User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive3

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

Entering clades into Taxoboxes

Hi Anna, I asked JoJan and got a reply. I filled in some new info on the Project Page to let you know a way to make a compromise for the time being, in terms of getting the clades into the taxobox. Best, Susan, Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Some tips'n'tricks

Since you said you were new to this (from the quality of your work, I would not notice... kudos!) here are a few things I noted in my Wikipedia time:

• You will often find articles that look very bare-bones, such as Auriculella (usually there is no picture though). These were created in bulk when a bot parsed the IUCN Red List. Though the first batch of these articles says "It contains the following species:", this is usually not correct - for most genera, only threatened species are listed. When I have to do work on these articles, I simply change the sentence to "Species include:". When I am unsure whether all species are in fact listed already, I add a {{check}} tag and an "invisible" note <!-- species list may be complete, please check -->.
• Taxon names were intially disambiguated with "(genus)" etc. But it turned out that the same genus name may mean up to three different genera - a plant, an animal and a bacterium. I don't know whether triple meanings actually exist, but cases of double meanings are quite frequent, e.g. Bacillus (bacterium or animal genus) and Erica (plant or animal genus). So it is better to use a disambiguation like "(plant)" or "(insect)" or whatever fits, even if the genus name is presently unique, for we cannot tell how long this will stay so. There are a few cases where this does not work straightly - at least in zoology a genus name is allowed to be the same word as a family name for example, and sections in botany may have very ambiguous names. But such cases are not common, and can be dealt with on an individual basis.
• I usually move the taxon authors from lists to the taxobox, when the taxon article exists. For example from a list of genera in a family article to the genus article taxobox. Most of the taxonomy on Wikipedia is unsourced on this level - the original reference where a taxon was first established is seldom given at present - and thus errors occur quite often. E.g. people get the date wrong, or (in zoology) get the parentheses wrong, or (in botany) drop the ex [author], usually because their tertiary source has typos. When the authors are listed in several articles, such errors can persist (a bunch of frog articles I found to be very notorious in this regard). Whereas when author information for a taxon is moved to the article of that taxon as soon as it exists, any problems will come to note and can be dealt with.

Have fun!

PS as regards the "informal": specifically (as far as I can tell) they use it to denote what they suspect to be clades, but which are not discussed, defined etc in the preceding literature. A caveat emptor, sort of a "we suspect this to be a monophyletic group but if you think otherwise that's OK for the time being". What they refer to as "clades" on the other hand are clades that have been widely discussed in the literature already and which have been tested and found widespread acceptance. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to give me all this information. I really appreciate it. You have brought me one step closer to figuring all of this zoology stuff out. I never knew some articles were made by bots. I have heard that the bots are controlled by the BORG, which is in turn controlled by Jimbo, although that could be just a rumour started by Jimbo to freak us out.

As for the clades and subclades of gastropods, I will run your change to Sigmurethra past the good folks at the Gastropod project page. They are up to speed on the whole clade thing, (which changes faster than Superman in a phone booth).

Also, may I say, I have never seen such a productive Wikipedian. How on earth do you find the time to sleep? Tell me honestly, are you a vampire, or do you just really, really like coffee?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

DiPascali

Thank you for starting the Frank DiPascali article. It's about time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank90902 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The very big CopyVio problem

Thanks Anna, I may very likely ask for your help quite soon. We may have to blank the text in the articles. Perhaps we can ask to try to get a bot to do it (?) but if not we all will have to do it I suppose, since GB himself does not seem to be very actively committed to working on it all. One thing you could do to help is to read the Wp pages about CopyVio problems at WP:COPYVIO and WP:CP, because 2 heads are better than 1. I would really like to talk to an editor who is more expert than I am on this kind of thing to get some feedback on the best course of action. If you can hunt down someone like that that would be great.

As for the MP software, I am on a Mac and I could not get the link you gave me to work at all? Invertzoo (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a note I have sent to all project Gastropods editors, and posted on the GP talk page too: Invertzoo (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A very large and widespread CopyVio problem

I want to alert all Project Gastropods staff to the fact that we currently have a very major CopyVio problem which compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia, and opens the door for legal action against Wikipedia. This problem is spread across a huge number of gastropod articles (approximately 800 to 1,000) and it also spills over into the other molluscan groups. I am asking ask everyone who is available to help out with this in whatever way they can, but please do so in an organized and unified fashion so we all know what is going on. It seems that all of the articles in the Category: Molluscs of New Zealand [1] contain a great deal of text that is copied verbatim or almost verbatim from the 1979 book by Powell, New Zealand Mollusca. I have had no experience in dealing with a crisis of this magnitude. Any help that any of you can offer or suggest is more than welcome. Invertzoo (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on CopyVio problem

To WPGastropods members and other interested parties:

If you have not already done so, please look at the thread of messages at: A very large and widespread CopyVio problem

And read the message on the Gastropod talk page conversation. from an admin who is an expert on fixing CopyVio problems, Moonriddengirl (talk).

Also please look at/read through the two new subpages created from the WikiProject Gastropods talk page, and listed at the top of [2].

I am sorry but I have to be careful not to type too much, because I hurt my hand and fingers early this week, so rather than attempting to explain the progress so far in detail, I am leaving it up to you to read the messages and work out what is going on.

Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

About the "C"s

Hi Anna, nice to hear from you and thanks so much for all your hard work, which is very much valued. I have not had a chance to really look at your letter "C" articles yet. I did see the double redirect problem though, and I don't know how to solve it. Do you mind if I move both your questions over to Whpq (talk)? I could not do much at all yesterday because I had a colonoscopy in the morning. There are a few things I would like to try to catch up on if I can. Many thanks to you, from Sluggy Susan aka Invertzoo (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: I posted your question and Whpq's answer on our CopyVio clean-up page in case anyone else runs into the same problem. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You have mail

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

About the Phyllidia babai description

Hi again Anna, I replaced your description with the one that KP Botany drafted. I wanted to explain that tweaking an author's text is not acceptable if it is clear when you compare one to the other, that the "new" version is just a tweaked version of the old one, a light paraphrasing of it. It is a giveaway if the ideas appear in exactly the same sequence, and some of the turns of phrase are exactly the same.

Text needs to be read, understood, and then completely rewritten from the bottom up. None of the "turns of phrase" can be the same. So if Shakespeare writes:

"To be or not to be, that is the question."

It is wrong for me to write: "To be or not to be, that is the main question that all of us have to deal with."

It is also not right for me to write: "The main question we all have to deal with is whether we should be or not be."

I would have to write perhaps something like this:

"One essential dilemma that all of us wrestle with at some point in our lives is: is it preferable to be alive, or dead?"

To be honest, even that is a paraphrase, but I think it would past muster as not actually being a copyvio

Does that make the whole thing clearer? Don't feel too weird about having done it, as I am certain that I have been lazy on many occasions and not re-written something quite thoroughly enough, probably we have all done that every once in a while, but it is certainly something to avoid carefully, as it is plagiarism and it is a CopyVio.

Unfortunately there is no really simple definition that can nail down the exact difference between an OK rewrite and a not OK rewrite, but I hope what I have written gives you a better idea. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely. I will go over the gastropod articles again. I find it very difficult to avoid the original text entirely. Most of the words are 'irreplaceable' and rearranging the sequence of facts in the description makes for awkward copy. I just don't have the expertise in the gastropod field. I will cease writing new gastropod articles and go back to other topics. I will, however, continue to help the gastropod project in any way I can. I really appreciate the time you've taken on this matter considering the whole copyvio mess. You've been doing a smashing job on that, by the way.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel badly Anna. You could always simply write your articles without a "Description" section, that would be perfectly fine, really it would. The gastropod articles you have done have been fabulous. You should be proud. We already have many hundreds of stubs in the Project that don't include a "description", and they are still very valuable to us and to the readers, especially when there is a photograph anyway in order to show what the animal looks like, (then of course a description is not so necessary.) There are still plenty of photos of sea slugs that are waiting to be part of an article, and when you include the link to SeaSlugForum or whatever, that makes it very easy for someone else if they want to add stuff to your stub or start article. I have really enjoyed your new contributions. Oh and thanks for what you said about the CopyVio clean-up, but really it has been easier to organize the pages than it has been to do all the individual changes, I give the most credit to those people who have come in and quietly gone to work. I have done very little at all of that so far. Best wishes, it's really nice to have you around Anna. Invertzoo (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sluggy. I don't feel too bad. I just want to get it right. I hate to zap the description section. I will first give a shot at rewording if that's okay. I will get on it quickly too, in light of the current copyvio matter. Thanks again for your encouragement. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome Anna. Don't drive yourself crazy, you will learn over time. It's not easy to rewrite these technical descriptions when you are not too clear what they are actually saying. As you gradually learn more about the structure of nudibranchs it will get clearer to you. "Dorsum" just means the back of the animal. You can say "back" if you like. Tubercles just means structures that look like warts. Rhinophores are those cute little "bunny ears" that the nudibranch has on the top of the head. Rhinophoral pocket is a sort of socket or pocket that the bunny ear fits into and can actually retract into, if a fish tries to nibble on the bunny ear. Ventral surface means the underside of the creature, the side it crawls on. When you read the SlugForum description, look at the image and see if you can work out what the description is saying. You can always shorten the description and not go into it all in such detail. Take your time. You can ask me to help you too, I don't mind. I didn't mean you should delete your previous descriptions, I meant that when you write more sea slug articles you can simply leave out the description section if that will make it easier for you. That would be fine. Articles can always be improved by someone else. Sluggy hugs, Invertzoo (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer approval

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your invaluable assistance in the Gastropods Copyvio Cleanup taskforce. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"C" was a huge subcategory. Having spent at least an hour merging them, I can well imagine the amount of effort you put into cleaning them. Your assistance with this cleanup is tremendously appreciated. Thanks for doing a great service to the project. :) (I know that the cleanup task is not done, but I'm feeling it now, so I'm saying it now. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bio-Barnstar

		The Bio-star
		As a valuable new member of WikiProjectGastropods, to thank you for all the good work you have put into creating new gastropod articles, as well as saving ones that had CopyVio, I award you this Barnstar, Anna. Invertzoo (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi Anna, Yes, Jimbo was telling me just the other day, "Anna is more than welcome to go through my fridge anytime!" LOL. Thanks for reading my user page: I can't believe you lived in St. Kitts for a year, were you at the Veterinary school?! Did you also visit Nevis? As for the snokeling, I think you would probably really only see most sea slugs at night time in the tropics, because even underwater the sun is just too intense for them in the daytime. As for the Bouchet & Rocroi page, I could be wrong but I think it is just a bit expanded in terms of explaining the categories and so on. (Actually it is the palm trees that are a subclade of the gastropods, not vice versa, ha ha.) Yes, fix up your sea slug articles one by one, and ask me what the various terms mean as you encounter ones I didn't mention. Or ask me to do one or two for you if a couple of them are too difficult for you. The CopyVio crisis is on-going for the fish people and also basically still for any other article that GB started. Also, not all the gastropod stuff has been cleaned up yet: [3]. Plus I am trying to see if on Wp we can get copyvio mentioned clearly and defined a more clearly as early on as possible for new editors. Ah Spike Milligan, he was the best. As for cartoonists, my S.O. is Ed Subitzky. So what is the answer to the "How do you make the animals fall out?" riddle? Invertzoo (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I was not at the vet school, but knew of it. I never visited Nevis (yes, I'm an idiot).

I think I'm clear on this. I can just pick a fishy letter, and if GB contributed to it from a book, add the copyvio tag. If the contrib was from online, then check, edit, and don't tag. I hope I don't encounter the latter, because of the logical 'hole'. I mean, how do we know if a non-GB edit is from another book? Okay, I'm confusing myself again. It's probably straightforward.

The answer to the riddle 'How do you make all the animals fall out?' ---> 'Invert Zoo.' Regards, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't necessarily have to start in on the fish articles because actually there are more gastropod articles that need checking for copyvio: a partial list is at [4]. These articles are not tagged for copyvio, but in almost all cases all of the description sections are copied verbatim from Powell. AND, in the case of the articles about genus, it is necessary to check the corresponding gastropod family article too, as in many cases that is also started by GB and is a CopyVio.

No you are certainly not an idiot not to go to Nevis, I am sure you had a great time on St. Kitts. Where did you do most of your snorkeling?

I like the riddle answer! Invertzoo (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I did most of my snorkeling by cliff faces. There is plenty of life down there, plus it looks so cool when the waves crash and you're looking up. As long as you don't come up when a big one is coming in then it's safe. I also frequented the reefs near the shore. Does Nevis have good diving? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you thought about looking over the article on St. Kitts to check for mistakes or omissions? You might find things you could easily fix that would improve the article. I did when I looked at the Nevis article a year or more ago. I myself don't scuba dive, but I wrote most of these 100 pages with my friend who lives on Nevis: [5]. If you look through the "Things to do" section you will find some dive sites. I snorkel (not at cliffs!) but mostly I look for and find empty shells in the beach drift. I have gone through a few more gastropod articles today; I have a feeling this whole process will not be completed for quite some time yet. Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Cs

Yeah, if an article only has the generic first sentence, and no info about other stuff, then it is almost certainly OK as it stands, unless GB crammed a whole lot of phrases into one sentence, as is sometimes the case. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Herman Brood

I've added the image you suggested on the talk page to the main article. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

I am back from 3 weeks away and just wanted to see how you are doing. Invertzoo (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you are OK and thanks for your good wishes. Yes I did have a very, very good time in Nevis. I spent a certain amount of my time underwater, or at any rate in the water, but most of my free time was spent on my hands and knees crawling along with my nose only inches from the sand, examining the beachdrift, searching for the shells of species of marine mollusks which I have not seen before. Real life has a way of stealing time from WIkipedia pursuits! (or is it vice versa?) So are you in China? Or is China what you work on in real life? Basically I just wanted to check to see if you are OK and that we had not scared you away from Wikipedia with our sluggy craziness. Slimy slug hugs, Invertzoo (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lovely to hear you had a good time. Crawling along with your nose inches away from the sand, eh? That's exactly how most people accidentally end up in institutions. When doing this, you should keep an eye out for the guys in white with the giant butterfly nets.

I was not scared away from the gastropod stuff. It's mainly just time-constraint stuff. I do miss the Big Squish, except for the whole composite photo fiasco. I felt it to be a bit of a personal thing, although I am not sure, especially when some of the pictures were removed for reasons of 'unnatural colour'. But heck, it's not worth arguing over. At some point I will try to put the composites back with 'natural' colours. I think Snek is a perfectionist, and I like and respect that about him. I am much the same way. I do respect his views as this is his field of expertise. It is right for me to defer.

As for China, I live and work here, and have done so for many years. I am an English teacher in Hainan. Sadly, there isn't much in the way of snorkeling or scuba here. 90% of the reefs were blown up years ago by fishermen. I wish the world had 'fisherwomen' instead. The men don't seem to understand that the babies need a place to grow up. Thanks for checking to see if I am okay. Stay well. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anna, Thanks for your reply. I've done many crazy things in my life... but the guys in the white suits never seem to really catch up with me. I am sorry about the composite picture thing. To be honest I suspect Asperger's syndrome was in play there. Wow, I did not know about Hainan until I just now looked it up. What a pity that the intertidal and shallow subtidal has been destroyed, otherwise it would have a very rich fauna I am sure. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Nice to "see" you again. Thanks for the note and for doing your best to clean up some of the existing nudibranch articles. I did not look at the new composites yet, but I will later today. If you feel like creating some more new articles from the remaining nudibranch pictures that would be great. But really, whatever floats your boat: WP time has to seem like fun, otherwise it becomes just one more chore. I have recently been updating some of the taxonomy in the taxoboxes, but probably I will get tired of that at some point. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

About Heterobranchia

Hi Anna, Slimey, sluggy hello to you. I looked at your new composites and I spotted one thing I thought I would ask you about. I just wanted to say something about the composite for the Heterobranchia.

Heterobranchia is a clade that consists of three major subdivisions: the Lower Heterobranchia, the Opisthobranchia and the Pulmonata.

In the current composite you show:

• An image of one species from the Lower Heterobranchia (that's the gorgeous bubble snail),
• Three images of species from Pulmonata (those are the three land snails)

However there is no image of a species from the Opisthobranchia shown in the composite. Since the opisthobranchs are such as major group, they should really be represented in the composite. For example, whichever is your favorite nudibranch image, well, you could put that in there as an example of an opisthobranch.

Also, this is a small additional point, but as for the pulmonates, since after you have substituted an opisthobranch image there will still be two pulmonate images, well, it might be nice for one of them to be a land slug in order to show more diversity. If you can do that.

Hope this is OK and not too frustrating!

Sluggy best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A thousand pardons. Of course, I would be delighted to fix it. When you say 'land slug', you are talking about those long guys right? No face, no shell? Dare-devil work with razor blades? Lots of salt jokes made about them? The inspiration for your nickname? Could you recommend a land slug image that you fancy? Thank ya kindly Sluggerina.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! Well, you are the artist that pieces the images together, so you might have a better idea than me what would look pretty, but the image File:Arion lusitanicus 3.jpg is fairly nice although it maybe needs a bit of cropping. This one is also very nice indeed: but needs a bit of cropping too. This action shot is quite nice but needs to be cropped: . What do you think? Best from Sluggerina xxx Invertzoo (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed, the slug image you used in the composite for Sigmurethra is very nice, the blue slug, the Bielzia coerulans. Invertzoo (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I updated the image and didn't tell you. I knew I forgot something. Thanks for taking the time and I'm sorry it was for naught. Nice selections by the way. But "action shot"?? Really? A slug? If they went any slower they would go backwards in time. Ba-dam Ba! Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the much improved image! And ha ha again! Well you may think slugs are slow, but honestly, they are faster than you might imagine they are. Back when I was studying the non-marine molluscs of Britain sometimes I would bring one home and put it in a dish, and then look down and read one paragraph in the book on slugs (and I am quite a fast reader) and then look up again. And... the slug had disappeared! It was often quite a few feet away off the table and hard to find! Invertzoo (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's funny. It's a good thing you don't work with cheetahs. Put those guys in a dish and look away and see what happens. Years ago I bought a basket of snails home from an Italian market and the kids left the lid off. The next morning there was not one snail left. They were on the walls and under tables and everywhere. They were turning up for weeks and the house stunk.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fortunately the land slugs of Britain are roamers, but are not partial to human flesh like the big cats. I did have a pet snail for a while, a large escargot, and when I gave it apple or lettuce you could hear it chomping from the next room (at that time I lived in a very quiet village.) More recently we knew a guy who worked with tigers on tour and when he took them to summer in a beautiful huge field-like enclosure they would just amble over to the shade of the nearest tree and go to sleep. Rather like slugs. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Walter Henry Snell

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Walter Henry Snell, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Does not pass WP:PROF

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Okay, thanks. I am doing additional research. It looks like he played pro ball (Wally Snell (Walter Henry Snell) was born on May 19, 1889 in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts. He made his Major League debut on August 1, 1913 for the Boston Red Sox. Snell played for the Boston Red Sox for his entire 1 year career. ) from source: [6]. He's getting more notable by the minute. Please give me a little time to dig.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Zap it. The guy also went by the name Wally Snell. Who knew? I will keep a copy and see if I can improve that article. That's half an hour of my life I would like back. ...sigh.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)