User talk:Anna Frodesiak

If I started a thread on your talk page, I am watching. Please reply there. To leave me a message click here.

List of Dogs

By the way, I plan on having a look at the article List of Dogs tonight. I wonder if you could think of a better title. Chrisrus (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From List of dogs Of the dogs who would not leave their dead owner, some have articles and others do not. Have:

1. Greyfriars Bobby

2. Hachiko

3. Old Shep

Don't have

1. Fido (Does have a fine article on the Italian Wikipedia)

2. Heidi

3. Squeek

4. Waghaya

5. Leao

6. Hawkeye

7. The Yellow Dog of Lao Pan

Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list name is barebones, but that may be best. I can't thing of anything better.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might interest you to compare List of Dogs with List of apes, List of cats, List of pigs, List of horses and any others you might find and care to give a glance. There are some differences, and I think you will agree that List of dogs isn't the best. Many of these individual animals should have articles. Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC) List of elephants.[reply]

I assume the reason that my first thought, that they should be called "List of notable (animals)", was not settled upon might lie in the fact that every article on Wikipedia has to be notable, so it goes without saying. But still, "beagle boxer pug" is also a list of dogs, as is "Snoopy Rin Tin Tin Lassie", so the title is just not as descriptive as it could be. So I still prefer "list of famous animals" to "list of animals".

Each individual animal without an article should get a redirect to its place on the list, don't you think? Is there a bot for that? Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I typed "List of notable" in the little search box there on the left and found many articles that start with those exact words. Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too concerned with the presence of the word "notable". If you are, you can pursue it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fido (cane)

I like the idea of making some of the "Don't have" items into articles. I will read up. Thanks for drawing my attention to this. These are the things I like. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to work on Fido (dog) tonight. I'm just tonight going to swipe it directly from the Italian Wikipedia, here: [1]. I think I'll just go make it on the talk page of that article, which doesn't seem to be watched but if it is maybe I'll find some help. I was hoping you'd like to stop by sometime. I'm just planning to run a Google translate tonight and then work on cleaning up the machine translation there as I can. What's the best one, Google Translate is what I always use, but maybe there's a better machine translator. Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My browser translates, and I use Babel. I don't know of others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All replies here

I'm looking at the different lists. I'm not sure I know what you mean. How is List of dogs so different?

I thought List of Pigs was different. By the way, where is List of elephants? Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Hey, look at this: List of birds!! Chrisrus (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because the list would be too short? I will see how many notable elephants there are. I can only think of Dumbo at the moment. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is List of historical elephants. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fido will be a great article for sure.

I'm glad you agree. Should we put it in the mainspace yet? Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think that would be a good idea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of making red or blacklink items redirect to the lists. I don't know that a bot is necessary. Just a few macros and a bit of commons sense. If you want to give me a list, I can do it in 5 minutes. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: They are lists, so what kind of list would you need? Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to "...Each individual animal without an article should get a redirect to its place on the list...". So, yes, "...making red or blacklink items redirect to the lists..." is a good idea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy#Help finding Fido looking for an image. Maybe we'll get luck. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor recently told me that responding by interjecting comments anywhere is wrong -- that all replies should come in a group at the bottom. I don't know if that's right, but it sounds wrong. From what I understand, if it's below a signature, it's fine. But, I know that splitting up others' posts by inserting comments within is a no-no. Melonbarmonster pointed that out to me ages ago. In this case I don't mind because: 1) it's helpful, and 2) we're friends. But, others may strongly object if you do it on their talk pages. If that happens, just plead insanity, vandalize the talk page of an article you created with "this article is tripe!", and trout your own page. The complainant will usually back off after that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Aiyi

Hi Anna! I'm a NNU student, I need your help! After I made some improvements about My article "Sheng Aiyi", why the warnings still exsist? Is there still anything wrong with my article? Would you be so kind as to help me solve the problem?

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNU-10-03100303 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. The article needs a few other articles to link to it, and it needs a bit of clean up, but it's quite alright. I will take another look at it. Regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder pole

Nice work on shoulder pole. Fram (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fram! :) Any view on the page move to Carrying yoke posted at talk?

Oh, now that you're here, does that wiktionary template mean move or copy? I mean does it mean that the article shouldn't be an article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template means that whoever posted it believes that the article is nothing but a dictionary definition, and that the article should be moved to wikitionary (and removed from Wikipedia, or turned into a soft redirect). Of course, whoever placed that on the shoulder pole article was mistaken ;-) As for the move request, I looked a bit at the article and possible sources yesterday, and noted that e.g. shoulder yoke is also often used, as are other terms. I have no firm opinion on what would actually be the best term for it, it looks as if Carrying pole is even more common, and used by reliable sources as well[2]. Fram (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure the template said "copy" and not move. That's what confused us. We were trying to figure it out on IRC. I think nobody was sure.

I'm actually seeing the greatest number of images at commons cat [Carrying yokes. I'm not sure if that means much. Hmmmm. Oh well, it will find its home. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Little

I'm not in the habit of verifying the reliability of sources used in lists like "list of fictional birds" or of verifying that the sources demonstrate notability. Frankly I have very little knowledge of which sources would be considered reliable in this context. Thank you for adding the ref, though. That's good enough for me. If some other editor challenges the entry later on RS or WP:N grounds then it won't be by me. :) -Thibbs (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. Thanks. :) Who really knows what a good ref for Chicken Little is? Frankly, I was a little chicken to restore it. :) What we do know is 1) He was a chicken. 2) He was little. 3) His pilot's license said "Chicken Little". Good enough for me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy/paste issye

Hello, being a new member here on wikipedia i was not very much aware of policies. In few of my work in did copy paste like in Government Post Graduate College Sahiwalbut it does not mean that every article i edited or wrote was copied. Sahiwal Division is one of those articles on which i have deep research and have read many books. i did not copy pasted anything these. and the information that i took from other sited i gave the reference for that. i don't know why you deleted all that part written by me. if you find any issue, you can label that article for discussion but please do not delete everything. it takes a lot of energy and time to write an article and when you delete it this way, it really discourages especially new users. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunaydAnwar (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I removed your hand-written good content. However, You just restored this edit. Please don't. You cannot copy paste huge blocks of content from other articles. I will check your other recent contributions. I do hope you haven't simply restored all that content. I hope my talk page stalkers are watching, and can help with this a bit.

:To clarify: I reverted an entire string of edits you made to several articles. I did so because some or all was copy pasted in each article. I did not want to pick through it all. Some was references to books or sites I could not access. Once I saw that you had done this with several articles, I no longer felt that I should take the chance that some content in a large block with unaccesible sources was not copyright violation. I just removed the whole lot. You will find this with other editors too. When some of the content is copy pasted, the assumption is that the rest may also be, and the whole string is reverted. As you did this with several edits, I just went through your contributions, looked for copyvio, and when encountered, removed the whole block. The onus is on you to provide good content, not half good content. By the way, it took me most of an hour. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry. I was thinking of this editor. These both happened around the same time, and I got them mixed up. In the Sahiwal case, which is your case, it is about copying huge blocks from other articles. Those blocks contained lots of copyvio content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also: User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive28#Sahiwal Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

both Sahiwal Division and Sahiwal District are hand-written articles by me.. you deleted both of them, i dont know why. i wrote both of these articles side by side. and as both of them have many things in common so i wrote for one and also put it into 2nd articles. I don't understand what's wrong with that. please explain me the reasons properly if you do have. How can you put someones hard work into bin. The previous articles was really bad written with wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunaydAnwar (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sahiwal, Sahiwal District and Sahiwal Division all are interrelated sharing lot of thing in common. Before my work, these articles were really messed up. i organised them creating the linkage between them for the better understanding of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunaydAnwar (talk • contribs) 07:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and one thing more, as previously all these were really messed up and were poorly written, they, at beginning, made me to face troubles organizing them. i had to make lot of editing and shifting of my work from one to other article. As i was a new user, it was not possible for me to write everything in one edit. So while evaluating my work, do not JUST see the history especially in these three confusing articles.thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunaydAnwar (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry if I've deleted your handwritten content. Let's work on restoring it.

Again, please understand, when part of a block of content is copy pasted from somewhere else, it is removed, and confidence of being handwrittein in the other part becomes very low.

So, please, let's go back to the earliest addition of content. Did you read the "See also" link above? It seems that the earliest insertion of problematic content was in this edit. I'm really confused about this. The content you added there googles to lots of places, and so may be copy pasted. Also, the content contains "[1]", indicated that it came from somewhere else on Wikipedia, or was copy pasted from another source. Please tell me where you got that content came from. That would be a start. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the edit you mentioned in your last message is not done by me. i started working on wikipedia from October. and one thing i hope you already know is that many sites copy pasts information from wikipedia for their sites. so if you see results on google it does not essentially mean that wikipedia editor has copy pasted from other sites. i hope there would be some more sophisticated mechanism to investigate this sort of problem. JunaydAnwar (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are right. It was added by Drfighar, but later copy pasted to other articles by you. Forgive me, but this is really confusing. I don't know where that content originated, but it appears to have been copy pasted due to the hard "[1]" in the text. I tried to find it at Wikipedia, but could not. I don't know where it came from.

Maybe there is an easy solution. Because there is content copied from one article to another, with your writing mixed with copy paste content from you and others, maybe it would be best for you to look in the articles' history. There, you can recognize your content. Really, you know best which you copy pasted, and which you wrote. This would be much easier for you to figure out than me. I've tried, and I keep going round in circles. Here's a good plan:

Look in the histories and separate your content from the copy paste.
Restore your content to articles.
Please try not to verbatim duplicate whole paragraphs in different articles. Generally, the content should exist in one article, with links to the others. What I encountered was whole groups of sections verbatim copied. That's probably not a good idea.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A question about the content you just restored here: Did you write all of that? Was any of it copy paste? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your advice of adding pictures

Hello Anna: I've received your messages and I appreciate what you've done for me. The picture you found for me is proper and I will add it to my article <Tian Mu Lake> soon. I will read more others' articles and see how to put it.

Thank you again for your kind help! So happy to have a friend like you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNU-02-05100129 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my dear. I'm not sure I was the one who helped with the picture, but I'm always happy to help. It's nice to have a friend like you too. If you need anything, just ask. Tell Josh hi, and that he and the class did a great job. Dress warmly, winter is here, except in Hainan where I am. Ha ha.

Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Osarius's talk page.
Message added 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the edit you mentioned in your last message is not done by me. i started working on wikipedia from October. and one thing i hope you already know is that many sites copy pasts information from wikipedia for their sites. so if you see results on google it does not essentially mean that wikipedia editor has copy pasted from other sites. i hope there would be some more sophisticated mechanism to investigate this sort of problem. JunaydAnwar (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken eyeglasses

You officially made my day. Cloveapple (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually i did not create any of these articles. i just started editing keeping some of text which was already there and as far as i remember this [1] was already there. but i'm not completely sure.. and yeah i know which part is completely written by me and which is contaminated but i have no idea how to restore partially. can you please guide me? thanks JunaydAnwar (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]