User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive12

Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Thankyou kindly for your recent contributions to both the Deepwater Horizon oil spill talk page and article. Your common sense is refreshing. I have remained quiet with restraint on the issue until now. Before you raised the question of conversion templates regarding the first mention of barrels in the article, we had 64 conversions of measurements, all in parentheses. Parentheses interrupt the normal flow of sentences. After my edit solution to your (our) problem, we have 63. Still ridiculous if you ask me, but I won't press the issue. I am satisfied that at least to begin the article, we now have conciseness in that first mention of the flow rate, and won't scare away readers right off the bat. Kudos to you for recognizing that "less is more", and that users don't mind clicking links to direct them elsewhere for information when necessary. In this case, what you and I stood up for is warranted. I feel honored to be in your company. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm just trying to see it from the perspective of visitors to the page. However, I do think the parentheses are a good idea for the most part. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the humor. I will try to practice restraint. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How completely inappropriate of me to address you as "Miss Aphrodesiac". I am so sorry. How can I make it up to you. MichaelWestbrook (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tobias Atkins
Ms. Frodesiak,

I've just read, from you to 'me'

(User talk:124.170.233.131    01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC))

"The recent edit that you made to the page Tobi Atkins has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive."

I see, only by the link provided, that the edit "I" made, included;

"obias Atkins was recently diagnosed with both genital warts and herpes, devastating his audio engineering carer and rendering him a proverbial backdoor. A Subsequent amount of rape toward Tobi has occurred since."

I'd say that was unconstructive. I'd also say that I never wrote it. Or anything like it. Or ever would. I don't actually know who "Obias Atkins" is, and have certainly never written a world about him in my life. Anywhere. I did not make that edit.

So either you've got a wrong ID, or the System's failed somehow, or someone has used my ID. If they could use my ID, I don't think they'd use it once, and then stop.

Although, I today find I can't log-in on my own Wikpediea-remembered ID. It's only because I tried to find out why, that I saw this 'problem'. So I don't know. I've only tried to log-in to Wikipedia one or two times.

If I can assist in any way, I will.

But I would never write what you're (or Wikpedia's) alleging, and I would like the record corrected.

124.170.233.131 (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is a shared IP. I trust what you are saying is true. I reverted on the basis of this, which shows your IP. I am sorry for issuing the warning and have now removed it. I hope you understand that I was just following procedure. Registering might prevent this sort of thing in the future. But, of course, you are under no obligation to do so. Thanks for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cat meat
The IP has a point; Wikipedia has a "disappoint the prurient schoolkids" tradition of redirecting this kind of thing to something that's accurate, but not what they were hoping for. See the redirects at Big tits and Big Dick, for instance. – iride  scent  10:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A fine tradition indeed. I would be happy to change it back. My only problem was with the cat meat tag. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Emerald ash borer image on Wikipedia
Anna: Your name is associated with an image of the emerald ash borer on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agrilus_planipennis_1.jpg

... in the table that indicates that "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States Federal Government"

I have never worked for the Federal Government. The image has been used by government agencies with my permission, but the work is copyrighted by me, and is not public domain. Can you help me change this? The same thing happened with me on a Wikipedia page before. In the case of a commercial violation of copyright, I have legal recourse. On Wikipedia, it proved pretty difficult to undo an error like this. If you don't know how to fix this, do you know the process I should follow?

Thanks 98.250.48.104 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm working on it. I will also try to find out why Wikicommons allows images from US Federal Government sites to be used when some are copyrighted. I am not clear on that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've asked for a speedy deletion on the Commons. The reason why this image got accepted is because you didn't specify the original website with an url, but just mentioned USDA. Most photos on USDA are PD-Gov but not all. One has always to look at the license. JoJan (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought all Fed Gov images were public domain once acquired by them. I don't think I've ever seen a copyright notice at a USDA site. Next time I will check. Thanks for the assist. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Giant balls
A tag has been placed on Giant balls, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Bramble  claw  x   22:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine and dandy. So much for the tradition. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

How to revert a (probably self-promotional) edit?
Hello, I'm watching Lyme disease and someone just added a not-very-useful link to the external link list. How does one tactfully revert such a link? (If there's a good page explaining general page-patrolling you can just refer me there.) Thanks, Postpostmod (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. This link might be useful. I don't know if there is a page specifically on page-patrolling. This link gives a pretty good overview of the back rooms. Also, in the search box on the left, type Wikipedia: and then the first letter of what you want, and then wait a second or two. Suggestions will appear. Wikipedia-related pages start with "Wikipedia:". Vandalism is one example.


 * As for the spam, just revert it, and tactfully write in the edit summary: rv spam


 * Any other questions, just ask. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Email Pictures over 500kb
Just go to my talk & click 'E-mail this user' --DieBuche (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Sainthia train collision
--Great work! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dog Meat
Anna, Melonbarmonster is notoriously protective of Eastern culture - especially when it comes to the subject of dog meat. Take a look at Talk:Korean cuisine to see what I mean. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Where were you yesterday? :) I am kicking myself for getting drawn into it. This sort of "litigating" is the worst side of Wikipedia. I am also sorely disappointed that others did not weigh in. They just sat there and watched two people argue. A couple of sentences from a couple of editors could have brought quick consensus either way. Yeeeesh! Anyway, thanks for the note. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeremy, curb your hounding and accusations. It's one thing to have edit disputes but it's quite another to carry it over to other articles and talk pages. If you want to restart your specious claims about Korean cuisine and claims of bogus consensus in the face of 6 other editors disagreeing with you take it to the Korean cuisine article.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not following up on anything you were doing, I was responding to her request on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany
Hello Anna,

I have to request your assistance again on this matter. If you look at the main page of this article, you will notice the following line which was added on 28th June:-


 * "Official Reference Book:- The History of the Grand Lodge of British Freemasons in Germany by John T. Kellas, published in 1999"

I am sorry but I strongly feel that this cannot be considered an official reference book. The book was written by one of the protagonists of the recent controvery concerning the content of this page and can (or at least in my opinion should) therefore not be accepted as being independent nor can it claim to be unbiased third party reference material. I see no argument against including some kind of reference to this book, but I rather feel that it should not be referred to as the "Official Reference Book".

I would be interested in your comments. Many thanks in advance.

Coronatum Veritas (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If I remember the editor/author's website correctly, he was a former member with issues about your lodge. In fairness, I've removed all references as they are all non-third party. I suggest that you scour some German newspapers for third party refs, at least something that simply says that the institution exists. I hope this helps. If there is anything else I can do, please ask. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Vereinigten Großlogen von Deutschland - Bruderschaft der Freimaurer" Googles lots of hits that are not from your lodge's website. They are all in German, which is Greek to me. A good idea would be to add some content citing these sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * On an amusing note, I'd be tickled to find out what the Germans would think of you considering their language to be Greek! But I

digress ...

If you look at the Discussion page on the same subject, you'll notice my comments which I made in May regarding the availability of third-party and unbiased information. This was not me burying my head or trying to avoid issues, but to point out (which I do once more) that true unbiased third-party information is proving very difficult to obtain. I haven't given up and will in the fullness of time visit the hallowed halls of the United Grand Lodge of England, to try to see if they have any information they could provide. Failing that we'll just have to live in a situation of impasse.

I do however appreciate your help but gain no pleasure from seemingly crying on your shoulder. Freemasonry is a noble organisation which has a wonderful history. Unfortunately recent events have not contributed well towards that noble past and unless something is done to kill the rot, we'll continue to see the organisation suffering. It is a sad situation, but I do wish to avoid using this particular medium as a forum for sorting out or airing personal grievances or for promoting one's own interests and like you I am keen to only see provable third-party facts.

Coronatum Veritas (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand. I'm sure there must be some independent article somewhere that says that the org exists. I'm sure it does, of course. Have you googled the German newspapers? Let's start there. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Frilled shark clip
Basically, yes. The video was uploaded by a person who clearly doesn't own the rights to the clip. TV clips like this are generally copyvios unless they have been uploaded by the copyright holder (e.g. the videos on the official BBC YouTube channel). Also, one minor point: even if the video was fine from a legal standpoint, I wouldn't have placed it on top of the other external links. As interesting as it may be, I don't think it trumps the FishBase entry in terms of encyclopedic value. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I see. That explains the YouTube thing. I appreciate the guidance. I'm not normally in the habit of adding clips, and have removed many while patrolling. But, in that case, wow! Nice fish. The stuff nightmares are made of. Trumps you say? Hmmmm. A video clip vs. text. I guess you're right. Not very encyclopedic.


 * By the way, thanks for the fine copy edits on Black hagfish. Regards and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the web page
See Requesting copyright permission and Donating copyrighted materials. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(To help me remember) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Watching

 * Are you watching your DYK nom? Victuallers (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am now. Thanks for the heads up. I had forgotten. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Arctic and Antarctic Administration
Hi Anna - Great job adding the logo! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. If there are others you need, I'm happy to help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For you

 * Thank you so much for the lovely barnstar. If it makes you feel better, I have a 1RR rule, but recently, I accidentally went to 3RR without even realizing it. It's easy to do. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You always know how to make me feel better :) Thank you. I am fine with 1RR, and definitely will comply with it, if for nothing else, at least do not let down the only admin, who knows that blocks are not used as punishments :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you can help this IP
But I don't think she'll take help from me anymore, especially as I am a man. See [] and my report at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm checking it out now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but she is now at 5RR having reverted yet another editor, and continues to edit. I can't as I am at 3RR and am not going to go over that. She doesn't seem to be bothered about 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 5RR? Wow. I've never seen that written before. It looks like a rare coin or something. I think I might be too late. Do you have to block her straight away? Perhaps she will comply with what I just wrote on her talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not blocking her, that's up to someone not involved. She really should revert her edits back to my last edit, which might save her from a block, as reverting my last edit is what sent her over 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If I do the rv will it help? I've given her a sandbox to use. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, she's got to stop herself, you reverting is just another editor saying she's wrong. Another editor has reverted her, if she reverts him..... who knows, she could end up with a longer block. She's been reverted at Tiamat a couple of times, she could go over there if she isn't careful. You're doing a good job. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said on her talk, I won't touch the article unless she wants me to. The last thing she needs is a third hand undoing her stuff. The best plan might be to help her slow down and get some calm experience in on of my sandboxes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello!!
Hello Anna!! My name is also Ana, Iam speaking from Sao Paulo, in Brasil. Thank you very much for yr HELLO. Yes, I will be very happy if you could help me! :O) I have just included a subtitle Etymology on matriarchy and I hope other editors are OK with that. 187.21.128.77 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Ana!! I will respond on your talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are the one woh reverted now? 187.21.128.77 (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid so. I asked you to stop. Why didn't you reply? I was trying to help you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should I stop and not them? All articles have etymology subtitle and as for the Tiamat I just included the source. But anyway..the violetspace you (tks again!) opened to me, can I copy/paste and inset on matriarchy? 187.21.128.77 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer: You cannot, and they cannot either. All three of you have reverted toooooo much for one day. You will be blocked. But, other editors can. Patience wins the game Ana. Don't fight. Take your time and prepare work in the sandbox. Get stuff ready. Relax. After 24 hours has passed......Wham! Throw it into the article. Beautiful! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: Pasting is editing. No pasting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Iam sorry --IAll the content I edit so far and tehy deleted can I include it tomorrow? 187.21.128.77 (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, after 24 hours. You can go and visit the articles now and see the history and copy your stuff and paste it into the sandbox. But, don't edit those articles. That means don't click save or undo at any point on those articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, but when can I SAVE my editions into teh article again?187.21.128.77 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you need to get consensus. Anna, I've pointed the IP to WP:CONSENSUS. Basically there are two issues. One is that there are two editors, Dab and myself, who disagree with what the IP is adding. Plus a minor disagreement from Pinethicket. You really need to discuss it all at the talk page and get agreement. If you don't plan to do that, I'll ask that the page be protected from any editing until there is agreement. Hopefully Anna will help you deal with the other issue, sourcing. Both how to cite (a link to Google is not nearly enough), and making sure that your sources actually discuss the aspects of the article you are citing them for. You don't want to develop a reputation for ignoring other editors. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dougweller. I didn't know that. So, after 24 hours, bring the proposed changes to the talk pages. Don't just add them.


 * But now is a good time to look at why this happened in the first place. First, two of the editors who reverted your edits are administrators. They are experienced and thoughtful editors who help manage Wikipedia. They had good reasons to undo your edits. They are not just a bunch of wild boys. They found that the references had problems, and there were other issues. So, it is good to check a few things:


 * Look at what is in the article. Is what you want to add a good addition to, or an improvement upon, what is already there? Are you adding something that is properly formatted?


 * Take things one step at a time. Please be patient. Things happen slowly here. Prepare. Learn how to format references properly.


 * The trick to editing, is to make good edits that improve the articles. That way, nobody will want to remove them. Others might improve upon them. But that is good. Ending up adding, reverting, adding, reverting, adding, etc. always ends badly, and is usually for a reason. If things are going that way, stop after one revert. Ask why.


 * Please ask any questions you like. I will be happy to help. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that this discussion will have to take place on her talk page for the next 48 hours, as she's been blocked. [] Twice as long as she would have been blocked if she'd stopped reverting. And I just don't understand why she kept reverting, although I suspect she isn't looking at the links. But please carry on, we might be able to make a constructive editor out of her (although my guess is she is here just to present her pov, never a good thing). But thanks, and sorry for dragging you into this. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note the blocking Admin's comment about not listening to reasonable advice. If she'd reverted when asked, I don't think she would have been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 48 hr for 8RR, not unreasonable. It was quite a spree. I hope your pov guess is wrong. I've invested time in the past trying to steer editors straight and have been stung. This was a first for me. But, I've given up on newbies who spend the first week decorating and socializing and then bugger off after 35 edits. I hope this hasn't been a waste of time, but I wouldn't bank on it. I'll dump my last post on her page. You can bug me anytime. I'm happy to help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

custom photo?
Would you really be cutting up a real dog for the benefit of Wikipedia? Geez, I'd like to support your idea (#1), but my culture prevents my supporting such a thing for such a purpose.  (Shudders, recovers) Where would you get the "meat" to photograph? Chrisrus (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Heavens no. Not me. I would just go to the market where they do that sort of thing. It's quite a horror show -- frogs skinned alive, animals in small cages with that "Did the Governor call?" look on their faces.


 * But it's far worse in the West in terms of coefficient of conditions and scale. Remember how sensitive and smart pigs are. If you could measure "units of suffering" in this world, pigs in factory farms would be off the chart. Anyhow, dog meat is falling out of favour over here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for offering to go to this significant amount of effort to improve the article. Should your picture (within the limits of what you can do at a public market) be even vaguely comparable to what's on the other meat pages, I will wholeheartedly support it's inclusion over either the previous "dirty pot of half-cooked animal" or the "look at us having fun at a party with what may or may not be dog meat somewhere!" pictures.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate the comments. I took and added the dog-in-a-pot photo because the previous images could have been of anything. But, yes, it's a horror show of an image, and a man yelled at me when I took it. I'm not sure what will happen when taking a picture at the market. I had to take the cat in a cage pic secretly. I want cat skinning pics, but those are harder to get. I might have to buy a pound of dog meat to "tenderize" the vendor into allowing some pics. She should be okay with it so long as she's not in the shot. But, it will never be like a western butcher. We are talking about a table of paws, chunks, a head, etc. There's no getting around that. That's just the way it looks in reality. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whew! Thanks for reassuring me, somewhat.  Please undestand if I don't come out in support doing this in a formal way.  I cannot defend this rationally, it's irrational I know, please don't ask me to defend this, it's just viceral, I just can't, it's a cultural thing, I rationally like the idea.  Actually I have benefited greatly from Laurie Corbett's study of the Thai Dingo which I'm in the process of adding to an article about this my favorite topic almost while fully aware that much of what I'm lovin' to be learnin' was learned by him from just a large quanty of specimins that he got by simply going down to the butcher shop in Thailand.  Not to mention the steak I had for dinner, whatever.  So I'm swimming in hypocracy, I can't defend my position in any way.  Oy!  Thanks Anna for doing this important work and taking on a dirty job that I'll benefit from but can't do myself. I'll try to make it up to you elsehow, but I'm going to have to obstain. Chrisrus (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Dog meat is a challenge, and I don't much like arguing on that talk page.


 * Don't feel too guilty about being human. Humans cause suffering. We can't help it. Killing a rat causes suffering to the little babies who starve waiting for their mum. But as people, we do it. Living in the west causes suffering, because the lifestyle means some poor joe in Africa is making our tennis shoes cheap, or cutting our cane for pennies. We are monsters competing for survival on a planet. The best we can do is be kind, and do as little harm as possible.


 * Just keep the old saying in mind: "Cows are idiots, so it's not so bad for them. Goats look like they are on acid, and shouldn't really be part of the saying. But, piggies, think of the little piggies." Deep words, my friend. Deep words. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. I was just saying much the same thing to my brother the other night, complaining about a vegetarian we know.  So hypocracy again, but whatever.  It's just dogs with me, I draw the line for complicated but not hard to understand reasons, it's not a forebrain thing, it's more like an emotion, a gut reaction, an instinct even.  I like to study myself about it, and it's interesting that I can do that.  Understand that I really don't judge cultures where they eat dogs, either, or even your Chinese butcher, I'd like to add that.  I'm a very objective guy really, this isn't like me, people who humanize animals and animal rights type people, anyone with a supra-humanist moral system, I'm against it to say the least.  But nevertheless, I just have to say the following because saying it will help me relax and think about something else.  I'd like to say that if we could possibly find some other way, to just use the old picture, or another one I'll recommend elsewhere, I'd like it if we could try one more time, if it's not too late, to find some other way beyond handing money to a dog butcher and taking dogmeat from her that that she's going to have to replace somehow.  God bless her, (so to speak, I'm not into Him); I don't judge her.  I'd just like to be able to say that I tried before we as Wikipedia in any indirect way supported the butchering of even one dog because we just couldn't get along or find another free use picture. Anyway, think about it, I won't judge you I promise if you go ahead with the plan or oppose it if you do.  Chrisrus (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Plan A is to buy her a bag of fruit in exchange for the pics. Maybe that will add to her wealth somewhat and she will not need to generate that same wealth from the sale of dog meat.


 * As for my personal feelings: DOG = LOVE ......There is no other equation on Earth so simple or precise.  Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK query
Hello! Your submission of Maize weevil at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Top Secret America
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Blanking
Anna you are way out of line in your blanking. You did not have consensus to blank Schwabe reference nor does any editor have to check with you before adding a reference to the article. When you blank novel edits like that and engage in wild accusations in the talk page instead of engaging in consensus building, it is you who is engaging in disruptive editing. Please stop for everyone's sake or I will have to follow formal protocol in response.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blanking? You're using the wrong term. What I reverted, had no business being in the lead. All 5 editors involved agree. You are the only one who wants to include "...suckling puppy dish to be "fit for gods"..." in the second sentence of the lead, and "Dog refers to..." in an article named Dog meat, and a hatnote to a video game article with a one sentence mention of some dog character in the game.


 * You're the only one.


 * Wild accusations? They are accurate, and you know it.


 * Consensus building? Read the talk page again. I am trying to build consensus. Your edits are just selling, and selling, and selling. Nobody's buying, and they are telling you so.


 * For everybody's sake? The whole community on that article is opposed to what you are doing, and you know it because they keep telling you so.


 * And please, no more threats of "...or I will have to..."


 * Finally, if you have something further to say about the article, do it at Talk:Dog meat.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Breaking up editor comments
Please do not alter an editor's signed comments. You need to respond to comments without breaking up signed editor comments with your own interjections. I've notified you on this before and there's no excuse for you to ignore basic talk room courtesy.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No you are not allowed to that. I already told you this. How does that even make sense? And no it's not ok if I do that since I've never done it. Go look at my comments carefully. I quoted your comments within my signed comment instead of altering your signed comment. And please watch the margins.  This is all basic talk room courtesy.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right. I wasn't ignoring rules or intentionally being discourteous. I just forgot. I will be sure to cut and paste next time. That is a good idea. Thank you for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't give up!
I don't have even 10% the experience/edits you have. But I really think that collectively this article can be made better. Let's just keep going with the article. I think the appropriate thing that we need to do is if any editor does edit in a way that is disruptive, is edit warring (even if it's not 3RR), or is uncivil, then we should be sure to report them to the relevant noticeboards. I'm not saying certainly that anyone has yet crossed those lines--I'm looking at a lot of this through history, which doesn't give quite the same feeling as watching it unfold live. But if it happens in the future, we should call the behavior what it is. I'm about to go to the article right now and make a significant edit, which I'll explain on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the encouragement. I do appreciate it very much.


 * Mbm is very careful not to be uncivil with words. Mbm has accused us of being uncivil, ownership, POV pushing, and being disruptive, but we have made the same accusations. Which is true regarding individual threads is hidden in a long tangle of words and diffs. I don't think anyone will take the time to untangle the truth. If they do, it will mean a lot of time for someone. Such a waste. My problem is with the M.O. and the strategy, tactics, and wikilawyering. Not the language.


 * Let me put it this way:


 * Imagine, in a circle of friends, somebody keeps stealing little things. They always go missing when a certain person is there. But, when confronted, that person always talks his way out of it, and frustrates his accusers' efforts. After a year or so of this, it becomes apparent who is always there at the time. Common sense would reveal the overwhelming likelihood, and they would eject him.


 * But people in our civilization steal all the time. Lawyers do it. Businessmen do it. If they are careful, know the rules, and work the system, we can't eject them from society into jail.


 * There's no law that says:


 * "We can't get you on any individual account, but 100% of the time, wherever and whenever you are around, everyone loses, damage is caused, life sucks, and people flee. It's so damn obvious it's you, we would have to be idiots to ignore it or tolerate it. So, under the 'Law of Overwhelming Likelihood', for the protection of our civilization, you are hereby ejected."


 * It's ironic, I guess. I assume mbm is here because he wants to help the project. But, I just don't think that is the net result. We're all trying to drive this huge project down the road one click at a time. But, what I'm seeing from the mbm's contribs, is a net total of a couple of feet of progress, and a gigantic carbon footprint.


 * Kind regards, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whale meat
Hi. Good start on thid article but a considerbale part of it only focuses on Japan. I think you'll find with further research that whaling is highly important in the Faroe Islands in particular and Iceland. Can you expand it further with more information about Faroes and Iceland? You could reprocess a lot of info from Whaling in the Faroe Islands Dr.  Blofeld  - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 15:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm on it! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice. Good source of info. Thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

talkback
--Mbz1 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian IP
Quack quack, this is, indefinitely blocked and evading her block. I meant to check a couple of days ago. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)