User talk:Anna Frodesiak

If I started a thread on your talk page, I am watching. Please reply there. To leave me a message click here.

Archives

1-22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

Thanks

thanks for the welcome .. welcome to you too :3 yours welcomely, Sam Sfour (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Worried about one group

Hi Anna, I'm worried about this group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/NNU_Class_Project/Winter_2012/Drafts/Nanjing_Education_and_Technology_Channel. Some time ago, I had suggested that it might make more sense to expand Nanjing Broadcasting Network instead, but they don't want to lose their work. I'm not quite sure what to tell them. They have no sources but the channel's own site. I told them to be in touch with the channel to ask for materials, but apparently the channel is stuck in "haven't-asked-the-leaders-yet" mode. Do you have any advice on how to handle it? Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I can't find sources either for the Nanjing Broadcasting Network company itself. Just lots of sources about their digital TV plans. Asking the management for materials is destined to get nowhere, ever, in a billion years. When you say "lose their work", the article's only a sentence long. What have they lost? Did they put in a lot of legwork trying? Maybe there's no choice but to switch topics. Sorry to say it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. You mean the Education and Technology Channel article. I would chop the empty sections and move that to the mainspace. It has good chances of not being challenged. Besides, it's either that or delete it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I see 3 sources for Nanjing Education and Technology Channel. I'm confused. Again, when you say "lose their work", to what are you referring? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please inspect Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/NNU_Class_Project/Winter_2012/Drafts/Nanjing_Education_and_Technology_Channel. There are 3 refs in the ref section, which was hidden in the middle, and now moved to the bottom of the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

wctaiwan is looking for some refs for Nanjing Broadcasting Network. Even with a single one, we can make the article about that, and include the channel content from the other within. The channel one needs huge chopping as it is POV. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that maybe the students can be asked to expand Nanjing Broadcasting Network instead (is it too late for that?), and work on turning this article into a section in that one (after trimming the POV issues). I was able to find a few third-party sources in Chinese by searching for 南京广电集团, though we may have to rely on their own site for much of the article. wctaiwan (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, posted feedback on their draftpage, suggesting that it would be necessary to make it a section of Nanjing Broadcasting Network. Wctaiwan: could you maybe link the sources you found in the feedback section？

Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've left a few links. It doesn't seem too easy to find directly relevant references, though, and it doesn't help that their own site doesn't even (seem to) have the typical "About Us" pages, only paragraph-length sidebars that don't provide much of a detailed history. wctaiwan (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Sandwiches

Does this qualify?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! That's all ham. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Too late, I have gone live with I Don't Want To Blow You Up!, and added the infobox, but thanks for the offer. We were talking about the use of {{italic title}}, did you know that doesn't work for titles over 50 characters long (such as Fat: An Appreciation of a Misunderstood Ingredient, with Recipes), for that you have to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. In case you come across this again.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Good to know. Thanks. Actually I used it when needing a mixed regular and italics title at RV Zeeleeuw: {{DISPLAYTITLE:RV ''Zeeleeuw''}}

And good job with the book articles. A fine asset to the project. 00:18, 13 April 2012 :) Anna Frodesiak

(fixes: kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC))

Outdated Link in Welcome Template

Hi, Anna! I happened across a welcome template you used lately ({{subst:User:Anna Frodesiak/Welcome}}) which has an outdated link to Interiot's old edit counter tool. Interiot's no longer with us (alas!) and his Toolserver account has expired, which means the link in the template ([http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate/ Find out how many edits you have!]) is dead. Did you want to change the link to one of the currently supported edit counters, such as the X! counter, now supported by TParis? X!'s Edit Counter Just a thought. Cheers and see you around! Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaced. Thanks for letting me know. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A barnstar for you!

		The Excellent User Page Award
		The name is enough, still you have got a wonderful userpage. One irrelevant question: Why don't you go for RfA? Yasht101 00:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think it's time to update the pictures.

Thank you for your tireless banner assessments. You would be perfect for IRC help. You have the energy, and we've been a bit short of helpers there lately. :) PM me if you come online. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help. But what am I supposed to help in. Can you guide ? Yasht101 00:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I signed in. Yasht101 00:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IRC

Hey Anna! Thanks for telling me about the channel. I was online at that time because I was feeling insomniac (local time was 3 am). So, can you tell me at what time UTC, you guys are online? Regards :) Yasht101 06:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

We're always on. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay.. Yasht101 06:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Mtking's talk page.
Message added 07:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mtking ^(edits) 07:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

Replied :) Yasht101 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited Wu Mi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jingyang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Work on UFC pages.

You did a great job with those UFC articles. I'm sad you've given up, but I can understand why. It's clear you and the majority of people on here are right, but amazingly two very stubborn, very silly people have taken control of hundreds of pages. The effort was much appreciated anyway. 90.192.254.52 (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But, I wouldn't call them silly. They are doing what they think is best, despite their position being based on bureaucracy. The real pity is that the keepers say "I like them. Keep them.", and not much more. I felt alone.

I am considering starting a new "inherent notability" thread. It is locking horns with someone and getting nowhere that I must avoid.

It seems that common sense is being ignored. By virtue of the nature of the sport, it's easy to make a claim for enduring significance. Enduring notability? That's just too easy:

Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction."

UFC 142 took place January 14, and still gets 40,000 hits per month.

The target of this campain: all 2012 UFC event articles, most of which haven't even taken place yet, shows a total of around 130,000 hits per day. That's roughly 4 million hits per month. That sounds inherently notable to me.

The terrible pity is that a single, well-intentioned editor is driving a campaign that may result in 20 well-sourced, comprehensive articles being deleted, and 4.5 million clicks a month ending in disappointment. That just doesn't seem right. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

If I might WP:TALKSTALK, UFC 135 which took place on year before UFC 142 usually gets below 300 hits per month. UFC 108 which took place two years before UFC 142 also gets less than 300 hits per month. To me, this seems like a sign of WP:RECENTISM as UFC events that have recently occurred or are about to occur get a lot of hits. However, as time passes, they are viewed fewer times. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, my friend, you are always welcome to stalk and comment at my page. :)

I think you are mistaken.

• UFC 108 gets 6,000 hits per month: http://stats-classic.grok.se/en/201204/UFC_108
• UFC 135 gets 16,000 hits per month: http://stats-classic.grok.se/en/201204/UFC_135

This seems like a sign of enduring notability to me.

I hear a lot of talk about "what the encyclopedia is supposed to be about". It is supposed to be about what the public wants it to be about, and what information the public seeks out. These figures speak very loudly.

Now, the bureaucratic camp, in my opinion out of touch with the real world (as evidenced by the page hits), is running out of non-bureaucratic reasons. Don't be afraid to change your mind on this. When new information comes along, we are supposed to adjust our points of view. I've been doing that the whole time with this matter. Please, consider switching camps. What do you think? :)

See also: Page hits for all UFC event articles

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to knock yourself out, unfortunately there are two opposing views here, one, that believes that WP can and should cover everything, the other that feels there should be limits on what WP covers. Like it or not the current status of WP is that we do have limits, they are codified in the policy WP:NOT, with various guidelines used to indicate how they are applied. To either change that or to have any sport treated differently there would need to be a wiki-wide RFC and quite frankly I don't think there will be a consensus to change that position at this time (you might also find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game interesting to demonstrate the issue is not limited to MMA, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India for news items). That said I do believe there should be a wiki for sports, much like we have wikinews for news there should be a wikimedia project for sports articles an results. Mtking ^(edits) 05:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with the latter: "...there should be limits on what WP covers..." The guidelines that determine that, deliberately use terms like "...not all verifiable events..." "...should..." "...may not be...". This is so we can use our judgement.

Again football is not UFC, and the case of 2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame seems incomparable.

I don't have a lot of good things to say about Wikinews.

Creating a separate Wikisports makes no sense to me. What would happen to all the links? When a team mascot is an okapi, and the event is played in Schleswig-Holstein, how would we link to that? Why on Earth shouldn't Wikipedia have comprehensive sports articles? People who use Wikipedia to learn about daffodils will never encounter them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I just realized. You didn't respond at all to the 4 million hits per month concern. How do you respond to that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's push through this.

• You say no enduring notability. You cite guidelines.

• I say guidelines deliberately use terms like "...should...", allowing for judgement calls.

• You cite the same guidelines.

• I contend that a 2-year-old article still getting 6k hits a month shows enduring notability.

• You cite the same guidelines.

• I contend that a these massive, and enduring hit numbers supersede the guidelines.

• Now you. It's your turn. In a sentence, where are you now? Retort. Please, let's move forward. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You asked for my position in a sentence so it is this :

If any event is to show enduring notability, there needs to exist sources giving analysis of the event (i.e. demonstrating the significance of it, not just what happened) after the initial news cycle has passed.

I have not responded about clicks as to me they don't assist in assessing the event, I am no position to judge what or where they are coming from, are they just WP mirrors and search engines or are they actual viewers, in the same way Google hits are not used as a measure I cant see how page impressions can be used as a guide to anything.

There is also another problem with these UFC events, take the two articles you listed above as examples (UFC 108 and UFC 108), there is nothing in either article about the actual event other than the results table, no prose discussing what were the significant moments in the event, no discussion of the event at all, the only prose is discussing the gossip and speculation leading up to the event, the same is true for UFC 142. Mtking ^(edits) 08:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Good points, and thank you for being straighforward. Please remember that I am only trying to find what's best. I can be swayed. I am not simply pushing a POV.

Your response (the one in bold): Is that a guideline or policy or synthesis or what? Either way, I retort: A major hurricane, like an election in Uruguay, will not have media coverage after a few months. Where does it say that continued media coverage They still have enduring notability for obvious reasons. Plus, your position contracticts "...once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage..." How do you respond?

Hits: Well, DYK uses it. I gather that it is visitors finding out about the event. I would like some expert opinion on that. Suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is my position, and it is not contradictory to notability is not temporary, and is directly addressed by WP:PERSISTENCE. I don't agree that MMA is either comparable to a major hurricane or election or that they don't get coverage after initial news cycle is over. Mtking ^(edits) 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Email

Please check your mail.. Yasht101 16:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

RfA

I'm considering running the gauntlet at WP:RFA. Since you have observed my actions under the worst of circumstances, the "Great Battle of the MMA Merge", I would invite you to voice an opinion as to whether or not this is a good idea on my talk page, in the current discussion. Feel free to ignore this request if you prefer, no offense will be taken. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting

Hi. You might be interested in this. outreach:Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting. The next meeting is April 23. You can also add your name to the list here to get meeting announcements in the future. meta:Global message delivery/Targets/Wikipedia Education Program meeting. Pine(talk) 09:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sad to see you leave the UFC debate

Anna, I'm personally sad to see you leave the UFC omnibus debate. You were obviously the most well versed with specific WP guidelines and how to convincingly back up an argument citing policies etc. The majority of people that are going to be adversely affected by TreyGeek and MtKing are just casual users like me that came to WP to view the single event pages because they are the best single sources of consolidated, easy to use, information regarding the event - sounds like that pretty well meets the intent of WP's existence if you ask me. What is ultimately going to happen is after they get done slashing and burning as much of the UFC/MMA articles as they can, people like me are simply going to stop using WP because it will be pointless. The omnibussing just does not work for these type of articles. I don't know anything about how the ultimate decision to keep articles or move to omnibussing gets decided. All I know how to do is voice my opinion which I've done, but those guys obviously don't care what the vast majority of users think and I imagine are just going to go through with the conversion. Ultimately I just wanted to say thanks for your input on the matter, take care. Pull lead (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Actually, I'm trying to leave, but they keep pulling me back in. :) I am still considering a final notability post. Perhaps "...inherently notable..." won't fly, but maybe "...considered notable..." will. Just to bounce this off of you: I've been examining page hits. The UFC XXX events get lots of hits, in the hundreds of millions a year. I think they deserve articles. The others get much fewer. What about those being part of an omnibus? Those are certainly vulnerable to AfD and would find a perfect home in the omnibuses. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that since the UFC is the premier Mixed Martial Arts organization and has literally built the sport upon its shoulders since the sports inception in 1993 that its events should have single articles. As you are aware, the traffic clearly merits it. I also think that PRIDE Fighting Championships (a defunct Japanese organization that ran from 1997 to 2007) should also have its events as single articles because it was equally as important in the explosion of the sport's evolution. From 2000-2007 the sports best fighters were in Pride which is the time when the sport really grew from a fringe spectacle into a mainstream sport and the Pride events are largely the reason for it. I do think that pretty much every other minor organization could be without much opposition included in an omnibus such as EliteXC, WEC, Jungle Fight, King of the Cage, BAMMA, Strikeforce, and whatever other minor league shows have events with single articles. If all a minor organzation's event article includes is simply the fight results and no other valuable data then I personally wouldn't oppose to it being omnibus. I guess in the end I still don't understand the purpose of the omnibus in the first place. It just creates one extremely large, nonuser friendly conglomeration of event data. It also makes it more cumbersome to view events because it isn't convenient to access the thing at the bottom of each event page that has links to all other events. It's not like it saves any space and it isn't as though there are other articles that would be called UFC on FX: Diaz vs. Miller that currently cannot exist because of the UFC's event article. The idea behind the witch hunt has never even attempted to be clearly communicated, let alone justified in common sense terms. As you say, if an article is vulnerable to AfD, then the omnibus would be a great home for it, but if the UFC's events are piecemealed between single articles and omnibusses it will be a very messy and confusing way to organize the information I think. Pull lead (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That makes good sense. I think a compromise is in order. To ensure complete coverage of the year, the omnibus is a great idea. But, to stuff all UFC XXX in causes huge problems, and screams to be split up. Ideally, agreeing on notability for UFC XXX, with the others in the omni (and the omni having a listing of the UFC XXX) is best. I have suggested this compromise a few times. I have looked for solutions. It just falls on deaf ears. Perhaps TreyGeek will see the light: User talk:TreyGeek#Luke Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It just creates one extremely large, nonuser friendly conglomeration of event data. It also makes it more cumbersome to view events because it isn't convenient to access the thing at the bottom of each event page that has links to all other events. It's not like it saves any space... <-- This sums it up for me. I'm assuming if the nominating party had their way then every UFC XXX page would redirect to 2012 in UFC events which would be an exercise in futility... especially given WP is Not Paper. Anyway - I just came by to share similar thoughts to Pull lead above and say thank you for your common sense approach and rational arguments on the subject. Glen 03:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comments please

Hi, please have a look at this as I see that you have made a comment previously. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Turtle farming

Dear Dr. Frodesiak - from your wonderful contributions I am guessing that you are a biologist who spends quite a bit of time in Hainan. I am neither, but a while back, I wrote the article Turtle farming, which mentions that a lot of those farms are in Hainan. I don't have a photo of one, however: I've never been to Hainan - and anyway, it's unlikely they'd let me in on a farm to take a picture. But if by some chance your professional or personal interests take you to such a farm, a photo will be so much appreciated! -- Vmenkov (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Me? A doctor? :) I'm working on the turtle thing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

In Ireland, it is tradition that the seventh son of a seventh son is named Doctor. Don't ask me to source that because it is just something that I have assimilated over many years of knowing Irish people, camping/hiking there & generally having a good time etc. Nonetheless, it would seem that not all doctors are, erm, doctors. If the tradition applies elsewhere in the world then perhaps the clue lies somewhere in your ancestry (and just perhaps a change of gender!). Good stuff on the turtles etc - I pop into that sort of thing for a look-see every now and again, mainly to see how a classy editor does things ;) - Sitush (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for your response! Incidentally, do you think you can categorize this creature (a millipede?), at least to the phylum or class? -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. It's in the Class: "Office supplies". It's a ball point pen. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Another sock?

This guy...seems to have stopped, but we'll see.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC 145

There is sometimes no helping the mma fans, the continued removal of a maintenance template meant to attract other editors to find sources to help demonstrate it meets WP:EVENT so that there is no need to delete delete or redirect the article. Mtking ^(edits) 23:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As you can see, I have joined the effort to restore deleted notability templates. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never understood why fans of a subject are so quick to want maintenance templates removed when doing so reduces the chance of other editors fixing the underlying issue, it like they see them as a badge of shame or something. Mtking ^(edits) 02:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No reasoning with MMA fans

Today is another example of the maturity of the MMA fanboys (I don't know what else to call them). They continue to use sockpuppets to avoid bans and attack everyone who disagrees with them by vandalizing their user and talk pages, and even their edits. Just today I was called a sockpuppet, vandal, dick, and troll--all before I'd made any edits. Even edits on articles about non-MMA subjects were targeted.

Their belief that nothing MMA can be removed is shown by the fact that removal of articles on events by organizations that aren't even second tier are derided. Given the long and illustrious history of American boxing there are 100 articles on American boxers, yet there are 842 articles on American MMA fighters for a relatively new sport. I believe most of them have never fought for a major promotion and even fewer meet WP:MMANOT#Fighters. I've seen articles on people who haven't even fought MMA, but have announced they're going to. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm having a heck of a time figuring out what's best. I'm unfortunately the only one who sees both sides. There are strong arguments for the keepers and deleters both.

Anyway, maybe we should call them MMA fans instead of fanboys, as that is a bit derogatory. Plus, there are women in the audience, actually yelling stuff, which is strange. You don't see men at fashion shows screaming "Yeah! Did you see the way she got to the end of the runway and turned around and went back looking all stuck up and everything!?!?"

It looks like WP:PERSISTENCE is the reason for the problem. Mtking and TreyGeek are abiding by it. We can't blame them for following the rules. Now, changing the rules might be an option, but I don't know how that would go - probably not well. Then again, that is a guideline and not a policy, and it says "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.". I personally think that if a year later, the page still gets tens of thousands of page views, that's evidence that it's notable, particularly to those tens of thousands of people.

Who decides what is notable for Wikipedia? Not MMA fans. Is Goniobranchus annulatus notable to MMA fans? Nope. But that can remain with one reference, no page hits, and no news cycle. Why? Because the masses don't decide notability, The Wikipedia community does. Who are they? Not MMA fans for the most part. So, inclusion criteria is shaped by their view of what this encyclopedia should be like, not that of the masses. Should it be determined by the masses? In my view, that's common sense. But their voice is heard via page views, not policy discussions at backpages, because they don't know those backpages exist. Therein lies the rub. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the first time I've called them fanboys (although others have) and I meant it as derogatory. They long since lost the benefit of the doubt for AGF and they should be called boys because their actions show they lack the maturity of adults. I've said at other AfDs that I wouldn't want to attempt to delete UFC articles, whether I thought they deserved it or not, because of the reaction it would generate. Unlike a couple of years ago, reasonable/civil conversation has not been possible with the current crop of MMA fans whose credo is "Everything about MMA should be on Wikipedia! Disagree and we'll attack you!" Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand how you feel. But two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, while one camp may be unfair in its manner, the other may be unfair in its strategy.

The strategy of the two of you unrelentingly replying with guidelines at every single comment at every single thread on every single page is not fair play at all. It is really gaming the system, in my view. I'd much rather a foul-mouthed politician than one who works the system. How do you respond to my contention that this is a strategy to overwhelm and exhaust the opposition, and to amplify your voices louder than the mere two that you are? Do you think that's fair? Best wishes and good sportspersonship, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeh Chuan-Chen

Hi. One horrible machine translation, or so it seems. Needs a rescue from someone who knows something about the subject, and/or someone who can understand the Chinese original. Or possibly it may need the prod endorsing as non-notable... Peridon (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't find it. Do you have a link please? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd. It's at Yeh Chuan-Chen. I just got straight into it. Peridon (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd indeed. I'm sure I even pasted the name into search.

What to do? Hmmmm, pull the plug. This is a drop-and-run article with no refs. Really, I don't know what else to suggest. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There's quite a filmography at zh:葉全真 - or what looks like one, anyway. I make no claims to read Chinese. If there's nothing of note in it, I think we just let the prod run its course. I've just run a Google translate on the first part, and it looks better than whatever they used. Still got things like "Actress Whose real name is CLAY MINERALS English name of Elsie Nickname leaves" in it though. Peridon (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Clay minerals? Dear oh dear. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My Talk ....

Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Mtking ^(edits) 05:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Soviet King

“ This IP Address 81.178.38.169 has openly threatened my family through a scathing letter and even wrote to my school for writing an honest message on his talk page, believing it was harassing him. Yasht, I will agree at this stage it did get out of hand, because he was using language not appropriate and he made something big out of threatening to complain to JasperDeng. I just spoke for him, and then this threats against my school and family? Forget it, I can't work under an environment here. To people, I have been retiring weekly because I don't feel the need to work, but then I keep coming back, Wikipedia was hard to give up. Now I don't want to come back because of what one IP address has done. ”

This is the reason behind his retirment. Yasht101 16:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted) Privacy infringing/disruptive material has been redacted. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what to make of any of this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2012 (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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CialisSo (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

More reading

You forgot when talking about consensus to mention WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. MMA fanboys agreeing something can't override wider policy, we all know that the fans like the pages, I am sure NFL fans would like a page on every NFL game, or Cricket fans would love a page on every test match, or netball fans on their sport. In the cases of these AfD's none of the MMA fans are using valid reasons to why MMA should be exempt from the existing policies. Mtking ^(edits) 02:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In reading WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I see "...Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale...". It is not a limited groups of editors, and you have no proof of that. It is not at one time, nor at one place. Plus, there is no community consensus outside of this supposed group. In fact, there is great opposition. Please don't call them fanboys. Where there were once many IPs, we now see plenty of editors who have taken the time go register. They have equal status, and are expressing their views on the UFC articles. Please don't demean them. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that everyone could be more civil, initially I was impressed with Anna Frodesiak thoughtfulness and the way she handled herself in discussions, However, now you seem to be engaged in votestacking,and helping to gather people for SPA's, etc.216.55.51.54 (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Me? How? Please tell. I'm not doing anything intentionally. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Help MMA Help itself

Hi Anna F,

A big thankyou for all your assistance on the MMA issue. I appreciate your efforts and your frustration that MMA supporters are not better at expressing themselves in the correct WP manner.

you might want to have a look at http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/4/23/2968208/some-goon-on-wikipedia-is-trying-to-get-all-of-the-ufc-event-pages

If you get past some of the victrol (MMA fans are passionate) you will see you have some fans!, but there is also a lot of confusion on how to go about defending thier sports' notoriety and wiki pages. Perhaps you could consider either posting in the thread or creating a thread to give some hints and tips to the uninitiated?

PS I have created this account just to send this message - i will try to learn more myself to assist in this endeavour

Many Thanks, Trok333 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trok333 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am just trying to stick up for what I think is right. But, looking at the post above, I sure don't want to encourage everyone to take my side. Everyone was already on that side before. I just joined it. :)

The best plan for everyone is to read all the guidelines and policies they can. And also read up on how to conduct one's self in AfD, and how to present an argument. I bet if people do that, then lots will actually agree with the other side. This is not cut and dry. There are pretty good arguments on both sides.

Anyhow, I do hope you stay and become a good editor. You can always bug me for advice. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

These edits are way inappropriate inside an AFD

If you want to have a personal discussion, discuss it on my talk or your talk. If the standard of discussion in a formal procedure is that an editor's years old contributions will be questioned, the subject under discussion will never be discussed. BusterD (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very sorry. I really had no intention of attacking you personally. You are welcome to remove from the AfD whatever part of my post you like that pertains to your editing pattern.

Again, forgive me. I've just been appalled lately, or "appauled" if look it up in The Anna Dictionary of Utter Stupidity.

I felt that whether an editor's contributions are a year old or a day old, they give context. Others who comment at the AfD discussion find their edits under scrutiny. Those with few, or UFC-only edits are pointed out, as are those with poor behaviour at other pages. Then again, I guess it's not like jury selection. Your argument is your argument. I guess you're right. It's probably inconsequential.

More than anything, I just want to understand. Everyone seems to have a vision of what they want this living thing to look like. We have guidelines to it doesn't go completely haywire, and I abide by them and think they're really important. But, they are filled with "probably" and "likely". Common sense should prevail. So, please tell me why WP:XXX trumps common sense? And if this off-AfD place is as good as any, please help me understand the point I raised. Actually, as you said, on the AfD page is inappropriate, and i gather this page is as good as yours, so I hope it's okay to paste the issue here. It's a little soapboxy, but at least it's not splattered all over your talk, and I'll tone it down.

You say that based on arguments by supporters of the article, it would follow that every single baseball game should have an article. But at the same time, there exists: Nabih's Inc. and Small Dog Electronics. With Nabih's Inc., you wrote at the time of creation: "...creating new business stub for a legendary old business, will build as sources are uncovered...", and three days later, you never improved it. That was 2 years ago. Each have three weak refs, and no real indication of notability.

The UFC article you would like to delete on notability grounds has 15 good refs, is about an international event, passes many guidelines and policies, received 300,000 visits in a day, and still gets over 2,000 a day.

In contrast, Nabih's Inc. peaked out at 19, and now gets one hit a day. Small Dog Electronics doesn't do much better.

Approving of small business articles while wanting deletion of international event articles seems like a contradiction. I personally don't like company articles because in 30 years, half of them will be out of business or merged, and will just become an ocean of wikipollution, but that's another matter.

I know we're supposed to ignore how visited an article is, for some reason. But, serving the masses is supposed to carry some weight, because, well, that's what we're here for. We wouldn't be putting all this together if nobody was reading it. I feel like common sense is being defied here and nobody notices. Please explain. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the recent note. I should also be thanking you for all of the outstanding work you've been adding to all of these discussions. I appreciate it. Udar55 (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't even know how I got sucked into this vortex. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much

For being the only sane person in the MMA-related AfDs, ma'am. Teamsleep (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)