User talk:Moni3/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Spins worth keeping

I don't need to cry over to superior and beg them to come and protect me from a civilized ability to debate, so I have no need to report you. But once again you have refused (how much clearer can this be?) to use the talk facility and continue to add your bias edits (have you see what 3RR is not valid for?) without discussion. That incidentally, I have used every step of the way since October 20th-odd.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to lesbian, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lihaas (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Outcome

• Suiting my agenda

Co-nom?

Would you mind if I joined you in co-nominating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maralia? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kralizec!. I'm not quite sure of the actual reasons, but I understand three co-noms is overkill. This was discussed before I walked the gauntlet, and the general idea from User:Balloonman is that two co-noms is just right. He has the reasons, I think. It may have to do with folks opposing based on too much support. @ @ However, a florid and enthusiastic support with much detail would be just as welcome, I think. --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the speedy reply! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

3 isn't necessarily overkill... IMO 2 is the ideal number, 3 is acceptable. More than 3 is definitely overkill. 2 says that at least two people reviewed the candidate and thought they were worthy. 3 doesn't really add much, but four cries of desperation. You might want to review my essays on how to pass an rfa and how to nom somebody for an RfA, both linked from my user page.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just did a quick (30 minute) review of Maralia, and wanted to let you know that she looks like a decent candidate. The problem that she might have is that her policy knowledge/expertise doesn't jump out at me. I didn't dig too deep, but didn't see much that showed me that she knows wikipolicy. Now, this isn't necessarily a deal breakers, but it does make RfA's a lot tougher and can result in ugly ones if you aren't prepared. It might also require more baby-sitting than some other candidates. Moni passed, but I only nomed you knowing that if it went south you were ok with it and to help pave the way for other content candidates. Content candidates are en vogue right now, and the attitude at RfA is much more lenient right now than it has been in the past. But if you can highlight her policy knowledge (and not MOS type knowledge) it would go a long ways towards getting a positive outcome.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 06:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Decent ? No :-) Maralia's as good as they come. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. But my comment was on her as a candidate, not as a potential admin ;-)... as a candidate, she might encounter some opposition, if there isn't a proactive address of what might be perceived as weaknesses.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 03:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Guidance Barnstar
		This Guidance Barnstar is awarded to Moni3 for her insightful reviews at WP:FAC. The perfect FAC review should ignore the trees and focus on the forest, a technique at which Moni3 excels. Thank you for providing that "AHA!" moment for me, and for many other nominators. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Battle of Lipantitlan. I had been vaguely dissatisfied with it before but couldn't identify what else it might need. Your comments helped me find a new path for the article. I don't tell you often enough, but you are an excellent and valuable FAC reviewer. Thanks :) Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha. No shit. Excellent, and thanks! Very neat. --Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm stealing that image for a future barnstar. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Over the Edge (1999)/archive2

Is it possible to leave comments about the images of Over the Edge (1999), which I plan to nominate at FAC, at it's peer review? Thank you.--TRU_CO 16:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

CNFT Images

• Image:Croatian first team.jpg

• We havn't received an email at OTRS (that I'm able to find); even if we had, however, it wouldn't have any meaning. The image summary says "Permission has been given to use it on here and limited other domains" (emphasis mine). This limitation means the image is not free enough for our purposes and would, therefore, still need a fair use justification. There's no need for OTRS tickets in such cases.
• Fasach Nua and I both questioned whether this image meets WP:NFCC#8. It's purpose, it addition to being poorly written and not entirely clear (NFCC#10C), says it "greatly improves the article experience" and "reveals the identity of the players". The criterion is not contribution to our experience, it is contribution to our understanding. How does physically seeing the first team convey understanding that they were the first team or, for that matter, understanding of anything else? Also, the quality is such that the players cannot, in fact, be recognized. Even if they could, how many English Wikipedia readers would have been alive in Croatia in 1940 and old enough then to remember and recognize the players now? How would recognizing them improve their understanding? This seems to be (an all too common case) of confusing significance to the topic with significance to our understanding (see the non-free dispatch)

• Image:Soccer.Field Transparant.png

• The license ({{PD-ineligible}}) is wrong. Ineligible means too simple (like a geometric shape or letter of the alphabet) to warrant copyright protection. This work is not too simple as to be ineligible. This doesn't mean that is or isn't PD (whoever added it probably meant {{PD-Self}}), just that the reason therefor is incorrect.
• Despite requests, the nominator has not established that the claimed author (Nuno Tavares) is the same person as the uploader (Squadoosh). How can we confirm Nuno Tavares has indeed released this to the public domain?

• Image:MaksimirStadium.jpg

• The source does not state the copyright terms used by the tag. The source says: "Every person is free to use our stadium pictures on the condition that the appropriate references are made." Saying "free to use" is not the same as saying "free to use and alter". As you know from the OTRS dealings, we need an explicit statement that derivatives are allowed. Previously, this image had (the also unsupported) CC-by-SA 2.5 tag. Frankly, it seems the uploader is picking free licenses which seem "close enough" because of a misinterpretation of the "freeness" allowed by the website (see "All licenses are not created equal" in the free dispatch)
• I very much doubt the website is the copyright owner in the first place. This is a WP:V issue of the Ealdgyth ilk. Why don't they have the high resolution versions if they're not the authors? How is it that a commerical/hobby website - especially whose authors have "free" emails (i.e. gmail, skynet, etc) - would have the time, funding and equipment to take aerial photographs of stadiums all over the world. If these guys really own the copyright to this image, I'll eat my hat. Эlcobbola _talk 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

See, this is why...you know. They seem fine to me, but I am unfamiliar with the distinctions in the wording. I freely admit I'm a novice trying to fill in, which brings these kinds of problems. You seem unwilling to participate in this FAC, and just 10 minutes ago I went through and read the past 3 nominations, so I quite understand why. I am more than happy to strike my own words in favor of yours and back you up at the FAC... What is your inclination for this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I want no part of the FAC, including linking to or mentioning this discussion or any other reference back to me. I brought it up despite my retirement in the hopes that it might be helpful going forward (it's great that you're reviewing images; they have a peculiar learning curve and everyone misses things from time to time, so I hope this is useful in pointing out some things to look for). Эlcobbola _talk 16:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All right. I have comfort zones and I am being forced out of them. Argh. I understand your position. I will ask Awadewit to assist with this FAC, and perhaps both of us can at least take care of the imaging issues. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the FAC, paraphrasing your points. If I am wrong, please let me know. Thanks again for your input. --Moni3 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A few things to be careful of:

• A non-free image doesn't necessarily have to be "so famous that it affected the events in the article", it just needs to be contributing significantly to our understanding. To use an image from the non-free dispatch as an example, this video game image isn't at all famous, but it is still making a significant contribution (although the purpose doesn't articulate it, but I digress).
• Be careful of inadvertently encouraging derivative works: "you should consider creating one just like it" (emphasis mine)
• Maksimir Stadium at the Commons is probably a better starting point for replacement images than Flickr. An image uploaded from Flickr for this article has already been deleted because of, again, copyright misunderstandings. Эlcobbola _talk 18:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok. For the soccer field image - that...can't be derivative, can it? It's a soccer field.

I fixed the other statements. Eesh. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you asked for it ... more rambling explanation! ;) One cannot copyright concepts or ideas. Indeed, one cannot copyright the design of a soccer field as a concept (i.e. a proscribed design of a rectangle so many metres long and so many metres wide, goal box so many metres from the centre, etc. or, on a smaller scale, whatever relevant ratios) Even if one could, the term would have long ago expired. What can be copyrighted, however, is the visual manifestation thereof. Think of an atlas; roads and geographic features are common property (not eligible for copyright), but Rand McNally still peddles and holds copyrights to their visual versions.

That said, this is an image on which reasonable people could disagree and I must admit that I'm looking at this through a Commons filter (policy is that, if there's reasonable concern, err on the side of caution). Choice of coloration, line thickness, background texture, etc. are, in my reading, sufficient creative input to generate a copyright (indeed, for example, the work of Piet Mondrian is also sufficiently creative despite its analogous simplicity). Эlcobbola _talk 19:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I asked for it, like an idiot. I'm sure you know the clear differences between an abstract work of art per Mondrain (art...faw) and a visual representation of a soccer field or a blueprint or outline of a building or room. Would you suggest having Domiy create an entirely new soccer field? --Moni3 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I drew the comparison only to articulate the point that even something as simple as lines and primary colours could generate a copyright. Blueprints are a good example of the concepts here and, indeed, are explicitly mentioned in USC 17 ("architectural plans, or drawings") as works that are eligible for copyright. I would suggest, among other things, that Domiy take the time to straighten out the author permission issue. Эlcobbola _talk 20:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

Hey, just saw Harvey up front -- congratulations! Happy thanksgiving :) -Pete (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moni, mine too. I hope all the idiotic vandalism is not making you too despondent. I was lucky, when Rotavirus was up there all I got was abuse about my British English. Feel proud; you deserve to! Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter and Graham. For your help and your support! --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, here's wishing you strength as the IPs go wild. Just remember that thousands of people will be reading your excellent article to find out all the facts after seeing the film. Exciting! Scartol • Tok 05:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

John and I went to his father's for Thanksgiving; it was a source of great pride to be able to show him Harvey Milk on Wikipedia's front page. Thanks for all you've done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't even see the film yet! :) Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef block of user:Werdnawerdna

I would have had no problem in cooperating with user:werdnawerdna. I would simply have ignored his or her talk page rants. Of course I am aware that talk page rants violate Wikipedia guidelines, but many contributors do it (incl. me sometimes). Part of the problem is the inability or unwillingness of other contributors to ignore his talk page soapboxing. Andries (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey there...

Can you take a look at the sourcing queries on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi and tell me if I'm out of line here? It appears that the editors are using citations to sources they did not actually consult, but that were sources for works they did consult. When questioned, I'm getting "I've done this before and it's fine", which I do not consider fine, but I'd like a second opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Train question

Are you joking? Or did you miss the train questioner saying they live in Australia? <Puzzled> --Dweller (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm a dumbass of the first order, and spacey from cold medicine to boot. Srsly. I should be in bed. --Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Get thyself bedwards. Wish you better. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference desk regulars

Hello, Moni. I noticed your contributions at the desks and took the liberty of adding your signature to this list. I hope that's alright. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

l-word rewriting

I'm concerned about feeding trolls so will hold off more talkpage exposition until needed. Ping me whenever you need ... but like stray cats, once you feed a troll they always seem to come around again. -- Banjeboi 13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll probably be working on this later in the month. I'll use one of my sandboxes and send you the link. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over the Edge (1999)

I added the {{information}} template to the image mentioned above.--SRX 01:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Harvey Milk Club

I've been expanding Harvey Milk Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Democratic Club over the last few days and thought with the material you've collected on Harvey in getting his article promoted to FA you might have some material about the club. Care to collaborate? Otto4711 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a particular area that I have a lot of material on, but I'll try to find what I have. I do have some books in my living room, primarily Out For Good and Gay by the Bay. And the Band Played On (which I also have) has some information about it as well. Are you looking for something in particular? --Moni3 (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: 2ndCanInfDiv FAC

Hola I think I have most of the image issues resolved for the FAC of 2nd Canadian Infantry Division. Cheers, Cam ^(Chat) 07:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, found archive #s for both of them. Cam ^(Chat) 06:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Interested

... in spiffing up Brad Cohen before the show Sunday night? I chunked in some text and a bunch of sources, but it's 3 am and I'm tuckered out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, dear :-) (I just noticed that the links to tic are whacked all over the map, but I'll leave it alone so as not to ec with you.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Were you looking to add info to this? I don't have his book, unfortunately, but I bet some better detail could be added. --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I read his book years ago, but a redlink wrote this article long after I had given the book away. (I initially didn't write a Cohen article because I was unsure of notability.) I picked up a new copy of the book just yesterday to begin citing; some of the media accounts give close enough info and they're available online, but I do have the book again now. I'm finding some problems, though. One media source says his mother got the diagnosis when he was 10, another says 12, but I can't find mention of an exact age in his book. The index stinks, so it's hard to locate things, and I'm slowly doing what I can. Also, I've gotten a late start because I was afraid it would be the usual trash-Tourette's-media job. Brad seems to be endorsing the movie as accurate, so the article may be worth working on: I hope he's not wrong and I'm not chargined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hubert Maga

Hi Moni. I remember you did the GA review for Mary Meader. Would you mind doing the same with Hubert Maga? You also said you had access to newspaper databases and could e-mail me some news sources, which would be appreciated. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Milk (film)

We took your recommendation and saw this film yesterday at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. The Fat Man laughed, The Fat Man cried (I'm like a faucet) and was profoundly inspired by the story of someone who woke up on his 40th birthday realizing that he had not done a single thing in his life thus far that he could be "proud of". The actors' performances were extraordinary. Check it out when the film hits your Florida backwater nabe! After seeing the movie, TFM thinks it's great that when some queer kid, unfamiliar with Milk's life and work, Googles his name, the first hit s/he will get is a beautiful, readable and comprehensive treatment of the man's life; thanks again for your work on the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the best message I've seen on my talk page since User:FisherQueen offered to marry me for writing it. Such glory! Such accolades! I don't blame you for being a faucet; I have watched the trailer for the film dozens of times and get all choked up every instance. I think December 12 is when it opens here. I will be camped out and ready. Btw, I saw the filming by sheer dumb coincidence last February during my first visit to the Castro District. I stood at the corner of 19th and Castro and watched the crew park the hideous vehicles of the 1970s along the street. --Moni3 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That must have been fun :) I'm going to see it on Thursday - my own Nashville backwater is .. a backwater. But I'm looking forward to being a faucet! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Satyr. Did you see I'm picking at Larry Kramer? Think it can get to GA? --Moni3 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Fat Man and anyone else who's reading this. I saw it. I liked it. It was awesome. Well done, film! --Moni3 (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC image reviews

Moni, I have recently gotten out of the hospital. I will not be able to return to full-strength editing for a while. If you could take over the FAC image reviews that I have already posted, I would really appreciate it. If you feel uncomfortable doing this, I understand. Awadewit (talk)

Dude, I hope you don't have that awful sinus thing I had. Seriously - that was awful. Get better soon. I'll do what I can here. --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Moni; I realize it's hard work and tends to attract the sorts of issues that caused Elcobbola to give up, so don't let it get to you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

Hi Moni3, I won't revert the changes you made to my edit on the Harvey Milk page, but I do have a question for you. I am wondering why you removed the source from Google Books. I can find nothing in the WP which prohibits the use of Google Books. I also found this subarticle in the style guide which encourages the use of Google Books: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). In addition, the selection is a scan from a hard copy text which means that another alternative to removing the reference would be to remove the link to Google Books and add the page number to the text. Thanks, -Classicfilms (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I dislike GoogleBooks. Although they are a great place to start when working on an uncited article such as Briggs Initiative, they make the portions of the text most pertinent to the topic inaccessible. I don't find them appropriate for FAs. However, I have the luxury of a library that can get me virtually anything I need, so I depend on actual print references. The book in question is in the library I use. However, the edit summary I used is correct. Election Day for that race was the first Tuesday in a full week in November. That is not in dispute, so the citation is not necessary. Furthermore, for the standards of Featured Articles, citations should be consistent. I have print references throughout the article in a notes/bibliography style. Keeping the article at FA standard is at times as much of a job as getting it there. --Moni3 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply as it is helpful to hear your perspective. I think there are two lines of discussion here. You make a valid point about the date which I will not contest. I am still, however, perplexed about the argument against Google Books. As Wikipedians, we are bound by its guidelines rather than our personal preferences. I checked Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Copyrights - neither article discourages or prohibits the use of Google Books. Furthermore, since the text as you indicate above is in the library, there really isn't a reason to avoid using texts found through Google Books as a general policy (as I said in this case I agree with you about not needing to establish the date). I link to Google Books as a courtesy to readers who may not have access to a library, though as I mentioned above the references can easily be reconfigured as hard copy texts without the links. I do know how difficult it is to maintain an FA article and thus appreciate your efforts. And I appreciate the need to maintain consistency in references so I will not argue on that note. However, unless there is something in the style guide that prohibits the use of Google Books, as a general rule I believe they are fair game for any article in the Wikipedia. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a grey area that is being fleshed out as the standards of Featured Articles grow and, hopefully, are improved. It's one of the fascinating things about Wikipedia that as each FA is promoted, the standards change. You will see that what was considered an FA two years ago is not the same standard we use today. It's not just that an FA should have reliable sources, but it should have the best reliable sources available, and if possible they should be comprehensive. Some topics are so vast that an exhaustive sampling of the best sources just isn't possible. However, that doesn't mean that the best books written about the subject shouldn't be used. Milk didn't really have a lot of sources, so I had to use some books, a lot of microfilm newspapers, and a smattering of some other material. However, I recently opposed the FACs for Jackie Robinson and Virginia because they used web-based sources and GoogleBooks as their primary references when there are many books that should be used over web-based materials. That doesn't mean that the web-based sources and GoogleBooks aren't reliable, just that the print materials are much better. That is essentially the issue with an FA: the primary author of the article has gone to the best of the best sources. Another issue I have with GoogleBooks is that it is possible to search within these sources for a word or phrase, and "cherry pick" material to add to an article without looking at the scope of the weight the entire book puts on the issue. This was painfully illustrated in Milk's article when it went to mediation (you can find a link from the talk page of the article) over how involved Milk was with Jim Jones. Another editor was approaching the issue from the importance of Jones, when the article should be approached with what reliable sources state was important in the scope of Milk's life.

These are standards I have come to adopt as an FA writer and reviewer. My first couple of FAs were a bit rocky. To Kill a Mockingbird failed its first FAC because the standards for what is acceptable were unclear. What I thought was good enough was not. So, perfectionist that I am, I went and added so much material to the article that the same assessment could not be made again. It had to be pared down from where I went nuts. That crass statement on my user page, "complete batshit insanity", somewhat covers that. Nonetheless, I am happy to discuss these issues with you. Should Briggs Initiative get to a point where FA may be on its horizon, the amount of research that would be required would be extensive. Save Our Children is not there yet. I have more time in the library I need to spend before I consider such a thing. --Moni3 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't think I'll work on Briggs to the FA level, I'll leave that to editors who have worked on these pages in the past. I have a low tolerance level for articles which lack sources and thus my goal with Briggs was to at least bring it to the Start level and remove the "facts needed." As I was not an editor on the Harvey Milk article, I missed the debates, so I cannot comment on them - and I don't plan to contribute to it in the future. However, I must respectfully disagree with your arguments against Google Books, which is nothing more than a resource containing scanned editions of hard copy. The Wikipedia is an online venue and thus the use of online sources is not only legitimate, it is the very essence of what makes the WP a valuable resource. Indeed, some information is available only through online sources, and should be an expectation in an online environment such as the WP. That doesn't mean I do not have standards with regard to online sources- I do, but they vary according to the situation and nature of the article. In some articles, such as Beowulf (which I worked on for awhile), my tendency was towards hard copy sources, since the scholarship is extensive and highly contested. I found sources from Google Books more than acceptable because they are in essence another form of hard copy. However, purely online sources may be the best choice for other articles. So perhaps we can agree to disagree - until we meet again on another article, perhaps in an FAC. Kudos to you for your hard work. FAs and FACs are time consuming and I always have a great deal of respect for editors who put in the time and effort :-) -Classicfilms (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find we agree on most of these issues. For pop culture articles such as video games, television shows, films and such, web-based sources are the way to go. I have no problem with them at all. However, when there are print sources available and GoogleBooks is used instead (in the case of Robinson, an autobiography and 9 print biographies were available and either neglected or used so sparingly that it inspired my curiosity), that's what causes the question. If the book is unavailable to most venues (in a Special Collections section in the library, for example) but readable in GoogleBooks, that is also acceptable. There is, however, the dichotomy of the amount of work that goes into an FA. If print books, which should be the starting point of one's research, cannot be obtained how shall I view the amount of effort that went into the rest of the article? How extensive can the research be if GoogleBooks' chapters 1, 3, and 18 were available but the rest of the book was not? What if I have a source that disputes a GoogleBooks citation, or chapter 4 re-interprets information only viewable in chapter 3? It's only part of the picture. The nature of Wikipedia also opens the article to argument. As the author of an FA - which may appear on the main page to receive a lot of attention, I have to be able to defend what is included in the article, and I would be extraordinarily uncomfortable doing that if the sources I used only allowed me to see a portion of its text. Interesting discussion nonetheless. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand and really appreciate your dedication to these articles. Perhaps if you have the interest, background, or time, you might be interested in working on the Beowulf article. It is precisely because there is so much scholarship on the topic that the article is a challenge and I would really like to see more editors who have this kind of scholarly dedication work on it - as this is the type of article which you describe above (one which demands a thorough dedication to hard copy). In any case, keep up the good work, the WP needs committed editors such as yourself. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Question to Moni3 and Classicfilms

I recently answered a question here that relates to the collaborative efforts of developing FAs, the selection of resources used, and the ongoing stewardship (as opposed to ownership) of such articles. I note your discussion above, which I consider to be a brilliant example of well-considered and mutually respectful debate. With your permission, I'd like to include a link to this section in my response; if either of you feel uncomfortable with that, I will refrain. Thanks, Risker (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is it I cannot help myself answering insolently and insultingly? I think that would be hilarious to call you a stupid dorko in ugly pants, but alas...let's be serious. Link away. I'll keep it together. --Moni3 (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed that you could see my pants through the special anti-ugly-pants filter I had installed. Oh, and thanks. :-) Risker (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of pants aside, I'm flattered. :-) WP:CIVILITY is perhaps one of the most important and unique characteristics of the WP and I am happy to help promote this aspect of our environment in any way that I can. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

H Milk

Please note that I've making an effort to find a middle ground. --Voooooh (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Such effort is extended by discussion. So far, I have been discussing and received little to no response. If not on the talk page, I am unable to see where your effort exertions have taken place. --Moni3 (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The outing of Sipple would be a much better title but I am willing to share with you. --Voooooh (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The life of the mind

Hey Moni.. Hope the weather down there is warmer than the snowy craziness up here. Anyway, I just got done with my major reconstruction of Barton Fink, and as someone who has shepherded a movie to FA status, I'd be honored if you'd have a look. Spoiler alert! I don't remember if you've seen it, but if not, watch out for major plot spoilers. As always, no rush. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 19:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidate for Pope Pius IX

Sorry for mistake. I dont have enought experiance on english language wikipedia. I will try to contact main contributors. Idea about peer review is good so I will have it on mind. I have one question: do you think that article about Pius IX could be promote to FA?--Vojvodaeist 10:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tiny Thompson

Hey Moni3, I don't know if you've noticed, but I've replied to your query at this FAC. Would you mind taking a look/replying? :-) Maxim_(talk) 20:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping again. ;-) Maxim_(talk) 00:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Unknown copyright and publication, probably taken 70+ years ago

I'm not concerned about the template, although {{Non-free historic image}} might be a better fit. The uncategorized Fair Use template ({{Non-free fair use in}}) isn't necessarily indicative of a weak case for inclusion or a weak purpose. Uncategorized just means the image doesn't fit nicely into an existing category (e.g. album cover, newspaper image, logo, etc.) and, to my knowledge, the template is not meant to be temporary. Frankly, I don't understand why we have more than one non-free copyright tag; a non-free image is a non-free image is a non-free image, subject to real life fair use and Wikipedia's NFCC regardless of the image's subject. This sort of specialization is quite unnecessary. The template issues aside, the images do seem to still need a bit of work: File:Quest1921..jpg, for example, is not low resolution (.59 megapixels - ouch), doesn't have an adequate purpose ("It is use purely to illustrate the subject discussed"), etc.

I afraid I don't know what you mean by "Fair Use rationales are not as 'strong' as public domain images". Obviously, public domain (i.e. free) images are preferred (indeed, mandated, when available), but I very much agree with user:Yomangan that it is better to err on the side of caution when the PD claim cannot be verifiably established (the ability to claim fair use, however, should never dissuade one from expending the effort and leg work to try to obtain/verify a free/PD license). Be careful, too, to consider that copyright terms typically work off of author's death and/or publication of the work (i.e. "probably taken 70+ years ago" doesn't really mean anything; the author dying 70+ years ago, alternatively, would be meaningful).

(Also, you can leave me messages on en.wiki, if it would be easier; I've found it to be a pain to type the extra en.wiki markup from the Commons side, not to mention it would make the exchanges easier to track). Эlcobbola _talk 23:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

Could you come back to the FAC? I thin I've fixed all the image issues. —Ceran [ speak ] 23:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image Reviewing

I am very glad to see that you are tackling image reviews at FAC. The shortage of image reviewers with adequate expertise is worrying; I would offer to help, but I am a total novice when it comes to understanding about licenses, etc, and would probably do more harm than good. Hence my asking you this question. I uploaded Image:Charcot1.jpg from a web page where it was displayed under a GNU license. Does this allow its use in WP articles, under the same license? Or do we need more? Sorry to bother you with such a small point, but I need to know, and Elcobbola isn't around to ask. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

We shall see how successful I am at reviewing images, but I appreciate your comments nonetheless. I responded to your image question on your page. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR report

I've dealt with your report. I hope Voooooh understands my concerns for such an unacceptable practice as was displayed. Kind regards, Caulde 17:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiny Thompson

You may have missed my question at the FAC: basically, do you suggest I remove and delete the image pending communication with the HHOF (I sent an email roughly two days ago, no response)? Maxim_(talk) 01:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to call the Hockey Hall of Fame today to see what they have to say. --Moni3 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Had to leave a message with Craig Campbell per this page. If he calls me back, I'll let you know. If not, in 24 hours I'll call his assistant Steve Poirier. --Moni3 (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Campbell returned my call, and this is what I learned. The Hockey Hall of Fame does not own the image, but they claim the copyright ended in 1985. They do not know who took it, and assume, similar to what you said, that it was a series of set-up shots taken for publicity. They sell the image to help run their charity, and said they would "leave it to our discretion" on how to handle it. I don't quite know what that means. I'm inclined to say it should be in a {{PD-US}} template, but I'm going to ask for further help with this one. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FA thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your image check – Sonestown Covered Bridge made featured article today! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I will eventually review your article at PR (if no one else beats me to it) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Small request

Hi there, I've noticed you're well experienced with FAC, so would you mind having a look through Sunderland A.F.C. and check if there are any glaring issues before I submit it at FAC. The reason I ask is because I've never nominated an article at FAC, so I don't really know what to expect, and I'd like to get the majority of issues ironed out before. Cheers. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image check done. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Old Jeffersonville Historic District

Thanks for finally giving the GA to Old Jeffersonville Historic District. Do you think you could change all the WP assessments to GA; it would be unseemly if I did so myself.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 19:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 19:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 19:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

British Emprie Images

Hi there - thanks for your image review. When you say "please provide a source", do you mean a "cite" (and if so, should that go on the image page or in the caption of the image on the B.E. page) or the actual source (ie where the image came from)? Thanks The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a book cite in the Source line of the information summaries. You can cite the caption, but the image page is most important. Let me know if you need clarification. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, for images that others have uploaded, but who have not provided info on where they got it (only statements that the copyright has expired), what do you advise? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Milk Podcast

Just wanted to let you know I've just been listening to Cleve Jones talking about Harvey Milk on CBC radio. The program's available on podcast if you're interested here, podcast of today's date. Risker (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Neat. I will try to listen to it today. Thanks for the heads up! --Moni3 (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the welcome. I nominated Zimbabwe to really see what else needed doing, so I knew how to get the article to FA - I got such good feedback from the GA reviewers that I managed to bump it up in no time (see the Zimbabwe talk archive). Any pointers would be most grateful. Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Moni3, how are you? I've been told by users that you are a great FAC reviewer and you give great copyedits. I currently have Over the Edge (1999) at FAC, and I was wondering whether you have the time to copyedit it? Thank you.--SRX 21:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Omaha images

I'd appreciate it if you could walk me through what else you want me to add to the infoboxes. Regarding your question, going through and inserting those infoboxes was brutal. While the effort of posting on Commons and trying to find the information was not particularly overwhelming, the exertion in relation to the rest of the work required in the FAC process is kind of... yeah, a lot of work. • Freechild'sup? 04:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

{{Talkback}}

To keep it off WT:RFA, very long reply to you here. – iridescent 15:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I hit that! --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Country music

I noticed your talking on Karanacs' talk page. Care to help me with any country music articles? I've got my own task list, just click the "help" part of my sig. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review for Odex's actions against file-sharing

I have an article which has started its third peer review, and it could benefit from some feedback if you do have a couple of minutes to spare to review it. Thanks in advance! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

British Empire image placement

I've taken another stab at it. You're correct that WP:MOSIMAGES and Wikipedia:Access#Images say images should be in their relevant section, but I was trying to avoid violating point number 7 that says "Do not place left-aligned images directly below third-level (===) headings." I think I have now taken care of both problems. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Image reviews

Moni, I missed that response from you on the image review issue; long and short is don't sweat it, do your best, we can only do what we can do, it's hard territory, Elcobbola set a very high standard that is hard for anyone else to meet because he is so knowledgeable about copyright, and anything you are able to do is appreciated.

Goodness, good things being said everywhere about Milk ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Atticus Finch

Hi, in this edit [1] you inserted some references to Atticus Finch. Unfortunately, the refs are in the form of "authorname, p.123", with no mention of the actual work referred to. Do you have the references to hand to fix this? Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Check out the bibliography on To Kill a Mockingbird. That should provide what you need. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Milk

Hi Moni3, I just wanted to let you know that Harvey Milk has now turned Finnish too (although in need of a copy edit), and to thank you for your amazing work. I've translated several English featured articles into Finnish and I must say that Stonewall riots and Milk might have just been the best so far – really well-written (although I'm not a native speaker), no ambiguity in sourcing, and it feels like you've managed to tell a story, which is usually difficult with so many editors meddling in. And your work really has global importance, since for example for me it would have been practically impossible to access all the sources that you have used. Thank you :) (perhaps I'll have to get interested in Harper Lee and the Everglades now...) --Epiq (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Your note made my day! Thank you so much. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek

Hi there. I removed the image from the article. Best not to let this get in the way of the FA process. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review for List of Boston Latin School alumni

Hi Moni3. List of Boston Latin School alumni is currently up for featured list and I was hoping you could go through the images. On a first run through, I believe most are good faith public domain but I think there may be a problem with File:ArthurFiedler Japan.jpg (looks like it is copyright Stars and Stripes magazine). Thanks a bunch, --Jh12 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE

Hi. If you have the time, please peer review this article. Best regards and a Happy Holiday season!!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Moni, I'm not clear on images at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British Empire; are they all set yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Harvey Milk in Texas 1957.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Harvey Milk in Texas 1957.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scene7

Hi Moni, you opposed the FAC the last time around. This time, however, the article has expanded quite a lot, so if you have time, could you take another look at the article? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised. I checked the first FAC and my name isn't on it. Have you confused me with someone else? --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The only editor who opposed that FAC was Karanacs (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 18:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs again! She ruins everything! --Moni3 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn, I feel stupid :( Yep, was Karanacs. Sorry for the inconvenience! (I was thinking of you because I just finished reading your comment on Sandy's talk page.) Gary King (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

unitarian greetings

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you know you're being persecuted by a unitarian? You have a burning question mark on your lawn. Have a great holiday, Cas. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I just realised I used the wrong word - I meant a global pan-religious meaning not uniting church (oooopppssss....) do you think everyone will get it? Oh god I will have to do a bunch of renaming. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Marble Madness

Just wanted to say thank you for the help with the images during the Marble Madness FAC, they ended up looking much more professional. I hope I didn't come across as coarse as after a month the FAC had became a headache and distraction from more important things. Thanks again, and I will try to apply the info templates to future images I upload. Happy holidays. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC))

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

	<font=3> Happy Holidays and all the best for the New Year! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Best wishes for the coming new year!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

British Empire

Hi Moni3. Thankyou for your help with the images at British Empire - the article made it to FA status. I was wondering about the legality of scanning images from books for upload to Wikicommons where the image itself would be classified as having copyright expired - such as paintings. Do you know? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to paintings that were created 100 years ago or more, the licensing should be safe. Just remember to include the most basic information: title/description, artist, date, and source. If you're scanning from a print source, include the book citation and page number. Congratulations on the FA. Quite a worthy topic. I know you worked hard on it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

1969/1972

Hi, I further edited Harvey Milk to "first moved ... in 1969" - hope you find this agreeable. The reason I think it important for it to not say 1972 (at least without additional clarifying text) is that as long as prominent sources flatly state that he moved to SF in 1969 we'll continue to have confusion and editors switching it back and forth... Even in a lede, simplification shouldn't trump all else; readers will often not read full details beyond. —EqualRights (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Question on FL nomination

Hi there,

I got to you referenced from one of the directors of the FL committee and I have a very important question to ask.

My self with a group of other editors have been working hardly in a set of articles that we would like to promote to FL (and potentially the whole thing to a featured topic). We managed to promote one, Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium); but when we started to work on the nomination of the other articles (specifically Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)), somebody claimed that there are too many non-free images on them and the whole process froze. We have since then prepared for nomination the countries Austria, Finland, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Slovenia and Monaco; while we continue to work on the other countries (we have good progress in Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Vatican and Luxembourg for example).

The question is: what is your opinion about lists that have different non-free but properly fair-use images intrinsic in the character of the list? The images are not there to make the article look good or to illustrate the topic, they are the core existence of the article and without the images the article itself makes no sense. Can you please take a quick look at Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) for example and tell me your opinion on the usage of the images?

I do have a strong view about it and I think that we can still be within the guidelines of non-free images use in list articles. I am willing to have a discussion on each topic of that guideline if necessary. Can you please let me know what your opinion is? I would love to centralize the discussion in one place, but I want to know what you think first.

Many thanks in advance, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. I am trying to keep the discussion centralized for future reference. If possible, please reply here: User_talk:Miguel.mateo#Re:Question_for_FL_nomination Thanks a lot, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for re-asking, can you please take a look and give me your honest professional opinion? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1941 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Five

Hey, Moni. I'm currently writing an article on Hurricane #5 of the 1941 Atlantic hurricane season (sandbox here), and it seems the storm had somewhat significant effects within the Everglades. As you're familiar with the region, I was wondering if you know of any resources where I could find more info regarding the subject. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Categories - Lesbian related categories

Hi there! I've been doing some work on LGBT related categories, specifically those categories marked specifically "lesbian" or "gay" and would love some feedback. User:Scarykitty/LGBT Categories. Could you take a look and give me some feedback? Scarykitty (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Milk lead

Hey, Moni; I'm just now catching up on my talk page after the holidays; I glanced at the RFC on the lead of Harvey Milk, and it looks all settled now. I see four paras; is that all set? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? It was all set before this attention on the lead. When the next few editors come along and want it changed again, it will be unsettled. I suppose I should fee lucky it was only the lead and not something more arbitrary. --Moni3 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

With so much attention on the movie right now, it could be hard for a while. Keep your chin up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore

Hi. Happy new year to you. If you have time, could you do a peer review of this article. Your opinions helped greatly improve my last FA and I am looking forward to your opinions this time around. There is a discussion on the same PR about what would be the correct name for the article. Please air your views on this issue also. Users Ruhrfish and Redtigerxyz have made constructive comments and I am looking forward to yours too. regards, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Maralia

I noticed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Maralia has been open for some time now without being transcluded to WP:RFA. Do you know the status of it? Should it be delete or categorized as unsuccessful or is Maralia still pondering it? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 09:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm clearing my throat now knowingly so Maralia can answer that with word or deed. Another opportunity for me to harp on her. --Moni3 (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just delayed due to real life shenanigans and holiday madness. I'll be ready to beat my head against the wall shortly :) Maralia (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Thank you so much. Garden. 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox

This user is a Reference desk regular.

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say {{WP:RD regulars/box}} ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyer^c 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Reevaluation needed

Hey Moni, I haven't commented here for ages, but I recently discovered that you are "sugar and spice and all things nice" rather than merely an intelligent and articulate Wikipedia editor. Clearly we need to reevaluate our relationship :-) Geometry guy 01:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to make of most of this. I blink a lot. For the record, I'll be the first to say that I am a total whore. Between that and good little girl is up to individual perception, I suppose. --Moni3 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd have a field day with the mental images each of your characterizations gave me. Risker (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Risker, do you have to keep bringing up food? Now I'm hungry again! Karanacs (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the thoughtful reply to my joking comment. Lets hope that a few reality checks help perceptions to converge. I see some encouraging signs at the RFC. Geometry guy 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

primary sources

See WP:PRIMARY. There is a lot of discussion about the policies, but this one is pretty well established for a while. Thanks! Collect (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure where we disagree. Perhaps you should clarify what you thought I meant. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid you thought WP relied mainly on "primary sources" which probably meant you were not using "primary source" as WP uses it. Thanks. Collect (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll say it before and I say it now: I am a complete and total dingus. Surely, I thought, this Collect fellow cannot be trying to say that Wikipedia relies on something other than reliable sources? Srsly, wtf? No, so sure was I that I had actually said it relies on reliable sources that I blinked and stared and thought...what is he actually for? No, I did not. Thinking I had typed reliable, but somewhere in my mind that message was garbled between the brain and the fingers and the eyes. Wikipedia depends primarily no, that's not accurate solely on reliable primary primarily can't mean what I want it to mean sources. What a fabulous cock up. We agree. I just don't proofread my posts sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all! It can happen to anyone for sure. Collect (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Save Our Children

A big thanks for improving the Save Our Children article. The images you have contributed are perfect: so perfect that I was able to use the "recruitment" one in the Heterosexism article. I hope I'll see more of your great work and maybe collaborate with you on some articles. There are plenty that need stronger lesbian representation, for example. --CJ Withers (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If only for accuracy, I created the Save Our Children article. I've written a few, so you may stumble upon another soon. I appreciate the comments. I am currently working on another that will represent lesbians well. We shall see. --Moni3 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When I originally incorporated "Save Our Children", i.e. before Nov. 14, 2008, it wasn't the article that you created; it was "Save our children" - a previous article. So, again, thanks for improving/re-directing the older one. --CJ Withers (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)