User talk:Anietor

Archives

Pope Benedict XVI GAR notice

Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a POV tag from the RCC page

There is an ongoing debate on the talk page as to the neutrality of the RCC entry. It is vandalism to remove a POV tag while debate is ongoing and issues unresolved and I will report it as such if you do it again.Haldraper (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a debate when it's you against all the other editors, Haldraper. When consensus is reached to remove the tag, then it can be removed. Your disagreement with that decision does not trump, and does not mean that "debate is ongoing". --anietor (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floating table

Thanks for fixing the table. I quite failed to work out what was wrong. Soidi (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Anietor,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conflicts Trouble

There has been another attempt to change/reverse the policy on self-identifying names - which would re-open many naming arguments on Wikipedia including Catholic Church. Having failed to gain consensus for changing the policy on the article talk page, (Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conflict), and despite attempts to reach a compromise on trimming the existing wording, Kotniski and some of his allies have attempted to reverse the policy unilaterally and moved the debate to Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Is_there_consensus_for_this_or_not.3F. We need to preserve the original guidance. Following breach of the compromise I have reverted the original wording, extant since 2005. Can you please add your comment at the new discussion. Xandar 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't template the regulars, and please don't respond to canvassing. Xandar is relying on his own interpretation of a guideline which disagrees with practice, many other guidelines, and policy, to push a POV; if he has made an effort at compromise, it is invisible to me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conflict page

Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page several times to an unagreed version that is the reverse of the long-standing policy. I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me - which is the long-established original text? I have asked for page protection, but it is important that the guideline is not compromised. Xandar 20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Anietor not to template me; it's a discourtesy. If he does so again, I will seek the appropriate remedy. If he can explain how interrupting a productive discussion by screaming in full caps is not a tirade, I shall be glad to listen to his explanation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um..why are you guys having an argument with each other on my talk page? Xander, no need to canvas. Pmanderson, if you think Xander is canvassing, tell him directly, not me (one of the people canvassed, who have no control). You don't blame someone for GETTING a crank call, do you? And Pmanderson, calm down and stop making personal attacks against Xander. Maybe he's attacked you before...I don't know. I do know that two wrongs don't make a right. Let's all grow up, please....or at least don't clutter my talk page with silliness I'm not part of. Thanks! --anietor (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to stop using templates on my talk page. I also ask you not to assume bad faith; calling a tirade a tirade, and the linked edit is one, is not a personal attack. Also, your analogy is not on all fours: you responded to the spam by doing what Xandar wished. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, Pmanderson. What part of stop clogging up my talk page do you not understand? Take it up with Xander, and stop whining because I caught you making personal attacks and didn't catch others. As far as templates go, add more to my talk page here if you want another template. I have no patience for editors like you who have to get the last word in on everything, even when they're wrong. --anietor (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M, PMA and co are reverting to edit-warring and making threats on the Naming Conflicts page. This really has got to end. They clearly have no intention of trying to forge consensus or listening to what other Wikipedians say. Xandar 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed, and have already reverted a mega-edit that had no consensus (before the above posting, by the way. So it wasn't the result of any alleged "canvassing", another charge that seems to be flying around liberally and inaccurately lately). --anietor (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The ArbCom has considered this matter; even the wider ban applies to the Manual of Style and its talk pages, not to naming conventions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E Gimmetrow 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for commenting on the talk page and giving us your opinion. NancyHeise ^talk 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging requires consensus?

You may explain this opinion to ANI, here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I see you abuse Twinkle again, as you did here, I'll blacklist you from it. Hesperian 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your tagging of my talk page

I certainly shall not revert it: it hugely amuses me. But you will find that writing prose to argue your case tends to cut more ice with established editors who, however much you may disagree with their views, tend not to indulge in vandalism. Before doing that to someone who might not be so amused, I suggest that you check out their edit history and see whether they seem to have vandalistic habits or not. Best wishes, Ian Spackman (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Before accusing anybody of being a Vandal—an unwanted Medieval intruder—, you might need to do some historical research: it is quite possible that you would discover that they were in reality a Goth or a Visigoth. Or even a Saracen or a Norman. Ian Spackman (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to amuse people! Of course, your amusement should be mixed with some sense of remorse, for posting POV silliness in the article. And as you can see, my revert was found to be warranted and supported, while your attempt to cry foul was seen for what it was. Frankly, I don't care if you are an "established" editor or not. If you vandalize, you'll be called on it. --anietor (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist Request from Twinkle Declined

In accordance with my comment above:

If I see you abuse Twinkle again, as you did here, I'll blacklist you from it. Hesperian 23:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blacklisted you from Twinkle for misuse of rollback and warnings. Diffs: [1][2] Hesperian 01:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notified. Hesperian 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since several ~~admins~~established editors disagreed that it was inappropriate to tag those edits as vandalism, I have removed you from the blacklist. However, I would urge caution going forward -- please remember to use the "revert" button instead of "revert vandalism" whenever there could be doubt. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Sarek. I resisted commenting on the blacklist suggestion myself to avoid a protracted debate, and am glad I did so! I appreciate the cautionary note as well. Cheers. --anietor (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia Collaboration Invite

		WikiProject Colombia
		You have been invited to participate in Collaboration of the Month to improve and standardize the List of Presidents of Colombia in hopes of raising it to featured list status.

mijotoba (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Anietor! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Anietor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Anietor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anietor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Anietor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]