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.

For my availability, 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, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Night of Too Many Stars, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Oliver and Beacon Theater (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) 08:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in Project Football

Hello Anna. I opened this discussion due edit wars here, here and here but IP like this and this are not interested in resolve it and insist with their edit-wars in these articles. Could you moderate it? Thanks.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dantetheperuvian. Although I would not get involved in judging who is right in terms of edits, I must have at least some understanding of football even to moderate. I am sorry I cannot help with this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Miss Heritage International

Hello Anna Frodesiak. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Miss Heritage International".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by one of two methods (don't do both): 1) follow the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13, or 2) copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Miss Heritage International}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, and click "Save page". An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the archives: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive44#Draft:Miss_Heritage_International_concern Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out. It's a start.... NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Northamerica1000. Nice! I'm actually glad you moved it to the mainspace. When I first checked it out, it seemed notable. I didn't mainspace it because the COI editor wasn't really making it easy. Plus, it's a beauty pageant, something I'm not crazy about, and also it seemed to have been named to ride the coat tails of the other, similarly named pageant. Anyhow, I guess I should add the logo, at least to help dab it from thee other one. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFC inquiry: Using AFC on article that is in my userspace

Anna,

I am interested in using the AFC process to approve of an article in my draft space: User_talk:WhisperToMe/Vancouversplit. It would be a split of an existing article, Chinese Canadians in British Columbia. I looked through the AFC documentation but I'm not sure exactly how I should proceed.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WhisperToMe. It doesn't seem like a controversial splitting it in two. I mean, doesn't this fall into the category of breaking away part of an article into a new article?It seems like something that can be boldly done. If you are concerned, why not just ask for input or objections at Talk:Chinese Canadians in British Columbia? Have there been objections and discussions about this that I'm not aware of? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user who has strongly objected to the split, believing that making a separate article devoted to the Chinese in Vancouver would be a Wikipedia:POV fork and Wikipedia:Synth. I've been involved in discussions related to this for several months. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WhisperToMe. Ah, you're talking about User:Skookum1, right? Okay, well, I cannot read through several months' worth of such discussion where he's involved. It would be far, far to lengthy, I am sure. I see no policies about being prevented from creating an article because someone, in advance, objects. You are allowed to create it as far as I'm concerned, and allowed to make it from content split of from another article. That's how Wikipedia grows. I suggest that you create it and he can take it to AfD or propose a merger if he objects to its existence. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice! I had already started a request for a page split (Vancouver out of BC) that still hasn't been resolved (this was before I developed the draft article). WhisperToMe (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, you can't read through several months' worth of such discussion also applies to the even-more-than-me masses of board and talkpage sophistry he's engaged in. And, YES there ARE policies very specifically about splitting off content from an article so as to form a POV-charged opus rife with SYNTH content for a POV thesis involving exclusion of sources, abuse of other sources by distorting or cherrypicking, dwelling on racialized content - those policies are WP:NPOV (which is NOT negotiable, as per its own wording) and WP:POV fork which discusses exactly this situation.

Give your head a shake Anna, I thought you were wiser than this. If you find me too long to read, it's clear your never going to read the mounds of junk article-content he's dumped to try justify his split-off, nor his incredibly vast board and talkpage and other diversionary side-discussions in all their erratic sophistry and comebacks indicating he didn't understand what I posted, or wanted to change the subject so as to ignore.

The content is POV, the intent is POV, that there are geographic gaffes and also one-sided portrayals of events/people and mere words only underscores the OWNing author's complete lack of informed context on the place he want to field a sole-authorship on a POV-foundation.

Given his whole approach, including now wanting to include mainland Chinese and others in addition to Chinese Canadians, it might as well be titled Chinese colonialism in British Columbia or Chinese imperialism in Vancouver or "Chinese Vancouver".

Read your mail; falling on deaf ears no doubt but it's come time to consider whether Wikipedia is about surface and style or reputably unbiased content and not information-controlled political spam. I've been making his massively junky additions to the CCinBC article readable and removing all the repetitions of the same events and single-cite short sentences about one obscure academic's use of a pejorative, then another, and another. Compare his Hongcouver section to the cleaned up one on the CCinBC page... SYNTH and UNDUE from start to finish; and the word is now mostly only used by Chinese either complaining about it, or by a Chinese columnist who uses it as a masthead; like blaming Big Bad Skookum1 for being "scary to closers", it's got a whole academic literature about it, which is what keeps the myth alive.

But if you don't want to read the background to the dispute, it's quite likely you haven't really studied the article or what it says, and how both biased and thin-on-the-ground it is. I won't expect you to pick out the American gaffes and spellings that I've found so common in his work since he first invaded Canadian article space back in October and set up shop and wanted to move things around and dispute long-accepted Canadian terminology. That this is being discussed by foreigners, quite frankly, who don't know the subject matter (and he likes it that way) and have no patience to read either about the subject or what the ongoing dispute about content has been about is rather disgusting and offensive; but then the content of the article WILL be offensive to the general readership in BC, and that's WHY IT IS POV in its currewnt form and under its "current management".Skookum1 (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the first paragraph of your response, then re-read WP:POV fork carefully, again, and must say that it is very, very far from "exactly this situation". There is obvious disagreement about whether this fits the definition of a fork. I think it is being created in good faith. If WhisperToMe puts this into the mainspace, please feel free to act as you see fit. If I will be busy for the next couple of days. Stay calm. Best wishes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to your "...exactly this situation...": This new article appears to contain content that breaks away from the parent with information that is specific to Vancouver. If I am missing something, then that something would be from the 55,696 word, several-month-long discussion you have had about this. It is unreasonable to ask anyone to read all of that. If it were short and to the point, one might have a chance.

Again, what I am seeing here is a draft very specifically about Vancouver. The parent is mostly about the province. If one wants to add more content about Vancouver to the already very large Chinese Canadians in British Columbia, how would that be done without creating a new article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Skookum1. Here's a long one for you:

Further to your "...exactly this situation...": This new article appears to contain content that breaks away from the parent with information that specific to Vancouver. If I am missing something, then that something would be from the 55,696 word, several-month-long discussion you have had about this. It is unreasonable to ask anyone to read all of that. If it were short and to the point, one might have a chance.

Again, what I am seeing here is a draft very specifically about Vancouver. The parent is mostly about the province. If one wants to add more content about Vancouver to the already very large Chinese Canadians in British Columbia, how would that be done without creating a new article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have given an opinion, not permission. WtM can do as he sees fit. However, your position is to demand that nothing be done until there is agreement. Well, nobody wants to get deeply involved to sort things where you are involved. This is because it means reading walls of text and endless discussion. It is tantamount to a strategy and unfair advantage. If the article is created and you want content removed, then you have to make an argument for that while observing WP:BRD. That would be decidedly disadvantageous to you because nobody wants to engage you.

This is not about this particular article or this editor. The common denominator is the manner of your talk page edits. Wherever you have edited, I've seen the same thing. You wear others down. Everyone leaves until it is just you and one other. Nobody wants to help. Everything gets bogged down. Nothing gets done. I prefer to be concise (except with this post

), compromise and move forward. Can you concisely communicate a way to compromise and move forward? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This is because it means reading walls of text and endless discussion. It is tantamount to a strategy and unfair advantage." - he used exactly that tactic himself; so many times on boards, talkpages, and on the article talkpage; and drowned his own RfC about a merge re his similarly-biased/clueless Indo-Canadian titles. A lot of those "55,956 words" were his, all being obstinate and obstructive and working hard to reject sources or facts not to his liking/bias. And that tactic is described in certain passage of WP:POV fork.

the grossly overpadded Vancouver section that he is now POV forking is full of junk/trivia and off-topic content and UNDUE, he was only adding content IMO to try to justify the split; I've found tons of repetitions, loads of bad writing, abuse of sources and SYNTH and more. And you say "be concise" - when there's so much wrong all at once and I try to lay it out and show what's wrong with it, it's "too long to read". So, apparently, is the NPOV policy and the many subsections of it, and the POV fork policy.

"Compromise" with the uncompromising - his ongoing insistence that his bigotry is "not POV" is codswallop - is just not do-able without listening to and heeding the very valid points about POVism on this subject that are "too long for you to read", as is I imagine BC history in general. He has rejected collaborative input and gone seeking authority to crap on me for daring to argue with him, and repeatedly lectured me as if I was his student and he was my TA.

Compare my changes to the CCinBC article to what it was before I finally started ignoring all the harassment and got to working on its very bad writing and making it cogent, with more sense of timeline and geography, and removed (only some so far) of teh sea of repetitions...more readable. It's loaded with WP:OVERKILL, even citing single words from an obscure thesis as a long-winded sentence; so there's cites out the ying-yang, stringing together POV-cherrypicked derisive reviews (not sources) as if that was valid content rather than rank SYNTH. WP:Scholarly sources fallacy is not a policy or guideline, just as essay, but this is a case in point of masses of useless and/or biased information SYNTHed up with "scholarly presentation" that's advancing bunk, and where non-scholarly sources that show (easily) how bad those sources are in terms of quality and bias are warred against and excluded, plus any GF for someone raising those other sources and demanding "fair content".

I'm starting to understand that those who don't have the patience of comprehension to read the issues or the debate and who do not know about the subject matter of a dispute have no readiness or ability to come to terms with POV bullshit, or with bad writing either; you won't read what I write, or any of my analyses and examples of POV and general ignorance of context on the article talkpage. It is rather strange that so many people who have taken on the role of writing an encyclopedia have so little patience with listening to reason, never mind learning about the subject, will weigh in to....to refuse to listen. And talk about "compromise" when none has ever been possible with WTM (whose TLDR/WoT habits are far worse than my own) - and what is being compromised is the neutrality policy.....

What's the point anymore? Anything I say is "not concise enough" and won't be read, and nobody gives a SHIT about policy violations and refuse to learn about why they are policy violations? Rank racialized sophistry dressed up with footnotes or not is still rank racialized sophistry.

The POV fork policy talks specifically about created walled-garden articles excluding sources and more; you should try to read it sometime, if it's not too long for you....Skookum1 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is a policy and per its own text is it NOT negotiable.

A pretty surface belies a poisoned well. "you've got mail" used the wrong template....Skookum1 (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am sorry. I have no idea what "...A pretty surface belies a poisoned well..." means.

2. I am sorry again. For transparency, and because I just saw a huge wall of text, I will not read nor reply to those emails (I think you sent the same one twice.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What that meant is that surface-niceties do not make valid substance when what substance there is is heavily tainted - and built up as - outright racialized propaganda without any balance. If you can't be bothered to read my email, it's clear you haven't bothered to read and consider the article itself, which is "TLDR" and full of TRIVIA; the "poison" is the endless blame-whitey tone and whole passages SYNTHed about that with heavy bias and selected facts and a lot of TRIVIA/UNDUE used to over-pad content so as to claim the split is OK....read teh POV fork policy, and the POV policy - bits are on my talkpage with highlighted sentences.

You are condoning a POV tract; but what's the use in saying so? A confab of non-Canadians who refuse to consider POV problems and reject any information on that as it's "too long to read" advancing a biased and ethnically-bigoted version of Canadian history written by another non-Canadian, while rejecting the Canadian from the place who has been vilified and consistently derided for standing up for policy and fair, neutral content per WP:NPOV.

Do you know anything of the historical material or the rest of what's out there on the subject? Does Viriditas? Moonriddengirl? No, none of you do, and don't have the patience/comprehension skills to read my examinations of the heavy bias, abuse of sources, repetitive gunk and UNDUE and SYNTH, either.... and WTM is fine with asking for support from people who will pat him on the back who don't know the material or have ANY IDEA what the POV problem is...."

If you can't take time to understand the content issues and have no problem at all approving and supporting a blatant POV fork, and a simple metaphor about a poisoned pool escapes you, I'm wasting my words. I'm tired of being patronized and dismissed and my points never listened to by those who can't/won't look into the reasons for my opposition to this ongoing farce of POVitis....and who blithely say nothing about WTM's huge deluge of writings advancing his theories about guidlines.

Read NPOV and the POV fork policy; they're kinda long, maybe you will find them "walls of text", too....if you don't understand the POV issues, refusing to read about them because it's "too long to read" is washing your hands of NPOV and saying it doesn't matter, while overly-cited junk padding out rank biased and often bigoted "scholarly" SYNTH, then you have pushed a non-negotiable policy to the wayside just because the author has footnoted everything and "talks nice". NPOV is not negotiable. Period.Skookum1 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance request

Hi Anna, I'm reverting edits by Edit888 (talk · contribs), most of which I find promotional in tone and unreferenced, or sourced only to press release or primary sources. You appear to have noted their contributions in the past, and I'm mentioning this both for your input, and to free myself from the appearance of edit warring. Thanks in advance, 2602:302:D89:A9C9:5DFF:2E39:8337:2C8E (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching his edits and have now given him a final warning. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. Cheers, 2602:302:D89:A9C9:5DFF:2E39:8337:2C8E (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selma (Leesburg, Virginia)

A new concern, Anna, is the edit war beginning to blossom at Selma (Leesburg, Virginia). I've reverted using two IPs, which my edits reflect randomly; the added content includes original research and a long, irrelevant list of creditors. Again, any help will be more than welcome. Cheers, 2602:302:D89:A9C9:5DFF:2E39:8337:2C8E (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 2602:302:D89:A9C9:5DFF:2E39:8337:2C8E. I wouldn't worry about that. There are 3 editors, including you, who have removed it. It is unsourced, and even if a source can be found, that would best be an external link. I suggest letting it play out. The IP may give up. If he persists, we can warn him. Three editors reverting means the IP may breach WP:3RR while others will not. Finally, there is temporary protection. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What, me worry? Thank you, 2602:302:D88:839:6548:8DA:7432:C0 (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]