User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive16

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

About your userpage

Hi Anna, just wanted to tell you I think your userpage is awful. I am sorry..I needed to express that. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Revenge, eh? That's the first time I've seen that on Wikipedia. But really, I know you love my user page. You're just mad because I spoke up and you don't agree with my view. (There are better ways to respond to opposing views other than revenge.) No hard feelings from me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, seriously, no hard feelings, I truly felt like that when I saw your page. But has nothing to do with what you said or did. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was born at night. But not last night. Neither of us believe that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you weren't born last night you should be willing to accept some criticism to your page. I don't need an excuse to tell you i didn't like your page from the aesthetic point of view. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"I don't like it" isn't a form of criticism, Camilo, and the only reason you came here was because you were annoyed at Anna's comments about the Ted Williams article and you decided to lash out at her. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, so that isn't very helpful. Yeah, Anna could have been more diplomatic about her comments on the Ted Williams talk page, but she didn't address any editors. Whether she was right or wrong in doing so, she called the article "awful", and you came here to do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right, and you would have been much better off explaining to Anna that because you had made a whopping 4 edits to the article,[1] you took her comments personally. I hope Anna decides to word her comments in a more neutral manner in the future, so as to avoid this kind of situation again. However, we are human, and we often respond from an emotional state, and it gets the better of us sometimes. The trick is to acknowledge our mistakes, learn from them, and move on. Both of you can do better than this. Viriditas (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You might not need an excuse, but that was quite obviously your excuse. We've never had even a smidgen of contact before. I criticized the Ted Williams article, an article you've been working on, and 9 minutes later you, out of the blue, criticized my user page. Please note the following facts:

• I'm not daft.
• It was not a coincidence.
• Users don't, out of the blue, tell someone they don't like aesthetics of their user page.
• You secretly love my user page.
• I was probably a bit harsh in my criticism of the article.
• Seriously, let's stop. This has been a hoot, but we both have work to do.

Happy editing, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It has NOTHING to do with the Ted Williams article....if it did, I would tell you, yes I was mad, so I left that message, I am 32 for Christ sake! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Heck of a coincidence. What are the odds? Okay. So I'll take your word for it. It was out of the blue. One question: Do you normally drop by strangers' user pages and tell them you don't like the look, aesthetically? I wouldn't. I would consider that uncalled for and unkind. It could result in a paragraph or two of wasted energy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Strike that. Please don't answer. Just stop. You came to my talk to insult me, yell at me with capitalization, and give me a "for christ's sake". This is a blemish on your history of conduct. Please just stay off my talk page. I don't want to play anymore. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Anna, I think it would help greatly if you would change the header on the Ted Williams talk page from "This article is awful" to "Article issues" or some other neutral heading. You may also want to rewrite your comments to tone them down, and make a note that you've done so. Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am responsible for the comments, so I chose a (transparent) strike through with an explanation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view

I created this image to cheer the both of you up. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Awwwww. That's very nice. The artist in you has finally emerged.

I should have just replied in the beginning: "Noted. --Anna Frodesiak.", and this would never have taken 15 minutes of my life. Lesson learned. I will archive this very soon to remove this "canvas" onto which unpleasant words can be exchanged.

Thanks again. I feel much better. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Two things that can help develop a thick skin: cultivate the psychology of water, such that it falls off a duck's back and flows under a bridge. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well put, my friend. Well put. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Reasons and reconciliations

Hi Viriditas and Camilo Sanchez:

Viriditas: "Anna could have been more diplomatic..." is an excellent point. I agree completely. My offence, the title "This article is awful" should have been entitled: "This article could use a lot of work".

I re-read my post and regretted it. I actually posted a little later on that I didn't mean to offend. For those of you who have seen my edits, this was very out of character for me.

The reasons did not justify such a harsh title. But I should tell you the reasons anyway: A dozen editors all fought for its existence voting keep. Then, when I visited the page, I saw several Youtube links, at least one blog link, the missing image redlink sitting right in the infobox, and many other glaring issues. 40,000 visitors saw that in the past 24 hours. And, nobody was doing anything about it. Instead, they were all quarreling over if the AfD tag should be removed.

Camilo Sanchez: You're more than welcome to post here if you want, but please, no insults, caps, or Christs.

Wikilove and Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Lol..I can't believe someone actually had time to do that nice image. I feel flattered..thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

He was inspired by your excellent motorbike image. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A gazillion padded zeros later ...

I think I added the sort function correctly, each number has to be padded to the same number of places. I would hate to have to do it to list of hundreds of entries. I started Bird kill but it only has two entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. I will maybe put an invisible blank or two there for other users. I will take a look at it. Many thanks for your time.

I saw your bird kill article. You probably saw I added the template. I looked high and low for a dot gov image, but no luck.

I uploaded Fish Kill 745F2A9C-65B8-D693-7ABA3282F6A1ECE4 at commons because it is graphically better. But I couldn't find a description. Do you think Salton Sea image is still best? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hainan Eastern Ring Railway

Dravecky (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fish Kill (again!)

I see exactly why you have formatted the months the way you have, and it looks great - trouble is it doesn't sort properly any more! Ho Hum..... 23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)~

The date column right? When I click the sort thingy, it sorts perfectly. Strange. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes the date column. I'll just check..... yes , in 2010 mine sorts as January , December, September whichever way up I sort (i.e. most weird with 2011 at the top, but still weird in the obverse). Does yours sort differently ?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. I was only sort of looking at the years. Actually, when I started the table, I used eg. "2010 09", but others slowly changed it to "2010 September" and that sort of took over. I will change it back. Sortable is very useful for this sort of information, sort of. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed in a functional but not very pretty way - typical male you could say, but at least it works!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   00:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI...

I mentioned you here. Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion: User:SpikeToronto is your "goto guy" if you need questions about vandalism answered in a timely manner. Hoorah! :) Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I really appreciate you taking the time. Pardon the late reply. I was working this weekend, and had only had a few moment online. I will certainly bug SpikeToronto for advice. Thank you very much! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks

You are very welcome. Many thanks for your contributions to Dingcheng, Ding'an County and Haidian Island.-Pengyanan (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. I will try to expand the Haidian article with some photos. Also, I am trying to get Haida photos too. Say, could you give me a hand with the Chinese names for Mulan Tou Lighthouse and Baisha Men Lighthouse for the lead and infoboxes? Thanks for all your help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with the text in Wuxi County. If formatted the list, but the lead is.....hmmmmm...maybe translated with software or something. Suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. I added Chinese names to the two lighthouses and do a little bit clean-up work for Wuxi County. And thank you so much for your kindness to give barnstars to me. Best regards. --Pengyanan (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
Message added 06:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 06:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lettuce for you

Viriditas has given you lettuce! Lettuce promotes nutrition and good health and hopefully this one has made you less hungry. Go on, eat it! Who said you can't make friends with salad?

Yummy! Thank you.

Wasn't it Jimbo who once said: "Lettuce make the most delicious encyclopedia in the world." Or no, wait, maybe it was "Lettuce make the most delicious sandwich in the world.", and it was that guy down at the deli. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lettuce hope...for whirled peas. :) Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that's what I kale funny! Can "whirled peas" even exist? Broccoli not. Endive they did, would they turnip at your local market? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't be sea lilly! Whirled peas can exist, but first we have to beet gourds into ploughshares, and that won't be cheesy. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hows things going

G'day Anna, I just thought I would drop by and see how everything with your proposal is going? Cheers ZooPro 13:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I sent it out to the "Group of 12". There was a bit of feedback on the talk page. No complaints. Should I now proceed and post an RfC, notify relevant groups, then announce it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think that would be the appropriate course of action now. ZooPro 23:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Baisha Men Lighthouse

I hope so. It will be great if you agree. Thanks. --Pengyanan (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your moving. --Pengyanan (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

That's amazing. How are you finding all these images and articles with no images like that? This tool? What's your secret??? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Heyhey Anna!

My secret is simple : archive.org !

We use the original descriptions fallen into the public domain.

It's a project on french wikipedia here! Cordialy :)--Citron (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

First time editor with questions

Hi Anna

I'm a first time editor, and don't understand why the changes I made yesterday don't appear on the page today? Have they been taken down permanently, or are they being reviewed? I know that some of them were tagged as potential conflicts of interest (I was editing a factory farming page, and adding information from a series of case studies that the NGO I work with recently published. The edits I added were about the globalization of this practice, and the labor and food security consequences of this industry)

Thanks for your help! Brighter Green (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Justine

Hi Brighter Green. Welcome. The reason the edits don't appear is because they were reverted. That means another editor undid them. You can see that in the history of the article in this link:

"22:47, 11 January 2011 ErrantX (talk | contribs) (44,297 bytes) (Reverted 13 edits by Brighter Green"

I suggest taking up the matter on the talk page here. Simply click the "new section" tab at the top of that talk page and start a post discussing things.

The way things work is, an editor, like you or me, makes an edit. If another editor thinks the edit should not be in the article, he/she undoes it, returning the article to the way it was. Or the editor might alter the edit in an effort to improve it. An edit is "reviewed" simply by editors reading it as it stands in the article. There is no "other place" where edits are examined.

All editors are equal, and you are an editor. That means you can undo others' edits, and alter them too. But, discussing things on the talk page first is best in this case.

Please don't be discouraged. Feel free to ask anything you wish. I am here to help. Best wishes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)