User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive7

Just a couple of small things
Wow, zillions of new stubs! Thank you so much! You are extremely productive! The following is a style choice of mine that you may or may not agree with, but since the stub tag is not actually part of the article, I usually leave a line space between it and the article. That means putting two line spaces on the code page. Best wishes to you Anna, Invertzoo (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and in the nudibranch articles it is worth saying that "blah blah is a species of sea slug, a dendronotid nudibranch" etc. The first sentence of any article always needs to be at least a little bit intelligible to a non-specialist. best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my saying so, generally speaking, it is probably not a bad idea to let me cast my eye over a basic stub so as I can make a few small and rapid tweaks to it before you generate a whole bunch of new stubs for other species in that genus. best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Next time I will leave the recommended space. I agree completely. Also, next time, I will put the stub into a sandbox and let you know. I want to get it right.


 * Is making these stubs a waste of time? Will a bot end up doing these kind of stubs en masse some time in the future?


 * What of that conus list? I got a new list from Jojan, and with the help of Word macros, fixed it up. If I remove duplicates at Conus, can put it into that article? Thanks for the guidance. It is much appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anna, have you looked at AutoWikiBrowser? I think you might find it useful.  I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like an AWB plug-in like User:Ganeshk/CSVLoader would help you create these stubs. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is great that you are working on this kind of thing. And any species list ideally needs to be checked carefully, and cleaned up, and a proper reference found for it, before stubs are made. And then a sample stub should be made and carefully checked. All this kind of checking can only be done by a human. As for the bots,I know very little about using them, but perhaps Viriditas or someone else who is hip to bots could help by guiding you through the process of what you need to do in order to have stubs generated robotically from a list and a preexisting stub such as the Conus list and a cleaned up Conus stub.


 * However, you need to first ask JoJan what source he used for his list, in other words, what the citation should be for that list. Assuming JoJan's list is from a reputable source that you can cite at the top of the list then yes, you can more or less replace the current list with the one JoJan came up with. However, when you are preparing to do that, you may possibly discover that on the current list we may already have one or more blue links for species that are not on the list that JoJan gave you. If that is the case, we will first have to decide what to do about those. They might be synonyms or mistakes or something else again. Let's hope that perhaps we don't have any of those. That is something you can check as soon as you like I guess.


 * As you can perhaps tell, I personally feel that we have reached the point in Project Gastropods that we need to start making sure that the data in our articles is more correct and reliable than perhaps a lot of it has been for the last few years. I have that point of view partly because I have spent the last 4 or 5 months methodically cleaning up literally thousands of our stubs, one by one, not for data or citations, more for just the most basic content and layout. That has been and continues to be a really mammoth and mostly very tedious chore, which I am not eager to have to repeat. (I am currently working on the beginning of the stubs that start with letter L. User:Daniel Cavallari started working on them from the letter Z, and is currently up to the letter P, however, he is not correcting nearly as many aspects of the stub articles as I am. Basically he updated the taxonomy and made italic title and rated the importance on the talk page, but there are many other things that are still uncorrected in stubs from Z to P, so I will have to go though all of those also.) You can see why I want any new stubs to be really quite good for now, so I can avoid having to comb through another few hundred or a thousand new ones making routine corrections. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Viriditas for the suggestion. I will definitely look into that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More notes on big and small things

 * The synonym problem seems daunting and serious. Isn't there some sort of global data bank for gastropods? Where does Wikipedia currently place as such a resource? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No there is no global data bank for gastropods or anything even remotely like that. There are (and always have been) far more families of gastropods than there are experts to sort out the taxonomy and nomenclature of them, especially at the species level. Dr. Gary Rosenberg at ANSP hopes to be able to create something like a global database for all marine mollusks worldwide over the next 15 or 20 years assuming he devotes a significant part of the rest of his career to that. Currently in the online database "Malacolog", Gary has the Western Atlantic marine mollusks in fairly good shape, and the Western Atlantic gastropods in excellent shape, datawise. (Of course some other malacologists will disagree with various aspects of Gary's listings, because many of the decisions you have to make about which species are "real" or not, are judgement calls rather than an exact science. You can make a case for saying that "Physics is easy, Biology is hard!"!!!) Anyway, Project Gastropods definitely has the potential to be a useful resource on gastropods worldwide, especially since we attract a lot of good photographic contributions, but since we will probably never be able to get many professionals to contribute their insights and knowledge of the literature, I suspect that it will be most useful to amateurs. The gastropod coverage is already quite useful in a lot of ways. I know Snek is working on improving the family articles, which are really a key feature of the project. Invertzoo (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for stubs made from a reliable list, I agree that a good sample makes sense.
 * Yes, one carefully-checked sample, and also a good solid citation based on data from a good source for the species list in the first place. Invertzoo (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You say that you want stubs to be "good" before hitting the main space. What do you mean? Do you prefer more bare-bones, accurate stubs upon which people can build, or fewer, but more substantial articles?
 * I meant that stubs should be bare bones but accurate, and formatted correctly, with all the basics in place. Substantial fuller articles are really nice also. Some people prefer making quick stubs, and other people prefer writing longer articles. It is important that all of us do mostly what we like to do on Wikipedia because it is a volunteer thing, and therefore it is crucial to keep morale up. If people are not enjoying what they are doing then they will do less and less and then give up, sooner or later. You and I can talk ourselves into doing some stuff that we would perhaps rather not do, but most people who contribute will just go ahead and do whatever it is they like to do and that's fine. Overall I don't mind terribly much whether right now Project Gastropods gets a lot more new stubs or a few more much better longer articles, or something in between. However I do have ideas about what would be good to try to do now to the extent that we have a choice.


 * I wish there were more than just half a dozen people working this project. There are only 6,000 of the 70,000 articles needed. Is there some sort of plan for this?
 * A lot of the time it's even less than 6 people who are really active on the project. Sure it would be great to have more people active, as long as they would all work in some degree of harmony. As time goes by we seem to be attracting more and more new people. I personally do what I can to actively recruit new members by watching for new people creating snail-related articles, and then welcoming them to Wikipedia, inviting them to the project and welcoming them if they do join... but obviously not all of them are going to have lots of time and willingness to work hard. But you know, until quite recently the whole of Wikipedia was developing almost purely on a random "catch as catch can" basis and shockingly... that was working quite well!


 * I do think that our project has reached critical mass and needs some organizing and pulling together. The first step in that direction was creating stubs for all the families and higher taxa, and that is done now, mostly thanks to you, and that's really great! The next step in that same kind of direction is cleaning up all of the pre-existing stubs, which Daniel Cavallari and I have been working on virtually every day for months and months now. A huge number of the stubs were bot-generated in 2007 and were really in below-minimal state, never having been touched by a human after they were created in an extreme shorthand form.


 * Actually we don't yet have 6,000 species articles. We have maybe 5,000 species articles, 500 articles on the genera, families, superfamilies, clades and informal groups, and maybe another 500 on gastropod anatomical features, gastropod organ systems, biographical stubs of malacologists who named gastropod taxa, gastropods as food, snail shells as cultural or religious items, and so on. These supporting articles are just as important as the species articles, in some ways a lot of them are actually much more essential than species articles. Invertzoo (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a very systematic, "macro" kind of person. I keep thinking that we should find some clever way to assess and address the entire gastropod class. If you have any suggestions, please let me know how I can help. Thank you for the guidance. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for right now this moment, from my point of view I think the rather boring routine cleaning up the preexisting stubs and articles, cleaning up in the most basic simple ways, is currently absolutely the most essential task to increase the quality of the project. No-one is going to be very impressed that we currently have 6,000 articles, or that in a couple of years time maybe we will have stubs on 30,000 topics, if half of the articles are messy, with out of date taxonomy, erratic data full of small errors, many omissions, sloppy formatting etc, and the information unsupported by proper sources.


 * I do feel for example that any new stubs that are built around an image are very valuable, because an image carries so much information even if it doesn't have much accompanying text, (assuming of course that the creature was correctly identified in the first place, which is a big assumption!)


 * As for a master plan as to what needs doing after the basic article clean-up is finished and assuming you don't really fancy helping with that (?). And after Snek finishes tuning up and adding to the family articles. Yes, I will think about ideas for an overall plan, or at least the next big step forward, and get back to you with any ideas I come up with.


 * One problem is that some small parts of the class Gastropoda are reasonably well known to science, and other quite large parts are hardly known at all, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about that, we have to work with what knowledge is available. Another problem is that most of us simply can't get constant access to a professional malacological library, and so we cannot freely use books and papers we need to get the information we need. We are limited in what we can do, compared with what we would like to be able to do. Invertzoo (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind Anna, I copied this thread onto the project talk page because I thought it would be good for all the members to be able to read it. Invertzoo (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't mind at all.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Next step in master plan? Missing genera stubs created from checked family articles?
I am thinking if you can ask Snek which family articles he has already cleaned up, in terms of which genus articles now have a good list of genera from a reputable and cited source, well then, you could zero in on those families and create genus stubs for any genera that don't already have an article. That would be really useful and helpful in the long run.

You see, a lot of new people come in to WP and create new species stubs without creating a corresponding genus stub, leaving the genus red linked. When that occurs, it means that people using our project subsequently can't navigate their way down through the Tree of Life structure from class Gastropoda all the way down to (or all the way up from) that species level, because the genus article is missing. That means that there is a hole in the structure.

In terms of a master plan, taxonomically speaking, it is excellent in many ways to make sure the structure is complete from the top down (from class Gastropoda down). One does this by examining each level in turn, and creating missing articles as stubs where they are needed. I mean it makes more sense that way, and will ultimately be more useful that way.

However most new people just want to come in and create species articles on the species they encounter in the area in which they live. Of course that is fine too and we are very grateful for their contributions. But once we have an almost complete number of genus articles in place, then most of the time a new species stub will automatically link itself to the corresponding genus article, and all will be well.

When creating a genus stub article, an important part of that is the list of species within that genus. Right now most of those lists (in our current genus articles) are very incomplete... and that is OK for the time being. But if you do start in on creating genus articles stubs, which seems like a good idea, we will have to decide what is the best way of handling the species lists in these new genus stubs? Should you list only those species for which there are already blue links? And if not, then where will you obtain proper reliable sourced lists of species within each genus? I am not yet sure what the answer should be to those questions.

Anyway, that is my first set of ideas, genus stubs created from family articles that are now deemed good enough. Assuming Snek already has some family articles with genera lists that he feels are reliable. If there is anything I said that you don't really understand, please ask. Invertzoo (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the replies. I am very busy on this end at the moment and will get back to wiki ASAP. From what I've read, it sounds like a good plan. I will write to Snek for advice on good genera articles with reliable species lists. Chat soon. I really appreciate you taking the time to address these matters! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I appreciate your asking questions that force me to think about these issues! Invertzoo (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have appended this to the thread: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods. We can continue it there, as it is useful to all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New species added for the genus Chromodoris
Hi Anna, I discovered today all the new stubs you created for species in the genus Chromodoris. It was a nice surprise and great that we have at least a stub for every species in this popular and important genus. Great work! Antarctic-adventurer (talk)  17:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! That is incredible! --Snek01 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New year

 * A lovely tiger. Thank you. I tell people that it is actually the year of the penguin, with a straight face; that it's a new system. Even my Chinese friends believe it for about 30 seconds. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My edit via Peter Storrie article
I apologise for my use of profanity on his page, However have you actually read that page? the whole page is a joke, my edit was actually true and I am sorry for swearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanner82 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's okay. But please, try to be a constructive Wikipedian. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Stubs in limbo, reply
Hi Anna, Always nice to hear from you. I think it would be fine if we finish the stubs ourselves and put them up. I don't suppose Micro would mind. You can leave a note on his talk page, and even a short friendly note on those subpages explaining that we did that. I figure Micro can always start new species drafts with our help when and if he returns, that is if he wants to do some more of that. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good advice. I will post on his talk and wait a few days as a courtesy. Also, I posted on the project gastro talk about what to do next. Nice to hear from you too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

✅

Your rollback request
Hello Anna Frodesiak, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, then don't use rollback and instead, use a manual edit summary. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 18:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just don't like parsley
LOL, sorry wont happen again ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus-is-my-drug (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello
 Hello Anna Frodesiak, Iluxion has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hello to you too. If you need any help, just ask. Thanks for the smiley face.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Lyme disease
Thanks, but I fail to see what you are asking. Do want me to convert it to svg? If so, I think there has been some mistake. I don't have a program for making svgs. Regards, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's not me, that would be Sémhur your talking about. Regards, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I don't think so. I just read it 5 minutes ago, and it wasn't that user. But thanks.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Gone tomorrow
Hi Anna. Thank you for your kind welcome but I am afraid I really will be 'gone tomorrow' - surely you can tell from the subject matter of my edits. Not only that, but I predict those edits will be deleted, vanished, in no more than 24 hours. Wait and see. Here today, gone tomorrow (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's hope your edits stand forever. Happy trails. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well let's hope. But I suspect that per this it will be deleted forthwith.  "I don't understand the people who feel that content is more important than anything else ... I'll continue to block his socks and delete his contributions, and ignore him otherwise. " Here today, gone tomorrow (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's one, long, migraine-inducing thread involving users who often produce long, migraine-inducing threads. But what has it to do with you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would have something to do with me if I were that user whose contributions and whose socks were threatened with deletion (as they have been in the past). Here today, gone tomorrow (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. It wasn't you. I actually didn't read the thread. It's thicker than War and Peace. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "It wasn't you." Yes it was. Here today, gone tomorrow (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. I didn't see your name in the thread. Occasionally, in Wikipedialand, anvils fall from the sky. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

James M. Tien article
That was my original text you deleted. I work for the University of Miami and wrote the text/took the photo and released it to wikimedia--not a copyright violation.

--Bnobleman (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Blythe Nobleman Director of Communications University of Miami College of Engineering bnobleman@miami.edu

James M. Tien article
Thanks, Anna--"Hairhorn" is giving me a hard time--it's a new article and still in process. I did paraphrase the descriptive text, but there is only so much you can say about a person's qualifications and work history.--Bnobleman (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Paraphrasing circumvents all problems. If you go into the history, you can recover the removed text, give it some distance from the original, and re-add it. It is still very, very close to the original.


 * Hairhorn is just protecting Wikipedia, which is good. Let's continue this on the article's talk page. Best wishes, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

James M. Tien article
Anna,

I see the addition of a "references" section--in my world, that means publications, articles cited or referred to in other works. Should I re-add the list of publications? What will make Hairhorn happy? What does references mean? How do we get rid of the warnings posted at the top of the article?--Bnobleman (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference section is a list of sources for the information in the article. The publications he produced should go in a separate, standalone section elsewhere in the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

James M. Tien
I think this article has serious issues that may cause it to be deleted. It has notability issues and almost certainly still has copyright issues. It has essentially no references. I would not work on it any more until it has been assessed by some more qualified people. Will you drop a line on JoJan's talk page and on Moonriddengirl's talk page and on the talkpage for WikiProject Copyright, asking them to please assess it? Thanks. If you don't have time to do now please ask me and I will do it. Invertzoo (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have dropped a quick note on all those pages. Invertzoo (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You caught me in an edit conflict so I missed your last sentence. I hope those two don't spend too much time on this. This is what I just wrote:


 * I agree. It barely passes notability standards from my point of view, but perhaps not others'. As you know, Japanese anime characters get articles, but professors often don't.


 * The editor says he will add refs and copy edit to eliminate copyvio problems. I have no intention of working on it any longer, and sort of go sucked into it in the first place patrolling new user edits. JoJan is busy with Conus, and I'm not sure about Moonriddengirl. I think maybe the best thing is to just leave the whole thing for a week and come back and see what it's like. I am totally keystroked-out on this one. Lucky I'm a fast typist. Thanks for the edits and the advice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * One more thing: There are a zillion other editors who can handle this one. I don't want to get tied down, as I am secretly preparing a Conus sample in my gold sandbox. I hope you don't mind, but I plan to dump 500 new stubs into your lap, if that's okay. On the upside, there are plenty of Conus images waiting for a home. Thanks again for your time. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

James M. Tien article
RE references--got it now.Thanks!--Bnobleman (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The park, a puppy and a tennis ball
Sounds wonderful! But we still have a lot of snow, ice, and slush in the parks here, so you can't run around yet. Here it is only 11 am, so there is plenty of time for adventures. You too, forget Chomsky, he is no fun, go have some real fun! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. I forgot about your winter. Here we have fireworks at 4 am, puddles of water all over the floor indoors. Every surface in the house is wet. No rain. It's like being in a cloud. As for Chomsky, yes, hopelessly depressing. I'll go play with the kids tomorrow. I hope you have a splendid day today. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We already went for a walk in the neighborhood, it's sunny but in the low 40s Farenheit, and windy. Your weather sounds awful. My friends in Nevis are suffering under fairly heavy volcanic ash falls from nearby Montserrat. Thanks so much for working on the Conus species, that's a mammoth task! Invertzoo (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I remember being able to see Montserrat from the other side St. Kitts when I lived there. I can't remember if it had already blown up. I think so.


 * As for Conus, thank JoJan. He's been working hard figuring out which are "nomen me-thinks-notium". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Conus stubs
Hey, great, that's exciting! Do invite me to view the first stub when it is ready for inspection, and I will proofread it. I imagine Snek will also want to proofread it. Thanks, you are a major producer for Project Gastropods and we wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for you! Invertzoo (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The sample is at User:Anna_Frodesiak/Gold_sandbox. I really want it to be perfect and as complete as possible before starting. I don't know when JoJan will give me the go-ahead.

I've offered to help, but am not sure if I'm qualified to figure out which are synonyms. I do hope making these stubs isn't going to clutter up the project. It's just such a big genus, and there seems to be many photos. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Caroline Pegg
Happy to help with a re-write if you like. This appears more complicated than I'd realised... MuffledThud (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for User talk:AnemoneProjectors who deleted the article, who perhaps can restore it. Also, maybe a message at the talk page of the original creator explaining things. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored by User talk:AnemoneProjectors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)