User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive41

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

Comment about a block

Hi, Anna. I have just declined an unblock request at User talk:LGAQ web team. You placed the block, and posted a {{Uw-ublock}} block notice to the talk page. However, you autoblocked the IP address and blocked account creation. I can only assume that you made a mistake, as it makes no sense to tell an editor "You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself" while preventing him or her from doing so. I have explained my thoughts on the matter on the user's talk page; perhaps you would like to look there, and see whether you wish to change the block or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. It's my mistake. I've always thought that they could create a new account, but only after addressing the reason for the block with an unblock request. I just didn't interpret the sentence you cite properly. I don't think I ever inspected the bluelink at the "create the account yourself" part of the quote you cite from the block notice. I didn't realize it goes to signup. I always thought it went to the guidelines on account name selection (which is where the "policy" bluelink in that sentence goes). So, I've never unticked the block IP option. My humblest apologies. I very seldom use the userblock. My blocks are almost always spamblocks. I should have read and inspected more carefully. I'm very sorry.
As for this particular account, my intention was that we would consider unblocking in order for the user to create the government article if the user could convince us that it's only one person using the account and provided he was aware of the COI aspects. That is still my position. I didn't want to use the spamblock because it really says "promotional" a lot, and this is a government person writing about government work. If it's a school or other such organization, I usually try to avoid the spamblock, as it is quite harsh and the user may just be trying to write a good article without selling something.
I've looked at all the block notices that I can find, and I must be missing something obvious. Isn't there a notice that allows a block for a username and blocks account creation until we can communicate with the user, but doesn't have all of the "promotional" issue content in the notice? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
For a long time I have been unhappy about the block notices in the whole area of usernames and promotional editing. Years ago I stopped using the "spamusername" block message, for several reasons, including that it is far too intimidating, and that it is far too long and complicated, which has the result that editors simply don't take it all in, and frequently make unblock requests that completely miss the point. For anything that looks like a spamusername block, I use my own slightly modified version of the spam block message, but the other notices, such as username-block and softer-block are also far from perfect. I have also known other administrators express dissatisfaction with the situation. In my opinion, the block notices in this area need a thorough overhaul. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Anna and James, if admins are unhappy with block notices, why can't you change the block messages? I trust your instincts, since admins are more familiar with them, but it seems like something admins can change that would benefit the project. Liz Read! Talk! 15:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. For some time I have been thinking of proposing a radical rewrite of the spamusername block notice, and maybe this incident will prompt me to do so. As for the username block notice, I never use it. In my opinion, if the only problem with an editor is that their username doesn't comply to the policy, then the thing to do is to politely tell them, and suggest that they change it, without getting threatening by blocking them, while if the username is not the only problem, then posting a message saying "your username is the only reason for the block" is ridiculous, and totally unhelpful to the editor, who is very likely to take the statement on face value, request an unblock to allow a username change, and find that they are still blocked because of other problems. Far better to tell them right from the start what the problems are, so they know where they stand. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Both of you are really making sense. I would love to see a new template or two. The combinations of the different blocking options is greater than the templates available. Plus, I think some of the templates could really be improved and softened.
Just to let you know, as I often patrol new users accounts, and encounter a percentage of them who only produce a bit about their organization at their userpage and then never edit again or elsewhere, and their username matches the organization, I have to make blocks. Trying to communicate with them and waiting for feedback doesn't work. They almost never return, and another admin will come along and block most of the time anyway. (If they are otherwise editing constructively, I opt for communication first.)
Where I get stuck is in cases where they have produced a userpage about an organization matching their username, the subject is notable or it is simply not promotional (especially if they are not here to abuse Wikipedia userspace for financial gain but rather can actually provide a needed article), and they haven't edited elsewhere . There doesn't seem to be an adequate template for that. Communicating before blocking doesn't work for the reasons above. In those cases, I block, case-by-case decide whether or not to delete the userspace content, and post this or a variant at their talk:

{{subst:User:Anna Frodesiak/Welcome}}

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your block, username, and article draft I deleted the content at your userpage because it was promotional. However, the subject may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. While it is strongly discouraged, you may create an encyclopedia article about yourself or your organization. If you think the subject is notable, prepare it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation or in your sandbox after reading WP:42 and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

But first, we must address your username issue. Please read the above notice about why I blocked your account. If you want, I can unblock you so that you can create a new account. Then, I would like to know what your new username is. Then, you can recreate the article draft via WP:AFC with lots and lots of references. Write neutrally, in your own words, based on the sources, with no copy pasting from the source. Please read WP:42 and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Does this sound reasonable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

At my junkbox, which I keep in edit mode, I custom make all sorts of these messages depending on the case.
So, am I allowed to take a copy of the spamblock or ublock tempates, and modify them for my own use? I would like to maybe trim a bit from spamblock and use that instead, and make a ublock that is almost the same, but says account creation is diabled, or at least omit the part about making a new account. I never considered personalizing block notices, but I guess we've all done it when issuing short blocks. We avoid the use of the offensive brown box, and opt for a kinder messaging appearance.
Sorry for the long post. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Something you wrote above reminded me of some historical details that I didn't mention above, but which you may find of interest. (If you don't, then just take no notice.) When I first became an admin, I very often used to post friendly messages explaining to users that there were problems with their username, or their apparent editing on behalf of a business or organisation, or both. Unfortunately, I found that more often that not, some other admin just went ahead and blocked them, very often posting what I thought was an inappropriate block notice. Eventually, I decided that if they were going to be blocked anyway then it was better for me to block them right away, and give a more appropriate block notice. Because I found that the existing block notices were not always suitable, I took to slightly rewording them. I would save a copy of the appropriate template in a sandbox, then go to "edit" in the sandbox, and change the wording as appropriate. Mostly, a few minor alterations were all I did. However, I found the {{Uw-spamublock}} templated message really unhelpful, for several reasons, so I stopped using that at all, even modified. If I block an account in a situation in which I feel that both promotional editing and a corporate username need to be mentioned, I use my own modified version of the {{Uw-soablock}} In my opinion (let me know whether you agree) my version uses slightly less bitey language, and it also mentions the username issue as well as the promotion issue. It is still close to the standard {{Uw-soablock}} message, and I think there is a good case for creating something very didfferent, but I personally think it's better than the existing templates, and FAR better than the intimidating wall of text that is the {{Uw-spamublock}} message. It deliberately gives more prominence to promotion than to the username, because I personally regard promotion as the more important issue, but it still mentions promotion in a much lower-key way than {{Uw-spamublock}}.
I was going to post a copy of it here for you to see, but then I thought that it is probably not a good idea posting block notices to the talk pages of editors who are not blocked, so instead I have created a copy at User:JamesBWatson/soa.
There is nothing at all to stop you from making your own customised block notices in your user space, nor indeed any other kind of talk page messages. I have known editors' own personal message templates to be deleted at WP:TfD or WP:MfD, but only because they have been objectionable in some way, such as misrepresenting Wikipedia policy, not simply because they are different from the "official" notices. However, I have for some time thinking of proposing changes to the existing "official" templates too, and maybe this discussion will finally prompt me to do so. I am tempted to be bold and make some minor changes to some of the existing templates, but as far as {{Uw-spamublock}} is concerned, I don't think some minor changes would be good enough: I think the whole thing needs to be scratched, and a completely knew template put in its place. Such a radical rewrite would require discussion first, rather than jumping in with a bold rewrite. The new one should, in my opinion, be far shorter and simpler, perhaps something similar to to my own message that I have mentioned, perhaps quite different. Any opinions?
One other thing which you may already know, but I had been an admin for years before I found out, so you may not know. I used to be very careful about exactly what message I posted to a blocked user's talk page, but I didn't bother so much about what block reason I used when I made the block, because I thought that the only difference it made was what was seen by anyone looking at the block log. Consequently, I would happily click {{spamusernameblock}} in the drop-down list of block reasons, even though I would never put {{spamusernameblock}} on the user's talk page. It was a long time before I realised that doing so meant that when the blocked user tried to edit a page, he or she would be confronted by the {{spamusernameblock}} message in all its glory. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Very inspiring and very good to hear. I'm preparing a thoughtful response. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Being a new admin, I have to decide how to act based on a balance of norms, common sense, and policies. I never realized just how many different situations arise that need a judgement call. It's tricky sometimes. I am basically looking not to get yelled at by other admins, and to have a good outcome that benefits the project.
I will happily make some modified templates. I think the word "indefinitely" is problematic. It is so fitting to us because we know it means "unless or until there is a reason for it not to be so, which is quite possible", but to new users it simply means "forever and ever and you're out of here and even thought it says [If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked... etc,] well fat chance. That's not going to happen. Now I hate Wikipedia and its rules and I'm either never coming back or will find a way to get around this". I'm thinking of a way to either replace it or qualify it in some modified templates for my own use. Probably removing or replacing it is a bit too daring, and adding a sentence after it explaning that there is hope may be best.
Your soa is less bitey and also, due to the fact that it conveys less, ellicits information from users about their intentions. Spamuserblock sort of gives the game away. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
It is best for me to stay out of revaming existing templates. I'm too new for that.
I'm careful that the block type matches the template. I'm not entirely sure about why others would spamblock if the user were to edit their talk. As they are already blocked and have a notice, do you mean they'd be reblocked with spamblock and have a spamblock notice added to their talk? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Custom templates at the Yellow sandbox

Further to this discussion, I've started User:Anna Frodesiak/Yellow sandbox. Please feel free to comment and give guidance, or just keep an eye on how it's going. I'm trying to keep the amount of new templates to a minimum, so I'll likely split them up so that I can have a bare minimum, and add them in combinations. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have had a quick glance at your Yellow sandbox, and it is clear that you have thought the issues out pretty thoroughly. I haven't yet studied it in enough detail to make more specific comments, but I will try to do so soon. (However, I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back and deal with very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. If I haven't got back to you on this within a day or two please remind me: I will regard it as help, not harassment.)
Meanwhile, here are some of my thoughts about User:Anna Frodesiak/Cuw-nocreationublock.
I like it.
I think that User:Anna Frodesiak/Cuw-nocreationublock, together with a block that prevents account creation, is better than being forced to choose among the currently available options, for several reasons, including the fact that both {{uw-usernameblock}} and {{uw-softerblock}} encourage COI editors to simply reappear as new accounts that appear to be different people, effectively hiding the conflict of interest, rather than openly declaring it. Much better to require a username change for the existing account.
I agree with removing the irrelevant stuff about "misleading, offensive or disruptive" names, bot names, etc. (In fact, I think it would be much better for {{ublock}} to be deprecated, and replaced with a set of several templates for different types of usernames, but that is clearly beyond the brief you have set yourself.)
I agree with you 100% about the word "indefinitely". It could be replaced by some other wording, but really I don't see any reason why it can't be just dropped altogether. If a new user receives a message which says "you have been blocked from editing", and then goes on to say how to request an unblock, it seems to me that the message is unambiguous: "you have been blocked, and you won't be unblocked unless and until you request an unblock and that request is accepted." No useful information is added by saying "indefinitely". (There are situations where I think specifically stating that a block is indefinite is useful, but a username block on a new editor is not one of them, and in any case even when it is appropriate, I don't think the word "indefinitely" is the best way to convey it, as many people take it to mean "for ever".) As far as this particular notice is concerned, I see no reason not to just remove the word "indefinitely".
Where you have "You should be able to do this even though you are blocked", perhaps it would be even better to make it clear that other editing of the talk page is possible, by saying something along the lines of "You should be able to do this, because even though you are blocked you are still able to edit this talk page".
One thing which I do think needs changing is the bit saying To do so, please add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} to your userpage. Firstly, it is the talk page, not the userpage which is involved, so that needs changing. Secondly, even with the standard block notice wording, which says either "adding below this notice the text" or "adding the following text below this notice" (depending on which block notice you look at) there are still occasionally editors who manage to think that what they have to do is edit the existing copy, rather than add a new copy, resulting in an unblock request which is embedded inside the block notice. (Here is an example.) Thirdly, I think more common than the mistake I have just mentioned is actually adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} to the page, rather than something like {{unblock-un|Joe Smith}}. How anyone can fail to realise that "your new username here" is intended to be replaced, goodness knows, but people do. Fourthly, I think it is worth specifying that the request should go below the block notice, because very often, an unblock request is placed at the top of the page, someone responds below that request, someone else at the bottom of the page, and so on, so that before long it is very difficult to tell which messages follow which other messages. I therefore suggest something like To do so, please make a copy of the text {{unblock-un|your new username here}} and post it below this notice (replacing "your new username here" with a suitable username). Unfortunately, that is a little longer and more cumbersome than the simple version you have suggested, but I'm afraid experience suggests that it is necessary to spell it out, unless you are willing to accept a proportion of misunderstandings in return for the benefits of simplicity. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi James,
Thank you kindly for taking a look. It is a lot more hammered out now. Please take another look when you get a chance. Try to spot errors I may have made in the table interpreting policies and guidelines (or if my judgements differ from norms). Also, if you could let me know if the wording in the templates can be refined. (Note that the master template drafts are all at the bottom of User:Anna Frodesiak/Yellow sandbox.) There is a blank section at the bottom of the Yellow sandbox for any comments you may have. That is probably a better place than here.
I took your advice about your "...One thing which I do think needs changing..." and changed "Userpage" to "user talk". Thanks for point that out. Good catch. :)
I took out the word "indefinitely". I hope that wasn't going too far. The talk pages for the existing templates are awfully long, so I'm sure they had debated long and hard about he word "indefinitely", and there's probably a good reason it is used.
I modified the part about posting the unblock request. The templates now uses "...To do so, please copy {{unblock-un|your new username here}} and paste it below this notice (replacing "your new username here" with a suitable username)..." (your suggestion is "...make a copy of the text {{unblock-un}} and post it below this notice (replacing "your new username here" with a suitable username)...", which is probably better). Sure, it is a little longer, but it ought to help the user get it right. Your suggestion was good.
Many, many thanks for your help with this. Hopefully, these new templates will not only help me sort out problematic cases where no existing block or information template is suitable, but might also result in new articles and new editors. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System

As I believe that this info should be available to the public a merger would probably be better.

When I initially tried to get an account, I was told to wait for a password to be mailed to my email address. When the info I merged into martingale (betting system):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)was taken off, I signed up for an account and didn't need a special password. My name now appears to be Carlos Soto Turver : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carlos_Soto_Turver that I just noticed has also been deleted. The reference that I used on the martingale (betting system)page "The Improved Martingale Betting System" is one of the 4 booklets I have published on this subject that are now being offered on Amazon.com. The article that I have been working on at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Improved_Martingale_Betting_System is still there. I am writing to a number of authors who do gambling articles and will be writing to newspapers looking for columnists who also write about gambling topics such as mine. Other than the 3 booklets and the 1 book that contains the 3 booklets, I have no other references and have found no organization, institution or individual who will validate what I believe to be an original idea and a major improvement on the martingale betting system. I am obviously not computer literate! I have read just about everything about creating an article and as of this morning, I just came across a merging option. My original intent was to create a new page for Wikipedia but having read about the merging option, it makes more sense! I noticed that a request has been made to validate the entire page. If no one has verified the existing information, why not leave the information that I am offering on that page until someone does? If you can contact the person who originally wrote the martingale(betting system)page, he or she would be the most qualified person to verify or validate my improvement of this two century old betting system! As I am convinced that what I have thoroughly explained can be useful to any person who gambles, it needs to be available in the public domain, preferably through Wikipedia. As I really do not know what to do next about the merger,please advise. Carlos Soto Turver (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. First, I understand how frustrating Wikipedia can be sometimes. The best thing is to be patient and we can work it all out. :)
I will reply in point form. Maybe this is the best way:
  • I don't know what you mean by "merger". Wikipedia understands merger this way. Also, I don't know what "validate" means.
  • You are not blocked. You may edit.
  • Your userpage was deleted by me. I deleted it as a copyright violation because it was copy pasted from Martingale (betting system). I now see that you were the one who added that content with this edit. Technically, once content present at an article, it cannot be copy pasted anywhere without attribution. In this case, it was added just before you copy pasted it. It was a copyright violation, but actually I probably should have deleted it because it was inappropriate to have it at your userpage anyway.
  • You may have a conflict of interest. Do you?
  • Is the content you added copy pasted from some website?
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System now duplicates the content at Martingale (betting system). So, it could actually now be deleted. Plus, it is not supported by references. It must satisfy WP:42. Can you find references? If not, then it cannot become an article.
The bottom line:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ms. Frodesiak,
I sincerely hope that you are well paid for the job that you do!

There are a few things that for me are still unclear. Therefore, I will respond to your reply by the point be point method that you used.

  • My apology for not having used the proper terminology of merging and verification.
  • No, I am not blocked and can edit. It appears that I have already abused that right and privilege. It was not intentional and it won't happen again!
  • I have not committed any copyright violation as the merging was cut from what I had written on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System and pasted on to the Martingale (betting system) page.
  • I do not understand what you mean by a conflict of interest? My intention is to notify those who visit the Martingale(betting system)page that there has been an improvement made to this over two century old accepted betting procedure.
  • As I believe that I am the inventor of this improvement, that would make me the source and the reference, would it not? As the basic arithmetic used explains and proves how the improvement works, why would there have to be a source and a reference other than myself?

The bottom line:

  • As I am the source and the author of the booklets I have written on the subject but cannot be used as a source or reference, is there any alternative to getting this information published in Wikipedia other than by merging or with the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System?
  • I am giving serious thought to what you suggest...abandoning the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System. You suggest a focus on adding sources to the content at on the Martingale (betting system) page. I have an idea! The following is one part of the entire page of the Martingale (betting system). Perhaps if I were to revise and shorten what I have written on my Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System. If it were to primarily illustrate with basic arithmetic how the improvement works, why would there need to be a source or a reference? Arithmetic is arithmetic as math is math, isn't it?

Respectfully yours,Carlos Soto Turver (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Anti-martingale[edit]

This is also known as the reverse martingale. In a classic martingale betting style, gamblers increase bets after each loss in hopes that an eventual win will recover all previous losses. The anti-martingale approach instead increases bets after wins, while reducing them after a loss. The perception is that the gambler will benefit from a winning streak or a "hot hand", while reducing losses while "cold" or otherwise having a losing streak. As the single bets are independent from each other (and from the gambler's expectations), the concept of winning "streaks" is merely an example of gambler's fallacy, and the anti-martingale strategy fails to make any money. If on the other hand, real-life stock returns are serially correlated (for instance due to economic cycles and delayed reaction to news of larger market participants), "streaks" of wins or losses do happen more often and are longer than those under a purely random process, the anti-martingale strategy could theoretically apply and can be used in trading systems (as trend-following or "doubling up").
Hi there. In point form again:
  • Well, I don't get paid. I volunteer.
  • No worries about the copyright violation. You wrote it, I am sure.
  • The content you added to Martingale (betting system) has already been removed by someone.
  • When I say conflict of interest, I am talking about the fact that you've written, and sell books about this system. One might think that you are promoting it.
  • Basing Wikipedia content on your own research is considered original research.
  • What is needed here is a section at Martingale (betting system) supported by reliable sources. Can you find good sources that are not your own?
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

why was my page deleted?

Hi, can I know the reasons why my page has been deleted. Thank you! Best regards, Alecs Botezatu — Preceding unsigned comment added by By Botezatu (talk • contribs) 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there. I deleted it basically for the reasons I stated at your talk page. Please don't be upset. You are welcome to recreate it. But please, don't make it so promotional. The version I deleted was a C.V., complete with skills and employment section, Facebook and Linkedin, and email and phone numbers.
Even established editors who put thousands of hours into building the encyclopedia would not be permitted to have such a userpage. You just registered your account and immediately created this userpage, and have edited nowhere else.
So, how about a less promotional page? And again, I do encourage you to help build the encyclopedia. Many thanks for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

RUBY YADAV

THANK YOU FOR EDITING MY PAGE .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.156.71 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, please enter the discussion at Talk:Ruby Yadav#Categories and other matters about this article. Don't be shy. Don't be afraid. Let's work together. Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

PHOTOGRAPHS

HI ,

THESE PICTURES ARE FROM ARTICLES IN INDIAN NEWSPAPERS ON ME. CAN YOU PLEASE UPLOAD THE SAME . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyyadav (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That is why somebody deleted them. Images from the newspaper are usually copyrighted. You need to upload images that you own. Take some yourself with your own camera and upload them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
crown picture is clicked by me that don't have any one copyright .please upload— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyyadav (talk
I'm sorry. I just don't understand that. Could you please clarify? Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You just uploaded the same image again: File:Rubyyadav.jpeg. It was deleted as a copyright violation, and even you say that you took it from a newspaper. You don't own it. Please only upload images that you own. Again, the easiest thing to do is take a photo yourself using your mobile phone or camera, and upload that. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok i do that , thanks Rubyyadav (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Mail

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.

Flat Out let's discuss it 22:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Improved Martingale Betting System

Ms. Frodesiak,

I just read your message and took a copy of the article.

Yes,I have spent a lot of time editing. All of my attempts at writing involve many rewrites! Now I like the way it reads!

Thank you for your invitation to help out at Wikipedia! I will first have to take the Wikipedia tour.

As of last week, I am actually doing what you have suggested. I sent the article to the WizardofVegas.com betting system forum and a poll is now being conducted. I have contacted a few authors who write about gambling, I have invited a number of newsletters to review the article and will be contacting newspaper and magazine columnists to also review the material. Hopefully in the near future I will receive one or more articles giving favorable reports on this improvement! If and when they are received, the articles will be listed in the reference section of the article page.

As you may have noticed, I removed the names of the booklets that I have on sale at Amazon.com. I initially did use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Sorry! Why the change of attitude?

I am not interested in making money! I receive some 1,300 US/ month,that goes further in Guadalajara, Mexico, and any income above that amount has to be turned over to the Veterans Administration. Consequently, that is why I have the 3 booklets priced at .99 cents each, the lowest amount that can be charged for any publication. The latest "book" includes all 3 booklets for $1.49 "The Best Of All Available Betting Systems".

The real reason for the change in attitude is that I am trying to leave a legacy. Small as it may seem, this improvement appears to be original and if and when it spreads, I will have achieved my objective! I have submitted "large" ideas to the Presidents of Mexico, The Clinton Foundation, The United Nations etc. I have 1 US patent #4,819,666. My latest attempt was to send an idea to Mr. Bill Gates' foundation. However as I don't have a PHD nor work in an established institution, I was unqualified to fill out the application required to submit my idea. All have been unsuccessful in their implementation...and until I get some positive results on my martingale improvement, this could also be and unsuccessful venture.

Prior to reading your message, I was going to write and ask permission to do the following on the Martingale(betting system) page: Place a headline titled "The Improved Martingale Betting System", and invite those interested to review the material at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/The_Improved_Martingale_Betting_System

In the meantime, I will be sending a "boilerplate" message to those columnists who write about casinos and gambling in hope that they will check out the article and write about this idea. And hopefully they will send me a copy that I will add to the list of references, but, of course,Carlos Soto Turver (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC) only if their comments are positive!

Respectfully yours, Carlos Soto Turver

P.S. Again, thank you for the advice and suggestions!

I'm pleased at your course of action. Change of attitude? I think I've always been the same. I wish you would stay and edit. I don't like self-promotion. 42 is the bottom line for articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it looks like a simple error I'm hoping you can fix.

  1. Lizziewalters (talk · contribs) is a student enrolled in the History of Ecology. She's currently working on the Wikipedia article Warder Clyde Allee (an article I created a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away).
  2. From looking at her move log, in combination with her contribs, I think I can reverse engineer a hypothesis. She tried to create a sandbox page in her user space but mistakenly created a sandbox page as a new user!
  3. Now, we have her sandbox page located at User:Warder Clyde Allee. Unless there's a valid reason for this move, my guess is that the solution is to move the new user page back to her user space as User:Lizziewalters/Warder Clyde Allee. Then, after the page is moved, the new user page needs to be deleted, which is where you come in, stage right, singing and dancing...oh wait, scratch the singing and dancing, just use your delete tool. What do you think?

P.S. sorry about the confusion on Commons, previously I did say "uploaded on behalf of Anna Frodesiak" but since you didn't include it in your instructions, I didn't do it that time. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Okay, I moved it back to her sandbox and explained here: User talk:Lizziewalters#Warder Clyde Allee.
As for the commons thing, I think it is all sorted out now. The editor there appears to be new, but knows a lot and has a lot of edits. However, he may have been a bit hasty. I think it's a case of all's well that ends well. I think I will take his advice and add an explanation next time in the Additional Information field or whatever it's called. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Happy to help. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi There

Do edits made on wikipedia commons count towards your total number of edits for the purpose of barnstar awards??

Superfast1111 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and commons.wikimedia.org/ are separate, so I think, no. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you mean the service awards based on time and edit-count, according to WP:Service awards#Exposition on the requirements, all edits to Wikimedia projects are eligible, under any account used.—Odysseus1479 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Carcraft logo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Carcraft logo.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Available as textlogo from Commons. OAlexander (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. OAlexander (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Note for the archives: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Carcraft_logo_2014-03-31_19-46.jpg says commons version is keep even per UK law, so this enwp version can go. Dandy. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple IP Adresses

Hello. I'm 113.253.16.154. I have more than 1 IP adresses at home, so the message you left at 113.253.22.52's talk page is right. I'll consider creating a Wikipedia account to prevent people to think I'm a sockpuppeteer. 113.253.16.154 (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm not even sure why I asked if you were two IPs. And yes, please consider registering. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Now I have registered and my username is CloudComputation. CloudComputation (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Hi Anna, how are you? I guess you are not watching this and this anymore. Anyway, I have a request for you. Can you please move this to mainspace. Actually if I move then it will create a redirect which I don't want. So, I thought if you can move it without creating a redirect. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not comfortable moving this to the mainspace. Right now it is a single sentence lead and a section composed of criticisms about the subject. It seems like it could use some balance. You'd better ask someone else to have a look. Sorry I can't help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the history, I now see that User:Philg88 also talked about the balance. Could you find some neutral or positive things to add? Maybe his education, contributions, etc.? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing I can find about his early life, education etc etc. He is famous for his political offensive behaviour. I know there might be a issue of NPOV. But I can't help, I have cited every negative claims so that no one can put up any POV issues. Thank you. Jim Carter (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Anna. @Jim Cartar: I have pointed out multiple times what is wrong with your article and why it is not suitable for the main article space. Ignoring my advice and approaching someone else to ask them to do the move is not good Wikipedia etiquette.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
See this discussion Jim Carter (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh... Sorry @Philg88: if you mind. I thought the draft is ready. I can't make a balance as I told earlier I can't find anything. Very sorry if I have done a mistake again. Jim Carter (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Cartar: That discussion is quoted out of context. It focuses on you improving the references - not whether the balance is correct.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Oo. Sorry I misunderstood. Sorry Philg88, Sorry Anna. BTW Anna can you delete that draft since I think I can never make it neutral. (I'm not much familiar with the subject) Thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jim Cartar: Rather than requesting deletion of the draft, why don't you find some positive or neutral things to say about Anubrata Mandal? He must have done something useful to get elected to the Trinamool Congress in the first place.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


The Michigan Kid

Hi, Anna. No hurry on this or anything, but I think this issue could benefit from your insight. For several years (or more) a rapidly changing mobile IP posting from a cell phone in Michigan has been trying to participate on Wikipedia. I am not entirely sure if the user has ever registered an account. Admin Arthur Rubin and editor NewsAndEventsGuy have spent an inordinate amount of time tracking the user and blocking them. I feel that this time could be better spent teaching the user how to edit under a registered account. Whenever I try to talk to them, Mr. Rubin just ends up blocking them, at which point they move on to another IP on their phone, usually without having to do anything since their provider uses a pool of IPs. I believe the blocks are being meted out unfairly to begin with. I've pinged the blocking admin and the participating editor above because I'm sure they will have further information for you, but in my past experience, I've always thought Mr. Rubin was biased against the "Michigan Kid". I'm wondering if you can help solve this situation for good by working out a permanent solution. The current IP is 99.181.129.75 (talk · contribs), but I'm not sure how long we will be able to communicate with them since their IP changes every time they shut down and open their browser on their phone. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've notified the user about this discussion and I've invited them to comment here. I am somewhat discouraged at their reply. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Questions left for User:Viriditas at other Talk. Gotta go. 99.181.129.75 (talk) 04:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from NewsAndEventsGuy

Hi Viriditas, thanks very much for the ping! Anna here's my thoughts.... I think it was in 2012 that I felt the same as Viriditas, i.e., that we should be trying to teach and not block. So I initially spent an "inordinate amount" of time trying to do that and I logged some of those early efforts. Eventually I concluded that it was hopeless and the external POV-supporting linkspam would continue (see 25-50-25). And so it did.

My watchlist was so ultra cluttered, that time to sort the spam from others' real edits was significantly cutting into my wikipedia time and enjoyment. The hopping block evasion got to be so flagrant that admins besides Arthur also got on the instant-block bandwagon. The IP just gave us all the finger and switched IPs in a classic example of the conditions for a block-clock reset (see WP:BLOCKEVASION which says in relevant part "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion typically causes the timer to restart"). It was only when the blocks were getting extended and the server was told to restart the count that my watchlist got much relief. As more editors started instant reverting these IP's gratuitous additions sometime last year the IP got busy, burnt out, was sick, or (glory be!) took the hint and backed off. In the relative peace I stopped monitoring the matter - I was just relieved the torrent of external link spam had dried up in my main subject area (climate change). But in the last few weeks the IP has reappeared in my watchlist, in a somewhat restrained way, thankfully. Some of my old notes are here; see also User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. If you can turn the IP into a registered user who edits articles in a substantive way, then hallelujah! But there appears to be no tools to do that. If the matter gets discussed elsewhere, please ping me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

PS some of the other involved admins are JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) and Vsmith (talk · contribs) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to NewsAndEventsGuy for the ping. All credit to Viriditas for being willing to assume good faith, and take a constructive approach, doing everything possible to include, rather than exclude, an editor. Unfortunately, however, my experience is very much in line with what NewsAndEventsGuy has said. At one time it looked as though the IP editor did not realise why his/her edits were not in line with Wikipedia's accepted practices, and trying to educate him/her was reasonable. However, it has long since become clear that he/she just isn't interested in cooperating: he/she intends to just go to go on doing what he/she wants, and never mind what anyone else thinks, says, or does. If either Viriditas, Anna, or anyone else can prove me wrong, then that will be absolutely great, but the way it looks to me is that the best strategy is to revert everything and block each IP address as it comes up. The disruptive editor's response to Viriditas's good faith attempt to reach out does nothing whatever to encourage me to change that view. (See the comments above and at User talk:99.181.129.75, which put together look to me like trolling, I am sorry to have to say.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 06:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
He's now at 99.119.130.31 (talk · contribs). I suspect this is hopeless. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
This latest edit indicates he has no interest in registering an account. I guess this inquiry is over. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Please take a bow for wonderful intentions. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:IPs are human too NEG. See NEG's disingenuous duplicitous behavior regarding 97.87.29.188 over the years. 99.119.129.113 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Yikes! That's a lot of stuff. I don't know what to say.
Anyway, now that you are here, are you really the mysterious IP that they've been chasing for ages? If you are watching this page, then I guess you are quite engaged with Wikipedia. We all are. Maybe we are not so different. Anyhow, you are definitely not a kid. Maybe a scientist or something. Definitely smart.
I don't know how to handle this whole thing without upsetting people. NAEG and Arthur Rubin have spend a ton of time on this, so it would be bad for me to suggest that you just keep contributing, but just do your best to avoid the editing issues being complained about. I just don't know. There is a guideline somewhere that says we should not be fooled by blocked editors making good contributions so we say "well, he's okay now, so let's let him edit". I don't know. I think things are case-by-case. Maybe you could suggest something here. After all, you are the center of this whole thing. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

(od) If anything; power, politics, and wealth (COI) are the center of this whole thing. Big, yes. Sobering, hopefully.

  • Comment from Arthur Rubin

I wasn't the one who initially blocked the IP, and the Kalamazoo Library IP was initially blocked because of clear vandalism by a person who is clearly not the person we are talking about. I would be in favor of reducing that block to 6 months from now, and resetting all the other blocks to 6 months from now. However, the IP was blocked for a year by consensus at ANI, and hasn't stopped editing for more than 3 months at a time. Many of the edits still are not accepted by WP:CONSENSUS. The particular questionable edits are:

  1. Adding or removing links in clear violation of WP:REDLINK (both directions; removing links to names of people who presently don't have an article, or adding links to words for which our article clearly has a different meaning than is indicated by the context) or WP:OVERLINK (adding links to words considered obvious, such as American (see also another example below), United States, British.) He no longer links to every word in a sentence, which I appreciate, but he often links to two consecutive words when the phrase is a perfectly good link.
  2. (now not very often, as far as I know). Adding (climate change) wherever global warming appears, or adding (global warming) wherever climate change appears.
  3. Creating comment sections on talk page consisting of a single url or even a single {{cite}}, without specifying why it might be relevant to the article (as opposed to being potentially relevant to the subject of the article).
  4. Adding irrelevant references to existing text, or new text and references where the text is not supported by the reference.
  5. Adding links to publications within citations. (I think many fall under WP:OVERLINK, and there is no clear consensus that it should ever be done. On the other hand, there is no clear consensus that it should never be done. There is a clear consensus that it should not always be done, even noting that WP:OVERLINK suggests it should only be linked in one reference.) This may or may not be considered "good".
  6. Linking any euphemism for "American" (meaning citizen/resident/etc. of the United States) to Names for United States citizens
  7. Thanking editors for reverting reverts of his edits. (I think one of the venues for thanking editors is now semiprotected, primarily because of this one person.)
  8. and the occasional Easter Egg; linking to something completely different.
  9. + Adding {{ill}} for interwiki links wherever possible, without answering the question of whether it is appropriate. (Again, there is some dispute as to whether this is good or bad.)

I believe most of the edits are made to emphasize certain points, and many of those more relate to righting great wrongs than to improving the encyclopedia. There are certainly fewer categories of good (or even not bad) edits than there are categories of bad edits; whether there are fewer good edits than bad edits, I cannot say. May I suggest that the IP make a request at WP:ANI that he be un"blocked", although that would technically be in violation of the block, there is no sensible way to request an unblock other than by editing. I would argue against it, but would abide by consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment to the IP and Arthur Rubin from Anna Frodesiak

I think the aim of both your edits (IP and AR) is to counter the agenda of others. That's a polite way of saying that I'm seeing the POV righting of great wrongs all around. AR's blocklog and topic ban (especially considering he's an admin), and IP's "...I would like to give back appropriately; otherwise wp will wither..." disturb me greatly. One thousand surveyed editors would certainly find the manner of both your edits way out of line with what the community wants. I can't imagine any of this changing. Maybe this is for the best as you seem to spend huge amounts of energy trying to neutralize each other.

Anyway, there may be something you can both agree upon: another couple of years of this is a lousy choice. AR: How many hours reverting and blocking? Dozens? IP: How many hours writing and linking, only to get easily discovered and reverted? Dozens?

Now, I'm no genius and both of you have giant brains, but what I'm seeing here seems kind of dumb. Please don't reply with "But, I've tried to communicate and he wouldn't listen." You are both reacting to the other's abnormal edits, and abnormal edits attract reactions.

So, isn't there some saying about doing the same futile thing and expecting different results? If you are both interesting in not continuing this indefinitely, why not figure something out? Start a discussion at AR's talk, or even a subpage. Forget the individual diffs. Get to the heart of the issue. Start with the big picture. Get philosophical and go from there. Sorry for the long post. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Rebuttal from NAEG Somewhere it says this house of cards relies on trust and that socking to do block evasion is a serious breach of that trust. There is a mechanism for the IP to seek unblocking. If they can't (read won't) follow that protocol, I see little reason to be the slightest bit merciful or patient. Don't enable block evaders, please. Instead steer them to the appropriate mechanism to seek UNBLOCK. Don't beat on admins who expect eds to follow guidelines. Doing that is the true death knell for WP. If you've got a problem with Arthur's handling of it, there's a way to address that too. Rewarding the IP with a shortcircuit of UNBLOCK procedure ain't helping anything or anyone. The only thing to "figure out" is that the only peace we've had other than the IP's choice to be away for awhile was when JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) imposed a series of rangeblocks. If you think the IP's edits are wonderful and the floodgates of external linkspam should be re-opened, you're welcome to advocate that result in support of any properly-submitted unblock request the IP decides to submit, and let consensus happen, according to the process. I'll abide by the result. I'll scream bloody murder about short cuts. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Breach of trust? Good topic. Not fair dealing by anyone is a breach of trust. And does it matter whether or not IP is blocked? Sure, it's a wiki-crime, but it's the edits that matter, and that is the issue regarding the IP. That is why I haven't commented on any unblock. The IP is de facto able to edit, which bites for Wikipedia. AR is doing his duty in the way he is responding to the IP with blocks, but creative alternatives should be considered. Maybe the position of "He's breaking the law. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Whack-a-mole!" should be a last resort. Part of what the IP is doing seems to be trying to counter AR. I'm sure you've already considered that he may be an old, indeffed adversary.
So, if there's any hope in ending this years-old issue, it has to come from dialogue. And I don't mean "Come one, abide by Wikipedia's rules and play nice." The IP couldn't care less about that, and AR isn't exactly a boyscout in that respect either. So, they ought to forget diffs and "He did this, so I did that." This isn't about what either did. It's about what they think and believe. It's a super long-shot, but I'd start with some open questions like "So, what's your problem with my view on things?" or "So, this is futile and costing us dozens of hours. What do you think?" Maybe, just maybe, they could negotiate some sort of alternate plan. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I applaud your optimism Anna. Personally, I think you are wishing for the moon, but I realize you haven't yet dug in the well shaft long enough to believe that it's dry. And while I am inspired by your exhibition of hope and charity, I think it does little good to coach exhausted diggers to hack at the dry clay differently. If you think there might be water in the well of dialogue, how about picking up the shovel and giving it a shot? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, NewsAndEventsGuy. Well, I don't think there's anything I can do. It is up to them. If only they could agree on the futility thing. Also, I would like them both to know that what I've written concerns their problematic editing. Everything else is dandy, and I know they both care a great deal for Wikipedia.
Now that you mention "picking up a shovel", maybe I could venture a tiny start. Maybe they don't think this is futile or a waste of life after all. We will see if they respond:
Hi, Mr. IP Man and Arthur Rubin. Sooooo, who do you think is winning?
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for encouraging "the kid" - see the edit summary here. If you feel the block was bad (... or just useless), then start a thread at AN to undo it rather than undermining the efforts of another admin and supporting a block evading ip. Vsmith (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not encouraging any of this type of behaviour. I do not think any blocks were bad. I am not trying to undermine anything. I am not supporting a block-evading IP. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if my preceding comment was rather blunt. I realize that the start of this whole thread was itself maybe a bit off and you are being dragged into the mess. However, the ip sees this all as support for his "editing style" or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI I have no desire to aide and abet in any "Anna-dragging" so I am dewatching your page. Thanks for reading. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • To Vsmith and NewsAndEventsGuy: I deserve a bit of Anna-dragging (if I'm understanding that right). I've been too kind to Mr. IP.
  • To Mr. IP: I sought dialogue and to show you that I understand your side. Then, I saw your edit summary that points others here. Make no mistake. I object to what you are doing. I am not your supporter. You are operating unilaterally at a commuity project. You are a renegade, heading your own group of one. You are doing this because you feel that a small group is hijacking the encyclopedia and shaping it the way they want. They are going against the wishes of the whole. Well, what you are doing is one step worse. You are a single person who has decided that you are reading the situation right, and that you must take action. Large groups make good decisions together. Small groups, not so much. Individuals? Well, look at history. Don't believe me? Post at village pump asking for the views of the community at large who are not involved in this at all. Tell them your plight. Tell them what you are doing about it. Ask if they approve. If you really care about Wikipedia, stop and get feedback. If you are right, others will see it too, correct? Don't simply trust that you are right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Response from Anna

What percentage of his recent edits would you say are revert-worthy? Looking at Special:Contributions/99.119.130.31, I see around 20 edits. They are better than if they were all random, different people. Why block? Why spend dozens of hours chasing him? Shouldn't we allocate our resources elsewhere? Is this the best use of so much energy? I know we ought to block on principle for block evasion, but shouldn't we pick our battles?

So, yes, step one for me would be to evaluate his edits. Is he a net positive? I know Wikipedia has editors who are a net positive in terms of working the mainspace, but are a huge drain with disruption, warring, and incivility at the back pages. We don't block them, or not permanently anyway, because their edits are good. Compare this case to those.

I may be way off on this one. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


  • (talk page stalker) WP:IP addresses are not people has some tips on why they should register, but if they are refusing and basically giving your the finger over it, odds are good they are previously blocked/banned editors. Still, we should pick our battles and if the edits are of good quality and there aren't behavioral issues, you look elsewhere. There are just too many problems and too few admin (200-300 actually active admin). If we see an easy block for evasion, then block, but spending tons of time to hunt someone down to block "out of principle" seems like a waste of time. Particularly since IP addresses are cheap and admin time isn't. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Good points. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown makes good, but disappointing points; as does MIT Technology Review. 99.119.130.242 (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to close

Anna, thanks for looking into this. As you can see, this has been going on for a long time. The user is now following my contributions and adding links in vioation of WP:OVERLINK and reverting my attempts to remove them. While that doesn't bother me (I can always request semi) I am concerned that this user lacks WP:COMPETENCE. I opened this inquiry alleging that Arthur Rubin was biased in his approach. But now, after seeing the evidence in real time, I propose that this inquiry should be closed, with an added offer of apology to Arthur Rubin, as his concerns were not only warranted but supported by solid behavioral evidence. I really have no idea what Vsmith is insinuating when he says you were dragged into this; all I wanted was your opinion and the participation of the involved parties. Now that has happened, there doesn't seem to be any further purpose in this investigation. However, Wikipedia does need to figure out a way to deal with users who edit disruptively from mobile IP addresses, beyond simply following BRI. Thanks for listening. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this should be closed. I'm so sorry I was unable to help. I don't think AR is biased in his approach to this IP. I think he is doing what is needed to protect the project, and it is the only way to handle this IP, it seems. My criticism of AR is POV editing because it tends to draw adversaries who reactc by pushing articles the other way. That seems to be the motivation behind the IP. But, AR does a ton of good work, and that is appreciated. So, User:Arthur Rubin, if you are reading this, I think you are aces, but the POV stuff in the past hurts the project.
As for the IP, I want to continue to throw the message at him that he is hurting the project, mainly because he is drawing good resources (AR and others' time) away from helping elsewhere. And there is a huge amount of fires to put out elsewhere that present a risk to the project. AR shouldn't be forced to spend hours on this IP. He is needed for other things. We ought to continue to help the IP be aware of this. The IP is hurting the project that he loves.
As for Vsmith, I think he meant that the matter dragged me in, not you. It did.
The overlinks, yes, that is just one clue that there is something not quite right with the IP. Anna F remote (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, again. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Heh. This is ingenious. Because the "Michigan Kid" changes IPs so often and cannot easily create subpages to store information, he's now begun using registered user talk page histories as a "cloud" archive he can refer to from other accounts: [1] Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Still here Anna F.? 99.181.135.205 (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I've been puzzling over how to respond. I just asked a colleague here: User talk:Viriditas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I replied at User talk:Anna F remote#RE: User talk:Anna Frodesiak.23The Michigan Kid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(od) More? 99.181.130.127 (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm mulling it over still. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

List of soft drink flavors

A glass of cola served with ice cubes and lemon

Hi AF: Per your list acumen, here's a new one: List of soft drink flavors. Improve it if interested! NorthAmerica1000 14:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice. There are some really nasty, medicine-flavoured ones here. I'll find out what the particular flavours are. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I don’t see quinine there, which is the principal flavouring in tonic water, and also occurs in Irn-Bru for example. Perhaps someone can find a good source for that.—Odysseus1479 02:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Anna F: Thanks; any updates to the list would be great. Cheers, NorthAmerica1000 20:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we add Vimto? Irondome (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Redmouth grunt listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Redmouth grunt. Since you had some involvement with the Redmouth grunt redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Smarkflea (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Im Back

Im back n ready to hit those articles.... Hulkster2 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That's great! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I responded to your note.

I responded to your note. Buymyfiat (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Adminship.
Message added 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC). 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.

Go Phightins! 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edit at User talk:ZackDickens12

I've reverted your removal of the two articles from this talk page, as the editor was advised that during his one week block he could use his talk page like a sandbox and practicing editing articles. I don't think there's any more of a copyvio concern there then there is with anyone working on improving an article in their userspace, whether it's on a dedicated page or in a sandbox. In any event, the guy has had a hard time of it, he's not learning well, and this was something of a bone that was thrown to him to keep him involved. He may or may not work out as an editor, but lots of admins are keeping an eye on him, so there's little to be concerned about regarding the two articles. (You can take a look at his talk page, its history, and the brief discussion on WritKeetper's talk page to get a sense of the background.) Thanks. BMK (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A thousand pardons. Should it maybe be subpaged? After all, it will clutter the talk page history and it is such an odd place to work on it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken (I haven't checked), if it's subpaged he then can't edit it; which would defeat the purpose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
No kidding? I always assumed that a blocked editor could edit his own subpages. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Take my word for it, blocked users can't edit their subpages. :) If I'm right, they can only edit their talk page. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I just found this discussion after posting on User talk:Beyond My Ken. Anna Frodesiak, strictly speaking you're correct that the material is a copyvio. But BMK is also correct that actively edited userspace drafts such as this aren't normally much of a concern. Since you did go to the trouble of acting on it, though, then rather than removing it entirely it would have been better to just provide the required attribution. (This was, in fact, the suggested solution described on the Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia page you linked to in your edit summary.) —Psychonaut (talk) 07:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, WP:RIA, right down at the bottom. :) I missed that. Thank you kindly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Mining Barnstar
For beating me to the punch at Soma mine disaster, and your graciously letting me move my version over yours (with some liberal borrowing of your material). Pity it had to be under such dire circumstances. kelapstick(bainuu) 23:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but it is you who deserves the star. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You're too kind. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Reviewer priviliges

Hi Anna Hope all is peace and new knowledge with you :). I would like to request reviewer rights. I have recently been privileged with rollbacker status by NickD, a well respected admin and I thought I would approach an admin I equally respect to request this. Its hard, I know some great admins, but i've picked on you :D I have a solid editing record and have been edding for exactly 2 years. My mainspace contributions are a decent percentage, and I try to contribute on the boards including RFAs. I wish to expand my wikipotential for helping out by getting a couple of extra tools. I think I would be an acceptable reviewer, my WP procedural knowledge is now fairly solid and am very aware of what an acceptable pending should be, so think I could function ok as an additional help. I have made myself aware of reviewer requirements via the relevant WP articles, and would like to help out. Cheers Anna! Irondome (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I dug into your contributions for a good ten minutes or so and can find no reason to object and many reasons to approve.
 Done
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Anna :) I will always try to use it wisely Irondome (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: User talk:Anna Frodesiak#The Michigan Kid

You seem to have a somewhat lack-of-understanding of the IP. Would you like to communicate on it further, or not? It is difficult to judge emotions on a computer screen. 141.218.35.129 (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes! Please tell me what you think and how you feel and why you do the things you do. Anna F remote (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
When I get more time (hopefully later this evening) I will communicate with you.
If you can tolerate a great deal of information at once, in preparation for our communication; see some Notes from previous efforts (pre-2014). You will also see a rough notepad for this discusssion stored within this User_talk's history. 50.197.98.82 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll be from a differnet IP. 50.197.98.82 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I can't tolerate a great deal of information. Millions of diffs and links aren't going to help me understand. I really want to know how your involvement in Wikipedia is helpful in your mind. How are you a force for good? Please, speak philosophically and ideologically, etc. Thank you. Anna F remote (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I see the 800+ links. Are you saying that Climate change exists and that there is an effort to whitewash Wikipedia articles and you are dedicated to countering that? Please summarize what you are doing and why. Then, let's go from there. Cheers, Anna F remote (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The Notes were for me, really. They were captured before User talk:141.218.35.26 was obliterated, including audit trails.
I am not saying "there is an effort to whitewash" (there is authentic objective evidence of that (not from me), along with understandable self-interest (also for wp:COI)). So what? I am not "dedicated to countering that". I would love to be free of the AR goon squad; so I could better contribute to wp appropriately and easily.
I started editing wp in the late summer of 2009, after a few years of increasingly utilizing it (free "knowledge", great!). Immediately after my naïve edit attempts (I learn slowly, but I learn well), User:Arthur Rubin ("AR", I'll assume as he says he is "Arthur Rubin" (wp article) per AR's statement, for this discussion) belligerently deleted my efforts; then AR proceeded to stalk me as I attempted to improve my editing skills. Why!? My first thoughts were, it's the internet, all-kinds of sketchy individuals; so what, wp had some community guidelines so this person's behavior will be weeded-out? Right? Well, no. It got even worse. I attempted to avoid, I attempted to make jokes (friends?), I attempted to reason; then with a history (audit trails) I attempted to understand motivations. That was four and 3/4 years ago. What I first guessed naïvely was a misunderstanding was worse. AR seemed obsessed with exterminating any edit I made, no plausible Edit Summary needed. He goaded me with insults; using extremist wording. (What is it they say about power?) A few half-hearted uneasy attempts were made by other editors to dissuade AR's onslaught over the years, with less than healthy results. In fact, AR gained a follower (NewsAndEventsGuy, "NEG") and some occasional backers (Vsmith) and some punctuated situational backers (JamesBWatson), among other lurkers. They attempted to find where I was physically located, when I ate, whether I was on vacation, what my financial situation was, what my career path has been; basically how-to-get-me (I thought about contacting policing services, but what would they do; nothing). He even attempted to get the entire state of Michigan's internet blocked from accessing Wikipedia. He inquired about conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (for himself). He stated he wanted to get Wikimedia's servers to be based in the U.S..
I failed, and the way I proceeded was the only way I could see to continue to give-back to "the Project"; waiting, hoping things would get better (or was/is wp doomed?) Even AR admits 97.87.29.188 was blocked for a trivial reason unrelated to me. And he re-blocked that IP. Then that IP was blocked on all languages, and the User who did it wouldn't discuss it, and then that IP was blocked from talking to anyone (last I check). Silenced. I could only suspect "goon" involvement there. Does wp have equal and just processes, or are its processes a thumb on its own scales of justice. My motivations are not righting some kind of environmental wrongs (I don't belong to any organization and I'm nonpartisan for example), but what I do expect is the wp "community" to be just to volunteers who make positive contributions. My understanding is "the Project" is to make an up-to-date accurate encyclopedia. Not easy to do with mob mentalities and any-sketchy-individual/group-with-less-than-credible-authority-on-the-topic(s) can edit; let alone "incentivized" ones.
Well, I should take a breath. Good luck to you and best wishes to the health of the community. 141.218.35.129 (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That actually really helps me understand. I'll need a bit of time to respond as I have a few busy days ahead off-wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Received. 108.73.113.113 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Mr. IP Man.
You may be absolutely right about what happened, and it may be a huge injustice. Figuring that out is not step one. This reminds me of when a large, powerful nation commits an injustice, and the only way the little guy can respond is through guerilla tactics and jungle warfare. What can the little guy do? The game is rigged. He can't get an even shake. Well, if what you are saying is true, then it's the same, but with one, important exception: the game is not rigged. Wikipedia is transparent, and neutral editors are many and brave. The trouble is, you have the status of a blocked editor who has gone rogue, and who is bombing those lending an ear with tons of diffs to read. But, what you wrote above is quite succint. If presented by the right person, at the right place, it would draw eyes an further investigation.
The choice before you must be to either walk, or to deal with the block thing and then succinctly present the issue to the neutral community. The choice of just going rogue is a bad one. You have nobody else to examine things with you to be sure things are what they seem. Plus, the very course of being rogue means nobody will support you.
So, if you do want to expose this alleged great wrong, (instead of fighting it, which is exactly what you are doing), then you must first address the block problem. Are you willing to do that? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (od) How can I be assured of a "neutral community"? The vested interest of extraction industries are huge. For example, Exxon has recently made the most money "in the history of money". Per Transparency International, the corruption of the US government has gone up. Our Supreme Court supports plutocracy. Movements toward global warming mitigation (and even adaptation) are not strong enough and quite vulnerable; climate engineering is the business-as-usual fallback. I personally feel my future and quality-of-life is endangered from what I have attempted on Wikipedia. Some of these people are extremist armed ideologues, let alone people who are concerned about their jobs. Overclass billionaires can be psychopaths (i.e. not capable of empathy) and are personally intelligent and talented, besides having a great deal of (overweighted) personal power. If one has to right tools or clearance, it is possible to track-me-down and have dramatic painful impacts on my world. I am not attempting to make you feel creepy, I just don't know what you know can be done. What is key is risk management, with a thought of personal precautionary principles.
  • My "guerilla tactics" are the methods of the marginalized, but think about Jackson Pollock (you appear to have some artistic experience). The spatter lines (audit trails) and differing colors (layers of wp) combine to make a whole (over four and 3/4 years) if one has a "canvas". That combining foundation could be a spider that crawls Wikipedia (and Wikimedia), if you know some IT ("I've got a guy.")
  • So from what hasn't been obliterated, due to its isolatable vulnerability; my works, such as "tons of diffs " could be made whole with automation with some human guidance. I don't know how Wikipedia insiders might respond to this idea.
  • I am sorry to say your word of "the game is not rigged. Wikipedia is transparent, and neutral" has not been my feeling due to my experiences of being abused here. Of course I wouldn't still be here if I didn't hope against hope. My trust needs to be increased in the so-called "community", but how?
  • Where would you go from here? 99.119.129.34 (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
"How can I be assured...:" Be assured that there are lots of corporate nasties who edit Wikipedia to whitewash articles. At the moment, they may be outnumbered. When they begin to overwhelm Wikipedia and ruin the articles, then maybe the community will consider some sort of action. For now, be assured that there are legions of neutral editors.
"I personally feel my future and quality-of-life is endangered...:" I think that is paranoid. A Wikipedia editor is just not dangerous enough. Really, Glenn Greenwald and Richard D. Wolff are safe in their homes. Be brave.
"My guerilla tactics are the methods of the marginalized...:" Right, but guerilla tactics and Wikipedia don't mix. Plus, it is the corporate nasties who are at the moment marginalized at Wikipedia. With you as a legitimate editor, you could help keep it that way. Right now, you are being reverted by corporate nasties and legitimate editors alike.
"So from what hasn't been obliterated...:" Your "works" made whole? What do you want to do, publish a book that the whole world would read?
"My trust needs to be increased...Where would you go from here...:" See the community for what it is: partially untrustworthy. Work within it knowing that. You're smart. Work smart. This needs finesse and patience and higher thought. You can do better than years of brute force vs. brute force that ends in zeros. So, first handle the unblock thing. Then, get involved in the community in areas that help shape Wikipedia's future. There are lots of editors like you who also see the problem. Seek them out and discuss it. Work with others to help the broader community see the problems and seek support for some kind of policy changes. Think big. Maybe hot topic articles will need some sort of sockpuppet prevention measures. I don't know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I see you unlinked Glenn Greenwald and Richard D. Wolff as "not clearly related". I cite them only as two of countless examples of people who bravely challenge the most powerful and dangerous forces on Earth, and are still standing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thank you for continuing this discussion. What is your basis for stating "it is the corporate nasties who are at the moment marginalized at Wikipedia."? What is your evidence? How do you "know" this enough to be so blunt? I know you don't speak for the entire "community" and that you do not have my experiences.
"... ruin the articles, then maybe the ... :" sounds like you are only thinking of acts of commission, not acts of omission. The behaviors of these "deniers" are to delay, confuse, obscure, omit ... see wp article "Fear, uncertainty and doubt" for staters, and maybe read Merchants of Doubt (among others noted). Wikipedia's processes favor omission and gang-written articles are messy; attrition tactics are an effective deterrent to neutral volunteerism. The "deniers" appear to have already gamed Wikipedia to its limits (over-the-top "ruin"-ing would be counterproductive to their agendas).
Why do you state "A Wikipedia editor is ..."? No contributor is just an editor, they are more. How many do you really know? Do you read German (I've only attempted a google translation)? See de:Benutzer:Dudenfreund/Dudenfreund’s Law. Without authentic evidence, your subjective comments are just words.
"Be brave." You sound naïve. Courage is acting in spite of fear.
"... as a legitimate editor ...:" What is illegitimate about editing as an IP?
"... and higher thought ...:" What? That just seems like an attempt at an insult.
"... handle the unblock ...:" How is that done? Be assured the "deniers" are planning from these communications (and have other resources), as history has shown. How many times have you seen a situation similar to this succeed? If ever, name some please. It has been explicitly stated by involved Admins that I would be denied from registering a User Name on Wikipedia, but if I did it would be ended along with any future attempts. My observations have shown no "legitimate" justification must be shown. Mob-rule. Why would I give-up what little methods I have to contribute, for even less? Where is my equal protection from the corruption within "the community"? From what you have states so-far, "its processes (are) a thumb on its own scales of justice". See Wikipedia:Systemic bias?
"There are lots of editors like you who also see the problem. Seek them out and discuss it.:" Who are these "editors" who "see the problem"? Name a dozen or more, please. It would be wonderful to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down (stated with multiple meanings, see in history of deletions to even thank others).
Some more background, from 2012: User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 16#ANI and User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2012#A New Title, plus User talk:Viriditas/Archive 24#Mentors?
141.218.35.19 (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Au contraire. I assume good faith. The onus is on you to show that corporate nasties are not marginalized. A see that a tiny percentage of articles are being unfairly influenced. Most of Wikipedia's millions of articles are not. Providing a few diffs is not evidence that a large percentage of Wikipedia's millions of articles are being manipulated by corporate nasties.
Of course I consider omission. We all know what passes for news these days.
I only know editors by their edits, and those edits are here for all to see.
I may be naive, but then you may be paranoid. But, I don't trust my judgement enough to determine, and neither should you. I'd rather trust the opinions of dozens of neutral observers.
A legitimate editor is an IP or a registered user, not someone who is blocked.
No insult intended. But really, brute force? Surely there is a better strategy to get what you want. You are fighting back symptoms. You need to get at the disease. Want to save the world from overfishing? Don't bother to protest. You have to change the system.
To handle the block, inquire, don't assume. Then, reevaluate.
If all of this is to convince me that power centers are attacking Wikipedia, don't bother. I know they are. If all of this is to justify your strategy, don't bother. I cannot condone it.
If you saying the path of getting unblocked is not something you will pursue, then we don't need to continue this. My aim is to get you to chose a different path. In fact, I really want you to get unblocked and champion the cause. Why? Because I believe the powers that be will eventually win unless something is done, and I just don't think you can win by fighting as a rogue. Anyway, what I am hearing from you is that you've figured out that Wikipedia is one big rotten apple, and your only choice is to go rogue and counter it. And I don't think Wikipedia is one big rotten apple, and neither do you, or you would see any action as futile. But, we can both agree that there are plenty worms at work. So, what are your intentions? What do you plan to do? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you've delcared this discussion closed. Oh, well. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


Brending

A tank on a lawn, brended with Operation Overlord markings

Morning Anna! Just to let you know, the brending enthusiast is now at User:Danielhighberger. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. Thank you. I added it and 3 others to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdzarlino. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I've requested a sleeper check to try to reduce the amount of future re-brending that takes place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Tanks very much. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

My Name is...

WOW! My dad was right. No sour grapes just want to document this properly. Riddle me this.... When "Johnny & Marko" invented the portmanteau or neologism on March 9th, 2011 any iteratee could purchase the key word for under one US cent. Why does it cost over $2.00 dollars per click. My dad told me that I need to ask for administrative protection from you both. How do I do that? Danielhighberger (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Several administrators watchlist Anna's talkpage, so in due course one of them will implement any necessary administrative protection while passing by. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dan or Johnny or Marko etc. I'm back. I'm actually the inventor of "clunking". Perhaps you and your brothers could help me demonstrate it. Anyway, how about you get administrative protecton from us, but in exchange, Wikipedia gets administrative protection from you? Would that be fair? In the meantime, please stop trying to type the words inventor, Dan, Marko, and brending all over Wikipedia. It really won't help with your searchability and credibility. I think it's actually damaging to your image. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line for all of this at Wikipedia

User:Danielhighberger‎, on a serious note, I'll say it in simple terms. There are two places "brending" can be mentioned at Wikipedia: userpages and the main encyclopedia.

  • The main encyclopedia: Media references saying it's real and notable and worth an article are needed. Without that, it gets deleted.
  • Userpages: This is an utter, utter waste of your time. Why? We can search "brending" at the userpages. We find it. We see that it's you and block the account. We remove the promotional mentions of brending (the entire page) and replace it with a sockpuppetry notice. Poof! All of your efforts gone. Then, I, personally, check for "brending" every once in a while to see if you are back. Rinse and repeat. All of this with the click of a button. For you? Hours. For us? Seconds.
Please, please, find a better way to publicize brending. Try your own blog or website. Call the local papers. Wear a sandwich board in Times Square. Anything. But this is just a waste of time for everyone, (like this 2.5 minutes I just spent writing this). It just simply can't work for you. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Eddie's obsession
Spoon brending. Invented by Uri Geller.
I'm really sorry to interrupt this discussion, Anna, but if you aren't already familiar with the King of proto-"brending", you should read about the Eddie Segoura situation and how the community handled it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Whoa. That's pretty left field. That's almost as strange as...
23:54, 18 May 2014‎ Anna Frodesiak

No more?

Is this your de facto answer to the question of "more"? 99.181.135.21 (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Brent Hinkley for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ruby Yadav - May 2014

hi .

can you now help me to creat an article as i am come forth in loksabha. Rubyyadav (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Congratulations on the election. Yes, an article seems warranted per WP:POLITICIAN, the amount of new media sources, and per User:Fæ's comment :"If the subject wins the election, or attracts media coverage for some other stuffs rather than being an electoral candidate, it'd be suitable for inclusion thereafter."
I will move your userpage to the mainspace. You can work on it there. Also:
  • Please feel free to make a new userpage that is not promotional.
  • Ensure that Ruby Yadav is not promotional.
  • Remove the promotional wording at your new image description here.
  • Please tell me whether or not you actually own that image.
  • Let us know what your new title is as a politician.
Best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you , this image is owned by me Rubyyadav (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC). 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.

Go Phightins! 01:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I just discovered...

...your alternate account? :) Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. That's how a fly sees a bunny. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I wish someone had warned me about the visual impact before I clicked on it! Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Me too. :) Oh, and I'm unrelated to that account. Just another bunny-lover. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
"Just Another Bunny Lover". That would be a great name for a band. Do you play music? Viriditas (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
That is a whole lot of bunny...--kelapstick(bainuu) 23:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Archiving help

Hi Anna. I think I have figured it out after much pain and too much Strongbow cider. Please take a look at my talk page edit list. The bot migrated over 100k of stuff but created a file I think based on me not fixing the bot parameters correctly. I finally managed to incorporate it into my archive box, but the file has a strange name, so I think I forgot to take off some uneeded stuff when I was setting it up. I hope the bot will migrate files automatically to archive box from now on. Anyway take a look when you have a moment :). Next and last is demonstrating diffs and that I can do them and I will have learned the absolute WP basics to function as an editor fully. Ha ha :/. Much affection and respect as always. Irondome (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you got it right. I have no idea why Archive 1 is named that way. Odd. I'd suggest moving the archive to the right name and waiting to see what Matzah ball does next. Maybe it will name the next one Archive 2 if the counter is set for 2. How you have it configured now is something I'm not familiar with. Maybe a stalker who uses the bot can help. Sorry I am so useless on this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
No you have been helpful as always Anna :). I tried changing it but thats the only title the archive box will accept. Maybe the matzoballbot will show more intelligence than I and autoarchive now. Irondome (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you use a list as a category?

I'm a new Wikipedian. Can you add a list to another page as a category? In other words, at the bottom of a page, can you add to the category list but instead of it being a category, have it refer to a list? The reason I ask is that I created The List of Contemporary Writers of the American West (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Contemporary_Writers_of_the_American_West) as a list, and it has been created/added. However, you suggest that I add incoming links. If I can't add it as a category, do I just link within the text? Suggestions? Tlinse (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking whether or not you can add Category:Chairs to an article called List of chairs, then yes. I'm a bit confused about what you need here. Anyway, I see the article has been nominated for deletion. I think as long as it is almost identical to the category itself (which I think should be created), it might not survive the deletion debate. If, however, it were to be expanded to include information about the writers, then it should survive. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Any guidance you have would be much appreciated! Should it be a category, rather than a list? I'm happy to do either, but Wikipedia seemed to say that lists and categories are equal. Maybe there's something I don't know? It links out to the wiki pages of people (so maybe it should be a category?) but then also points out gaps. What exactly should I do to expand to include other thing or link out in order to make it more legitimate? Thank you! Tlinse (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. I would like to first say that your way is very, very nice. You are showing the manner and characteristics of a fine editor. Now, about this list matter. I'd suggest letting views come in at the deletion debate. That should to help sort things out. Watch (and feel welcome to participate) for a few days and then it will become clear what we ought to do. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Anna! Yes, discussion seems to have started, and I look forward to it. Again, I much appreciate it! Best, Tlinse (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Peking University HSBC Business School

Hey Anna,

My name is Alec Rosenman, head of admissions at Peking University HSBC Business School. I am trying to update the website but my recent edits were removed due to copy right issues. The edit I made to the "internationalization" section should not have been removed. The data concerning the upcoming academic class (over 70 students from 33 countries) was written in my own words and is factually accurate.

Also, my most recent add on concerning the new business school building and its design was also removed because it was "not in my own words". Actually, this information was taken from the information page on the universities website from an article that I WROTE! I understand that it seems to be "plagiarized" but actually it is anything but. I will try and rewrite this information and insert it in again. I hope that is okay.

Please offer me some advice for how I can accomplish adding in this factually accurate information that I myself have written!

Thank you,

Alec Rosenman International Admissions Manager Peking University HSBC Business School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stylingoo (talk • contribs) 09:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Alec. I believe you, of course. The trouble is that the website where the content comes from says "Copyright @ 2013 PHBS Support By ITS.pkusz.edu.cn" at the bottom. That means the content added to Wikipedia may be based on that site, but cannot be copy pasted. As long as the content is worded differently, without any copy pasting or even close paraphrasing, all is fine. I hope this helps. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cochleoceps orientalis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Leatherjacket and Seal Rocks (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) 08:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

From Activist

Dear Ms. Frodesiak,

I noticed that you originated and contributed almost all of the updates to the U.S. detention center article. I made a few changes to that article.

Looking at your USER page I was quite impressed by the extraordinary amount of time you have obviously volunteered to originate and update so many pages on a wide variety of subjects. Thanks for your diligent work. Activist (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions, and thank you too for the very kind words. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

could you refresh my memory?

He Anna, I saw this previously deleted article pop up on my watchlist: Vikrant Sandal, which I'd like to submit of speedy deletion as a recreation of a previously deleted article. But my memory is failing me: is this the case; or is this a second try with different content (in which case I'll go via AfD?)? L.tak (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. Long time. :) Sure, the history is as follows:
  • First created 26 March 2009
  • Prodded by you 10 July 2013
  • Deleted 19 July 2013 as "Expired PROD, concern was: No notability; 2x for the same story in Punjab News is not proving sustained and wide notability"
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! that helps... Long time indeed! We seem to mostly dwell in different corners of the 'pedia now; but I am still a talk page stalker/watcher ;-)... L.tak (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't replied?

You haven't replied me here? Is it my fault? Please show me the right way. Many thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Replied. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice nudibranchs!

Thank you so much Anna for the two nice nudibranch articles! All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A pleasure to get back to the fun stuff. Sorry about the sloppy writing. I haven't written in a while, and it's always so hard for me to describe these things without copyvios. Best wishes to you and thanks for writing. I hope all is well on your end. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Naw, you did great! Yeah, thanks for asking, I am doing well. Here in NYC today the sun is shining, sky is blue, and it is going up to 78. We recently met some interesting people at Ted Nelson's wife's birthday party. The outdoor pool at the end of my street will be open in another month and 3 days... It's all good. :) Invertzoo (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That all sounds very, very nice!! It is the complete opposite of winter storms and all of that. Enjoy your summer. :) Oh, and remember, if the kids in the pool all suddenly say "eeeewwwwwwwwwww" and get out at the same time, then you should probably get out too. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you

Because you are an amazing contributor! Invertzoo (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you *blush*. Likewise. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


A Bunny for you!

Hi Anna, thank you for that cute kitten, in return a bunny for you. Jim Carter (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I'd certainly hope Anna is aware of her own proposal...;P ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Not aware. Not happy about it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hyperia galba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hyperia
Lethrinus rubrioperculatus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Operculum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Lack of experience

Hi Anna. Trying to change a photo in Turkish War of Independence I could not place it rightly. Could you kindly give me a helping hand there, please? Thank you very much for your possible help. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You had a stray period at the end of the filename, so the one you wanted couldn’t be found. Then you deleted the thumbnail size, so the servers dutifully tried to display the full-size 11.6-Mipx image in the infobox …. The IP editor should have restored the previous version instead of just deleting the whole link, but that’s water under the bridge now.—Odysseus1479 05:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Odysseus1479. I trust that sorts things out for User:Why should I have a User Name?. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Don't worry about the thread or the mass messaging or anything; not your fault in the least. Enjoy this cup of tea, and relax ... no stress needed, it's all good. Go Phightins! 02:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, can you give me a link to the IRC admin channel? Go Phightins! 02:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Go Phightins! :)
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
That's where I went, and it redirects me to the main en channel. Do I need some kind of code? Go Phightins! 03:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
They're aware and working on it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Try:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Or, Go Phightins!, try...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRC/Access_requests
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Dd it hurt, when you fell from heaven?

Corey122002 (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a great Chat-up line. I got to remember that one :) Irondome (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


Admin review

Hi Anna. Just wondering if you could do a brief analysis on my quality of edits, community participation and attitude, with a view to a possible attempt at adminship in the next 12 months. I need to create a few articles (I have a few in the pipeline) but please do give me an honest opinion, if you wish to respond Irondome (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly why I proposed Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Pre-RfA opinion page. Nobody responded. I wonder if such a page could be made without community pre-approval and be subject to AfD if someone objects. You could be the first victim. :) Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I trust and respect your judgement greatly Anna, as much as I do your kindness. Let that be my answer :) Irondome (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey Anna, I just sent out 1045 messages to other editors about your proposal at village pump, now you will get good response. Hope you didn't mind. Thanks. Jim Carter (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. Irondome (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Double ouch. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Jim Cartar, I was out of town and just got back to discover this. You should have discussed it with me first, obviously. The lack of response at that village pump page (which has 567 watchers) was in itself a response. Mass messaging every sysop in the place was not a good idea. As User:Billinghurst said here, this was an inappropriate use of massmessaging. Many of the 1,045 editors likely think that I endorsed this action. I am very embarrassed and very upset.
Because I was out of town, I did not get a chance to say at that thread that I was unaware of the massmessaging. Plus, I did not even get a chance to take part in the discussion at all.
This is the third time that you have involved yourself in a matter at my talk page to help with something that has nothing to do with you.[2][3] Add those to the long, long list of issues that have cost me plenty of grief and time since your days as Rudra john cena, and you must understand how my patience is really at an end. I really would like you to not help me whenever possible. If somebody posts at my page, please do not jump in to speak or act on my behalf. Wikipedia is a big place. Please, please, turn your attention elsewhere. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Anna. I feel very bad because I did not comment at an early stage on the thread the precise context of what was going on re our small discussion. It just exploded. I woke up, but just didnt have the spiritual energy (or enough tea and cigarettes) to face this massive wall of text our little chat became. I am sorry, although I did leave 1 post on the sanity check thread. i have been communicating with Jim, but he is (no doubt) aware of my displeasure. I have been trying to explain WP:Clue in terms of not being impulsive, but ithas spoilt our budding little experiment.
Also I did not realise you were out of town, I took your silence as a kind of resigned acceptance. I should have sensed your anger. Irondome (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
You have absolutely nothing to be sorry for. I, on the other hand, have dragged you into something nasty. So, I am the one who is sorry.
Surely my silence has been widely misinterpreted.
I have only just scanned the village pump and sanity check threads. I just got back from an exhausting trip to Hong Kong, and don't have the energy right now. Maybe later today. The weekend is busy too, so it may have to wait till Monday.
Spoilt, yes, probably. I never got the chance to say that the pre-RfA thing could be casual and informal. I think that with such a format, plenty of prospects would come forward and like what they hear. It could have mean many new admins, badly needed. That is what I'm most upset about.
As for Jim Cartar's edits, I am at my wit's end. This time it is more than a time-sucking, exasperating, nuisance. This time it is collateral damage. The issue with his edits has always been competence lagging behind confidence.
Thank you so much for being so nice about this whole thing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Anna, I am quite happy to volunteer for an experiment, once we clesr up this mess and maybe get a consensus from that wall of text thats been created. If not we follow your original prposal upthread. I would ask any uninvolved admins who see this, please close that monster thread, on the grounds clearly given above. Irondome (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Close which monster thread? Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Pre-RfA opinion page is closed, by the way.
I would love to see you volunteer. I think many would. But, I am not sure, after seeing the opposes, that going forward without consensus is a good thing. Also, reading through the opposes, I see very good points. Maybe the best way is for those interested in running to do what you did, and pick an existing admin or longtime editor and ask for a review. Maybe a pre-RfA opinion page would just add an unneeded element to the project. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see, close the mass messaging one. Good plan. I hope someone does. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Jim Cartar, I wrote above "I need you to not help me whenever possible. If somebody posts at my page, please do not jump in to speak or act on my behalf. Wikipedia is a big place. Please, please, turn your attention elsewhere." I really want you to acknowledge that you've read it and and understand it. The "sorry" is appreciated, but that is about the past. I am concerned about the future. Considering that this is the third time, please assure me that there will not be a fourth time. I think that is reasonable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Trust me, my intension was not bad. But I admit, this was something bad on which I involved you; even when you are not aware. I'm extremely sorry. I haven't thought that my fault will affect you. Again I'm sorry and I assure you that I will try not to make any such problem again. But again trust me in this case I assumed good faith. But the trouble you have to face for me; I'm extremely sad for that. Jim Carter (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Indian Flickr

Namaste, Anna Frodesiak. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito☸Dutta 04:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.
Thank you very much. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment?

See. 141.218.35.31 (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:99.181.131.29. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


Swietenia macrophylla copyright concerns

Hello Anna, I'm not sure about the proper pathway for responding to your inquiry. I appreciate the concern over the copyrights. My name is Chris Free and I am a mahogany researcher. I am the owner/writer of all of the SwietKing.org content. If you don't believe me, you can email me at cfree@swietking.org. I have copyright for everything I posted on Wikipedia since I wrote it all or took the pictures. Please let me know what I can do to clear this up. Thanks!

Best, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfree14 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Thank you for writing back so soon. First of all, let me say that I believe you, and also, Wikipedia is grateful for your contributions. I do have a responsibility to look into such things. So, here are my thoughts on the two issues:
  • Images: This is the easy one. The images can remain at Wikicommons provided that you replace the copyright notice at the bottom of your website with a Creative Commons license. This is because all of those images (I think) are at your site. If you don't wish to do that, the images require proof of ownership. That means you are required to send in an email. See User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS. Please ask if you have any questions about that. Also, removing the watermarks, or uploading versions without them would be very much appreciated. There may be another choice involving OTRS and the use of the images exclusively at English Wikipedia. I'm looking into that and maybe a talk page stalker can help.
  • Text: This one is more tricky. The choices:
1 - If the content at your site was written entirely by you, based on the sources you cite, and not actually copy pasted from the sources you cite, then the copy pasted content can remain in the Wikipedia articles unchanged, provided that you replace the copyright notice at the bottom of your website with a Creative Commons license. (If some or all of the content at your site is a copy paste of the sources you cite, then you are commiting a copyright violation and Wikipedia cannot accept the content.)
2 - You can rewrite the content at the Wikipedia article so that it is no longer a copyright violation or even close paraphrasing
3 - The content at the Wikipedia article can be removed entirely (or at least the copy pasted parts).
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
For the record: all of the copyvio content was removed by me, just now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Reference Errors on 5 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dmae Roberts

Please do scrub my edit summary as well, as it too includes RD2 from when I reverted those edits. :s Thank you. 「dsprc」 [ talk ] 09:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. And thanks for reverting in the first place. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Bangladesh

Bishal Khan is adding false information in LGBT rights in Bangladesh. Please take adequate action against him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Za-ari-masen (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot check most of the sources right now. I am in China and there is a temporary block on many news media sites. Even Google search and all its sites are blocked.
However, I was able to check a couple of the sources the editor is using to support his facts. There seems to be no connection to these sources and the content. Please just revert and use the talk page to discuss things. Try not to edit war. Others will surely get involved and help. Please, be patient and calm. Let me know if you are still having trouble after a while and I will assist. Also, many people watch my user talk page who will probably take a look too. Many thanks for bringing this to my attention. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Anna someone is again adding false information, this time it's Samira Sadik. I think Samira is Bishal's friend that's why she is adding the same false information that Bishal was adding. Please take action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Za-ari-masen (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Za-ari-masen. I'll take a look. And, I have three on my list to watch: Randhir Khan, Samira Sadik, Bishal Khan. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Update: Bishal Khan is back and again adding false information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Za-ari-masen (talk • contribs) 18:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Za-ari-masen. I'm not sure it's false -- just not so constructive. Let's keep and eye on things and be patient. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Anna it was definitely false. First he was saying that homosexuality is legal throughout Bangladesh. Then he said homosexuality is legal only in Boalmari Upazilla, a sub-district of Bangladesh. How can this be possible? Sub-districts don't have separate constitutions. However, he has not edited since 11th June. I will let you know if he comes back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Za-ari-masen (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Pre-RFA opinion page

Anna,

I didn't reply on time to a request to leave an comment at this discussion at the village pump but I thought you might like to know of an approach that was advised to me before I became an admin.

Another editor suggested I open a subpage of my talk dedicated to other leaving opinion on whether I should request adminship or whether I would make a good admin. You can see it here: User:Tóraí/Request for comment: Adminship. Informal, but it did the trick. --Tóraí (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Tóraí. I like it. I'd seen such a thing before, but never saw a lot of responses. I think this sort of subpage idea is best. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul Wheaton may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |image = [Paul_Wheaton.png

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You've been a bot of help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Permaculture template

Hi Anna, a comment about your new template: the last heading "People in permaculture" doesn't do justice to all the practitioners and advocates. Perhaps "Permaculture writers" could work better, though some people would need to be removed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sminthopsis84. I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying we ought to start a new article, or move People in permaculture to Permaculture writers? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see, that probably can't be moved. I think that having a page that lists only a few people suggests that this is not a popular area, that few people practise it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "People in permaculture" is likely best named as it is. But, it should have all the names that are in the navbox listed in it, and those should be linked. People in permaculture ought to be worked on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Move disaster

Hello Anna, please help me out of this. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. How about simply Tour of Iran? Is there a need to disambiguate? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not? But please just save me quick. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I caused you a lot of work, sorry and thanks again. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No trouble at all. It only took a second. The article is now Tour of Iran with a single redirect to it named Azerbaijan International Cycling Tour. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Clinton-Colden Lake map problem

Clinton-Colden fixed
Clinton-Colden
Aylmer

Hi Anna. I noticed the detail map for Clinton-Colden Lake is incorrect. The coordinate for the page is right, but the label is pointing to Aylmer Lake. Clinton-Colden Lake is the large lake just SE of Aylmer Lake (actually they seem to be siamese twins, i.e. connected). --ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.macky (talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ian. Thanks for pointing that out. I just did a sloppy job fixing the black line so that it points to the right lake. I hope it's good enough. I would have grabbed a newer version from http://www.maps-for-free.com/ but I'm blocked from that site right now. Again, thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The big pictures at the right are identical. I'm not sure if that was an error on my part, or if I just figured that the lakes from that distance were just a big blob. Do you think it's okay to leave it?
Convenience links:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Prince of San Marino

Anna, could you speedily delete this hoax please, before it is in the press... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I was a bit too late. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding reliable sources

Hi, sorry to bug you. But I am not sure where to take this question without being a major pest. I had placed a request to see if a source from a university newspaper is useful for establishing notability under the GNG. I also presented a few pieces of evidence pertaining to the reliability of the paper-- evidence which was not mentioned by the one person who seemed like they were not keen on it being reliable despite my best efforts to convince them of the contrary. I am not sure what the process is at this point. Any advice would be great. Also: I just went to the admin list, and clicked the first name I saw. Oh, here is my attempt to conversate with this person regarding the reliability of the Portland State University Vanguard. I am disappointed because I feel they were not weighing in on my original question regarding the Vanguard in good faith. Corporatemonster (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Corporatemonster, and welcome. In future, please try to provide more links so we don't have to go hunting for what you are talking about. Cheers.
You asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 171#Is Portland State Vanguard.2FDaily Vanguard a reliable newspaper source.3F about reliability.
Okay, the link for the paper is http://psuvanguard.com/. I can't find anything about the editor-in-chief, so where is the editorial oversight? Where is the peer review? There is no information at their site about who they are. Mike Bivins, who wrote the story, is identified as a student: "I live In Portland, Oregon where I am a communications major at Portland State University. I also write a weekly opinion column for the PSU Vanguard. My interests are MMA, submission wrestling, and new media." Please see WP:RS for further information.
But you say the paper is a good source because they won awards? Who are these guys who gave them the award? Are they qualified to judge newspapers? If so, why can't they get the right spaces around punctuation?
I don't think the paper is a reliable source because there is no information that says they are. In fact, there is really no information about them at all, even at their own website. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I've used some pretty stinky sources myself from time to time. But, you're writing about a person so per WP:BLP, the sources need to be a rock. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for responding in such a timely manner.

The Portland State University Vanguard's editorial staff is listed here. As for the reliability/authority of the organization giving the Vanguard awards-- The ONPA is the one, and here is their about page. I guess they are a trade association of newspapers in the state/region. Seems like they would be an authority on what makes a good newspaper. Hope this helps. Also, I see what you are saying about the living person biography. Also: in regards to the typo on their website, everyone makes mistakes? It is a logical fallacy to point to one typo in an attempt to discredit an entire arguement. Just saying, not trying to offend you. Corporatemonster (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Corporatemonster. The editor-in-chief is Whitney Beyer, a "...self-employed happy-hour connoisseur and unemployed writer..." and student leader. No offence to Whitney, but I don't see that she has the credentials to be taken seriously in her role as editorial overseer. Also, the link you provided gives names, but no information about the staff. Really, I just don't think the community here will see the paper as a reliable source. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have an alternative opinion! :) I don't think the problem is the student newspaper; Wikipedia consensus seems to be that university newspapers are, for the most part, reliable sources. The question is, does the information reported by the student newspaper appear in other sources? That, I think, is the relevant issue. Whenever possible, we should not rely on one source for anything, because often times, sources will get things wrong or there will be different opinions about the same subject. Furthermore, when something appears only in one source, that can lead to notability problems, which I think is the problem here. So the question really isn't about the notability of the student paper, it's about the dearth of sources in general. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point. So, are there other good sources that can corroborate the facts? Also, I think maybe this source was needed, not to support a fact insomuch as to help satisfy the significant coverage part of GNG. Am I correct in that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That's right. The problem is that to establish notability for Draft:Katie Howard, the user is focusing too much on one source rather than on multiple sources. In any case, the user needs to focus on the question, is Katie Howard a notable athlete? Based on the draft, it looks like she could be notable, but probably closer to not-notable based on my reading of the article. It's a tough one, but focusing on one source is not the right approach here. We need good coverage in secondary sources. The article claims that Howard is a professional American mixed martial artist, in which case there should be good sources indicating notability. The reviewer has requested guidance from the MMA project, which I think is a good first step. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The user needs to focus on notability. In fact, I think he ought to forget about the uni paper source and only look for others. If plenty of sources aren't found, he should wait a year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, along with the PSU paper, there is the Clackamas paper, as well as several from Northwest Fightscene Magazine, as well as various one line mentions here and there. I wouldn't say I was focusing on one source. I would say I was focusing on one source at a time, rather than requesting 3-4 requests to see if the other sources were considered reliable (as I really have no idea how the fightscene mag and Clackamas are viewed). With that said, I know that she will certainly fail the notability requirement as an MMA athlete, which is of concern to me because I have no idea if the MMA crowd, who the reviewer has deferred to, will attempt to weigh her general notability as a regional personality. However, in my eyes it seems like she has drummed up enough mentions to possibly pass criteria for being generally notable. I do see what you are saying about WP:BIO and not using one source just to support one little tidbit of info. I went in and cleaned some of that junk out of the article. Thanks for that. However, is there a way/avenue to come to a definite conclusion on the Vanguard as being reliable? It is interesting that it is said most university newspapers are considered reliable, yet it has been an uphill battle to get that acknowleded for the Vanguard. If only there was a "bump" fuction for the original inquiry I made. Corporatemonster (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Corporatemonster. I'm right in the middle of something at the moment, and will respond to the above soon, but thought I'd make you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I have seen that, and as I said I know that the article in question will not stand up to this essay's requirements about notable fights. However, I do thank you for pointing it out Corporatemonster (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

List of Pastries

Hi Anna. I would like to add Acıbadem kurabiyesi and Boyoz to the Pastries list but after a failure in changing a simple picture at another article I am afraid of breaking the structure. Would you mind doing that for me, please? Thank you very much. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Why should I have a User Name?. I added Acıbadem kurabiyesi to List of cookies because the article says it is a biscuit. Boyoz is already at list of pastries. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation(s)

Hi Anna - thanks a lot for your comment. I am going to check and modify in case I did violate the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olgaeilya (talk • contribs) 12:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome, Olgaeilya. So, are the other sections okay now? No copy paste? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I hope you are doing fine Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 15:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Miss Bono is back! How are you and how is the lovely land of Cuba? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I am not back, but I had some time to spend in WP and I wanted to say hi to my friends. I´m good. Studying a lot. Best wishes! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 16:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

References to Cookbook

Anna, Thanks for your note. Please know that I tried to add the link to the cookbook in a space, usually near the top, that was unobtrusive. I would be OK with moving the cookbook references down to the bottom. Austncorp (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I kind of like them where you put them. Others might move them or object. I saw that you were doing one after another, so I thought I'd drop you a note just in case. Best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock??

Hello Anna, I'm sorry for the MMS incident. Can you please unblock my old account User:Rudra john cena?? I want to change it's user name to User:Jim Carter - Public. Currently most of the time I'm AFH (Away from home) so I have to use this account through Public cybers. Public cybers are risky, if the cache of my log in is not removed. So I want to use that old account by renaming it. But before I can ask any crat I need the account to be unblocked. Since you was the blocking admin so I thought if you can help that account to be unblocked (I don't want to create any other accounts). Thanks a lot. Jim Carter (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. I think it would leave a very confusing paper trail. The clearest solution is to register a new account and declare it at your talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm Jim not John (I guess you are confused; John was my past) Okay, thanks for the advice. I will register a new account and will declare it on my talk page. Thanks again. Jim Carter (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Registered. Thank you. Jim Carter - Public (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I was confused, sorry. Glad all worked out well. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Russell King.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Russell King.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there . My concern is that a free equivelant could be found, or created, of Mr King. He's alive and, as Panorama has shown, able to be photographed, though with more difficulty than some people. Peripitus (Talk) 07:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Peripitus. Fair enough. Should we immediately delete the image? I can delete it as U1 it or you can just delete it if you like. Either or. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just added {{db-u1}} to make it simple. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant {{Db-g7}}. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

thank you.

Hi, Anna,

Thanks for deleting the link i provided. There was a dead link before, it was a blog, i checked it in the Wayback Machine, it was totally junk website. I don't know why it is not deleted by you. Does it means that a deak junk link is more reliable then a page providing value but from a small website?

I came across this link, and i replaced it with a much better relevant resource to the "pellet mill" page. Then you take it as spammy.

OK, i know you are trying to make wiki a well ruled place, but i don't think you know pellet mill more than me. What i provide is VALUABLE to people who are searching on this thing. It's reliable and it's NOT SPAM.

Anyway, help me to delete this account and please don't reply cause i'll never be back here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ella Liang (talk • contribs) 08:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ella Liang. Yes, I did not restore the blogspot link this time because it is not a reliable source. I left it last time in err. But, the link you added was not so good either.
The link you added was biofuelmachines.com, a company that sells the product. Just a day or so ago, another female account registered, made only one or two edits that added a link in the same way to the same article. That link was gemco-energy.com. Both of these websites promote GEMCO company. I left a message at the first account, twice (User talk:Agicoshirley#Gemco). So, I figured that you are the same person as the other account, trying to promote a company that you are related to. You knew that if you added the same promotional link with the first account, it would be removed, so you registered another account and did the same.
You are very, very welcome to edit here. We need you. Please don't be upset. The thing is that we try to prevent companies from promoting themselves here. I hope you understand.
As for your account, it cannot be deleted. But, it can be abandoned. Would that be acceptable? (Again, we'd prefer you stay and edit constructively.)
Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Anna

Hi Anna, Thank you for your kind message, its great to know that wikipedia is indeed a living document. I'm actually South American and I moved to Sanya to study Mandarin for a year. Im interested on the environmental impact from development in Hainan. My Mandarin is very basic so most of the information I have is anecdotal, and the rest is often unreliable because Hainan is not in the spotlight of international journalists, other than travel writers. Im still getting to know how wikipedia works, my initial intention wasn't to contribute. I wasn't sure if this was the right platform for the subject matter I hope to highlight, but there was so little information I decided to jump in. I looked at the Dubai wiki page and thought I could follow that as a template, but this page needs more contributors. I am finding it difficult to find information outside of the tourism parameters, so Im adding to broad preexisting information. I hope someone can help connect the dots, eventually. To me one of the best sources I have found on China and the environmental impact of urbanisation is: http://juccce.org and I hope to add to the discussion by including some of their arguments. I appreciate any pointers. Cheers, C Edit888 (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Edit888. Sorry to take so long to reply. I was out of town. It is very, very nice to have you here. Certainly, Hainan-environmental conent could use some expansion. It is hard to get good information. I see nothing about Hainan, Sanya, or Haikou at juccce.org. Am I missing something? The trouble is, non-Chinese publications don't study and report on such things here. Chinese media articles never seem to say anything much. The articles are full of "...The environment is of great concern to...taking steps to ensure...major effort...excellent coordinated teams...plans to continue to take steps to understand..." without actually stating any facts and figures. I guess there are .gov papers out there somewhere online.
Pointers for article talk page disussions is easy. Read WP:TPYES. Also, be bold. Make whatever changes you want to articles. If somebody reverts, don't be sad. Follow WP:BRD and just start a discussion at the talk page. Easy peasy.
Just to let you know, I live in Haikou and drive to and through plenty of towns in the province. From what I see, industry isn't such an impact. The problem is turning nature into places for people to live and work, and locals using the province, it's forests, lakes, rivers, and well, roadsides, as household garbage dumps. It is such a lovely place that it breaks my heart. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Bird's eggs

I've been reading about birds' eggs in the article on Bird egg, and I came across two sentences that are a bit unclear. I'm wondering if you can resolve the issues. The first is in the first paragraph of the lead. The sentence reads, "Some birds lay eggs even when not fertilized...." I suppose it really means when the eggs are not fertilized, but it could sound like when the birds are not fertilized. Is it clear enough to you, or should it be made more precise?

The second one is in the first sentence in the second paragraph in the section "Colors". It reads:

"Nonpasserines typically have white eggs, except in some ground-nesting groups, such as the Charadriiformes, sandgrouse and nightjars, where camouflage is necessary, and some parasitic cuckoos, which have to match the passerine host's egg."

My question is about the last bit: "and some parasitic cuckoos, which have to match the passerine's host's egg". It sounds a bit like "parasitic cuckoos have to match the...host's egg", with the cuckoos actively matching themselves or their egg to the passerine's egg, when it probably should be saying that the cuckoo's eggs have to match the host's egg, or eggs -- eggs matching eggs. To convey the latter meaning, the clause at the end of the sentence should read, "whose eggs have to match the passerine host's egg (or eggs)." Which meaning is more correct?

Thanks in advance for your time. CorinneSD (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, CorinneSD. Sorry for the late reply. I was out of town. I just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#An egg question because I don't know much about eggs. If nobody replies here, please post at that project page and I'm sure somebody will give you an answer. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I saw the signpost on the WP Birds talk page. As far as I can see, I think that User:CorinneSD is correct on both issues. I think the confusion is because of English grammar idiom. Please go ahead and make amendments to make the lines clearer. Note that many bird page editors have left the Wiki following the impositions of case capitalization imposed on bird names by Wiki MoS enthusiasts.Snowman (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Individual Common Cuckoos each have a preferred host species, and lay eggs that match the eggs of the host. They can't tailor the type of egg that they lay to individual hosts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, Anna. Yes, I had seen this last comment yesterday and made a change to the sentence. Perhaps it still needs some work. CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I changed to reflect Jimfbleak's wording. CorinneSD (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Old article content

Hi - do you remember when I started writing an article (yes, it was about myself) earlier on and I couldn't find anything to support it? While I might still be looking, I'm not sure how long it will take before I find something to support the information. It is alright if I could have the content from the deleted article back so that I can leave it in a Word document (so that I don't lose the info, which I can't remember now) until such time when I can use it properly? If that could be done somehow, I would be very grateful.

Thank you for your help earlier in the year. With regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, 4TheWynne. Sorry to take so long to reply. I was out of town. Certainly, I can provide a copy. Would you like me to paste it to your talk, or here, or email or what? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you - pasting it on my talk page would be fine. Thanks for doing this. Regards, 4TheWynne (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Uploading a better version of an image?

Hello Anna. Hope you are doing OK. I wonder if you know about this: I brightened an image that was too dark and gloomy and I now want to upload the new version. However I only know how to upload an image using the Upload Wizard, and that would create a new file rather than a new version of an old file. Any ideas? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Susan. All's well on this end. :)
Simply go to the image and click "Upload a new version of this file", then upload the newer version. The old version will remain, but the newer version will thereafter be the one in use at articles. When you ctrl-click the image at the Wikipedia article, don't forget that you will be brought to the Wikipedia image page and must click "Information from its description page there is shown below." to jump to the commons page. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much Anna! I also left you a note about the name of those cheap cloth shoes, further up this page.  :) Invertzoo (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. And thank you for the kung fu shoes thing. I still can't find good refs. Google books is gone here, so without that, all the sources seem to be commercial links. Maybe I'll start the aricle without refs, add some pics, and see what happens. Best wishes, 22:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Superfast1111

Hi there. If I am not wrong, I guess you are mentoring this user. But I find lot of problems in the articles they create. None of them are sourced and all have lot of OR content. The only sources include clear trip, youtube videos, home page of Indian Railways and the online portal of IR for booking tickets which I am sure do not qualify. I am pretty concerned on the quality of articles that they create. Given the fact that this user has no civility in his approach (which was one of the main reasons they were blocked), I do not want to interact with them. I hope you could help out here. Cheers. — LeoFrank  Talk 11:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi LeoFrank. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Please comment on the edits rather than the editor. Better would be "...this user's edits often lack civility..." would be a bit better, but I would refrain from stating such observations altogether.
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Mass creation of possibly problematic articles. Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Anna. I did not mean to comment at the user in any way. By having no civility in approach I meant that the user always goes on a spate of PAs and provoking editors through their comments on talk pages and does not heed to any advice despite citing policies. I also noticed they have a kind of ownership issue over all train articles. Trust me, I have experienced it. So instead of losing my cool unnecessarily, I chose not interact with the user and approached you. Thanks, — LeoFrank  Talk 04:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to add, I have nothing against this user, I agree that they are creating multiple articles and building the encyclopedia. I could help, but as stated in my previous comment, I do not unnecessarily want to end up being on the side of their PA. — LeoFrank  Talk 04:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Abhishek, so back again with a new name but same old stories but its nice to know that you have nothing against me.

Maybe you can tell me which wikipedia policy applies when a editor thinks that these two images are the same & cant tell the difference between Mumbai central image & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surat_railway_station&diff=562828261&oldid=562347791] & 12951 Mumbai Rajdhani Express and 12953 August Kranti Rajdhani Express [[4]], thinks that [[5]] is a great image to have on a article, they should refrain from pointing fingers at other individuals.

You can only get respect if you give others any. I do deal with other editors from time to time but there is a mutual respect, i don't blindly go around vandalizing articles. I have also tried to tell you why you are wrong but you have also chosen not to listen to me so why should i waste my time listening to you. And do check your own block log before commenting on others & ofcourse lets not forget about the nice message you left on my talk page.

Superfast1111 (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You see Anna. This is the very reason I hate interacting with this user. Lack of civility and always in a denial mode. I have nothing more to say. Perhaps they should read WP:BEAR. — LeoFrank  Talk 13:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


LeoFrank: Please read your comment "...I did not mean to comment at the user in any way. By having no civility in approach I meant that the user always goes on a spate of PAs and provoking editors through their comments on talk pages and does not heed to any advice despite citing policies..." Do you see the problem there? You once again attacked the editor rather than talking about the edits, while, and this is the real zinger, saying that you did not meant to comment on the user. This just keeps the pot boiling.

Superfast1111: Having the old username User:Abhishek191288 is not a crime. Please address the concerns raised by others. One's judgement about images is not a reason to disallow him from raising concerns. You have a history of being blocked several times, being a sockpuppet, and drawing plenty of heat with your editing. That definitely means that you ought to spent more energy examining your own conduct.

Both of you: Do you know what being nice as pie gets you? Results! Short discussions! Saved time! Do you like typing long paragraphs and digging up diffs? It's a waste of life. You get more with honey than vinegar. Learn a life lesson from this here at Wikipedia and take it into the real world. Honey gets you everything. Now, this all took me 7 minutes to write. Don't make me feel that I've wasted my time. Be nice. Compromise. Seek to resolve things. Don't zap each other because every time you do, you get a zappy response. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well out of curiosity. What about this attack image that the user has created? — LeoFrank  Talk 01:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Not exactly an attack but not so nice either. You should consider nominating it for deletion as it has no use to the project. I would use the rationale "[[COM:SCOPE|Out-of-scope]]". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Anna, I have a much better understanding on my limitations now than what i had previously. I know that Wikipedia permits users to change your name if they so desire, people do it all the time. I just wanted him to know that i know. What he does is his business.

As i have mentioned earlier, i give respect to those who respect me. You can check out the recent interactions with other editors - they have been civil & it was just a couple of guys talking to each other. The image was to prove a point that even he has been wrong on more than one occasion & if you choose to lash out then you can expect a return. What reason did he have for refusing to listen to my concerns & undoing my edits on those pages. The worse part was when an admin refused to believe what i was saying & blocked me instead.

I know Wikipedia has policies about content but they read out like legal documents & are subject to how a user interprets them but i certainly did not expect this Mumbai central image & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surat_railway_station&diff=562828261&oldid=562347791] to get lost in translation. Guess we have our moments.

I would like nothing better than to leave him alone if he does the same. The answer to each action is not to quote a policy. During the discussion on time table's, not one editor referred to any policy but we talked it out. I was the only dissenting voice but i did agree to abide by the consensus. Superfast1111 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is WP:BOOMERANG. You want people to respect socking? That account is blocked as your sock. — LeoFrank  Talk 09:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

TweetiePie1947

I suspect TweetiePie1947 is on the autism spectrum, so they may not be aware they're being disruptive.

Also, unrelated: the huge image on your user page is pretty awesome. :) Trivialist (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You may be right about Tweetie. I'm starting an experiment. I want to try to talk such long term socks into stopping. So long as I'm not feeding trolls, I figure it's worth a shot. This user reminds me of User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive10#Mass TV station edits. Huge scale, all reverted, utterly pointless waste of thousands of hours over a long timespan. Total rainman stuff. Bizarre.
Thanks for the compliment about my userpage. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Image overwrite

Hi Anna, I was wondering if you'd mind me overwriting File:Low Density Supersonic Decelerator (LDSD ) - during recovery.jpg with https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasamarshall/14356917087/. Somewhat different dimensions but vastly higher resolution, and I think the crop is much more useful for articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely fine with me. Thanks for asking. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, hold the upload. That Flickr shot is Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0). This is puzzling. I actually self-nommed a JPL/Caltech image yesterday for deletion because I thought it was NASA when uploading it but discovered it was JPL, which last I heard was copyrighted. Then I learned that JPL/Caltech images are ok. Now, this image at Flickr appears at NASA sites if I'm not mistaken as public domain. Maybe that's because it's a cropped version with no people (prominently) in it. Anyway, the Flickr image is not allowed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't access http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/ right now, but I read earlier or was told via IRC that unless people are in the shot or if there is a statement saying the image is copyrighted, then all JPL/Caltech images are public domain. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Most of NASA's Flickr sites use CC-by-NC or even All Rights Reserved, I'm guessing because they don't understand how to choose U.S. Government licensing. That isn't a limiting factor. NASA/JPL images are also public domain, and I've never heard anything about visible people being a limiting factor. This wouldn't be the case anyway, since they cannot selectively choose which images are public domain and which are not. The short hand rule is that if the image credit is lead by "NASA/", be it NASA/JPL-Caltech or NASA/University of Texas, etc, then the image is fine. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I trust your judgement. But about that short hand rule: It's great but are you sure? It's like saying image credit: US Fed Gov/Reuters. Anyway, I'll leave it to your judgement. Oh, and I'd love a pastebin.ca (not .com) of http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/policy/ if you have a second and if it's allowed. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Here's your copypasta: http://pastebin.ca/2817103. I see where you got the visible persons bit, but this is a personality rights issue, not a copyright issue. There's actually a template at Commons which can be added to individual images to warn re-users about potential issues surrounding this: Commons:Template:Personality rights. It really should be used more often, and I'll fully admit to not always remembering its existence (this is why I prefer images of inanimate objects!). — Huntster (t @ c) 10:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pasta. I'll read it with a nice glass of red wine. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Table of tools

Anna, thank you for the table of tool equivalents which I saw while lurking on Dispenser's and MZMcBride's talk pages (you really need to put that somewhere central where people can find it—maybe on or linked from Wikipedia:Wikimedia Labs). I found that really useful and it has helped me recover at least one tool I had lost.

Two comments you might want to incorporate in the table; "Interaction analyzer" appears to have the same function as the old "Stalker" so could be listed as a replacement. The information from the old "Watcher" tool can be found in the sidebar "Page information" tool (or "?action=info" appended to the url). SpinningSpark 10:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. I updated the Interaction analyzer and Watcher items per your advice.
As for centralizing it, maybe, as there are links to it, for now we could expand it where it is now and place it somewhere in a day or two. Thoughts?

Link: Wikipedia:Wikimedia Labs/Toolserver replacements

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
This edit has just brought to my attention another missing tool. SpinningSpark 12:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Spinningspark, I did post at Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Labs about having this visible at the Wikipedia:Wikimedia Labs project page. It could also be at Wikipedia:Toolserver. I'm just think of where we go looking when we get the "Sorry" message from toolserver. So, where it appears is one thing, but where it should be centralized is another. Obviously, it ought to be transcluded so that we only need to update one table. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Anna, not sure if this would be useful for your list. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 14:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Phil. I just added them. If you find any more, please let me know. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, what is the "NAC" in NAC of AfD's? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Right, non-admin closures. It just came to me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

edit summaries

no problem. will do in the future. Primergrey (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Another alpha request...

Hi A.F.: I haven't had time to mess around with macros yet, so posting a request for you to take a look at List of Indian dishes. All four sections would significantly benefit from alphabetization. Since your table fu is awesome, if you're interested, polished, alphabetized tables would be an exceptional improvement to this heavily-viewed page (39,446 page views for June 2014). Thanks for your consideration, NorthAmerica1000 13:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just saw the in use tag you placed on the article, so holding off while you work on it NorthAmerica1000 13:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Also FYI, I performed a couple of edits (removed a duplicate entry, added an image) after the addition of the in use tag, because I didn't see it atop. NorthAmerica1000 13:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. I'm not sure if I stepped on your edits, and there may be a few errors in the sort (see the last few entries of each table and elsewhere), but I'll leave it in your hands now as I'm off to bed. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, the article has much better organization now. NorthAmerica1000 15:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You are very welcome. You can always list articles here that you wish to have sorted. It's quick and easy, so I'm happy to help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, that's very nice. It's likely there're more out there, so I'll keep this in mind. Thanks again! NorthAmerica1000 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tables Barnstar
Thanks for your great work to improve the tables in List of fried dough foods and List of Indian dishes. Instead of finding a wikitable graphic, I saved time using a different graphic for this award! NorthAmerica1000 15:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, NorthAmerica. :) Great picture! It's like a graphical pun. Chairs to you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Computer poker players may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {Gambling}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


"Coolie shoes"

"These aren't the 布鞋 you're looking for"

Anna - do you mean low-sided slip-ons with cotton uppers, minimal lining or mid-sole and waffle-pattern outsoles? I believe they are better known as "kung fu shoes". Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

These. We call them "布鞋" (which you can googlimage) here in China, and called them coolie shoes when I was a kid in Canada after the derogatory term coolie. I don't think there is an article, but there ought to be one because they are really found all over the world. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
What's more worrying is that is a nearly four year old request that hadn't been archived. I am far too fashionable to wear such shoes, although where I lived coolie had a different meaning than what the article says. --kelapstick(on the run) 01:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
See Espadrilles for a very similar type of shoe. I agree an article is a good idea. There may be other similar types of article out there. It could even be a small group. Moccasins is another that springs to mind. Irondome (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The textile-soled versions - like this - certainly do look a lot like espadrilles!
The linked picture is a specific type of 布鞋. There seems a distinction between generic 布鞋 (cloth footwear) and 皮鞋 (leather footwear) that doesn't exist in western footwear. zh:皮鞋 links to dress shoe, but there's no such link for zh:布鞋 - Sneakers (footwear) doesn't seem to be an equivalent. Nor does Plimsoll shoe, "runners", "sandshoes", "gym shoes" and what not.
(I must admit to having worn the specific type. In Tasmania young folks of a more adventurous disposition tend to either turn feral (zomg, there's already a Wikipedia article!) or leave the state. I did the former for a year or so, before doing the latter.)
There doesn't seem to a free picture of that specific type of the cheap, non-textile sole 布鞋 on commons. I'm tempted to go out an buy a pair and upload a pic of them.
"老北京布鞋" seems to come up regularly in searches, but I can't find anything via Google about "Old Beijing" or "Old Peking" + shoes, + slippers or anything like that.
What an interesting puzzle! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't forgotten about this. I just need more time to know what to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Hmmmm. The photo is the easy part. I think 布鞋 is the best Chinese name, but what about and English name and what about sources? I'm stuck. All the sources are nasty sites selling the shoes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I think Plimsoll shoe is the closest. Lokk at the 2nd image down on article. They are very similar apart from single compared to double side elastication. Growing up in 1960s UK, all kids wore them, and sometimes adults. Cheap and cheerful. Woolworths sold them for 4 shillings I recall. About 20p. 12-14 US cents. Irondome (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
But the defining characteristic of Plimsoll shoe is the rubber sole (which comes up the sides, I think). Coolie shoes have that nasty, hard, brown sole glued on. Quite a different shoe. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
What is the sole made of Anna? Is it wood or some kind of plant resin? Irondome (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Irondome:: It is made of a rather hard plastic. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Update!

In the US they are known as "Kung fu shoes". See here: [6] and also on Amazon.com [7]. When they have rubber on the sole they are sometimes called "martial arts shoes". There are also women's ones with a strap and buckle that are shaped a bit like Mary Jane (shoe), [8]. I hope this is helpful? Invertzoo (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for the kung fu shoes thing. I still can't find good refs. Google books is gone here, so without that, all the sources seem to be commercial links. Maybe I'll start the aricle without refs, add some pics, and see what happens. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I say, BE BOLD, and go for it. :) Invertzoo (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to co-author a stub with you about these shoes. I agree that this variety of footwear should have an article. Invertzoo (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Good finds! A stub would be doable now imho. Been puzzling over this for weeks :) Irondome (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I started it as Kung fu shoe. It has a nice ring to it, but I must say that I'm not crazy about starting anything without a single reference. Google anything is still blocked in China (although it may be coming back), so I can't find any good ref in the only good place, which would be Google books. Again, I will get photos of the modern variety. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked them up in Google Books, but all I could find was one book where the author talks about an unsuccessful film script of his that was entitled Kung Fu Shoes and other than that, several issues of Black Belt magazine from the 1980s and the 1990s which contained ads advertising "Kung Fu shoes" or "Kung-Fu shoes". Are any of those any use? Or not really? I did make a redirect page from Tai Chi slipper, and Martial arts shoe which are other names for them. I do own a pair of the men's ones with the cloth soles. I could make a photo at some point... Invertzoo (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedits and redirects, Invertzoo! Very nice. :) I found a single ref -- a weak one, but a ref. Let's hope the article doesn't get nominated for deletion. Do take a photo if you wish, but I will look after that soon. Photos of official shoes and some of the cheapies would be great. I just posted at the martial arts project for the former, and I will look after the latter. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Table fu

Doughnuts, one of many deep fried dough foods

Hi A.F. - per your table fu (expertise and ease in performing table edits), requesting for you to take a look at List of fried dough foods. It has a cleanup tag requesting alphabetization. I normally don't post edit requests, but since you have great table fu, is there a way to easily perform this, rather than manually going through every entry to alphabetize it? NorthAmerica1000 16:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NorthAmerica. All done. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Do you have a system to do so easily, or did you just go through each entry. I'm looking to find easier ways to sort tables. NorthAmerica1000 11:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You are most welcome, my friend. I use a macro in a notepad. I turn off linewrap and start the cursor at the left side of the |- and then the macro goes like this: end del ` end del ` end del ` end del ` That makes each entry look like:
|-`| [[Bolinho de chuva]]`| <!--[[File:EXAMPLE|123px]] --> `| [[Brazil]]`| Deep-fried sweet dough balls
Then I sort the lot. That is a feature of most notepad programs and Word too. Then I run a macro that goes: search ` backspace enter search ` backspace enter search ` backspace enter search ` backspace enter That makes each entry look like it was before:
|-
| [[Bolinho de chuva]]
| <!--[[File:EXAMPLE|123px]] --> 
| [[Brazil]]
| Deep-fried sweet dough balls
And that's it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Aah yes, ye olde macros. Haven't used those in awhile. I'll give it a go sometime. Thanks for providing the text! NorthAmerica1000 02:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Are any of you familiar with the origin of the -fu suffix used this way? I believe it was popularized by Texas film critic Joe Bob Briggs in the 1980s in his nationally syndicated newspaper film reviews. As far as I can remember, people in Silicon Valley adapted Briggs' usage and started using it to refer to technical expertise in the early 1990s. If anyone else has a different take on this, let me know. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was just swearing a lot. :) Kidding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget about foo... :) NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said really loud when I woke up to discover reflinks gone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember seeing a notice somewhere about porting the tools over to the new server. I'll try to find it. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This may not help, but there is a schedule for the migration process. Let's hope it is moving from Toolserver to Toollabs. Here's the entry:

2014-06-30 Migration of tools All tools that shall move have moved. What is left on the Toolserver will be archived until August 31st, 2014 and then deleted before the final physical decommissioning.

Basically, this is a 30 day notice indicating that the July 30 decommissioning is still a go. Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas, reflinks is back. Yay! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
So it is! Did they get the 24 TB? Viriditas (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess so. I heard at IRC that it's 10 thousand bucks or something for the TBs. Money well spent if that's the case. Besides, they have 22 million, so a small price to pay, especially considering the time it saves us. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI...Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-02/Technology_report is under construction. Maybe you could review it and get with User:Jarry1250 to help either contribute to the coverage with your knowledge or fix the outdated information about Dispenser and his tools before it goes live. Thanks, Anna. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think I'll pass on that one. Thanks, though. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That's fine. However, I thought you could directly help modify and update this concluding sentence: "A page on MediaWiki.org records notable absences, including those of prolific tool creator Dispenser, whose apparent reluctance to either migrate or open license his tools has already provoked considerable consternation." Wouldn't a link to Wikipedia:Wikimedia Labs/Toolserver replacements go well in the first part, and in the second part, isn't the statement about Dispenser already out of date considering his tools are or were migrated? I think you might have a bit more insight into this. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Viriditas. Okay, I made an edit there. I don't know why the thought of editing the Signpost puts me off. Something tells me that my edit will be reverted within seconds. Say, wasn't using User:Dispenser/Toolserver migration to cite "reluctance" a bit of a BLP vio? I mean, "reluctance" has a somewhat negative connotation, and the source is weak. Maybe that's just my interpretation, but I'd be annoyed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Bingo! That's exactly why I asked you to get involved. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It just went live and you got final edit. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
How come the July 2 edition went live on July 6, or was it just that story that was added to the edition? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it was delayed. I don't know the reason, but the day before it was going to be published, User:Tony1 resigned (see this thread). It isn't clear if his resignation had anything to do with the delay. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Oh, yes, thanks for the thanks on the talk page. That was nice of you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted to notify Jarry: User talk:Jarry1250#Toolserver replacements. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi, where I can follow recent changes in certain WikiProjects? Same for most popular pages in certain WikiProjects? Is there any replacement tools? --Yacatisma (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Yacatisma. There are several tools to be found if you search "recent changes" here. Also, each project has a "Recent changes" link in the sidebar. Sorry I can't be more helpful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ltw9719

I'm not actually convinced yet, since they haven't rendered an AfD and most of their edits have been helpful rather than removing critical info, which the nauseating 'let's describe what all the Disney Junior logo characters look like' list in that article they removed certainly is not. Nate • (chatter) 21:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nate. Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Elephant meat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo. 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) 08:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd question

Hi Anna. I have a peculiar question for you: Today, while reviewing my contributions, I saw that at a deletion discussion where I made one edit, after my user name, instead of my own page there is a redlink talk page which, of course, does not belong to me. What does this mean? Any idea? Thank you very much and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I found the diff: Just after me User:Softlavender makes her edit and at the same time with that action my talk page indication changes to a nameless red link. I can't understand why. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Why should I have a User Name? , I'm mystified. I asked at User talk:Softlavender#A strange edit. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Haha, weird. Wiki-searching for that number, I find that it is the IMDB-bio number of Kayla Servi, another AFD article which had an External Link to the wrong IMDB page, and which correction I had just made. In adding my delete !vote to the discussion, I mentioned Why should I have a User Name?, but since his name is so long I copied and pasted it rather than getting it wrong by typing it out. Somehow instead of clicking "Copy" I must have clicked "Paste" when capturing his name. LOL. (I think I realized there was an error when I was then pasting his username, but didn't realize I had left a "Paste" of that number in his post!!!!) Jeez Louise, this is a very bizarre mystery. I hope it makes some nominal sense now. If it hasn't been corrected, please do so. :) -- Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries. From time to time I link to an article named BUNNYBUNNYBUNNY. I won't get into the why's and how's, but I assure you it has nothing to do with a mixture of 3 parts LSD to one part elephant tranquilizer. Anyway, I've fixed the username thing, so all is back to normal. Best wishes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
LOL! I hope Why should I have a User Name? is placated. Should I send him a pie? Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
As you wish. I doubt there are any hard feelings. It was obviously just an accident. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Send me a diet one! :) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, most major stores carry the diet pies now.  :) Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Reflinks

I can't get it to work.[9] How about you? Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Works fine right now, but is off and on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please, can you try running it on Anglican Pacifist Fellowship? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Whoah! It went all purple and pink with error messages. Not sure why. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to try to remove all the PDFs and then run it again. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Obstinate redlink

How can we stop User:Troydevinny545? Cordially. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User is 3RR blocked for 31 hours. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, kelapstick for handling that. I was fast asleep dreaming about penguins at the time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I also thank you, both. (It is nice to think and dream about pinguins, Anna. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
They're better than monsters, for sure. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It has been extended to 60 hours, and SummerPhD gave me a pie for my troubles. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Gambling

Hello, Template:Gambling was previously a redirect to Template:WikiProject Gambling, and this template was transcluded by way of the redirect on a bunch of article talk pages. By replacing this redirect with your new navbox, all those articles have been removed from the Gambling WikiProject. You can see all the articles that have been removed in the last few days' entries of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Gambling articles by quality log. Toohool (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Toohool. Oh, my goodness. I always check when usurping a page name to check whatlinkshere. I thought I had. I'm astonished that nobody said anything for a week. Please accept my apologies. I will go in and fix up whichever still need fixing. Thank you very much for letting me know about this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, Toohool. Okay, I think I got them all. Do you see any other problematic transclusions here? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I found one more page that was affected, Talk:Shuffling machine. I went ahead and fixed it. Thanks for taking care of this. Toohool (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And thank you, Toohool, for letting me know, and the fixes. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Something has confused me...

To my very knowledgeable friend Anna, who I hold in great esteem: I made a new rotated (and a little cleaned up) version of an image of a stack of slipper limpets I uploaded my new version once, but it did not seem to come out right so I did it again with a slightly different file name. The stack should be more or less vertical, not laying down. Now the first revised image is showing correctly, and the second one is weird. What should I do now? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To the infinitely more knowledgeable Susan. I'm still not sure what the problem is. Are any of the three satisfactory? Let me know how I can help, and I'll see to it. Nice photo, by the way.
Oh, and I was reading up about the impact of Crepidula fornicata [10][11], but ended up not being able to conclude whether or not they were able to conclude anything. Does this sound about right? Anyway, if humans wish to get rid of them, it's easy: popularize them as delicious in London restaurants, and in 5 years that'll be be it for them. They'll all be gone. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you are!!! :) I may know more about snails, but you know more about Wikipedia and are smarter than me too. Believe me, I spent 15 years with top-flight academics, and I know how to tell who is really brilliant (you are). So anyway, the middle of the three versions of that image is the way I want it to be. The top one is distorted, and the bottom one is the original. BTW, I did not make the original photo; I just wanted to get it in the correct orientation, and clean up the background a tiny bit. Thanks, I did take a look at both of those Crepidula links you listed; the first one is very nice, but that paper, oh boy, yikes, it makes my brain hurt; it's just horribly written and impenetrable... Anyway, I think these slipper limpets are basically just fine in their native range, but they certainly can be a pest to oyster fisheries, especially in Europe, where they were accidentally introduced with American oysters. At any rate as protandrous hermaphrodites they are very interesting. What a life! And I did read last year about someone trying them cooked, who said actually they are not at all bad, so I think your solution is the best one! Invertzoo (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind, but I have testimonials. (And as we know, when you see six, solid, infomercial testimonials saying the "Diamondette" necklace is "fine quality jewelry", well, that's just rock.) Some testimonials about me include: "...like an above average orangutan...", "Oh, Anna's dumb all right.", "Don't even both to talk to her. It won't make any sense.", "...we're not sure how's she's able to cook without setting the house on fire...oh wait, she did set the house on fire...", and others which really get nasty while hitting the nail right on the head. :)
As for the photo, I will ask for the top one to be deleted. That will make the middle one the main image, while preserving the bottom (original). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Invertzoo, well, I couldn't find a commons admin at IRC, so I just reverted to the middle version. The downside is that now there are four versions. The topmost is the 18:23, 9 July 2014 version (and now the image in use). Is this result okay with you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks great now! Maybe part of the problem was that thing about "clearing the cache"? I don't know, anyway my thanks, it is much improved. :) My testimonials: "wrinkled English poser", "academic wannabe", "typical low-grade know-it-all" and "should try harder"!  :) Invertzoo (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh these testimonial-givers should be run over with steamrollers so they go all flat like in the cartoons.
For some reason, the image of that just gave me an idea that I'd like to bounce off you. Would we enjoy museums and art galleries more if they had rest areas all over the place where one could lay down on something comfy like a chaise longue? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the best idea I have heard in a long time!!! Invertzoo (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Template readability issue

See also: Template_talk:Noticeboard_links § Structure_of_template

Hi, Anna. I believe you are uniquely qualified to offer sound input on the readability issues of the noticeboard template. I first raised the issue in 2011, but there has been no response. The template remains protected, preventing the majority of Wikipedians from modifying it as usage changes. IIRC, this template was originally designed for administrator noticeboards and related issues. Over the years, its scope has widened and become more inclusive as additional, non-admin noticeboards were added. However, due to protection, the layout of the template has not changed to match the increasing focus on non-admin issues. I cannot fathom, for example, how a new editor is supposed to find what they are looking for, as the menu sorting is close to useless, if not terminally confusing. I know you are the right person to raise this problem with as you have a talent for seeing messy template menus and changing them to increase usability. As Captain Picard used to say, "make it so" please. I don't think there is any need to discuss this first. If the community objects to your changes, they can easily revert, at which point we can discuss it further. The spirit of boldly making changes to improve this site has been lost to bureaucratic malaise. Please relight the fire of innovation before it is extinguished by the inflexible naysayers who are afraid of change. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at it right now, trying to figure out how to improve it. Hmmmm. My first impression is that there are too many multi-word links on a line, so it reads like a long, blue sentence. Maybe sub-grouping is the answer, but we don't want it to get too tall. Despite all the bureaucratic mayonnaise, I still think it is best to make a draft and work on it there.
Maybe, like the toolserver table, I'll work on it in one of my sandboxes or a template subpage, with it transcluded to the template talk, so others can see it developing. Below the transcluded template, I'll write something like: "...Please help to improve the template above by working on it in my sandbox. Once it looks as good as it is going to get, I'll type 'Done!' at the bottom of this thread, and then, if there are no objections after a week, I will swap it in as the new version. Any objections to this plan?..." So, what do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm thinking that instead of my subpage or draft space, a subpage of the template would be good so as to preserve the history. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That sounds great. I think it should be designed such that new users will find what they are looking for and older users will be comfortable with the new layout. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Started! Please see Template talk:Noticeboard links#Template revamp. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll have something to add to that thread in about an hour or so. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you know about Template:Noticeboard links/sandbox? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, I had forgotten about it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll let Huon decide how to handle the two pages both existing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:TESTCASES, you can test the changes in the noticeboard sandbox. then view and compare your changes to the current version at testcases. I think you already know this. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Whoah! I guess with 627 transclusions the boldly make changes thing would have been a bit of a bad idea. So, there is a sandbox, the tescases page, and the draft I just created. Got it. I'll see what Huon does with the draft/sandbox merge thingy (aka "mergey thing"), and then get started. I'm not sure if changes will be approved. After all, others have worked on this in the past, and what is there now is the best they could come up with. I don't know if I can do better. Anyhow, so, right, get the bugs out at testcases before doing anything rash like updating the main template. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll do much better. I know you will. Where is the best place to centralize comments? I want to talk about the current layout. Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I have less confidence than you. :) And the best place seems to be template talk according to this Maybe you ought to post at the thread I started to say that. Your call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello good people. I noticed this discussion and wanted to great two friends with one hello, and say that we just revamped a template for redirect categorization that may or may not be helpful to review for potential ideas. Having a look is sure to be painless, so do feel free. {{Rcats}} Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. Thank you for the encouragement. I see some new things in that navbox. Template:Navbox with columns is something different. I wonder if it might have a place in this new revamp. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


A Most Gracious Welcome....

Thank you Anna, and a peek at your page confirms that your are indeed an Awesome Wikipedian.

I've actually been making minor contributions and edits since 2007, but nothing particularly noteworthy, except as a suspected TYPE A. ;)

Believe me, I'm honored to be acknowledged by such a distinguished member as yourself. Thanks Again,HOUNDDAWG (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, HOUNDDAWG. You are very sweet, but honestly, I am but a teeny peanut in a huge bowl of great Wikipedia nuts. Take User:Wehwalt, for example. See the rows at the top of his page? We're talking macadamia here. I am but a humble legume. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Dieterdelav

He/she always added unsourced genre on Africa (Toto song) two times, though I undid it. Can you please block him/her? 183.171.175.130 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've warned him. I will keep an eye on it and block very soon if needed. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
His/her IP Special:Contributions/2601:0:7980:557:4198:B91F:24D6:9F61 added unsourced genre again. Though I undid it again. 183.171.175.158 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, User:183.171.175.158. How do you know it's him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Blockage and evasion

Please see this diff where you blocked GXSOUL and note the new user in the revision history of Draft:GXSOUL who created the page GXSOUL.

One could probably consider this to be block evasion, so they should potentially be guided to change of username. Your warning about promotion stands, naturally. The WP:AFC folk seem to accept COI in the Draft: namespace on the basis that the effects are likely to have been ripped away by the time the article is reviewed properly. Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching this one. Hard to prove if it's block evasion. It could be just another band member. As long as they remain at AFC and don't try to recreate GXSOUL or promo their band in the mainspace, I'll probably stay in observation mode and let the AFC folks do their thing. I really don't think the draft has a chance. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, now I see he's recreated User:GXSOUL. The noping threw me off. Yes, it's probably block evasion. Anyhow, I'll still keep an eye out. Both the userpage and draft being gone ought to send the message that their band isn't notable and that they shouldn't be promoting it as band members. Let's keep an eye on the contribs and I'll warn/block if and when needed. Again, hopefully they'll just stop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
They're silly. All they need to do is be a good band and become notable. I think they just need time. The draft at present? Who knows? The draft in the future, probably will be ok with work. Fiddle Faddle 09:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I salted the article. As for the draft, I can't see it getting approved until they do some sort of insane publicity stunt or something to get really famous. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Wise. I can't see their managing to show notability either, but who knows. Look at Bieber! Fiddle Faddle 10:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
True. There is Bieber. But he had the Fisher-Price man hair and a lot of youtube hits. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Help requested

You seem to be fluent in editing Wikitables, so your help is requested in modifying List of soups to add an "Origin" column, as discussed in Talk:List of soups. I am not up to the task of doing the repeated systematic edits needed, and hope that you have semi-automated tools to ease this, or are simply more adept at doing the mass edits. I am willing to help fill in and standardize the content of the new column, once the structure is set up. Thank you for your anticipated help. Reify-tech (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Reify-tech. Here you go: User:Anna Frodesiak/White sandbox. I didn't know where you wanted the column, so I made two. If the article hasn't been edited, just paste one of those in to replace the old one. If the article has undergone major edits, then just let me know where you want the column, and I'll make it again. It only takes a sec. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response! The first alternative was fine, and I pasted it in and started to fill in the new column. Sometime, could you let me in on the technical magic you used to add a new column to the Wikitable? Reify-tech (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You are most welcome, Reify-tech. I explained things here. I use basic keyboard macros. They're like a keystroke tape recorder. You name the macro ctrl-J or something. Then you record the steps. Then stop the macro. Then, each time you press ctrl-J, it does what you did when recording. The program I use is called Editpad. It's a freebie, I think. It is basically a notepad with a few extras. You can use Word if you like, but well, you know Word. After five minutes using that program, you'll get the urge to kick your computer down a flight of stairs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: Disruptive and offensive username

Please see this. I think the username "Jewess Flordeliza Americana" is intended as an insult. If one reads between the lines, one gets Jewess (a Jewish female) Americana (American) Flordeliza (Fleur-de-lis, a symbol used by royalty, such as a "Princess"). Putting it all together, you get Jewish-American Princess, a pejorative stereotype of a subtype of Jewish-American female. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the meaning of that one. I didn't even catch the Jewess part. It looked like a Spanish name. :) Okay, well, let's see what she says. We ought to give it a bit of time then softblock it one way or another. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Poultry

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You are invited to join WikiProject Poultry. Check out the project at WP:POULTRY and feel free to join if interested. NorthAmerica1000 12:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
"Yeesh! Wattle these humans come up with next?"
Yes! But, I can't figure out how to join. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't be a turkey on this Anna, it doesn't sound overly foul. Stop being so chicken and gobble this opportunity up! OK, I am done here... --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I was invited to join WikiProject Gastropods but I put my foot in my mouth far too often already. Boom-tish!--Shirt58 (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for making the system a bit confusing. If you go here Wikipedia:WikiProject Poultry/Members and edit the page to include yourself, that'll fix it all. JTdale Talk 14:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I joined! Thank you for making me abreast of the procedure. At first I couldn't coop with the sign-up thingy. I did my baste, but it wouldn't work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, good, the flap is over. The project might be very useful for your interests, Anna, (birds of a feather, etc) but don't count your chickens ... - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully over. They capon coming here to egg me on. You are all really clutching at straws. Anyway, pretty fowl jokes you all pecked, but not altogether unpheasant. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi A.F.: Thanks for joining the flock. NorthAmerica1000 22:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You are very welcome. Thanks for getting it going. I'm interested to see wattle happen. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft:2011 Spelling World Championship

Nope, actually it is a Virtual Spelling Bee. It was created by Tata Soesetyo last 2009 and I got to collaborate with her with all of this stuffs. We both noted that this is all fictional - "trues are accidental". Virtual Bees Apiary (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, User:Virtual Bees Apiary and User:NeLofOxford‎: Fictional, I see. So the draft is about something fictional? That would explain why I can't find via search engines. I'm afraid I'll have to nominate it for deletion. I will also delete the userpage User:Virtual Bees Apiary as it appears as a fake article and cannot remain there. I will also delete the section at User:NeLofOxford containing the copyrighted © 2014 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated dictionary definitions. It is a copyright violation to have that there.
As for your future at Wikipedia, why not create something non-fictional? You are smart and creative, obviously. So, how about taking an image, and creating an article around it? See Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images. Please let me know if you need any help. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I see that you've been blocked. Are you interested in helping to build the encyclopedia? If so, please let me know at your talk page and I can maybe unblock you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Confession is good for the soul?

To be honest Anna, (for I know of no other way) finding Wehwalt]'s page is a project and I don't know where to begin.

In fact moving around this site is very difficult for me. And using the special edit characters and instructions? I'm lost.

There's prolly a tutorial here but I wouldn't know how to find that either.

In my defense, when I use Wikipedia as a resource I'm usually in the middle of writing something for another website, and taking time to dissect all available instructions/links would break my concentration. (I took the time to learn to edit spelling errors while reading, but that's my TYPE A affliction manifesting...)

Any suggestions would be appreciated. (like how to edit out the "r" in my first message to you. I wrote "your are" instead of "you are". Geez, iz mie face read!)

Again thanks, HOUNDDAWG (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @HOUNDDAWG: what username did you previously edit with? Confession is good for the soul, as you said.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Will respond later as Haikou just got flipped upside down by a typhoon and I don't know how long the power will last. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'm responding, but too late. It seems that you now know how to edit. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Vantablack

How about improving it enough to nominate for a DYK? AshLin (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like a good dyk but I can't improve it for the above reason. Please feel free to proceed any way you like. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Stay safe!

Thank you. It's all over now. Poor trees. Thousands fell down in Haikou. Poor people. Thousands lost everything in their shops to flooding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it due to the sea level or to poor drainage? Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Drains got clogged with leaves and other debris. Plus, it was high tide at the time, so says a news report.
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, nice work. Maybe you could put together a photo essay for Signpost? :) I'm going to look at every photo to see which one I like most. How do you like working with the Sony camera? Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the Signpost thing.
The Sony camera is awful. It's the cheapest bit of rubbish out there. I am in favour of getting a new camera, but am facing opposition. I'm usually the one telling everyone that they don't need a new mobile and the latest products all the time, so this is a bit of revenge. :) Nobody sees the value in a good camera. I think it's worth it because in 100 years, images showing what Hainan was like will have historical value, especially because it's developing so fast. I'll see what I can do.

It looks like most of the damage was caused by high wind. I wonder if there is a way to prevent it in the future. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I think most of the collateral damage was to products in shops from water. The wind just broke windows, took down trees, and wrecked shop signs. I'm not sure how damage can be prevented in the future. So, so, so many trees are down, especially the big ones, so if another huge one hits within the next decade, there ought to be less damage from that. The trees tend to land on power lines and cars. They like cars and seem to know which way to fall. Better advance warning of the severity would be good. People could then secure tin roofs, which blew off a lot. Shops could also get their stock up high. So many shops lost everything. They could start to put power lines underground too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you are alright. It seemed pretty awful, judging from photos. We have one heading our way in the next couple of days; with some luck it won't be too bad. Stay safe this summer! wctaiwan (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, wctaiwan. Oh dear. It could be bad. It is described as strong. Stupid typhoons! And so early. This could be a bad season. As Viriditas said, "stay safe". Ignore his umbrella suggestion. :) Try a Newtsuit instead. Funny, a Hawaii resident should know how well an umbrella works in a typhoon. It's like brining a fork to a pie-throwing contest. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What if Hainan used this? Viriditas (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess that's a good idea. Maybe it would solve some of the problems. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Sandhya2012

Hi, I'm User:Anupmehra. I was just here to say if you could help this user, Sandhya2012 to learn WP:COPYRIGHT as she seems to be a persistent copyright violator and on the verge to get herself blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thanks and Regards, Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Finally finally warned...and that's final. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

DYK for Vantablack

Gatoclass (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yay!! The first DYK about a thing that nobody has ever seen. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Table-fu

Homemade minstrone soup
Homemade minstrone soup

Hi A.F.: Per your expertise in alpha sorting, (and since in the past you said I could ask again ), requesting table alpha sorting for the List of soups article, if you have the time, etc. Thanks for your consideration! NorthAmerica1000 21:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Happy to help, of course. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you again! NorthAmerica1000 04:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Trekking merge

Thanks for the prompt comment. I now realize that there was no need to delete the content -- and I don't know how to reverse things now. Rwood128 (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I'll restore the content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Rwood128. Ah, I see. When you removed the content, left the merge template, and the content didn't appear at the target article, I didn't understand. Okay. I see what you are trying to do. I'll close it if you like, and paste the content in its entirety into the target. There, you can trim out what you like. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for tidying my clumsy editing. In fact I did the transferring in advance. I will trim as necessary. Rwood128 (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I couldn't find the trekking content added to Backpacking (wilderness). Was it this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I transferred most of original paragraph in fact to Long distance trail (Mountain trails) which seemed a more appropriate place.Rwood128 (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

false positive bot warning/alert ?

I opened a Wikipedia page and there's a banner saying i edited the K2 disambiguation page based on my ip, and it's been reverted. Well, i didn't edit the K2 page, i had never been to the K2 disambiguation page, in my memory. I have edited a few pages this year, but they were typo/spelling corrections only.

Speaking of typos, the X! page had a apparently random banner quote that says :

[quote] I too am here to build this giant wiki. But that doesnt mean we cant mean make friends along the way. ”

—Gears of War [/quote]

But this is a typo i cannot touch, for i do not want to be part of the political back-biting culture of another big organisation. 75.120.20.102 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry. That was somebody else who was using your IP five years ago: [12]. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Account retrieval

Hello, I recently retired an account about a few weeks ago and changed the email and password, so I can't remember it. I'm considering having the username changed once I have access to it. The email is an AOL account, and the password is kind of long. You can view the IP use with this current account for more confirmation. -- Thank You -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, JudeccaXIII. I'm not sure what you are asking me. I see no question marks in the above post. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I want to retrieve my password and email to my old account Jerm729. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
JudeccaXIII, that would be completely impossible. I'm afraid that is lost forever. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, well thank you for your time. I'll try to figure something out. -- Thnx -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I just added a link on the userpage sect. of Jerm729. Is that what you mean by redirect? -- Cheers -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I meant redirecting only your talk page of your old account to your new account. That way others don't post there. If you wish to try it, you can replace the contents of your old talk page with #REDIRECT [[User:JudeccaXIII]] and see. Anytime somebody clicks a link to your old talk, it will automatically bounce to your new talk. If you don't like it, you can revert. Your decision. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
cool, thanks. Obvious Bicycle (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, Obvious Bicycle. If there is anything you ever need or have any questions, please ask. Welcome, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive41"