User talk:Anietor

Archives

/Archive 1

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]

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

Hi Anietor,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in

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.

1. Add

Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants

.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/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,

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

]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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 adminsestablished 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]

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

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

		WikiProject Colombia
		You have been featured list status.

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

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

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
	Hi Anietor! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the SarahStierch (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

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]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]