This is an archive of past discussions about User:Moni3. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Those are two different posts above. The sarcasm is wasted since it masks your inability in the end to resolve the dispute (which Malleus F accomplished with one remark), even though you did defend me very ably and articulately on Raul654's talk page. I am appreciative, however, of the difficult task you admins have. Fowler&fowler«Talk»20:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Sarcasm is often wasted when more direct language would communicate the idea more clearly. In this instance, however, it seemed to express my disgust and frustration pretty well. I didn't defend you. It's not about you, and I am not sure you realize that. It's about the best quality articles we can produce, without expressing utter contempt for nominators or reviewers. Actually, it's a bonus for all if reviewers' comments can assist and encourage while addressing the needs of the article. This seems particularly difficult for you to do, which is why it is a good thing to consider undertaking more often. Anything difficult is worth doing, particularly when it involves being gracious when you just don't feel like it.
Though indeed Malleus is a god among men, if a single comment could resolve the issues that arose from your unfriendly exchanges with Ottava Rima, it was probably a fairly insignificant problem in the first place. I think it's more accurate to say it's a complex issue that goes far beyond you, and since the issues are being discussed still, it does not seem as if it is resolved anyway. Grace and Light to you nonetheless. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
For the record, Moni, I think your conduct has been high class throughout your involvement in this. Thanks for being peachy keen. --Laser brain(talk)01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Moni, that reply ALMOST makes me wish I was a lesbian. Almost. (grins) (Hope that makes you smile, it's meant to!) Ealdgyth - Talk01:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, you handled this very well, thanks very much Moni. I predict, nay guarantee, peace in our time from here ;) Ceoil (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
"Millions of peaches. Peaches for free..." Thank you friends and colleagues. Ealdgyth, such a string of inappropriateness your comment caused in my head. Ceoil, isn't that what Chamberlain said after coming back from meeting with Hitler? Or is that phrase a euphemism in the British Isles for "I'm really hoping this is the end of the ugliness, but we're probably going to get bombed to shit and back pretty soon"? --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Feck Moni; you got me <hrm>. I was hedeging, hoping you would not notice. Can I strike the guarantee bit...seems silly now and tied up to all kinds of [shi..]strings. Jokes aside, I really appreciated the frank talking. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Congrats
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I think that one on the right is a chick, because the other one is copping a feel. This is what is known as "art appreciation". I am quite pleased that my talk page (which I just called my "cock page" when showing it to Mrs. Moni - thanks APK) has become the primary venue for chicken-related pornography and laughably awful gay jokes. Once I had a roommate who may have been gayer than me, but that has yet to be determined. We got him one of those old tin advertisements with a dancing rooster on it for a product I suppose used to be known as "Gay Cock". He fell in love with it and cried when we gave it to him. He used to get in our other roommate's bikini - and he was possibly 250 pounds, and looked a bit like a linebacker until he did the gay thing - and went in the front yard and rode a ceramic decorative carousel horse the landlord thought was neat to put as a lawn ornament. This was in rural Kissimmee where most of the neighbors were retired. I often wonder what they said about that nutty, nutty house... --Moni3 (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have ...
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for your assistance re Peter Wherrett. Verifiability is the key. Just in case anyone is trying to use this as confirmation, I visited Peter in hospital last week but I am not confirming or denying his passing. If necessary, I may request an extension of protection. If or when there is a public announcement, I'll request unprotection if it hasn't already expired, and I'll make the appropriate changes to the article myself. I believe that the names stated on the talk page should be deleted and possibly oversighted for reasons that I will not disclose here. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that the email address and the names should be deleted, feel free to pursue oversight. I won't be upset at all. I started a thread on Wherrett at the BLP noticeboard, so hopefully more admins will assist as I am about to go to bed for the night. --Moni3 (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Newsletter?
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Moni3 - wondering if you'd like to spend some time together drafting another newsletter edition based on your template? Perhaps if we first work out what we want to cover, we could come up with a division of labour that'd work for us both. Let me know if you're still keen. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there any chick-on-chick action? Please, go down on a boat already!
Speaking of GA candidates, LGBT themes in comics is looking for more eyes including reviewers. In addition to other items I suggest this for the newsletter. Plus you can use this cute-as-buttons image and insert a witty caption. -- Banjeboi11:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
April Fools Museum
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Moni: Something about your recent magnum opus reminds me of the sensibilty of this tragic song. Listen and weep, but take heart that the losses sustained in this little-known historic event have been replaced (at least in part) by the collection now found in Boston and environs. Congratulations for restoring faith in American culture. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Five sources have been used to confirm that Jane Addams was in two romantic friendships in her life. You may not be comfortable with the term "lesbian" to define her, but the term did not exist as we know it during her life to describe the relationships she was in."
This is not about me it's about Addams and four of the sources listed on her article that say anything about her sexuality are about the debate over whether or not she was a lesbian and the fifth I can't read myself but it looks less than scholarly as does this article so long as we assume she had a sexual relationship with women without proof.
You're not going to win this. Seriously. And this is not about making a point. Addams' article is simply insufficient to explain any parts of her life in any detail that she deserves. I started a thread at any rate on the talk page, but it is moot. The article needs to be overhauled, with full details about both of her long term relationships with women, as well as her formidable career. --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ottava needs a warning too
Latest comment: 15 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion
WTF does he mean by "I am sure you use a dailup connection in Mumbai". Is he tryin to mock the citizens of Mumbai by implying that they use old-technology? I am sure he is the one who uses it! Anyways, sorry for that edit. Enjoy! I better save this edit before my dail-up disconnects. Lulz! Haha! 59.182.64.6 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This entire presentation between you, Ottava Rima, and Fowler&fowler reminds me of the scene from Airplane!, where Ted and Elaine meet for the first time. It's in a dive bar, and for humorous effect, they show two (ostensibly looking) Girl Scouts cheating at a card game and getting into a horrible knock-down drag-out fight, breaking chairs over each other, throwing each other over banisters, sliding down the bar and landing headfirst into the jukebox, which starts a sped-up version of the Bee Gee's "Staying Alive". In every shot of the bar, those Girl Scouts are wrestling, breaking tables while people are having beer, getting thrown on the dance floor, throwing peanuts at each other. That's what this whole thing is. We're all trying to enjoy a nasty dive bar that plays disco music, and you can't help yourselves, fighting and interrupting everyone else. Showing your yellow underwear as you toss each other around. We can't just ignore you. You break the damn tables we're trying to enjoy our beers at. All three of you...angry cheating yellow underwear-sporting girls. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Lets leave the classic scene as it was... with only 2 chicks (ie. Ottawa and Fowler). Can't you see even I am the one who is enjoying them slug it out! I promise I'll stay away from them and these discussions. Only article-editing from today! Happy day ahead! 59.182.64.6 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Before I finally leave your talk page I'll add that whatsoever their differences...individually they are great editors. Nobody can deny that. (Not that I have forgiven Ottawa for his nasty remark) Bye. 59.182.64.6 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the stuff, APK. What's tragic, anon IP is that you are correct. They are both extremely talented. Why then are they apparently obsessed with such fine points, dragging their colleagues — who are just as talented — into their constant ongoing disputes? Which begs the question of why you are, as we say here, poking the bear to make it worse? --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't much care for the Bee Gees at all, not since I saw them flounce off of a Clive Anderson TV show a few years ago, just because he called them tossers.[1] I do though like your analogy Moni3, and I really do wish the Fowler vs Ottava thing could be brought to some kind of mutually respectful conclusion. --MalleusFatuorum01:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Aw, Clive was drunk and Barry got a bad deal. The pinnacle of disco did not deserve such a verbal assault. Plus, "tosser" has no meaning in American. "What'd I toss?" would be my first question. --Moni3 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Buffin' the muffin'! That was worth my waking up this morning. O English. Thou art so fleeting and ephemeral. And so freakin' funny. --Moni3 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Moni, after all our conversations about STDs, I'm shocked that you didn't know what "tossing" and "tossing off" means ;-) . Graham. Graham ColmTalk01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
We indeed had many long, detailed discussions about STDs. I'm not saying I am not aware of what "tosser" means, it's just a word I'm so unused to that to be called such a thing means very little to me. I might not storm off of Clive's show. Instead, I would look at him blankly and wait for some explanation, neutralizing the zinger by killing the moment. --Moni3 (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There's clearly a subtlety in the language that the wikithingy has failed to capture. Tosser is a term that I've only ever seen or heard addressed to males. And the Bee Gees are of course English, so ... --MalleusFatuorum01:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Need drama?
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Up for GA is this bit of lovely. I step into a puddle of issues every time I visit but the article, who knew?, seems to improve each time. Personally I see a bunch of oddly phrased bits and the whole flow just doesn't feel right ... and there are plenty of minor quibbly wikifying problems. That stated I really don't have the energy to try to sort out the issues which might be major or not. I'm just seeing problems and I don't think I'm the best match there. I'm still trying to get all the way through lesbian which is written to a peachy-keen state so anything convoluted hurts brain bad. Anyhoo, the editors over there do seem to be making good efforts but maybe they are stuck in research-speak, or something. I'm not asking you to fix it but to offer advice on what might help. If you were to fix it the earth would again move but I have dozens of other articles that I'd rather inflict on you instead. Any advice appreciated. -- Banjeboi10:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I read this article when it was nominated for FA a few months ago. It was confusing then. I read the lead and a couple paragraphs a few days ago because I still have it on watch and I noticed your comments on the talk page. I think it's still confusing. I'll offer what I can, but I'm not sure I can decipher much of it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have a barnstar awaiting a curtain call for when it's finally comprehensible. Over a box of wine the talkpage really comes alive. APK found a genius youtube clip "Ultimate Farting Preacher", combine all three and ya got yerself some funny! I was searching for another gem but in light of the lesbians going down and MOBA, I thought of you when I saw ...
(I'm posting the text as this article is short and the site seems to require subscription for some content.) The Week summarizes content from many sources; the following is from the 3 April, 2009 issue:
Mr. America: How Muscular Millionaire Bernarr Macfadden Transformed the Nation Through Sex, Salad, and the Ultimate Starvation Diet
by Mark Adams
(Harper, 304 pages, $25.99)
You’ve probably never heard of the man most responsible for our national obsessions with diet and fitness, says author Mark Adams. But in 1951, when Missouri-born Bernarr Macfadden celebrated his 83rd birthday by parachuting into the Hudson River wearing red flannel underwear, he needed no introduction. Physical Culture magazine, which he’d founded in 1899, was still the cornerstone of an enormous publishing empire. His New York tabloid, though “widely considered the worst newspaper in U.S. history,” had launched the careers of Walter Winchell and Ed Sullivan. Macfadden himself had once been an advisor to Franklin Roosevelt, and in his 70s he had narrowly lost a U.S. Senate bid despite running on a platform “largely based on the evils of white bread.”
If history hadn’t produced this eccentric character, surely “we would have had to invent him,” said Louis Bayard in The Washington Post. An orphan at 8, a weakling in his teens, Macfadden beefed up through weight training and soon was loudly espousing a philosophy that deemed weakness “a crime.” Adams’ “hilarious” first book tracks its tireless subject as he eats “sand by the handful” to promote digestion, weds and sheds four wives, sidesteps prison after a closely watched indecency trial, and even files papers to establish his own religion. Yet Mr. America may be the rare contemporary biography “that runs too short.” A reader almost can’t help craving “a deeper exploration” of the political worldview that inspired Macfadden to ally himself at one point with Italy’s Benito Mussolini.
Legal battles eventually sapped Macfadden of his fortune, and he “died alone and penniless” in a New Jersey hotel, said Richard Horan in the St. Petersburg, Fla., Times. Adams’ lively account gets us inside that hotel, but it “fails to shed even a glimmer of light on its subject’s interior landscape.” Still, Adams “writes with an easy grace,” and he has “plainly gone to great lengths” in his research, said Geoffrey Norman in The Wall Street Journal. He deserves “great credit” for rescuing from obscurity “a man whose influence is still felt in this country more than a century after he muscled his way onto the national scene.”
Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Moni, I kept meaning to compliment you on April 1st's WP:TFA ;-) I will be glad to make a map but it may take me several days before I start asking silly questions on what you want in it. Ruhrfisch><>°°01:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No worries. I'm many weeks away from the article being anywhere near GA or PR ready. Take your time. --Moni3 (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I finally got the article I was working on ready for PR (and then off to FAC). I will read Rosewood anyway for the map and will make some PR comments too. About the map, do you have any thoughts about style or examples you want to follow? I have made maps with wikilinked dots - see the map in Timeline of Jane Austen for an example. Each dot is linked to the article on that place. I have also made maps where the names themselves are links - see the map in Cloud Gate for an example. Or I can make an ordinary unlinked map. Just let me know, thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Just one that is aesthetic and locates the places mentioned in the article: Rosewood, Sumner, Cedar Key, Otter Creek, Cheifland, Bronson, Gulf Hammock, Gainesville, Perry, the Gulf of Mexico, The map in Timeline of Jane Austen is large, perhaps too large for this article. But since most of these places are somewhat close, it may not be too difficult to put them in a map that is easy to read yet still large enough to include everywhere mentioned. This is still a very rural area; most of these places don't have more than 1,000 people living in them. Ocoee and Lacoochee may be too far away to be included, but I'm ok with that. Yay!! --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks - I have played around a bit and there are some more questions I have. Do you want to show county borders? I like to do so, but it is your call. If the borders have changed since 1923, then I do not have free sources, but I assume they are basically the same. Do you want to show highways? I notice most of the places are on a road or intersection today - again the highways would have to be today's versions but I could remove some roads and just leave the ones you wanted (24, 19, 27). Finally I can see three versions of the map: the largest would include every place (even Ocoee and Lacoochee) but might be a bit crowded around Rosewood itself; the next biggest would drop Ocoee and Lacoochee; the smallest version would also drop Perry, plus O and L. I could put arrow in "To Perry" etc. if you want it that small (in terms of land covered). Ruhrfisch><>°°02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
County borders are fine. If they have changed, it has not been substantial since 1923. On highways, I am not so sure. The roads in this part of Florida at the time were hard shell roads - no highways. But the article mentions the highway marker on 24. I guess I'm undecided on that for now, so if you want to make it with State Road 24, that's fine. I would like Perry to be included to give readers an idea of the proximity between Rosewood and the closest location of the most recent extrajudicial violence that occurred. If you feel it just doesn't look good, perhaps an arrow that indicates "To Perry" and underneath "X miles (X km)"? That might work. There was also a train track that ran from Cedar Key to Gainesville, but it was removed about 50 years ago. I think the trestle is still visible on GoogleMaps in some locations in Levy County, but that is certainly optional. --Moni3 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, sorry to be slow - just busy. I will make a map with county borders and all places but Ocoee and Lacoochee. Will leave off roads and rail. Hope to get a draft up in the next 24 hours. Ruhrfisch><>°°04:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yay! I like it. I wonder, however, if it's possible to place an outline of the entire state and color in the uh....I don't even know what it's called... the big version. I sound like an idiot. Like at Museum of Bad Art, where the US is seen in its entirety and Massachusetts is colored red, and in the inset is a larger version of Massachusetts...wtf? Why do I not know what this is called? --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I know what you mean - you want an inset map to show the location of the area shown with respect to the state of Florida. Will work on it and put it in the top right corner, Ruhrfisch><>°°13:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
(out) I understood - don't feel bad, everyone is in search of a word or phrase at times. I added the inset - you may have to WP:BYC or purge to see the new version. Let me know if there are any other tweaks needed. If you have a chance and the inclination, Cherry Springs State Park is at peer review ;-) Ruhrfisch><>°°14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow thanks! I am not even sure what a pimpin' mack daddy is, and I already am one ;-) I double checked Perry - there is only one in Florida accoring to GNIS. Glad to help and thanks for the barnstar and all you do. I work on obscure corners of Pennsylvania and you do articles on important things like the Everglades or Stonewall or Rosewood, so I am especially glad to help. Ruhrfisch><>°°15:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have Cherry Springs, Street newspaper and Cousin Bette to review. The list is more for me than you... but you are most welcome. Perry is where it is, you're right. It's interesting to realize the difference between where these places are in my head and where they are on a map... Thanks again! --Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to look at it. I need to start a couple of small articles to get rid of red links and see if I can find another free image, so it is not a great hurry. Ruhrfisch><>°°18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
WSW pillaging
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, Skywriter. I'm sure you notice that I'm working on Rosewood massacre, trying to add content and improve the sourcing. I would like to be able to get it to GA or FA level. I'm still searching and waiting for more sources. I'll probably rewrite the lead. I just wanted you to know that I'm not trying to undo what you're doing to the article, but I'm keeping in mind how the sources characterize the incident. "Pogrom" is a term not used in Florida to refer to racial issues. I admit I'm having difficulty with the first sentence because some of the sources refer to it as a race riot. Others characterize it as something closer to a pogrom, but that is a foreign term, and I feel as if it doesn't fit. At any rate, I just wanted you to know the article will be in flux over the next few weeks. I don't want to dissuade you from participating, and I need copy edits when I think I will be closer to being finished, just to make sure I am sufficiently expressing the thoughts I'm trying to get out. --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply: Hi Moni3. Please see the article talk page for further discussion and extensive referencing. I ask that you respect what the people of Rosewood and their descendants endured. Rosewood is an example of ethnic cleansing ("Leave or Die") that occurred in many places across the United States. The use of language in the lede that dances around that fact (by weakening what transpired) is objectionable as Professor Strickland states succinctly in the current issue of Black Commentator[2] I hope to reach amicable agreement on this issue.Skywriter (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If you wish to reach something amicable, stop trying to suggest I am being disrespectful to the survivors of Rosewood and their descendants. Take a look at what I'm adding. Take a look at the history of my edits. I am extraordinarily conscientious about accuracy and language. It is with the descendants in mind that I reject "pogrom". I'll be going to the library frequently over the next several weeks, spending hours looking at sources from 1923 on microfilm. How that equates to disrespect is something I do not understand. I'm pretty sure I don't need you to bend my actions into fitting your definition of disrespect, however. Otherwise, I replied on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the note! I enjoyed the trip to the museum immensely, especially the amused looks we got when we asked if it was ok to take pictures. Congratulations on the article! Kafka Liz (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the article getting better? Are edits getting less contentious? This would be a perfect article to get, say, six very dedicated editors to work on in sections with a pre-approved outline and each editor taking a personal oath not to insert POV. Seriously, three from WP:LGBT and three conservative editors. There are conservative editors that don't, for example, try to cite Christian ideology in science sections. It would take me very close to 6 months to do it by myself, working on nothing else. Then, I know you can imagine what my life would be like after I posted it. I would have none. That article would be the monster that ate Detroit, a great blob eating time and energy. This needs to be a shared effort. --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, for now, there are no contentious edits. I've just merged Homosexual orientation into Homosexuality so we just have to improve the article. There are also several other editors looking into this (including me) so you wouldnt have to do it yourself. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you find six editors who agree to pick up books and put down their bells and sandwich boards? Can you find LGBT editors who will spend as much time and energy on the religious and social sections opposing homosexuality? Can you find conservative editors who will spend as much time on discrimination, culture, and the religious responses to the aforementioned opposition? I think they're out there, but there's no telling where they are with time, energy, and concentration. I can write two sections and work with other editors to fix the language to make it a comprehensive line of thought instead of a staccato burping session of the ADD Society. --Moni3 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't get upset if you can't find anyone right now. Don't let it discourage you or make you quit Wiki. Seriously. This is a tar pit of an article. --Moni3 (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Hey, dont worry. Similarly, you dont have to re-write the whole thing. You can just improve a section or something. Some is better than nothing and I know that the whole thing would take lots of time.
And another good thing. I live on campus (until end of April) so I have free access to lots of journal articles and online books thru library. So I can help there, sending you the full text of journal articles and stuff. Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have access to a university library, so I appreciate that thought, but... I might come up with some proposed guidelines for possible editors to place on the talk page of the article to see who is interested. But again, that would also attract a bunch of crazy people. --Moni3 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as a crazy person I personally have too much on my plate now with multiple large longer-term projects. I'm glad to hear the orientation one got merged back in - that was a mess. But homosexuality is just a punching bag of an article that will take a while to clean-up and be a long-term commitment to keep nonsense-free. I will support how I can if the effort goes forward but there are some incredibly devoted editors who really believe homosexuality is an abomination, blah blah blah and are quite happy to insert piles of contentious material to make the point. I will support an effort to improve the article but I unfortunately can't sign on to be a main writer. -- Banjeboi18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I don't care about GA or FA status; I'd just like to see a shorter, more tightly-written article that's stable and is watched by enough people to keep the stealth bigots at bay. I have made some substantive edits including rewriting a section or two, and I was on the front lines during the almost surreal period a while back when common sense flew out the window and the LDS fringe seemed poised to take control, so I suppose I'm already involved. My problem is that my schedule never seems to ease up enough for me to commit to anything other than sporadic bursts of frenetic editing (in addition to my daily wikignome stuff) . . . but I'll do what I can. My strengths are writing (when I have the time) and especially copyediting, not research (slow 'net connection, no good library access at present). Count me in for the long haul, but don't count on me every day. Rivertorch (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
<reset> Let me clarify on crazy people. As being part of the joy of a community writing project such as Wikipedia, I predict as soon as I post some kind of grand plan on the talk page, someone will be watching only to either criticize everything discussed or undo everything we do, but all in the interest of neutrality. Watching the talk page during the Good Article Review put these suspicions in my mind.
Rivertorch, I have no idea when this might take place, so we're in the clear for now. I have no aspirations for the rewrite of this article either. One cohesive concept might be far beyond our wildest dreams. --Moni3 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It may make sense to target improving the baby articles one at a time and import their summaries as they are completed. I saw someone inserting a Catholic group's survey on homosexual promiscuity so I really don't see a begrudging acceptance of common sense happening soon there. I feel like a fire-jumper at times (sigh). -- Banjeboi00:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the protocol, and it might (gasp) be based in GFDL copyright law, is to leave it with the article. If something is particularly useful then maybe copy it over when it's helpful. -- Banjeboi13:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
re: Rosewood
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
OMG, I didn't even know you were working on it! Would you believe that someone just donated a book about race relations in Florida to the library, and after leafing through it and finding a chapter on Rosewood, I decided to look it up on Wikipedia? I remember reading the article a while back, and it was dreadful; now look at it! Very much improved. It's a little confusing in the middle, especially since so many people share names and the like, but that might just be my lack of sleep -- end of semester stress, budget issues at work, etc., etc. Anyway, if you'd like me to read it in full (I didn't get past "Reaction"), just let me know. Is it going through GA/PR soon? And how are you doing, anyway? María(habla conmigo) 01:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing well today. Today's main page nonsense was brought to you by me and about 10 other editors, so I am trying not to pay attention to it. Museum of Bad Art was my last FA. Then several days ago I reverted vandalism in the lead of Rosewood massacre and haven't stopped editing it since. Nice jump in mood there... I added some info about 2 years ago, but now I'm rewriting it with the goal of FA in mind. There's a book mentioned at the end by Michael D'Orso that I ordered. It hasn't arrived yet, but when it does I hope the article will be GA ready.
Good to know the names are hard to keep straight. I made a few errors with relationships of the subjects. Since they were a close knit community with large families, I can't keep straight who is related to whom. Feel free to watch the article and make comments, jump in, or if you want to go co-FA with me, I'd appreciate it.
I didn't hear about Rosewood until 1993, and I grew up in North Florida. I drove Mrs. Moni out to Cedar Key one day, thinking it would be a nice drive, which it was, and had no idea I was about to drive through Rosewood. I think I skidded the car off the road when we I passed the sign (one of the images on the article is mine). Some of my art is in a gallery in Cedar Key, so every time I go there I pass through it. Once I saw a black guy on a Honda Goldwing parked by the side of the highway just staring at the sign. Just the sign is powerful. --Moni3 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never even been on that side of the state (yet). I remember when the film came out, and I watched it on HBO thinking, surely this is just a jumped up dramatization? Nothing this horrible could have happened without me hearing about it before now? I read more about it when I first moved down here again about three years ago -- my vain attempt to learn everything about everything Floridian -- but completely forgot about it again. I would love to help bring such an important and forgotten topic to FA, but seeing as how you've already done most of the work, a co-nom wouldn't be fair. :) I have access to Michael D'Orso's book, which I see is in the "Further reading" section as of now. Have you read it? If not, I can look for it today and see what it has to offer.
And congrats on the gloriously good-bad TFA for April Fools! See, I've been so busy lately, Wikipedia is like a strange place to me, what with all these awesome FACs and such that I'm missing. I'm currently working on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (Doctor-poet, Poet-doctor extraordinaire) with Midnightdreary, but other than that I'm somewhere in the ether. I'd still love to work on Willa Cather next, but she'll have to wait until the fall, I fear. No fair! Where do you find the time to be so productive, and can you give me some? María(habla conmigo) 12:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ho ho ho. Productive. It comes in short intense bursts. In a week you may find me staring at the wall and drooling, unable to concentrate on anything. I did not see the film. Apparently it was a bit of a jumped up dramatization, though knowing that does not diminish the real horror of what happened. I have not read D'Orso's book, but I will as soon as it arrives. I hope to be able to expand a section on how it was reported through the US in the North, South, and by black newspapers. According to several historians, the reporting was notoriously unreliable about Rosewood. It was a mixture of statements made by mobs, discreet pleas made by the sheriff, and trumped up crap about how black people were roaming the countryside gloating about sleeping with white women. So I'm going to see if I can find stories from 1923 as well. Means a few weeks in the library looking at microfilm, etc. As for a co-nom, I don't care about who added what and when. Either way, I'd love to have your input. Best of luck on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Blargh, I suck. If the article is still waiting at GA by the time I finish my final papers next week, I'll review it. If it's already been taken, I'll stop by at PR. I promise promise! PS: we got a flat tire on our way to Gainesville (just outside of Waldo) yesterday. Joy! Thank goodness for Pepboys. María(habla conmigo) 14:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty far down the World History list, so it might be there for several weeks. Peer reviews and GA whatnot means if you get a flat in Waldo, I will come out and lend a hand. (Feel free to call me if you still have my number.) That, and basic human dignity. No one should be stranded in Waldo. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
What a horrible, dreadful little town. I think I was propositioned by some upstanding gentleman while walking around the Texaco (as the boyfriend cursed and gnashed his teeth outside) but I could have simply mistook the bloke; it was very difficult to understand him seeing as how he had maybe two teeth in his head. All I could make out was "Oooo-EEE!" AND the soda I (quickly) bought was flat! Town full of fail. They really should build a flyover from Jax to G-ville. María(habla conmigo) 19:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I use County Road 225 to avoid Waldo on my way to the JAX airport (that would not assist you if you had a flat, though - it's all in the middle of nowhere). If I could avoid Starke and Lawtey I would do that as well. When I go to Orange Park or Julington Creek, I completely evade all consciousness of these hamlets by going through the now puddle-filled Keystone Heights. Town full of Fail. How poetic. How perfect. Waldo. --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
APK has given you a Bible, just for shiz and gigglez. I've been told that reading the Bible somehow cures you people and hopefully this will set you straight. Spread the Word by giving your friends a Bible, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or an old high school friend you bump into at the local 7-Eleven. Enjoy!
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
...It happened, just as you said! [3] All the input during its FAC, and the infobox (which I just removed) was added back the day the article's on the main page. How funny is that!
Speaking of funny, Moni, I need to visit your talk page more often. The humor here completely knocks me out. You handle contentiousness admirably well. And I thought the debate around The Wiggles (four FACs!) was contentious! I never thought that I, an ex-fundie and current Catholic who watched Fox News everyday, would say this, but you're such an example and model of graciousness and good humor. --Christine (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, main page day. Let's say I handle it with grace and aplomb by not hiding in a corner and avoiding most of the insanity. Let's say that. I hope you're handling it well today, with as little vandalism as possible and naught but praise on the talk page or your page. Well done on this article. You should be very proud. And feel free to stop by my page for a dose of randomness. I can serve that up in spades. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Not hiding and having plenty of aplomb is the best way to handle controversy and conflict, as you know. Yes, I'm very proud and a little surprised at the lack of vandalism. I suspect it's due to the fact that mpd has fallen on a weekend, and there are less kiddies and adolescents to make rude, racist, and inappropriate vandalism. And why are gays so funny, anyway? ;) --Christine (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, in the name of all that is good and holy. I watched that YouTube clip just now. I tried to watch it earlier but my connection was bad. When I finally went back and saw it I popped a vein in my forehead laughing at it. It brought people running, who did not laugh at it. I think this should be a gay litmus test. The harder you laugh at that clip, the gayer you are. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Editorial opinion
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Moni3, I'm sure you're very busy, but if you have a moment sometime I was wondering if I could get your opinion on image concerns raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Street newspaper. There is an extended discussion, but it is all about whether the image here is acceptable fair use or not, with basically a couple editors going back and forth over whether it illustrates something better than text would (and I think it has pretty much descended into personal opinions). I am on the pro side (since it's my nomination) as are a couple other editors who commented, but Jappalang, who raised the concern, also knows what he's doing. I have expressed that I would be willing to remove the image if enough people agree it is unnecessary, but so far I see no clear consensus either way so I have been waiting to hear more input. So anyway, might you be able to take a quick look and let me know what you think? Whether you comment at the FAC or just shoot me a message is fine either way with me; mostly I just want a fresh opinion, and I know you have good editorial judgment.
Nvm, I have decided to remove the image. (Of course, your opinion is always welcome...but now there's no rush!) Best, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs
Sorry to take a while to get to this. I've been under some heavy drugs that allow me to read for 20 minutes, then shut the eyes off. I will try to take a look at the article within the next couple days. --Moni3 (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! I have tried to make some of the changes you suggested, and have left responses at the FAC page. Best, rʨanaɢtalk/contribs18:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
MOBA aftermath
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I'm curious - have you heard anything else from the MOBA people about how they fared through the April Fools day featuring? Raul654 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Louise Sacco wrote to me again and told me they added 400 people to their mailing list on April 1. They fielded 30 "Is this real?" calls. I mentioned the news stories to her, with very little comment on the one from the Associated Press, and Ms. Sacco ended up writing to the reporter. Seriously - I did not put her up to it. Did you end up hearing about the AP nuttiness? --Moni3 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The AP ran a story with a snide comment that "Wikipedia is even more unreliable than usual today because their main page is full of hoaxes" (or something close to that). Apparently the MOBA people didn't appreciate the AP's comment that they are a hoax any more than we did. Raul654 (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure the reporter missed all the communication on the talk page trying to reconcile the discrepancies from newspapers. Michael Frank wrote to me a few times in early March to point out issues that were flat-out wrong. I hate being wrong, so I replied to him, saying, Newspaper x said it this way, to which he replied that he had no idea why they might have written that. The Boston Globe, The Ottawa Citizen, and The Chicago Tribune were among the sources used that had inaccuracies. Even Cash Peters' book names Louise Reilly Sacco as Elaine or someone. I tried to skate a line between citing everything to a reliable source and what might be considered original research. Reliability my foot. --Moni3 (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
APK bought you some Easter eggs, but he had some mayonnaise that was about to go bad. He decided to make some deviled eggs instead. APK is really sorry about eating your Easter present, but promises to make it up to you on Cinco de Mayo. (although he's likely to drink your present) Happy Easter.
I'm ok with this. You know deviled eggs turns your small intestine into the Running of the Bulls, right? Let's just sit back and watch what happens. --Moni3 (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Everglades
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Moni, I spent Saturday with my family at Shark Valley biking the 15 mile trail. I got some great pictures of Everglades, a turtle laying eggs and quite a lot of birds and alligators. Hoping to contribute something worthwhile to Wikipedia I intended to upload these but after seeing what is already on these pages, I think I'll skip it. I did not realize you brought Everglades to FA - nice article. NancyHeisetalk05:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Sweet. Everglades is not yet FA, but it's still on my radar, as is returning there soon. You should load your images to Commons anyway. It would be nice to rotate some of the images if they portray the same things. --Moni3 (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Gosh I must have been looking at another article you did on Everglades. As far as uploading my pics, OK, I'll do that. I actually got a good closeup of a large snout nosed turtle laying eggs. Most of my alligator pictures don't trump what is already on Wikipedia but I might upload a couple of them just to add variety to the database. NancyHeisetalk20:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
Ms. Moni, I got myself a question 4 u. I've tried locating a guideline related to the usage of image galleries. The only thing I found is rather open to interpretation. Are there any examples of an article with a large image gallery passing GA/A/FA nomination? I found an article containing 3ish paragraphs and 24 images. I'm trying to explain on the article's talk page why the current layout looks unprofessional, but good-faith (fellow WP:NRHP members, so they're automatically cool just like APK) editors want to keep the gallery. Am I incorrect or can large galleries be considered useful to the readers? In case you're wondering (probably not), I'm not trying to solicit an agreement on the article's talk page. APK is a big boy (almost potty trained). He's just a queer who finds image policies confusing. APKis ready for the tourists to leave19:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's my off the cuff guess based on what I've seen in FAs. Galleries logically belong to articles where visuals are integral to understanding the context of the ideas within, like art, museums, and sometimes historical places or buildings. Most art FAs (see the list here) have enough text that the images are interspersed throughout the article, making the gallery unnecessary. Salvador Dali has a small gallery at the bottom. However, you would have to be careful to make sure the gallery images are public domain. For instance, it would not be a good idea to place a gallery of Norman Rockwell's images at the bottom of his article because they are mostly under copyright, non-free images. All non-free images have to have a rationale to include them. FA non-free rationales should be rock solid: this image is here because readers will be unable to understand the information without it. Thus, if it's in a gallery, it's not necessary because there is no text to support why the image is so important.
I'm assuming you took these yourself? In that case, don't worry about the non-free. Are you hoping to add enough information to the article to make the gallery unnecessary?
I reviewed White Mountain art for GA many moons ago (now I see the lead has been gutted...). That has a gallery because it is an entire art movement. Hope I answered your question in my rambling babbling way. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Galleries are a relatively rare issue at FAC; typically there is enough text to incorporate images without a gallery. The most recent time this came up at FAC (that I can remember) was regarding Robert Peake the Elder, where a small gallery of his paintings was rather hotly debated at FAC. The article ultimately was promoted with the gallery, presumably because (1) it had something like 17 other images and (2) the gallery offered the opportunity to incorporate commentary/interpretation/cites. Kind of a backasswards answer, but a little precedent never hurts. Maralia (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice, only took you 3 minutes to come up with an FA that I didn't remember. And I reviewed that one, too. Jerkface. Maralia (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
O gentle and meek Maralia. What has caused you to overlook such a significant article? Is there something about the article, nay...painting? that you have completely erased from your mind? What mental trauma has caused you to bleach the episode from your consciousness? Inquiring minds want to know. --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Gah! Yes, that needs some assistance. Ideally, an article about an architectural movement should use each image to illustrate an integral component to the style or the formation/evolution of the style. As it is today, Richardsonian Romanesque has very little text and a lot of visuals. If you would like to take on this article and expand it, I would leave the gallery in until you have enough text to employ images to illustrate each important concept. What is leftover can be placed in the gallery. If you feel the gallery is very helpful for the reader, then you should stick by your guns and say when reviewers at GA or FA suggest getting rid of the gallery to keep it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Gracias mi amiga lesbyterian. I mentioned your obvious solution on the talk page. BTW, I didn't even notice someone else had replied to my original comment. So thank you as well, Maralia. Your user page reminds me of North Kakalaki. My best friend's family owned a condo in Carolina Beach. We stayed there almost every weekend during the summer college break. During low tide, we could see the remains of a shipwreck. (not that one) Random comment, I know. But the Lord laid it upon my heart to share this moving story. APKis ready for the tourists to leave20:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You're quite welcome, APK, and I'm totally with you on 'userpages remind me of random things'. Yours puts me in mind of Krispy Kreme in the DJ booth at Tracks, back when I was young and justifiably stupid. Ah, the olden days! Could you be persuaded to make an appearance at a DC meetup? I think you're fucking hilarious.
A thousand apologies, my dear. APK didn't notice your reply/question. He was removing lovely rumors from a talk page, etc. (the talk page of every Wikipedian's favorite media mogul) I attended the May 2008 DC meetup, but was unimpressed by some of the admins' trash-talking of fellow editors. I might attend a future meeting. Is there one planned for the near future? We met at Uno's-Union Station in May. I suggest meating meeting somewhere a bit more, uh, lively. (APK is trying to imagine User:Newyorkbrad tipping Ella Fitzgerald) APKis ready for the tourists to leave05:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Did I drink more than I thought? Criminy. I was the only girl there at the beginning (another came later). Perhaps more memorable: I came with a handsome Italian guy, poofy black hair, spent a fair amount of time talking to the reporter. We were at the far end of the table from Kirill, Raul, and SwatJester; more people arrived later and tables were added on, so we ended up in the middle. We went to Cap City with a smaller group after dinner. It was a rare night off from being mommy, so I probably made an ass of myself. Maralia (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Got time for a little Balzac?
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Gainesville! I thought about you during my recent spring break, since it was all cold and frigid up here in Wisconsin and several of my students went to Florida. (I ordered them to visit Gainesville, but of course they stuck to Orlando and Daytona.) Anyway, I recently finished reconstructing my latest Balzac article, La Cousine Bette. I'd be honored if you'd care to look at it and offer some comments. Thanks in advance and kudos on the whole MoBA front page thing! Scartol • Tok12:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Whoa. Start class, whatever. I just looked at that article and Start class my fat behind. I'll give it a read, just to give my opinion. I've never read this book, but that doesn't stop me from making an opinion. Would you like to give a PR for my latest, a local history article called Rosewood massacre? I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm interested in Rosewood, so I'll totally check that out. I only just put that reconstructed page up in the main namespace, so I think it hadn't been re-rated when you looked at it. And you didn't know about Balzac's time machine? (Thanks for catching those typos.) Yknow, Figureskatingfan made the Music Man reference too. I guess I don't have a choice. I'll check it out soon. Scartol • Tok19:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I was wondering if you would be able to offer me some advice regarding the Susanna Clarke article. It is the first living author biography I've tried to write on Wikipedia (you have already tackled this beast). The sources are a bit thin and I was looking for some wisdom regarding other avenues for research and some suggestions regarding article organization (in addition to the usual peer review stuff). I'm not sure I like how I've structured the article. If you could offer some thoughts on the article talk page, I would really appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Were you thinking of making this FA, or just scouting the possibilities? I worked on Ann Bannon's article when I was just learning what I had available at my fingertips in terms of sources. I was lucky in that her story is compelling enough that she's been the subject of quite a bit of writing, but 30 years had to pass between the publication of her books and the first analysis of their influence. I've worked on some others, such as Marijane Meaker (which probably could be brought to FA, but I haven't read most of her pulp fiction books or her children's novels) and Gale Wilhelm that I've pretty much reconciled will remain start or B class articles.
I did a search in the databases here (which is dangerous because I wander all over the place when I do that), and found quite a few reviews. I don't know if you don't have access to these. The database Literature Resource Center yielded articles, reviews, and a biography. An article in Library Literature & Information Science, but not much else. If I get all serious about getting an FA on something, I almost always contact an expert in the field. In the case of Ann Bannon, I contacted her directly and made the priorities of neutrality and COI clear, but asked if she knew of sources I could use. She had some listed on her website. The Museum of Bad Art had all of their press mentions listed (was a huge list, too). These nudges were helpful in that each source mentioned another somewhere. Does Clarke have a press or literary agent? Might it be possible to contact the agent to assist with some citations you could hunt down?
As for the arrangement of the information, I think what is in the article is appropriate for the amount of information available, or at least what you have read. If you find more information, or more gets published, it might be worth it to revisit the structure of the article when that happens. I wish I could be more help to you. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think GA is as far as this article can go. I'm not particularly keen on taking BLPs to FA, since their lives are still unfolding and thus the article is constantly in flux. Clarke is not mentioned in academic sources yet - I've had to rely on reviews so far (and, let me tell you, those reviews are skimpy!). I will try contacting her press agent - that is a good idea. I'm also going to try and get a better image from her or her agent (here's to hoping). Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Might I mention how fun your talk page is? Mine is full of serious topics like plagiarism. I need to live a little. Awadewit (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Riffraff, all these people. Or Palm Springs per Robert Mitchum, who said jail was like Palm Springs without the riffraff. Or Truvy's hair salon from Steel Magnolias without Sally Field freaking out and wailing about death or something.
How is it Sally Field fits into almost any reference to anything? Like Kevin Bacon's six degrees of separation, Sally Field has a 10 minutes until you mention a Sally Field role. --Moni3 (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello nurse
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Ready for your sponge-Bob bath?
Heard you had something lanced, peeled, tucked, shaved, trimmed, scoped or otherwise altered so wanted to be sure the nurse (shark) came by to kiss any booboo you may have. -- Banjeboi23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, how comforting that image is... Yeesh. Is no problem. I haven't had cartilage in my knees for a while, so I got bilateral arthroscopic surgery to remove the rough parts of the joint. Not very invasive, but my knees are adjusting to how to walk again. I hope to be able to run stairs in a few weeks. Yay! --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I dunno. I haven't been able to walk more than a flight of stairs in several years. I'm too young for this kind of disability mindset thinking. I don't like being limited. --Moni3 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
hey, how have thing been going since the whole MOBA whirlwind? If you have a chance, i have been having a tough time with doing references and other small things on the article I am currently working on, Sacred Cod of Massachusetts. Would you be able to just take a quick look at the page and tell me if I am citing things corectly? i have fixed the first three cites and want to know if I am headding in the right direction. If you are to busy I understand, no biggie.--Found5dollar (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't responded, Found5dollar. I will look at your citations soon, I promise. Interesting looking fish uh, article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Milk and White picture
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you don't mind participating in the discussion a little bit more before threats are issued it would be much appreciated Gang14 (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, discussion is the way to go. Everyone has to start somewhere, including learning about non-free images. I really don't like being a complete whore warning then reporting users for 3RR, but the resolution is in the discussion, not reverting to a version that policy says is wrong. Yes, there are dozens of images of Milk that would be great to have. I contacted several photographers to ask them permission to use their images in this article, but they turned me down because they own their images and they get paid for their craft; it's their prerogative to say no to giving their work away for free. I even downloaded and tried to use images taken by Harvey now owned by the San Francisco Pubic Library, but their non-free rationales were not strong enough for a featured article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Susan Boyle
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Kee kee. I made a point of saying to the students, "Seriously people, he needs some science work. Give him something to do." They tittered. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Maybe this should continue via email, but I'll start it here. In my RFA back in March, you opposed because of my lack of judgment, along with several other editors, and I agree it was well worth it. I've had a lot of RL work on my hands, so I've procrastinated this for a while. What do you suggest to work on to fix my compromised judgment? I figured I would start it here, since you're the probably the oppose I'm most familiar with (if that makes sense at all). Ceranllama chat post22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I'm doing this for the community benefit, not for self-gain. I'd like to make that clear.
I don't participate in RfA much. I seem to miss editors I know, and most of those up for RfA I have had no contact with. So it's a rarity that I commented at all. Initially, I hoped to spark a discussion. I know that's a foreign concept at RfA beyond "You suck!" and a string of acronyms that are impossible to figure out. I hoped that you would participate to indicate your advancement within the past year. I've made some wince-worthy edits when I didn't understand what I was doing. Making mistakes is ok; I wanted your input on it. The lack of discussion is what disappointed me.
So what is your own opinion of your judgment? How would you characterize your growth from the time you started to the period I made reference to in your RfA (the passing of GAs that were clearly not ready) to the past 2 months?
It is difficult to ascertain from every editor I come across what their priorities are. An ideal admin, in my opinion, is here to add content and does not see having admin abilities as a token of status or popularity. Unfortunately, when the process is made so freaking difficult and arbitrary, it's almost impossible not to see becoming an admin a rite of torturous passage. Among admins who are familiar with content expansion, I would like to know that content is their highest priority, and that they are able to assess when an agenda or other motivation is clouding an editor's judgment. I believe that acquiring GAs got in your way some months ago. Whether that was due to age or your relationship with EotW I cannot say, but article content was clearly not your priority. It's ok, you know, to say that you screwed up for whatever reason, back when you were passing poor GAs. You may have been busy in your real life during the RfA, but the lack of discussion and participation in your opposes was, unfortunately, a sign that you are not ready to dedicate some time and effort in addressing those issues. --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I just wanted to clarify that. Also I hope you and other editors have come to appreciate the enormous growth of maturity I have undergone since then. Back when I was passing [low-quality] articles as GAs, I had no purpose for editing. I just let my attitude flow into whatever I was doing. Of course, now, I would like to think I have a purpose here-expanding earth sciences articles. I'd like to focus primarily on them, from now on, rather than getting involved in the politics of RFA and the rest of the bureaucratic side of the wiki. As I pointed out in an email to WereSpielChequers (my nom), I don't think I'm really interested in running for an RFA after three months until I can be sure my judgment is not severely compromised, as suggested in my RFA. Something tells me I'm not cut out for the job-even if others offer to nominate me, I intend to decline, at least within the next six months. Sorry if you felt I wasted your time. Ceranllama chat post19:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Today's drama brought to you by ...
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
In the flattery department I copied the guidelines for safer sex practices but now a user is slapping {{howto}} and suggesting we're giving medical advice that's not proven not to be bad ... I know, like ants at a picnic. Anyhoo would you visit here and offer some kindly insight. They may be correct but they may be, not so much. Any ideas appreciated. -- Banjeboi00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings about it either way. I knew the same quote box in the Lesbian article might not fly and I was surprised when it was allowed in GA. It can be argued either way, but I think this is a matter for policy to decide, not consensus in the MSM article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Opened a thread here, but I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place. An RfC is imminent on this issue I think. --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
We're making progress with a title change. If we can understand the issues better we might also add a footnote of some sort. I think WP:VPP might be more helpful but as were making headway I'd say hold off momentarily to see if we come up with any more solutions. -- Banjeboi15:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Question for Moni3 from Dr. Fanucci's student
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Moni3,
I'm a student in Dr. Fanucci's course and my article title is "Ethanol Induced Non-Lamellar Phases in Phospholipids". I notice that when i click on my topic from the group page nothing appears and it says that I'm currently editing. Yes, I am editing the page but I don't understand why nothing appears on the page at all since I have submit information for readers to make edits before my final submission.--Dream22 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Dream22
I think I figured out the problem, I think the link on the class page did not use proper capitalization of the titles. I find this aspect of Wiki quite frustrating that if the page is named Site-directed spin labeling, but you type Site-Directed Spin Labeling, the software cannot recognize that they are the same pages. I change the capitalization of the link to the "Ethanol Induced Non-Lamellar Phases in Phospholipids" on the Wikipedia:UFCHEM site and the link now goes to the page that is listed on Dream22 page. Please let me know if I have solved this problem for you. --Gfanucci (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That is easily fixed with a redirect, which I can do quickly. Just indicate which of the article titles are like that and I'll fix them. --Moni3 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I don't think there was ever a real page created with the mis-capitalization. When we typed it into the class page, it was not typed correctly. I do not think there are 2 pages with the same names, does the redirect work for any misspelling? Should we create redirects for any topic that someone might search in an alternative word choice (like a cross listing in the old card catalogs for searching libraries?)--Gfanucci (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it generally works with capitalization, unless the spelling is so off it is commonly misspelled by many people or there is a general difference in British/American spelling, such as anaesthesia and anesthesia. Creating a redirect would help if others come along after you and want to add more to the article. Be advised I'm communicating with Tim Vickers regarding the merging or possible deletion regarding Membrane receptor and Transmembrane receptor. On his talk page, and in the thread below. --Moni3 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Afterthought
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! I'm still working on the lipid rafts page and I am still having trouble with my references. The main problem is that the same reference is listed 5 or 6 times with different numbers. Could you please help me with this? Thanks!
The hope
Hi Monni3. I uploaded the image successfully, But in my discussion, I'm classified under the molecular biology project while I'm under the Ufchem project. I don't know if I can correct this.
Thanks
clarification from idevera
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Perhaps I was misunderstood about what page I'm going to edit. I'm not editing the Second Messenger Systems page but the Lipid Signaling page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_signaling. When I clicked the link in the Articles and Members section of our Biomembranes wiki page, I was surprised to know that I was assigned to edit a different page. The article on Second Messenger Systems is a very broad topic since it encompasses basically all types of second messengers. Whereas the page I'm proposing to edit is more focused on lipid signaling, with a section on second messenger lipids--the same topic I presented in class.--Idevera (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
question from gfanucci
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
OK, to chat with you and ask questions, is this the correct format to use? I ask because I am not quite sure how to respond to Matt's question as he didn't make a page for himself, if I leave something in response, do I just click on his talk page link and write back? Will he see it?
thanks for this help, I hope that we can pull this off and have something respectable by the end of the semester!--Gfanucci (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
ALso, I can't seem to find the page you set up for the course. There is nothing on the UF Biomembranes page that is linked from my user page...and I am traveling, so I don't have my notes with me...help? Only one student has put something on my talk page. I hope they start moving on this. Oh, when you answer questions on my talk page, how do you know things are posted there? are you constantly watching it? SHould I respond on that page or on your page?--Gfanucci (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
So, it appears that some bots are going around after students are editing and uploading figs. I have noticed some problems with figure liscencing, so if I find something that looks OK, but a bot says it is not OK, I will contact you; as I think you will pay attention to my notices more than the students will! smile. Can you check out the Lipid signaling page discussion to see if the problem with the figure was addressed? --Gfanucci (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not my wish. I have no idea how close these issues are. I'm concerned that a merge will be imminent and the students will lose their edits. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you fill me in on this? Who is editing membrane receptor page or transmembrane receptor page? I don't see this listed on the class site and no one has emailed me with this topic. Perhaps I can provide an additional perspective?--Gfanucci (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
A merge won't happen without notice and discussion, so there is no hurry and no chance of this deleting somebody's work. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Gfanucci's talk page, the last two to sign up indicated they will be editing Membrane receptor in lieu of Transmembrane receptor because Transmembrane receptor was not organized the way they wanted, as I understood it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is very little content in transmembrane receptor, so merge at some point in the future would be relatively simple. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Wlstutts
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your help! I think I got it. Now I have a new question...some how I was logged off wiki during my editing, so now all of my most recent edits are showing my IP address. Is there a way I can change that to just show my user name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlstutts (talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Now to lighten the tone a little and talk about......
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
(in best Bill Hicks impersonation) ...racism. I saw Person of color and figured it may be best merged into racism as it came across as so entwined with the phenomenon it may be better discussed in context of the latter article - however, I am not American so input from locals may be much appreciated as to whether I have missed something. Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In my best layman's opinion here, "Person of color" is a 1990s euphemism for anyone who is not white. While it got its fancyness in that decade, it hasn't quite died out. If the Wiki community is hot to merge it somewhere, I would suggest Political correctness instead of racism. The term reflects more the phase of inclusiveness we all remember so well. But ask others. I suggest going to WP African Diaspora and posing it there. --Moni3 (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Moni3, especially after running into you yesterday, I've decided to stop by and mention something. I did sleep on the matter, so I'm not just impulsively coming here and blabbing "did you know". Since you're an admin., you're fully aware of AGF, and I hope that you'll do so in this case. To the point, there is a guideline being drafted:
I posted at CENT, AN, and Village pump, but thought perhaps they were not pages you watched. I noticed in my travels that you were friends with Jeff, or at least you knew him through his work here. A recent letter from Jeff's mom is what finally pushed me to the point that I wanted to make sure you were aware of the discussion. David Shankbone posted the letter at the bottom of the proposal; so, if nothing else I thought you may want to read that. I'm not trying to canvass you into adding your opinions on the items being considered, but if they were something that you'd be interested in, and I didn't mention it to you - then I would be the one in the wrong. I noticed several other people who knew Jeff, but haven't edited the proposed guideline as well, since you are an admin, I'll leave that to your discretion as to whether or not to inform them of this as well. I did notice one other admin. that knew Jeff, so I may drop a note at Keeper's talk as well, but outside that - I think it better that you mention it to anyone else that may be interested. Again, if you are already aware of this proposal, and just didn't care to add your thoughts - please forgive me, and feel free to disregard or even delete this message. I promise you, I'm making this post with only the best intentions in my heart. Best wishes, Ched. — Ched : ? 16:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
MBChandl is in need of some guidance
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey!
I just got done uploading all three of the subsections I updated for Lipid Polymorphs. I'm confused on how to format them properly and how to site my sources properly! The three sections I updated were on micelles, bilayers and hexagonal phase lipids. If you could take a quick look at them for me and give me some pointers, that would be great. Also, I'm having difficulty with uploading some pictures as well. Thanks for you help! MBChandl (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey. The article currently has no section dealing with parenting and reproduction but you may be interested in this: "Lesbian and bisexual youth are up to seven times more likely to get pregnant than their heterosexual peers, a study of British Columbia students has found." Vancouver SunPhoenix of9 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It seems like many of the figs that the students have uploaded have very poor resolution. Can you help with this technical detail? they likely have to save the file with higher resolution but I am not sure exactly what details to give them. In anycase, it is all good practice for them because these will be the same problems/issues they deal with in writing manuscripts and their Theses/Dissertations.--Gfanucci (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I suspect it is related to the type of file, whether it is jpg, svg, or png. I can ask an image expert, but it might take a day or so to get an answer. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Links
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ah yes, I've actually added information to two separate areas. I tried adding information to the bilayer page, and did, but didn't realize that what I was adding to the wrong section. A "phospholipid bilayer" page was already in existence so someone deleted everything I had added to the "bilayer" page.
Awadewit is so nutty. Is she making up stories again? She must be watched closely at all times... Regardless of my peer review oddities, I will give it a look. Only because it has to do with nekkid people. It might take me until tomorrow, though. --Moni3 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Oooh, I know you! I sent you a message awhile ago because I loved the work you did on And the Band Played On, which is one of my favorite books. Anyway, glad to know you also enjoy the song, it's one of my personal favorites (Which is why I decided to completely re-write the article.) I'll get to work on your concerns, however I added everything I could find, so I won't get my hopes up on the meaning of the lyrics. More comments about your expansion concerns are available at the GAR, and I hope you check them out as soon as you have free time. Thanks for the review! :) CarpetCrawlermessage me02:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I see that you have warned User talk:Levineps about his rampant and undiscussed splitting of articles. Well, what he's done now is split every single NFL team's article to a "Logos and Uniforms of Team" page. He did not make a single discussion post, nor left a single edit summary. I strongly feel that these splits were absolutely inappropriate: he did not improve any of them, leaving them unreferenced and of poor quality; many of the team articles are not long and do not need tobe split; and logos and uniforms are not notable enough for their own article. I went and reverted most of these unnecessary, unexplained splits, and then Levineps just undid every one of them with no comment, no question of me, nothing. I would really appreciate it if you could get into this and even block this user, as youhve warned him. Thanks, Reywas92Talk21:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I will be remerging these articles now. There's really no reason to have so many excessive articles. And these football ones aren't even nearly as bad as this: [4]/[5]. Reywas92Talk21:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Moni3, I believe he is now doing the same with his IP address: Contribs. Ironically, he commented on my talk that I really have to use the talk page. Thanks, Reywas92Talk20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Is this anon IP just undoing your edits or splitting articles? Looked at a few contribs and didn't see the splitting pattern Levineps has done. Levineps was not the initial splitter of History of Thursday Night Baseball, although both that article and Thursday Night Baseball look poor. I can't tell if the history section was supposed to be a part of the parent article or what. --Moni3 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, undoing my edits. That history article should be within the main article; it was linked to as a subarticle. I have now merged them and created threads on the talk pages of the main articles. If you don't mind, it would be great if you could give some input. Reywas92Talk20:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Moni, do you know about our first woman, and gay, poet laureate? Her article needs some work and I think you might be the perfect editor for the job. Just a thought, Graham. Graham ColmTalk22:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw the announcement, but I don't know who she is. Let me peek at her article and see what can be done with the resources I have. I may have to recruit someone else for the poetry thing. Ogden Nash remains my favorite. After Ogden, I am unable to determine quality of poetry at all. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker - neither am I wrt to quality, and this is about my level:-) As I said—it was only a thought. Graham, Graham ColmTalk22:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
See, I came here to tell you that I've (finally!) signed up to review Rosewood massacre in all of his horrible, nightmare inducing glory, but now all I'm thinking about is poetry. I love Duffy, and can't recommend her enough -- even to someone who isn't very poetically inclined. :) I wrote a 15 page paper on her brilliant The World's Wife collection (my favorite is "Tiresias's wife") while studying contemporary poetry in England, and "Warming Her Pearls" is one of the most gloriously sensuous poems ever written. In short, she's super cool and I was pretty "chuffed" to think of her as the newest poet laureate across the pond. Check her out, if you ever get a chance. María(habla conmigo) 20:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Clearly there is a better candidate to take on the Duffy article. I am keen to get Rosewood massacre reviewed, however. What to do, what to dooooo? --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Dude, don't you know I concentrate all of my literary research on dead people? Math Writing articles about people who are still alive is hard. You've got to, like, update them and stuff. I have a hard enough time updating the antics of polar bear celebrities. (Note to self: do that.) Beginning review soon... María(habla conmigo) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Such considerations I should have undertaken when I was contemplating writing articles on existing, moving, and living ecosystems. My poor Everglades National Park article is in dire need of updating. Fools write articles that require constant updating. Fools! --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
hey girl hey
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was looking at the FA queue (congrats), and noticed several unlinked words in the lede/lead/weed. Is that intentional or should I add wikilinks? Yes, this is a newbieish question. I'm only asking because APK is unfamiliar with the FA prep process. Feel free to point and laugh. (Mama said they were gonna laugh at me)APKstraight up now tell me07:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Hahah. Congrats. I saw that the bot added the main page template for tomorrow and I made the same sound Homer Simpson makes when Lisa wants him to take her to the museum. <looks around furtively> and for a moment contemplated removing all the citations...
Anyhoo... it depends. When that article was promoted there was a push for linking minimalism at FAC. Like Scandinavian design, I guess. So whatever is essential to the article's understanding is linked, and linked only the first time. It will stay that way until minute one the moment it goes live, and it's anyone's guess what will happen to the article then. If you want to link, by all means, go nuts. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
You know you're a bit jaded when you see GimmeBot put that on the talk page and shout "Crap!" But I copy edited it a bit and updated... Yee haw. I predict the response will be negligent compared to what I hope to have on the main page on June 28.--Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
We're all a bit jaded. I had two articles on the main page in quick succession, so I ended up saying "Another one?" :) I can't wait to see Stonewall on the main page - that is such a good article. Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd forgotten what a fine article this is, Moni3. It's every bit as informative and pleasurable to read now as it was the first time I encountered it. Although I admit I would rather they'd chosen the picture of the three spoonbills as the image. You go, girl. Risker (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all. It's a quiet article. I hope it gets more earnest readers than vandals today. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Very nice job. Congrats! BTW, I haven't forgotten about the related Hamilton Disston GAC. I got "made" over at Commons and have been trying out the shiny new buttons there. This weekend I'll try to carve out some time. Wknight94talk13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no rush. Congratulations on the admin at Commons. Hope it comes with less drama than adminning here. Thanks for your comments! --Moni3 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
GA Sweeps invitation
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.
We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Great comment
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I really enjoyed reading your essay and decided to add it to the User essays category so it can have wider exposure. Hope you don't mind. -- OlEnglish(Talk)01:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Due to
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Moni, long time no speak. Personally, I think "due to" is overused in some texts, and some (perhaps not all) changed to "because of" or "since". What is your view? On that subject, do you share my misgivings about the use of "as" (in its meaning of "because")? Occasionally it's clear, but my feeling is that often its dual meaning of "while" or "because" has to be reverse-disambiguated by the reader. A faulty little nook of English? Tony(talk)14:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's interesting that I have worked with copy editors who regularly make my plain language read smarter and they drop their pearls of wisdom on me and I feel as if my writing style is primordial sludge to their evolutionary marvels. Scartol's advice never to start a sentence with "There" had me dumbfounded. Other common sense tips on your interactive sentence strengtheners were more "duh" moments. Now I must limit the use of "due to". What is surprising is that I had Scartol, Dank55, and others pore over the article in which the anon IPs changed the due tos. How strong is the faction of grammar wonks who must cloak themselves in anonymity to copy edit FAs for mention of things being due to other things? I'm imagining an entire V for Vendetta kind of grammar-propelled secret society. --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking into the whole "Don't start a sentence with 'there'" thing, and it seems that I've been pushing a narrow ideological preference under the guise of a consensus guideline. In fact, my Warriner's Fourth Course grammar textbook includes directions for diagramming sentences beginning with "there", as close an endorsement of the acceptability of this practice as I can find. So I guess it's a personal problem that I've got. (Apparently Grammar Girl does too, but Woe is I says it's a silly rule.) I'll try to be less dogmatic in the future. =) Scartol • Tok18:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I have made changes to the article to address many of your concerns, and I will continue to take care of the handful that remain. Would you mind taking a look at the page and checking it against your list, to see how it is progressing? I took your list of concerns and turned it into a checklist, complete with the status of my actions for each one of them. Also, in the section below that where we were discussing images, I asked a question about potential replacements for one of the images you were concerned about. When you get a chance, please review these and offer feedback on how i'm progressing on getting it to a solid GA-class.
UPDATE: I've made the image fixes, which I think were some of your biggest concerns. Please review them and let me know what you think of how its progressed so far.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi - Several editors involved in the IfD are edit warring over the inclusion of the photo in the violence article. Would you look at it and take whatever action you feel is appropriate. Regardless of the debate about the fair use inclusion, the edit war is unhelpful for everyone. Since you commented in the IfD, you are more aware of the context involved, but if you would rather not get involved, I will understand and will post at ANI. — Becksguy (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm watching it now. It seems to have slowed down, and if it picks up again I'll protect the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Possible homophobia
Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion
In response to your ANI concerns, I will put this up for analysis: I work as a Catholic Apologist, which means that I actively defend the Catholic Church and their positions in many ways (promotions, articles in the newspaper, opinion columns, etc). I have always acknowledged this and have CoI'd myself from many articles here. My statements on Wikipedia Review were an explanation of the Church's stance. In it, I stated that the Church believes that marriage is only for reproduction and sex is only for children. This does not make any claims about sexuality, nor does it distinguish heterosexuals from homosexuals. I was also challenged about those who are heterosexual and cannot have children (which also should not marry, and, if they find out that they married but cannot have children, this is grounds for an annulment or, if they stay married, they are called to be chaste). In the Church's belief, all humans are children of God, and all are called to Chastity. Yes, people sin. Yes, people can seek forgiveness and redemption. The Church has no problems with platonic love in any form.
Now, for my personal actions on Wiki, I have always tried to be considerate of different people's views. I have even worked with Haiduc in improving an LGBT article that I saved from AfD. Our dispute was not about the sexuality of the individual, but over individual weight given to individual critics (I wanted more Byron criticism sources and he wanted more historical/socio-historical sources). The other disputing with him on the page about pederasty was merely carry over from some other pages and had nothing to do with our individual dispute. We have since gotten that page to GA level. I have also worked on many other LGBT pages and I have no problem with them. Many of the authors I have written about have long documented homosexual experiences. I have also spent a lot of time discussing with and working with many prominent homosexuals, bisexuals, etc, of Wikipedia on IRC in order to ensure that characterizations were fair. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm a convinced Quaker, and I have to admit that sometimes I would like to post "Get the gun!" at ANI. Follow my bouncing ball, if you will. I think it would be interesting to poll editors on Wikipedia to find out the age range and predominant sex at different forums and Wikiprojects. What that might imply, I don't know, but it's my distinct impression that 17-year-old males dominate RfA. I don't understand the preoccupation by people at RfA to undermine other editors. Though you don't seem to be able to say "Whatever" to comments made at or near you, I can't figure out wtf is going on at RfA most days of the week. I try to devote some energy to untangling the woven webs of crap, but generally I just can't muster up the care. Content editing is so much more fun.
Seriously, you should try it: "So what?" It's liberating.
Reminds me of Julie Brown's song "Cause I'm A Blonde": "I know that other people are smarter than me, but I have this philosophy: So what?"
I am 26, by the way. I also frequent RfA in order to at least put an effort in ensuring that problematic admin that disrupt the content building of those like Malleus do not get through. I have also witnessed many techniques and patterns used to game the system, so I look out for that. I have had a lot of experience witnessing the damage that bad admin can do about here, so it is more than just "so what". Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
(total change of pace, sorry Ottava...) I adore that song, but now I'm going to be hearing it in my head all day... dang you Moni! Ealdgyth - Talk18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Rock on, Ealdgyth. I've been working on a song article recently. It's awesome. Were I so inclined to try to post my crackpot theories into articles, it would be in the Creativity article (I haven't even read it) that would state an essential element of creativity is monetary, emotional, or social poverty. People who are forced out of the normal working parameters find other ways to work. Blacks and gays are two groups that have exhibited extraordinary creativity in American culture because they have been excluded from mainstream expressions of what they hold most dear. It's not limited to such marginalized groups, though. Anyone who rejects a faulty system and makes his own parameters is creative. Get enough of that will to screw what is wrong and work in your own realm and history is made. The caveat is forming a direction. Without it, telling the faulty system to screw itself is just cranky, not creative. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"People who are forced out of the normal working parameters find other ways to work. Blacks and gays are two groups that have exhibited extraordinary creativity" – no, no, no. What's true for some subcultures in 20th century America isn't true for other times and other places; the driving force of social, artistic and political change is and always has been the idle rich. Artists starving in garrets, well, starve. Click on random biographies of prominent historic artists, and count how often you read the words "the second son of Lord…" or "his father, a wealthy…" (poor sharecroppers can't afford to put their kids through art school, and even if they could couldn't spare them from the farm). What differentiates post-war Western society from any other is that mechanisation, the decline of social hierarchy and vastly increased literacy have put more people in a position where they have free time to do "their own thing", and the basic framework abilities to do so competently. (Personally, I'd question the whole "blacks and gays" thing anyway, even in the current climate; for every Motown legend or super-hip NYC scenester, there are a million ordinary Joes and Josephines just trying to pay the rent. The whole "gays are so artistic" thing should rightly have died with Oscar Wilde.) – iridescent21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You're going to make me write the entire creativity article right here, aren't you? Ok, it is true that there are elements of creativity that must be present: time (for Aristotle, that means time was created by slaves; now time is created by machines), access to a wide array of infuences, and an inherent talent that is individual and not ascribed to groups. But what I am most interested in is how an individual takes on what s/he learns as a member of a group and changes it into something new and revolutionary. It is my belief, due to my observations, that people who have a searing desire borne of living without, added with the three other elements are the most creative. One of the recurring themes on The Actors Studio is that every interviewee who has appeared on that show has either lost a parent or had parents who divorced or left. Being marginalized does not create talent. Being talented does not equal creativity. Creativity comes from seeing what lacks and desiring that something better should fill it. I am in no way romanticizing financial poverty, but there is a soul-altering sadness in poverty and disenfranchisement that revolutionizes human expression, because those who have been rejected by the mainstream in turn reject the mainstream. I am not suggesting that only poor or sad people can be creative, but I am becoming convinced that truly content people will or can not be the kind of creative that affects society deeply. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Not convinced. If anything unifies great original artists/philosophers/scientists/engineers (the four blur together until the 20th century), it's that something happened at some point to lodge the twin (related) ideas "there must be something more than this" and "I can do something to make that something happen". The first is indeed often a corollary of poverty or disenfranchisement (but can equally well be a product of religious training – cf. Darwin, Vivaldi, Newton); the second generally requires some permutation of free money or free time. I suspect the "disenfranchisement" thing stems as much from the fact that radical change is generally a reaction against something, and people who are comfortably off are less likely to feel the need to react – but those few that do feel the need are so much better placed to do something about it. – iridescent22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
<undent> I see your point, but I cannot discard mine. The study of creativity and intelligence is only about 100 years old. Your references address a period before the study of what makes people intelligent and creative. Though I know science and engineering requires creativity of the sort I'm talking about, I usually concentrate on arts and humanities when bolstering my crackpot theories. Studying creativity in science would be very interesting. Our divergent observations make it possible that my views are distinctly American in that I'm assuming everyone knows that revolution is good, and the innovator should be studied and honored despite class status. This suggests that a compelling element of creativity is a variable. Furthermore, I tend to study creativity that comes not as conscious thought but an uncontainable urge. Much food for thought. --Moni3 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want a starting point (well, a starting-from-a-long-way-already-down-the-line point), I'll recommend the book I recommend to pretty much anyone given any excuse, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Even if think you've no interest in the subject at all, as far as I'm concerned there's never been a better guide to the way art, science, engineering and philosophy blur together (my personal favorite is Niels Bohr, who went from playing for Akademisk Boldklub to unravelling the structure of the atomic nucleus – as with Eilley Bowers, Julian Cope and Amelia Fletcher, I have a great fondness for people who combine two apparently completely unrelated careers); it's also a superb guide to the mentality of people who start off working in obscure fields and end up changing the world, and how and why they react as they do at all the stages along the way. – iridescent22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ya'll suck. Chávez has expressed his desire that "everyone get the opportunity to get their hands on a dickphone". Moni, are you making fun of me because I appreciate the male anatomy? Why do you hate gay people? APKstraight up now tell me00:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of a dickphone, but inside sources tell me this is more accurately translated to "cocksation". Sweepin' the nation. --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh great admin...
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Hi Moni, might I impose upon on you to wield your mop for me? I'd like to know the license template with which File:Johnson house Lichfield.jpg was uploaded. I transferred this image to to the Commons using a bot when Samuel Johnson was at FAC, and I'm concerned that the correct license didn't carry over (the transfer gave a PD-Author template naming Ottava Rima as the author; this is not correct, as OR only cropped the image. Julianboolean was the actual original uploader). Would you mind taking a look at the deleted en.wiki version and letting me know whether the original template was PD-Author for Julianboolean? I just want to be sure it's correct on the Commons side. Here is the log, if it helps. Эlcobbolatalk22:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That image was a little iffy back then (I am always weary about the PD self images), but it had a full name. Full names normally lend some credibility. But yes, Elcobbola should have been an admin years ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Ya, I asked for clarification, diffs, links, whatever was available. I'm not following this from the RfA so I don't know the intricacies of the discussion from there. All I know is it appears Ottava Rima was accused of using hate speech, and that it may have been homophobic in nature. If that is the case, evidence, please on the ANI page. If not, the comment should be retracted. --Moni3 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Ottava was apparently under the impression that your statement supported his contention that the statement in the Rfa was clearly a personal attack. The virtually unanimous view of others is that when originally accused on the other site, Ottava might have had grounds for complaint, but as an explanation of past occurrences it merely relates what was said in the past, in response to a direct question.
The statement was an answer to an Rfa question, and refers to an incident in the past on another site. He has not been accused of hate speech here, or recently. A reference was made to remarks on the other site which the nominee considered at the time to be in the category of hate speech. Ottava Rima was subsequently banned from that site due to his remarks there. The question asks "15. User:Ottava Rima is clearly strongly opposed to your candidacy. Are you aware of some conflict (resolved or not) between you that would explain his or her continued commenting on !votes? ..." The statement reads, in its entirely, "A: Ottava Rima and I interacted on Wikipedia Review last year. He presented numerous off-topic arguments related to religion and society, and I believed his arguments included hate speech, so I called for him to be banned for the forum for that reason. He was subsequently banned with the agreement of almost everyone on the forum. There hasn't been any other conflict or interaction between us. ". Discussion concerning this has been on the talk page of the Rfa, On ANI here, and again on ANI at WP:ANI#Ottava Rima and the Everyking Rfa, take 2 as well as across multiple talk pages.KillerChihuahua?!?09:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Moni. Congratulations for this article, I loved it too much! I had translated it to pt-wiki and now it´s a feature article there too. Cheers, Pamela SP (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
