User talk:Anna Frodesiak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If I started a thread on your talk page, I am watching. Please reply there.

To leave me a message, click here.

For my availibility, image uploads, admin actions, access speed issues, and disclosure notice, 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

Swietenia macrophylla copyright concerns[edit]

Hello Anna, I'm not sure about the proper pathway for responding to your inquiry. I appreciate the concern over the copyrights. My name is Chris Free and I am a mahogany researcher. I am the owner/writer of all of the content. If you don't believe me, you can email me at I have copyright for everything I posted on Wikipedia since I wrote it all or took the pictures. Please let me know what I can do to clear this up. Thanks!

Best, Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfree14 (talkcontribs) 03:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Thank you for writing back so soon. First of all, let me say that I believe you, and also, Wikipedia is grateful for your contributions. I do have a responsibility to look into such things. So, here are my thoughts on the two issues:
  • Images: This is the easy one. The images can remain at Wikicommons provided that you replace the copyright notice at the bottom of your website with a Creative Commons license. This is because all of those images (I think) are at your site. If you don't wish to do that, the images require proof of ownership. That means you are required to send in an email. See User:Anna Frodesiak/OTRS. Please ask if you have any questions about that. Also, removing the watermarks, or uploading versions without them would be very much appreciated. There may be another choice involving OTRS and the use of the images exclusively at English Wikipedia. I'm looking into that and maybe a talk page stalker can help.
  • Text: This one is more tricky. The choices:
1 - If the content at your site was written entirely by you, based on the sources you cite, and not actually copy pasted from the sources you cite, then the copy pasted content can remain in the Wikipedia articles unchanged, provided that you replace the copyright notice at the bottom of your website with a Creative Commons license. (If some or all of the content at your site is a copy paste of the sources you cite, then you are commiting a copyright violation and Wikipedia cannot accept the content.)
2 - You can rewrite the content at the Wikipedia article so that it is no longer a copyright violation or even close paraphrasing
3 - The content at the Wikipedia article can be removed entirely (or at least the copy pasted parts).
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment about a block[edit]

Hi, Anna. I have just declined an unblock request at User talk:LGAQ web team. You placed the block, and posted a {{Uw-ublock}} block notice to the talk page. However, you autoblocked the IP address and blocked account creation. I can only assume that you made a mistake, as it makes no sense to tell an editor "You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself" while preventing him or her from doing so. I have explained my thoughts on the matter on the user's talk page; perhaps you would like to look there, and see whether you wish to change the block or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear. It's my mistake. I've always thought that they could create a new account, but only after addressing the reason for the block with an unblock request. I just didn't interpret the sentence you cite properly. I don't think I ever inspected the bluelink at the "create the account yourself" part of the quote you cite from the block notice. I didn't realize it goes to signup. I always thought it went to the guidelines on account name selection (which is where the "policy" bluelink in that sentence goes). So, I've never unticked the block IP option. My humblest apologies. I very seldom use the userblock. My blocks are almost always spamblocks. I should have read and inspected more carefully. I'm very sorry.
As for this particular account, my intention was that we would consider unblocking in order for the user to create the government article if the user could convince us that it's only one person using the account and provided he was aware of the COI aspects. That is still my position. I didn't want to use the spamblock because it really says "promotional" a lot, and this is a government person writing about government work. If it's a school or other such organization, I usually try to avoid the spamblock, as it is quite harsh and the user may just be trying to write a good article without selling something.
I've looked at all the block notices that I can find, and I must be missing something obvious. Isn't there a notice that allows a block for a username and blocks account creation until we can communicate with the user, but doesn't have all of the "promotional" issue content in the notice? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
For a long time I have been unhappy about the block notices in the whole area of usernames and promotional editing. Years ago I stopped using the "spamusername" block message, for several reasons, including that it is far too intimidating, and that it is far too long and complicated, which has the result that editors simply don't take it all in, and frequently make unblock requests that completely miss the point. For anything that looks like a spamusername block, I use my own slightly modified version of the spam block message, but the other notices, such as username-block and softer-block are also far from perfect. I have also known other administrators express dissatisfaction with the situation. In my opinion, the block notices in this area need a thorough overhaul. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Anna and James, if admins are unhappy with block notices, why can't you change the block messages? I trust your instincts, since admins are more familiar with them, but it seems like something admins can change that would benefit the project. Liz Read! Talk! 15:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. For some time I have been thinking of proposing a radical rewrite of the spamusername block notice, and maybe this incident will prompt me to do so. As for the username block notice, I never use it. In my opinion, if the only problem with an editor is that their username doesn't comply to the policy, then the thing to do is to politely tell them, and suggest that they change it, without getting threatening by blocking them, while if the username is not the only problem, then posting a message saying "your username is the only reason for the block" is ridiculous, and totally unhelpful to the editor, who is very likely to take the statement on face value, request an unblock to allow a username change, and find that they are still blocked because of other problems. Far better to tell them right from the start what the problems are, so they know where they stand. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Both of you are really making sense. I would love to see a new template or two. The combinations of the different blocking options is greater than the templates available. Plus, I think some of the templates could really be improved and softened.
Just to let you know, as I often patrol new users accounts, and encounter a percentage of them who only produce a bit about their organization at their userpage and then never edit again or elsewhere, and their username matches the organization, I have to make blocks. Trying to communicate with them and waiting for feedback doesn't work. They almost never return, and another admin will come along and block most of the time anyway. (If they are otherwise editing constructively, I opt for communication first.)
Where I get stuck is in cases where they have produced a userpage about an organization matching their username, the subject is notable or it is simply not promotional (especially if they are not here to abuse Wikipedia userspace for financial gain but rather can actually provide a needed article), and they haven't edited elsewhere . There doesn't seem to be an adequate template for that. Communicating before blocking doesn't work for the reasons above. In those cases, I block, case-by-case decide whether or not to delete the userspace content, and post this or a variant at their talk:

{{subst:User:Anna Frodesiak/Welcome}}

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your block, username, and article draft I deleted the content at your userpage because it was promotional. However, the subject may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. While it is strongly discouraged, you may create an encyclopedia article about yourself or your organization. If you think the subject is notable, prepare it via Wikipedia:Articles for creation or in your sandbox after reading WP:42 and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

But first, we must address your username issue. Please read the above notice about why I blocked your account. If you want, I can unblock you so that you can create a new account. Then, I would like to know what your new username is. Then, you can recreate the article draft via WP:AFC with lots and lots of references. Write neutrally, in your own words, based on the sources, with no copy pasting from the source. Please read WP:42 and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Does this sound reasonable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

At my junkbox, which I keep in edit mode, I custom make all sorts of these messages depending on the case.
So, am I allowed to take a copy of the spamblock or ublock tempates, and modify them for my own use? I would like to maybe trim a bit from spamblock and use that instead, and make a ublock that is almost the same, but says account creation is diabled, or at least omit the part about making a new account. I never considered personalizing block notices, but I guess we've all done it when issuing short blocks. We avoid the use of the offensive brown box, and opt for a kinder messaging appearance.
Sorry for the long post. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Something you wrote above reminded me of some historical details that I didn't mention above, but which you may find of interest. (If you don't, then just take no notice.) When I first became an admin, I very often used to post friendly messages explaining to users that there were problems with their username, or their apparent editing on behalf of a business or organisation, or both. Unfortunately, I found that more often that not, some other admin just went ahead and blocked them, very often posting what I thought was an inappropriate block notice. Eventually, I decided that if they were going to be blocked anyway then it was better for me to block them right away, and give a more appropriate block notice. Because I found that the existing block notices were not always suitable, I took to slightly rewording them. I would save a copy of the appropriate template in a sandbox, then go to "edit" in the sandbox, and change the wording as appropriate. Mostly, a few minor alterations were all I did. However, I found the {{Uw-spamublock}} templated message really unhelpful, for several reasons, so I stopped using that at all, even modified. If I block an account in a situation in which I feel that both promotional editing and a corporate username need to be mentioned, I use my own modified version of the {{Uw-soablock}} In my opinion (let me know whether you agree) my version uses slightly less bitey language, and it also mentions the username issue as well as the promotion issue. It is still close to the standard {{Uw-soablock}} message, and I think there is a good case for creating something very didfferent, but I personally think it's better than the existing templates, and FAR better than the intimidating wall of text that is the {{Uw-spamublock}} message. It deliberately gives more prominence to promotion than to the username, because I personally regard promotion as the more important issue, but it still mentions promotion in a much lower-key way than {{Uw-spamublock}}.
I was going to post a copy of it here for you to see, but then I thought that it is probably not a good idea posting block notices to the talk pages of editors who are not blocked, so instead I have created a copy at User:JamesBWatson/soa.
There is nothing at all to stop you from making your own customised block notices in your user space, nor indeed any other kind of talk page messages. I have known editors' own personal message templates to be deleted at WP:TfD or WP:MfD, but only because they have been objectionable in some way, such as misrepresenting Wikipedia policy, not simply because they are different from the "official" notices. However, I have for some time thinking of proposing changes to the existing "official" templates too, and maybe this discussion will finally prompt me to do so. I am tempted to be bold and make some minor changes to some of the existing templates, but as far as {{Uw-spamublock}} is concerned, I don't think some minor changes would be good enough: I think the whole thing needs to be scratched, and a completely knew template put in its place. Such a radical rewrite would require discussion first, rather than jumping in with a bold rewrite. The new one should, in my opinion, be far shorter and simpler, perhaps something similar to to my own message that I have mentioned, perhaps quite different. Any opinions?
One other thing which you may already know, but I had been an admin for years before I found out, so you may not know. I used to be very careful about exactly what message I posted to a blocked user's talk page, but I didn't bother so much about what block reason I used when I made the block, because I thought that the only difference it made was what was seen by anyone looking at the block log. Consequently, I would happily click {{spamusernameblock}} in the drop-down list of block reasons, even though I would never put {{spamusernameblock}} on the user's talk page. It was a long time before I realised that doing so meant that when the blocked user tried to edit a page, he or she would be confronted by the {{spamusernameblock}} message in all its glory. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Very inspiring and very good to hear. I'm preparing a thoughtful response. :) :) :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Being a new admin, I have to decide how to act based on a balance of norms, common sense, and policies. I never realized just how many different situations arise that need a judgement call. It's tricky sometimes. I am basically looking not to get yelled at by other admins, and to have a good outcome that benefits the project.
I will happily make some modified templates. I think the word "indefinitely" is problematic. It is so fitting to us because we know it means "unless or until there is a reason for it not to be so, which is quite possible", but to new users it simply means "forever and ever and you're out of here and even thought it says [If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked... etc,] well fat chance. That's not going to happen. Now I hate Wikipedia and its rules and I'm either never coming back or will find a way to get around this". I'm thinking of a way to either replace it or qualify it in some modified templates for my own use. Probably removing or replacing it is a bit too daring, and adding a sentence after it explaning that there is hope may be best.
Your soa is less bitey and also, due to the fact that it conveys less, ellicits information from users about their intentions. Spamuserblock sort of gives the game away. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
It is best for me to stay out of revaming existing templates. I'm too new for that.
I'm careful that the block type matches the template. I'm not entirely sure about why others would spamblock if the user were to edit their talk. As they are already blocked and have a notice, do you mean they'd be reblocked with spamblock and have a spamblock notice added to their talk? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Custom templates at the Yellow sandbox[edit]

Further to this discussion, I've started User:Anna Frodesiak/Yellow sandbox. Please feel free to comment and give guidance, or just keep an eye on how it's going. I'm trying to keep the amount of new templates to a minimum, so I'll likely split them up so that I can have a bare minimum, and add them in combinations. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have had a quick glance at your Yellow sandbox, and it is clear that you have thought the issues out pretty thoroughly. I haven't yet studied it in enough detail to make more specific comments, but I will try to do so soon. (However, I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back and deal with very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. If I haven't got back to you on this within a day or two please remind me: I will regard it as help, not harassment.)
Meanwhile, here are some of my thoughts about User:Anna Frodesiak/Cuw-nocreationublock.
I like it.
I think that User:Anna Frodesiak/Cuw-nocreationublock, together with a block that prevents account creation, is better than being forced to choose among the currently available options, for several reasons, including the fact that both {{uw-usernameblock}} and {{uw-softerblock}} encourage COI editors to simply reappear as new accounts that appear to be different people, effectively hiding the conflict of interest, rather than openly declaring it. Much better to require a username change for the existing account.
I agree with removing the irrelevant stuff about "misleading, offensive or disruptive" names, bot names, etc. (In fact, I think it would be much better for {{ublock}} to be deprecated, and replaced with a set of several templates for different types of usernames, but that is clearly beyond the brief you have set yourself.)
I agree with you 100% about the word "indefinitely". It could be replaced by some other wording, but really I don't see any reason why it can't be just dropped altogether. If a new user receives a message which says "you have been blocked from editing", and then goes on to say how to request an unblock, it seems to me that the message is unambiguous: "you have been blocked, and you won't be unblocked unless and until you request an unblock and that request is accepted." No useful information is added by saying "indefinitely". (There are situations where I think specifically stating that a block is indefinite is useful, but a username block on a new editor is not one of them, and in any case even when it is appropriate, I don't think the word "indefinitely" is the best way to convey it, as many people take it to mean "for ever".) As far as this particular notice is concerned, I see no reason not to just remove the word "indefinitely".
Where you have "You should be able to do this even though you are blocked", perhaps it would be even better to make it clear that other editing of the talk page is possible, by saying something along the lines of "You should be able to do this, because even though you are blocked you are still able to edit this talk page".
One thing which I do think needs changing is the bit saying To do so, please add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} to your userpage. Firstly, it is the talk page, not the userpage which is involved, so that needs changing. Secondly, even with the standard block notice wording, which says either "adding below this notice the text" or "adding the following text below this notice" (depending on which block notice you look at) there are still occasionally editors who manage to think that what they have to do is edit the existing copy, rather than add a new copy, resulting in an unblock request which is embedded inside the block notice. (Here is an example.) Thirdly, I think more common than the mistake I have just mentioned is actually adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} to the page, rather than something like {{unblock-un|Joe Smith}}. How anyone can fail to realise that "your new username here" is intended to be replaced, goodness knows, but people do. Fourthly, I think it is worth specifying that the request should go below the block notice, because very often, an unblock request is placed at the top of the page, someone responds below that request, someone else at the bottom of the page, and so on, so that before long it is very difficult to tell which messages follow which other messages. I therefore suggest something like To do so, please make a copy of the text {{unblock-un|your new username here}} and post it below this notice (replacing "your new username here" with a suitable username). Unfortunately, that is a little longer and more cumbersome than the simple version you have suggested, but I'm afraid experience suggests that it is necessary to spell it out, unless you are willing to accept a proportion of misunderstandings in return for the benefits of simplicity. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi James,
Thank you kindly for taking a look. It is a lot more hammered out now. Please take another look when you get a chance. Try to spot errors I may have made in the table interpreting policies and guidelines (or if my judgements differ from norms). Also, if you could let me know if the wording in the templates can be refined. (Note that the master template drafts are all at the bottom of User:Anna Frodesiak/Yellow sandbox.) There is a blank section at the bottom of the Yellow sandbox for any comments you may have. That is probably a better place than here.
I took your advice about your "...One thing which I do think needs changing..." and changed "Userpage" to "user talk". Thanks for point that out. Good catch. :)
I took out the word "indefinitely". I hope that wasn't going too far. The talk pages for the existing templates are awfully long, so I'm sure they had debated long and hard about he word "indefinitely", and there's probably a good reason it is used.
I modified the part about posting the unblock request. The templates now uses "...To do so, please copy {{unblock-un|your new username here}} and paste it below this notice (replacing "your new username here" with a suitable username)..." (your suggestion is "...make a copy of the text {{unblock-un}} and post it below this notice (replacing "your new username here" with a suitable username)...", which is probably better). Sure, it is a little longer, but it ought to help the user get it right. Your suggestion was good.
Many, many thanks for your help with this. Hopefully, these new templates will not only help me sort out problematic cases where no existing block or information template is suitable, but might also result in new articles and new editors. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System[edit]

As I believe that this info should be available to the public a merger would probably be better.

When I initially tried to get an account, I was told to wait for a password to be mailed to my email address. When the info I merged into martingale (betting system): taken off, I signed up for an account and didn't need a special password. My name now appears to be Carlos Soto Turver : that I just noticed has also been deleted. The reference that I used on the martingale (betting system)page "The Improved Martingale Betting System" is one of the 4 booklets I have published on this subject that are now being offered on The article that I have been working on at: is still there. I am writing to a number of authors who do gambling articles and will be writing to newspapers looking for columnists who also write about gambling topics such as mine. Other than the 3 booklets and the 1 book that contains the 3 booklets, I have no other references and have found no organization, institution or individual who will validate what I believe to be an original idea and a major improvement on the martingale betting system. I am obviously not computer literate! I have read just about everything about creating an article and as of this morning, I just came across a merging option. My original intent was to create a new page for Wikipedia but having read about the merging option, it makes more sense! I noticed that a request has been made to validate the entire page. If no one has verified the existing information, why not leave the information that I am offering on that page until someone does? If you can contact the person who originally wrote the martingale(betting system)page, he or she would be the most qualified person to verify or validate my improvement of this two century old betting system! As I am convinced that what I have thoroughly explained can be useful to any person who gambles, it needs to be available in the public domain, preferably through Wikipedia. As I really do not know what to do next about the merger,please advise. Carlos Soto Turver (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. First, I understand how frustrating Wikipedia can be sometimes. The best thing is to be patient and we can work it all out. :)
I will reply in point form. Maybe this is the best way:
  • I don't know what you mean by "merger". Wikipedia understands merger this way. Also, I don't know what "validate" means.
  • You are not blocked. You may edit.
  • Your userpage was deleted by me. I deleted it as a copyright violation because it was copy pasted from Martingale (betting system). I now see that you were the one who added that content with this edit. Technically, once content present at an article, it cannot be copy pasted anywhere without attribution. In this case, it was added just before you copy pasted it. It was a copyright violation, but actually I probably should have deleted it because it was inappropriate to have it at your userpage anyway.
  • You may have a conflict of interest. Do you?
  • Is the content you added copy pasted from some website?
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System now duplicates the content at Martingale (betting system). So, it could actually now be deleted. Plus, it is not supported by references. It must satisfy WP:42. Can you find references? If not, then it cannot become an article.
The bottom line:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Ms. Frodesiak,
I sincerely hope that you are well paid for the job that you do!

There are a few things that for me are still unclear. Therefore, I will respond to your reply by the point be point method that you used.

  • My apology for not having used the proper terminology of merging and verification.
  • No, I am not blocked and can edit. It appears that I have already abused that right and privilege. It was not intentional and it won't happen again!
  • I have not committed any copyright violation as the merging was cut from what I had written on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System and pasted on to the Martingale (betting system) page.
  • I do not understand what you mean by a conflict of interest? My intention is to notify those who visit the Martingale(betting system)page that there has been an improvement made to this over two century old accepted betting procedure.
  • As I believe that I am the inventor of this improvement, that would make me the source and the reference, would it not? As the basic arithmetic used explains and proves how the improvement works, why would there have to be a source and a reference other than myself?

The bottom line:

  • As I am the source and the author of the booklets I have written on the subject but cannot be used as a source or reference, is there any alternative to getting this information published in Wikipedia other than by merging or with the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System?
  • I am giving serious thought to what you suggest...abandoning the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System. You suggest a focus on adding sources to the content at on the Martingale (betting system) page. I have an idea! The following is one part of the entire page of the Martingale (betting system). Perhaps if I were to revise and shorten what I have written on my Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Improved Martingale Betting System. If it were to primarily illustrate with basic arithmetic how the improvement works, why would there need to be a source or a reference? Arithmetic is arithmetic as math is math, isn't it?

Respectfully yours,Carlos Soto Turver (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Anti-martingale[edit]

This is also known as the reverse martingale. In a classic martingale betting style, gamblers increase bets after each loss in hopes that an eventual win will recover all previous losses. The anti-martingale approach instead increases bets after wins, while reducing them after a loss. The perception is that the gambler will benefit from a winning streak or a "hot hand", while reducing losses while "cold" or otherwise having a losing streak. As the single bets are independent from each other (and from the gambler's expectations), the concept of winning "streaks" is merely an example of gambler's fallacy, and the anti-martingale strategy fails to make any money. If on the other hand, real-life stock returns are serially correlated (for instance due to economic cycles and delayed reaction to news of larger market participants), "streaks" of wins or losses do happen more often and are longer than those under a purely random process, the anti-martingale strategy could theoretically apply and can be used in trading systems (as trend-following or "doubling up").
Hi there. In point form again:
  • Well, I don't get paid. I volunteer.
  • No worries about the copyright violation. You wrote it, I am sure.
  • The content you added to Martingale (betting system) has already been removed by someone.
  • When I say conflict of interest, I am talking about the fact that you've written, and sell books about this system. One might think that you are promoting it.
  • Basing Wikipedia content on your own research is considered original research.
  • What is needed here is a section at Martingale (betting system) supported by reliable sources. Can you find good sources that are not your own?
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

why was my page deleted?[edit]

Hi, can I know the reasons why my page has been deleted. Thank you! Best regards, Alecs Botezatu — Preceding unsigned comment added by By Botezatu (talkcontribs) 13:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, there. I deleted it basically for the reasons I stated at your talk page. Please don't be upset. You are welcome to recreate it. But please, don't make it so promotional. The version I deleted was a C.V., complete with skills and employment section, Facebook and Linkedin, and email and phone numbers.
Even established editors who put thousands of hours into building the encyclopedia would not be permitted to have such a userpage. You just registered your account and immediately created this userpage, and have edited nowhere else.
So, how about a less promotional page? And again, I do encourage you to help build the encyclopedia. Many thanks for your understanding. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


THANK YOU FOR EDITING MY PAGE .— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, please enter the discussion at Talk:Ruby Yadav#Categories and other matters about this article. Don't be shy. Don't be afraid. Let's work together. Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


HI ,

THESE PICTURES ARE FROM ARTICLES IN INDIAN NEWSPAPERS ON ME. CAN YOU PLEASE UPLOAD THE SAME . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyyadav (talkcontribs) 04:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That is why somebody deleted them. Images from the newspaper are usually copyrighted. You need to upload images that you own. Take some yourself with your own camera and upload them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
crown picture is clicked by me that don't have any one copyright .please upload— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubyyadav (talk
I'm sorry. I just don't understand that. Could you please clarify? Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You just uploaded the same image again: File:Rubyyadav.jpeg. It was deleted as a copyright violation, and even you say that you took it from a newspaper. You don't own it. Please only upload images that you own. Again, the easiest thing to do is take a photo yourself using your mobile phone or camera, and upload that. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok i do that , thanks Rubyyadav (talk) 04:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Anna Frodesiak. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Flat Out let's discuss it 22:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The Improved Martingale Betting System[edit]

Ms. Frodesiak,

I just read your message and took a copy of the article.

Yes,I have spent a lot of time editing. All of my attempts at writing involve many rewrites! Now I like the way it reads!

Thank you for your invitation to help out at Wikipedia! I will first have to take the Wikipedia tour.

As of last week, I am actually doing what you have suggested. I sent the article to the betting system forum and a poll is now being conducted. I have contacted a few authors who write about gambling, I have invited a number of newsletters to review the article and will be contacting newspaper and magazine columnists to also review the material. Hopefully in the near future I will receive one or more articles giving favorable reports on this improvement! If and when they are received, the articles will be listed in the reference section of the article page.

As you may have noticed, I removed the names of the booklets that I have on sale at I initially did use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Sorry! Why the change of attitude?

I am not interested in making money! I receive some 1,300 US/ month,that goes further in Guadalajara, Mexico, and any income above that amount has to be turned over to the Veterans Administration. Consequently, that is why I have the 3 booklets priced at .99 cents each, the lowest amount that can be charged for any publication. The latest "book" includes all 3 booklets for $1.49 "The Best Of All Available Betting Systems".

The real reason for the change in attitude is that I am trying to leave a legacy. Small as it may seem, this improvement appears to be original and if and when it spreads, I will have achieved my objective! I have submitted "large" ideas to the Presidents of Mexico, The Clinton Foundation, The United Nations etc. I have 1 US patent #4,819,666. My latest attempt was to send an idea to Mr. Bill Gates' foundation. However as I don't have a PHD nor work in an established institution, I was unqualified to fill out the application required to submit my idea. All have been unsuccessful in their implementation...and until I get some positive results on my martingale improvement, this could also be and unsuccessful venture.

Prior to reading your message, I was going to write and ask permission to do the following on the Martingale(betting system) page: Place a headline titled "The Improved Martingale Betting System", and invite those interested to review the material at:

In the meantime, I will be sending a "boilerplate" message to those columnists who write about casinos and gambling in hope that they will check out the article and write about this idea. And hopefully they will send me a copy that I will add to the list of references, but, of course,Carlos Soto Turver (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC) only if their comments are positive!

Respectfully yours, Carlos Soto Turver

P.S. Again, thank you for the advice and suggestions!

I'm pleased at your course of action. Change of attitude? I think I've always been the same. I wish you would stay and edit. I don't like self-promotion. 42 is the bottom line for articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?[edit]

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it looks like a simple error I'm hoping you can fix.

  1. Lizziewalters (talk · contribs) is a student enrolled in the History of Ecology. She's currently working on the Wikipedia article Warder Clyde Allee (an article I created a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away).
  2. From looking at her move log, in combination with her contribs, I think I can reverse engineer a hypothesis. She tried to create a sandbox page in her user space but mistakenly created a sandbox page as a new user!
  3. Now, we have her sandbox page located at User:Warder Clyde Allee. Unless there's a valid reason for this move, my guess is that the solution is to move the new user page back to her user space as User:Lizziewalters/Warder Clyde Allee. Then, after the page is moved, the new user page needs to be deleted, which is where you come in, stage right, singing and dancing...oh wait, scratch the singing and dancing, just use your delete tool. What do you think?

P.S. sorry about the confusion on Commons, previously I did say "uploaded on behalf of Anna Frodesiak" but since you didn't include it in your instructions, I didn't do it that time. Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Okay, I moved it back to her sandbox and explained here: User talk:Lizziewalters#Warder Clyde Allee.
As for the commons thing, I think it is all sorted out now. The editor there appears to be new, but knows a lot and has a lot of edits. However, he may have been a bit hasty. I think it's a case of all's well that ends well. I think I will take his advice and add an explanation next time in the Additional Information field or whatever it's called. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the problem. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Happy to help. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi There[edit]

Do edits made on wikipedia commons count towards your total number of edits for the purpose of barnstar awards??

Superfast1111 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and are separate, so I think, no. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you mean the service awards based on time and edit-count, according to WP:Service awards#Exposition on the requirements, all edits to Wikimedia projects are eligible, under any account used.—Odysseus1479 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Carcraft logo.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Carcraft logo.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Available as textlogo from Commons. OAlexander (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. OAlexander (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Note for the archives: says commons version is keep even per UK law, so this enwp version can go. Dandy. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple IP Adresses[edit]

Hello. I'm I have more than 1 IP adresses at home, so the message you left at's talk page is right. I'll consider creating a Wikipedia account to prevent people to think I'm a sockpuppeteer. (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm not even sure why I asked if you were two IPs. And yes, please consider registering. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)