User talk:Geremia

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Geremia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

WP:HOUND. Lastly, if you reject this request to unblock my account, is there no way you could keep abortion-related or 1RR articles blocked and unblock everything else? I just found out about this violation today while trying to edit the Pierre Duhem article, which has nothing to do with abortion nor 1RR. Thanks Geremia (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

You were warned about 1RR and repeatedly ignored it. You're lucky you're not topic banned at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure what happened here, but please watch out to make sure that you don't accidentally do something like that again. I reverted your edit, since it removed so many other comments and quite a few threads at the bottom of the page, and restored your comment to the appropriate thread. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry about that Geremia (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After what you've been through--put some brandy in it! – Lionel (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Creator ineffabilis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've make it point to Vatican_Publishing_House now.Geremia (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban means that you are not allowed to edit in that topic area. Further violations of your topic ban will see you brought to

Any further violations of your topic ban will result in a block. Why unnecessarily do this to yourself? NW (Talk) 05:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you're topic-banned from all pages related to abortion, I've reported your edit to

If I'm topic-banned, then why can I still edit it?Geremia (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ban is not enforced by Wikipedia software, it is up to you to observe it by avoiding the listed articles. If you are not willing to pay attention to the problem, sanctions may be imposed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I came in to say the same thing. You are long past the point of being let off with a warning. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an

proper page

. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Hi. I notice you have called Conservapedia "the less biased equivalent of Wikipedia". I have no interest in arguing with you. My interest is in understanding why you think Conservapedia is less biased. Could you explain it to me? Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it is because they are less monopolized by administrators' views; it's more "free market." Check out their page on examples of bias in Wikipedia, Differences between Wikipedia and Conservapedia, and Conservapedia's copyright policy, which is much less restrictive than Wikipedia's. Geremia (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. There is a strange dynamic at work on Wikipedia in regards to editors and sysops; it is based on an older paradigm of a centralized IT model which has become outdated. Most people, as you probably already know, are resistant to change, and have difficulty imagining and predicting the future. As for the linked explanations of bias, see our article on tu quoque. The solution to the left-right paradigm is not to give in to one side or another, but to move to the center and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Unfortunately, there are elements in the world which will continue to try to move people from one side to the other in order to assert control over individuals. From where I stand, Wikipedia gives readers more of a choice in having access to multiple competing views. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you wrote a Julian calendar date as 1546-04-08. Wikipedia's WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers calls for editors to avoid dates in that format that would violate ISO 8601 (even though Wikipedia hasn't formally adopted that standard). So there are two problems with 1546-04-08; it is before the adoption of the Gregorian calendar, and it is a Julian calendar date.

I am curious about how many editors had ever noticed the restriction in "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers", and how many editors had ever heard of ISO 8601. I'd appreciate your reaction. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware it was a Julian date. By "Julian date" do you just mean a date prior to the institution of the Gregorian calendar? thanks Geremia (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the document itself (assuming it was accurately transcribed) gives the date celebrata die VIII. Aprilis, 1546. That was before the first adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1582. So it must be a Julian calendar date. I understand it is rare for historians to extrapolate the Gregorian calender to dates before it was adopted (see Proleptic Gregorian calendar). However, ISO 8601 calls for dates in that format to always use the Gregorian calendar, even if the area under discussion, such as early 16th century Britain, used the Julian calendar. Wikipedia editors don't seem to do very well at following that prescription; indeed, they don't seem to do very well at specifying which calendar was used in articles where it isn't obvious. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting diagram (representing Western Christianity only, of course), but it doesn't display well at thumbnail size (one reason is that the TeX "Computer Modern" font is notoriously anemic), and it would appear to contain a significant element of the dreaded "original research". Also, if Trinities.org is not acceptable as a source, then Christianity.Stackexchange.Com is definitely not acceptable (especially since you appear to have written some of the material at the given URL). In any case, wonder why you didn't include a version with downwards triangle, which would have made the diagram more horizontally symmetric? The upshot is that I really don't think the image is useful to the article "Shield of the Trinity" in the way that you added it... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Geremia. 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]

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Tetrast#New_draft_underway:_Classification_ofthe_sciences_.28Peirce.29 The Tetrast (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Geremia. 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, Geremia. 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]