User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive13

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

Talkback

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nexus magazine

I hadn't heard from Nexus for a while, but a quick glance at their homepage reveals a rather profound interest in conspiracy theories, alternative health and other whackiness. I do not regard it as a useful source. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whackiness eh? Good enough for me. I'll take the ref out of soy allergy and remove that second paragraph. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Kamilo Beach

Hey, I forgot to ask you. Any reason why you never added the information from Beaches of The Big Island (1985) to the article? You said you were going to on the talk page. :-) Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten. It's now on my to do list. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I think I just got seated by the drafty door in Anna's Cafe. Viriditas (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, Anna. I'm on the lookout for new sources. If you find anything interesting, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the formatting. I ran it through Reflinks, but it didn't compile the identical refs into "abcd". Odd. I will continue to dig for more Kamilo stuff. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My hunch is that reflinks didn't work because the refs weren't formatted as cite templates and you didn't choose that option. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for Afro picks

Hi there. Do you believe you might be interested in this image? Best,--Mbz1 (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not sure what that image is. It appears to be somebody that "whitey" would have made extinct, sporting, mmmmmmm, a ball of granite nailed to his forehead.
Is there an afro pick in there somewhere? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It is from this site. The things in his hair are picks apparently.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't quite make out the pick. The article(s) could use a clear image. But, don't worry. If one crosses your path, take a pic. If not, don't worry about it. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Human rights in Israel

Funny, took me some seconds to find the source. Do you have an explanation as for why you merely helped the other editor avoid an edit war (while almost dragging me into one) instead of what I did? I mean, other than having a personal bias against that statement (or editors supporting it)? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Easy on the rage, cowboy. I know nothing of the issue, the other editor, wars, or anything. I was just passing by. Please don't pull me into your angry world. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Your reply is almost worthy of a UN speech. Bravo. An entirely red herring without addressing my question at all. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The accusation is not appreciated, nor is it correct. My explanation was clear. Re-read it. (In a nutshell: I happened upon the page. I am not biased. I didn't read the history or the article. I didn't know about your war with that other editor, and I don't care about it either.) I just saw the diff, which shows that you added:
"Freedom House has claimed the United Nations has a history of negative focus on Israel that is disproportional in respect to other members, including the actions and statements of the United Nations Human Rights Council and its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights { { Citation needed|date=July 2010 } }"
Such a bold statement should not be present without an accompanying citation. Adding it with a citation needed tag doesn't help. Ask Jimbo.
Your statements and tone are inappropriate, as are edit summaries such as "Stop. Right, Now.". I also don't like accusations like "...having a personal bias against that statement...". I have a bias against all statements like that. If you add an unreferenced statement that the President of Golawagananga has six toes, you'd better have a ref with it, or an editor will remove it, on sight. Just like I did.
Please be more polite. That was no way to talk to a stranger. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
All I'm asking is why you both removed the statement instead of finding sources for it, which took me a minimal amount of time. You keep ducking this question, while accusing me of incivility. This is what constitutes a red herring. By the way, my "Stop. Right, Now." remark had a few predecessors in other places, look at the history if you care. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"All I'm asking is why you both removed the statement instead of finding sources for it...", a different and new question. I was under no obligation to source it. I was under an obligation to remove it. You added it. Why didn't you source it?
Predecessors? Precedents by predecessors -- probably displeasing to you -- don't justify like behaviour. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't add it. I noticed that the other editor removed it after stating his dismay with anything on WP that might legitimately advance the opponent's (in his case, Israel's) side of the mayhem. The tag reads "citation needed", not "removal needed". And by the way, this question is not new – read the second sentence of very first entry in this thread.
I was under no obligation to source it. I was under an obligation to remove it. Wow. Is that your view of contributing to an encyclopedia? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


This has been a kick, but let's stop. I am watching Red Dragon, and Hoffman just went down the street in a wheel chair on fire.
You haven't a leg to stand on. You talk of red herrings, yet, I have answered, well. You then switched to a different question.
Regarding the core issue of you adding the unsourced statement, you are wrong, and should know it. If you want to hone your debating skills, (and they need a honin'), please do it with somebody else.
Please take responsibility for your own actions. Thank you and happy trails. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Check the edit history and see that I wasn't the one who added the statement to begin with, I reverted its removal. My question was the same: "Why did you help... instead of what I did?" (i.e. finding the source). Whatever man, I'm outta here since you will never really answer me; it's not your thing. I am through begging compulsive deletionists to try and do something constructive instead of "assigning parking tickets" around Wikipedia. You will keep doing what you do no matter how many people will try leveling with you. Enjoy Red Dragon. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Michal. I've upload ones per your recommendation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Maize weevil images

Hello, files File:Maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, underside 01.jpg and File:Maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, side view 01.jpg were deleted, because they were under CC-BY-NC-3.0 licenses. Images at Wikimedia Commons have to require commercial use. "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted."

I have found another acceptable images:

--Snek01 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Michal. I uploaded ones per your recommendation. Can I upload the deleted ones again to Wikipedia instead of commons? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Non commercial images can't be included on wikipedia either - remember that the copyright licence of wikipedia allows people to use our work for anything they like, if we upload a non-commercial image then people might use it in a book without the proper permission of the copyright holder. Smartse (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
As a note: The deleted images I uploaded were from the same site, but with: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License."
The ones you recommended are: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License."
All I saw was 3.0. The whole license thing is so confusing and badly organized. They should put numbers 1-10, with a description after the number. Then they should say: "You need a #7 license or better...". I hate commons. I should tell them. I'm not the first to see the problem. And, the solution is so easy. Stupid commons! Thanks for letting me know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem especially with wikicommons, but with creative commons in general, AFAIK they are unrelated organisations. Smartse (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, one more thing. I know there's a way to request commons to rotate an image. I can't find it. Do you know? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
It's probably easier to DIY - I just used windows picture preview but every image viewing program should allow rotating of images. Smartse (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you will need to rotate some image, that is already on commons, add one of these to the image page 

{{rotate|90}}
{{rotate|180}}
{{rotate|270}}

and the image will be rotated by a bot. --Snek01 (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Smartse:
  • Non-commercial used in a book: makes sense.
  • Creative Commons problem. Agreed. Wikicommons is just following their rules. Therefore, CC is stupid.
  • I use Irfan, and others, and can rotate. I didn't know if it would be allowed with that license.
  • I see you added the rotate thingy. Thanks. And thanks for doing the double image in the article. Looks great.
Snek01:
  • Rotate thingies and the bot. Thank you. I will keep that in my notebook.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Maize weevil

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of whale meat

Hello! Your submission of whale meat at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

I have replaced this in the suggestions as there's an unresolved neutrality tag on the article; if you could address any remaining issues with whoever placed the tag as soon as possible that would be great. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sure, we can remove the POV tag for now... :) Malick78 (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Pie

y did you not like my pie entry....totally accurate and i sited it....what is your problem..meanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxride924 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Question on linking

Dear Anna,

just read about the invitation to ask for help if needed. Here is my question:

What do is your advice to solve this controversy?

Facts: (there is an interesting collection of german authentic recipes that I denoted as empirical examples in some articels) (My point of view: it is empirical material, page not big enough to be commercial, not connected to any exceptional advantages for the author/owner of that page, absolutely important for wikipedia user to know about) (Point of view of another Wiki-User: the url I linked to is spam)

Dear Barek,

in regard to your spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen:

please would you be so kind to explain to me the difference between the empiric example (see url above) and http://www.recipe-recipes-message-board.com/forum/view_topic.php?forum_id=98&id=1276 that is still denoted as a sample on the article quarkkeulchen and not declared as spam??

I do not understand where the linking to a webpage of noncommercial extent like bobinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen breaks the rules of linking. Especially, when the content of this webpage is definetly "scientifical" and not just entertainment or business.

As far as wikipedia declared, there are anyway no exceptional advantages that any webpage could get by beeing linked to by a wikipedia article.

I would appreciate if we could undo the spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com.

Regards Bonzothedog


Thank you!

Regards Bonzothedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzothedog (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have brought the matter up at User_talk:Barek. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly this is it! Thank you Anna! Now Barek sended me a warning. I have declared in one discussion belonging to article quarkkeulchen that I do not understand the difference he makes between my linking and the linking of others to the same kind of webinfo and undid his change in this specific one case... before I had linked to about 5 pages on the same url. I'm just interested in cooking at the moment and especially deal with the german cuisine at the moment, I am german.. This Url in my eyes represented the best example for a german cuisine documentation 2010 so I linked to it.

I don't think the treatment of my linking is fair in regard to all the other links. Do you think there is a way to convince Barek that he makes a severe mistake? Great support!!! Have a nice day!

DYK for Callophrys sheridanii

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

request

hello, thanks for Callophrys sheridanii. i noticed it from DYK. could you tidy the distribution section? thanks. =) -Shootbamboo (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you could give it a try? I had a lot of trouble understanding the sources. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Duck Face

I don't know why you would list the reason for this not being an article as "already exists," when a "gurn" is an entirely different thing.

Like it or not, and however unsuitable you think this is to define, the duck face is referred to in articles all over the internet. The fact that it's talked about THAT much provides enough reason for it being here. The reason you listed is illegitimate. Too bad!

Maybe ya should think about the fact that it's a term used in conversation and that you're linking it w/ something it's not. My professors in college might have been right about this site GeorgeLoomis3 (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just saw your comment --

No, it's not the same thing as a "gurn." In fact I'm not sure where to start in this reply because it's so incredibly unlike a gurn. Only similarity is both involve human faces. If you asked most Americans what "duck face" is, I'm positive that more would know that term than they would "gurn." Not sure why "gurn" would need a page over this... If you do a google search and see how "duck face" is talked about, it kind of needs a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLoomis3 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi George. Although it does appear to be different (it looks like a pout, actually), I'm not sure it passes General notability guidelines. Can you suggest some sources to establish notability? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELN discussion

Sorry for the delay; I mentioned on my talk page that I would provide a direct link to the discussion I was starting at WP:ELN, here's the link: WP:ELN#bobbinis-kitchen.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Grapebowels

Why did you call me Grapebowels? I mean, are you referring to me? It should had been Grapebowl not Grapebowels. If you were referring to me, would you like to please fix it? Grapebowl (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In the context of your insensitive edit, Grapebowels was appropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
(?) expand please.Grapebowl (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
It's inappropriate in any case. Comment on the edit, not the editor.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not fix it. Would you have fixed the attack post on Mbz1's page? Putting an attack tag on my page is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. I will expand.
"Grapebowels" was a jab. Your post was a sword through the mid-section. The comment you made to Mbz1 was not only hurtful, but it aimed to send her away from Wikipedia. As a (possibly) new editor, there is something that you perhaps don't know. That is the high crime around here. She is an extremely good asset to the project, having contributed many quality images. Chasing away an editor can cost the project thousands of potential hours of constructive work.
You seem to be an otherwise good editor. So, I suggest that you apologize to Mbz1. Then we can hug and make up, and then all get back to work. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't assume that the IP who left the NPA warning is the same person whom you attacked. I'm not. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my goodness. I didn't notice. Sorry Grapebowl. I take that back.
To: 69.181.249.92: In the words of Yosemite Sam: Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooh! I hope you tagged Grapebowl too. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Why me? I didn't attack anyone. Grapebowl (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, I will apologize but we better don't hug and even less make up. I have a jealous girlfriend, you see. ;) I was giving a way to not be tempted to enter a harassed account. Notice that closing an account doesn't mean stop editing. So the assisted closing doesn't imply damage to the project. By the way, the tag thing wasn't me, although you will need powers over the system to check it. One more thing, for someone "very old and very sick" [1] that doesn't handle pressure very well a call to keep the wolves at bay is maybe less appropriate than a restart and maybe also a recommendation to stay away from the wolves. You said images? Images then. Grapebowl (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice that the tag was the IP. I now know it wasn't you. Sorry about that.
Mbz1 posted "retired" due to hounding. That pretty much states that she didn't intend on registering a new account. In light of that, helping her closing the account sort of implies "go and don't come back".
I didn't read very old and sick statement. That's news to me. I imagined her as 18 years old.
Surely you can understand how such a post on a page with such a retirement notice can be viewed in a negative light. I'm surprised you wouldn't have noticed that before posting. Anyway, assuming good faith, and that this is all a misunderstanding, please accept my apologies. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Done with the apology at her page. I didn't even know it myself, I found it a few moments ago because I am toooooo nosy. Oh, I also found that she said she was going to quit at least two other times (no links this time, already closed the page and if I am nosy I am also very lazy) so, maybe... you will see many pictures popping out from another account. Or better that they will pop out but you will not notice, because if you notice the hound will also notice. Grapebowl (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's hope she sticks around. Thanks. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive13"