User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive25

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

Talkback

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

Hymenocera

Hafa Adai Anna,

I noticed there was not information on this subject in Wiki. I gathered some basic information from around the web, added a few pictures and links. Please share any suggestions on how I could make it better!

Hello there. Actually, if you did copy and paste, that's not allowed. It's a copyright violation. You must rephrase the source. I suggest doing that quickly before somebody gets mad.

Also, nice photos you added! Well done. Just to be sure, you actually took those yourself right? They're not from some website, are they?

Finally, at the end of a message to another editor, don't forget to add ~~~~ as that automatically makes your signature.

Best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anna, Between learning the HTML, headers, etc I may not have properly "rephrased" some of those passages :-) Maybe I'll leave that for another day for now. Mainly I would like to have some nice photographs for the readers...and Yes, they are all mine :-) Thanks again, and chime in when you need to. P.S. How long do these conversations stay on the My Talk page? Chad Ordelheide (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has already removed the copyvio text. I should have removed it on the spot, and was derelict in my duty by not doing so. In any case, please reinstate the content in your own words, at your leisure.

I'm so pleased to see that you have added images to a number of articles I started. With a blurb and an image, the image provides 99% of the information when it comes to species. I hope more are forthcoming.

Consider joining WikiProject Gastropods. There's no obligation. But you have to buy a vacuum cleaner. Kidding. You would be most welcome. There are a number of divers who are keenly interested in gastropods, including the wonderful Invertzoo (literally "zoo held upside down"). She's a zoologist and deals with invertebrates. She tried to explain her user name once, but I just couldn't grasp what she meant.

As for your last question, the posts will stay there forever if you choose. However, you can delete posts from your talk page, or as most do, archive them. I do it manually by dumping the old posts into a subpage. Others use automated doo-hickeys. Here are some subpages you can use for working on articles, or archiving talk pages. You can paste these links onto your userpage in order to access them, if you like, or do as you please. The nice thing about a sandbox subpage, is that it's your domain. Nobody will monkey with it, and you can work on stuff there. :)

• User:Chad Ordelheide/Sandbox 1
• User talk:Chad Ordelheide/archives1

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Again Anna,

One last question, it seems they want catagories for my pictures... After reading a few FAQ's it seems a catagory of "Nudibranchia" would be appropriate? My problem is once the photo is uploaded to where to I add the catagory? The Faq mentioned to add the code to the image description? I've found summary but where is the description? Thanks again Chad Ordelheide (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble accessing Wikicommons. Another editor will answer your question here. FYI to helper editor, here are a couple of images uploaded by this user: [1][2] Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chad, Anna asked me to give some input here. If you click on the image to go to its page (for example you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Halgerda_terramtuentis.jpg ) you will see a link "its description page there" about half way down. Clicking that will take you to the image's page at Commons (where you uploaded it), which in this case would take you to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Halgerda_terramtuentis.jpg - as you can see, at the end of that it says "Media needing categories as of 7 August 2011". If you click Edit right at the top of that page and scroll down to the end, you could add [[Category:Gastropoda]] (if that's what it is) and remove the "Media needing categories" part. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Demiurge! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Anna,

One last questions about Categories. I've read a bunch and it seems you could go crazy on categories. What would you suggest for a simple Nudibranch Photo Category(s)? For Example: Do I put a category for both Nudibranchia and Nudibranch to appeal to a wider range of people? Or if I put a category for "Marine animals of Maui" would be better to have 2 categories "Maui" as a location then "Marine Animals" as another category? Finally, if a location category was "Zanzibar, Tanzania, Africa" does wiki read each of those differently or do they each need to be separate category?Thanks, Chad Ordelheide (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good question my friend. Categories are hierarchical. Add the category (or categories) that is most likely to be at the tip of the root. Use an existing category. Sometimes that's a genus. Sometimes it's a family. See Chromodoris willani for example (look at the bottom of the article). That animal is in the category Chromodorididae, a family. That's the tip of the root, as of now. (Except for stubs, that is, tiny blurb articles, but that's another story.) At some point the genus Chromodoris will branch off to have it's own category.

• See Category:Chromodorididae
• See Category:Mammals of North America

I'm trying to not to bombard you with info. Look at the article and look at the category. It should become obvious. The best way to learn is not to have a moron like me explain things, but instead to look and figure it out. Ask your next question, and I will be happy to answer.  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Categories. Not fun reading. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

All of what I just wrote in a nutshell: Use an existing category. Select the one furthest down the heirarchy as possible. (Articles can have more than one category.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Koontz House / Green Leaves

Thanks for temporarily removing the hat. Have you any idea why Station1 should have made this edit? That is what has thrown everything out, although there were also various hatnote problems due to the COI issue with Atterion (now blocked for a week after socking and malicious nominating Green Leaves at AfD). - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I have no idea why Station1 made that edit. Odd. I've been following the whole matter. I think he is lucky his block isn't a bit longer considering edit warring, page move with sneaky content removal, and then socking. Naughty stuff. He's also lucky Doncram hasn't responded. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Doncram cannot respond as he too is blocked <g> I will have a word with Station1 - it does not seem right to me. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Doncram has quite a rap sheet. Anyway, the path of least resistance might be just to keep making the article the way you think is best, and others will get bored and leave. I'll keep an eye out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot take the article any further because I could find no other reliable sources (or, at least, none which added anything extra to that which is already included). The problem has been Atterion wanting to get rid of stuff s/he "knew" to be untrue because of the COI. Unfortunately, that included info from the NRHP survey etc. All I can do is keep a watch when they come off their block. There may be better sources in the US to which I have no access, of course. - Sitush (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Puttu is bread?

Hi Anna I see you categorized Puttu as bread, which I find very surprising. I've never eaten Puttu that resemble anything I would call bread. Puttu are just flavored, steamed rice. Can you explain the classification, please? Thanks Guffydrawers (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Guffydrawers. I think you're right. I didn't inspect the article. I added the navbox because it was in the category Indian breads. I will remove the box and the cat. Many thanks for pointing it out. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jay Bahadur

I heard this last month and think you might be interested in using it as a reference:

• Ewing, Mike. (July 26, 2011). Ontario Morning Podcast. CBC Radio One. "Jay Bahadur talks about his new book called "The Pirates of Somalia: Inside the Hidden World of Modern-Day Sea Bandits." Event occurs from 10:00-19:35.

I believe there is another podcast, but I haven't been able to track it down just yet. Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I found it. Here it is:

• Conan, Neil. (July 19, 2011). A Peek Into The Secret World of Somali Pirates.Talk of the Nation. National Public Radio. Transcript.

Thank you very much. I will check them out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Halgerda malesso

Hi Anna,

I was just looking at a page I changed a while back and it looks like you changed it back again. The previous user had an image of a Halgerda batangas instead of the malesso. It looks like you moved my new correct picture of a Halgerda malesso and put the Halgerda batangas back on the page :-) Just checking if you had a reason I was missing or if I can change it back to the correct species:-) Thanks, Chad

Here are a few links to compare the species.

Halgerda malesso: Yellower in color, Lined body with yellow tips. Only reported in a few pacific islands. 2nd Link

Halgerda batangas: Know more in Indonesia and Philippines. Has a more orange appearance finer lines and a few other idiosyncrasies. 2nd Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad Ordelheide (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I reverted to your version. Sorry about that. I didn't notice. I think the image I added has the wrong description. I'm a bit confused. Could you look at the description and see, and change it to the correct name? Many thanks for catching my mistake. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nudibranch articles!

Thanks Anna for your nice new nudibranch articles! I hope you are doing well. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Susan. Yes, I'm doing fine. Hope you are too. Long time. It was my pleasure to make those. When I see a nudibranch image with no article, I can't resist. Such astonishingly beautiful animals. All the best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

i want this sod fountains from china

Dear sir, i want this sod fountains from china plz give me that companey name and email and adress.i have good orders . waiting for ur reply. kcreddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.235.212 (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi kcreddy. Sure. It's the Wong Sod Fountains Company, China. I don't know the email. Try a few different ones at random. Good luck with the orders. Remember, tell your customers they're gonna want to stand well clear when they turn on a sod fountain. Some sort of golf umbrella might be in order. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI

The deadline for submitting the DYK is coming up, at 02:34, 16 August. If you aren't able to do it by then because of the time difference, I'll submit something, but we can always have multiple ALT's. Viriditas (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please submit it? I have very limited time today, and I'd have to review a DKY before I submit another. Any old hook will do. We can, as you say ALT it after it's in. Many thanks, and sorry to dump it in your lap. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I'll do it in a moment, then I'll be away for the rest of the day. Just remember in the future, you do not have to review it before you submit it. I won't even have time to review a DYK until much later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See Template:Did you know nominations/Jay Bahadur and add your ALT's! :) Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ratón

Hi Anna, I've taken the liberty of rewriting and expanding your fascinating article Ratón. It's currently up for consideration for the "Did You Know" slot on the Main Page; I've requested that if it is accepted we both get credit for it. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

She's unstoppable! :) Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"My fascinating article?" I started a bit of rubbish. You, my friend, turned it into a great piece. Fantastic! I actually thought I had made a duplicate and somebody had redirected my stub to an existing, polished article. I had to check the history dispite apparent evidence otherwise.

I had terrible trouble with the Spanish sources, but that's no excuse. You were the perfect editor for the job. Superb!! It will make a great DYK. It's a shoe in.

I actually had dinner with a Spanish friend last night who's seen Ratón's daddy or great granddaddy fight. Can this be right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments! Not at all impossible that Ratón's daddy or granddaddy was a fighting bull; actually I think you'd expect it. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job on Ratón, Prioryman. It is a real pleasure to read. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually emailed the diff to friends to show how fast an article can develop. Despite it having issues, I particularly liked this sentence: "...Further gorings occurred in Museros in 2005, when Ratón gored a dozen people, and at Yátova in 2006...". You've gotta love this bull. He must really enjoy his work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

At some point I'm going to buckle down and do some research on the early days of cattle ranching in Hawaii. There are several sources on the subject that describe what happened when the King let the cows run loose and after time, they went from domesticated cattle to feral. At that point, they began terrorizing the countryside in Hawaii, and apparently, many people were killed. I'm curious if this was because of the bulls. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of bull to me. I bet the Hawaiians had a beef with their king, though. Prioryman (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Anna Frodesiak. I hope you enjoy this cupcake as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I ate it so fast, icing plugged up my nostrils. Many thanks! It was sooooo-poib! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jay Bahadur

rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Jay Bahadur

The name is Indian in origin. Please refer to the article on the etymology of his first name, Jay, as well as the article on his last name, Bahadur. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bahadur doesn't go to an article. It goes to a dab page. The subject identifies as Canadian. Is adding this sort of thing policy? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ratón

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, it got 19,300 views, making it the second most popular DYK of August 2011 and the 19th most popular non-lead DYK of all time. Not a bad result! Prioryman (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am delighted! The credit goes to you and the others. You did a great job! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

• Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
• Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
• Watching out for the class as a whole
• Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

DYK Medal

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Medal awarded to Anna Frodesiak for 26 DYKs. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Delightful! And thanks for updating my bling page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

deletion of the features of NHRM

Hello. Mam the some of the text were referred from a PDF of EPW (Economic and Political Weekly) and I citing it as a PDF or Journal I cited the URL of the result page which I got when I searched for the PDF. I saw your msg now and before i could act and rectify my mistake, the part was deleted. Can you Undo it, so I can cite it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vastu1706 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I have cited the given addition to the page properly after reading your message. Now the citation refers to the pdf not the url — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vastu1706 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you put the text back in exactly the same as it was before. So, I guess you don't need help undoing it.

Before we talk about how to cite sources, let's address the copyright violation matter: Again, please, it is very important that you do not copy and paste. That is a copyright violation. It's not allowed. You must rephrase the content in your own words. Thank you and have a splendid day. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand issues related to Copyright violation. The provided data is rephrased and added to the wiki page. Only the facts nad the figures are not changed. Thank you for pointing out the error on my part related to the citation of the data. regards :) vastu1706 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vastu1706 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In point form:

• I'm not sure you understand issues related to Copyright violation, as you simply restored the exact same content, at least some of which was copy pasted from another website.

• You rephrased nothing.

• I pointed out nothing related to any error on your part related to citations. You must be thinking of someone else.

• In case you haven't noticed, I blanked the entire article.

• Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

In point form:

• I do understand issues related to copyright violation, and I simply restored the exact same content because I added the content only after rephrasing it form the source.

• In the second point you mentioned that I rephrased nothing, but mam with all due respect, have you read the PDF mentioned in the note section? If you would have then you would have noticed that the content form the PDF is rephrased and I repeat again only the facts were copied.

regards. vastu1706 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.30.181 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

More points in more point form :) :

• You may now understand the policy, but you sure didn't yesterday.
• You left the confusing edit summary when you restored the new, improved text: "...Undid revision 445669621 by Anna Frodesiak..."
• You restored a bunch of content. Some of it was rephrased. However, the third paragraph starting with "...Strengthening primary health centres (PHCs): The mission will..." google matches exactly with a document from http://www.jstor.org/stable/i404650. That's a copyright violation. When I see something like that, I don't pick through the rest. I tend to remove the lot.
• Please add ~~~~ at the end of your communications. It automatically adds your signature and the time.
• As you are on a school project, and part of that project may be to improve Healthcare in India, then why not get all your friends together and help put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Right now, the whole article is blanked. A good project would be to slowly restore the content after checking the sources. This would give lots of practice to you and others on how to add sourced, non-copyright violation content. I would be happy to help. What do you think?

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You are sweet

Nice to meet you. You are really sweet. Take care. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You take care too. Happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Expletive deleted this made me giggle like a 12 year old... Cheers - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

4twenty42o, you are 12 and what is that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha again, again, again........ - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

location map antarctic peninsula

maybe i could upload the same map of the location box. But maybe it would be redundant. What do you think about it? Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gifattori (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. The map of the location box is the one I uploaded. I added the little yellow square. I don't remember where the original map came from. Maybe it was already at Wikipedia. But it's quite low resolution.

Anyway, it's not a big deal. After all, people just use it to see where the subject is. Let's not worry about it. If you ever need anything, just ask. Best wishes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

BS

The Special Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		for spelling and using the word egregious correctly and not getting too aggressive when forced to do so! Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you! I was very pleased with myself for using "egregious". And it was too! Those IP scoundrels! Da noiv o' dem! Anyway, thanks for the barnstar. It's lovely. Triple smiles to you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edible mollusk template

Hi Anna, Good idea to polish this template up, thanks! Some suggestions: I would add Conch as a category, and also Periwinkles. I would make Snails into "Other snails" and I would separate land snails (currently the three Helix species, but there are more to come) from the few odd miscellaneous sea snails. I would also make Limpet a group. I see we are including species eaten in history and prehistory as well as currently, I think that is OK. I am still struggling with a poor internet connection. I am in California, not Nevis. As for the top and bottom, are you looking for beautiful seafood images? We also have a "Seashell" template, but that one is in reasonable shape I believe. Invertzoo (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done most of what you suggested, as you've now seen. I liked the dishes group, but the navbox was so full. Besides, the body looks good containing only mollusk items. Anyway, it was a luxury. If you want it back, fine by me. A possibility would be to move the bottom bar to the top bar, and add dishes to the bottom bar. I can't say I'm crazy about the idea, though.

An image might be good, but again, the box is quite crowded. If added, a simple emblematic image would be good. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine without the dishes. Thanks so very much Anna, the template is really a whole lot better than it was when you started in on it, and I can't imagine anyone else would have bothered to work on it! I looked around a bit for a good image for it, but I am not sure I really found one that would be suitable and attractive too. Many thanks again and I will keep looking. Invertzoo (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. And thanks for your improvements too.

I will subgroup the inkfish. I know it screws up the heirarchy thing, but I don't want a main group "gastropods" because it will eat up a huge amount of the left side. I might try to see how it looks. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You maybe didn't realize this but the gastropods and the bivalves are now listed mixed up together simply in alphabetical order, and because of that, I don't see why the Inkfish can't also just go in alphabetically, before the Limpets. I imagine that cooks don't care much about the taxonomy of seafood. What do you think? Best, Invertzoo (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am making the assumption that the template is now more aimed at being useful to cooks and gourmets etc rather than to malacologists, but maybe that is not a good assumption...? I am jet-lagged remember. I also think that "Land snails" should probably be its own list, before "Limpets". And then the remainder of sea snails can be under, what, "Other sea snails"? Invertzoo (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

True. Grouping inkfish implies that the rest (bivalves and gastropods) are one group. It's a lesser of two evils here. I'm inclined to leave inkfish together at the top. They are, from a culinary point of view, "those delicious tentacled animals". I think culinary people would tend to casually group bivalves and gastropods. Separating those would cause further problems. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops. You slipped in a couple more posts. Let me mull this one over. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you make very reasonable points Anna, go with what seems right to you. It does look OK and getting better and better I think. I have only half a brain right now so don't trust my suggestions too much! By the way, here perhaps is a possible image

and here is another possible image

. Invertzoo (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what would really be emblematic of edible mollusks....do you? Invertzoo (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

More

Aimed at cooks, etc. is a good assumption.

Emblematic: No idea. Will think about it.

Layout choices:

A) Split groups into inkfish, gastropods, bivalves, other.

• Advantages: It's correct. Educates people.
• Disadvantages: Bad usage of space.

B) Alpha sort the lot.

• Advantages: Good usage of space.
• Disadvantages: Tentacled things lost in the list. Visitors will find that stupid.

C) Keep it the way it is now.

• Advantages: Hmmmmm.
• Disadvantages: Doesn't sit well with either of us.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and subgrouped it. I alphasorted inkfish to the bottom. If it remains at the top, a nice image could fit snugly on the right. Your call. Also, if you like it better the way it was before, it's an easy revert. The grouping only took a few minutes, so no big waste. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Either way, I bet this new layout will generate a lot more cross-traffic than how it was a few days ago. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow... Thanks for all your work Anna, it's starting to look really good now and is very clear and helpful! And yes I am sure more people will use it. One thing: the "Cockles" section is currently in with the gastropods but it needs to be with the Bivalves. Also, one of the "Cockles" (the Ocean Quahog) should definitely be in with the "Clams". To tell the truth, many of these common names, including "Cockle" are very much grab-bag terms used by seafood dealers, and therefore they have have almost no taxonomic significance on the family level. But, if we decide that the template is aimed primarily at seafood lovers rather than malacologists, then I think these common food names are an OK way to "classify" edible mollusks. Thanks so much, you are are a tremendous asset wherever you work on WP! Invertzoo (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've lost track. Pls check my diffs. I think I've straightened some of it out. Please tell me what further things need doing. You know me by now. Don't be afraid to instruct. I totally appreciate your direction.

I will look at the template once again, but it seems OK now. How about an image? Here is a dish of freshwater nerites, unfortunately we don't know the species.

A dish of cooked nerites from the Rajang River, Sarawak, Malaysia.

I searched the cockles, and they all seem to be bivalves. I just misplaced the subgroup. Which are not bivalves?

You are right, all the cockles are bivalves, it was only the subgroup that needed moving. I did however put one of them into the "clams" subgroup. Invertzoo (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the kind words. I love your comments at the talk. It really says what the template's intent is. Damn straight this is for seafood people! I think chefs will use it while malacologists will cringe. Ha!

Yes, but the malacologists probably don't need this template and anyway, it's good for them to see how other people view their phylum. Invertzoo (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Now, stay the heck off WP and have a vacation. (By the way, Manhattan will be blown out to sea when you get back. That's good for you because then you can scuba to work.) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This trip is for visiting the in-laws. I can't run around too much because my sprained knee is not all the way better yet, and the other foot is hurting a lot for some reason that I don't understand so I'm using a cane. Manhattan did get a shake from the East Coast earthquake, maybe that shook it loose? Invertzoo (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the knee and the foot. Earthquake? Loose? I didn't hear about any earthquake, and I heard Manhattan was already loose. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

More more

I changed "Other" to Chitons, and added one more species of chiton. I suppose that the background color for that group should no longer be pink, but blue like the other sections? Invertzoo (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Other --> chilton. Good move. Pink. Hmmmm. It seems an odd colour, but sort of gray. I don't know why. I added "|evenstyle = background:#F4F0EC" to the top to alternate faint bluish. I'll try to fix it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You fixed it, looks good, thanks so much! Invertzoo (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

NAUGHTYVIR

NAUGHTYVIR (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Thanx a lot Sir.. I am enjoying editing and adding data on wikipedia. I hope that we will continue to enrich this encyclopedia..

My pleasure. Let me know if you need anything. A couple of tips: Please don't bold and italicize stuff so much, and not all CAPITALS either. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Never knew about the complimentary Toblerone before :) Acather96 (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. And yes, a Toblerone. True! Why won't anyone believe me? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

????

I can't see your email anywhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabiroylaifangbam (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Use Special:EmailUser/Anna Frodesiak. Acather96 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	It was great knowing you and thanks for all the help today!!! Rabiroylaifangbam (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

NAUGHTYVIR (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Thanx..I will keep your tips in mind while editing. One thing to ask. Will i be able to upload photos only after being an autoconfirmed user after four days? or is there any other way to upload photo or any other media file? Can I create a new article as a new user?

Thanks for the lovely barnstar. I really didn't do very much to deserve it.

I think you need to wait for some period of time. If you need help uploading an image, just ask. I can do it for you.

You can prepare the draft of a new article in your sandbox. When ready, if you can't move it into the mainspace, just ask, and I can help.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Gastropod/Gastropoda navbox

If you still want to make a gastropod navbox, it sounds perhaps like a good idea... or do you think not? I suppose it could include simply the largest clades:

1. Patellogastropoda

2. Vetigastropoda

3. Cocculiniformia

4. Neritimorpha

5. Caenogastropoda

6. Heterobranchia

I think it would be OK to have little images with each clade name, especially if you could find nice clear images of live animals. What do you think? Invertzoo (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I can help you find suitable images if you think the whole thing is worthwhile. Be honest if you don't like the idea. Invertzoo (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We also have this Seashell template. Do you think it's OK as it stands? Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have serious doubts. There are issues I cannot find a way around.

• All the species in some clades all look the same, while others need three emblematic images.
• I don't see how visitors will find a navbox with just the clades useful.
• A complex navbox like the medical ones will be confusing to visitors because of the unique hierarchies of each clade.

It's a shame, because one-stop-shopping showing clades, superfamilies, and families would be cool. But it looks impossible to me.

(The Template:Sea shell topics is great, but not for the zillions of stubs that need more horizontal and less vertical.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anna, You seem be thinking of a single template for all gastropods. It should actually be creating seperate navbox templates for each family/genus so that there is horizontal navigation is possible within the species of the family/genus. I will work on creating one for Lobatus. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ganeshk: A separate navbox for each family/genus???? Holy cow. That sounds like waaaaaaayyyyy to much work.

Susan: I can't comment on the seashell template because I don't collect them. By the way, I added a little steamed clam image to the edible template. Tweak away or replace it or remove it if you like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I had in mind. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Strombidae navbox}}

Comments

It's gorgeous. I don't know how you put it together so fast. But, doing this for all families? Years and years of work, followed by years and years of maintenance with changing taxonomy. What I am thinking is some super high overview, like in User:Anna Frodesiak/Violet sandbox Just clades, supers and families. The navbox you just made is nice, but it has a bit of redundancy with the species list in the article, and it's not totally birds-eye. It shows a portion of the story.

A visitor looking at something like User:Anna Frodesiak/Violet sandbox while staring at the taxobox could help give an overview. What do you think? If there's a clever way to put together something like in violet sandbox, maintenance would be peanuts. Plus it would be the only cladogramish thing we have. Speaking of which, do we have a cladogram somewhere that has all the clades? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Anna. Ganenesh's Strombidae navbox is lovely, but I agree that ones like that would require an impossible amount of maintenance and updating because the overall taxonomy and names of species change so often. I agree with you that a single overall navbox would be a better idea. I personally don't have a problem with only using the major level of clades, the structure if we try to use all the clades is too complex I think: it does not use standard ranks and therefore cannot easily be tabulated. You can see a complete cladogram right before the list on the B&R page, but it stops right before the superfamily level. Not all of the minor clades even have superfamilies by the way.

I don't see a problem with making a simple navbox using only the largest clades and using only one image to represent each one, as long as the image is chosen carefully.

But I suppose another possibility is to forgo the clades completely and use, snail, slug, land snail, sea snail, freshwater snail, sea slug, land slug, as the structure, something like that maybe.

Invertzoo (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a navbox about land, sea, etc. Pure taxonomy might be best. The cladogram you pointed out: Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005)#Main clades, groups and informal groups is really good. It's only seven levels deep at most, and could be a useful navbox in helping visitors orient. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a possibility yes. The only thing is that it would primarily be helpful to malacologists, as the average person who is interested in snails or shells does not know the clades, especially because the revolutionary B&R system of taxonomy is still very recent (2005). Also a question: would the template only be used on the various clade articles? There are 41 of those. If so, the template would be extremely useful in terms of showing/learning how all the clades fit together into the tree of life. I guess however that this kind of template would not be shown on articles about superfamilies, families, genera and species (?). I say that because on articles about lower taxa, the appropriate clade (the one that applies to the article in question) would not be displayed in boldface on the template because the clade would not be the article title...? Do you get what I am saying? The jetlag has mostly worn off but I just got up and have not had breakfast yet so my explanations are still a bit opaque I think! Invertzoo (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're making perfect sense. In that case, the best thing may be to simply add Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005)#Main clades, groups and informal groups to a see also section to some of those 41 articles for non-malacologists. After all, the cladogram really does the trick. Besides, the funny layout of the cladogram makes it very difficult to construct an understandable navbox. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we could add a "See also" to all of the 41 clade articles that need it, and we certainly should do that if we don't make a template to go in them. It's a pity we can't just put the cladogram into the template. Maybe the cladogram could be turned into a jpeg file and go in that way with click for enlarge? Or of course the cladogram itself can be inserted into each of the articles, but then if it was updated it would have to be changed manually. Invertzoo (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The cladogram is a template: Template:Gastropoda taxonomy. If you want to add it to the 41 articles as a section, just let me know if I can help. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC) See, here it is!:

† Paleozoic molluscs of uncertain systematic position † Basal taxa that are certainly Gastropoda Patellogastropoda Vetigastropoda Cocculiniformia Neritimorpha † Paleozoic Neritimorpha of uncertain systematic position † Cyrtoneritimorpha Cycloneritimorpha  Caenogastropoda  Caenogastropoda of uncertain systematic position Architaenioglossa Sorbeoconcha  Hypsogastropoda  Littorinimorpha Ptenoglossa Neogastropoda Heterobranchia Lower Heterobranchia  Opisthobranchia  Cephalaspidea Pteropoda: Thecosomata Pteropoda: Gymnosomata Aplysiomorpha Acochlidiacea Sacoglossa Cylindrobullida Umbraculida  Nudipleura  Pleurobranchomorpha  Nudibranchia  Euctenidiacea  Dexiarchia  Pseudoeuctenidiacea  Cladobranchia  Euarminida Dendronotida Aeolidida Pulmonata Basommatophora  Eupulmonata  Systellommatophora  Stylommatophora  Elasmognatha Orthurethra Sigmurethra

OK, that should do the trick for the cladogram! My internet access is still rather pathetic (the free WiFi at this hotel repeated;y drops my connection especialy in the evenings) so if I don;t immediately start using your excellent templates, you will know why! Invertzoo (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your net connection.

"... using your excellent templates...": I didn't make the cladogram. It was already there. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Uploading images

VIRESH KASALA 10:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC) I am really glad to have your kind help.. Heartily thanks to you. I will wait for some time for media files to be uploaded. Can I upload images directly from my computer or they need to be uploaded from URL? Have pleasant time ahead... :) :) :) :) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAUGHTYVIR (talk • contribs)

Hello and welcome again. You can upload files from your computer here:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard

Be sure you own the images. Please don't upload images you found somewhere on the internet.

Good luck, and if you have further questions, just ask. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

VIRESH KASALA 10:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC) ok.. Now the link you provided will help me to upload images.. I will always be aware about the copyrights of any content. Thanks a lot.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NAUGHTYVIR (talk • contribs)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:PlateOfFishLg.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:PlateOfFishLg.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

???? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Recent edits Tirupur123451

"...The floating population of the town an average 1,50,000..." in this edit. -It is Hundred and fifty thousand and it is written in Indian numbering system. 1,50,000 means that one lakh fifty thousand(1 lakh= 100 thousand) Thank you for informing about the copyright problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirupur123451 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty please?

Anna, since you are now fluent in template syntax and I am not, having forgotten the little tiny bit I used to know (!), could I ask you (pretty please) if you would do me a big favor and widen the seashell template a little bit? It is currently 100 pixels wide, I believe. I added the word "About" to one subheading and now the template looks a bit cramped. Many thanks. In fact... could I ask you to make the first subheading "Mollusk shells", and to create a second heading where there is currently just a think orange line and make that second subheading "About mollusk shells". The third subheading is fine as it is. Also actually, please again, is there any chance I could ask you to help me in another way by toning down the colors so the template as a whole is less lurid? I don't mind the pinkish orange color, but I feel it should be very much paler. If you don't have the time or the inclination to do these things, I do understand. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Width done. You can alter the width by searching "width". (There's only one occurrence of the word.) I set it as width= 200px, which might not be what you want.

Headings done. Check the links for "Mollusk shells" and "About mollusk shells".

Lightening the colour made it look all "bandage colour". Yuk. I thought yellowish might be nice. I seem to associate that with seashells. See User:Anna Frodesiak/Bronze sandbox and tell me if it's sort of the right thing. I got those colours from the templates listed below.

If you prefer something different, you can shop at the lovely List of colors.

See also

• Template:Shades of orange
• Template:Shades of yellow
• Template:Shades of pink

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help with that template and for showing me some useful things! It looks much better now. Invertzoo (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to push the yellow navbox colour. I'm very happy with the orange. It's just that I couldn't get the colours right.

Anything else you need, just ask.

I posted at the cladogram thread above too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bunny request

bunny please???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djaks06 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

I have observed some pretty remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. I am working on an essay, and I believe you are of the adman class. I'd like to see you become an admin. This working draft might explain, but you are exactly the kind of editor I had in mind. My76Strat (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Aw schucks! I bet you say that to all the editors. Wait a second, you do! This is a form letter! Haahahahaha. Actually, it's because I can't handle commitments. But thanks for the kind (though impersonal) words. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They are only semi impersonal. The editors I have chosen to send this message are not of a hap hazard list, but contributors I have observed. I still think you would be great. My76Strat (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

She would make a fine admin, and I suspect her RfA would break WP:100 records. Hopefully, someone on IRC will mentor her on the RfA process and help cajole her into it. Plus, she could get a lot more work done with the ability to protect and delete articles. Viriditas (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree. But I respect her decision. My76Strat (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're a fine salesman. :) You need to put your foot in the door and tell her all about how adminship will take the spots out of her rug. Come on man, step up. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat: Well in that case, thank you. I'm actually flattered, and I appreciate you thinking of me.

Viriditas: Thank you too for the kind words. Probably having some extra tools could help me get more done, and free up admins, but the job comes with responsibilities. People would ask me to get in the middle of arguments. I just have no patience for ANI and such. My idea of dispute resolution is clunking their heads together.

Plus, seeing what Qwyrxian went through makes it plain that even the slightest mistake in the past gets brought up, and seems to be grounds for an oppose. I've made tons of mistakes, and my judgement is highly questionable. In fact, I'm still stuck with that carbon paper company I invested all my money into. Seriously, the tally would be 7 support, 200 oppose for sure. Now you, Viriditas, would be a great admin. Why not you? Hmmm? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"My idea of dispute resolution is clunking their heads together." Hear, hear! Where the hell is the Clunk heads button?? Viriditas (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, for sure there are no guarantees when it comes to RfA, except this one, I will be in your corner, regardless! Viriditas, Anna is 100% correct to suggest that you should also consider yourself, fully qualified, and just a tad tardy, as it relates to your fitness for the bit. My76Strat (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat: Thank you. It's nice to have someone in my corner. Again, it's just the dispute resolution sort of thing that I have no interest in. All the other aspects of Wikipedia, I love. Can an admin say "Sorry, that's not an area I deal with. Ask someone else."?

Viriditas: Yes! A "clunk" button would be great! There are a few editors out there I would clunk immediately, then repeatedly. Then, just as they staggered to their feet, more clunkings! And when they say, "Hey. Why are you...." more clunkings! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The clunkings will continue until morale improves. Bonus: possibly Canadian in origin! Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding an earlier point, yes, admins can absolutely say "that's not an area I deal with". We're all still volunteers, and none of us are compelled to do anything we don't want to. For example, for right now, I have no interest in learning how to make code templates, even though that's definitely an area where admins are needed (since a lot of templates are fully protected to prevent site-wide vandalism). All you have to do to stay out of the fray is to only do the admin actions you want to; avoiding DR is basically just a matter of avoiding WP:AN and WP:ANI, and there's lots of admins that never go there unless challenged (and many who almost never get challenged). A better question, though, is whether or not the admin tools would help you do what you already do now or want to do in the future. To be fair, you may face opposition from the group at RFA who thinks that admin candidates should have some previous experience on policy/guideline discussions, which I see that you don't. Other !voters, though, will be impressed by your massive amounts of content contributions and especially the new article creations. I doubt you'll face the kind of dramaz that I did; however, at least for me, I never really got stressed by any part of the process. While I certainly watched by vote tally quite closely all week, I never felt like it was the "Hell Week" that others describe, and, in fact, much less stressful much of the other stuff I'm involved on on WP. Overall, though, the issue is really up to you. Recently, there's been talk that there's a lot of people on WP that qualify as admins but simply don't want to deal with the dramaz involved with RFA, and that someone (a committee, the Stewards, Jimbo), should just go around declaring good, long term, uncontroversial editors to be admins by fiat. I think you would definitely fit that bill, but I can also understand the reluctance to go through the process. In any event, I think you're a great editor (although there is something a little bit questionable about someone who spends so much time writing about gastropods...eww...I know, I'm a specie-ist and am rudely prejudiced against small, squishy, vegetable stealing animals) and your contributions to WP are wonderful, whether or not you ever decide to ask for the mop. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Anna does have a great deal of policy/guideline experience on the WikiProject level (which I believe is consistent and equivalent with project space prerequisites). And although she won't admit it, she has actually performed quite a bit of mediation and dispute resolution. Most importantly, she has vastly superior social and interpersonal skills that most admins lack and will in all honesty, probably never attain. And, although she doesn't talk about it very much, from what I can piece together from her comments here and there, she has traveled all over the world and understands diversity in all its cultural forms, including the subtle differences in communication that often comes up on the noticeboards when we are dealing with users from different countries. Unfortunately, most admins haven't seen their way out of their parents' basement, or live like nocturnal creatures in their dorm rooms, so Anna is not just qualified for the position, she's one of the best candidates I've ever seen. Sure, she doesn't have the leet technical skills, but to her advantage, she learns incredibly fast and to her credit, she learns from her mistakes. Wikipedia would benefit from choosing admins with good people skills rather than technical users. You can teach technical skills, but interpersonal skills come from real world experience, and in many ways, are more representative of character and personality. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the encouragement and compliments. I am going to spend a bit of time reading up, and then reply. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

V: Loved the clunkings/morale thing.

Q:

• It's nice to hear that one can stay out of unpleasant areas. But, seeing the unavoidable arbitration thing you've been handling greatly deters me.

• I agree that a better question pertains to admin tools, and whether or not they would help. Now, when I need something fixed, I call an admin. Good system.

• Having opinions on policy/guidelines is not my thing, and if such participation is crucial, and if I continue to avoid that, then I should not be a candidate.

• Your RfA did look like running a gauntlet.

• I agree with "admins by fiat". Or maybe better, degrees of entitlement, like getting rollback, etc. Why not other tools? Blur the lines. It feels a lot like cops and little people sometimes. A form of meritocracy might be best.

• Writing about squishy stuff is awesome. I guess it's a form of escapism too. In a crazy world, to pay attention to some little slug on the sea floor brings me comfort.

• Thank you for the kind words.

V again:

• Policy/guideline experience: Well, there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Draft capitalization guidelines initiative. A year old, but it will still run its course. I tend to finish what I start. And this one, I hope, will end up in the guidelines, and will help end lots of page moves, reverted edits, and a zillion wasted talk page keystrokes.

• If such skills you speak of are actually important in an admin, then maybe I could help smooth out a few rough situations. Sometimes I think a lot of threads are too long due to "horn-locking", where a bit more "seeking understanding" would make everything better.

Considerations:
PROS:

• I could help others. And in the real world, people who don't want to be in positions of administration are often better choices than those who seek such positions. So, maybe I would be a good choice.

CONS:

• It could spoil my experience here and make it seem like work.
• Why fix something that's not broken.
• Meting out faulty advice like User talk:Anna Frodesiak#Mithril would be brought up and strongly criticized.
• I could get stuck in the middle of two wiki-lawyers and not know which side to take.
• I don't like power.
• When I need an admin with tools (or "weapons" as some consider them), there are plenty of admins available.
• Already too many chiefs, not enough natives.
• After living in Holland for a long time, I appreciate how the citizenry can take responsibility, displacing some of the administration and enforcement people.

Q&V again: Thank you all for saying such nice things. I will talk with some admins on IRC to see what they say. For now, it's probably best to stick the whole thing on the back burner and come back to it later. Best to you all. (I think this is the longest post I've ever made) ....  :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's good to see you consider this carefully and soberly. Most editors seem to either have the "I will be an admin someday" mentality (I basically did, to be honest), or the "I never want to do that, ever, what a waste of time." You present some very good considerations, both positive and negative. If you ever have any questions, of course you know you're always welcome to ask. One minor correction: the arbitration has nothing to do with me being an admin (even though some users are trying very speciously to connect the issue); I'm just an editor with respect to those articles and users. Let me tell you, sometimes I wish I weren't...but sometimes, helping the encyclopedia isn't all fun and games. Ultimately, arbitration will solve the problem: if I'm right, the major bad actors will be removed from the scene and it will get (a little) better. If I'm partially right, the articles will go under WP:General sanctions and then the bad actors will knock themselves out sooner or later. If I'm totally wrong, and I'm actually a major cause of the problem (like my critics contend), then I'll get topic banned and I can move on myself. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for the edits

No worries. I just stumbled on them while checking new pages and thought I would chip in with some basic info. Keep up the good work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! I'll do the synonym redirects. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For your dustbusting

	Spick 'n' Span
	For your continued efforts in cleaning up 800+ villages, several police forces, an entire alleged region and, well, quite a bit more besides. That one person could create so much dust in such a short time still boggles my mind. Sitush (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been increasingly enjoyable removing the last remnants. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

your help

Dear Anna, Many thanks for your help on my recent posts. As you see I'm new - haven't even worked out how to reply on my own talk page yet... Actually I have very little spare time for this and have just started to improve information on some things I know about - without really having time to digest all the guidance. Sorry, I'll try to be more careful. JRF66 (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem at all. You're making good contributions. We need experts like you.

The thing I worry about is the copy and paste. That's a big no-no here. Other than that, you're doing fine, and please continue. Please don't be offended if I tweak a bit of what you did here and there.

If you did copy paste this edit, just let me know, and I'll revert it. No harm done.

A quickie lesson: Click "watch" at the top of articles you edit. Then click "my watchlist" at the top right of the screen once in a while. That'll show you if anyone's changed what you did.

If you need anything at all, just ask. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. I put a note on the KFBG page - not copy and pasted, but feel free to edit further. JRF66 (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anna. I was thinking of (slowly) working through the South China nature reserves I know, which deserve to be better known, but often the only source of objective reliable information (especially in English) is from the reports we wrote (at KFBG) - as in the Dinghushan example. These reports do draw on other sources (often in Chinese) and I don't think there would be copyright concerns from KFBG's side (I can check) or from me as an editor, but there are CoI considerations. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRF66 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi JRF66. That sounds like a great idea.

There is no copyright issue if the content is paraphrased.

The COI matter is interesting. It is COI by definition. But, if there's no profit motive, that sort of changes things. Is KFBG totally nonprofit?

Others viewing this post are welcome to share their views. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, totally nonprofit, and generally self-funded so it doesn't need to 'sell' itself to supporters. I guess the thing is to guard against self-promotion. I'll try to meditate first... JRF66 (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Welllllllll, I guess it's okay then. :) Go ahead. I'll keep an eye on ya! :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I do believe it's important to include a brief description on how to prepare rhubarb in particular as the plant has poisonous parts that should not be used. I saw nothing in the recipe telling about that. I added a small bit about the strawberry as that's another important ingredient in the pie. It's also a way to help fill out the sparse article. I am finding nothing to support the article's current assertions that the pie is Appalachian. I do believe Rhubarb Strawberry pie is eaten throughout the colder areas of the Midwest, Canada and down south. I will continue to look. Thanks! LittleRedWriter (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I see your point.

How about keeping or rewording content about the ingredients so that it relates directly to the pie.

Also, maybe a bit of rephrasing is in order. To avoid the "how-to" style: "...Do not use frostbitten stalks either as they could be poisonous..." could be written as "...The use of frostbitten rhubarb stalks is avoided in the pie, as they may be poisonous..." Would that be okay?

Also, yes, in Canada we eat a lot of this pie with vanilla ice cream. It's really the best ice cream choice for such a pie. But of course, that's original research. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Left a message for you on my talk page. LittleRedWriter (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent comments

Dear Ms. Frodesiak, I am an amateur wiki editor, I agree. But I am not a novice English writer; please do excuse typos. I will surely try to avoid such mistakes in punctuation hereafter. Please let me know why when I want to bring to light the other side of Kiran Bedi (after all she is a public figure) some people are bent on removing the facts posted under "Controversies". Wikipedia as I believe is not a forum for self glorification, and why is it being allowed? Would you accept if I paraphrase from printed and published Books and newspaper reports, quoting sources?

Regards, Babu Daniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babudaniel (talk • contribs) 13:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Babu Daniel. Don't worry about the typos. You make good contributions, and I think your English is better than mine.

I can see that the controversies section you added to Kiran Bedi remains. Well done. The part about her daughter is absent, though. It was removed in this edit. Restore it if you like, as it was removed without explanation. But, it really must be accompanied by good sources. The only source added to that content was this. The website is not reliable: "...evolved the website into a community blog...". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I can see you are familiar with article talk pages. If there is a dispute over the controversies section, consider discussing it there.

If there's anything you need, just ask. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Frodesiak, Thank you! I'm just learning the whole process of being a contributor. I will post only following the norm of providing information based on credible and verifiable sources; and I am looking for such a source regarding the source of her daughter's admission.

All my adult life (30 years) I have fought double standards in public life at a huge personal loss to me; I care not. I have taken on three bigwigs in different instances, challenging them and in one case the matter even reached the Supreme Court, without the other side being able to get a favorable order despite engaging the present Home Minister of India to argue his case. Kiran Bedi is not an exception to the rule that Indians in high places have a self-righteous attitude; I am basing this on her public work during and after her holding the public office. I firmly believe that the general public have a right to know both sides of the bread, not just the buttered one. Sorry to bother you with a long note. Regards, Babu Daniel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babudaniel (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, call me Anna. Good luck with the "daughter admission" refs. As there were mass protests, there should be many out there. If there is another side the article's subject, it is good that you add content to represent it. I'm very pleased that there are people in this world shedding light. Your efforts taking on big power has a price, but, there are many who appreciated what you are doing. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Anna. Regrading, "daughter admission" I am still searching for credible sources. My intention again is not to malign her at all, but to present facts and prevent deification. What do you think?

Indian malls

It's been more than a week, I think you're clear to go with whatever criteria seem best to you and start cutting. Then once people start crying bloody murder, you can always revisit the criteria. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll get on it after the weekend. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Corre (professional wrestling)

So I added all the references you needed if you'd like to check them out. Thanks. If it's good enough then please live up to what you said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Corre (professional wrestling) (2nd nomination) and vote for the article to be kept. Cheers. Deely1 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's looking good. Please read: Wikipedia:Gng#General notability guideline.

Zero results searching "Corre" in:

• http://www.pwmania.com/artman/wwe-capitol-punishment-results-june-19-2011

• http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/166921-wwe-wrestlemania-27-results-april-3-2011

That leaves 6 references. Not bad. Some don't quite meet Wikipedia:Gng#General notability guideline criteria.

I suggest digging for a few more. Stealing references from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corre would be a good start, (providing it's the same group). Second, Google News. There ought to be lots.

I stumbled into wrestling articles chasing some disruptive editor. In the sphere, I see a lot of arguments over who should get an article and who should not. A lot of talk over the merits of the people. That means nothing. Please read below. I will probably point others toward the subsection too:

Thanks a lot for your help, I appreciate it a lot. Deely1 00:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, I think I might have done the job. Deely1 01:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Mithril

It doesn't matter if a particular wrestler is new, puney, awful, or a complete weenie.

He gets an article if he gets good media coverage, period.

If you think people will want to delete your article, bombard it with tons and tons of good references, and watch them all shut up.

Lots of references protect your article. It makes it invincible, and forever. In the realm of Wikipedia, references are mithril.

Read WP:GNG.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added proper referencing and reliable secondary sources for The Corre. Could you take a look and decide whether it should still be considered for deletion? Starship.paint (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done. By the way, what I wrote above is pretty solid, but the guidelines about people and athletes are a bit contradictory. If the wrestler/group never performed, but got media coverage, then it could be contested. But, if they did "fight for the title" or whatever they do, then yes, it should be really difficult to challenge. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Phyllis/

Have I added enough footnotes yet here to be okay with my Wikipedia entry? (Peter Rodgers Organization).

Kind regards,

Defgirl666 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Phyllis

Hi Phyllis. I can't access read most of them to check. Please read Wikipedia:Gng#General notability guideline and let me know what you think.

If the http://cinema.library.ucla.edu reference is a measure of the others, then I'm a bit worried. http://cinema.library.ucla.edu doesn't mention Peter Rodgers Organization at all.

Do the other sources "...address the subject directly in detail..."? Is there "...more than a trivial mention..." of Peter Rodgers Organization? What do you think?

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The footnotes for Peter Rodgers Organization

I just deleted the UCLA film archive one. Do you want me to delete the Grammy one, which solely verifies the fact that was the first album to win Album of The Year, since it does not mention him?

• All the rest of these footnotes corroborate (verify) the facts stated where they are placed.
• The 1st footnoted article titled "The Insider" is all about Rodgers.
• The 2nd footnote is all about Rodgers and his dad.
• The 3rd "The Next Generation" is entirely about Rodgers.
• The 5th footnote titled "Syndication Briefs" is a short article, and it is entirely about Rodgers being the film distributor that holds catalogue including the John Ford films, and the article says that he restored them, as I mentioned in the Wikipedia article.
• The 6th footnote titled "The Brotherhood" is a long article is about the book, and talks about all the film people that contributed to it, and corroborates the fact that Rodgers is one of them.

Is this okay yet??????

Defgirl666 (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Phyllis

According to my arithmetic, that leaves 5 good refs. I think that's sufficient. I won't challenge the article's notability, and I doubt anyone else will either. If it is challenged, it might be on the grounds that the refs are about the person, and not the company, per se. Others are welcome to render an opinion here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Anna!!!!!!!!!!

The referenced articles are about what he is doing (has done) on behalf of the Peter Rodgers Company and his keeping it alive after the death of his father, and the historic films and TV shows it distributes. There are zero mentions about his personal life, nor any other things in his life. The referencing articles center solely in relation to various business affairs done by the film distribution company, except for the one about the book, which focuses on it being published, and focuses on the other Hollywood TV and movie movers and shakers that wrote it, including him. So on those grounds, I think it is okay. Thank you for all your help! I know I have had a whole lot of questions!!!!! If anything does coms up, let me know. I hope you have an totally fantastic Labor Day!!!!!!!!! Thank you so much for all your help, Anna!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It was great to be able to interact with you for Wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defgirl666 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. You should be very proud of yourself. You've done a great job, and as a first article too! I'll keep an eye on it. It should be fine. :) Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Anna

Thank you, Anna. You are a total goddess!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Defgirl666 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Phyllis

Well, not according to my friends. But, I'm working on a "lightning-on-command" trick that I'm hoping will change their minds. At the very least, it should enable me to boss them around more. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Works better than a toaster! :) Viriditas (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Ezhavas

Is it time to look at some sort of protection for List of Ezhavas? I am "sort of" about the situation but not always thinking clearly at the moment - it could be the same person returning while logged out etc. The policies are explicit, there is a mention via your note on the talk page etc and yet the unsourced/unlinked additions & reversions continue. - Sitush (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to ask for protection, feel free.

I'd forgotten about the talk page note. Next time, maybe we should add something like:

Revert: Please discuss first at Talk:List of Ezhavas#Who should be on this list. Thank you.

And you, you poor dear, please look after yourself. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just reported Premlalkp for edit warring at WP:3RRNB. I will be fine, if slightly more sloth-like. Thanks for the thoughts. - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Sloth-like you say? I can't imagine you resembling anything like this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What a curious video. Hopefully they're not flea-infested: doing that to a hedgehog would be a considerable sacrifice. Aside from sharing their name with an adjective for slowness, sloths have only two or three toes ... - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Some strawberry rhubarb pie for you!

	Food fit for a goddess!
	Have a great week! Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)