This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Would like feedback on topic list before I tabulate.
Please take a list of the topics if you can get a chance.
Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm looking at it. I don't quite know what to say. Using your knowledge of your students' interests and capabilities, I think you should be the one to propose a list of what you think is best, and then ask for input at the project talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across Flubeca's user page, liked it, modified it, and you will find something I think you'll really like on my user page. ;-) 512bits (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Awwwww, that's very sweet. Thank you. Now, check your talk page! Ha! :)
Oh, neat page there. Yea, I'd like to do that one day but I think Botany will keep me busy for awhile; but I would like to do that one day. Doing one from scratch is a bit much for me right now. And many thanks for the award! 512bits (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Anytime, (including never if you like) :). Keep up the good work at the Botany project. They need you. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Error found
See Template:Harvard citation no brackets. "the template logic can extract the year of from a full date" ... the 'of' should not be there but it will not allow me to fix it. Do you know someone that can? Thanks.512bits (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I posted this. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Response
I'm ready for zh articles to be formatted, thanks.
Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
My intention was not rude. I asked you to read what I wrote. There were several warnings on this user's page clearly showing that in the beginning he was given a reasonable amount of good faith. Also, before answering you, I took a look into wikipedia:Vandalism page and was amazed how much wikilawyering effort was put into it. I definitely had no intention to waste any time proving black is black. I am aware that curtness may be recognized as rudeness, for this I apologize. At the same time, please be aware that different people have different English language skills and different background. So I would advice to read wikipedia about Hanlon's razor and simply ignore lack of sensitivity (up to a certain level, of course). Unless your purpose is to always coach people into better human beings. In the latter case, well, good luck.
As for this user, I am inclined to believe this account belongs to a seasoned wikipedia vandal who knows the ropes very well. So I don't expect any more edits from this account, because he already knows it is on the radar, and any futher vandalism is no artistic fun. Locador (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow. The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away. Why do I feel like I just got zinged again? Dear oh dear. :) Oh well, let's drop it. Happier editing to ya. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, next time our paths cross I will find something really nice to write here no mater what. By the way, from this I guess you are overseeing and/or carrying out a really important for wikipedia project. Is is described somewhere? Locador (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, I am sorry to have started this in the first place. I should have inspected the subject's talk page with more than a glance. I was doing other things, and was distracted. Please accept my apologies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Your stance on a nomination for speedy deletion
A user proposed my recent article on Shuhrat Abbosov for speedy deletion. I wonder if he actually read the entry. The article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because Abbosov is considered to one of the most influential Uzbek filmmakers and is celebrated as one of the founders of the Uzbek film making industry. He has received many honorary titles and awards, including a People's Artist of the Uzbek SSR, a People's Artist of the USSR, and an Order of the Red Banner of Labour. I've added many reliable sources to the article. Can you visit the page's talk page directly to tell us what you think about the issue? Nataev (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed the speedy tag because it was being contested at talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm watching and learning, but am not really qualified to participate. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
St Jude's Church
Anna, thankyou for your input on St Jude's Church, very kind! Its now published, and awaits other people's input. Many thanks for your tips on how to polish off the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil Jradeh (talk • contribs) 12:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Actually I asked User:Mabdul to look it over and approve it if he saw fit. He did. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
When using this tag please remember to list at WP:CP by following the instructions on the tag. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. I forgot. Sorry. In fact, I think there's one more like that floating around somewhere. I'll remember for next time. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, we do have a bot in trial to do it, hence the reason it's been picked up. However we've had many bots come and go over the years and we've missed many listing over the last few months and now have a huge backlog to work through. I own the new bot and don't plan on letting it stop like the others but it's probably best you get in the habit of listing just in case. Dpmuk (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Many thanks. I will keep my thinking cap on. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page. Message added 14:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I promise to sign up if you get rid of the scroll box. Those things make me want to strike my computer. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!
I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.
It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I may be 63, but the small child version of me is still very much alive! I love bunnies. When I was a toddler I would grab every animal I set eyes on, from bees to horses, in order to try to pet it, or hug it and kiss it. Of course I got bitten and stung quite a lot by a large range of different beasties, but that has not discouraged me. I'm still out there trying to hug the world regardless of whether it hugs me back or not. Maybe you are the same? Hugs and bunnies to you too, Invertzoo (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Replied at your talk. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Personally I believe that the people who claw their way to the top and hog all the bananas are anxious and insecure and fearful (and deeply unhappy). I believe they need more hugs... but first they have to open their hearts to make room for hugs, and it's not always easy to persuade someone to do that. They need to feel part of the great human family, then they would not be so paranoid and would be able to share, and would be able to help out, by working to help ensure that the world has enough to go around, for people and for animals and for plants. The previously fearful folk could learn to be happy just as they are, and when you are happy, everything is OK and nothing needs "fixing". Well that's my belief anyway... Invertzoo (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope you're right. I see 1.5 billion people who receive hugs with the same trepidation as someone receiving a summons. And, their main goal is to get all the bananas. I'm not sure there will be enough bananas to go around.
The 1950s "big car, indulgence, throw away, consumer society" dinged the planet a little. That was 200 million. Welcome India and China, and times that by 10 or more. Our poor Earth may not handle this wave so well. I love these people, but they are oblivious to such matters, and don't see that they may not get their dream of the Western life.
I don't think we'll be able to hug our way out of this mess. If only people would stop making babies, just for a few decades, we could have 500 million people on Earth, and so many problems would vanish. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The drive to reproduce, not the mention the joy of, uh, making babies, means that will never happen.512bits (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
True. But, the drive can mean no more humans left to reproduce in the end, and the joy for the parent can mean bringing babies into a world that is too overpopulated for the child to enjoy. Not sure if people are thinking it through. Sort of defeats the purpose. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh! That reminds me. I was going to do a "Drinking water in India" or "Groundwater in India" article. I wonder if it's been done by now. These insane discussions always lead to something. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Anna, I just got to know that Dutch Wikipedia is using the CSVLoader program to create all Animal species. They have used the plugin to create 300,000 new stub articles. See Dutch_Wikipedia#History. It is such a tough sell here. You can check out the project page, bot editing page and the status page. They have retained Jimbo likes banana examples that you came up with. :) — Ganeshk (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
PS: You will have to use Google Translator; does a decent job. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Dang! 300k! So, if we had the same stubs bot created, then nl stubs would get interwiki linked, right? Then we would be able to see if there are images to fit en articles. That guy who made the fuss had a good point, but still, a stub with a good chance for an image, and taxonomy info, a sentence description, and a ref or two, should merit existence here an enwp. Tell me where to bitch and complain. I'm always here to push for the creations. Sure, somewhat cataloguesque at the moment, but useful, with great potential, and hey, this project is only a decade old. The sooner stubs are created, the sooner they can become hubs for the subject, and expand.
The banana example thing rings a bell, but I can't remember. Please url me. Thanks for letting me know about this stuff, and thanks so much for the NNU work. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Mark Marathon
Dear Anna Frodesiak,
This is in reply to a mail I have received from Mark Marathon
I must admit here that I am not well versed in wikipedia edit parlance and the editing technics.
It is true that I have added some additional info taken from a site obtained from Google. I was not aware that that particular piece of text was copy righted, though the information is common local knowledge. Can anyone copy right an information that is well known locally?? And from where we will deduce if a particular text in a site is copy righted?? I will appreciate if you could, please, shed some info on this, so that I can avoid such Faux Pas in future.
I have added the source of additional info in the links as I did not want anyone to accuse me of plagiarism. It is very much there.
You may reply to my mail id registered with wikipedia (capt.kavalil.t.t@gmail.com or capt_kavalil_t_t@yahoo.co.in)
Hi Kavaliltt. We cannot copy paste content from other sites and add it to articles here. The best way is to rewrite the content, in your own words, selected from a reliable source, while avoiding close paraphrasing. Then, cite that source using a reference. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at BigzMMA's talk page. Message added 23:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I noticed you nominated some articles then backed off, because they had been nominated before. I think this is okay. I have seen a lot of articles that are on their second nomination. This one is on its fourth! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/François_Asselineau_(4th_nomination). For some of these articles, the first outcome was "no consensus." I think it's perfectly reasonable to try again, now that people have had a year to add references and establish notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I will probably AfD all three again very soon. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. You are very sweet. :) Actually, I don't feel one bit bad. I react strongly to actions by those in authority who do not err on the side of caution. Had it been an involved new admin, it would have received more than frowns. It would have rained pianos. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Kavaliltt
Ms Anna,
Thanks for your reply and explanation. I will follow your suggestions/
With warm regards Kavaliltt 23:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries at all. Thank you again. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Suzhou
... is a city in Jinagsu Province independent of Nanjing. :P More seriously though, I've seen you put things that are in Nanjing and / or Jiangsu in "Suzhou Province" in two separate instances now. Could you please check over your contribs to fix any remaining mistakes? Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Me??? Impossible! I'm ferpect. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Y I checked all the articles. Looks okay. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll be more careful. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. :) wctaiwan (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
can't help but note the perfection of "Jinagsu" Province above, wctaiwan. hehehe.
Heh. This must be one of those laws of nature: The punishment for pointing out someone else's mistake is a taste of your own medicine. wctaiwan (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Your karma ran over your dogma! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Just what we needed. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
About the paraphrase
Thank you for informing the issue. I add links for Notes right after the paragraph I used from the website I refered to. This is my first time to edit in Wiki and I'm not sure whether my correction is OK or NOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayern2012 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You did a good job, and welcome to Wikipedia. You added this content, and I am curious if you wrote it all yourself, or was any copy paste:
By the time that the Japanese surrendered in 1945 neither the Communist Party of China (CPC) nor the Kuomintang KMT trusted each other or were actively cooperating. After American-sponsored attempts to negotiate a coalition government failed in 1946, the Chinese Civil War resumed. The CPC defeated the Nationalists in 1949, forcing Chiang's government to retreat to Taiwan. During the evacuation, a part of faculty and alumni was taken to Taiwan by Chiang Kai-shek, founding National Chiao Tung University in Taiwan in 1958.
After the Chinese Civil War, the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中华人民共和国) was founded in 1949. Chiao Tung lost its "National" appellation and became Chiao Tung University (Chinese: 交通大学) to reflect the fact that all universities under the new socialist state would be public.
In the 1950s, Pinyin system was developed in Mandarin China, making English name of many institutes changed from original latin script. Therefore, Chiao Tung University changed its English name to Jiao Tong University.
From 1952, the Communist government adopted a policy of creating Soviet-style specialized schools, reshuffling nearly all universities and college to model on Soviet-style higher education. Under this policy, some faculties of the university were incorporated into other universities. At the same time, engineering faculties from outside were absorbed to become a specialized engineering university. An earthquaking rearrangement came in 1956 for the school when the central government ordered the university to send a significant amount of its faculties to Xi'an to help build up a top engineering school in western China - Xi'an Jiaotong University in western Chinese province Shaanxi. Afterwards, the university was officially renamed Shanghai Jiao Tong University, SJTU.
I see you are involved some chinese/english projects, if you know anyone, we need some references for Ten Ren Tea. Thanks. icetea8 (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Anna, are you working with this group at all? Over the last couple of days I've either tagged for CSD or had to rewrite 3 articles by students in this class who have either created articles composing solely of hyperlinks to http://baike.baidu.com/ or articles that are (poor) direct translations of pages from the same site and therefore copyvios. It's only just now that I've found out it's a schools project and I do feel a bit sorry about either tagging or re-editing the articles. I'd hate them to become discouraged through lack of understanding of core principles especially when a couple of them are writing quite an interesting article about a stretch of Roman road not far from me (the language is a bit flowery but the basic content is good). NtheP (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I've had some off-wiki issues here related to students, so when on-wiki, I've been doing a other things, and not much of that either.
CSD?? These are not in the mainspace yet. There should be no reason for that.
The students have a long time to work, and Josh, the course instructor is really responsible for content and sources. It is a great challenge to stop students from using baike. I'm sure he's told them many times. We are trying to keep a bit of distance from the content/sources side of things, until the end of the course. This is so that Josh can show them what the problems are without having to go to an article and find that the problem is no longer there.
I appreciate your concern over these things. I've been waiting for Josh to get online so that we can have an IRC and get on the same page about these matters. I think it's actually going the way it should, more or less. I do agree with you that baike-sourced content should be addressed ASAP, because such content is inadmissible, and so wastes the students time in fixing the grammar, etc.
wctaiwan recently asked for clarification at Josh's talk. Our role, and whether or not we should be copy editing should be clarified and posted at project talk right away. I will bug Josh again for some advice on this. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, FYI: I have a busy weekend coming up, plus recent Internet speed issues. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, they were all mainspace articles - I know better than to go tag happy elsewhere :-) Ok could be that some of the students are creating articles over and above their assignment. Certainly User:NNUFMichelleXiang5090921 has had three articles deleted from mainspace - the two I tagged plus one very long list of battles of a particular 12th century dynasty - comprehensive I'm sure but written in Chinese apart from the opening line (I didn't tag this one, hence being non-specific about it). It's great they are keen and I certainly don't want to curb any enthusiasm but I suspect that if I hadn't hit the button, somebody else would have done. NtheP (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) I'm going to notify Josh about this so we can see what he thinks. I'm not sure we should ask them not to create mainspace articles, but maybe the students need to know that a better understanding of Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines would be required to prevent issues like this. wctaiwan (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
If only to prevent them being disheartened if mainspace articles are deleted a better understanding would be useful. We don't suggest that anyone else doesn't create articles directly so there shouldn't be an exception here, but as it's a Uni project there is probably something to be achieved by giving some extra tuition about what the basic standards are. NtheP (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Conscious of issues and open to suggestions. Students are not being asked to create in mainspace, they are being asked to slowly grow comprehensive articles with good sourcing--but that is a long process. If they want to experiment in mainspace, then they may learn things the hard way--but I don't think we can expect the Wikipedia community to be forbearing because it's a uni project. The Roman students have switched topics, incidentally, because their work was copyvio or nearly...:( Many are the pitfalls...Open to suggestions & comments. On IRC at present. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Having now looked at Michelle's talkpage it seems to me probable that she was perhaps just trying to store links or set up the structure of an article. Given that they've been working in draftspace only, they may not realise the monitored nature of mainspace. I can try to mention it, but it doesn't at the moment seem to be a widespread problem. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Addressing the role of the helpers: I would like, ideally, for corrections to be brought to the attention of students. So, either copy-editing can happen through feedback to students (for instance in response to questions now on Help page), or through the ordinary copy-editing processes which (as per wctaiwan's idea) would link the diff to the students' talk page, so that they would get the orange message tag and could see what has been changed, and hopefully work out why. If I haven't phrased this properly, perhaps wctaiwan could correct me. Current state of my thinking, but open to suggestions. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Last week, I printed everything up and made corrections or flagged passages on hard copies. Their assignment this week was to follow up on those corrections. Results unclear...Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments, suggestions, etc. from Anna
I'm not sure how much correcting helpers should be doing until the very end. Helping students improve their English should be the English teacher's job, right? The whole point of the NNU project is for students to improve written English and learn to write in an encyclopedic style. Helpers correcting and copy editing, and the students seeing what we've done sounds like us doing the teaching. We don't want to step on Josh's toes. At Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012/Article management#Articles there is a field called "Proof". I think that means the helpers will give the article a read before mainspace. A that time, we can chop inappropriate content, remove a few weasel words, make sections where needed, and, proof it.
So, I think we should handle the items in the table: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012/Article management#Articles. Josh should handle the English teaching part, showing them what they've written, and pointing out mistakes, and showing them how to improve their grammar, etc. They get the articles into the best shape they can, then we do the proofing part.
Off-wiki stuff is still dragging me away from editing, and is increasing.
Nobody CSDed anything in the projects space. Understood. I thought that sounded unlikely. :)
Josh will bug students about avoiding baike. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. You don't mind me using the help page for grammar and all that jazz, do you?
Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. I missed that reply. Of course the help pages are yours to use. And, of course, my opinion above is not carved in stone. I just meant that it's probably best to let you and the students do your thing with the articles in terms of building them and knocking them into shape, and then we can enter the scene toward the end. We are always here when you need us, though. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely! You put it where they can see it. Well done. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
From Mangal.anukriti
Thank's a lot Anna for helping me.I wont be a regular wikipedian as I am always very busy. Thanks a lot once again.Mangal.anukriti (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)mangal.anukriti
You are very welcome. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi! To celebrate the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia the German language Wikipedia has started a petition to identify Wikipedia as UNESCO’s first digital World Cultural Heritage Site. If you share this opinion, please join our initiative.
You may want to have a look at WP:ANI#2012 in UFC events—Battleground disruption as well, this has come about following a series of AfD where admin closing statements have directed that these should be merged. The alternative is continuing to take articles which clearly fail a number of polices and guidelines to AfD. If you can come up with a better solution then have a go. Mtking (edits) 06:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Redirets/AfD
I won't nom any more for the time being, nor will I restore any redirects that have not been put in place following a AfD, however those that have been put in place as a result of an AfD are clearly there as a result of consensus, and I ask you not to undo them. Mtking (edits) 08:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. See my contribs. I restored only the non-AfD ones. If I have erred, please let me know. Thank you very much for your understanding. I hate locking horns with people. Whenever something is out of consensus or even controversial, especially something as major as this, it's always best to back up and let the community speak.
I'm really starting to lean toward the omnibus. It's just the haste that was upsetting people. This should chill everyone out and allow discussion.
The compromises I'm hearing maybe be best: omnibus with poster images, mini infoboxes, and scores. It's a tough call. On one side, there are guidelines. A large handful says keep, and a slightly larger handful says delete. On the other side, we are here to make product that serves visitors. These UFC folks are really passionate, and I'm sure love the individual articles because they contain more content. I sort of see them as baseball cards, where each article has all these facts and statistics and such that the real UFC people treasure and enjoy.
Given where we are now, I think the redirects can go back in place. Mtking (edits) 05:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
A few more people have come on board, but I think a bit more time is needed. Since the nice expansion of the omnibus, there hasn't been a formal support/oppose thread. Why not spend a bit more time making sure it is presentable in a way that will shift as many people as possible. With thousands of daily visitors to the stand-alones, the redirects will cause a surge of visitors to the new omni. If they don't like it, they may revert the redirect and go ape again. So, why not throw the whole kitchen sink into the omni, including the table kelapstick describes as "...A table within each section, converting the results sections of each event into tables...". Then, start a support/oppose thread at the omni talk. If the omni looks good, I think general approval can be achieved. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It is very clear that a support/oppose thread won't work, because the second it starts we will have the forums piling oin with with oppose on why cant we have both, so it is a waste of time, either we put the redirects in place or we go to AfD. Mtking (edits) 05:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Me thinks not. Have faith. First, AfDing the stand-alones, and with such eagerness and haste is perceived as a tactic, and seems heavy-handed. This isn't about killing the stand-alones. It's about moving them to the omni. (Technically, replacing whole articles with redirects is sort of circumventing the proper merge procedure. But, I think people won't take issue with it.) I think this is a question of selling the omnibus. The honey not vinegar approach. Make a good product, make the redirects, open a discussion at talk, and sure, a bit of a storm will come. But, forum folks tend to just say "idontlikeit" and "stand-alones are notable enough to stand alone" again and again. The first doesn't hold much water. The second can be countered with: But then some of the 20 will certainly be deleted as they are not notable. (There's no inherent notability consensus, right?) Then there will be gaps? Can you live with that? Whereas, the omni is comprehensive in that it contains all the content plus all the events. Citing policy doesn't mean diddly to these folks. They care about what they're seeing. Satisfy the visitors and all will be well.
As it stands now, there are about 8+ who like the omni with good arguments, and 8 who don't with weak arguments. When they see the new omni, I suspect that will shift in favour of the omni. That's as good as it's going to get, and is plenty good enough to maintain the new presentation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you
I'm glad someone is for fairness on wikipedia! Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yongle Emperor
Hi Anna,
I directed the students working on a related topic to the Yongle Emperor page, and found this paragraph to be pretty inadequate from a language perspective.
He was the Prince of Yan (燕王), possessing a heavy military base in Beiping. He became known as Chengzu of Ming Dynasty (明成祖 also written Cheng Zu, or Ch'eng Tsu (Cheng Tsu) in Wade-Giles) after becoming emperor (self title). He became emperor by conspiring to usurp the throne which was against Hongwu Emperor's wishes.
I'm anything but a Ming historian, so I didn't feel comfortable changing the language without an understanding of the issues. (For one thing, I thought the temple names were given posthumously)， but I might give you a heads-up, in case you had an idea of who might wish to fix it.
Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmmmm, tricky. Maybe the student can shed some light. Come time for the helpers to review, if it's too ambiguous, we will have to remove it. If it is borderline, we can add [clarification needed], hoping that someone who knows will fix it. You can post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, but am not sure if you will get satisfaction. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your efforts have not gone unnoticed.
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For keeping a cool head during the current MMA discussions. Even when you have differing ideas, you avoided conflict and have been helpful in getting others to see the positive benefits of the recent changes. Your contributions during the "brawl" have consistently been constructive and have helped serve as an example to others about the proper way to disagree without being disagreeable. I think everyone appreciates the way you stayed open minded about the changes until there was enough of an article to judge the merits objectively. Thanks! Dennis Brown (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and likewise to you. Folks on your side have suffered a few slings and arrows, and have remained cool. I admire that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I watched one of these on telly. My goodness! These guys actually bleed everywhere! Are you aware of this? I haven't seen anything so horrific since Pee Wee Herman stepped on Arm-hold Schwartzennegger's foot at that red carpet gala. I hear doctors had to use a marlin spike to untie the lad. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a pretty violent sport, not something I watch personally. My participation in the "events" here at MMA was just to aide in the transition, not to get involved with the actual content. I went from nominating many of the MMA articles due to policy considerations, to supporting the omnibus system because I agreed it was a better solution than deleting all the content. It is good to see that others are coming around and beginning to understand that our goals are the same: to preserve the content, even if that means formatting it differently than before. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Email
This is just a note to say that I have sent you an email. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited British Rail sandwich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Main (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) 09:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello! Thanks! --Sinwense (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It looks like it is going to be AfD after all. Mtking (edits) 20:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
What makes you say that? If it does, don't worry. The chips will fall where they may. I doubt it will end up deleted as it contains content that doesn't appear anywhere else.
The AfDs may end up being over which {{main}}s should exist, which is where this started. The peaceful way of doing this may have been to quietly create the omnibus, then quietly merge tag the individual events. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
In light of this[2], where you chose to comment, I wish to address you directly to state: I meant in its essence what I said when I awarded Q. the barnstar. And I am sorry he didn't see it that way. This seemed like a good way to thank him for his help thus far. If I was remiss in the way I thanked him, I am truly sorry. Therefore there was no need to run to Q.'s 'defence' and no need to try to make me feel worse than I already do. As to Q., I sense he may be in pain in his private life, or something to that effect, and I can understand his loss of temper. I lose mine frequently.—Djathinkimacowboy 12:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Your statements: "...good way to thank him for his help..." and "...no need to try to make me feel worse than I already do..." seem disingenuous and loaded to the nines.
Speculating on Q, the person, with "...he may be in pain in his private life..." is utterly inappropriate.
I strongly suggest that you comment on edits, not editors, and also that you read more discussions to better familiarize yourself with protocol and mode of conduct used here at WMF.
Now, as they said to each other in England 200 years ago: Good day to you, sir! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Einstein said, "Against stupidity, there is no argument." Choose to interpret it any way you like. It isn't the first time I have been deliberately accused in a false manner, which is what you are now doing. At least Q. didn't do that. You strike me as trouble. At the least, do me the favour of keeping out of my contacts with Q.—Djathinkimacowboy 13:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I interpret that edit as calling me stupid. I see a pattern in your edits of veiled insults with the pretense of earnestness and good faith. I don't buy it, and it doesn't take a genius to see it.
I will comment at Q's talk where I feel appropriate, unless Q objects, which he indeed may, with no offence taken by me. He doesn't play favourites. He is just about the most objective and neutral editor I know.
I would like to drop this. I prefer to edit in the mainspace. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:AHEM--my take on this is you are quite the nasty hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.156.196 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll add it to my list. Just in the past week I've also been called:
So thanks. That sort of fills in the missing one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I doubt it was "missing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.105.240 (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If you don't stop socking, your 1 month block will get extended to indefinite. Just take a break, and come back sans drama and BS. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey you IP, that here was uncalled for. Anna, do you need some help?512bits (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
YES for god's sake help her!! Call O'Brien! Tell him you need the ratcage!!!76.195.87.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC).
Still socking, already indef, looking at range block per ANI. Sad and needless, really, and could have easily been avoided if not for the socking. Dennis Brown(talk) 18:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I've semi-protected your talk page so an unregistered IP can not edit or harass you here. I set the time to 3 days as that should give the admins. working on the range-block time to figure out what needs to be done. If you object to your page being protected for a bit, say so and I'll gladly undo the protection. (or any other passing admin is free to do so). I don't know the full back story, but it's not right that any user should be able to come to another editor's talk page and speak to them in such a degrading manner. As I say, if you object, I'll watchlist and remove the protection at your wish. cheers. — Ched : ? 20:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, my first protect. I shall try not to rub people the wrong way in the future. :) 3 days sounds fine. Many thanks for the help. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You must be doing something right then. :) — Ched : ? 23:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm so sorry you got dragged into that ugliness--from the history, it looks like it was djathinkimacowboy. I'm going to contact the blocking admin and see if it might be appropriate to just indef at this point. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
NM, I see that's already been done. Sigh. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem about the ugliness. It was more like strangeness, and no big deal. You said it looks like it was djathinkimacowboy? Like it could be me? :) I was mostly trying to diffuse stuff at your talk. I threw everything I had at it trying to make it okay, including bunnies! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
(Disclaimer: No bunnies were harmed during the incident.)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, here's what the Easter bunny is doing the rest of the year: [3]. Warning: do not watch if you do not enjoy aggressive bunny-perpetrated violence. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I couldn't see the facebook one, and can't see the youtube either. I'm in China where those are blocked. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
From Volkanc
Thanks Anna, i will get some media references to support the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkanc (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, my friend. But, as I said at your talk page, it may be difficult. I even checked google news archives and found nothing. Sometimes these organizations need time for media to notice and write about them. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I can't find sources either for the Nanjing Broadcasting Network company itself. Just lots of sources about their digital TV plans. Asking the management for materials is destined to get nowhere, ever, in a billion years. When you say "lose their work", the article's only a sentence long. What have they lost? Did they put in a lot of legwork trying? Maybe there's no choice but to switch topics. Sorry to say it.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I see. You mean the Education and Technology Channel article. I would chop the empty sections and move that to the mainspace. It has good chances of not being challenged. Besides, it's either that or delete it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I see 3 sources for Nanjing Education and Technology Channel. I'm confused. Again, when you say "lose their work", to what are you referring? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
wctaiwan is looking for some refs for Nanjing Broadcasting Network. Even with a single one, we can make the article about that, and include the channel content from the other within. The channel one needs huge chopping as it is POV. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that maybe the students can be asked to expand Nanjing Broadcasting Network instead (is it too late for that?), and work on turning this article into a section in that one (after trimming the POV issues). I was able to find a few third-party sources in Chinese by searching for 南京广电集团, though we may have to rely on their own site for much of the article. wctaiwan (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, posted feedback on their draftpage, suggesting that it would be necessary to make it a section of Nanjing Broadcasting Network. Wctaiwan: could you maybe link the sources you found in the feedback section？
I've left a few links. It doesn't seem too easy to find directly relevant references, though, and it doesn't help that their own site doesn't even (seem to) have the typical "About Us" pages, only paragraph-length sidebars that don't provide much of a detailed history. wctaiwan (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Anna! I happened across a welcome template you used lately ({{subst:User:Anna Frodesiak/Welcome}}) which has an outdated link to Interiot's old edit counter tool. Interiot's no longer with us (alas!) and his Toolserver account has expired, which means the link in the template ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate/ Find out how many edits you have!]) is dead. Did you want to change the link to one of the currently supported edit counters, such as the X! counter, now supported by TParis? X!'s Edit Counter Just a thought. Cheers and see you around! GeoffWho, me? 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Replaced. Thanks for letting me know. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A barnstar for you!
The Excellent User Page Award
The name is enough, still you have got a wonderful userpage. One irrelevant question: Why don't you go for RfA? Yasht101 00:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I think it's time to update the pictures.
Thank you for your tireless banner assessments. You would be perfect for IRC help. You have the energy, and we've been a bit short of helpers there lately. :) PM me if you come online. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help. But what am I supposed to help in. Can you guide ? Yasht101 00:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Anna! Thanks for telling me about the channel. I was online at that time because I was feeling insomniac (local time was 3 am). So, can you tell me at what time UTC, you guys are online? Regards :) Yasht101 06:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page. Message added 07:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. When you recently edited Wu Mi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jingyang (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) 10:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Science lovers wanted!
Science lovers wanted!
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Work on UFC pages.
You did a great job with those UFC articles. I'm sad you've given up, but I can understand why. It's clear you and the majority of people on here are right, but amazingly two very stubborn, very silly people have taken control of hundreds of pages. The effort was much appreciated anyway. 90.192.254.52 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. But, I wouldn't call them silly. They are doing what they think is best, despite their position being based on bureaucracy. The real pity is that the keepers say "I like them. Keep them.", and not much more. I felt alone.
I am considering starting a new "inherent notability" thread. It is locking horns with someone and getting nowhere that I must avoid.
It seems that common sense is being ignored. By virtue of the nature of the sport, it's easy to make a claim for enduring significance. Enduring notability? That's just too easy:
The target of this campain: all 2012 UFC event articles, most of which haven't even taken place yet, shows a total of around 130,000 hits per day. That's roughly 4 million hits per month. That sounds inherently notable to me.
The terrible pity is that a single, well-intentioned editor is driving a campaign that may result in 20 well-sourced, comprehensive articles being deleted, and 4.5 million clicks a month ending in disappointment. That just doesn't seem right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
If I might WP:TALKSTALK, UFC 135 which took place on year before UFC 142 usually gets below 300 hits per month. UFC 108 which took place two years before UFC 142 also gets less than 300 hits per month. To me, this seems like a sign of WP:RECENTISM as UFC events that have recently occurred or are about to occur get a lot of hits. However, as time passes, they are viewed fewer times. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Of course, my friend, you are always welcome to stalk and comment at my page. :)
This seems like a sign of enduring notability to me.
I hear a lot of talk about "what the encyclopedia is supposed to be about". It is supposed to be about what the public wants it to be about, and what information the public seeks out. These figures speak very loudly.
Now, the bureaucratic camp, in my opinion out of touch with the real world (as evidenced by the page hits), is running out of non-bureaucratic reasons. Don't be afraid to change your mind on this. When new information comes along, we are supposed to adjust our points of view. I've been doing that the whole time with this matter. Please, consider switching camps. What do you think? :)
Feel free to knock yourself out, unfortunately there are two opposing views here, one, that believes that WP can and should cover everything, the other that feels there should be limits on what WP covers. Like it or not the current status of WP is that we do have limits, they are codified in the policy WP:NOT, with various guidelines used to indicate how they are applied. To either change that or to have any sport treated differently there would need to be a wiki-wide RFC and quite frankly I don't think there will be a consensus to change that position at this time (you might also find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game interesting to demonstrate the issue is not limited to MMA, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India for news items). That said I do believe there should be a wiki for sports, much like we have wikinews for news there should be a wikimedia project for sports articles an results. Mtking (edits) 05:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm with the latter: "...there should be limits on what WP covers..." The guidelines that determine that, deliberately use terms like "...not all verifiable events..." "...should..." "...may not be...". This is so we can use our judgement.
Again football is not UFC, and the case of 2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame seems incomparable.
I don't have a lot of good things to say about Wikinews.
Creating a separate Wikisports makes no sense to me. What would happen to all the links? When a team mascot is an okapi, and the event is played in Schleswig-Holstein, how would we link to that? Why on Earth shouldn't Wikipedia have comprehensive sports articles? People who use Wikipedia to learn about daffodils will never encounter them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I just realized. You didn't respond at all to the 4 million hits per month concern. How do you respond to that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's push through this.
You say no enduring notability. You cite guidelines.
I say guidelines deliberately use terms like "...should...", allowing for judgement calls.
You cite the same guidelines.
I contend that a 2-year-old article still getting 6k hits a month shows enduring notability.
You cite the same guidelines.
I contend that a these massive, and enduring hit numbers supersede the guidelines.
Now you. It's your turn. In a sentence, where are you now? Retort. Please, let's move forward. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You asked for my position in a sentence so it is this :
If any event is to show enduring notability, there needs to exist sources giving analysis of the event (i.e. demonstrating the significance of it, not just what happened) after the initial news cycle has passed.
I have not responded about clicks as to me they don't assist in assessing the event, I am no position to judge what or where they are coming from, are they just WP mirrors and search engines or are they actual viewers, in the same way Google hits are not used as a measure I cant see how page impressions can be used as a guide to anything.
There is also another problem with these UFC events, take the two articles you listed above as examples (UFC 108 and UFC 108), there is nothing in either article about the actual event other than the results table, no prose discussing what were the significant moments in the event, no discussion of the event at all, the only prose is discussing the gossip and speculation leading up to the event, the same is true for UFC 142. Mtking (edits) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Good points, and thank you for being straighforward. Please remember that I am only trying to find what's best. I can be swayed. I am not simply pushing a POV.
Hits: Well, DYK uses it. I gather that it is visitors finding out about the event. I would like some expert opinion on that. Suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It is my position, and it is not contradictory to notability is not temporary, and is directly addressed by WP:PERSISTENCE. I don't agree that MMA is either comparable to a major hurricane or election or that they don't get coverage after initial news cycle is over. Mtking (edits) 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Email
Please check your mail.. Yasht101 16:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
RfA
I'm considering running the gauntlet at WP:RFA. Since you have observed my actions under the worst of circumstances, the "Great Battle of the MMA Merge", I would invite you to voice an opinion as to whether or not this is a good idea on my talk page, in the current discussion. Feel free to ignore this request if you prefer, no offense will be taken. Dennis Brown(talk)(contrib) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting
Anna, I'm personally sad to see you leave the UFC omnibus debate. You were obviously the most well versed with specific WP guidelines and how to convincingly back up an argument citing policies etc. The majority of people that are going to be adversely affected by TreyGeek and MtKing are just casual users like me that came to WP to view the single event pages because they are the best single sources of consolidated, easy to use, information regarding the event - sounds like that pretty well meets the intent of WP's existence if you ask me. What is ultimately going to happen is after they get done slashing and burning as much of the UFC/MMA articles as they can, people like me are simply going to stop using WP because it will be pointless. The omnibussing just does not work for these type of articles. I don't know anything about how the ultimate decision to keep articles or move to omnibussing gets decided. All I know how to do is voice my opinion which I've done, but those guys obviously don't care what the vast majority of users think and I imagine are just going to go through with the conversion. Ultimately I just wanted to say thanks for your input on the matter, take care. Pull lead (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Actually, I'm trying to leave, but they keep pulling me back in. :) I am still considering a final notability post. Perhaps "...inherently notable..." won't fly, but maybe "...considered notable..." will. Just to bounce this off of you: I've been examining page hits. The UFC XXX events get lots of hits, in the hundreds of millions a year. I think they deserve articles. The others get much fewer. What about those being part of an omnibus? Those are certainly vulnerable to AfD and would find a perfect home in the omnibuses. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that since the UFC is the premier Mixed Martial Arts organization and has literally built the sport upon its shoulders since the sports inception in 1993 that its events should have single articles. As you are aware, the traffic clearly merits it. I also think that PRIDE Fighting Championships (a defunct Japanese organization that ran from 1997 to 2007) should also have its events as single articles because it was equally as important in the explosion of the sport's evolution. From 2000-2007 the sports best fighters were in Pride which is the time when the sport really grew from a fringe spectacle into a mainstream sport and the Pride events are largely the reason for it. I do think that pretty much every other minor organization could be without much opposition included in an omnibus such as EliteXC, WEC, Jungle Fight, King of the Cage, BAMMA, Strikeforce, and whatever other minor league shows have events with single articles. If all a minor organzation's event article includes is simply the fight results and no other valuable data then I personally wouldn't oppose to it being omnibus. I guess in the end I still don't understand the purpose of the omnibus in the first place. It just creates one extremely large, nonuser friendly conglomeration of event data. It also makes it more cumbersome to view events because it isn't convenient to access the thing at the bottom of each event page that has links to all other events. It's not like it saves any space and it isn't as though there are other articles that would be called UFC on FX: Diaz vs. Miller that currently cannot exist because of the UFC's event article. The idea behind the witch hunt has never even attempted to be clearly communicated, let alone justified in common sense terms. As you say, if an article is vulnerable to AfD, then the omnibus would be a great home for it, but if the UFC's events are piecemealed between single articles and omnibusses it will be a very messy and confusing way to organize the information I think. Pull lead (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
That makes good sense. I think a compromise is in order. To ensure complete coverage of the year, the omnibus is a great idea. But, to stuff all UFC XXX in causes huge problems, and screams to be split up. Ideally, agreeing on notability for UFC XXX, with the others in the omni (and the omni having a listing of the UFC XXX) is best. I have suggested this compromise a few times. I have looked for solutions. It just falls on deaf ears. Perhaps TreyGeek will see the light: User talk:TreyGeek#Luke Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It just creates one extremely large, nonuser friendly conglomeration of event data. It also makes it more cumbersome to view events because it isn't convenient to access the thing at the bottom of each event page that has links to all other events. It's not like it saves any space... <-- This sums it up for me. I'm assuming if the nominating party had their way then every UFC XXX page would redirect to 2012 in UFC events which would be an exercise in futility... especially given WP is Not Paper. Anyway - I just came by to share similar thoughts to Pull lead above and say thank you for your common sense approach and rational arguments on the subject. Glen 03:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Your comments please
Hi, please have a look at this as I see that you have made a comment previously. ► Philg88 ◄talk 07:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Turtle farming
Dear Dr. Frodesiak - from your wonderful contributions I am guessing that you are a biologist who spends quite a bit of time in Hainan. I am neither, but a while back, I wrote the article Turtle farming, which mentions that a lot of those farms are in Hainan. I don't have a photo of one, however: I've never been to Hainan - and anyway, it's unlikely they'd let me in on a farm to take a picture. But if by some chance your professional or personal interests take you to such a farm, a photo will be so much appreciated! -- Vmenkov (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Me? A doctor? :) I'm working on the turtle thing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
In Ireland, it is tradition that the seventh son of a seventh son is named Doctor. Don't ask me to source that because it is just something that I have assimilated over many years of knowing Irish people, camping/hiking there & generally having a good time etc. Nonetheless, it would seem that not all doctors are, erm, doctors. If the tradition applies elsewhere in the world then perhaps the clue lies somewhere in your ancestry (and just perhaps a change of gender!). Good stuff on the turtles etc - I pop into that sort of thing for a look-see every now and again, mainly to see how a classy editor does things ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Does this mean 1 in 7 doctors there are thinking to themselves: "Hmmm, it's big and red. Must be the liver. Saayyyyy, wasn't I wearing a watch when I started this operation? Oh, well. I'm not going to go fishing around in there for ten minutes." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Ha! Possibly ;) The guy that looks after my ear problems has retired. He is Irish and was a (rather old) team-mate of mine when I played rugby union. He is now writing a biography concerning a brother of Oscar Wilde. The supposed reason is that OW's brother was a pioneering ENT surgeon but the consequence is that Fergus (my retired man) has to take regular trips across the Irish Sea to Dublin ... and spend money in bars that he can then claim off his UK tax. What a life, eh?I think that seventh sons of seventh sons who bear the name "Doctor" should perhaps at least try to use their honorary title in pursuit of convincing the Catholic Church that permitting use of contraception might be A Good Thing. But that is just my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks much for your response! Incidentally, do you think you can categorize this creature (a millipede?), at least to the phylum or class? -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure. It's in the Class: "Office supplies". It's a ball point pen. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a biologist, but looks like a species of Thyropygus ("tiger millipede") to me. BabelStone (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
BabelStone, thanks very much. It certainly looks tiger-like enough! Interestingly, even though this Thyropygus genus was important enough for some people to write a book on it, the English Wikipedia does not have an article either on this genus or on the family Harpagophoridae, and even the article on the order Spirostreptida is just a stub. -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
You're right. I think some taxonomy sections need expanding. Thyropygus and other genera simply missing?? Not a single match at search. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
There is sometimes no helping the mma fans, the continued removal of a maintenance template meant to attract other editors to find sources to help demonstrate it meets WP:EVENT so that there is no need to delete delete or redirect the article. Mtking (edits) 23:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. As you can see, I have joined the effort to restore deleted notability templates. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I have never understood why fans of a subject are so quick to want maintenance templates removed when doing so reduces the chance of other editors fixing the underlying issue, it like they see them as a badge of shame or something. Mtking (edits) 02:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
No reasoning with MMA fans
Today is another example of the maturity of the MMA fanboys (I don't know what else to call them). They continue to use sockpuppets to avoid bans and attack everyone who disagrees with them by vandalizing their user and talk pages, and even their edits. Just today I was called a sockpuppet, vandal, dick, and troll--all before I'd made any edits. Even edits on articles about non-MMA subjects were targeted.
Their belief that nothing MMA can be removed is shown by the fact that removal of articles on events by organizations that aren't even second tier are derided. Given the long and illustrious history of American boxing there are 100 articles on American boxers, yet there are 842 articles on American MMA fighters for a relatively new sport. I believe most of them have never fought for a major promotion and even fewer meet WP:MMANOT#Fighters. I've seen articles on people who haven't even fought MMA, but have announced they're going to. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
You may be right. I'm having a heck of a time figuring out what's best. I'm unfortunately the only one who sees both sides. There are strong arguments for the keepers and deleters both.
Anyway, maybe we should call them MMA fans instead of fanboys, as that is a bit derogatory. Plus, there are women in the audience, actually yelling stuff, which is strange. You don't see men at fashion shows screaming "Yeah! Did you see the way she got to the end of the runway and turned around and went back looking all stuck up and everything!?!?"
It looks like WP:PERSISTENCE is the reason for the problem. Mtking and TreyGeek are abiding by it. We can't blame them for following the rules. Now, changing the rules might be an option, but I don't know how that would go - probably not well. Then again, that is a guideline and not a policy, and it says "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.". I personally think that if a year later, the page still gets tens of thousands of page views, that's evidence that it's notable, particularly to those tens of thousands of people.
Who decides what is notable for Wikipedia? Not MMA fans. Is Goniobranchus annulatus notable to MMA fans? Nope. But that can remain with one reference, no page hits, and no news cycle. Why? Because the masses don't decide notability, The Wikipedia community does. Who are they? Not MMA fans for the most part. So, inclusion criteria is shaped by their view of what this encyclopedia should be like, not that of the masses. Should it be determined by the masses? In my view, that's common sense. But their voice is heard via page views, not policy discussions at backpages, because they don't know those backpages exist. Therein lies the rub. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
This is the first time I've called them fanboys (although others have) and I meant it as derogatory. They long since lost the benefit of the doubt for AGF and they should be called boys because their actions show they lack the maturity of adults. I've said at other AfDs that I wouldn't want to attempt to delete UFC articles, whether I thought they deserved it or not, because of the reaction it would generate. Unlike a couple of years ago, reasonable/civil conversation has not been possible with the current crop of MMA fans whose credo is "Everything about MMA should be on Wikipedia! Disagree and we'll attack you!" Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand how you feel. But two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, while one camp may be unfair in its manner, the other may be unfair in its strategy.
The strategy of the two of you unrelentingly replying with guidelines at every single comment at every single thread on every single page is not fair play at all. It is really gaming the system, in my view. I'd much rather a foul-mouthed politician than one who works the system. How do you respond to my contention that this is a strategy to overwhelm and exhaust the opposition, and to amplify your voices louder than the mere two that you are? Do you think that's fair? Best wishes and good sportspersonship, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe we're done here since you apparently would rather make false accusations. Considering I haven't even posted at all of the AfD discussions on UFC events (and none of the posts I did make were in the past week) I don't how I'm "gaming the system" by "unrelentingly replying with guidelines at every single comment at every single thread on every single page". I also don't know what cabal you believe I'm in when you keep refering to the "two of you". Blasting me and comparing me to sneaky politicians and then saying "best wishes" has all the sincerity of the mugger who tells his victim "Have a nice day." Papaursa (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sooooo sorry. I thought I was responding to Trey. I got confused because I was typing zillions of messages one after the other. I didn't mean you. So sorry. Please forgive me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeh Chuan-Chen
Hi. One horrible machine translation, or so it seems. Needs a rescue from someone who knows something about the subject, and/or someone who can understand the Chinese original. Or possibly it may need the prod endorsing as non-notable... Peridon (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't find it. Do you have a link please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Odd indeed. I'm sure I even pasted the name into search.
What to do? Hmmmm, pull the plug. This is a drop-and-run article with no refs. Really, I don't know what else to suggest. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
There's quite a filmography at zh:葉全真 - or what looks like one, anyway. I make no claims to read Chinese. If there's nothing of note in it, I think we just let the prod run its course. I've just run a Google translate on the first part, and it looks better than whatever they used. Still got things like "Actress Whose real name is CLAY MINERALS English name of Elsie Nickname leaves" in it though. Peridon (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Clay minerals? Dear oh dear. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
My Talk ....
Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Mtking (edits) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
This IP Address 81.178.38.169 has openly threatened my family through a scathing letter and even wrote to my school for writing an honest message on his talk page, believing it was harassing him. Yasht, I will agree at this stage it did get out of hand, because he was using language not appropriate and he made something big out of threatening to complain to JasperDeng. I just spoke for him, and then this threats against my school and family? Forget it, I can't work under an environment here. To people, I have been retiring weekly because I don't feel the need to work, but then I keep coming back, Wikipedia was hard to give up. Now I don't want to come back because of what one IP address has done.
”
This is the reason behind his retirment. Yasht101 16:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(Redacted)
Privacy infringing/disruptive material has been redacted. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what to make of any of this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Anna Frodesiak. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You forgot when talking about consensus to mention WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. MMA fanboys agreeing something can't override wider policy, we all know that the fans like the pages, I am sure NFL fans would like a page on every NFL game, or Cricket fans would love a page on every test match, or netball fans on their sport. In the cases of these AfD's none of the MMA fans are using valid reasons to why MMA should be exempt from the existing policies. Mtking (edits) 02:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
In reading WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I see "...Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale...". It is not a limited groups of editors, and you have no proof of that. It is not at one time, nor at one place. Plus, there is no community consensus outside of this supposed group. In fact, there is great opposition. Please don't call them fanboys. Where there were once many IPs, we now see plenty of editors who have taken the time go register. They have equal status, and are expressing their views on the UFC articles. Please don't demean them. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I would hope that everyone could be more civil, initially I was impressed with Anna Frodesiak thoughtfulness and the way she handled herself in discussions, However, now you seem to be engaged in votestacking,and helping to gather people for SPA's, etc.216.55.51.54 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Me? How? Please tell. I'm not doing anything intentionally. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Help MMA Help itself
Hi Anna F,
A big thankyou for all your assistance on the MMA issue. I appreciate your efforts and your frustration that MMA supporters are not better at expressing themselves in the correct WP manner.
If you get past some of the victrol (MMA fans are passionate) you will see you have some fans!, but there is also a lot of confusion on how to go about defending thier sports' notoriety and wiki pages. Perhaps you could consider either posting in the thread or creating a thread to give some hints and tips to the uninitiated?
PS I have created this account just to send this message - i will try to learn more myself to assist in this endeavour
Many Thanks, Trok333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trok333 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I am just trying to stick up for what I think is right. But, looking at the post above, I sure don't want to encourage everyone to take my side. Everyone was already on that side before. I just joined it. :)
The best plan for everyone is to read all the guidelines and policies they can. And also read up on how to conduct one's self in AfD, and how to present an argument. I bet if people do that, then lots will actually agree with the other side. This is not cut and dry. There are pretty good arguments on both sides.
Anyhow, I do hope you stay and become a good editor. You can always bug me for advice. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
These edits are way inappropriate inside an AFD
If you want to have a personal discussion, discuss it on my talk or your talk. If the standard of discussion in a formal procedure is that an editor's years old contributions will be questioned, the subject under discussion will never be discussed. BusterD (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm very sorry. I really had no intention of attacking you personally. You are welcome to remove from the AfD whatever part of my post you like that pertains to your editing pattern.
Again, forgive me. I've just been appalled lately, or "appauled" if look it up in The Anna Dictionary of Utter Stupidity.
I felt that whether an editor's contributions are a year old or a day old, they give context. Others who comment at the AfD discussion find their edits under scrutiny. Those with few, or UFC-only edits are pointed out, as are those with poor behaviour at other pages. Then again, I guess it's not like jury selection. Your argument is your argument. I guess you're right. It's probably inconsequential.
More than anything, I just want to understand. Everyone seems to have a vision of what they want this living thing to look like. We have guidelines to it doesn't go completely haywire, and I abide by them and think they're really important. But, they are filled with "probably" and "likely". Common sense should prevail. So, please tell me why WP:XXX trumps common sense? And if this off-AfD place is as good as any, please help me understand the point I raised. Actually, as you said, on the AfD page is inappropriate, and i gather this page is as good as yours, so I hope it's okay to paste the issue here. It's a little soapboxy, but at least it's not splattered all over your talk, and I'll tone it down.
The UFC article you would like to delete on notability grounds has 15 good refs, is about an international event, passes many guidelines and policies, received 300,000 visits in a day, and still gets over 2,000 a day.
In contrast, Nabih's Inc. peaked out at 19, and now gets one hit a day. Small Dog Electronics doesn't do much better.
Approving of small business articles while wanting deletion of international event articles seems like a contradiction. I personally don't like company articles because in 30 years, half of them will be out of business or merged, and will just become an ocean of wikipollution, but that's another matter.
I know we're supposed to ignore how visited an article is, for some reason. But, serving the masses is supposed to carry some weight, because, well, that's what we're here for. We wouldn't be putting all this together if nobody was reading it. I feel like common sense is being defied here and nobody notices. Please explain. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the recent note. I should also be thanking you for all of the outstanding work you've been adding to all of these discussions. I appreciate it. Udar55 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. I don't even know how I got sucked into this vortex. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much
For being the only sane person in the MMA-related AfDs, ma'am. Teamsleep (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I think everyone is sane here. We just have different viewpoints. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. –sumone10154(talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I just moved it back w/o a redirect instead of speedying. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 01:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much. It appears that a helper just moved talk instead of article. I just did the proper move. All should be in order now. Thanks very much. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Appalled or not, it does not matter to me.
Frankly Anna, I can't see what you are contributing to the MMA debate, you seem to be in it to cause a drama; last night you posted what can only be discribed as a rant against my redirection of the UFC pages yet not 3 weeks past you told me to restore them with your blessing. You complain about my tactics, but respond to threats of off-wiki forums to track down editors with the phrase "That sucks and I'm sorry to hear about it." you also fail to acknowledge that the MMA side has been using socks, votestacking, off and on wiki canvassing (you yourself come very close to it with cross posting links to AfD) I have lost count of the number of IP's and editors blocked for socking at MMA AfD's. I could go on and on about lack of sources from non-mma media, sources from after the event, lack of prose covering the actual event rather than just gosip leading up to the event, but what's the point ? I am as unlike to convince you that they need to demonstrate any claim to enduring notability as you are to convince me that they are automatically notable. Mtking (edits) 05:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It should matter to you. If I relentlessly pushed to shape an article how I thought best over almost unanimous objection, I would desist. What I am seeing is two people with a master plan to cram 200 articles into a handful of omnibus articles, and almost everyone screaming stop.
Drama? I detest this whole backpage fiasco. I've got better things to do. Look at my contribs and my talk archives. You will see no drama. You will see very, very little conflict.
Rant? I speak up when I see something is not right. I very strongly stated my objections to what I see as unfair conduct. When I suggested that you restore them with my blessings, it was before I knew the whole scope of the matter. You forgot to mention that before that it was I who restored the 6 articles that you replaced with redirects without consensus. I have changed my views several times during this as events unfolded, and as I learned more of what happened, in particular the massive objection to the plan.
It does indeed suck to hear threats. It is horrific, reprehensible, and inexcusable. I was not being sarcastic at all. What more do you want me to say? I don't represent those people, and obviously condemn threats.
I had no idea cross posting would be considered inappropriate. Please let me know if it's not allowed. I was acting in good faith. I did it to make others aware of the matters. Your opponents are at a huge disadvantage, in that they have lots of trouble even finding these discussion pages. My interest is in them all seeing every page and guideline related to this matter. That's one of the reasons I became involved here. I saw two editors running circles around those without the experience and knowledge resources to assemble a congent argument.
But, before you accuse me of inappropriate actions, what have you to say about the dozen or so actions I describe in my "rant"? Many went far beyond inappropriate. I laid them out point by point. You haven't responded. All I've ever heard when confronting you with these issues is "well, you thought it was okay at the time". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought it should have been clear when I said "I am as unlike to convince you that they need to demonstrate any claim to enduring notability as you are to convince me that they are automatically notable" that I feel it would be a waste of electrons to respond to them. As this has now moved to off wiki harassment I have posted to ANI. If you really want to help you can, as alluded to by TreyGeek, help rather than complain, why not propose a RfC question that can establish how the existing policies and guidelines WP:NOT, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT should be applied to MMA events. Mtking (edits) 07:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Harassment? Please tell me how. If you're referring to my posting at your talk objecting to your conduct, well, I never heard you to tell me not to. I can't read the ANI. The connection cuts before the whole page loads.
On the other hand, I, and others have felt pretty darn harassed and stalked by not being able to post anywhere without your instant response. I have been as on your case this past few days as you have been to dozens of others for months. And I would like to point out that I've been on your case about misconduct. That's something I have the right to bring up.
You are dishing out a lot of accusations here, without addressing the long list of complaints against your own conduct. That doesn't seem fair at all. Anna Frodesiak (talk)
I never said they were automatically notable. I've cited many, many guidelines and policies.
Oh, and I've suggested a number of solutions a number of times. They've fallen on deaf ears. I've always talked about outcomes. Neither of you have responded. I have proposed a number of times, the compromise that UFC XXX not be AfDd if they are satisfactory, and that others be part of the omnibus. I still think that's probably the only decent solution. Why not respond to that this time, please. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I was not accusing you of harassment; sorry if it appeared that way.
But you have not indicated how you would apply them to MMA events, I have, any event that has a RS from after the event has finished and the news cycle has passed that is more than a routine sports report. Mtking (edits) 08:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all. I'm sorry about saying the stalking thing too. :)
This quarreling isn't getting us anywhere. Let's work on a compromise together and make the RfC. I can't bear the thought of you sitting at your computer saying "That %^#$## witch Anna!" I'm really just trying to do what's best, and I know you are too. Probably, the biggest annoyance for both of us, isn't each others' position, but the way we are going about it. A solution would be for us both to be on the same side working for a compromise.
I don't exactly know how to go about this. This is where your help is invaluable. Should it be about UFC or MMA or what? Why don't we spell out different ways it could be. We could also do the same for ways we really object to. Personally, I don't know about MMA other than UFC. And from what I read, UFC is the biggie. Other event articles outside of UFC can fall where they may as far as I'm concerned. So, what do you think? Can we be friends and work together to turn failure and frustration into success and satisfaction? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
For me, transparency is key, from WP:N down through to WP:GNG and WP:EVENT it talks about sources, what drives the encyclopaedia is what other reliable bodes are talking about, to that end I would like to come up with something that not only is constant with other guidelines, would stand the test of time and covers all MMA events from promoters past, current and not yet formed. Mtking (edits) 09:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
You didn't say "Yes. We can work together and be friends."!! :) Come on! Say it.
Okay. That makes sense.
Now, here's another plan, a plan that we should consider before an RfC:
I just read the "Admin Attention on MMA" and "Problem editor, take 489". Nasty, nasty stuff. So, the forums have a big community who hate what's happening here. What are we going to do? Repel them? Fight them? No. There's common ground here. We all want articles that stand and cannot be deleted. You say that prose is out there, and that such prose can make articles solid. Okay. These guys are pretty passionate about MMA. Open a dialogue. Turn them into Wikipedians. Seek their understanding.
What do we have to lose? Nothing much. The relationship between Wikipedia and Bloodyelbow/Sherdog people can't get much worse. Socks and meat abound. Opposition to any RfC will be strong.
What do we have to gain? A crew of dedicated, self-policing editors who expand articles to make them worthy, and all see that some sort of compromise is the best and only way forward. Wikipedia is pretty addictive. They hate Wikipedia? Heck, turn them into Wikipedians. Let's try to recruit them. Let's communicate with them at their own forums and invite them. (Are we allowed to do that?) Sign up an army of dedicated and passionate MMA editors. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes we can work together, the issue is that WP wants prose the fans want stats, gossip etc, WP demands verifiability, the fans want instant results, they don't care about sources citations, look at the article history of UFC 145 last weekend when the event was on, I cant see how both sides can reach a compromise here. Mtking (edits) 11:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
It's Good to See Another Human Being with Such Integrity and Genuine Interest in the Common Good. I Present You This!
The Barnstar of Integrity
Awarded for the unwavering dedication to the pursuit of the moral good and lawful neutrality where you saw it needed in the ongoing cause of the MMA community on wikipedia, even if the end is still not yet in sight. Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who steps in for the sole point of integrity and moral good, I present to you this barnstar in recognition of your pursuit of good without vested interest in the topic. Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!> (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That's very kind of you to say. Although my intentions are good, I am probably just a fly in the ointment. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Could we maybe say "I'm the person noticing the elephant in the room"? Of course, after a mammoth bowl of peanuts, I do sometimes feel like "the elephant in the room". ;) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
D'oh! Not the best phrasing on my part. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries. I'm far more ostrichesque than elephantine. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your hard work, and also you were right to call me out
First I want to say you were right to call me out for making an ad-hominem against Mtking, as no matter how much a situation may irritate me, those sorts of things are not conductive to any greater resolution of an argument.
Much more than that, I want to thank you for your tireless dedication to protecting the MMA project. Your superb work has been extremely valuable, as has your unyielding integrity. I am very grateful for what you are doing. Beansy (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
All is forgiven. It's so nice to hear this. Most editors just stick to their guns.
And you are too kind. I could have handled myself better. I've acted emotionally in response to what I perceived as unfairness. I should have been more thoughtful. Some say my behaviour has bordered on harassment. Actually, I think of it as a "jolly good measure of badgering". :) Plus, I mistook poor Papaursa for someone else, objecting to something he didn't do. Now he thinks I'm a witch. How did I end up here? Everything was so peaceful a week ago.
Anyway, I guess it's now time for us to all pull together and get this sorted out. I am confident that we can do that. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey Anna!
I'm glad to see you haven't given up on contributing to the back pages of these UFC articles. Like you advised, I contacted an administrator (the one in charge of the UFC 142 AfD) to help arbitrate what will most likely turn in to a heated discussion about WP:MMANOT. I, too, got discouraged while talking about these pages. But, I believe that if we stick with this discussion, and try our best to compromise, we can reach a conclusion that will hopefully make both sides happy. --Pattalk 02:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you're sticking with it too. You're showing your value very much.
I'm puzzled why WP:MMANOT carries any more weight than any thread on the matter. It's an essay. This should be about guidelines and policies for and against, and considering other factors, then compromise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
THE PLAN
First I must ask: Is your aim to see them fixed rather than deleted? If these articles are fixed up, can they stand on their own two feet? What percentage? Can all of them be well-sourced, contain prose, and be notable enough? What's your prognosis?
Okay. Here's the plan:
We prepare a statement and invitation to post at the forums.
I (because I'm on pretty good terms with them), register at Sherdog.org, Bloodyelbow.org, Crushedvertebrae.com, and whatever others, and post the statement and invitation to a discussion page here at the project.
It will be important not to get into a discussion there. But only to drop the message and leave. A statement including the five Ws, and most importantly, to clear up the misconception that you are not the problem. These folks feel like you are the gatekeeper and you control Wikipedia. We must convey to them that Wikipedia has a set of conditions for articles, and that you are trying to uphold those conditions, and if it's not you, it's somebody else. Let them know that we have a common goal. That is, to make MMA articles good so that they can't be deleted. Right now, they just think that you want to delete articles.
In the forum statement, we lay down the musts and the mustn'ts for articles to remain, as you stated above. We let them know that there are thousands of editors who may nominate them for deletion otherwise. That articles are vulnerable without those conditions met. That the best path isn't fighting when AfDd, isn't cursing the lack of common sense in guidelines, but ensuring that they don't AfD in the first place. That the power of the forum community is needed to help make these articles strong.
They arrive at the discussion page. The header there reiterates the must be/mustn't criteria is a rock, and it's pointless to bitch about it because the thousands who may AfD the articles aren't there listening. The header states that it is not a discussion to sell the articles to representatives of Wikipedia. Instead, all in the discussion are now Wikipedians, and we are here to figure out how to knock these articles into shape,
Then all hell breaks loose.
Eventually, the majority agree that this can be done, and that it's in everyone's best interest, and fun.
We let everyone know how serious the sock and meat thing is, and how it's no longer necessary, and doesn't work anyhow.
Signatures land at the Particpants list of the MMA project.
They all get addicted to Wikipedia, and start improving the articles.
This new group, then sees the occassional nasty pop up, and they themselves drop pianos on him, because he's suddenly part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
So your proposal is to canvass all the chat boards to bring more of those participants here. And tell them to play nice, and wait for all hell to break loose. That's your plan? BusterD (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yep. That's the plan. What could go wrong (the "all hell breaking loose" part notwithstanding)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The idea may well be sound in theory, however I suspect the only ones who would take up your invitation would be those who what nothing else other than the stand alone articles, given that current WP editors post things with the headings such as Let's take Wikipedia's MMA section over. Mtking (edits) 12:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. What could possibly go wrong? FTR, I linked to this discussion here. It's apparent you're already reading the thread, but doing due diligence. BusterD (talk)
I know it's a bit of a Hail Mary. I'm open to any better suggestion. I'm just trying hard for some way forward.
Yay! :) Thanks for pasting to the black sandbox, and calling me "reasonable". And yay for the support of Agathoclea.
I have to go to bed, and I have flu, so I only read the last two posts. Will read the rest tomorrow.
Now that those AfDs are done, and just to let you know that I'm not totally bonkers, I know my guideline-based argument for "keep" was weak. I am far closer to your viewpoint than you think. My motivation to enter the fray with based on more than that. It was also to encourage the "I like it so keep it" group to cite guidelines. It was also, because what I saw wasn't a fair fight. And it was common sense IAR style, because of the sheer number of established articles, the massive viewership, the outpouring of objections, the impracticality of the omni, and injustice of the system zapping them after the system was silent during all the hard work that went into their creation. I couldn't stand by and watch. I still feel there must be a better way. I'm not sure "THE PLAN" is that better way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Looking to step up my contribution to helping out with the ongoing MMA dispute
Hey there Anna,
Like you, I've seen the depth at which the current dispute exists in terms of it's degradation of civility, constructiveness and inter-editor relations over time. So too like you, I have tried in my own way to restore equality, however my approach may not have been one of admirable results in the past, though my now heavily neutral approach should rectify this.
But I drift from the point, up till now, as a relatively recent addition to the wiki community, I've been nervous about making modifications on a whole to the wiki itself and instead have focussed my efforts on reverting vandalism, trying to stick up for those who appearing to be victim to cyber-bullying on any level or suggesting edits. However, my strong sense of discomfort at seeing this developing issue and what appears to be many users, myself too in one occassion, becoming victim to sweeping generalisation and dismissal or even degradation and labeling has ignited that part of me which strongly objects to any form of intimidation, manipulation, namecalling and stereotyping and compelled me to push to make a more visible effort to defend the values of morality and this wiki than I had been doing so up to this point.
Of course, being a newbie myself, I was hoping that seeing you, a long term editor who appears to hold the same moral compass I hold dear, could help me find my bearings through pointing out any articles in need of immediate attention or discussions requiring input. Your assistance at the start of my first steps into significant presence on the visible side of the Page/Talk page boundaries would be greatly appreciated and help me establish as an editor my identity in the sense of how I tackle issues I see.
Well, I like the cut of your jib already. :) (I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I'm pretty sure it has to do with anatomy.)
Well, here, in point form are some thoughts in random order that might help:
The mainspace is more fun and rewarding.
The backpages can seem like work, and can shorten your time as a Wikipedian.
Pick your battles.
(Try to) have a thick skin.
I disagree with Wikipedia:Mind your own business a lot of the time. Stepping in as a neutral party can expedite a resolution. But, always ask yourself: "Should I just stay out of this?"
Stick up for injustice, but do a good background check first.
Try your hand at IRC. I help out there, and I bug people for instant information everyday. It's a great resource, and a great way to learn about WP:AfC.
Keep a tab with a junkbox open in edit mode during your session. That way you can double click BUNNY and type stuff in where you need it and paste it where you want. Once in a while, click edit again to refresh it back to how it was. I use that all the time.
Okay. That's all I can think of right now.
Oh, and talk page stalkers may have suggestions on articles or discussions needing input. I think there's some sort of thingy you can sign up for that posts suggestions at your talk. And of course, you can monitor AfDs etc.
Anna,
I've not looked over your history too much, but from what I've seen in the recent past and the history I did hunt down, I think you'd be an ideal candidate for being an admin. Is there a reason you aren't? Hobit (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
That's very kind of you to say. There are three main reason why not: 1) It's "work". 2) I hate the back pages. 3) At RfA, a single mistake like an incorrect CSD tag is pounced on and draws lots of opposes. I make lots and lots and lots of mistakes, bad calls, stupid choices, etc. :) Thank you, though. It's always nice to be asked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
4) Overqualification. :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
And Dennis: Oooooooooooooh, Auntie Anna's getting cross! Don't make me have to come over there! You're asking for a jolly good hiding! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Adminship does not have to be work. You are a fantastic contributor, with loads of experience and a great manner. There are other admins out there who use the mop infrequently but do so judiciously when they feel that it is necessary. Sure, there is a clamour around certain admins who perhaps like to be involved principally in that capacity, but making that a primary focus is not a requirement, and it is because of this that I am not going to name names! They do their stuff as and when but are fundamentally content creators/mediators etc rather than the more high profile blockers and such.We first encountered each other around a year ago and I have stalked since then: this is probably the third or fourth time that I have seen someone raise this question. Sure, I understand that the RfA process can be stressful and, yes, it is in many ways rather farcical, but you would be a shoo-in and given your experience over a wide range of articles I do think that your calm and considered judgment would be a net positive to the admin corps. I do not particularly care too much about the standard politically correct formula that admins are just contributors with a few extra housekeeping powers. It is correct in theory but the reality is that, to the vast majority of contributors, the inferred experience etc is a reality and they will weigh that in what ever it is that they do next. You've got it. You are good. Better than good, in fact. I have had a couple of similar proposals/queries but, geez, you cannot possibly compare us - you are a class act and a trusted contributor. Please, rethink this and I promise you that I will never knock on this door for your intervention etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
You are very sweet. Thank you. :) I haven't had so many compliments since I went to that Halloween party dressed as Dolly Parton. :)
Why is it that others have more faith in my editing than me? I guess there are reasons pro and con. It's the cons that worry me.
I think I would consider it if I knew what the RfA outcome would be. Is there as way to find out? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
It is the cons that worry me. But I really do not see that you have any reason for concern. I get into a lot of fights because of the subject area in which I tend to spend most of my time, and that means that there is potentially a substantial body of infrequent contributors who may turn up and stick their knives in. You get involved, sure, but there is something about your manner that transcends the situation in a way that many people cannot manage. I simply do not see how a RfA by you could fail. You know the policies, you are a regular contributor in the various relevant spaces and, surely, the fact that people keep asking you this question should give some measure of confidence. Yes, RfA seems sometimes to be a lottery but, honestly, I'd go out and buy a hat to eat if yours were to fail.Dolly Parton does nothing for me, BTW. Julia Roberts ... sigh, although the photo of her in that article is not great. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and while I fully accept the WP:BOLD concept, reticence is in my opinion not necessarily a bad attribute for an admin. If you have a mop then use it wisely. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pretty cautious. I tend to run screaming to IRC for guidance before I act. Then, once I know it, I'm fine. It's just that first time to be sure I'm getting it right.
So, really, is there a way to find out what an RfA outcome would likely be? That would probably be the scale-tipper for me. Oh, and J.R.'s lips are upside down. Liking her is the girl equivalent of liking Fabio. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Warts and all? Imperfections are what define us. And in this instance they are cute ;) But perhaps not in the case of Fabio (I am really not qualified to judge that one).No, short of canvassing I guess that there is no way to predict. Although someone at RfA recently (perhaps Dennis Brown?) did somehow manage to run a "pre-RfA" survey on their talk page & got a fair few responses. Basically, it was a request for comments regarding their chances and, to be honest, I thought that it was a rather borderline thing to do in terms of policy but, hey, I also rather liked the idea. I had never seen such a thing before and probably it was no different from the "user review" facility that any contributor can initiate for themselves. I could probably draw up a list of definite supporters right now, but I will not. You should know who they are from our mutual interactions and so will be able to work out that you have at least three to start off with (joking ya). Have a think, please. Since I am a dead cert supporter, you will not be canvassing me if you ask any questions etc. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I asked you on the IRC that why don't go for RfA and you told me that not in years. If Dennis can get through, I m sure you can without any problem ;) (JK)
I don't see any problem in your history (like a wrong CSD or fighting with editors), so why don't you go for it? Yasht101 03:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I thought about it. A few of the things I do are sort of admin-likeish I organize stuff. I try to stop people from fighting. I sort out a few messes here and there. What would the difference be between being an admin and how I am now? Tools! I just don't have tools. But, I know admins. They have tools. I call. They come and fix. That seems to work out fine.
It's probably best that I wait at least a year before thinking about it again. Thank you all for your kind words and consideration. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
You did well because you are very rounded with your experience. I have no experience lots and lots of areas. So, that's a factor. And, irrational as it is, my gut tells me that being an admin would be the beginning of the end of my interest in the project. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
If you ever change your mind, you know I've tried to persuade you in the past and I'm still happy to be a co-nom. In fact, it's pretty much the only reason I've got your page on my watchlist :P WormTT· (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I will keep it and you in mind. And please continue to watchlist my talk. I need the stalkers for when I get in a muddle. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Just following up with encouragement. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders and have the dispute resolution skills I'd like to see in an admin. I think with a bit of prep you'd be fine. Hobit (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Hobit. :) I don't know what to think anymore. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I would have supported you for admin, until I read this comment at one of the UFC deletion votes. Now I'll have to decide if your unbelievably solid work, good judgment, patience, and perseverance in the past overrides you conflicting with my WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT opinion about MMA events (just for clarification, I haven't !voted in any of those discussions because I know I can't do so fairly). Odds are, you'll still come out a winner in my book :) . Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ha ha. :) I thought the WP:GEOSCOPE argument was a rock, but alas it didn't spin. I'm with you on the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT side. Trouble is that there's WP:THEYREALLYUSEIT. I know, I know, half a billion annual visits to UFC articles are meaningless to Wikipedians.
Tracing my journey back: Visitors want the articles. But policies supersede what they want. Wikipedians make policies. So, Wikipedians, not the public own Wikipedia. They design it how they think it should be. Like "Want to have a say? Edit! As a user of articles, your views are meaningless." That sounds a lot like one of those restaurants where the owner refuses to cook the dishes the public demands. He'll serve up what he likes.
Sometimes I feel like this "living, breathing" encylopedia is governed by guidelines that are as rigid and dead as stone. Don't get me wrong, I love prose articles that look like Britannica, and I don't want the project to become a fansite. But UFC 138, for example doesn't seem like that. These UFC articles seem like normal articles about a topic I'm just not interested in. The dismantling of these articles isn't on anti-fansite grounds. It appears to be based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. But I could be wrong. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Phodopus
I have replied to your points about videos on the article talk page, but the last bullet of this edit has this sentence:
I think, perhaps, maybe, it is possible that, and this is not an "accusation", your edits might show a teeny bit of Western-centricity.
In replying to your earlier comment accusing me of bias, I chose the word "accuse" deliberately to avoid throwing WP:NPA at you, but that's what it was, and that's what the above is. You don't make a statement not an accusation just by stating that it's not one, and phrasing like "perhaps, maybe, it is possible" and "a teeny bit" doesn't conceal what it fundamentally is: personal criticsm. It seems a shame to have to remind such an experienced editor, with such great contributions that people are suggesting you stand for admin, that the second sentence of WP:NPA says "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
Shall I defend myself against an accusation of Western-centricity? OK, take a look at my contribution history. You'll see that my last actions other than GOCE housekeeping were the removal of non-encyclopedic contact details from Indian CFA. Immediately before that, I closed and implemented the proposed merge of National Youth League (Indian National League) into Indian National League. A few days ago I completed a 9-day major copy edit (in response to a GOCE request) of Pakistan, following which I spent several hours trying to work for a compromise on the thorny issue of how Pakistan's relations with the Taliban (if any) should be represented with NPOV in that article. Please read Talk:Pakistan and tell me whether there is any "Western-centricity" in what I said there.
By the way, in modern times, Phodopus species in the wild have exclusively Asian habitats.
You have placed a video contributed by you in an article, and have accused an editor who removed it of bias in two different ways. Am I biassed? --Stfg (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear oh, dear. I cannot seem to avoid offending you. By that I do not mean to imply that you are easily offended. I am just trying to make this problem go away. So, honestly, I am very, very sorry I have offended you yet again. I tried to avoid personally attacking you again with "...your edits might show ...", but the "...teeny bit..." part was way out of line. It was an unfair criticism. My humblest apologies. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. A good way to make the problem go away, I think, would be to put the video in the Hamster article, where the question of which species is not so pressing. Perhaps not in the "Classification" section, for that reason. There appears to be room in the "Characteristics" section, for instance. --Stfg (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Udar55 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ganeshk. Long time. I hadn't. I just checked it out. I am not sure what to make of it. My gut says NNU doesn't have much use for it, and other student groups that do may be doing something wrong. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, you're the best.:)FusionLord (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
You're most welcome. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
MMA Notability
I'd like to run some general questions by since it seems you've worked on this before. Basically I'm trying to figure out how feasible a couple of user-centric ideas are and how far we can get without running into a wall. Even better if you have time to collaborate a bit or know of any other wiki-savvy editors who'd like to help hammer out something to be approved. It's exciting times and might make for interesting stories. :) Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Email
Hello, Anna Frodesiak. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've added the template to the articles included in it. Thanks again! Northamerica1000(talk) 14:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for the barnstar. I'll try to earn it by improving the navbox. I'm not quite sure how to organize it. But, I know there are lots of other prepared food lists out there to add. It's tough to split into groups. Sweet and savory doesn't work because of the pie article. Courses like desserts and main, etc. may be okay, but I'm not sure. Oh, and I guess it's okay to remove the see also section items now as they are redundant. And, thank you very much for your fine work on these articles.
About the new pastry list, in a few days I would be happy to make it into table format. If you have suggestions about fields, please say. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I've expanded the template, see revision history. Seems that the criteria for inclusion in the template is that an article is a list of a prepared style of foods. I Like it! Northamerica1000(talk) 15:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
It's amazing how an article can significantly improve from these types of collaborations. I've watchlisted the List of pastries article for (the near) future reference. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been working to update the article with descriptions— check it out! It sure would look nice to someday be formatted like the List of breads article is, as you mentioned at the article's AfD discussion. Do you think it would be easier to convert after descriptions have been completed? This article has a great potential to become an established, encyclopedic article. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
It's looking great. I can easily format it like list of breads any time. I will post at talk later and propose it. Good job! :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Uncontroversial improvements to articles don't particularly need to be discussed in advance, per Wikipedia's editing guideline of Wikipedia:Be bold. If you'd like, have the time, etc., just do it! Northamerica1000(talk) 02:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Good Job! Thank you for significantly improving List of pastries with the table addition!
Hi Chrisrus. Sorry for the late reply. I am not an admin, so I cannot help with that. Also, I cannot find the entry at the link.
You never replied to my reply at your talk. What about the turtle pic? Please tell me where it is and I will do it happily.
Also, the world record for longest talk page without archiving is just around the corner. Go for it! :)
Oh, finally, I wonder what happened to that Chinese dog with floppy-ear? Such a sweet thing. I wonder if he's still waiting. Best wishes, and sorry I couldn't help with the protect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Anna! Yes, the entry at the link isn't there anymore. I asked for that the List of domesticated animals be semi-protected just to force a cadre of uncommunicative identically behaving IP addresses to at least explain such things as recently adding the article Red Panda. It's very tedious trying to protect that list and because they change back and forth from one IP address to another so my one granted wikipower, "Rollback privilages" doesn't work on them anymore. None of them ever speak or discuss or sign in. Right now they are in the process of adding every fish in the tropical fish store. This is all I'm asking: that the article being linked to on the list state or imply that experts consider it a domesticated animal. That is all. And if they don't like my criteria, then fine, let's come up with a reasonable one. I have to go through like every day or two and by hand remove the most obvious examples, but I'm not going to do that anymore because I can't keep up with it unless there's some sign that anyone else cares and I can't keep up with it.
So anyway, I asked that it be semi-protected and they declined, stating, bizzarely, that there was no evidence of recent IP disruptive editing. Please help me decide what to do.
I recently replied about the pocupine pictures and other stuff. You must've missed it, sorry it took me so long to reply.
I hope that a person might amuse themself by browsing my talk page for intersting discussions that they might want to add to or comment about. I really should sort them for the user, by topic or some such. There are a few that I'd consider closed topics, but not very many at all, actually. I'd love it if people would enjoy adding to basically any of those theads, and the whole world came to my talk page to discuss any of them.
Thank you for your interest in The yellow dog of Lao Pan, all Wikipedia knows is at the bottom of the list of faithful dogs on the list of dogs. I don't know how well you can navigate the internet in Chinese, but I'd like it very much if you could see if any Chinese press has anything to add to what little English Wikipedia knows about the dog. Or if you could get a Chinese Wikipedian to care about that story and try to add to it. If there are no new reports, maybe we could find a local reporter and interest them in finding out what happend and writing a new story about the dog.
About the List of dogs#faithful dogs, I have only so far been able to turn one of them, Fido (dog) into a stand-alone article, but there are those (see my talk page re Constantine/Kostya) that have ambitions to do the same with others. At least two of the items there are perhaps better called "legendary dogs" rather than either real or fictional dogs as we don't know if the dog actually existed or not for sure, but it's possible. These could be sorted out into a sub-section. And hey, have you noticed how few dogs famous for long journeys home, being lost and finding their way back home? It seems to me that I've heard many such stories in my life, but there are not very many on that list. I bet more could be found. I wish we had an article called Loyalty in dogs or some such. Why is the loyalty of dogs not a good topic for an encyclopedia article?
The article hamster wheel doesn't know that there are larger versions for dogs. I only know that they do because you showed me the YouTube video (thanks!). I wonder if we could find enough to add a sentence based on that alone, or do more.
Porcupines not turtles. Sorry. :) I will work on it and get back to you.
Yellow dog of Lao Pan: I would like to dig, but am afraid of viruses at Chinese sites. I will ask one of my assistants to do it on their computer. All their computers have viruses already. :)
I really like the whole List of dogs#faithful dogs thing. Great potential for expansion and new articles. And Loyalty of dogs would be great!
Best wishes to you, my good friend, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
What do we do with these? Now they are just sitting in limbo.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Use "Technical deletions": {{db-g6|rationale=reason}} and just explain. Test it out on Canada, substituting "reason" with a long tirade about GNG and IDONTLIKETHEWEATHER. :)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
*snicker...Why isn't there a speedy deletion template for unpopulated templates? Such as Template:Press Futsal Tournament. A template to navigate a soccer tournament between journalists...--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you a million for the barnstar nomination
Many thanks indeed for being the very first person on my userpage to leave me the notification that I had been nominated for a barn star nomination. This is the very first time this has happened to me in all my years of editing Wikipedia - it really left me excited, and has helped to make my year, so again, thanks a million! All the very best, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It was my pleasure, and long overdue. You deserve many more. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Can I just ask a question?
Can I just ask a question please? I see your surname - if it is your real surname - is Frodesiak. Is this a Polish surname? I had always assumed it is, so are you of Polish ancestry? I do not speak Polish, and have heard it is a difficult language to learn. I am a British citizen myself. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course you can ask. Frodesiak is not my real surname and I'm not Polish. It's an old nickname. I was born in London (Hampstead), raised in Montreal, and have dual citizenship. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a clever joke. Anna Frodesiak > Ann Afrodesiak > An Aphrodisiac. :) 75.101.47.18 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I have been here for a while and want to improve myself. Though I try my best to do the right thing, I may do something wrong. As you have seen me work, can you please leave me a review as I want to know where I stand so far and what should I improve to be a good editor. Your opinion has always been valuable and your review can help. Thanks :) Yasht101 08:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
wikimedia.org.
I checked all the articles. Looks okay. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll be more careful. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yasht101 13:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
talk 07:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought I was responding to Trey. I got confused because I was typing zillions of messages one after the other. I didn't mean you. So sorry. 
Like it! Northamerica1000(talk) 15:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Northamerica1000(talk) 02:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
