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 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


I need your help[edit]

Dear @Anna Frodesiak:

I am at the point of leaving Wikipedia all together even though my knowledge is critical at this time for quickly developing Arabic articles, and my well sourced "Article" edit history has a shining record of my worth. You informed me that "From this moment on, if you are done wrong by, then nobody has to dig into a long history with lots of text to figure out who is right. Light will clearly shine, and the culprits will be exposed."

I am being done wrong on a daily basis by a (very) small number of people. To make this short, the flagrantly "biased" Rfc at [1] was concocted via private emails that were not discussing only personal matters... and is now used as a pretext to shame me, mob lynch me and hound me mercilessly with unfounded and largely exaggerated accusations, and purposeful additions of bogus stuff unrelated to the "single same dispute of the Rfc" every time I make a "well sourced" edit while Technophant's flagrant violations of policy are shamelessly overlooked. On the Rfc which must deal with one same single dispute, I have already asked for an objective, knowledgeable, uninvolved and unbiased admin, and no one has responded yet.

Technophant and email pal keep going back to their favorite admin. So, I will ask you to take a look at the Rfc, (including the Rfc Talk page), and help me get Technophant and his (very) few pals off my back once for all... Otherwise, and if I cannot make this clear to them, I am just going to leave Wikipedia for good. This is now not worth it. The daily badgering is affecting my quality of life. The way I feel right now, I wish I never prayed for that man when he pleaded on his talk page for someone to pray for him. Worldedixor (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't leave. Let's work the problem. I will see what I can do. But first, to help me, please give me every diff and link you can so that I don't have to go digging. Please start with "...From this moment on..." to refresh my memory. Also, any (permitted) evidence to support allegations of inappropriate off-wiki activity would be good too. (Please do not post private email content.) Thank you kindly. 05:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I have a mountain of evidence if you ever need it all. However, simply reading the RFC [2], an objective, knowledgeable, uninvolved and unbiased admin like you will be able to see clearly what is going on, and most likely dismiss the Rfc in its entirety, due to contamination of the editors pool by Technophant's vindictively violating canvassing guidelines, which destroyed the "objectivity" of the process and made it biased against me. I have not posted private e-mails. I do not violate policy. I posted "admissible" evidence (that can be verified on WP) that gives reasonable cause to investigate thoroughly and escalate the email matter between one editor, one reviewer and one admin, if there's a will to catch the culprits. However, the email matter is one of many violations committed in the process. In the Rfc, I presented sufficient evidence with diff to make it easier. By the way, I initially was referring to your much appreciated and welcome communication at [3]. Worldedixor (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I will reserve my comments for now. Please be a bit patient. The power is probably about to go off again here. We are in the eye of Typhoon Kalmaegi (2014)‎ and things are starting to get nasty again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand. Please be safe. Worldedixor (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Worldedixor. Dear, oh dear. You are asking me to familiarize myself with all of this by digging through tens of thousands of words in dozens of talk posts and at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor looking for wrongdoing by others that you have not clearly described here. I am sorry. I cannot involve myself in this. If you wish to provide some evidence that there has been off-wiki collusion using emails, please do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Anna, before I leave for good, I will respond to your request with what I have already prepared. I have legitimate and reasonable cause to believe that there is indeed a conspiracy, in spite of what P123ct1 keeps asserting, and that this Rfc has been concocted via emails by P123ct1, Technophant and an admin.
Now, although it has been almost impossible for me to expose the content of this email scandal, I now have verifiable evidence that on one or more occasions P123ct1 and Technophant did have an email that was not of personal nature but rather an urgent email regarding Wikipedia and this Rfc in particular.
P123ct1, in their certified response (see their certified response on Rfc if you want to verify), they asserted that "The emails between Technophant and I are strictly of a personal nature", however their edits [4] (Clearly titled Rfc) and here [5] (to try and hide the incriminating evidence) shows differently. Worldedixor (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Worldedixor, I think you're reading too much in that post (later removed). First, it was written after the RfC began. Second, there's nothing wrong with two editors e-mailing each other about something happening on-wiki. It may seem distasteful to you, but it doesn't mean there's a conspiracy or any malice in it. For example, let's say you're going to nominate someone to become an administrator. You and the future candidate might discussion various issues related to the nomination statement, etc., by e-mail. Nothing wrong with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Worldedixor . I've been pouring through your talk posts. You have raised lots of concerns and issues here, so permit me to respond in point form:
  1. Do not leave, unless you really want to. It is not necessary.
  2. I see no conspiracy.
  3. If a handful of editors all disagreed with me at once, I would first and foremost assume that I was wrong. I would not assume that a conspiracy was taking place. Why? Because there is usually no motive. Because groups usually know better than individuals. Because we are usually biased in favour of ourselves and it takes strength to recognize that.
  4. Your use of bold, ALL CAPS, and adjectives about edits and editors heats things up.
  5. You sometimes seem to take offense at the posts of others. I think you are incorrectly interpreting their intentions.
  6. Shed 4 and 5 and you suddenly become a great editor.
  7. I cannot find any clear policy on off-wiki collusion. Common sense says: Don't exclude others from discussions in any way that would be unfair to them. Feel free to email others to point out embarrassing typos or other such benign matters.
  8. The links you provide about "urgent emails" are not evidence of any wrongdoing.
  9. Plenty, plenty of your discussions at talk pages are constructive and productive, and many agree with you.
  10. When you have one view, and 4 others have another, and that's the way the article goes, let it go. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy.
  11. I see in your edits, sometimes, the jumping to conclusions that others are not assuming good faith, and have bad intentions. That, in itself, may constitute not assuming good faith.
  12. If you want to accuse others, back it up with evidence.
  13. Avoid cheap shots, like "their favorite admin" and "vindictively violating".
My suggestion: Get back to work with a fresh state of mind or walk away from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and other hot articles. But, do not leave Wikipedia. Just edit elsewhere. Don't worry about that article. It will find its way. There are millions of articles to which you can contribute. Like I've said many times, Wikipedia is a world. If you don't like people in your neighbourhood, just move to a different area. You do not need to leave the planet. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Repair kit may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[STS-135 crew training Tool-Repair Kits with instructor Jeff Stone.jpg|thumb|right|[[NASA]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for being such an helpful stalker and for cooling down the situation between me and that editor. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 10:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. You are very kind. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
I greatly admire the way you handle difficult situations and help embattled editors to see their way through their difficulties. P123ct1 (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. :) I do hope to see him return, and for everything to head in a better direction. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. He has been a good and careful contributor to the page and his knowledge of Arabic is invaluable. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Anna's world[edit]

Hi Anna Frodesiak: Have you ever nominated/co-nominated anyone for Wikipedia adminship? I'm presently considering the matter of running again after User:Stalwart111 has suggested that I give it another try (see "The final straw..." section on my talk page). Stalwart111 has posited the notion of using a co-nominator, and since you're someone I have actually worked with on many articles (e.g. User:Northamerica1000/Article collaboration), you came into mind. Anyway, this is just an initial query, no rush, and it's all just under consideration at this time. Feel free to post any comments on my talk page in the aforementioned section, if you're interested in doing so. NorthAmerica1000 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Northamerica1000. Yes, I recently co-nominated Philg88. I just read the thread you linked me to, and your first RfA. I had completely missed that RfA. I never knew, and am quite surprised to see the results. So, my main thoughts on RfA2: Obviously, the decision to run should be based on the chance of success. I have never seen an RfA2 be successful when such an RfA1 exists. Old objectors come out of the woodwork. Also, I cannot find your AfD figures. (Am I missing something?) I also do not know why you want to be an admin. There is no glamour or prestige, and it can be tedious. To help with what you already do, other admins are there. You are basically a highly valued content-producing machine. What could be more rewarding? Why distract yourself from that? Finally, so many who attempt and fail shortly thereafter leave the project. You are a great contributor, and that is not something I want to see caused by anything. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
AfD stats continues to have problems at this time; it's not providing comprehensive listings after several various tries using different parameters. Regarding RfA, a significant part of the work I perform on Wikipedia is in areas of deletion, particularly in closing AfD discussions. I'm always skimming past those with clear and strong consensuses for deletion because I can't delete articles. I am also skilled and knowledgeable in all areas of deletion, with significant experience in speedy deletion nominations. I have the skills, ability and knowledge to use the tools properly and with absolute precision, and upon yet another user suggesting to consider an RfA on my talk page, that's where it's at, in the "consideration" period. I could potentially fair well in a second RfA; the first one was almost two years ago, and I've significantly progressed, along with becoming significantly more involved in deletion aspects compared to that time.
I still welcome your commentary at the "The final straw..." discussion occurring on my talk page, at the very least so others can appreciate your point-of-view. NorthAmerica1000 08:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Anna Frodesiak. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 02:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC). 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.

Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Table-ization request[edit]

Hi Anna: Firstly, I'll respond to your reply in the thread above a little later. For now, per your abilities to quickly format tables, requesting conversion to table format the brand new List of pasta dishes that I just created, if you're interested in doing so. The requested column headers are: Name, Image, Origin and Description. I think this article will look great organized with the table format. Thanks for your consideration! NorthAmerica1000 03:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, NorthAmerica. Done. I hope you don't mind, but I added the lead images from all the articles that had images. I have a fast trick for grabbing them, so I just went ahead and did it. If you want them removed so that you can pick your own ones, please say. All the best! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, it looks great. So, what's the trick to quickly fetch images from articles? Some sort of a script? NorthAmerica1000 06:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. The trick? Trade secret. Sorry. If I told you, I'd have to boil you until al dente, throw a strand of you at the wall, and then smother you in some sort of tomato preparation. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ha ha, so you just quickly copy and paste, then, right? Smile-tpvgames.gif NorthAmerica1000 07:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Basically, yes. I open tons of articles in a new tab each, then have the article items double spaced in a notepad in "always on top" mode. Then I drag and drop the image into the empty line spaces between the items and ctrl-pgdn to move to next tab. This way allows me to add around 15 images per minute. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, drag and drop. I will definitely keep this type of procedure in mind when creating new lists, and thanks for the revelation of your trade secrets! NorthAmerica1000 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)