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.

For further information about my account, click here.

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

WP:CLEAN


	Hello Anna Frodesiak: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) ：） Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Anna Frodesiak:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Stirclash

Dear Anna,

The problem I have is the following. The reference list of the Peat article is/was a cite error, on reference [8]. One version of the reference contained "Cambridge, UK. 497p etc.", the second one was missing the "UK". I added the "UK", applied the mutation, both references now look the same, when you put the cursor on the 2 [8]'s in the text, in the read mode. In the edit mode the reference list looks as it should be. But in the read mode the big red Cite Error in the reference list is stil there. And what is even more strange, if I look at the history of my change, it states: "UK, Cambridge", wrong order! (I'm not that stupid :-)).

What did I do wrong?

Thanks! Anne Jelle (I'm male, in the Frisian language Anne is a male's name, Anna the female equivalent)

15:32, 27 October 2017‎ User talk:Stirclash

@Stirclash: Hi there Anne, I believe I fixed the problem for you. It seems as though you had two references under the same name, but with different content. Let me know if it looks right to you now, thanks! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 01:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Drewmutt. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the Ref Desk

I saw your !vote: "Strongest oppose in the history of the known universe, even stronger than User:Snow Rise's oppose which is so mind-bendingly strong that it is hard to even measure". I'm shocked that I saw no opposition to deleting the Ref Desk in parallel universes ! :-) StuRat (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha.

Hi StuRat. Nice of you to drop by.

Actually, do you know if anyone other than me suggested setting up this refdeskwiki ahead of time? I mean, that would make getting rid of it at wikipedia easy, plus there would be no gap and no risk that it would never get set up.

I don't know how I'd get on without the refdesk. You and others are so helpful. Look at the carbon steel thing for example. This is a great resource. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a proposal to make the Ref Desk a separate wiki under the Wikimedia Foundation, like Wiktionary or Wikibooks. That sounds reasonable, but the problem is that if we get a few bad Admins there they could ruin the whole thing. Imagine, for example, if Medies became an Admin there and just started deleting all Q's she didn't like, as she attempts to do here. There's the old adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix if", but I would elaborate: "If it isn't seriously broken, don't risk all the problems attempting a fix could cause". StuRat (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't comment on Medies, but good points otherwise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable?

Sorry to bother you. Your opinion (and, given your past involvement, input if you feel it would be appropriate and might help) would be much appreciated. I've tried to discuss with him, as have others, but he seems hell-bent on escalating. Thanks in anticipation.

210.187.205.198 (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty laughable that you won't just make an account. I'm not sure if you are the same person as the other 3 IP accounts that have been made within the past 4 days and have been editing articles on roller coasters. When I see a user who made their first edit today, I assume that the user is inexperienced, which I do for you. I am not familiar with the whole different IP's for one person and even though it is apparently fine by Wikipedia rules, I don't like it. And why are you coming over to my talk page and asking a question when I wasn't the first editor to make that statement. Hawkeye75 (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to continue existing discussions at User talk:Hawkeye75. Here is obviously not the appropriate place. 210.187.205.198 (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]