts. If they would post here, I think this RfC will paint a better picture. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There were no problems. The links were on-topic, informative, and relevant. If the admins would stop and look at them and try to find better links, that would put an end to this.

Funny how you seem to be the only one to think your 100-odd links were not a problem... There is, of course, nothing stopping you finding better links instead of yoru own. That would show good faith in a way reverting the removal does not. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This revert across Wikipedia isn't working for you. I think people understand despite my efforts. I think that the next step is to blacklist the domain. Dominick ^(TALK) 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, U2BA, now you have User:Syvanen, User:Bbatsell, User:Antandrus, User:Nandesuka and User:El C reverting your linkspamming, as well as me and Dominick, are you ready to concede that you have a problem and start talking about it in a more constructive fashion? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 04:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think not, her actions and those of her people are more telling. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I for one have no problem with Dominick's edits and efforts to reduce spam on Wikipedia. KHM03 18:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Which one of the links is spam? (unsigned comment by User:64.12.116.204)

Any of the hundred or so which have not been re-inserted by neutral third parties following the spam patrol's cleanup a couple of days ago. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean "have been re-inserted by people who are not neutral third parties", right? --Srleffler 23:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New evidence of coordination from thrid party site

Fisheaters Forum on Wiki "purge

Wiki War has new postings

Posted by U2BA:

Well there are, but I can't say lest I be accused of "astroturfing" or "sock-puppetry" and the like (frankly, editor Dominick accuses me of it ALL THE TIME anyway, so I should just go ahead and do it) I just want for Catholics to keep an eye on entries of interest, especially the one mentioned -- and to be a witness, to have a history of editing so that these endless brawls like the one I'm engaged in now with "Dominick" (and "Lima," who is much more reasonable, and a guy named "JG of Borg"). We have to outnumber them and write in a fair, balanced, "encyclopedia way" -- and not let those with an animus against Tradition blacken our name, remove links to traditional websites, etc.

Here is the problem, you are misrepresenting traditionalism. You are going to have an outnumbering problem. Dominick ^(TALK) 04:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

They won't even let that poor girl have even ONE link to that website: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditionalist_Catholic&action=history If this purge is alllowed to stand, I will know, for a fact, that traditional Catholics are not welcome at Wikipedia. Malachias111 13:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Lets link in a domain coordinating a "wiki-war", by the label on the thread. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is just nuts!

It's very obvious to me what is going on here, Dominick hates true Traditional Catholics and will stop at nothing to subvert the true message of traditional Catholicism. There is more to being a trad than "liking" or attending the TLM, if you don't know that than you don't get it at all. Aside from that I'd really like to know how one spams without any intent of making money off of it, that's a new one on me. Dominick, I have a suggestion for you, pray the Rosary daily as many true traditional Catholics do, then you may have the veil of blindness removed from you. I'll be praying for you Dominick that you will stop being an instrument for the evil that is going on in the Church today. If you don't know what I'm talking about read about Father Gruner here: http://www.fatimapriest.com/content.html and his tireless work for the message of Fatima. The heirarchy has tried to silence him just as you are trying to silence U2BA. ~~No One's Puppet

For many internet users, spam is defined by excessive volume, rather than by whether the content is commercial or not. See How not to be a spammer for some relevant guidelines. Look particularly at points 1 and 5.--Srleffler 17:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, more sillyness...

Today at 09:22 AM

That is just awful. Especially annoying is Dominick's cheering section Guy. I would guess that "Guy" has not read the links he listed, for if he did he would find that they are informative, well-written, and on-topic.

(SNIP)
Today at 11:08 AM

Yes it is awful, Kathy. I don't know, I think Vox should fight it, but then I think no let em have Wiki. Dominick doesn't have the first clue what it is to be a trad, and how he arrives at the conclusion that Vox is spamming when she makes no money off of linking her site is quite perplexing. Those that hate the Church will stop at nothing to attempt to destroy it.

I am going to leave it alone for now. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Very selective. You missed this post, the bold has been added by me:

[Personal attack removed per WP:RPA.] Look at what is going on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dominick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Dominick

Those pages go together in that order.

Don't comment there because you'll just get Vox in trouble if you're a "nobody".

To anyone from Fisheaters who might be reading any of this stuff, Guy is trying to work things out to be fair. (sorry, Dominick, but traditional Catholics are interested and have every right to see what is going on. It's not against the law to talk about what is going on in your life, is it?) Malachias111 17:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course you don't make personal attacks do you. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the RPA. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You accused them of making a "coordinated attack on Wikipedia" because of this website page -- http://www.fisheaters.com/evangelize.html -- and because of these two forum threads *http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=694938 ; and *http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=811703&trail=15#11

I showed that that is not the case. You are making accusations that are untrue, and when the defense is something you don't like, you accuse people of making "personal attacks." If you don't want Fisheater forum stuff brought over here, then don't bring it over, or at least don't do it selectively to try to make people look bad. Malachias111 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You didnt show anything, but I could just be lying. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Dominick_Archive_896d.html"