User talk:Anietor

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)

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)


 * 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)

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

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

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. 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.  Xan  dar  23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

Naming conflict page
Pmanderson has reverted the original text of the 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.  Xan  dar  20:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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.  Xan  dar   22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

Request for Arbitration
You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Arbitration/Requests/Case Gimmetrow 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for commenting on the talk page and giving us your opinion.  Nancy Heise    talk  18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tagging requires consensus?
You may explain this opinion to ANI, here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

I have blacklisted you from Twinkle for misuse of rollback and warnings. Diffs: Hesperian 01:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ANI notified. Hesperian 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

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

Colombia Collaboration Invite
mijotoba (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church RfC
Input is welcome at Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 00:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland 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 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 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)

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)