User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive11

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

Speedy deletion of Madraxidae

Hello Anna Frodesiak, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created on August 10 2009, Madraxidae, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Snek01 (note: page has no mainspace links, and 3 edits). This has been done because the page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Snek01. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Snek01 (talk · contribs) 00:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine and dandy. "provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent"? Did a bot write that? Wasn't the stub created from a Bouchet &_Rocroi Family misspelling? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If what Anna says is true, then it should not be deleted, but instead, it should be a redirect to the correct spelling, with the addition of the {{R from misspelling}} tag. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A task for AWB?

Hi Anna, I am still ploughing through unimproved stubs fixing them up to basic standard. Many are all different one from the next, but some need the same thing doing to them. I can't use AWB because I am on a Mac. If you don't mind doing a routine task, would you mind going through the list of 30 Omphalotropis species updating the taxonomy using the taxonomy as it is shown (correctly) in Omphalotropis albocarinata? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

giulio biddau page

Hi

I am Giulio Biddau, and the wikipage is giving me just problems. I'm intending to cancel it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giuliob (talk • contribs) 09:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful

Hello. you recently warned an IP falsely for vandalism. They managed to reply to you but I removed it with a welcome. Please take your time, speed will come naturally. --Tommy2010 00:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. That was me. I was using Huggle and I guess I looked away when the editor's revert happened. I just posted on his page with an apology. Thanks for notifying me and thanks for giving him a welcome. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. Tommy2010 00:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I know what the problem was. My connection gets strange "pauses" due to my location. It seems that I get delays, and then the screen refreshes just before I click revert. I know everyone using Huggle makes the odd mistake. What do you think an acceptable ratio of errors should be? 1:1,000? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, i think an acceptable error rate is no higher than .8% mistakes, or 8/100 reverts. However, if you revert your own edit and blnk or remove your warning on the IP talk page within a minute, it doesn't count in my opinion, but others may disagree. Tommy2010 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

8/100? That seems like a lot. I'm sure I can keep it to 1/200. You seem to have done 20k reverts and 20k warnings so I trust your judgement. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it this way: the usual defective rate for companies is 6% of its products. As far as I'm concerned, anything less than 5% error is fine.. but over time, the user will become faster and more efficient. 8% is a bit high, but it's not "bad" Tommy2010 03:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will try to match the defective product rate for the Schmidt Anvil Works of Bavaria which is a record-breaking .0000000001%. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, that 8% includes edits which you realize are a mistake and revert within the minute. Tommy2010 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Janthina

Hi Anna, Nice to hear from you. Yes, I am sure we have lots of genus articles that do contain synonyms in the species lists, but probably not very many articles that have such a high proportion of synonyms as the Janthina article did. You see, Janthina is a genus of pelagic snails that occur all over the world in tropical seas, and they even wash up sometimes on temperate shores. Even though there are probably only 4 or 5 species of Janthina in the world, they ended up with numerous different names because shells got named separately by different people in different countries. It took quite a while before an expert malacologist worked out just how many names were lying around in the literature, and that most of these names were synonyms.

In general synonyms ended up being incorporated into our species lists because:

• Some editors don't even know there is such a thing as a "synonym" in biology, and therefore they assume that every name they come across is equally important. I think maybe we need to write a note warning people about that on a subpage of the Project page.
• This also happens because some websites out there contain species lists that appear to have been compiled by a bot doing a web search, and therefore their lists contain not only synonyms but also various different misspellings of the same name.
• It takes a high-powered malacologist to tackle a confusing group of snails and painstakingly work out which names are synonyms of which few genuine species. Really the scientist has to go all over the world to various museums, studying the type material in order to do this. Then the papers come out as part of the scientific literature, and amateurs usually don't get to read them. Shell fanciers are very often using identification books that are many years out of date (for want of anything better) and the names in those shell books help perpetuate the confusion.
• Also it is worth saying that not all experts agree on what particular species names are actually synonyms are what aren't.
• By the way, it's not exactly "false information" to list a whole bunch of synonyms, it's just misleading. I mean, all genuine synonyms are real names that were given to real material. And it does sometimes happen that something that was thought to be a synonym for a while turns out to be a real separate species after all.

Anyway, I do think this is a problem that needs careful handling on Wikipedia. It underlines how important it is to use a reliable scientific source for a species list within a genus, or any lists of that kind.

Of course a lot of our gastropod articles were thrown together back when we were grateful to get almost any contribution, and things weren't done as carefully then. I think nowadays we should not generate species stubs without checking the source (or lack of one!) that was used to generate the species list. As for the articles we already have, no-one seems to like to do routine clean up, but this is something that will need to be cleaned up over time, yes.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's a good explanation. I am still curious about how pervasive this problem is. Janthina does sound like an exception for the reasons you mentioned.

I think the term "false information" is correct in terms of a visitor wanting to know the total number of species in a given genus.

I think it would be a good idea for me to go over the stubs that I created to check for synonyms. Is WoRMS the best resource for this?

I wonder if Ganeshk can cook something up to either fix genus articles, or to perhaps check for incongruencies. What do you think? Regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking recently that perhaps we could do something along the lines of use automated software to insert a caveat at the top of all of the species lists that haven't been checked yet, a temporary thing, just for the time being, saying something along the lines of, "This list is not fully sourced, does not claim to be complete, may contain synonyms, and should not be regarded as definitive."

What do you think? Invertzoo (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, seems drastic, but may be a good idea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica Map Picture

Anna, I'd like to use the picture you've re-touched of Antarctica on my new website - would this be ok? It's the picture which originally had the Ross Ice Shelf highlighted but you've amended it to show Grahamland and the penninsula. Many thanks Anne

af@formulasoul.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.212.94 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the high resolution image of the peninsula. In any case, it is in the public domain, so sure. Anything on Wikipedia is fair game. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Rickshaw photo

Hello Anna, I'd like to place the rickshaw photo in the Rickshaw article. Please write a caption for it (what it is, who it is, when, where)

A Chinese rickshaw puller poses with his rickshaw in Medan, Indonesia, 1936

.

ThanksNankai (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

actually...

I found this caption, in Dutch I guess: Rikshaw, voortgetrokken door een chinese man, Medan, 1936, does that mean "Rickshaw pulled by a Chinese man, Medan, 1936"?Nankai (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of tweaking the caption since the puller is not actually pulling the rickshaw in this photo. Hope you don't mind, Invertzoo (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha. Thanks. I didn't bother to turn on the proxy so I didn't actually see the photo. I just translated the text. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Conus species and Genus articles

Hope this find you well. Your recent editing tells me you were able to resolve your internet issues.

I think the Conus species list must be removed from the main Conus page. I wanted to leave that to Gastropod team to decide.

I understand the synonym problem. At this time, there is no easy automation that can be implemented to correct all of them. It has to be done one genus at a time similar to what was done for Conus and Calliostoma. If you find any genus that concerns you, let me know, I can generate a new list from WoRMS with references. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh BTW, I went to libary and got Simon & Schuster's Guide to Shells. :) — Ganeshk (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm well indeed. Hope you are the same. Yes, my internet issues remain.

It looks like somebody already moved the Conus species list off the main page.

Too bad about the synonym thing. I wish there were simply some way to red flag the articles. What if there were some program that simply looked for the number of occurrences of the string "synonym" or "accepted as" at WoRMS and then looked for an unusual mismatch in the article?

Simon & Schuster's Guide to Shells: nice. You're part of the Gastro-Borg now, and part of the top-secret Gastrocabal. Of course, you still have to vandalize Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects to be officially in.

Stay well. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must decline. Although Wikipedia:Canvassing doesn't quantify "mass posting", you have asked half a dozen editors to weigh in. In the past, a user voiced concern here because of your requests here with edit summaries "Need your two cents.".

And a user voiced concern here because of your requests here with edit summaries "Discussion.". It just doesn't seem like a very neutral thing to do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

For this. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for revert Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest!!!1

[1]. Heheheh... Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My own vanity page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Mystery?

Hi Anna, Martin Smith was correct: this was in effect nonsensical. I removed it. I did not try to look who added that bit in the first place, and I think it was originally a good faith attempt to say something, however the prose was not clear, and the taxonomy of this group has changed a lot over the years which is confusing. Is that the mystery cleared up, or is there more to it than that? Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I figured Martin Smith was correct, but I didn't know how to correct it myself. I brought it to your attention because the comment was made nowiki in the article, and I thought it might get overlooked. I'm not concerned with who originally added it. Good edits and good faith edits fall in the the same category for me. Not a very exciting mystery. Thanks for fixing it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are right, no-one would have noticed the comment for years, tucked away as it was like that. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Invertzoo (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sperm Fertility Count

For what it's worth, I spent about 15 minutes using google and found nothing that seemed relevant. If it wasn't for the scanning of pregnant women it might almost be credible (albeit unsourced). I was going to speedy tag (G3) it until I saw your note on the talk page - I'll wait and see though. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 06:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I couldn't find anything either, but I thought it deserved an hour or so for the creator to come up with refs. It looks like the creator went and made a wikianswers entry for a ref. Just pasted the article in there. Then a mysterious new user removed the db tag -- probably a sock. All indications of a likely hoax. I'm surprised the article hasn't been deleted yet. Hopefully soon. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Help with photo liscense and where to upload them for use on www.nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/johannes_evert_hendrik_akkeringa

I have been working on creating an article on the wikipedia page www.nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/johannes_evert_Hendrik_Akkeringa. He is an artist and I wanted to include a few images of his work. I have received permission from the author of a book to use the images she used in the book on the wikipedia page. I tried to upload them but they were deleted. The images would be credited to both the original artist and the book where the images came from. I want to figure out which liscense I need to use to upload them again. I looked at other artists on wikipedia, and their art is displayed.

Please let me know how to solve this. I am an autoconfirmed user and my article on Johannes_Evert_Hendrik_Akkeringa, has been in existance for 4 days.

Thank you,

SdeClercq1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SdeClercq1 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SdeClercq1 (talk • contribs)

Your user page is great! Wombat24 (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I think you need to read this. What you are trying to do is probably complicated and not fun. I will dig around for more info and get back to you. Hopefully, somebody reading this will have some advice for you. And Wombat24: thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion Mountain AfD discussion

Hello, I see you recently helped make the Motion Mountain article look nicer. I was wondering if you could give some advice on the AfD discussion for that article. So far only me and another editor, both noobs, have put any real discussion there. I have no idea how this process works, or, due to the purposely chosen non-standard publishing method chosen for this textbook, what even qualifies as a good argument one way or the other. Can you give us a bit of advice? Also, what is the usual timeline for discussions like this? Jwerty (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome new folks. I'm not qualified to address this matter. I suggest you ask the editor who added the tag: User talk:JamesBWatson. He is wise, like Gandalf. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Tommy2010's talk page.
Message added 22:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

new message

RE: User_talk:Tommy2010#Various matters

'"If I revert a vandal's edit, then the vandal reverts, then I revert, etc., can I get autoblocked for violating 3RR?"'

To clarify: If it is clearly and undeniably WP:VANDALISM (insertion of 4-letter words or page blanking or claiming that Ronald McDonald is the President of the US etc.) or unsourced contentious information about a living person you cannot be blocked for 3RR. In other cases you may wish to get a third party involved.Active Banana (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would never keep reverting anything other than blatant vandalism. Thanks for the input. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Graphic Novel

Hi Anna Frodesiak (clever)!

I proceeded as I saw fit considering the circumstances. The editor has been blocked indefinitely for other edits. decltype (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

ROFL

Your name took me several seconds. I looked at it and went "wait, what?" then reallized what I was seeing. Fun name. Thanks for a grin.- Sinneed 15:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Be constructive and not destructive...please...

Please do not limit yourself to recommend the deletion of the article created by others on some important issue which is not known to you at all. Please be constructive and not destructive...please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angpradesh (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to copy and paste copyright violations, I'm very destructive. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Copyright violation

Hi Anna Frodesiak !

You have conveyed the following messages by putting it on my talk page : "When you create an article, please be sure to write the content yourself citing sources. Please do not simply cut and paste. That is a copyright violation. Thanks."

You have advised the above in connection with my article : Anga Lipi.

I challenge you to prove that the same has been cut and paste from any of the available pages or sources available on internet. Please be careful while making any comment to any thing being published on the wikipedia. This may lead to propagate negative thoughts in writer's mind. You are once again requested, to be constructive please.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angpradesh (talk • contribs) 19:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

First, I am a constructive editor. Please see my user page and list of contributions.

I copy and pasted full sentences from this version:

"According to Buddhist texts the Laitvistar, Anga Lipi was one of the important script which was used to write Apbhramsha in the Anga desh during 6th Century BC. This Ang lipi was later adopted for writing poems in Apbhransa by famous Siddha poets of Anga desh. The Ang Lipi is listed at 4th position in famous buddhist book Lalitvistar."

(I added the full text as the article is now up for deletion anyway)

...of your article into Google and came up with exact matches here. Word for word. The text at that site has since changed, several times. That is the way museumofstuff.com works. Beneath the article at museumofstuff, one of the sources was listed as this, which sources from Wikipedia. But that article does not contain the text in question. I then noticed that the site has a copyright notice at the bottom.

In the past 10 minutes I've spent writing this, the article at museumofstuff shows no content, just like the Wikipedia article. So I guess it does source from Wikipedia very quickly. Now I see that "sources" link at the bottom shows that the site also sources Wikipedia directly. Despite your rather particular use of the words "challenge" and "available", I must, in good faith, and assume that the text was original. So, please accept my apologies, and please assume good faith on my part. Copyright violations are taken very seriously at Wikipedia. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Voila, a stub. Better?- Sinneed 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice. And you actually found a ref! Plus the extra stuff. It definitely looks better now. I hope when/if the creator returns, he will be happy to see it and will improve it further. Thanks for the help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I wish to extend my thanks to you for considering the notability of the article. Meanwhile while updating the article, "Anga Lipi" , I have encountered with the error of template missing for the references provided for the article. Could you help me in resolving the issue. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angpradesh (talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Regarding the missing template, I have asked Sinneed to have a look. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Anna F, I have your page on watch, you may safely reply here. I hope it is OK if I reply to Angpradesh here.- Sinneed 00:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Angpradesh, As I look at the page, I don't see any technical problems with the citations you have added. I did clean them a bit, removing red links and some minor problems. I tried also to help with wording, language and structure, please look at what I changed, and watch for any errors I may have introduced. I hope the changes prove helpful.- Sinneed 00:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a thought. I have seen that error, when I put a reference in the External Links section... since it appears below the REFLIST, it generates errors. Just a thought.- Sinneed 00:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem? The refs are in order and the ref section has a { { Reflist } }. Is there something missing? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem I can see. It looks like a nice, small article, with interesting sources and content. I am guessing it was a full-article preview problem... but it is just a guess.- Sinneed 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? ---kilbad (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)