User talk:Anniepoo

Image copyright problem with Image:Bio rachel.jpg
Hi Anniepoo!

We thank you for uploading Image:Bio rachel.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Help
Hey, general request - there's possibly a math error on the [Quaternions] page but I'm not enough of an editor to figure out how to add the 'article in need of an expert' tag. a) could somebody explain WHERE the freekin tags like that are cataloged? b) could somebody look at this article and deal with it?
 * I tagged the article. If you want to see more templates like that, see WP:TC. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Request for comment
Those seem but it is wise to check - I am not sure conflict of interest stretches that far but it is always best to make sure you have covered the angles to avoid finger pointing.

In regard to your comments, you might also want to look at this Eunuch, as not only is the surname spelt wrong, but it goes into some detail that is both unnecessary (and violates BLP?) and is unsourced. I'd also question the need for it there (especially unsourced) and feel it would be either be worth a brief mention there with a broader overview on the main page (although not anything that violates BLP, like unsourced details of someone's surgery).

If that seems a reasonable assessment then I'll remove it (unless you can think of a better approach). (Emperor (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Removed it. I think the mention on the main article is sufficient, at least as supported by the sources.


 * You may also be correct about sock puppets - that was added by a SPA. You might want to collect the difs and see if a picture emerges. Here is the one from that article: . It may well be worth running it past the check user admins to see what they come up with. (Emperor (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC))

Request for help
WP:SPA is a singel purpose account.

So if you go to the Rachel Pollack history page you see the recent edits. The two accounts you are talking about are Scent of jasmine, Tapir from south america, I Love Tarot, Magyar Kiss Kiss and April fool's lass and SephardiSpain. The "dif" is just the difference beteen their post and the previous one - which is just the "last" link in the history which you can copy and paste to give you, , , and  and , respectively. It is also clear some of the SPAs on that page know the identities of editors. Note also that the same IP from the Pollack page, 164.58.212.202, also added back the section I removed from the Eunuch article. Note the only SPA to edit another article Magyar Kiss Kiss edited one of the articles the IP has also edited and /. Looking down that article's history we also see various SPAs.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner but I've been busy elsewhere. It looks like there are an awful lot of suspect accounts and I don't think I'd have the time to go through all the edit histories and extract all the difs but hopefully the above should prove helpful in doing that.

You can make a checkuser request (see WP:RCU) but I am unsure if it falls somewhere between the criteria they are looking for and areas where this would be rejected - I suspect if it is violating WP:BLP and going against consensus, leading to repeated reversions then that could count as vandalism. I'll ask for more advice on this. (Emperor (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC))


 * I've started Suspected sock puppets/164.58.212.202 to deal with the preponderance of single-purpose, single-edit accounts. There may be some debate over whether the edits are a violation of WP:BLP or not (I think they are, but some might see it as mere content dispute). But it is clear that this editor is trying to "out" you, and that is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. There's a large backlog of sock puppet cases, however, so this may take a while to sort out. This issue could also be reported to WP:AN/I, but I thought it would more profitable to go the "suspected sock puppets" route. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Pollack
Heh. That was a quick revert. :-)

It's not a point I'd want to war over, but I will be genuinely interested to hear your reasoning, if you're willing to offer it on the talk page.

Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

did Anniepoo (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for the note - looks like their attention is largely on Spanish football teams but if they swing past again feel free to slap a vandalism warning on them. They are on a fast-track to getting themselves banned so we may as well help them on their way if they do it again. (Emperor (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Outing
I have removed the personal information from that talk page, citing WP:OUTING. Thanks for catching it. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gay Blue Jeans Day
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Gay Blue Jeans Day. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Gay Blue Jeans Day. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Bio rachel.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bio rachel.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 02:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate that transsexuals are people
and the related people that I know are are great.

I also appreciate that you may have views on best forms of presentation and your contribution would likely be helpful at Talk:Transsexualism.

As per the discussion at Talk:Azerbaijani_people I similarly appreciate that "Azerbaijanis" are just as much people as "Azerbaijani people" but also appreciate that in our fiercely prejudice and bigoted world other forms of presentation may be necessary in some cases when OR if necessary.

GregKaye 12:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Reverted edit
I reverted your edit as including a birth or former name is permissible and is not doxxing; e.g. how the article begins at Caitlyn Jenner. I do not have a problem with transgender people and I support their rights. --Rubbish computer 12:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I've read MOS:IDENTITY and per this, a person's identity should be given preference, as it is in this article, but this doesn't mean birth or former names can't be mentioned. --Rubbish computer 12:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC


 * Please ignore the mistake I made in saying Jenner's name, I apologise and this was accidental. --Rubbish computer 12:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not intend to cause any offence in doing this and I am truly sorry if I did so. --Rubbish computer 12:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A transgender person's former or birth name may be included, as long as they are "called by their preferred name, so it is permitted to say born". Please stop reverting and engage in discussion instead. Rubbish computer 16:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, doing so is a way of attacking trans people. It's a pretty common marker for transphobia. Lets leave it off for now and discuss on talk page Anniepoo (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No it is not and that is a very serious accusation. Rubbish computer 16:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * And you wonder why I'm reverting instead of engaging in discussion? Anniepoo (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I do not understand what you are trying to say, or get me to say. Please leave me alone. Rubbish computer 16:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ANI thread involving you
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Anniepoo's tendentious edit warring and defamatory false accusations. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)