User talk:Moni3/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

GA Review update

Hey Moni, I hope you are doing well. :) I was wondering if you have had a chance to look over my responses at Talk:The Most Hated Family in America/GA1 ? I did some research and tried to address your recommendations, but I think that some of the secondary source coverage you are looking for may not exist - I tried in the course of my research to go through all of the available WP:RS secondary source coverage out there about this film. If you need to take some more time, feel free to do so, no worries! ;) Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 07:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuck that

Okay, now it's my turn for some words of encouragement. :) Your writing is brilliant. You are more passionate about your topics than most here, and that makes your writing special. It's a joy to read, and there are unimagined legions of people who have come by and read your work. They've benefited from it and left without a word. I don't know about you, but that's what was motivating me the day I registered for an account. Where else can you get that kind of power? Admins and other functionaries have nothing on the article writer and content builder. You've probably helped thousands of baffled Mulholland Drive viewers alone!

The only way to win is to keep building, keep reviewing, and steady on. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Take care of yourself Moni whatever you do. Travel is always good. Hope those nice deciduous northern hemisphere trees are making nice autumnal shades for ya. Eucalyptus don't do much from season ta season....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I recommend Stonewall riots to so many people--imagine how many have had their consciousness raised by that article! We'll miss you but always welcome you back when you feel like it. I'm always of the mindset that good, long wikibreaks are a necessity if one wants to remain sane. That is optional, of course. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments very much. Please--the template at the top of the page is to inform editors that I may not reply and will not be as active as I have been in the past. It is not intended to invite people to tell me good things about my work to get me to remain actively involved. Andy, I've similarly benefited from the articles I've worked on and I also wish to leave without a word (FAIL). There is no winning, only the same unproductive patterns that I no longer wish to be a part of. Since I can only be responsible for myself, I hope to improve the project by declining to worsen the patterns. As long as I wish, I will maintain the articles I've written.

I hate to seem unreceptive to nice things people say. I strongly urge anyone else to contact me directly through email if you are so compelled to wax lyrical about all my wondrous qualities. Although... I recommend economy of effort and saving yourself the time. Please respect my wishes. Thank you.

Now go write an interesting article. --Moni3 (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to your last sentence = Leavenworth Nutcracker Museum. Enjoy! ;) (P.S. I hope you are doing well.) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• If you won't be needing your sysop bits any more can I have them please? Malleus Fatuorum 13:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Courtesy of The Fat Man (he was indeff'd, I think for calling you an "oddball"); sorry you have to sit through the ad at the beginning, but the words are sincere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

For accuracy, The Fat Man called me "an industrious lesbian oddball from Florida", which cannot be wrong in any way. Perhaps the industrious part, as that seems to be intermittent. If he was indeffed for that, however, whoever did it is a dingus. To be honest, though, I took his talk page off my watchlist (with 1,000 other pages) because he seems to have sailed to the other side of Coherence Lake. I bet that far shore is awesome.

Malleus, transferring them now. Transfer 1% complete. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

How's that transfer going? I dare say, you really shouldn't be missing the antics over at TFM's house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should pass around the blue banner and take turns displaying it. I had it on my page a few weeks ago, and quite enjoyed the few days I was gone before being dragged back. I think wikibreaks are good - I'm very disappointed in the project at the moment, but gradually working my way into a better frame of mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm only up to 2% admin power so far, but already I'm beginning to feel that I'm invulnerable. Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, do you feel an urge to block yourself yet? Kablammo (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Darn, the edit summary made me laugh harder than the post-- that was anti-climactic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a strange thing, I do, yet I'm becoming invulnerable ... does not compute ... does not compute ... does not ... does ... Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, you are now eligible to place one pixel of the rouge admin flag on your user page, if you so desire. Here it is: • --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ain't gonna beg, not gonna do it. But who will I turn to to help me with my bad prose? But you said you'd help me with my articles! First off, there's History of Sesame Street, which you promised to copyedit, and the mommy article Sesame Street, which I'm so afraid of having anyone else look at. Did you know that I finally got the mommy article to at least half-way readable? Someone needs to check it for plagiarism! (Um, bad joke? I feel like Fozzie the Bear asking Kermit if he's funny.) And btw, I directed Amazing Grace to my friend the 80-year old Ursuline nun and described you like The Fat Man. When she asked, "Why are you calling her that?", I said, "'Cause that's what she is!" Well, not entirely true--I called you "the lesbian from Florida." Who's my friend! Okay, I've stopped rambling now. At any rate, I promise that if you help out with The Show articles, you'll encounter zero controversy. And you can do research by watching vintage clips, which will make you happy. Christine (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I'm sure he meant to notify you: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if he also forgot to notify me, as he's clearly characterising me as one of the "troublesome editors who are given to well-spoken incivility". Oh to be a saint like Wehwalt. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador Program

Hi Moni, I'm glad you're interested in hearing more about the campus ambassador program. You can find general information about the program at WP:Campus Ambassadors. You will be paired with a professor at Boston University and help students in his class complete a "Wikipedia" assignment. This will include making an in-class presentation about Wikipedia, holding a lab period to introduce them to the basics of editing, and being available to answer questions from the students as they come up. If you are interested in applying or would like more information just let me know. Thanks! Pjthepiano (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I live in Cambridge and attend H and would be happy to help be a campus ambassador. Basket of Puppies 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest, Basket of Puppies. I'll leave a message on your talk page so we can discuss some details. Pjthepiano (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Pjthepiano, are you able to discuss the amount of time it may take? Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We estimate that 3 - 5 hours each is normal, but the time commitment is a function of the needs of your class and professor. That is, how much time you put in will vary based on how much help your students need. So it could be less than 3 hours/week is what I am saying. Pjthepiano (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The university suggested is 90 miles from me, almost a 2-hour drive. Another one is closer--quite close--but not listed on the Campus Ambassador page. Is it worth it for me to suggest myself for the 90-mile away university? Would it be worth my time or the professors'? Are they looking for serious content editors or more drive-by editors who simply know their way around the site and may be more conveniently nearby? --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The editing that the students will engage in will not be technically demanding so having an unusually depth knowledge of Wikipedia is not required. We're primarily looking for people who are comfortable teaching students about the basics of editing and can clearly articulate answers to questions they may have. 90 miles is a bit of a hike, but you certainly will not have to be on campus every week. I will double check to be sure, but I don't think your distance would preclude you from helping out as long as you are willing to make that drive 3 or 4 times in a semester. That said, even if you can't help out at Harvard (sorry, I mixed up which school you were near) you can still assist the Ambassador Program in some other capacity. Pjthepiano (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

BS

		The Original Barnstar
		Too often great editors like you are overlooked and not given the credit deserved for all their great contributions. So I am awarding you this barnstar to let you know I greatly appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, and please keep up the outstanding work!! CTJF83 chat 03:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good lord

Not you too, my bad, bad, romance gorl. Where you be travelling at? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Moni3, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Moni3/Chernobyl. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Bite me. --Moni3 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, how funny is that! Mostly 'cause I so relate. More ways that this place doesn't reward content editors. It's nice to see that you're working on something, though. Christine (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Something nebulous and indefinable has inspired me to write about a catastrophic disaster brought about by administrative anarchy. It's like a dream of a dream, this inspiration. What could it possibly be? --Moni3 (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

As I tell my daughter, "You're boo-tiful!" I say that because despite everything, you hold onto hope and keep on keepin' on. BTW, it's snowy here in Northern Idaho! Very pretty, and I'm happy to be inside of my warm house. You at least get the sun, even in late November there in Florida. Christine (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't...

...make me laugh aloud in a public place, which is what happened when I read this edit summary. Most embarrassing. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not. Courcelles 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Since when do you care about boners? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Since I started hanging around with you, Sandy. Natch. --Moni3 (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Moni, how is everything going on with you? I am waiting for the day when that ugly blue tag will disappear from your talk page. :( In the mean time, "Bad Romance" is almost ready for FA, and you might wanna check my user page. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Laying off of Wikipedia for a while. Sssh. The more I comment on my talk page, the more people post here. Makes me feel bad not to respond, get caught in cycle of giving a shit about what goes on then frustrated with business as usual.

Best of luck with Bad Romance. The song truly deserves FA. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Wisdom has been Noted

I just wanted to let you know that one of your comments has been included (and attributed to you) as part of my Nuggets of Wiki Wisdom . Thanks, and if you object then let me know :o)   Redthoreau -- (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Revert of Homosexuality Discussion Page

Why did you delete, like, half of the page? Some of it seemed like it was tending towards being a forum for the subject, which is not what a Discussion page is for; however, my addition to the page was to explain an edit I had made. Now it's gone. I'm going to add my part back, unless you have a reason why I should not? Rodney420 (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You copy pasted the article on the talk page, did you not? What was the purpose of such an action? --Moni3 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hope you have a lovely holiday season. I have one request: At least once this season, completely ruin someone's attempt to piss you off. If someone cuts you off in traffic or shits on you at work, just smile and wave and tell them Happy Holidays. Maybe they'll be less of an asshole, even if it's just for the rest of the day. Andy Walsh (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Moni, wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New "Good Romance" Year. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Tis the season...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

	<font=3> Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2011! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Essay

I loved your essay on tagging, Moni. Good stuff; it could be even stronger. Goodness knows I've been noisy about it in places (that odious project called itself "CiterSquad" but it didn't add cites -- it added tags!! And then suppressed criticism by moving "dissenters" off of the main page!) I've thought about starting a Wikiproject "Detaggify", where we organize work crews to search for idiotic, useless, drive-by opinion tags and blowtorch them. After all, many are just someone's opinion -- "this article seems unclear, but then I'm a little drunk. Oh whatever. I think I'll find the 'unclear' tag." "Darn, I don't see any references, but I'm sure our readers are far too stupid to notice that there isn't a reference section. I think I'll add a tag and if I add enough I'll get a barnstar!" By the way have you seen these? This is genius. I've been using them (and contributed one to Sandy's page). (I may join the discussion there, but I don't entirely disagree about tagging bad medical info.) Anyway I just wanted to drop by to say well done; and also that I hope to see the blue banner at the top of this page evaporate some day... Happy new year, Antandrus (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's great work, too, like everything Moni does, but I still have to take the opportunity to rant about med articles needing to be treated as seriously as BLPs :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about that one, Sandy -- maybe we need to separate out several issues (huge amount of stupid and irrelevant tags versus those that flag dangerous problems). Antandrus (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Or elevate med articles to a status similar to BLPs. But I agree, we should sort which tags are actually helpful in article space and when, from which would be better placed on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I know of a real-life issue where a wrong info in medical article tetanus lead to horrific consequences, so yeah I support Sandy's POV that medical articles need extreme importance on par with the bios. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Antadrus: on the "Templates are too discrete" template--ew. And the one below it--lulz. More discussion on med articles to come on Sandy's talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read the essay, and no surprise, it's excellent. I've never understood why, in GACs and FACs, for example, a reviewer will suggest something like, "This word is misspelled", when it takes less time to simply go into the article and correct the bloody typo themselves. That's one of the reasons I find the FAC process so tiresome (and I'm going through one now, with History of Sesame Street. And probably why I don't review more articles, because I just want to do a copyedit on my own rather than spend the time with directions that end up being busy work for the main editor. And probably why I don't put more of my articles through the process. So thanks for stating the obvious, Moni, is your usual adept way. Christine (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to prevent you copyediting an article at GAN or FAC yourself. I very much doubt if I've ever reviewed an article at either without fiddling with it myself. Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of tagging I very much agree with Moni's position. I not infrequently come across tags demanding additional citations, or complaints that an article isn't linked to from any/enough other articles, sometimes years old. I just remove them. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What'd I Say

Moni I hope you don't mind me adding this to the bibliography section. And please, I'm dying to format those books. They are eyesore to me in the unformatted way. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying my referencing style, such as it is, is an eyesore? Though it may be such, it is consistent, and perhaps unfortunately for you, consistently eyesorish in each of the articles I've written. As ever, I am here to be the fly in the your ointment. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My my, did ya get thrown out of the club before the clock struck 12??? :P — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I remember telling her that her non-use of citation templates was a royal pain. Perhaps in penance, six months down the line, I find myself doing an article that needs so many cites that I am doing them in plaintext so the thing will load. Perhaps, though every time I run into it I find myself wanting to add locations to works. Courcelles 06:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example for the essay: Alison Arngrim (Nellie Oleson) on Little House. Uncited BLP, most of it true as far as I can tell by quick googling, but should be deleted per BLP, but I don't have time or interest in citing it. OK, what next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And, here's a loopy example supporting your essay: loopy tagging as uncited, when it would have been much faster and more effective to just delete the trivia and puffery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Truly inspirational. --Moni3 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Sandy, if you have any more thoughts about the medical thing, might you want to continue that discussion? I was thinking about moving the essay to the mainspace. The discussion about med articles can continue there. Whatevs. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Cake

Anyone ask for a slice of cake?

--OO(talk)(useless text here) 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The fruit looks yummy too. Hey, I'm willing to share, you know ;) Geometry guy 22:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Moni, during the GA prmotion of the above article, both you and Casliber felt that the prose of the article could still be improved. How do you think the article has shaped up after my numerous copy-edits? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Vivian Maier (photographer, born 1926).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vivian Maier (photographer, born 1926).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You've been bitten :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Moni3/Archive 18! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First order of business. Lee Greenwood to FA at once. --Moni3 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Lesbian

Sure. As soon as possible. :) We got a bit stuck searching for info about Spain (darned book is never available at the library!), but I can translate the info of South and Central America, no prob. We also have some tiny info on Africa, if you would like that too. Next week sounds ok, or are you in some kind of hurry -GA, FA...-? Happy New Year, in any case. :) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No hurry at all. Article is already at GA, and I don't plan to nominate it for FA. It's just an area that should be expanded. Is there information about Africa the English article does not address? Anything dramatically different?

Because the article is already so long, however, I'm wary of adding a lot of information. I was thinking about changing the Native North and South Americans section to Pre-Columbian, Central, and South America and incorporating the info about native peoples with what the Spanish language sources say. All of China has one paragraph. I know it shortchanges some issues, but the article really is super long.

I appreciate what you can do as usual, Raystorm. Let me know if you need anything. --Moni3 (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What'd I Say

I translated your work in Italian and now is a featured article in the Italian Wikipedia, too. Thank you and congratulations ^^ --BMonkey (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Maestoso! Ray Charles è un dio. --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

your comment at Weir

Actually the dumbest shit ever was your worthless attacking comment. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Who do you think was attacked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the Dumbest Shit Ever meter went right off the scales at that talk page. My comment just tipped it to 6. --Moni3 (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you got anything constructive to add? Something beneficial to the article content? Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read the whole discussion and I'd be hard pressed to add much to Moni's eloquence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think such comments are eloquent you need to get out more. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not in: straight here. But I can still recognize a truly dumb conversation that isn't worth joining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Dumbest shit ever" pretty much sums it up. Just about a year ago several...admins...or Scott Mac all by his fabulous self threatened to block anyone adding the WP:LGBT template from the fucking talk page. Seriously. Dumbest. Shit. Ever. Now, let's wait for the biography to be released before ... what the shit is that? Why are you still on that page? Who are you protecting? Weir, who just announced to .... fuck this. Dumbest shit ever. EVER. --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You appear to hold website role player grudges for a long time, another reason to get out more, If you are interested in improving the article there is also a thread at the BLPn where you can add to the discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wtf is a role player here? Something you made up? And if you want to consider this a grudge, super. We all have different vocabulary to describe what makes sense to us. I remember this as seriously, the lowest point I have ever seen on Wikipedia. To be told by an administrator that WP:LGBT merely watching the fucking article, as if to claim Weir as our own (in our cult, in our territory) was akin to "dogs pissing on lamp posts". Me, I'm so sensitive. Fucking right. My attitude about this is downright shitty.

There's a world of profane language that should be directed at this entire episode. --Moni3 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but lets try to move on and forgive and forget and look at it from an uninvolved position. You claim, "Weir, who just announced to" ... ? thats a bit vague if you support a content addition to the article at this time with the source presented then add an edit request or join in the discussion, otherwise, you input was singularly disruptive and attacking in nature. Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your yes means what, that the entire conversation about this bullshit last year was off the charts stupid? I'm heartened to see that you agree that many editors and admins far overstepped their authority and were completely out of line. I absolutely agree with you.

Pragmatically (at least to me and let's be honest here, we're pretty much in it for whatever we find personally rewarding), my input did exactly what I meant it to: registered my extreme distaste for the recurrence of the same bullshit. Never again do I want to wade into the crap factory that ensued from this talk page fiasco that, like the emesis it was, spread to ANI so that I could see, regardless of how careful I am with sources and neutrality, to way too many dipshits for me to have comfort with, I am just a POV-pushing faggot--as we all invariably are--out to prove my own agenda. Fuck that with a shovel.

Otherwise pragmatically, here's a shitty source--the Associated Press. Certainly, keep this information from the article. Let's not actually inform people on Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Give over , your cite is from six hours ago, we're not a breaking news station at least not about the no massive detail that someone who everyone though was attracted to members of his own sex commented that he was. I have seen deaths take longer to be inserted. Off2riorob (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"Give over"? What language are you speaking here? Are you trying to be obtuse?

Just...what? What???? This is your reason for keeping the information from the article? Wikipedia is not a breaking news station and people's deaths...I mean, WHAT???? The entire imbroglio on the talk page last year indicated there is no interest in ... nevermind. Seriously. Just...I could not be less impressed with you if you were drawing renditions of Harold and the Purple Crayon on the wall with your own feces. --Moni3 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The story has been well cited and added to the article. I an sorry, this is not a big issue for me, I prefer to get over things let bygones be bygones - grow and learn. - move along, freshen up so to speak, tomorrow I will forget about all this and I hope you will too, its only a bit of discussion anyways, I am available for discussion or just ignore me, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that what you prefer? Aw, sharing. Right now I prefer swearing a lot. You should note, of my grudge, all the times I brought it up over and over, taking the various editors and admins to ANI and RfCs and attempting to desysop and get topic banned. Or that I simply let it drop, realized that, much like nature, the editors on Wikipedia simply give not two shits about each other. What I thought of as a community was instead an island consisting of me and a coconut tree. It was a lesson that had to be learned at some point I suppose. To return to the talk page a year later to see the same dumbfuckery continuing well warranted my lunar freakout. So, Zen master, your reasoning sucks. Grow and learn from how mind-bogglingly awful it is. --Moni3 (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to get a grip dude, I was trying to be polite and help you get over your issues, forget about it, my world is unreflected in your grudging rant. Bye. Off2riorob (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This is true. I have no idea what your world is, though I'm concerned it's going to turn out to be a sappy song by Chicago. This doesn't mean that we're not going to date now though, does it? That would really ruin my night. --Moni3 (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

nice, real nice ,. Off2riorob (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope I was able to get my point across effectively. --Moni3 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that you are rude and embittered and full of your own anger. Off2riorob (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what you look for in a woman, isn't it? It's ok. We're still sharing. --Moni3 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, lets agree to get on and perhaps date later if the feeling matures and deepens. Off2riorob (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt it will be a special and precious friendship. Let's not let it die and wither from neglect. --Moni3 (talk)

This is getting ridiculous. What's gotten into you two? Surely Mr. Weir would advocate more petting and less tearing off each other's faces. Ocaasi (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself. Frustration, ennui, and ghost chilis. --Moni3 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Moni, hon, you seriously need some more time off from enwiki. While I totally agree with your (rudely stated) points, your comments and anger at Off2riorob are pointless. And Sandy, you need some time off, too. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Aw hey, they're not pointless. Gosh, it kinda felt really good. Well done, all. --Moni3 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, SatyrTN, I can see where my commentary here was waaaaaay over the top. Looks to me like OfftoRioRob should move along, having not made any point here except picking at a scab over an issue that is now resolved, but where Moni was validated regarding how she was treated a year ago and how dumb it was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, now. Everyone plays their part. Last night, mine was the raving nutter. But it felt quite nice afterwards, like lancing an abscess. Everyone should stick their thumb up the ass of WP:CIVIL every now and then. It's quite liberating. I should do it more often. Off2riorob did a public service here, and for that I think I will send him a check for $1.52 (I'm broke, you know--ire comes from many places, not just from a single experience a year ago) and address him forever more as "Sailor", as in "Hey, Sailor. Need a date?" Being right is so boring. At least I hope my rage bender was entertaining. I thought it was.

Good times. --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Mine was the drunken fool (as I was sober that makes it more abstract ),! - I have fallen out with plenty of people here and made up with some of them too, I certainly am not going to hold this little spat against myself or anyone else - perhaps a good airing is occasionally better out than in, so to speak. I am going to get over myself and stop blabbing so much and focus on content, regards and have a nice day - Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so! I agree, except the "spat" part, which I will characterize as "righteous prophet-like indignation". It makes me feel more important in my dreary little life. See you around, Sailor. --Moni3 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hope so, Hey Sailor! Need a date? - Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Patience and Sarah :D

O hai, I see you created Patience and Sarah. So did I. :D Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw that. Are you involved with the creation of the opera? Or just a fan? --Moni3 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not involved at all; I've only ever heard a little of the music. But I heard about it a while ago, thought it was cool that there's a lesbian opera now, and since it didn't have an article yet... Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard the opera although I love the book. It's a pretty obscure piece, at least I think it is. Would be interesting to see the Met put it on... --Moni3 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

With Patricia Racette and Beth Clayton. :D Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm too plebeian to know a lot about opera. I have to go check out who these folks are. --Moni3 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

They did an "It Gets Better" video, didn't they? --Moni3 (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. They're two married opera singers; Racette is a soprano and Clayton is a mezzo, it'd be perfect! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Vivian Maier

Nice work. --John (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Till Source

What is your reason for the deletion of the source emmetttillmurder.com from the Emmett Till article? It is the most reliable, accurate, and popular site on Emmett Till. (Jordancelticsfan (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

Please read the WP:RS policy and the WP:EL policy, specifically the links to be avoided.

• Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
• Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.

First, calling the site the "definitive internet source on Emmett Till" is impossible and an astonishing claim that instantly calls into question its reliability.

Second, the site is not edited by a third party, as is necessary for any reliable source.

Third, it seems to promote, via the "Speaking Engagements" page, a possible conflict of interest.

There is nothing on the emmitttillmurder.com website that is not in the article already. Linking to it is not inherently necessary. It does not provide a view or aspect of the murder, trial, and outcome that has not already been cited by much better sources.

I'm going to overturn your edits once more. I am now warning you that if you revert my edits you will have broken the WP:3RR policy and you may be blocked. If you revert my edits I will report you to the admin noticeboard. --Moni3 (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Library indiscretions (theft)

Hi Moni, you're semi-retired? Oh no. I was expecting your skills and background would be central to getting the US chapter of the Foundation in collaboration with cultural institutions.

On the Australian non-return of library books – alive and well, I'd say – all I could find was: this rather trashy news clipping. Cheers and hope you are well. Tony (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Tony. That's not quite what I meant, and perhaps this is more telling. Parents and other organizations in the U.S. and Canada sometimes attempt to remove books from public or school libraries, or have the study of some novels removed from school curricula because they feel the book presents something to vulnerable readers that is inappropriate. The American Library Association calls these attempts "challenges", as in ten parents in School District X challenged Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for racist epithets, or Harry Potter for references to witchcraft; it went to a school board hearing and was denied. The end result of a challenge could be that the book is banned from a library or no longer taught.

Does this happen in Australia? Do parents or other organizations attempt to ban novels from libraries or schools? Both the U.S. and Canada have groups who keep track of these book challenges. --Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The same thing has happened with I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou, which has also been consistently named as challenged by the ALA. I'm reading Angelou's fifth autobiography, All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes, now, in my on-going improvement of her articles on WP, and I have to admit that I don't like it nearly as much as her others. I dunno, maybe it's just where I am right now. It certainly isn't as good as Caged Bird, which Moni helped bring to FA here and a good read no matter what the time or attitude. Christine (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider it a barnstar

You dummy, get your act together! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd put it in a nice pretty box or something, but I think you get the point :) Carry on, you dumb pseudo-intellectual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I might also qualify for a $3 bill. As in "queer as..." --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one that I was going to go look for too....but I went to bed instead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

RuPaul

In regards to your removal of Walker, Texas Ranger being wrong, you are actually wrong lol. RuPaul was actually on the show as "Bob". The only thing that was incorrect about what that IP added was the "in drag" part. He was not credited as such, just Bob. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still hilarious. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know it is. I didn't believe it at first either, but I checked on his IMDB page, and to my surprise, Walker, Texas Ranger was listed. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

IMdB is user generated, just like Wikipedia. So the same person with a marvelous sense of humor could have added it both places. Was that your only source for RuPaul's appearance on the show? --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Eww, I didn't even think of that. But no, that's not the only source I have. Here is another. It's in the notable guest stars section. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moni

How are you doing? Hope that ugly blue tag disappears soon. By the way, I saw your comments at WT:GAN regarding User:56tyvfg88yju's edits. Just thought of notifying you, do you remember this darling? 56tyvfg88yju is an alternate account of him only. His comments at FAC are still continuing, and I have informed both Sandy and Andy. Thought of informing you also. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Legolas. Perhaps someday the blue bar will disappear, but my attitude isn't getting any better. Take in point my reaction to 56tyvfg88yju. Without knowing he's Piano non troppo, treating nominators that shittily is just a douchebag move. Knowing he's Piano non troppo, who decided one day to wage a crusade against FAC and quality writing when he has never participated in the process, that just puts his actions into assclown territory. I have serious disrespect for this kind of action. I used to be gracious about some things, but the inevitability of Ponyboy not staying gold (see The Outsiders) is that I'm not sure I will be gracious again. So I must consider if I'm doing any good with my acidic retorts to editors who clearly have no idea what they're doing or if the project is just much better off recruiting a new generation of editors who must learn by trial and error, and I must accept the fact that my time on Wikipedia is nearing its end.

I was told recently, btw, that 56tyvfg88yju is Piano non troppo. I notice no one has remarked much to his talk page to tell him what douchebaggery he has committed. Thank you for notifying me, however. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally share the same opinions as you. On top of that I feel that alternate account of his is being used for abuse, and should be blocked. Dude sucks major ass. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe things will start looking better to you. I've gotten active again after staying away for a while because I got bummed out about some things. I'm trying to mellow out and not let myself get (too) irritated at other editors, and trying to take to heart what I've told myself before, that I can still do something positive in Wikipedia even if I can't bring perfection to everything I touch. :) -- Donald Albury 13:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Moni, there is absolutely nothing wrong in your retorts. Some douchebags really need to be dealt with that way. Consider our wonderful PITA 56whatever. I couldnt stop myself from this. Can you imagine the bloody nerves? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

UU in Uganda

I saw your edit, but the Advocate source is actually from after the event, not before ("Activists assembled by the Unitarian Universalist Church of Kampala met secretly in Uganda on Sunday...") It's also in the Daily Monitor, a Ugandan paper: "The Unitarian Universalist Church of Kampala...held a conference on Sunday..." Neither source gives a lot of detail because details were apparently kept secret for security reasons, but it's definitely coverage after the fact, not an announcement of an upcoming event. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Let me go back and read the Advocate source. There was something about that passage that made me uneasy anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your attempt to warn me about problems you perceive with another editor. But "dingus" is never an appropriate way to describe another editor, allegations of sockpuppetry are themselves offensive (see WP:SOCK), and my talk page is not the appropriate venue for pursuing any sort of dispute you may have with someone else. Take it to ANI, or forget about it, but either way I don't appreciate you using my talk page to abuse other editors whether deservedly or not. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at the lecture, well...no, I don't. I think it's a lecture and I'm not paying attention to you. Lectures replace dialogues when the lecturer assumes s/he is superior. I used to agree with you about the dingus thing but then I spent way too much time here trying to reason with assholes. I compromised this time by calling one a dingus. If you search for 56tyvfg88yju's comments in nominations, you will notice a much more extreme version of what you're doing here. I think the compromise is pretty fair. Anyhoo, continue on with your lectures and nominations. Feel free to return when your views become more complex and you wish you had someone to parse the uncertainties involving the valuable time you spend here. That paves the way for dialogue, growth, and then clearer understanding. --Moni3 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Moni, I've meant to leave a belated thanks here - but it would be quite different than above. This made me laugh, and I thank you for it. Also, thanks for your vigilance. The initial review on Talk:Olivia Shakespear/GA1 is uncalled for and I'm happy to see that maybe that kind of criticism is being toned down. FYI - Malleus has gone through the article again and yesterday reviewed it thoroughly, civilly, and in great detail. It's a better article now. Sorry this took so long - have been busy, but aware of your vigilance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Vigilance=crankiness. I'm glad Olivia has improved with a reviewer who took the time and effort to work with you on it. I keep expecting to realize the exact nature of my displeasure with the way folks communicate here that has frustrated me so much. Then, perhaps, with it so crystal clear in my mind, write a devastatingly forthright essay on how it can all be resolved. Oh, Simplicity. Thou art a beautiful seductress! It's more difficult to grasp that it's not that simple and it will probably never go away, regardless of how devastating I think my essay may be. Yargh. --Moni3 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it just boils down to respect. Reviewers have an analagous responsibility to nominators that administrators have to regular editors, to treat them with respect. Similarly nominators ought to recognise the effort that doing a good review requires, and respect that too. Where there's mutual respect there's rarely a serious problem. Problems arise when the "this is a crock of shit" type comments start flying, or the demands to do something a certain way, because that's the way the reviewer wants it done, regardless of whatever the relevant criteria may say. I always try to distinguish between what I'd do and what needs to be done to get through the review, and I don't demand perfection, unlike too many others. "How could you possibly have passed this article when the dashes in third sentence of the fourth paragraph of the lead do not conform to the MoS?" But even if an article is a crock of shit, there are more helpful and constructive ways of pointing that out to someone who has probably invested substantial effort in it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's obvious and basic to anyone who has ever written an article. Perhaps but a fraction of the overall blundering way we seem to communicate around here. Is it so basic, the faulted way we try to express ourselves, that it could have a name, or a chart, or some illustration neatly laid out by a sociologist bucking for a PhD or trying to publish a book? What is it that impedes our progress? Is it just the way people mumble through their thoughts and priorities? --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's to do with a general misperception of authority here. Administrators are in charge of pretty much everything and are armed with nightsticks to beat into submission anyone who disagrees with them. Reviewers have a similar faux authority over nominators, and so on. That's basically why someone like myself who has such a distrust of and distaste for authority fares so poorly here. Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Straight up truth - some people are here because they like to write, and like the concept of writing an on-line encyclopedia. Some people are here with an entirely different agenda. The two will never mix - at all. Period. The solution is either to find a way to work around this dynamic - or give up. I have my giving up days and my working around it days. Ultimately I get enough satisfaction from producing something to keep me going. What kind of satisfaction is gained by those who produce nothing is beyond me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) And I can see clearly how you would come to this conclusion. It is quite logical, in your experience, to consider this the issue at hand. I think, however, that I see very similar problems that you do, but I don't think the majority of the issues are brought on by admin abuse. I think admin abuse is a symptom of an overall problem that many editors here simply have no idea how to communicate effectively. Too often editors lead or mask their comments with their own insecurities, coming down too strongly on an issue that they have yet to fully understand. When combined with the collective belief that believing in simple things, or that issues are quite simple, and acknowledging the complexity of some of the problems here leaves one open to doubt or the perception that one is not strong or smart enough, that allows dialogues to turn into edicts. --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, maybe that's the case. I have enjoyed writing in the past, and there are still a great many topics that interest me. I continue to write articles in my head about subjects I read about, and I still like to teach myself about new topics. But I'm stymied by what I know will occur: people will complain about something in an article without ever understanding the nature of what they're complaining about. Or worse, do a little bit of work to solve it themselves. Wikipedia itself does not seem to be able to form a coherent culture despite the 5 Pillars. People do not seem to grasp that this is a collective effort and our personal opinions on what should be included in an article are irrelevant. I have the same arguments over and over and I get tired of them, like dealing with a student who has a 24-hour memory. Then the circus at ANI; there is no dependable support structure. Just a community of jostling comments given to establish a nebulous notion that one editor is more important/ has more rights than another. --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see us go to some kind of a rubric system for reviewing. Does the article satisfy the criteria? Plain and simple. If yes, then pass; if no, then work on it. This business of "If I were writing this, I do x, y & z" is wrong. Collaboration along the way is good, but reviewers shouldn't impose their vision of what should be on a piece. Malleus is a good reviewer because he has a really keen eye and is detail oriented and finds the mistakes. That's what reviewing is about - not a slaughter. Anyway, I think you should start writing again - mind writing is so unsatisfying. My solution is to leave articles littered around this place and not take them to review. Then I don't have to deal with it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sober right now so I don't know if I'm going to regret posting this tomorrow or what, but it just occurred to me that in real life, I really want to talk about Wikipedia, turning to real people to help me figure out why this site is so frustrating. But no one in real life quite knows what it's like to write articles for Wikipedia and the way people communicate here. Only Wikipedians do. But talking about it here exacerbates the problems. What is that? --Moni3 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Because we're not allowed to complain here - but complaining to each other is the essence of collaboration. Makes no sense at all. I think we should talk about the frustrations. Writing is hard & frustrating, and this site, it's unbelievable sometimes. Enjoy your cocktail hour! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Butting in, my friends and family know what I do here, know my username, but just think, well thats Paul, he always was a bit of a trainspotter, a little more into and absorbed by things that most. I have a brother and uncle who edit every so often, and see the meta issues, so I'm lucky that I can talk about it. Still though, I'd love to be able to give it up and walk away. In some ways I feel like a looser for being here. Ceoil 07:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a real life friend who writes here occasionally, follows my work, and understands the issues. When I've been the most frustrated have been able bounce ideas around with that person, but it happens rarely. I think having a focus helps - I focus on a specific area and have a fairly good sense of what I'm going here. Seems that really I only run into trouble when I take work to review or when I fly above the radar, which I avoided for a long time. I go away when it frustrates me too much, but usually come back because it's an activity I enjoy. Sometimes, particularly when I'm tired and brain dead, mindless formatting on bad pages is stupidly relaxing. Dunno why that is, but it there you go. Anyway, I think that chatting, making friends, and venting helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding 'queer community' versus 'gay community' (Stonewall riots)

I notice that you reverted an edit that had replaced 'gay community' with 'queer community' when referring to a group that included transgender individuals. While it's quite possible that some of the sources used in the article refer to it as "the gay community," that doesn't necessarily mean those sources were correct to refer to it in such a fashion - doing so conflates two separate concepts (sexual orientation and gender identity) into one, which is why 'queer' is the preferred term if referring to both. Just because the common wording in 1969 was ignorant of the difference doesn't mean that modern-day articles on the subject need to be as well. 67.169.73.141 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a frequent discussion in articles that address the history of LGBT people. Clearly the words we used to describe the members of this sexual minority group continue to change. Suffice to say, however, that there was no queer community in 1969. "Queer" was an epithet, and had not been taken on by LGBT folks as a term of empowerment or a descriptor to fill in for the grey identity areas. "Transgender" was not in wide use at the time. Cross dressers and people who currently identify as transgender were a part of the gay community, although they were not necessarily considered gay. Contemporary nomenclature called them transvestites. A discussion about the terminology of cross dressers is included in the Stonewall riots article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't seem to provide any rational basis for not using more modern language for a resource written in the modern day. I could totally understand keeping it if it was part of a quote from a source, but that is not the case - it's simply part of the text of a Wikipedia article and was written by a Wikipedia user. Consider the example of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - while the book itself uses the term "nigger" to refer to black characters, the article about the book does not (though it does mention the book's usage of the word). Why then is this case any different? What overbearing reason is there for keeping the wording as it is? I'm not forcing you or anyone else to go and change it yourself, I'm simply wondering why you would go to the effort of reverting a change that would improve the respectfulness of the article without a strong reason. 67.169.73.141 (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the Stonewall riots article, which is why I take the effort to keep it up. I also wrote a few others that deal with racial inequality in the U.S. (for another discussion about the use of epithets in literature, try the article for To Kill a Mockingbird, which I also wrote) and there is a definite distinction here. And it's not overbearing, so...if that's going to be the tenor of the discussion, we can skip to ridiculous right now and make it more entertaining for everyone.

First, and the most concrete point, is that the article should summarize the points made in the sources. None of them use "queer" to describe a spectrum of attractions and gender expression, the Q that often follows LGBT, or the Q in LGBTQ to ensure that everyone in included. These are not dated sources used in the article.

Secondly, even what community there was in the 1960s was more like a coincidence of locality than a force of people who come together to work past their differences for a common goal. The most that sexual minorities enjoyed in Greenwich Village was knowing they weren't alone and having the awesome distinction that they were harassed a tiny bit less than in Omaha or Miami. Even calling the people in Greenwich Village in 1969 a "gay community" by today's standards is a stretch. To call it a "queer community", which most certainly is using today's standards, is outright historical revisionism. A "queer community" is a group of people with common sexual orientation or gender expression who decline to identify specifically what their differences are, because, I guess, labels aren't that important. Using "queer" as a catchall category that stands for not-straight was not the mindset of the people of the 1960s, coming from a period where behavior equaled identity and they were forced either to choose an identity (or have it chosen for them) or hide their personal lives. It's essential to describe accurately in the article what life was like before the riots. The only "queer" was shouted at these folks from people visiting from another borough, or the cops themselves. To paint Greenwich Village in 1969 as a society much like our own is offensively inaccurate. To intone that they were socially sophisticated enough to consider "queer" a good enough adjective--because they were too advanced to use labels, you know--is to erode the reasons why the riots took place. This was a very splintered and fractious, insecure and paranoid group of people, although they had good cause to be.

Thirdly, the article already explains that cross-dressers, hustlers, transvestites, people who might consider themselves transgender today, lesbians, flame queens, scare queens, and parts of the Mafia were all involved in the gay community. I think it's quite clear in the prose. --Moni3 (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you might be assuming that the language you used in authoring the article is as clear to others as it is to you. There's a lot of what you've just stated that I don't believe is something the average reader would take away from the text of article - a lot of subtexts that you may feel go without saying, but that a random reader would not interpret in the same way.

Using a different terminology when summarizing the content of a source is not "revisionism" if the modern terminology in the modern day refers to the same thing that the historical terminology would refer to at the time it was used. Using "persons of color" or another more respectful term to summarize a source that used the term "nigger" would not be historical revisionism. Furthermore, your definition of what a "queer community" seems to be rather narrow - "the queer community" is not all people with the same gender expression. In fact, one of the main reasons for the term is that there is such a wide variety of expressions. Your comment that queer people are "non-straight" is somewhat telling, because it implies the thinking that the opposite of queer is "straight", which is not the case at all - there are straight trans individuals as well. This is why the term "gay community" is misleading, and other terms are preferable. The usage of a particular term to refer to a group doesn't change the description of how that group lived - the "queer community" in 1960 lived exactly how the "gay community" did, because *at the time* they were the same thing - and thus we could just as acceptably use the former term as opposed to the latter, and as long as the context is "the 1960s," there is no "revisionism" going on. 63.251.52.186 (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision #8:

I know you don't deserve all my frustration, but still...I have a lot of it, and for this very reason. Please find excellent history references, authors, books, peer-reviewed journals and such, that refer to the clientele at the Stonewall as the "queer community". Let's solve that issue first. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the very problem that I'm pointing out is that the reference works regarding the subject are invariably slanted towards terminology favoring the "LGB" part of "LGBT" and diminishing the significance of the "T", asking me to go find reference works that aren't so slanted seems kind of silly, no? "That's how we've always done it" is a poor answer to an argument of "it's been done poorly in the past." What I'm trying to point out is that it is the *meaning* of a source which is important, not the specific terminology used by that source. For cases where precise reproduction of terminology matters, a quote is more appropriate. 63.251.52.186 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to change the article without a source? Have you, by the way, read the sources listed in the article? --Moni3 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

NYT article

Hey Moni3, I saw your response to that article on Ms. Gardner's page, and left my own, a partial response to (and wholehearted agreement with) yours. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

FA/TFA

I was very sorry to read this comment. Do you have any suggestions for how the FA/TFA processes can be changed to alleviate your concerns? Raul654 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

While I cannot presume to speak for Moni I think a common thread between us "head writers" is that when the articles we've worked on hit front page they are descended upon by the people who "think they know better". It's not about ownership of the article so much as disregard for experience and history as to how the article was crafted and why; I don't think there's any way to solve that, especially as it appears that the idea that TFAs could probably do without a mess of edits is an alien concept to some [2]. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Raul, until I saw Malleus' talk page, I thought it was pretty much just me being overly sensitive. Ten minutes before an article I wrote went live TFA on a major anniversary, someone began to edit the article without sources then overturn my protective reverts, forcing me into a 3RR situation. I think it's pretty much a ho-ho rite of passage ain't this fun? kind of ribbing among FA writers, but I seriously get perhaps too personally invested in the articles I write. I think I have to, though. Otherwise I wouldn't spend any time writing them. I took a Coke bottle and threw it against the wall during that particular TFA and made the decision never to nominate another article for TFA. I volunteer around here, so getting so mad at the Interwebz that I vandalize my own walls is not an ideal situation when I'm giving my time and effort. I'm currently torn between nominating articles for FA just to make them the best they can be and simply leaving well enough alone and being happy with unassessed rewrites.

I agree with David. Unless the culture and definition of "collaborative encyclopedia" begins to morph into everyone has the responsibility to fix the problems they find and work with each other to build a coherent body of work as opposed to I'll just complain for unfounded reasons and decline to access the sources, appear to argue like a fool but insist my changes stick to an article because I think I'm that important, I'm not sure what else to do. Philcha suggested article protection for a week for TFAs. I don't know. I just know that it is unnecessarily stressful to work tirelessly on an article and have Joe Q. Neverreadsabook assume my thumb parks itself in my ass on TFA day. Perhaps it's worth discussing anyway. I had no idea TFA was so unpleasant for other FA writers. --Moni3 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Today's was relatively painless for me, only got blocked the once; I got blocked twice last time. I hate TFA for all the reasons you list and more; the best you can hope for is a list of demands that you fix something or other that another editor takes objection to/thinks is missing/thinks is wrong/misunderstands. Collaborative it is not. It would be interesting to have a straw poll of regular FA writers to see how many think of TFA as anything other than a kind of purgatory. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mine generally go down fine but they are so esoteric that nobody bothers with them much...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You should try an Apil 1 TFA, like this one. Never again! Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I created the rule that once you write an April 1 article, you never have to write another. It has worked well for me so far, although I'd like to see Remi Gaillard on the main page because he makes me laugh. I also tend to choose topics that get 1,000 hits a day or more on average or are involved in some kind of controversy where some bumpkin asks the Village Pump not just if a particular article should be TFA, but if it should exist at all. These kinds of things add to the complain-a-thon. --Moni3 (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh heh, my kids'd like to see Gaillard on the main page....that'd be cool :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

PS: Actually, I realise discussion on the talk pages of schizophrenia and vampire has had a draining effect...the former is going through a FA review at present, and I am feeling a little burnt out by it.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly see why vampire would be draining. Alright, alright. I'll get my coat... Risker (talk) 05:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

hyuk hyuk Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My very first FA, The Wiggles, went through what you're talking about both during its FAC and when it was TFA--why do these guys even have an article about them? I've always maintained that part of the reason it took 4 FACs to pass was because of that very thing. It got beyond frustrating when I had to answer the same questions over and over again. And then on the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street, there was the guy who couldn't understand why Google doodle featured the Muppets over the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'm sorry, but I got a little defensive. I've lost count how many times I've had to revert "Blue is a boy" on Blue's Clues. Everything that came after paled in comparison, so it wasn't as painful. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings got through relatively unscathed, but as popular a book as it is, it's an obscure topic. Anyway, done with the ranting now, thanks for letting me share. Christine (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Still Christine, just think of the warm inner glow that you can get thinking how many folks have looked at a TFA. I find it funny wandering around seeing how many folks use wikipedia here and there :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Cas, I love it that so many people have read the articles I've worked on. Yah, everyone uses Wikipedia. I was ranting because Moni's talk page seems to be a good place to do that. I'm still here, in spite of the annoyances, because the benefits for me much outweigh them. I'm not nearly as cynical about this place as dear Moni is, but I understand her point. I've only experienced a little of what she has to put up with, like the IP above who complained about her use of language and when Moni challenged him to actually do something about it, the conversation ended. Man, the restraint and patience! Christine (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So is my talk page where folks come to rant, where I rant primarily, or where interesting discussions are borne of my general discontent? Because the interesting discussions that may actually accomplish something...that would be nice. I'm not holding my breath or anything. At least I know that other editors share my frustration with some things.

What is this "restraint" and "patience" of which you speak? What do those words mean, and how on earth are they being employed in any way near me? --Moni3 (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, I had to resort to my dictionary. Do you think there might some support for an opt-out from TFA at the FAC nominator(s) discretion? Philcha's idea of protection would probably be preferable, but obviously idealogically unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

[indent] I'm talking about the Stonewall Riots discussion you had above, you silly! I sincerely thought you handled it with patience and grace. And I think that both things happen on your talk page, Moni-dear. I stalk your talk page because I find it immensely entertaining and even at times funny. You know how highly I think of you, your perverse lifestyle notwithstanding. ;) (Do I even need to add the emoticon? Perhaps for others who don't know that I'm trying to be funny as well.) Christine (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

I would like to thank you very very much! Do you mind if I quote a part of what you said and put it on my User page because I love it!? Once again Thank you for explaining what I've been trying to for the last three days in a fraction of the time! Thank you! :-) Эдуард/Edward 23:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Christ, what did I say? --Moni3 (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"The number of citations here does not necessarily indicate the quality of the article is high. Instead, more important factors are the quality of sources, how they are used (scientific sources to address scientific issues; religious sources to address religious ones, the more authoritative the better, etc.), the cohesion of the article: the fact that the article solidly summarizes the main points made by sources and does not read as if 300 editors have built the article over 7 years by fishing for a source to prove a personal point--which it does now, and various style issues being resolved would vastly improve this article. Any sentence that has 11 freaking citations is just outer limits unnecessary." WONDERFUL! its on my page already. sorry. Эдуард/Edward 00:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, then. Go nuts. Make sure the "11 freaking citations" is in italics though. Because...freakin' 11??? --Moni3 (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

All done! Эдуард/Edward 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the procedures to re-write an entire article of this importance? How much time would you estimate it would take? Эдуард/Edward 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

See this topic in the talk page archives for the article. I'd be surprised if a rewrite in the hands of one person took less than 6 months for this topic. I was hoping with a group of dedicated editors it might take a month. That did not materialize, and I wasn't surprised. --Moni3 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Roy Orbison

The changes you made may make the article less clunky but the word "scholars" and "critics" do not mean the same as "commentators". Britmax (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I know. It's accurate to sources. I wrote the article. --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think

She's going for "Bad Romance" part II? :D — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, the talent is inducted from the queen herself. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vaughn Walker

Vaughn Walker BLPN discussion - I disputed this addition and still do - along with a couple of other users but if people don't comment in threads then the addition was claimed as a consensus - feel free to reopen the blpn discussion and add your weight to the dscussion. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to continue the discussion. I don't quite know where it stands, other than in dispute right now. And the forking of discussions in two or more places serves nothing other than confusing everyone. Sometimes I think that's the object of doing that... --Moni3 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping

I've responded at Talk:Lesbian#Literature_addition. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Josephine Bakhita - near Genoa or near Venice?

Did Augusto Michieli bring Josephine Bakhita to "Zianigo, near Mirano Veneto" (according to her biography from the Vatican website at the bottom of the page)? Or - to "a town near Genoa"? You reverse my correction back to your previous "Augusto Michieli, brought her to a town near Genoa, Italy," And you respond: "Butler's Lives of the Saints puts it in/near Genoa. This account may be too simplified, however".

This is not true. Butler's Lives of the Saints, on the page 53, says that she lived with Michieli family "for three years, in the village of Zianigo, near Mirano Veneto in the region of Venice". (Genoa is about 250 miles from Venice; Zianigo about 20 miles). And Butler's three page account hardly seems to be too simplified.

Also - Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese Wikipedias - all have "Zianigo". Italian Wikipedia: "nella loro casa a Zianigo (frazione di Mirano)". And they call the biography from the Vatican website Bakhita's official biography: "Biografia ufficiale sul sito della Santa Sede".

See also http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/40025 . Where did you find "a town near Genoa"?

70.239.9.210 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The simplified version I mentioned was the Vatican's. My mistake in the edit summary.

This simplified issue is that here, p. 64 at the bottom, says that Bakhita went to Genoa, where she met Michieli. Michieli and his wife went to the Adriatic soon, and Bakhita and the daughter chose to remain in Italy. They may have moved to Zianigo at that time.

The source does not mention Zianigo. Both may be right. I prefer Butler's Lives of the Saints and print sources; they are better written, have much more detail, and appear to be superior to the Vatican's website. A further search of GoogleBooks for "Josephine Bakhita Genoa" produces more results than "Josephine Bakhita Zianigo". --Moni3 (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

When I read your statement: Butler's Lives of the Saints puts it in/near Genoa, I was sure you meant the Butler's Lives which are included in this article's bibliography, namely: Burns, Paul; Butler, Alban (2005). Butler's Lives of the Saints: Supplement of New Saints and Blesseds, Volume 1, Liturgical Press. ISBN 0814618375 . Now I see that you had in mind another, older edition: Burns, Paul (2003), Butler's Lives of the Saints: New Concise Edition, Liturgical Press. ISBN 0814629032 - where the Bakhita entry is shorter and slightly different.

But even this version does not say anywhere that Bakhita ever lived in a town near Genova - only that after her arrival to Italy she stayed at a hotel in Genoa, a hotel which belonged to Augusto Minieli. The new Butler edition adds that in 1885 Minieli escaped from Sudan together with the Legnani family and that they all were met on arrival by the wife of Minieli - who asked Callisto Legnani for one of his African servants and was gived Bakhita. Who then lived with them for three years in the village of Zianigo in the region of Venice - acting as nanny to her newborn daughter Alice, known as Minnina (born in 1886).

The statement Callisto Legnani and Agostino Minieli, brought her to a town near Genoa, Italy remains untrue. - 70.239.9.210 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I amended the article to reflect what the sources say about Genoa and Zianigo, and I think my impression is correct. She arrived in Genoa with Legnani, and then spent 3 years in Zianigo with the Michieli family.

As for what is true, that we will never know. Only what sources say about Bakhita, which is the bases of the core Wikipedia policy of verifiability. --Moni3 (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Your impression finally is correct. Thank you! Will be happy to see your amendation. - 70.239.9.210 (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally, indeed. How does this site run with such dense contributors? Idiots, all of us. --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I regret to retract what I wrote last night, being in a rush to leave. Only now I saw your amendation and am very disappointed with it. Yesterday I was thinking that you are returning to Wikipedia my correction you had two times rejected: Legani and a friend, Augusto Michieli, brought her to Zianigo, near Mirano Veneto by replacing it with your She arrived in Genoa with Legnani and then spent 3 years in Zianigo with the Michieli family (as you were writing three lines above).

Now I saw that not only is (the fictional) town near Genoa still there but that... a new three year stay in Zianigo is being created, supposedly after Michielis return from the Red Sea (which never happened)...

I keep going through Butler's Lives, 2005 - which I ordered from my libray immediately but which I received only a day or two ago. Making notes and wondering what to do. - 70.239.9.210 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I find you irresistible and must be joined with you at once so that I may know your approval for all my actions. --Moni3 (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just found it. Very interesting! Could you kindly explain what you mean?

Meanwhile, as you can see, even though (or because) you wrote publicly that my contribution was "against sources", I finally decided to try my correction of the nameless town near Genoa publicly one more time. This time using as my source the book: Burns, Paul; Butler, Alban (2005). Butler's Lives of the Saints: Supplement of New Saints and Blesseds, Volume 1, pp. 52-55. Liturgical Press. ISBN 0814618375 (see the article's Bibliography). It certainly and explicitly puts the place, where Bakhita immediately after her arrival to Italy lived, near Venice.

Using the link ISBN 0814618375 and passing through the Contents of the book I also found those four pages (52-55) available at the Google Book Search online database. The book is excellent, I may even buy it. And overall - I learned a lot and I am happy that you seem to have found "all this" entertaining! Respectfully - 70.239.9.210 (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Lesbian

I'm sorry Moni, I didn't forget about the article. I've just been horribly busy in RL and haven't been able to log in to Wikipedia (any of them). :( I've seen Ecelan has jumped in with suggestions. :D I think your summary is fine (we really could do a separate subarticle on the topic), you don't leave anything important out and you haven't changed the meaning at all. Has Ecelan answered your points (he's very knowledgeable, as you can see!), or is there something left?

Again, sorry for the delay. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 15:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Raystorm. Thanks for getting back to me. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Till

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for your effort to raise the quality of the Emmett Till article.

This user helped promote Emmett Till to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Least cheerful article ever. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Everglades National Park

Protected the page rather than blocking both both of you for 3rr. Please discuss (preferably on the article talk page) rather than edit warring. I protected it as I found it - no endorsement of current version. Vsmith (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh. --Moni3 (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I called you a bitch here, so I fully expect the civility police to come banging on my door again. Mind you, that's nothing to what I've been called over the past few days: a cockroach and a juvenile amoeba spring immediately to mind. God knows why I had that Edit warring place in my watchlist, I feel unclean now having posted there. Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Precision of language, Malleus, please. I am a whore. And a slag. --Moni3 (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind for next time. Anyway, what are your prices like? Are they reasonable? As an aside, I wonder why it is that women tend to get more sexist-oriented insults than men do. Or am I imagining it? Malleus Fatuorum 00:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, dickface. You tell me. --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aww, that brings back memories of what SandyG used to call me, and Jennavecia used to regularly call me a dick, ocasionally one of porn star proportions. Happy days. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I adore you people. It's been a long week, and it's only Tuesday, so I needed that guffaw you just made me make. Now I can go to bed, and hopefully, I'll actually be able to sleep. Thank you and God bless you all. Christine (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never called you anthing except MF. Have I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lake Erie

Here's something to cheer you up - some folks are buffing up Lake Erie - you could enjoy complianing about what's wrong with the article in terse language on the talk page as an informal peer review..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, I can't hate on editors who are earnestly working on articles no matter how clueless they are. The process helps them learn, just as I do. I respect the willingness to learn and improve. I really don't respect a bulldozer fingers in ears attitude. That makes me complain in terse language.

How badly does Lake Erie need my assistance? I haven't given a review for a while. --Moni3 (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Background -Wikipedia:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM was recently reactivated (which I think is a good thing), and I was trying to help frame it and give reasonable collaboration ideas and goals. I'd been reading the Lorax which made me think of Lake Erie and so I listed it and it's seen a bit of work (which is good) - even just some broad content/emphasis pointers would be good. The US collaboration did not get a large number of FA/GAs before, so would be good to punt some articles into some shiny medal territory. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Everglades National Park

Looks like you 'won'. I was simply following the standard of numerous other articles that link similarly, guess on the Everglades article people feel strongly against. Hopefully no hard feelings? Zarcadia (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no winning on Wikipedia. And no hard feelings...for me, at least. I was serious about the offer to assist you in getting any article on any topic to FA status. It is a monumental amount of work to get it there and keep it there. Every editor should understand what it's like. When it's on a topic you love very much, it's often worth it. About 80% of the time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the everglades, or more specifically Melaleuca quinquenervia, note this and associated talk page discussion. I figure getting some more specifics on what's being damaged or impacted on is prudent..but...yeah....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking and underlinking

I think, in retrospect, the 'altercation' we had the other day was actually quite useful. I'll admit I didn't quite understand the wp policy of linking, and as I said earlier in a discussion my knowledge was based on the experience of browsing/editing articles that probably were linked incorrectly. I feel I now have a better grasp of that policy and look to use it in my improvements and edits to wp. Thanks and all the best for your future editing! Zarcadia (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I considered myself a pretty good writer when I came to Wikipedia. When I look back on what I wrote then, I'm kind of embarrassed. Through being constantly corrected--mostly gently, but now and again not so gently--my writing style became tailored for an encyclopedia. What I find interesting is that at some point I realized I had learned enough to trust myself. It's difficult to know who to take advice from here because users are anonymous and everyone seems to tell everyone else what to do. They speak with authority, but don't always seem to have the substance to back it up. I treat everyone with skepticism until they prove somehow that I should follow their advice. Usually that takes the form of experience; once I see someone's editing contributions, it gives me a better idea how good a grasp of English they have, and what they are trying to accomplish. It's much more difficult to follow advice when policies continue to change (when I started it was normal to link every date in the article and link every term that also had an article) and other editors may not have a solid grasp of policy or grammar...or English.

This isn't really the most efficient way to build an encyclopedia, but this is online and a unique website, obviously. I often wish it were different, but I'm not sure how it could be. --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think if there were more of an effort to describe the chronology of pages somehow that, would help. I haven't thought about it too much with something like WP:FA, but think it would be good for folks like Raul and Sandy to describe in detail how standards have evolved over the years. I started here in mid-2006, just when inline references were starting to be used. Found them a challenge at first but got used to them. What I am thinking of is this - I found this didn't give me much info on a page. Is it active? What's happening? and had to trawl through the history or look around for some answers, si I at least got some chronology into the current version..actually that isn't a great example but you get my drift. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Replying to your note on my talk page

Hi Moni3. Sorry to be just replying to you now: I've just noticed your note.

I think you're right about expertise. At least, my own personal experiences, and the stories I hear from others, support what you say. I should probably amend that thing I keep saying (about people "bringing their crumbs to the table") -- it would likely be more precise to characterize them as crumbs-of-interest versus crumbs-of-knowledge. Although that is unwieldy :-)

Anyway, thank you for your note. I'm glad you left it, and I'm glad you're here :-)

(I also want to say I think it's fabulous that you created the Ann Bannon article. Fifteen years ago I interviewed Lynne Fernie and Aerlyn Weissman, the two Canadians who made Forbidden Love. What a great story. And that whole piece of history could've eventually been lost to us, if it weren't for Wikipedia and the NFB :-)

Sue Gardner (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page (perhaps!)

Hi there. There's a discussion here about the possibility of getting featured lists their own section on the main page. The discussion has turned to presenting a few lists that would represent the quality and diversity of topics that we cover, and a list that you were involved with has been mentioned specifically. It'd be great to get your thoughts. Regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

references & sources

hi @Moni3, I've been looking at some of the articles I'd like to help with, & many seem to sound like they were written in present tense, in the past. (some almost press release style, which I'd like to help tidy too as they shouldn't be posting PR here) if I can't find sources to clarify some of the claims, can I contact them to clarify and post the reply/thread on the talk page. or does this count as original research? or could it be WP:ABOUTSELF (but I'm doing the editing instead of them). most of them as written as "recently XYZ happened" (& I see that the article was dated/originated a few years ago) whereas I think it might be better to say "in 2008 XYZ happened" if it's still relevant.

& for sources, many of the less-commercial music & arts artists are not featured in mainstream media, but are mentioned in street press, grassroots media. I see that blogs/zines are not acceptable for sources, but are some of the free/independent news media ok to use as sources? (as many of these are written about online these days). some artists are no longer active. I'm seeing some of these artists missing, but a few of the more recent, net-savvy artists having pages. so I'm not sure if they should all be there or none? or if only some? thanks Kathodonnell (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, kathodonnell. Although it's not always the norm, the best way to source is a strict adherence to WP:RS. All sources should be published by a third party that has editorial oversight and fact-checks. No self-published sources, opinions, blogs (unless they are associated with a reliable source like a newspaper), or personal websites.

Depending on the amount of available information in this realm, this can affect the assessment of the article. Not every topic has a lot of this kind of information, or it may have a preponderance of opinion and little fact. This is particularly true of topics that have gone mostly unrecognized by academic authorities. Early rock and roll, for example, may not have a lot of information on it.

As long as the source you're using is fact-checked with editorial oversight, the source is fine.

I'm not sure I understand the other part of your question. Can you elaborate? --Moni3 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your reply. the other part was in relation to rewording some of the article. for example, in Talk:On_Dit article, they have "Currently, every issue of On Dit conforms to a certain theme, which is reflected in graphical style, and occasionally in the articles within it (although this may change in 2010)." & I'd like to change it to something like "Since (XXXX_year), On Dit's graphical style and articles have conformed to a chosen theme." is it appropriate for me to contact them & ask if/when this changed. I've seen similar sentences in other articles I've read, which seem to have been written in present tense at the time the article was posted. it doesn't sound (to me) like something I'd read in a printed encyclopedia. but things like this I probably won't find in an article about the topic (maybe it should be removed altogether in this case). I guess if I have to do the fact-checking for it, then it's original research so not allowed? Kathodonnell (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal emails are not reliable sources, unfortunately. I would go ahead and change the prose to reflect the past tense (use "as of XXXX") in a more encyclopedic tone. Although some articles may be using personal emails as references, they are not high quality articles to be doing that. It would not pass a Good Article nomination. Instead of asking the company/magazine for their answer, ask them to direct you to published articles about the changes. Sometimes I ask people or organizations to point me in the right direction if I'm not too familiar with trade mags in a particular field. --Moni3 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks very much for your great suggestions. I'll try this. cheers. it would be nice to get some more of the Australian articles to GA status! Kathodonnell (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of "clientele"

The French word "clientèle" has an English equivalent that is spelled "clientele". If there is a need to use a French word in an English sentence, the word should be italicized. There is, in the case of the Stonewall riots, no such need. The English word can and should be used, as the French word conveys absolutely no different meaning. Happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I accidentally the dog. --Moni3 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

And now that I have more time to respond, this is the kind of stupid thing I hate responding to. I'm old, clientèle is right, and I have to get a useless spelling lesson from you. But hey, whatever is going to keep a stupid level of peace is super. It's the way things go on Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm oldish myself, yet by having this page on my watchlist, I learned not only about the French and English spellings of clientele, but also the "I accidentally" internet meme. Geometry guy 22:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Moni3, please take notice that suggesting a comment is stupid implies that the editor making the comment is stupid, and hence is construed as a "personal attack", and may lead to sanctions against you. OK, I'm paraphrasing, but that's what I was accused of quite recently. This place gets crazier by the day.

Anyway, I prefer clientèle too, looks more sophisticated than the rather drab "clientele", but Chris is of course quite right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, that admonition is stupid. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, but then so much here is so far beyond stupid that it makes my eyes spin. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

...and my blood curl... Geometry guy 22:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

We really do need to spin off that English wikipedia, separate from the present American one. I bet Moni3 would join us like a shot, as would most of the rest of the English-speaking world. Jimmy Wales's Rand obsession is what will destroy this project, and is destroying it. Well, to be fair, he's now somewhat irrelevant, so it's probably more accurate to say that those who mindlessly follow his various dictates now will be the the real culprits. I have one very much in mind as I type this. Can you guess who it is? Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What's this Rand obsession of which you speak? Would m'lords deign to invite such a filthy colonist as I? Perhaps if I tried my hardest to fix my American spelling? Because my French spelling apparently is aces. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about Ayn Rand, naturellement. It's a funny thing, but it was nip and tuck in the early days whether America would end up speaking English or French. As it turned out it largely speaks Spanish, but that's life I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of an English language Wikipedia as a spin-off from this one, but it needs to be thought through. For instance, Malleus makes arbitrary reference to other editors, but how would we replace cliches (or should I say "clichés"?) such as "Randy from Boise"? "Trevor from Nuneaton"? "Sheila from Adelaide"?Geometry guy 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

English has long been a very acquisitive language. I think I'm right in saying that there are more words in English than in any other language, so we can be accommodating; Randy from Boise is just fine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan was all hot for Ayn Rand until the Wall Street banking industry ate itself. Then he reconsidered his attitude. --Moni3 (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Works of love (2011 book)

Hi there. I came across this odd article doing new page patrol. The article is about an alleged book, written by "Wiki Leads", whose article was deleted by you as a creation from a blocked/banned user, and the editor who created Works of love (2011 book) claims to be Dakota Fanning. Not being privy to the details of the block/ban, I thought I would punt it over to you to see how to proceed with the article and the editor. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dickinson and her carpets

Y'know, I don't even like the lousy poet. Obviously I am unworthy to edit her precious Wiki article. How did I get myself into this? Three years, millions of views, dozens of vandals and clueless n00bs. I guess I'll "scamper" into semi-retirement and to hell with it. Stupid Wikipedia. Stupid me for caring so much. María (habla conmigo) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, petal. How I feel your pain. The current talk page at TKaM feels like me singing "You and Me Against the World" with myself. It's not even current stuff or really very strong, just a lot of folks coming to make some random complaint and it somehow becoming about me. I wish I could do more at Dickinson, and I'll do my best when the carpet discussion turns to carpet munching again, but the criticism is far outside my realm of knowledge. One other person shining a light on commentary that's turning very close to douchebaggery may be helpful I hope. Chin up. Let me know what I can do, if anything. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I was the one who was meant to scamper as I made the edit. Oh, well. I don't like Dickinson either, but do know about New Criticism. I'm gone today, but will have a look at the progress tomorrow. And Moni3, I seem to have unwatched TKAM as well, but can always give a hand there. Un-Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Untruthkeeper*, don't you know I -- as the de facto owner of this crappy excuse for an article -- am meant to do the scampering? I mean, come on. Who do you think you are? Seriously, with the troubles we've encountered with Pound, TKaM, ED... we all have crappy choice in pet projects. Thank you guys for the back scratching, it's definitely a comfort to know things ain't too crazy just yet. María (habla conmigo) 22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

_{* I can't believe it's come to this. I almost expect them to start calling me "Diarrhea" instead of "Maria"; one of my fave nicknames from elementary school, btw. María (habla conmigo) 22:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)}

mainpage...

It was almost soporofic -someone asked a question which was nice. I'm no expert as I've killed plenty of the damn things though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

Hi, how do i receive the LGBT Studies newsletter? Thanks 81.137.240.118 (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been a member of that project for years. You should ask them at WT:LGBT. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply =]

81.137.240.118 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Roy Orbison

I'm stunned that you reverted my edits regarding the Roy Orbison 75th birthday tributes. I worked on that section for hours today and don't agree/understand your rationale. Every statement that I made was legitimately sourced. Kmzundel (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources you used belong to two tribute entertainers (DaveCollison.com. http://davecollison.com/entertainment/2011/03/official-uk-roy-orbison-75th-birthday-bash Official UK Roy Orbison 75th Birthday Bash), (Proctors.com. http://www.proctors.org/events/roy-orbison-75th-anniversary-tribute Roy Orbison 75th Anniversary Tribute) and two YouTube videos showing other performers singing Roy Orbison songs. None are considered to fall within the scope of reliable sources because they are not fact-checked by editorial oversight for accuracy. They are self-published sources by the entertainers who would directly benefit by the information in Orbisons' article, making it a conflict of interest to place them there.

The last source, belonging to artistsdirect.com [3] is also kind of questionable. It doesn't say who is in the photo at the top of the page--that isn't Orbison but someone dressed like him. It's not clear if that is a story posted to sell Sony's album of Orbison songs. The last line, asking readers what their favorite Orbison song is, kind of cements the fact that this does not seem to be an objective source.

The release of Sony's album, eh, could be kind of notable I guess. The release of an album after a performer's death on specific anniversaries is pretty common. Here is a better source for it. I searched for "Roy Orbison 75th birthday" in Google News. That's where the best sources are going to be for this. His birthday isn't for another two weeks or so, so your addition was an announcement of events that have not yet occurred. That's harder to find reliable sources for, but for good reason. Most news outlets don't report on future events, and quite often information about what has not occurred on Wikipedia violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When news outlets report on what has happened, that is the time to consider adding a little bit of information to the article. With caution, to avoid violating the recentism guideline.

In spite of all this, I understand your disappointment and I know what it is like to spend an hour or so writing a paragraph or such to have it reverted or changed almost instantly. I know it doesn't feel good. I get Orbison's Facebook feed, showing numerous announcements about events that are coming up in anticipation of his birthday. I think there will be news about what's going to happen, but we just have to sit tight and wait for better sources to report it. When they do, I'll be happy to collaborate with you on the best way to integrate information about Orbison, his style, his influence, and other notable issues into the article. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass deletion by an editor at the Heterosexualization article

You may want to weigh in on this: Talk:Heterosexualization#Not only an LGBT issue. An editor (Masculinity), one I have long viewed as problematic in his editing, removed reliably sourced and relevant material from the article all because he feels the article is too associated with LGBT issues. Because of this, I have restored the article prior to his changes. He may revert me or continue deleting, however, and I do not feel like battling/arguing with him. At least not alone. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If you care

Hello, Moni3. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Guerillero | My Talk 23:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I care, that I see you're posting at Malleus' page and you've been here for a month. Who are you? --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

ogg files

None of my business of course and I'm butting in, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ceoil or one of his music buddies are proficient with ogg files and wouldn't mind helping. Anyway, thought I'd throw out the idea before you go crazy with frustration. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I just really got super highly motivated to figure it out for myself. And it finally worked. Goddammit. Ceoil or anyone who is knowledgeable can look over my uploads to make sure the sound quality is within the right parameters. I'll post links to the files when I'm done. --Moni3 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The sound files that are proliferating are starting to annoy me; just because they exist doesn't mean the pages should be littered with them. Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) is quite a lovely article where the ogg files are supported by the text. Stick to your argument. Ceoil isn't around much these days but he does seem to check in and I'm sure will respond eventually if you leave him a message. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My first converted sound files. If any TPS knowledgeable about fair use sounds can assist, please look at the first two of these to ensure they are within the parameters for NFCC. Much appreciated.

• File:Amazing Grace - Judy Collins 1970.ogg
• File:Amazing Grace-The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards 1972.ogg
• File:Amazing Grace - Sacred Harp Singing Society.ogg

And, because I'm on a Mac (yay!) I was unable to download this version (crap!) of the song, which I think would illustrate the article quite nicely. It's also not available on iTunes. If anyone knows how to get this, I'd appreciate that help, too. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Copied to following section. Gandydancer (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am too swamped to even think about it this month, but there's an RFC/U in TonyTheTiger's future if these behaviors continue. It was one thing to deal with it at FAC, which was "my job", but when it extends to other FAs, it may warrant broader attention. I seem to recall I received e-mail threats from him within the past six months, but will have to look that up-- don't store that sorta thing in long-term memory :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever. After yesterday's very clear exchange where Tony expressed his true priorities on the talk page of Amazing Grace, I don't recall but one other editor I respect less. RFC/U, ANI, blah blah blah. Let's go. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new there. There was the huge WikiCup kerfuffle (I believe they changed their rules to account for his submissions), the DYK kerfuffle, likely a GA kerfuffle that hasn't come to my attention, the change to FAC instructions to implement the clause about no new nominations for two weeks to avoid FAC being used like PR for ill-prepared articles (I call it the TonyTheTiger clause when I'm muttering under my breath about the absurd need for rules at FAC to deal with one editor), there's the old issues about using a lengthy sig file for self-promotion, and recent attacks on Wiki and in e-mail which led me to recuse from him noms, which I'd have to look up, in addition to the current ones. Amazing Grace is just the latest in a long trend ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I can not imagine that in your wildest fantasy, I emailed you. I don't even think I took the time to tweet you in the last 6 months.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This was certainly not any part of my "wildest fantasy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Clips

I have deleted my post that interrupted the above discussion - sorry I don't know what I was thinking. I will copy my post from above (even though some of it sounds a bit silly after a good night's sleep...):

Hope it's OK if I just chime in here. Oh MAN! That Ray Charles clip is so good it almost makes me feel physically ill to listen to it! Very, very powerful and adds a GREAT DEAL to the article. On the other hand, I no longer feel that Slim Whitman should be in the yodeling article just because I like him so much. Perhaps Franzl Lang since yodeling began in the Alps would be the best choice.

BTW, about that Ray Charles song, I strongly suspect that it comes from an old gandy dancer work chant. Years ago when there was a lot more information on the web I learned about an old chant wherein the caller would sing about different women in a red dress, yellow dress, etc., working up to the woman that wore a certain color dress that would put out. If you read the article you will see that sexual imagery was the most powerful energy of all, to be used when the caller was having trouble getting the men to work hard. Watch that video that is mentioned in the article and watch this one at Folkstreams too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oms6o8m4axg&feature=related Of course, maybe you've seen these. Gandydancer (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Judas

In the most biblical sense, I'm beyond repentance... — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kiyimba

This is just a stubby BLP, but you might find it of some interest (relative to the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill and opposition thereto). BTW, I understand that he has fled to the US, because of the danger to him in Uganda, but I haven't been able to find anything citeable to that effect. LadyofShalott 13:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

83

Your really 83? Cool, your old! I'm over 70 years younger than that. :D 76.111.54.150 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to: Yes, I have a question...or a few

1. When I mean "pedofile/pedophile (same thing)" I mean people who try to do child sexual abuse. You know, far apart ages, like a 50-year old guy or gal with a 12-year old guy or gal (I know, ew).
2. This society/academy thing dosn't actually exist, but I wish it did, i'm a baptist.
3. We brainwash these UL (unnatural love) people to turn them naturally normal.
4. We use a brainwashing machine. All you do is put the person in the machine, put a sample of DNA from someone of the oppisite gender of the one to be brainwashed in a little test tube thing on the side of the machine, press the activate button, there is like electric-like zap type thing happening inside the machine to the person, they finally come out "reborn" with NL (natural love) and go out with that person we got the DNA from.

User:Wesley J M

Thank you for alerting me to this. I actually did see it, but was nonplussed enough at your response not to be able to form a reply of words. I thought it best just to leave it alone. Then I drank some alcohol and forgot about it. This was me. That's pretty much the way to handle these kinds of things in my experience.

For my curious TPS (the one of you), this is a response to the statement at the bottom of Wesley JM's user page and my subsequent questions on his/her talk page here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What happens when a critter crawls into the DNA sample drawer before you activate it? Those who ignore the warnings of The Fly are condemned to repeat them. (Would being bitten by a radioactive heterosexual work just as well?) – iridescent 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. I shall fill my pipe with fine tobacco, sip brandy by the fire, and await the clarification of the brainwashing plans in my high-walled library of nice leather-bound books about or by Marcus Aurelius or something. --Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This sounds exactly like What Jesus Would Do. In my nightmares. MastCell ^Talk 22:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This Jesus? Say yes. That guy makes me laugh hard. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The originals have a fascination all their own. How much of a market can there really be for "Jesus visits an insurance broker" pictures done straight? – iridescent 22:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh...humanity. Jesus the Lord and Savior and clowns cannot exist in any universe where God is the righteous Creator and Judge. Were this a just scenario, clowns would be spending quality time with Osama bin Laden, drinking tea, munching on petit-fours, and screaming a lot. --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that is an open goal. – iridescent 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

[4]: "You look familiar... did I throw you out of the Temple the other day?" MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Roy Orbison II

File:Roy Orbison 1965.jpg The photo was taken from an MGM Records two page Billboard ad in their August 21, 1965 edition of the weekly magazine. Since the image was published with no copyright markings and before 1978, that makes it a public domain image. The Billboard copyright does not hold for the ads in the magazine. They would have to have a separate copyright.

Billboard-ad on page 9 August 21, 1965.

• There are no copyright markings as can be seen at the full view link.
• The ad is not covered by any copyrights for Billboard.
• US Copyright Office page 3-magazines are collective works (PDF)

"A notice for the collective work will not serve as the notice for advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the copyright owner of the collective work. These advertisements should each bear a separate notice in the name of the copyright owner of the advertisement." We hope (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to get User:Moonriddengirl to take a look at this. She's an expert on copyright issues. If it passes her scrutiny, I'm effing thrilled to get the image. But I'm skeptical. --Moni3 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Before I started using these kinds of images, I ran it by Media Copyright Questions. Older copies of Billboard have tons of great images in their ads, even one of Frank Sinatra getting hit by a pie as a guest on the Soupy Sales Show. Most to all of them were not copyrighted by the record companies until much later on. There are probably more for Roy Orbison in their back issues. I started working on them as a way to get some images for people who are either no longer active or looked a lot different when they were in their prime performance years than they do today. We hope (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting legal argument, and one I had not heard before, but my reading of the statute bears it out. Advertisements are indeed explicitly excluded from the protection of the collective work copyright, and there is no question that a paid advertisement is "[...] published under the authority of the copyright owner" (indeed, that's the whole point of paying for ad space).

So, unless the ad itself bears a distinct copyright notice, I agree that it has lost copyright protection in the United States if it was published before 1978. — Coren ^(talk) 01:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This one is new to me, too. I agree with Coren. This would probably be a good time to create a specific template, setting forth the law, because I'm sure that Moni and I would not be alone in thinking this too good to be true. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

See Template:PD-ad. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Very cool then. Thanks Moonriddengirl and We hope. --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I brought up my new template at WP:MCQ, here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Template:PD-ad. That will help us to see if there are issues with the practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Billboard was renewed from 1939 onward [5], however as you note, I'm not sure if this applies to advertisements within the issues as well. just noting the above link, will defer to you guys on the more specific matters. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Hullo, I'm seeking adoption. I've got an older account but I've only just plunged into editing recently. I've been roaming around doing small edits and helping out some at a WikiProject. I'd be hoping to get some advice about getting a couple articles seriously improved. I don't think I really have a feel yet for how people really do things (the unwritten rules) and you look like a good person to ask some of those things. Cloveapple (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(just butting in) Moni3 is semi-retired, though I am sure thought-provoking questions will pique here interest. I can try to help if I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the offer. I'll try for thought provoking, but no promises. I guess I've got two questions right off the bat. Is it a conflict of interest if one published source I use is a relative? (They happen to be an expert in the field.) And if so how on earth do I declare the conflict of interest without saying who I am myself?

And secondly, is it just a question of personality, whether an editor brings things up on an article talk page or goes straight to tackling a re-draft on a user page? There's two articles I really want to do more than minor edits to: Prosopagnosia and American Sign Language. Cloveapple (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, it is not a conflict of interest in such circumstances. If the source in question is extremely high quality (Nature paper, MIT Press publication, etc.), I would go so far as to say certainly not. If the source is less solid, but still good enough to use on a Wikipedia page in some circumstances (university web page, etc.), then it might be advisable to have an active experienced editor check over your additions. The conflict of interest policy doesn't prohibit any editing, if I recall correctly; it just advises editors to be very careful.

The two articles you mention seem to be a fairly developed article already (though not that well cited and certainly in need of improvement), so it might be advisable to drop a note on the talk page letting people know that you'll be working on a userspace redraft of the article. But definitely go ahead and be bold with your editing. NW (Talk) 05:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The source I had in mind is solid and academicly respectable. So it looks like I have nothing to worry about. And I'll be sure to leave a note before I get any serious redrafts going in user space. Cloveapple (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cloveapple, you lovable lout, listen to these fine, fine people. I should remove my name from the adoption page but I can't find it. Mainly because I've made a vow to go on Wikipedia only when I'm drunk. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you keeping the important promises! Cloveapple (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Mose Wright pointing to J W Milam in the murder trial of Emmett Till.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mose Wright pointing to J W Milam in the murder trial of Emmett Till.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Cover of San Francisco Examiner November 28 1978.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cover of San Francisco Examiner November 28 1978.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Stonewall riots.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stonewall riots.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Hummel

I left you a message at Talk:Kurt Hummel. HorrorFan121 (talk)

Withers image

Some more information has come to light at that image deletion discussion. Are you still following it? I acknowledged what you said to me at that discussion, but as I said there it really can help to have as much information as possible. It might help to know whether there was an explicit credit line or copyright notice for the picture in the 1991 book that you scanned it from. Do you still have access to that book? Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I took the books back to the library (of course) months ago. If I need to get them again, I can, but not for a couple days. If I'm going to get one and there's a possibility that I'm going to need more, let me know which ones to get now so I can be prepared. --Moni3 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with new articles related to LGBT

Hiya Moni3, I recently wrote some new articles on Wikipedia relating to LGBT — namely, books by author Dan Savage and a musical "The Kid", inspired by one of those books. The articles are listed at {{Dan Savage}}, in the sections — Books / Theatre.

Care to help in some additional secondary source research, and improving the quality of any of those articles?

Hope you are doing well,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have nearly the same access to source material as I did. I'm not the best person to ask. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help out in other ways, copyediting, etc? If you are not interested — that's okay, Moni. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazing Grace

I see that you are semi-retired, but you made 8 edits today. I assume you will see this sometime soon. When we last spoke 2 months ago, I was pretty new to sound files. Now two months later I have been the primary sound file creator/editor of 43 WP:FS and have a pretty good idea what is going on. We had a big debate over the inclusion of File:Amazing Grace (USAFB strings).ogg, File:Amazing Grace (USAFB brass).ogg, and File:Amazing Grace (USAFB jazz vocal).ogg. You have added the latter, but not either of the instrumental versions. Meanwhile the text continues to have a section devoted to the melody of the song without any sound file examples. I am wondering if you have given up on finding notable instrumental versions of the song, which I believe would serve as examples of the melody. In my experience at complementing articles with sound files, many of which are military versions of musical content, I have not experienced any editor fighting with a true rendition by a military band as being not a notable enough version. I had earlier suggested where I thought that these instrumental versions might be useful in the article. At the time you were searching for and creating other sound file examples for the article and contested my suggestion. I am not aware of these files being anything other than true recordings of the melody and have not encountered any other editor who had an issue with a true recording, even if it was just by a military band. Given my experience at FS, I would ask is there a reason you might feel that either of these is not a true recording of the melody in the sense that they play the notes as written without significant embellishement with what would have been acceptable combinations of instruments to the composer. Given that the text mentions 20 musical settings, the determining factor of inclusion of these files is whether they misrepresent those twenty musical settings. I.E., whether a brass band or a string orchestra misrepresents the twenty settings of the melody. If not, would you mind if I added these two files in the section on the melody.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss that I added three files to the article, apart from the USAF band file? A 30-second sample of Judy Collins' version, another of the Royal Scots' Dragoon Guards, and the full file of a shape note singing version? --Moni3 (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Fab job. My question regards the New Britain section and the instrumental versions that I believe depict the melody it describes. Does the article currently contain any examples of the much-discussed melody files? Admittedly, I may be overlooking them elsewhere in the article, but since the article discussess the melody so extensively, I ask.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have no idea what you're talking about because there are four sound files in the article, each one of them has the "New Britain" melody. It seems pretty obvious to me that the melody is illustrated four times. But to you it means something different, I guess. I have no idea what. So dumb it down for me so I can understand what you're asking. --Moni3 (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. (That each file containing lyrics and melody jointly contains the melody.) My point was that the section that provides discourse on the melody might be augmented by files isolating the melody without the distraction of the lyrics, of which I have provided two. I am not a musician or musical scholar, but to me it seems that some readers who are not skilled at separating out combinations of sounds might be helped in this section by instrumental versions. Yes you can hear the melody when both are present, but I am suggesting that you consider providing the reader with the melody in isolation in the extensive text where the melody is the point of discussion. You are probably some sort of musical scholar with a trained ear able to separate sounds quite readily. There are many readers myself included that are not so highly trained.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be as forthright as possible here. It appears to me that you're gearing up to put these files in this article and I still disagree that they should be in there. I fully believe that your primary motivation is obtaining a featured sound credit at the expense of the quality of the article. There are now five sound files, three free and two non-free, that illustrate different versions of the song, and except for the USAF band version, all of them are supported by sources in some way, and relevant to what sources mention either in notable versions or styles. No matter how you try to spin it, seven sound files is overkill and completely unnecessary. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Moni, actually, just the opposite. I am about to be banned from WP:FSC/WP:FS (see WP:ANI). So the motivation to get featured sounds is clearly not the case. In addition, I already have 43 WP:FS (49 counting nominations that got edited by others), with three more likely to close in my favor imminently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

With that concern off the table we can talk about the merits of the files, hopefully we can talk about what is best for the presentation of the topic on WP. With regard to the issue of the quality of the article, it is not clear to me that the quality of an article is judged by the number of files it has. Illustration, be they charts, tables, images, pictures, audio or video need to be judged on whether they illustrate encyclopedic content that complements the text. Basically, I have put forth two topics in this regard that you are welcome to speak to. (1) Would an instrumental file or two complement the text regarding the "New Britain" version by enabling some readers to here the unfettered melody. (2) Having nominated 75 sound files at WP:FSC, I have learned that the people who are expert on this feel that true renditions of a song augment the prose and inauthentic arrangements degrade the prose. Do you have an opinion on whether the two instrumental versions are true renditions of the melody.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I just can't get drunk enough when I think of Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

O.K. well. Honestly, I was trying to help from what I have learned in my experience at FS. You don't seem to want to talk about things in a way that would be constructive and I don't really want to have a protracted discussion like last time. I honestly feel that for reasons (1) & (2) above you should consider adding the files, but we will end up in growing hatred if I attempt to discuss it any further.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Moni, how are you? Long time no chit-chat. Hope everything is good for you in real-life. Hey I wanted to ask you, did you ever go to Madonna's Re-Invention World Tour and happened to upload images in Flickr? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The world's full of critics

I don't know if you've kept Donner Party on your watch list, and I'd quite understand if you haven't, but ... well this.[6] Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw it. Just one in a long line of folks who feel an uncontrollable need to tell me that I'm lazy, stupid, can't write, and possibly have mental problems. So be it. I accept that I am lazy, stupid, can't write, and have mental problems. (As if everyone else isn't, can't, and doesn't...) --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd take such comments more seriously if the person making them could actually write. And actually I think that on the whole laziness (not that I'm saying you are lazy) is more of a positive trait than a negative one. Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		For collaborating with TEHodson and finding an amicable solution to your issues on a couple of Buffy articles. (Also for writing such impressive articles on Buffy in the first place) WormTT · (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

Hi Mona3!

Thanks for your supportive comments.

I recently have worked on an article on Tom Kahn, an important behind-the-scenes American social democrat. Would you please look at the end section Tom_Kahn#Relationships, please ? (I am unfamiliar with WP conventions about describing private lives of gay persons, and my sources were extremely limited: I don't have the biographies of Bayard Rustin available right now. I have relied especially on Kahn's lifelong friend's account of his life, which seems to have been very carefully and objectively written.) An editor at the LGBT WikiProject read an earlier version, and didn't complain, so no huge problems should exist, I hope.

On a personal note: Reading about Kahn's difficulties in the 1950s has reawakened memories of a number of childhood friends who were gay and of course moved to large cities as soon as they could, and of course I am sickened by the meanness of contemporary rightwing American politics. Perhaps I overreacted to the first "sucking off" remark, which might have been a mistake, and then the other editor just dug in his heals because of being irritated with RfA and especially my edits....

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue much with the first part of your comment. It depends heavily on sources, which it should. The sources try to determine the difference between identity (was gay but wanted to be straight) and behavior. Particularly in the extremely closeted era of the 1950s, folks who had same-sex relationships, however fleeting or long-term, may have called themselves straight while obviously not doing straight things in the bedroom. If you're inspired enough to get the article to GA or FA, I'd suggest smoothing out the language and summarizing more than using so many solid quotes to prove the point that Kahn was not out of the closet. As it is, though, it's solid and I don't think any reasonable editor or reader can have an issue with it. Not that Wikipedia is known much for reasonable editors...

You should probably disambiguate civil rights movement to African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968).

The second part of your comment confuses me a lot. That's fairly common though. --Moni3 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This thing

I am warning you Moni3. If you continue to cover up the facts about Milk I will report you. You have engaged in warring. You are ignoring Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality. Jimjilin (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am so warned. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Moni3,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 14:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!) _.28Result:Protected.29}}

Rock on, you crazy bot. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Moni3,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 19:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!) _.28Result:Protected.29}}

A brownie for you!

Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

MassResistance

M3: [7] re [8] —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Moni3. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Stnwll (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stnwll, I got your email, but I have declined to respond for two reasons. I don't respond to emails from users I don't know because I don't have a generic email account for Wikipedia. Also, I've posted above that I'm on vacation (from Wikipedia as I'm too impoverished to go anywhere) but I'm checking my watchlist. Wikipedia isn't fun for me as it used to be so I'm taking time away from it hoping either to be ok with leaving it behind and knowing the articles I wrote will degrade, or getting re-energized to come back in the future at some point when my attitude toward other editors who are insistent that article quality should be diminished has improved.

Take, for instance, your email. I saw that the ages of Milk's partners and lovers were added, but I declined to fix that. I think it doesn't belong in the article and it's inconsistent with the sources and certainly the way the sources present the facts surrounding Milk's life. You bring it to my attention for what? Surely your computer is not broken. I left the issue open to discussion on the talk page hoping others watching the article, 173 as of today, would engage the editor who has no other interest in the accuracy of the topic than to add this tidbit into the article to prove a point. How many editors responded in the discussion? (Donut) Are the ages of Milk's lovers still in the article? (Yes)

Take also the removal of a sentence in the Stonewall riots article. The editor who did this, User:Pjefts, and I attempted to discuss this on the talk page as well. Count, please, how many times I asked Pjefts (on his/her talk page too) to explain what s/he wanted changed and how many replies I received. That would be, I think, 4-0. The sentence was removed without any kind of compromise, just removed because Pjefts, who wrote none of the article and has exhibited some lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia works, thought it best. Has anyone challenged Pjefts on that? (No)

You probably don't care about this, but the Roy Orbison article now has a POV template on it because some asshat is too lazy to go read the sources and has no idea what quality writing is.

I am consistently and perennially accused, quite harshly I should add, of owning articles. Most FA writers are, especially ones who edit controversial topics or articles that get a lot of hits. I've responded in the past with respectful reminders to re-read the WP:OWN page, but like whack-a-moles, other editors pop up to make the same accusation. I don't know how to respond anymore to this than "fuck off, dumbass" and when it's time for that it's time for me to go do something else. This is a system that promotes ownership because too many editors are too lazy to read the sources and must depend on the editors who have read them, but the same editors who are too lazy or stupid to read the sources wield the ownership policy to shield them from the responsibility to know what the fuck they're talking about. Such a system is clearly ineffective, inefficient, and only someone stupid or insane would continue to work in it.

In case I never come back, for posterity I have to say again that I don't have some magical gift for writing articles. I'm a regular schlub with little talent. I just read the sources. The primary issue preventing articles from being improved is that editors simply are too damn lazy to go out and read the best quality sources. Then they entrench themselves in ignorant fun by arguing, because some people just love to argue and the Internet is a homing beacon for nutjobs who reach orgasmic heights of pleasure from arguing with ignorance, force, and anonymity. So if you see problems in articles I've written, nothing prevents you from changing the articles to the way they should be. If you're not sure, go get the books or articles and read them. It's quite simple.

Maybe I'll be back, maybe I won't. If I'm not, I'll be happier doing whatever it is I do. Good luck to you and anyone else who stumbles upon this. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Buffy edits

Hello Moni. I see you're in fine fighting form, as usual! I have a question you may be able to answer for me. Someone has been anonymously edit (aka ruining) many Buffy episode pages with all kinds of trivia and links to bad sites that another user says autogenerates spam requiring repair (see Welcome to the Hellmouth). Is there a way to report and try to stop an anonymous user? I went through the WP pages on the subject and didn't see it as an option. I don't really understand how WP works when it comes to site maintenance issues. Ideas? In the meantime, I'm cleaning up after him/her, but getting really irritated. I appreciate your help.--TEHodson 02:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi TEHodson, I'm not Moni but maybe I can help you out: if it's a specific IP address or range making these edits they can be blocked if necessary, probably with a report at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. If you like, you can point me to a specific edit or IP user via my talk page and I can take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hi. Is there a way to tell if a new user has the same IP address of one of these anon editors?--TEHodson 03:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem has been resolved. Thanks, though.--TEHodson 17:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Geography and ecology of the Everglades

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Geography and ecology of the Everglades. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A random note of kindness

I came across your rant (above) at random, and I'm sorry you're so unhappy. You certainly make good points and I'd surmise that you're an excellent editor, and I hope you continue, and if not that you're happy in doing other things.

I can's give you an award since I don't know your work, but FWIW these are your current service awards (I hope you don't find them silly or loathsome (as some do), and take them in the spirit they're offered.) Herostratus (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

This editor is a Labutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain, Cigarette Burn, Chewed Broken Pencil, and Sticky Note.

WP:FOUR for Draining and development of the Everglades

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Draining and development of the Everglades. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

A special treat for a special person. Gandydancer (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Restoration of the Everglades

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Restoration of the Everglades. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Moni, how are you? Definitely you are the best, regarding your years and I just can say positive words about you. I need a favor. Since you are super great in prose and made 19 featured articles I would be pleased if you could c/e for me a bit "Rehab". I want to nominate it for FAS and I would like to see some prose advices from you. I would be greatful for that. Thanks Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)