User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive14

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

Thanks...

...for your contributions to the article Subspecies of Canis lupus! Chrisrus (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Name changed and then back again

• For continued discussion, see User talk:Moriori#Red Wolf. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Cabbage

Thank you for the Warm welcome Anna! I hope that we can Collaborate on some interesting topics to make wikipedia an een lovlier place.Laughing Cabbage (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Flexible dogs

Bendy Dogs Chrisrus (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Amsterdam

I made 2 Edit's on the Amsterdam Page, One to help tourista's avoid getting their bike stolen and a Big favour for the locals in regards to the bike path. Let me know what you think oh great and powerful Grand Dragon of Wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laughing Cabbage (talk • contribs) 09:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Grundle

What could be Grundle? Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This User talk:Jonas Grumby, who it seems is Grundle. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it's all looked after. He's blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You've got flowers

Viriditas has given you a Rose!  
Roses promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day much better.
Happy editing!

A lovely surprise. Thank you! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a cookie

Jerem43 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. I have been looking over your work and I can see that you have been having trouble with monstrous melons cropping up all over your garden. I sympathize.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the yummy cookies. By the way, what melons? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The melon bar type. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right. Well, things have been quiet on that front for a while. But, maybe not for long. I just reverted one of his edits at Kimchi. But, this time, I will not spend hours arguing. Considering his history, and the amount of hours wasted, and the inevitable conclusion of "seven to one against and still fighting", I, and the other battle-weary editors will likely shift the onus upon him to find support for his Quixotian campaigns. Warm regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Anna for your helpful note on my talk page. I hope you are doing well. While I am on this trip I am not doing as much on WP as usual, as you can probably tell. In any case, I have to tell you, you are worth your weight in gold as a contributor, you really are. So... I am looking forward to when things quiet down again a bit on the Project, we have had more than our fair share of interesting interventions recently. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Your kind words are much appreciated. I hope you are very well and enjoying your holiday.

The QASIMARA reply made a chill go up my back. Peculiar.

04:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)QASIMARA

I miss the good old days of gastropod stuff. I have been trying my hand in different areas:

• It turns out I am not a very good judge at AfC. I think I need to read up more before doing that again.
• Trying to help settle endless debates over small matters is frustrating and energy consuming (dog meat, for example). But, I think I have learned how, in the future, to help expediate the issues. I don't like it, but I think Wikipedia needs it. (I can't see how anyone would want to be an admin. Ayn Rand would have been mystified.)
• I like menial, general clean-up and formatting. I find it soothing when I watch telly.
• I still like making articles most of all. It's always nice to learn something new.

I would like to get back into gastropods. It's (usually) such a nice, quiet place, except for the occasional argument with Snek. But, he's a good editor who is obviously passionate about about the project. Maybe there's some way I can help with checking bot articles. Let me know if it's something a non-expert can do. I will also re-visit the project page to see what is needed.

As for the "Great Bot Debate of 2010", I hope it gets sorted out. That thing sure saved us a lot of time.

Best wishes to you. Have a nice holiday. Remember: More time underwater. Less time in front of a screen. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Notice

G'day Anna, Below is a draft notice that I have made, please feel free to further edit it until you think it is what you wish to convey. Keep me updated, Cheers ZooPro 11:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As a further comment, you may wish to inform WP:WPMOS also. These links may also help. Wikipedia:PROPOSAL#proposal, WP:PROJDIR Cheers ZooPro 11:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will get on it later. Right now my ISP is giving me huge trouble accessing Wikipedia. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• As you know, I have sent you an edited version.

• Inform whom at WP:WPMOS?

• I will look through WP:PROJDIR for relevant parties to notify.

• I think things are in line with Wikipedia:PROPOSAL#proposal. I am instructed to initiate an RfC. I am not sure if the above template is just that, or, if I should initiate a preliminary general RfC directing editors to the draft's discussion page. If the latter, Wikipedia:PROPOSAL#proposal states:

"...Once you think that the initial proposal is well-written, start an RfC for your policy or guideline proposal in a new section on the talk page, and including the { { rfctag|policy } } tag along with a brief, time-stamped explanation of the proposal..."

If I am understanding that correctly, I should add something like this to the draft's talk page:

As part of a recent discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of users have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.

We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species.

Our intention is not to immediately alter current conventions. It is to clearly and formally identify existing conventions across all animal groups, in the hope that it will facilitate an easier route to achieving some measure of consistency across all animal articles in the future.

Am I on the right track here? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You are kinda on track, an RfC should only be started after you and others (what I call the "top 10" animal editors) are happy with what it conveys. On WikiProject Manual of Style just leave a note on the talk page (I would use the box above). I think your wording is good, like I said before its your proposal so make sure it reflects what you wish to convey. I would also take on board all the advice Ucucha has to offer, I have an great amount of respect for that user and is someone I refer to if I am unsure of things such as policy or naming conventions.

I have also altered the notice box to reflect your wording. ZooPro 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would like your advice about what meaning I ought to be conveying. From my view of the history of this problem, the only way it will be solved, is if we define the conventions for the groups. Of course, this will help new articles be correct. But also, hopefully, one day, the then-identified conventions of the groups will merge as much as possible.
• I added Ucucha's points to the draft, with a few tweaks.
• Thanks for fixing the wording.
• Where would I find this mysterious group of "top 10" animal editors? And, if they are animals, do they have opposable thumbs? :)

Thanks again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The "top 10: animal editors would be:

1. User:Ucucha
2. User:Innotata
3. User:Intelligentsium
4. User:Mokele
5. User:Visionholder
6. User:Rlendog
7. User:Donlammers
8. User:Anthony Appleyard
9. User:UtherSRG
10. User:Materialscientist

The list is of course not official however the above editors are highly involved in the project and I have personally worked with them all, I often seek there input and advice on all matters regarding the wikiprojects or animal issues. Though I have no doubt forgotten some important ones that I work with so often they seem to be part of Wikipedia as opposed to being contributers however they are prob lurking somewhere ready to slap me with a trout for forgetting them. ZooPro 05:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I will get back to you with your first question. ZooPro 05:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I await your comments on the proposal. Thanks for the list. I've been watching some of them for quite a while. An impressive group. I sort of regret the play on words crack. I hope I don't get 10 trouts all at once. (sorry folks!) So, the sequence:

1. Finalize the proposal
2. Notify the big 10
3. Post at WP:WPMOS
4. Notify the groups
5. Initiate AfC

I do hope this ends up clarifying things, and paves the way for an eventual resolution sometime down the road. I sort of regret opening this can of worms. Thanks again for your help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't forget you :) . I think your proposal is as good as we can get it at the moment. All you can do now is chuck it out into wikipedia and watch it get strips torn off it and changed until we have something that consensus agrees on. Good Luck ZooPro 06:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Heh...but maybe I wanted a big Chicken Comment on the top of my page! Nah, I much prefer to keep comments in appropriate numerical order. FYI, I watch your page, too. On an unrelated note, I feel bad for not having followed up on the badly needed reorganization of Dog meat. It's such a massive project, involving wading through dozens of sources and fundamentally re-ordering everything, that it is difficult to even get started with....I keep telling myself I'll get back to it someday, but then I end up with other "projects" to work on, too. And, of course, time is a precious commodity.... Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I had to do it :) It just looked too funny. If anybody ever "chickens" my talk page, please feel free to move it.

Time is on our side with Wiki. We can do the dog meat thing over the course of two years, or never. The first time I offered to get a dog meat photo (as I said on talk), it took me a year and a half to get around to it. Plus, the whole fiasco over that article was such a pain in the butt, when things settled down, we all stayed away. I'm still livid over the waste of time. If you actually look at the net result of that battle, and what it was over, things returned, almost exactly, to the way they were. The whole thing reminded me of tendentious editing. Happy editing my friend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Rrburke's talk page.
Message added 19:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Correct formatting

Thanks, i was experimenting with that Gigasolus (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	To Anna Frodesiak, the very model of a modern Wikipedian, I award this humble badge in honor of her years of meritorious service. Viriditas (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar and the very funny song. I don't know what I have done to deserve this. I've been making a lot of idiotic mistakes lately. You are very kind. I actually named my favourite hamster after you. I hope that's okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm honored. If it's a male, you can call him "Benny" as a nickname. If it's a female, you can call her "Benedicta" (see "Benedicta Viriditas"). In answer to your question on my talk page, I'm doing fine. We've had a warm winter and a cold summer, and the weather has been very strange. We're coming off a two year drought on this side of the island. Usually, we get anywhere from 4-6 storms a year in the south, so it's really dry and prone to fire. I don't know if it's a coincidence, but there seems to be a lot of wildfires this year, all over the world. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Our long discussion

I am now suggesting to you the idea of a second section. Take a look on my talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Back to Afro combs

Hi Anna. May I please ask you to scroll down this page until you'll see images of Afro combs, and tell me what images displayed there you'd like to use for the articles. Apparently the copyright holder agreed to release them with a free license. So, let's make another try. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Splendid! Although they are not the most modern, popular models, it is nice to see their origins. The one with the caption: "This stunning Ashanti comb includes a representation of an Akuaba doll. It appears to have been made in 1974...." seems to be the most similar to today's models. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I uploaded the image File:Comb Ashanti Ceramic AMR 1974 02.JPG, and forwarded the email release I got from the photographer to Commons permission. Let's hope it will be OK this time, but they may claim that the design of the comb is copyrighted by itself. Then of course they will delete the image. For now you may use the image in as many articles as you wish. If something gets wrong, and it is deleted once again, it always could be taken off the articles. BTW the photographer has many old books on the subject, and knows a lot about African art including combs. He's a very nice man, so if you have some questions you could email him. I linked his site to his name. You will find his contact info there. Cheers.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the image to comb myself now. Please fix it, if I did something wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks great! Sorry to take so long to reply. Things have been a bit crazy here. Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's OK. Maybe, when you have some time, you could add the image to the other article. I know the last one was added to two articles, but I forgot the name of the second one. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Orius insidiosus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Chinese cuisine

When you have a moment, could you look at this article and tell me what you think? I've tagged it as OR, and it has already been tagged as unreferenced since 2007. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the dishes are on the money. But, the history is OR from what I can tell. A few sources would be dandy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Get well soon!

Here's wishing you a speedy recovery! Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And the same from me. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation of flora and fauna

Sorry for posting here but I can't see where else to set out my opinion (all of the other pages where the matter is discussed seem to be rather ancient). Surely it would be easier if ALL vernacular names were in lower-case for ALL flora and fauna, except where UC is obviously needed (Douglas fir, Cassin's owl, Corsican pine etc.). Any other solution – particularly discrete rules for reptiles, fish, fungi - will simply cause more confusion in the long run. The best rules are the simplest and those with the fewest exceptions. To have blue whale AND Blue Tit AND Bluebell all at once is simply insane. What we need is blue whale, blue tit and bluebell. Ericoides 20:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I will pick this matter up again as soon as I can. In the end it looks like Wikipedia should follow what the field does, regardless of inconsistency. We just report the facts. We can't change the way English is used just for consistency here. The outcome I hope for is mainly to get clarity and agreement of conventions for groups. Then, to see the article names and occurrences within articles slowly get fixed with citable guidelines to prevent changes back and forth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, your suggestion would certainly be acceptable if "the facts" were set out and determined by the peculiar demands of an encyclopedia. But by and large they aren't. A handbook of fungi looks no further than fungi. I don't know much about fauna, but from what I know of flora lower-case is the norm. My sense is that with fauna there may be inconsistencies between various authorities, eg Golden Retriever with one and golden retriever with another. The former authority is not, however, having to dovetail their fauna system with a flora system in which, say, golden rod is the norm; we are. Because we are, we should prefer golden retriever, despite there being good arguments and scholarly precedent for Golden Retriever. I certainly think that Wiki should bite the bullet and impose – rather than merely reflect – a system. This is because we are an encyclopedia, which, as I have suggested, imposes special considerations. Avoiding confusion (chaos) should trump everything else. Oherwise we will get absurd sentences such as "Mr X had a wide-ranging diet consisting of Golden Retrievers, Golden crabs and golden rod" that make us look like a bunch of dimwit amateurs. Perhaps we should look at other encyclopedias for a precedent here, rather than specialist but marooned disciplines. Ericoides 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The Gift of the Woodi

Hi Anna, Too bad you are on a break. Hopefully you get this in time. I noticed you have contributed to the Cheers article. I am hoping that you will be sympathetic to my cause. I created the The Gift of the Woodi article years ago to cover the Cheers episode in which Woody sings the K-E-L-L-Y song. People who apparently know nothing about Cheers are threatening to delete this article. Please take a look at the article and judge for yourself. Clerks. (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a keep. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't understand why anyone is attacking a well referenced article.Clerks. (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Univision from 1987-90 logo on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B62zeWuhtk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.39.176 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is blocked from where I live. Can you describe what this is? Thanks for sending it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes Anna, since SIN logo was replaced by Univision from Televisa cut to make it U from 1st 1986-87 logo, then 2nd 1987-90 logo and now 3rd 1990-present logo because when I was a child, I am a smarter remember than that. So do you have a song with a lyrics says Univision, Univision lo Nuestro along with La Cadena de los Grandes Eventos and Telenovela Que Hacen Historia on video tapes recorder in you home because I can't find it anywhere on the internet since 2000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.39.176 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but are you sure you have the right editor? I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the frequency, Anna? : ) Viriditas (talk)

I don't know. But it hertz my head, and is all Rather confusing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna, it really sucks that YouTube is blocked where you are. I know there is a ton of stuff on that site you would enjoy. Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Typhoon Megi (2010)

Hello! Your submission of Typhoon Megi (2010) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I read that residents were evacuated from coastal areas. Hope you are safe. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. We are waiting for it to land. It might be turning toward Macau. The last two storms this past month have lingered and caused lots of flooding here. I found myself wading through filthy, roach-infested thigh-deep water to the market a couple of weeks ago (downtown Haikou). The city is on a delta, and only a couple of metres above the sea. Right now, lots of dirty air being sucked in from the mainland.

Anyway, we have provisions and will see. Sometimes not much happens. Sometimes upside down cow blowing by. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Typhoon Megi

Thanks! The next bit that needs some thorough reworking is the impact section. It's actually quite difficult to read.--Blackmane (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Factory farming

anna

i have added a couple of post on articles on which i am knowledgable. one article is "factory farming" and even though i inserted references, the site is obviously controlled by people unwilling to allow posts from a more neutral perspective. how can this be resolved?

Whobach (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You ought to bring up that concern on the talk pages of those articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the reference you cited is not very credible. Something peer-reviewed would be best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

TALK

anna

i did explain in talk section. Whobach (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand. It might be best to solicit opinions and get consensus for such an edit. I am pleased to see that you were bold and made the edit. Sorry to revert. Such is Wikipedia. If there is anything I can help you with, please ask. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)