User talk:Anna Lertreader

Hello, AlanLertreader, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to

]

Proposed deletion of The Wee Blue Book

The article The Wee Blue Book has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NBOOK

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Wee Blue Book is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wee Blue Book until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to explain why your deletions were regarded as a non-neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B00A:6600:4582:2CF8:FE47:D5AB (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

Says who? You? Much as I enjoy you following me around on Wikipedia attempting to undo every single entry I make, your opinion is not justified by either facts or consensus. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inserting an attack section into a BLP. If you continue to do this I will have to file a report at

There was a discussion. Your viewpoint was not successful. There was no consensus. Your opinion is not worth more than anyone else's and the section does not breach anything in WP:BLP. Deal with it.Anna Lertreader (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The normal process for disputed content is to conclude discussions and consensus first, before re-adding the content (if that is what consensus establishes). You don't edit war to keep the addition in until discussion concludes. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But this one user contests *every single* edit I make, without justification (all have passed after discussions end) and my view is that it's simply an attempted war of attrition. Anna Lertreader (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Edit warring. You broke the 3RR. Keep this in mind next time. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So did they. How does that work? Anna Lertreader (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have extended your block fro a further week for your IP edits on the article that you were originally blocked for. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what? What's an "IP edit"? Anna Lertreader (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the blocks you received last time you tried to insert this material did not have the desired result; to persuade you to desist. If you insert the material again, I will block you again for a longer period of time. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk. You have no justification for such actions.Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, and I have explained why at the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 1 week for

edit warring. The last time you were blocked, you evaded that block using your IP. If that happens again, you will be blocked for longer. When the block lifts, that is not permission to start edit warring again. If you go right back to your old behavior, citing unreliable sources to violate BLP, and edit war to keep those violations in an article, you will find yourself blocked again, possibly permanently. It may be best for you to drop this subject entirely. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That allegation is absolutely untrue. What's your evidence? Anna Lertreader (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this and this is pretty conclusive. Plus the admins have all the tools necessary to link accounts together and to IP addresses. When it comes to biographies of living persons, the rules about reliable referencing are imposed very strictly indeed (see

WP:BLP). --Elektrik Fanne 13:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The fact that two different people reverted the same entry? That's your proof? I haven't the remotest clue who the other IP belongs to. It's also absurdly fatuous to call the latest edit "edit warring". After weeks of discussion I put forward a radically different version of the entry that was supported by other editors, only to be instantly banned for it. The hysterical determination to protect the reputation of John McTernan from accuracy is bewildering. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anna Lertreader reported. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anna Lertreader. 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, Anna Lertreader. 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! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi you forgot to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), regards --Devokewater 12:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed 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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Mridul Wadhwa. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue personal grudges against the subjects of articles. Also, you are edit warring which is separate grounds for a block if it continues. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your hilariously aggressive bias is entirely unjustified. All my edits are properly sourced and in fact correct NPOV assertions in the article. Anna Lertreader (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My original block was based on my review of your edits to the article. After reviewing the talk page discussion it became obvious the disruption was more significant. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Adding a link to someone's election results or asking for a source is "disruptive" :D :D :D :D Anna Lertreader (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is hilariously ridiculous. I made a series of proper, factual and fully cited edits, correcting a massively NPOV article full of basic errors and unsupported factual assertions, and have been subjected instantly to a deluge of abuse and reversions without discussion or justification. My attempt to calmly and rationally discuss the edits was not only locked but *deleted*. It is apparently "disruptive" to add a link to a candidate's election results, or to request a source for a contentious and defamatory claim. Anna Lertreader (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm glad you are amused. I'm not amused. Your attack was unacceptable. At a minimum, you will not be unblocked to participate in gender related topics, as it seems unlikely you can set aside your personal bias against trans human beings, so you will need to tell us what edits you will make instead. The sockpuppetry doesn't help, either. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2024 (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.

How gullible do you think that we are? You personally attacked a well respected editor based solely on your personal bias against her gender identity yet your unblock request does not even acknowledge that this is the main reason for your block. How could you possibly expect anything other than an indefinite block for that? You are not the victim here. We have to protect our editors from abuse and your block was entirely necessary to achieve that. Had you not been blocked for that then you would have been blocked for edit warring. Had you not been blocked for that then you would possibly have been blocked for your extreme POV edits. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and also the obvious sockpuppetry here is not helping your case. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness me, I see the transactivists are out in force and reason is impossible. I'll leave you to it. Anna Lertreader (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]