User talk:Moni3/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Amazing Grace for TFA?

Hi Moni, I was wondering if you would mind if Amazing Grace ran as Today's Featured Article. It is fantastically written and on a very important subject, so I think it would be good to give it wider exposure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. Well, it's already at TFA, so kinda late asking. Enjoy that "wider exposure" on a topic that everyone and their brother thinks they know The Sum of All Human Knowledge! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's at TFAR, not TFA. If at TFAR it can be bumped. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't really want to deal with Amazing Grace on the main page. After the Bible, this song is probably the most widely used proselytizing tool for Christianity, so it doesn't need any more exposure. With possibly tens of thousands of readers on an article that nearly everyone in the English speaking world has some exposure to, every third reader is going to be tweaking and fixing the article, removing that thing they don't think is important, adding an uncited tidbit here, an unnotable version of the song there. I don't have the time to watch it while the article is on the main page. This means days of arguments that I really don't want to have. I really wish you hadn't done this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• As noted above, it was suggested but not set in stone. I will withdraw the nomination. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Moni, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I work with the fundraising team at the Wikimedia Foundation. For the 2011 Fundraiser, we're working to diversify the voices of the people who appear in the personal appeals for donations. In 2010, Jimmy carried most of the weight, but he doesn't represent the broad array of Wikipedians who dedicate themselves to make the projects so important. You were also recommended by Figureskatingfan, who said she loved the way you communicate and write. I wonder if you would be inclined to participate? Please let me know by emailing me: mroth@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 16:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering what your selection criteria are Matthew. Will all of us "foul-mouthed uncivil louts" be invited to take part? Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moni, yes using the interview for fundraising is a correct reading of the request. Thank you for your consideration and I'll be in touch if something else comes up. Best, Matthew (WMF) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See, you make me laugh every time I read your writing. I would imagine it will be nothing if not an entertaining interview. After the interview, if you believe it was worthless, we can leave it in the dustbin. If you'd like to participate, please email me :) Matthew (WMF) 22:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

wqa

Hello, Moni3. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter what anyone might say, you made me laugh so hard I almost dropped my dinner. Thanks for the overboldness and the kind attention to Dickenson. BusterD (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a foul-mouthed uncivil lout. Begone before you are tainted by my very existence.

Also, taint. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dearest Moni, I love you so much I fall at your feet. I'm this close to proposing marriage, which is saying much. Of course, I'm such a megalomaniac that I was sure that Matthew's request above had something to do with it, and then I was certain that you were going to be mad at me, and the thought of it horrified me. But then reason took over, and I realized that I was being silly (I hope). Christine (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Somebody needs a lift. Sounds like it might be time to start advanced planning for April :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 01:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Christine, I appreciate that you think I write well, and I'm interested to know your opinion of how I communicate. Lately, the general opinion is that I appeal to the lowest common denominator. Not that I care much about the general opinion... I'm not angry at you at all. I can't imagine how I might be unless you just went nuts and started slapping templates all over a bunch of articles I wrote then declined to discuss why, in your esteemed opinion, the articles deserved it. At any rate, just thought I should respond to that. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord. Moni, only my opinion of you matters; that guy is a loser. And what general opinion? He's just one person. You have many admirers here, so don't let the erroneous and foolish opinion of one jerk get you down. Common denominator, my big ass. Anyone who writes about the Stonewall Riots and Amazing Grace and Ray Charles and the Everglades should not be described in that way. I suppose it could be said about me, who writes about children's performers. (DYK that Sesame Street is now FA?) Christine (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Put me in that "Admirer" group. I can't remember what article it was where I met her (her?), but I remember I liked her wisdom, passion, and spunk. Seeing that s/he watched over the "Amazing Grace" article, I have watched it for some years now myself. IMO, her edits have always been right on target and she has used a lot more civility and patience than I would have been able to manage. (Moni3, I mean every word of that but I am trying to butter you up too. Would you be willing to take a look at an article I am working on and offer your opinion?--thanks) Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well well well, so the WQA monkeys have caught up with ya have they? I say drink a Flirtini and tell em to shove it up theirs Moni. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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.

A beer for you!

I drink when I edit. ;) Thanks for participating :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No tickee, no shirtee. --Moni3 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Intersex grammar

Moni, is this correct? I, who am ignorant of these matters, am relying on Oxford Dictionaries' definition of the term as a mass noun,[1] and am now puzzling over whether it is an adjective or singular noun... Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Until someone can point to an authoritative site to address grammar for intersex people, I'd stick with Oxford. --Moni3 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Because the secondary characters do not meet the standards for maintaining seperate articles. You should save that for the Buffy wiki. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:14 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

Does PoD's response (note the comment in the history) to my reply to you explain why there is little point doing anything but small steps? I would appreciate it if you would express an opinion on the sources I have presented. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I've seen your sandboxes, so I know you can build them. I don't understand why you can't put together information you think would be appropriate in the Guy Fawkes Night article. I don't understand what you really want. Permission to add anything you think is pertinent to the topic? You have that now, but Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and there seems to be some valid opinions opposing the addition of stuff in that diff POD provided. Those sources were subpar for the most part. Only one or two of them are acceptable, but even if they were used the information would have to be expanded. It seems to me like you're coming to the bank and asking for a business loan while refusing to show the loan officer your business plan, or name of business, or anything, really, but still demanding money for nothing in return. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. And I say that with the utmost simplicity. Are you just trying to add a sentence about New Zealand?

I had a run-in with another user who is now indefinitely blocked. The editor had poor reasons to oppose sourcing for an article I wrote, but enthusiasm and insanity in her favor. To build my case (for lack of a better term), I prepared this collection of sources I had read but felt did not belong in the article. That's pretty basic in my opinion, and something you should be able to put together in short order if you're at the stage of pages upon pages of arguments that have turned sour with accusations of ownership and incivility at play.

Instead of spending time on arguing, why don't you put this information together so the editors with an interest in the discussions can view what you are trying to accomplish? Until that's done, this is mostly arguing for arguing's sake. --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The diff that POD supplied was simply a copy by me of a version of a section from the the article about a year ago before PoD had deleted it for the first time. It seems to me at that time that the simplest way to develop the article further. You really should read the archive to understand what is happening and not take PoD comments too seriously as he has he uses very possible means (including those that are in breach of behaviour policies and guidelines) to enforce his opinions on others.

The reason for including the old text at the time was precisely as you have indicated. The section had been in the article. Not all of it should have been kept but neither should all of it have been deleted. However that is water under the bridge. More to the point is how to get from what is an article missing a lot of information about what Bonfire Night is. I do not just want information about NZ in the article I want more contemporary information about GB, and the other commonwealth countries. There is at the moment a huge amount about the US two centuries ago, but for example, do you, know why Guy Fawkes Night is no longer celebrated in Australia? The history of Bonfire Night in Australia is more recent and at least as relevant to the article as the history Guy Fawkes night 200 years ago in the US.

Because of FUD the only way to overcome PoD's objections is to keep the discussion focused and get him to explain why information from reliable sources is invalid and see if most people agree with him.

The reason I provided links and did not want to place the text on the page was because I knew that PoD would resort to an attack such as "Even though you're once again treading the path that led to your RFC, at which you were strongly recommended to recognise when your arguments were becoming repetitive, you still have not demonstrated why celebrations in other countries are worth mentioning when the best sources available on this topic deem them trivial." It is of course nothing to do with justifying inclusion of sources it is just another personal attack, because when I say him for which best source(s) deem "celebrations in other countries" trivial? he does not answer. Below when asked again he says "You're either being deliberately obtuse or incredibly stupid. I'm not going to explain this again".

So I am asking to you to explain you opinion on those sources one from a widely respected NZ news newspaper (the closest they have to the NYT) and a government source. Once the sources are agreed upon then we can look at where to place any information derived from them into the article. Then we can agree on the text to go into the article. But without that there will be no inclusion of any recent information and I think that more than half the population of capital of NZ turn out on November 5 to celebrate Guy Fawkes Night is something that Wikipeida should include in its article.

I have many other thinks I am doing on WP at the moment, of immediate interest is helping to fix 120 bot generated articles, so this is not exactly top of my list of things to do. -- PBS (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you just trying to add information about New Zealand in the article? Again, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. With the amount of text in your comment there dedicated to PoD, it seems you're trying to oppose PoD. What would you actually want to see in the article? --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Generally I think barnstars are a bit tacky so I won't bother, I'll just thank you publicly for the enormous private help you've given me today on sources for the Guy Fawkes Night article. Hopefully the material I've added from those sources will calm things down a little. Parrot of Doom 22:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just got to say that the use of "ditties" in an FA made me lol. I had this album in my misspent youth. None of it ever made any sense to me although it did introduce me to Chuck Berry, master guitarist, performing "My Ding-a-Ling". I never got much value from it until I got a bit older then slowed down the record player. Shit was so cash. Lolled so hard. --Moni3 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the first album I had was by the Barron Knights, which contained this amazing song :) My first record was 666, The Number of the Beast, by Iron Maiden. Shame I didn't have a record player :(

As for ditties, I generally enjoy inserting words that the yanks object to. Witness the inclusion in Dick Turpin of him shooting another man's cock. Boy, that created a bit of a stink. Parrot of Doom 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Boobies?

Someone told me you were talking about naked boobies, so I had to go look. I get your point about reader interest, but others may query, "I guess what I'm asking is what does a reader get from this article that they wouldn't get elsewhere?" Here's what they look like after stomping blueberries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, so I signed you up to be a helpmeet at this website. Enjoy your new love, whoever he may be. There's a special prize on that page...read the part about not meeting people from the internet alone and what you should bring with you. --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find that part, so I brought my father and a big gun. "God commands the aged women to teach the younger women"? Does that mean I'm supposed to mentor child admin wannabes? Re: "you don't know what I'm talking about", ask the horse women. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistake?

Not very practical, but doable

Can you just clarify the reason for this edit for my benefit please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Did I do that? Apparently I did. Or my DUMBASS STUPID FUCKING PHONE that won't allow me to click on a diff right over the rollback link. Goddammit. I'm sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's ok, it's something I've often (nearly) done on my iPhone. So don't blame Android entirely. No, on second thoughts, do. No issues. It happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AND I WASN'T EVEN TRYING TO READ MALLEUS' TALK PAGE!! Goddamn phone. --Moni3 (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. I've found myself reverting stuff on my watch list from years ago because of clumsy fingers (or, as I prefer it, clumsy phones)... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The rollback function is the worst invention ever. Of all time. I think this script prevents it from popping up on your watchlist. Or maybe it was this one. Nev1 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you even log in on your phone? I tried reading wikipedia from my blackberry, but there was no place to log in so I couldn't bring up my watchlist. Stupid m.wikipedi.org! Tex (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can log in and read talk pages and such, but I can't edit using my Android. --Moni3 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But it's so easy if you don't mind swiping in such a small window where the keyboard takes up half of the window! ME (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because you're a sysop you can edit using your Android as long as it's set to "View this page on regular Wikipedia" (I don't know of a way of doing it on the m.en.wikipedia.org site anyway, although Rollback may be easier to carry out because it's just a click of a button).

While it's true that all known IP addresses from cellphone service providers are range blocked, Administrators are allowed to edit without being affected by the rangeblock because we are WP:IPEXEMPT. Now, whether you'd want to make large edit to a large article is a different matter. Here's a screengrab of me editing your page. It's not very user friendly, and doing it Landscape is even worse Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait -- I was logged in as User:ME and I don't have an IPEXEMPT on that account.. How very odd.. Maybe everyone can edit then? Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Buffy pages and junkyard bits

It appears to me that RustedAutoParts is edit warring to make his point. What do you want to do about it? I'll support you in any decision you make. It also appears that he, or someone, created a new account in order to bolster his case. I left a message on his Talk page--you might want to check it out (User talk:Rusted AutoParts, -- section ). -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEHodson (talk • contribs)

It's not edit warring if that's the first time i reverted. Master is not sourced, so he's lost his article. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:27 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RAP, you have no idea what you're doing. People all over Wikipedia are going to be cleaning up after you until you decide to learn what is done around here. It's not fun. Your approach makes Wikipedia less fun. I wish you would get in gear and make an effort to improve something.

TEHodson, I'm going to have to do this shit myself. Goddamn sonofabitch. I'm still angry that the mass of editors who left Emmett Till a wasteland made me read the 4 pages it took for his mother to describe what he looked like in his coffin just to make the article presentable. (And what, I'm supposed to be reasonable all the time? )--Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't have a cow, darling. Let me help. What can I do?--TEHodson 19:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even that fussed right now, actually. I've just learned from my embattled years here that people actually pay attention to you when you pepper your language with "holy goddamn"s. A long time ago, used to be all nice and shit. Wikipedia fixed that real good. However, I appreciate your offer. First I have to figure out what article everyone wants to delete today. Then I have to go search for source material on it, not only in the books I have, but JSTOR, a university library, Google Scholar, and anything else I can find. I'll probably start constructing the articles in a sandbox and post them in as much totality as I can. Then I can sit back and field all the complaints. --Moni3 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni, i may have been around less time than you, but i am NOT here to "muck things up". That comment is quite the slap in the face to me. I have been a major driving force in the creation of numerous pages. I create the articles and along with me numerous editors contribute to it, unlike you. You, you look at articles that shouldn't have seperation from another article, stand there, say it should stay because other people will help make it work and YOU aren't even trying to make sure it's up to standard. Stop blowing the whistle and start working the machines (for this particular scenario). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:47 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Explain more slowly how I do nothing around here. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Since this popped on my watchlist, I found and read the relevant discussion here; I'm going to stay out of RAP's obvious misstatements and misunderstanding of Wikipedia editing policies, and his lack of knowledge of Moni3's editing, since I have added an NPA warning to Rusted Auto Parts for his "fuck you" to Moni3 in that discussion. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

RAP, do you even know what WP:FAs and WP:GAs are? Do you not know how much work this woman has done? "Start working the machines"? Are you out of your mind??--TEHodson 21:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Very sneaky, RAP, going back to add: "(for this particular scenario)" to your above comment, rather than doing the right thing and apologizing for telling a noted, hard-working editor to "Stop blowing the whistle and start working the machines!" as you originally did. You should be ashamed of yourself. I would strongly suggest you clean up your act.--TEHodson 23:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni, please call off your guard dog, i added the (particular scenario) part so you don't assume your work on Wikipedia meant nothing. Hodson, people who get up in others faces, don't earn respect, only loathing. And in turn that loathing will twist you into a cold and unfeeling person who believes confrontation is the only solution. I believed the matter was settled. Moni, as i've spotted is currently doing a bang up job on the Joyce Summers re-write, so i'm not here to gain a victory or to make you work to get these articles to stay, i was only doing what i noticed others doing to character pages when all they had were in-uniiverse materials. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:03 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a strange notion of victory, even if you're performing what you think is a noble thing by not gaining it, whatever that means. Do me a favor. Keep that sandbox on your watchlist. Watch how much work goes into it. You and your redirects will never know what it's like until you get off your smug lazy ass, go to the fucking library, and do some work. You will never know. You'll furthermore never know what it's going to be like to have to defend the article to a dozen editors just like you who will never read the sources, but complain about the article anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but that's how Wikipedia is run. If an article doesn't adhere to guidelines, it's redirected or deleted. We've given you a chance to save the ones worth saving. Don't like it, the door's wide open, you can exit anytime. Joyce, Warren Mears, Mayor, Andrew Wells, Faith and maybe Drusilla look fine, but the rest should receive the redirects. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 1:17 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Who, exactly, is "we"?--TEHodson 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Me, Doniago and Millahnna. Doniago's proposal was to redirect the ones that weren't notable and keep the ones are can be sourced. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 1:40 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Now you've done it. Are you single? Tell me yes. I'm so hoping. --Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni, he's 17 and spends all his time on the computer. What do you think?--TEHodson 01:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Damn the obstacles of his age and social impediments. I can't resist his drooling, bipolar reasoning, and testicular elephantiasis any longer. --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I know where your anger comes from. Many of my articles were deleted due to complaints of notability and no one was willing to help make it notable. One of my articles was even stolen and placed into someone else's userspace. I was brought to the point where i retired briefly 3 times. But i came back, and i had to accept the notability bullcrap and follow by it. No one was concerned about improving it, they wanted it gone. So, naturally i found that accepting that helped me from getting into heated debates. I never imagined this would escalate. I would help except i'm don't hold great knowledge on Buffy. I watch re-runs occassionally, but that's it. I use the wiki to get a better knowledge of characters. So i share the view of how "not notable equals no article is crap", but others expect me to follow it, so i do. Hodson, that was cold, man. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:00 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit. Please don't ever stop posting this stuff. It belongs in a fucking museum. Please tell me more. --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to see your POV and you're mocking me? I do genuinely not want to have to redirect any article, but when the chips are down, you have to do what you think should be done. Hopefully this is my last post, so you won't have to put up with me no more. Obviously i've provided myself as a joke to you and Hodson. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:11 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Aw. Don't go away mad. Play some more. Tell me more about all the articles you wrote that got stolen. I wrote one once that was sold on the black market in exchange for hookers and drugs. It was, ironically, about hookers and drugs. Then once I deleted a bunch of stuff about a topic I know nothing about. I felt good about myself that day. Like I had really made a difference in the world, like I had given birth to la chupacabra. Once I even had to find a source to back something up in an article. My gosh, that was a trial! I rent my garments in anguish over that. To avoid that sort of thing, I just make other editors write articles now. I think that's for the best. When they resent me for being lazy, I lecture them. It's really the best way to go, you know. Of course you do. --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not mad, i just never thought i was a joke here due to my age. Guess that's a sign i should just pack up my old kit bag and ride off into the sunset. I didn't try to say you were being lazy, so i apologize for that, your contributions are valued here by the wikipedia community. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:32 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And the only time, ever, I've been mean. But you have really been pushing it all day. I am a patient woman, old enough to be your mother's older sister, and generally get treated with the same respect I treat others. I write full time in the real world, work hard here regularly, trying to improve those pages I am interested in, and then you come along, make a mess, insult me, insult one of the best WP editors (that would be Moni), refuse to cooperate or answer simple questions, leave others to do the work you've decided must be done (but won't do yourself) and under a deadline you've randomly imposed, and then you come here and lecture Moni, saying "We've given you a chance...if you don't like it, leave."? Are you fucking kidding me? Your behaviour has been shocking and unprecedented in my own experience, but knowing your age at least puts it in perspective. You really need to stop now and go away, back to whatever pages you were "working on" before you blew into the Buffyverse. Please. Go away.--TEHodson 02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni, how do I put that sandbox on my own watchlist? Thanks.--TEHodson 00:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Go here, click "watch" at top of page. --Moni3 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I went through the Buffy and Philosophy book for mentions of Joyce that might come in handy, and did find one note (twice) that gives some insight into how Joyce deals with the world. When Faith steals Buffy's body and Joyce thinks she's Buffy, she asks why she thinks Faith is the way she is. "Buffy" replies, "Maybe she likes being like that" but Joyce doesn't buy it. She says, "I'll never believe that--I think she's terribly unhappy." This example of her compassion, even for someone who just tried to kill her, may be something you can find a use for. If so, let me know and I'll supply ref details. I'm happy to copyedit, too, when you burn out on the article--I'm always up for that. I can't believe you've undertaken to do this because of a pipsqueak kid who hasn't the first notion of what is involved (and how nice of him to congratulate you on your "bang-up" effort). If I had the books and the time, I'd start on someone else, but I will do whatever editing I can do. It's interesting to note that apparently youth disallows the notion of two women being frustrated with him individually, and only sees one person and a "guard dog." Cat, at least, please! Not a dog person!--TEHodson 01:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to click the star now to get a page on your watchlist. No "watch" anymore. I won't tell you how long it took me to remember that!--TEHodson 01:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Moni - I understand that you are frustrated and may be upset, but this edit is inappropriate, especially from a sysop. Please either take a time out from that article or just watch your tone.--v/r - TP 13:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. I'm unclear. Would it be untoward for me to tell someone to eat a bag of dicks? Please advise. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Moni - the sarcastic tone wasn't uncivil but also wasn't appropriate and sparked what had been a calm conversation into a firestorm. You then went on to call an editor's efforts a cockup, called them a 17-year-old newbie who has an appalling lack of experience in editing and said fuck civility and you've had a severe lack of assuming good faith on this editor's part by suggesting they just want to rid Wikipedia of article, that they're edits are only butchering, and you're showing a lot of WP:OWN issues in this edit. Seriously, if you can't take the advice of an uninvolved editor like myself who has zero interest at all in Buffy, then you really need to get some perspective here. You're not doing yourself any favors by your response to me.--v/r - TP 13:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You can stop poking now, TP-- Moni is not stupid. Surely you can see when inexperienced editors drive knowledgeable editors to the brink, and recognize that further poking here won't be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't poking. Her response to me above appeared, from my point of view, to be ignoring the issue which is why I dug for diffs.--v/r - TP 13:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Try not to be obtuse, TP-- if that's how you read her response, you seem to be assuming she's stupid. She most certainly is not. Inexperienced editors driving experienced editors to the brink is the trend lately on Wikipedia-- that doesn't excuse intemperate responses, but please strive for some sensitivity to how bad this situation has gotten, with very few editors working much too hard to maintain some semblance of what the encyclopedia is supposed to be about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I get that new editors can be annoying, I generally work WP:CSD so I get that a lot. I just don't see how sarcasm is helpful. I'm really surprised to find ya'all justifying this.--v/r - TP 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(double e/c) I tend to disagree, TP. Perhaps Moni's reaction was not saint-like, but most of the rest of it was RAP constantly egging her on. I don't know if it was intentional egging-on, or unintentional egging-on, but that's what it was. My only thought is to remind Moni that when someone is saying silly things, you're not required to answer them, you can also ignore them, and to remind RAP that constantly poking someone that you've upset is unhelpful and unwise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. Having read that entire conversation on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buffyverse#Merging_of_characters_to_List_of_Buffy_characters.3F, RAP appears to just be confused and trying to apply WP:BEBOLD. I think he is generally trying to improve the project and is being treated unfairly. Her behavior and User:Jclemens scolding of RAP and not her has now caused two editors to become disillusioned in the project. I would call it well past "not saint-like". Take an honest look.--v/r - TP 14:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did take an honest look; if I was inclined to escalate things, I'd make some annoyed comment about AGF, making sure to bluelink it, and then you'd do the same, and things would go off from there. That's kind of what happened yesterday. Instead, I'll just point out that I'm not a newbie, and my opinion is as valid as yours, and disagreement with you is not evidence of not taking an honest look at something, any more than disagreeing with me makes you dishonest. I imagine Moni is capable of listening to different opinions and deciding what to take onboard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant to remove "honest" but I edit conflicted before I could so I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Right (@ Flo, after ec). The problem is, we see this all too often from immature editors. I often wonder if overindulged children are accustomed to behaving like this with their parents, or if it's just a general maturity thing, but sheesh, it's happening all over the Wikipedia of late, and the constant egging on and poking can wear down even a saint. It's been a theme of late, and I've been thinking we need an essay of how this kind of thing can exhaust our knowledgeable contributors. There should be a point at which we acknowledge that children are still maturing, but don't allow them an equal footing at the content table to the point that experienced editors see their entire Wiki time consumed by dealing with this problem. Someone please write an essay on how we are supposed to deal with a website that can't put any limits on how much agida inexperienced but well-meaning editors can cause or how they can be permitted to drive knowlegeable and experienced editors to the brink because admins don't engage content (my piece of that has been to try to assure that our admin corp consists of content-friendy editors, but we still see the admin corp dominated by folks who simply don't see how bad this problem is). TP, for the last time, please stop poking here-- you're not helping. Please-- someone start an essay since this is a significant problem, and move your discussion to there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) And stop with the "editors becoming disillusioned" silliness-- we might as well recognize that editors who know Wikipedia policy and apply it, who know how to write, and who are doing the lion's share of adding the little bit of content worth reading on this site are the ones we shouldn't be losing, and we are. It's all too easy for admins to sanction for behavioral reasons, which is why we're seeing the site increasingly dominated by editors who can't add content, as those who can are driven away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, attacking me is way more helpful. The project will fail if folks continue treating each other like this. I've tried to step in to bring a little peace. Ya'all go ahead and continue justifying it. At some point, experienced editors will leave by simple attrition but no one will fill in behind them because ya'all are justifying the bitey behaviors. Fine, I'm gone.--v/r - TP 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, you've become disruptive, and it's past time to back off. Plenty of eyes will be on this, your message is recorded, move along now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys are fun. No doubt none of the above would have occurred had I actually felt then subsequently expressed genuine caring about TP's opinion. TP, remedial reading might improve your comprehension of things. If anyone has any advice about how I should behave to get into the Ladies of the Eastern Star, feel free to list them below. Otherwise, you can ask yourself who has two thumbs and doesn't give a shit. And the answer would be Moni. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Between this and the nonsense on Malleus's talk page I'm questioning whether I want to be creating content anymore. We've got content editors being disillusioned in droves (we can count Parrot of Doom and John in this week's list of those who've been driven batty by People Who Don't Get It). Bitey is bad. Lack of policy knowledge/lack of ability to address issues rather than pontificate on how the content guru doesn't understand policy is WORSE. I'd say we were heading for a time where all editors on Wikipedia were nice and polite all the time while no decent content ever got written, but I see too many on ANI who have interesting standards for themselves to believe the first part will come true. Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

See my post on Sandy's page... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And my rant to go with Karanacs-- there was a time I understood that, although 98% of Wikipedia was crap, at least the FA process was worth participating in, because we could turn out good work. That is becoming increasingly difficult, and seeing how many of these situations are going on everywhere is very discouraging, particularly as I contemplated a return to full-force editing after six months of getting relocated and resettled. I don't want to be part of this. Sure, it's a lot the issue of how Wikipedia is being taken over by children, but that's not all of it-- what has gone on at Guy Fawkes, for example, is experienced editors. But, I disagree that we're heading for a time when all editors are nice but no decent content is written-- I say we're heading for a time when all editors are allowed and expected to act immaturely, we can't call anyone on disruption, decency and professionalism are out the window, and no decent content is written. Something has to change, and what I'm coming around to is that it won't change if the admin corp won't start listening, and we've been doing that battle for years. A new approach, to shine light on this problem, is needed. That's why I suggested an essay, a forum to gather those who are concerned. This accelerating trend is killing off content and those who write it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Its the Randy from Boise effect --Guerillero | My Talk 20:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Doniago apparently failed to notify you that the Buffy situation is at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. I stated in my initial ANI filing that my main concern was that my {{adminhelp}} request had gone unacknowledged after more than 12 hours, and I was not notifying editors at the time. My Talk page request similarly does not invoke any editors' names but rather asks for an admin to look over the Talk page where the contentious discussion appears to have originated, specifically because at the time I wasn't sure an ANI filing was merited and was, in fact, hoping to avoid that course of action. Have a nice day. Doniago (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You knock yourself out with that at ANI. However you thought you might get help or accomplish anything at ANI, even if you disagree with me, I don't know. I'd rather have to eat my way out of a prison built of medical waste. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, notifications aren't suggestions for AN/I. Sandy, thanks for following up. I'll try to get any others that may have been missed. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Doniago, I don't think there's a civil way to "call bullshit", but when you said "chastised one editor for their incivility while letting others' incivility pass", you most clearly invoked the editors involved, and you should have notified. It's hard to believe that you didn't expect this to come back on the editors involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As I stated, I only went to ANI because my help request had (apparently) been overlooked and I wanted to call attention to it. Until the issue grew more complicated, frankly I just wanted an admin to look over the situation and take whatever actions they deemed appropriate; I sure as hell wasn't looking for a debate of this magnitude, though I'll admit I've found it "illuminating". But you know what? Believe what you'd like to believe. Doniago (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

ANI at work. Paths of excrements show they have been in the habit for a while. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a tip. Anything that will ever be discussed, and every possible outcome, has already occurred at ANI. 99% of the time explaining oneself, regardless of your point of view on an issue, is futile. If there is ever a gray area in an issue...holy shit and bar the door. You can expect abuse from editors you have never seen or interacted with, who will be all too eager to add their views (sauteed lightly in ignorance), a large helping of judgment and condescension, and you will come away wanting to cry for the outcome of all mankind. ANI is for the 1% of the time where a situation is cut and dry and you need an admin to act on something right now. Otherwise, the forum accomplishes nothing. --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Doniago (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Your diagnosis of the problems facing article-writers as they defend quality content made my day.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Effusivity emissivity

Before joining Wikipedia a few months back (instead of just making the odd grammatical correction here and there), I vaguely assumed that the Discussion tab would be full of arcane matters of style and friendly requests for access to out of print sources. The section you started at Talk:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill is the first I have seen that really treats this like a serious project instead of just another place to argue on the internet. Moreover, you addressed just about every issue I saw and some more besides.

Offline, I am taciturn and understated, which translates exceptionally poorly into a text-only medium of communication. I tend to be somewhat effusive in an attempt to compensate. I understand the frustration that is seeing someone substitute an expression of lack of aptitude for actually making an attempt ("Math is hard, let's go shopping" should not be a personal motto). Sorry about that.

While I am here - if you have the time and inclination, I started a pair of articles at Erin Morgenstern and The Night Circus that I suspect could use a looky-see from someone with more experience here. Not to worry either way.FiveColourMap (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN

Wrt your comment here. I can sympathize with most of your views, also echoed by several other highly prolific contributors of quality content. One thing about the idea to delete WP:OWN though: I come from the other side of that particular fence, being mostly a gnome who performs MoS-related cleanup and only the occasional content correction or addition.

In the past, I've come across several examples of "own"ed articles, where seemingly non-controversial and well-attributed additions I made were met with unanimous opposition and hostility by the established maintainers of those articles.

This does of course not refute your valid points about irritating drive-by editors, but the opposite problem does also exist, probably because there is a lack of central governance and some groups of editors have long since started to create their own rules and habits, sometimes grossly deviating from established project-wide P&G. In fact, I'd argue that some long-term article maintainers are among the worst problem editors on Wikipedia, and getting some of them even topic-banned is virtually impossible with the current process structure. --195.14.206.143 (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed

I have to throw in a "Yeah, what you said". There is some fairly serious structural rot in some highly revered pillars of Wikipedia, and I'm sad to say I don't foresee resolution any time soon. Keep fighting the good fight as and when you can. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I don't know what your points are exactly. Neither of you seem to be opening a dialogue to discuss the misuse of OWN. So I'm not sure if you are looking for a reply or what. Keep in mind though that I've been accused of owning articles dozens of times. I've seen it used so many times that it's basically meaningless. Here on this very page is a perfect example of the misuse of a WP:OWN warning: take TParis' comments to me above, warning me that my attitude at WP:Buffyverse seems to display WP:OWN issues. TParis cites a comment I made where s/he clearly did not read what I wrote. So I'll summarize. When other editors refuse to access sources leaving me as the only editor that does, the system--and most importantly the other editors refusing to step up and access relevant sources--force me to own the article.

You have a book I haven't read? Let's talk about it. You have a different view on a book we both read? Let's talk about it. Otherwise, if you have a problem with the content in an article I wrote and you're not willing to get the sources, then shut up and get another damn hobby. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you know where I stand on this, and would just like to remind people that there is more to an article's creation than just the research (although obviously, without that, there is no article to begin with), but not all content writers are actually good writers and many need a heavy editorial hand. Even the best ones need a new set of eyes to do everything from re-structuring a confusingly organized article to removing redundancy, clumsy prose, and pretzel sentences. There are often inaccuracies of plot or other detail in even the best-written fiction-related articles. No one here is great at everything and some recognition of partnership is wise, as it's a good and healthy part of the process.--TEHodson 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Me, I wasn't looking for a reply—just expressing empathy, sympathy, and solidarity. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a particular response either, Moni3. Just felt like providing additional perspective. Obviously I'm not talking about cases where the article maintainer is more clueful, but about those other cases, where the article maintainer is markedly less clueful, obnoxiously stubborn, or playing dumb. About reading the sources. I know of at least one specific case of a very-long-term maintainer of a certain array of articles, who --in spite of a complete lack of credentials-- has managed to inject his own highly opinionated writings into several of those articles. Get to think of it, COI is yet another page which could use a major rewrite. Alas, all policy is geared toward keeping the status quo. God forbid we actually had the policies and processes to show kooks and idiots the door. I know there is not much in the way of a dialogue to be had here. There's precious little to negotiate, especially since nothing's going to change anyway -- certainly not for the better. --78.35.237.132 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm never surprised

For instance what does one do when one finds a probably notable article in user space such as User:Yvesnimmo/Complete? Why....delete it of course...how convivial....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Anything to keep from working on articles, I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Working on articles seems to have become rather unfashionable among Wikipedia's elite, mere grunt work of no real value. Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

These days I use user pages to create or (?) improve articles, then release the result into article space if I'm happy with the results. --Philcha (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've used sandboxes since 2008. Deleting material in userspace that was clearly intended for article improvement is baffling. But whatevs. Lots of stuff around here baffles me. --Moni3 (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Now I get it

Oh Moni dear, could you please wikify this article for me? [3] Seems in all two sentences of a basic dictionary definition, I failed to link terms like clawing and biting and behavior. Random tagging of article not worth the time it spent me to create it.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jenny Calendar

Good work on JC, Moni. I've been out of town, but will do some copy-editing tomorrow or next day. Also going to take a peek at the ep, because I'm certain that Angel is laughing and making jokes as he chases and then kills her, and I think it should say that, as his pleasure in what he's doing is a significant reason that the scene is soooo disturbing (and that we mark him as truly 'evil').--TEHodson 03:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What is this? The fucking Victorian era?

I've come to your page to vent. I've decided that this concept that the notiion of "civility" is to protect the delicate women on the project is the most fucking insanely patronizing thing I've ever heard. For fuck's sake! Who the fuck do they think we are? Idiots? Stupid? Illiterate? Holding our hands over our ears every time Malleus says "arse" which to Americans sounds very quaint? Anyway, hope you're well. Just had to let loose. That conversation has been bugging me for days. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree. Someone with strident ideals may label me a Queen bee, but regardless of sex or gender, if you can't communicate with confidence and conviction and understand that human language is used to express a variety of sentiments that may have nothing to do with you, then perhaps you shouldn't edit.

Also, the only thing that comes to mind at "arse" is Roman Polanski's attempted extra-marital flirting: when he attempted to compliment a woman on her backside ("Madam, you have a beau-ti-ful arse!"), it turned out to be his wife, Sharon Tate. --Moni3 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, Moni, and look at what happened to her! I spend a fair amount of time around non-American English speakers so I'm not bothered by the swearing. I have a very good friend (female) who swears more and better than anyone I know. But what really really gets me is that women are doing very good work here - you, Sandy, Karanacs, Nikkimaria, Christine, Maria, Moonriddengirl, Risker, Cynwolf, Awadewit, Ealdgyth all come to mind without having to even think a bit and I know there are many many more. But if an article is go on the main page with an unresolved grammar issue because Malleus said a bad word and someone thinks the women are offended - then we have a serious problem. I'm offended that the collective noun situation wasn't sorted out. Btw - I don't think of you as a Queen Bee, but it's interesting to think about whether we do have them on wiki. I'd never really given that any thought. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the civility police have never spent any time around women in a barn... we swear worse than cowboys. And nothing but nothing beats a female discussion of gelding horses or the ins and outs of persuading a shy stallion to mount a breeding dummy.... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Ealdgyth. Perhaps you might add you stories to Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Civility_Police_need_to_lighten_up, where one issue is the Civility Police's attempt to impose Ivy League diction on everyone. --Philcha (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with even half a brain could see that a fundamental problem here is that the process of content building is as public as the content itself, which is frankly ridiculous. Could you imagine editorial sessions at Encyclopedia Britannica being published on their web site? The extreme demands for civility we see here make rather little sense outside of an early 21st-century social networking site, which is what I think Jimmy Wales believes Wikipedia to be. Malleus Fatuorum 05:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Moni3, you are one Hell of a gal. Or not, as you prefer.[5] Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh. As the daughter of a sailor, I find this whole thing rather hilarious. When I was six I had to stuff a raw jalapeño in my mouth and chew for 1 minute for calling my mom a bitch. The "civilty police" could learn something or two from my dad (although I think a few may already have the hypocrisy thing down). STFU and GBTW, I say; except I don't really say it, I just kind of do it. Seems like some fussy admins need to do the same. María (yllosubmarine) 19:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

As a very fussy admin, may I relate something that happened to me. In an organisation with shared phones, I was trying to get the operator to put through a business call when a young colleague picked up an extension on the same line to made a personal call. Being rather tense, and knowing that she swore like a trooper while driving, I tactfully if rather loudly said "get off the fucking phone". She was fine with that, but an older gentleman who'd overheard it would no longer speak to me. There is no moral to this story, it's simply that your heading reminded me of it. Fortunately these primitive days of shared phones and telephone operators are long gone, I hope. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Several years ago, I was looking to get hired at a university in a very small town where the university is the largest employer by leaps and bounds. I applied for 150 jobs over a year and a half and finally was hired. After 6 months of applying and expecting to get interviewed I finally called the HR department to ask if anything was procedurally wrong with my application. I think I stated it as "Hey, yeah, I'm just calling to find out if there's anything wrong with my application because I thought I would have been called for several interviews by now." The HR employee replied, "MA'AM, YOU NEED TO CALM DOWN!" And transferred me to someone else I guess, who was skilled in handling problem people. All I could think was, wtf was that all about??? That was just over the phone. The internet just makes shit ten thousand times harder. --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Moni for doing this to your page but I know you can sympathize. What I find fucking incivil to for someone to start an edit war over a color change to template, an edit war that takes me away from editing and spills onto my page with aggressive behavior. To have that followed up with the suggestion that I start using Harvard templates, which I've used and stopped using for all the obvious reasons, when I'm in the middle of trying to write a page for which I've bought books and on my first fucking Saturday off since August. That's rude. But no one will ever do anything about that type of rudeness. We're supposed to shrug it off and carry on. Basically I'm finished here. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I like it especially when editors complain that the articles I'm working on to get to a respectable level are too respectable. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I also sympathize quite heavily with your sentiment. Not much respect for creators these days... (actually extend that to just in general). *Sigh.* ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bit o' trivia

Did you ever notice that not once, in 7 seasons of BtVS, did Sarah Michelle Geller put even a bite of food into her mouth? Other people do, but not she, not once.--TEHodson 08:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

She chews gum at least. She also drinks milk. Psychotic demon roommates who demand you log your calls tend to make a person do what they don't do everyday. --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen Ringer? She eats in the first season of that! (At least I think so.) Christine (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

She also eats a cherry in the first episode. Ten times from ten different angles, according to Whedon.

Christine, I'm watching Ringer every week. All I can think of when I see it is "this is what Buffy looks like at 30 years old." I keep waiting for her to kick ass, too, but that doesn't appear to be part of the premise of Ringer. Bummer. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. There was that one episode where she was getting her ass kicked, when she yelled, "I'm not the right girl!" Not having watched Buffy, I don't suffer from the same problem. Although hubby and I have decided to watch it after we're done getting through all 10 seasons of Smallville, which will be in a few weeks because we're half-way through the final season. It will be fun to watch Buffy and then read your articles afterwards, Moni, and I'll probably make him do the same. Then I'll probably change my ring tone for him; currently, it's "Save Me (Remy Zero song)", which if you knew him, you'd understand how appropriate that is. But enough about me. Christine (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any of that milk made it into her mouth--it mostly flows down her chin and neck, but she not only chews gum in the same epsidode, but actually swallows it. But I imagine it was sugar-free, therefore calorie-free, too (or that she threw it up after the scene was done). I remember being really quite alarmed by season 7 at how terribly thin SMG had become; it was unnerving, especially because Eliza Dushku was back, looking so robust beside the pale, frail, unmuscled Sarah. She looks pretty normal in Ringer, though (for her, that is). I, too, keep expecting her to put down the gun and punch someone. SMG used to do some martial arts (part of why she was as convincing in the fight scenes in Buffy), but as you say, Moni, those skills don't appear to be required here, no matter how many parts she plays. I'm waiting for a scene where Buffy is playing on the TV in the background of a shot. I haven't really decided what I think of the show yet, though.--TEHodson 21:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Protection help

Moni, it's my understanding that you're an administrator. Does that mean you can protect a page? 50 Words for Snow has been vandalized twice in as many minutes, and as the album has just come out, I foresee more of the same in the next couple of days. Can you either protect the page or advise me? Thank you.--TEHodson 20:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I put it on my watchlist. Two instances of vandalism in 2 minutes isn't a big deal yet. When multiple IPs hit the article with nonsense or an effort by one or more editors or IPs lasts for hours or days, then it's time to protect it. Check the last 100 edits for Emmett Till, another article I wrote (and so uplifting...). It gets a lot of hits from kids at school and they get bored in class and insert "Mr. Jones likes weiners" or whatever they feel like putting in there. It's easy enough to overturn quickly. If I'm on another of my benders though and someone is making a concerted effort to really mess up an article, you can place a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. That's a crap shoot though. Sometimes they'll tell you to stop whining and get over it. That's generally not helpful.

If I see the vandalism has picked up at 50 Words for Snow, I'll protect it for a short while. Once most IPs get thwarted even a little bit they lose interest. --Moni3 (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It was notable because it's very unusual for Kate's articles to be messed with. Maybe it'll be nothing.

I never know how seriously to take your references to your "benders"; I hope you're okay.--TEHodson 20:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sobriety is overrated. So is stuff like psychology and "mental health". I get my philosophy from bumper stickers. Historians apparently neglect to include well-behaved women in recorded documentation of events and movements. Oh, hmmm. Historians are as suspect as mental health professionals. Since I clearly don't value well-behaved women, historians, bumper stickers, philosophy, or mental health, I'm going to go not be sober for a while.

But I will keep an eye on the album article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

I've been thinking about this comment since I read it. I think if we could shift this thing around so that it's expanded in the direction you've indicated then it might be a worthwhile exercise. I'm re-reading TCO's analysis very slowly and carefully, taking notes, with the objective of getting a revised presentation. Anyway, I've set up a [6] and am brainstorming. Anything you have to add is more than welcome. You always have good ideas and a good sense of things. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Error in The Aesthetics of Culture

Hi. I'm reading Pateman's book now (mostly fascinating; a bit of a stretch, some of his points, though) and have come to the start of his analysis of "Restless," and have found something odd and wonder if you noticed it, too. He's talking about Willow's writing on Tara's back and it's reference to Peter Greenaway's gorgeous film, "The Pillow Book", and I was relieved, as I'd been surprised no one else seemed to have noticed that--I wanted to add something to the "Restless" article about that, but of course couldn't, having no source but my own self, but then he goes on to say that the film's denouement is a lesbian relationship and I just went, "HUH??" There's no such relationship in that film (I have the script as well as the film itself); Nagiko returns to live in her parent's home, with a nurse for the baby--perhaps he misread that, or has mistaken Sei Shonagon (who we see, too, but have been well-rehearsed in the fact that she lived 1,000 years earlier) for her lover? I don't know, but it's a good example of the need to tread carefully when citing sources. Did you notice it, too? It's pretty clear that Joss was referencing "The Pillow Book" with the calligraphy on the body, but not because of any mirrored relationship of the characters. Since I've been reading some of the books used to research Buffy I've found several people who have pointed out significant errors of reference in Nikki Stafford's book (when she cites episodes). Have you discovered other errors in other sources? Do you just ignore them and work around them? Anyway, I'm looking forward to fleshing out "Restless" when I'm done reading. I'm glad I got the book. Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.--TEHodson 05:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I've overdone it. I just finished the first go-round for Adam. I have Pateman's book but I haven't added anything to that article although Adam is in "Restless". I'm going to try to get to it in the next couple days.

Short answer, though: sometimes sources put in WTF? statements, such a grand reach that I just can't even entertain it. Most of the time, regardless of what they say, I'm pretty game and I'll add if it it's clear it's a significant view. Other times I chuckle and say whatevs and move on to the part that makes sense to me. When I work with another editor to add content, s/he might overrule me and put it in, no matter how weird or dumb it sounds. I have to read the passage you're referencing. I'll take a look at it soon. As for Stafford, I've noticed a couple blips, but I notice blips anyway because some of the books or sources came out after some other one, so it's understandable why Author X had to speculate wildly about Event 3 in 2005 when Joss Whedon said so in 2008. Primarily, I use Stafford to shore up sections about what happened in an episode because her book is an episode guide. Stafford's comments are usually not in depth (she also has backstory on the development of the film, series, cast bios and other goodies that are hard to find), but every once in a while she writes about something I've never thought of before and it makes sense, so I'll cite her. I haven't found her stuff to be more inaccurate than another source but it all depends on what you use it for.

Had a good Thanksgiving. Even had a guest get all righteously indignant when I mentioned the Spike and Giles discussions on "Pangs" about Native Americans. No Thanksgiving is complete without arguments about genocide. Hope yours was good as well. --Moni3 (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Luckily for me, my day was free of discussions about genocide. As I don't look terribly Indian, people sometimes make comments without realizing I'm not one of "them" and that they may have genuinely upset me, but this year I spent the day with relative strangers (much preferable to strange relatives) and a couple of close friends at a big gathering (did have to suffer through a faux-Indian prayer of thanks to the Earth, which was really fine, but you know...I just keep silent and observe my own rituals privately). It was nice, though. I enjoy getting together with people so don't stress about the "meaning" of the day--other Indians don't observe it at all, however. I gave up political correctness when I realized doing so could also mean giving up pumpkin pie and listening to Alice's Restaurant. To be serious for a moment, to start getting worked up about those things is to enter into a lifetime of righteous rage and I just don't have the strength for that; I educate where I can and keep myself calm about the rest.

The error re "The Pillow Book" is on pages 128-129. Do you know the film? It's pretty great. I'm all for lesbian-lover denouements in films, but this one don't got one. Anyway, I'm not surprised you're feeling done over--you've done a man's job (as Gaff says to Deckard at the end of Blade Runner). Take a break, relax, rest up for the next BIG DAY, which will get here long before any of us is ready for it (there are already trees for sale everywhere). See you soon. Awi--TEHodson 06:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that you created the article on Patience and Sarah. I love that book. I had a first edition, given to me in 1973, but it got left behind in CT when I moved west. I'd love to read it again. So beautiful. I have the BBC series Tipping the Velvet (really fun) but haven't read the book. And I'd just read the article on The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. When I first saw them in SF in 1980 it was at the Gay Freedom Day parade, and my daughter (who wasn't quite 2 yet) fell in love. One of the Sisters took her for a skating ride on his shoulders. Great fun. I hadn't known you worked on such a wide variety of articles. I knew you were the Everglades main writer--really good work, Moni.--TEHodson 06:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a festering argument going on at the talk pages of the FAC project because some nimrod came up with a system to categorize all the FA writers from the past year into insulting groups to explain why their work sucks. Then they helpfully put that in a PowerPoint presentation with purty charts and graphs. At any rate, in a moment of whimsy I thought it might be interesting for each FA writer to use the topics of their FAs to describe them. One of the nimrod's points is that some FA writers write about the same goddamn thing every time, like hurricanes or fungus. Shit, I wish I had that concentration. I'm so ADD. Anyways, that would make the folks who write hurricane articles say "I'm a wind storm. 27 of them." Mine would read like a nutjob: I'm gay swamps on Buffy the Vampire Slayer in a struggle for civil rights. I can't figure how to work everything in there. --Moni3 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, I wish I were in that select group--it sounds like a blast. I don't even know where to start. First, if one has written 27 articles on wind storms, it's because that person is a) passionate about them and, b) informed about them. Two excellent reasons for writing 27 articles on the subject. Who else should do it? Someone who knows and cares nothing about them? Please. Why on earth does said nimrod think this is a problem?? As for you, first, you are a nutjob (embrace it) and second, your range is what's interesting about you. If I were to decide to really dedicate myself to writing for WP (should I ever go mad, that is), there would be a wide range of things I'd want to research and write about. I'm not sure how you do this, though. It's the equivalent of pouring water into a leaky bucket--if I attacked it as you do, I really would go mad.--TEHodson 07:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't ever let me mislead you to think I'm sane. --Moni3 (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point, you couldn't if you tried; I know you too well.--TEHodson 07:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of line

This was beneath you, Moni. The story on the presentation will be written by a Signpost reporter, in the regular News and notes slot. The draft page you commented on, clearly marked "Debate" with the second half clearly marked for an opposing point of view, is entirely separate from the news report. I had hoped you would want to write the response, as you had indicated, but you have chosen to cast aspersions on my integrity and intellectual honesty instead. Rash jumping to conclusions and mean-spiritedness is not at all what I would have expected from you. Skomorokh 23:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your expectations are too high.

Apparently mine are as well. I don't see any reason whatsoever TCO should be having any influence in how this is presented in the Signpost. He's spinning his own scandal. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it your position that those whose writings cause scandals be seen and not heard in the subsequent coverage? That they not be interviewed or publicly debate their critics? That only one side of the issue be given coverage? If that is the idea of impartial journalism you are propounding then these standards are low indeed. Why don't you channel the intensity of your feeling into showing the community just why TCO's approach to the issue is wrong, and draw focus to the important questions that aren't being asked in all this? The invitation stands. Skomorokh 00:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My position is that this PowerPoint is an astonishing exhibition in incompetence on such a scale that I think FAC is being trolled. So not only must the Signpost cover the trollface, but apparently trollface gets to influence how much and in what ways he's going to troll FAC and Wikipedia. First, the Signpost is lending him entirely too much legitimacy by addressing it in the first place. There are definitely problems with the way FAC and Wikipedia itself are run. I'm not shy about pointing out the problems in the systems. But there is a reasonable way to have these discussions, and hopefully with reasonable people who wish to accomplish something concrete. TCO not only created this shit-for-research, but he's now inserted a new slide into the mix to blame other people for getting upset, and then he just linked to a page right at the bottom of the Signpost draft where he responds to the criticism in tight bands of hyperbole and obfuscation. He has no intention of having a dialogue about this. He's trying to circle his wagons to shore up the shitty job he did. He's not interested in learning about the true problems and the issues that are the heart of the reason the site is losing editors and how it might be improved. He is not a scholar and he has no foundation, not to mention the singling out of editors who did not ask for and do not deserve to be insulted in such manners that SHOULD BE BEING ADDRESSED AT ANI. But you are giving him a platform and a megaphone. --Moni3 (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A merely poor analysis that had no insight or touched on no issues worth examining would not have inspired such a broad and intense response of a range of opinion – far from universal condemnation and immediate dismissal, the FAC talkpage thread contains a lot of introspection musing on related topics. So that argument does not work for me. Whether or not the whole affair is a great lark deliberately provoked for lulz is not something that seems psychologically convincing or respectful of Hanlon's razor either. Nor are those two hypotheses consistent. The more likely explanation is of a flawed and unfortunately personalised analysis whose basic assumptions – the value judgements with regards to core and minor topics and work thereon – are not widely shared, but that nevertheless has touched on issues at the center of the experiences and current concentration of article writers. That to me, as a writer and reviewer of Good and Featured articles, is a fertile start for discourse. It's not the analysis per se that is the focus of the debate as I see it, rather the reaction that it has inspired. The point is not whether TCO is interested in a discussion or in learning about the true problems – its whether there is an opportunity in all this for article writers and the community at large to discuss and learn. The opinion pages of the Signpost are very well placed to offer a platform to those willing to step up and give voice to the reality on the ground, as I am hoping you will be. Skomorokh 01:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm finding it hard to believe that even Skomorokh believes his own bullshit at this stage. If the article goes out even close to how its forming, he will be blocked for a gross and spiteful attempt to humulitate a wide number of volunteers who have spend collectively thousands of hours on the project. So he could make a story, and god only knows whatever end. So help me god I will chase him down with righteous anger. Knowingly publishing faulty data and aping the compromised conclusions is just; well journalists - even pretend wiki ones- get fired for that kind of stuff, and proper order too, society would be just fucked if this sort of form was allowed fly. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. I had a shitty college instructor once who thought the purpose or finest method of learning was to piss people off in class. Girls who get drunk deserve to be raped. If I ball up a piece of paper Marines should arrest and torture me for polluting the planet. Spirited debate is fun! These are not effective ways to communicate and certainly not ways to solve real problems. Esh. This kind of shit makes me feel more isolated than I ever could have imagined. --Moni3 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Four things. Firstly, the reaction to the pseudoanalysis has little to do with TCO (except that folks don't understand why he was allowed to abuse RTV when even Rlevse wasn't) and everything to do with Sue Gardner. TCO's timing was such that the reaction was aimed at him instead of her. Second, reactions across the Wikipedia are exactly as expected, everywhere I've read, so, bah. People get it: Wikipedia is flawed, core topics are ignored, nothing FAC can do about that, and denigrating people's work in a highly personalized (and inaccurate) "analysis" isn't going to encourage more people to write better articles. Third, this is a case of "Give 'em enough rope"; stop worrying about it-- TCO has shown himself amply capable of hanging himself over the years, even if all the evidence of that was erased in his various reincarnations. Fourth, there are a multitude of fundamental factual errors in the writeup as it stands, but see third point-- I'll leave it to Sk to decide if he wants to run demonstrable inaccuracies in the Signpost. If the article gets cleaned up to a point of basic readability, and if that happens before I leave for a week of skiing, I'll help point out the basic inaccuracies on the page, but it's highly unlikely that anyone will take the time to respond to the flawed analysis when it's already been kicked to death all across the Wikipedia. The takehome message to TCO is, read up on the scientific method next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Its worring that Skomorokh is so lacking in clue that he needs this pointed out. Nothing here is subtle to thoes clued in enough care. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am-- for the time being-- willing to give Sk the benefit of the doubt. I can't for the life of me imagine why the Signpost has recently turned to so much editorializing, giving free voice to every crank on the project, and I doubt that they would allow any other banished, indeffed, RTV'd or whatever user a platform to advance a flawed analysis, but I'm willing to wait and see where Sk is going with this. His reaction so far has alienated and appears partial, but perhaps he is, as he says, really trying to maintain some distance, neutrality, and objectivity (one can hope so), which might explain some of his posts. In the meantime, I don't think it much matters what The Signpost writes-- I've seen no evidence that people don't get it. The real problem is the Sue Gardner issue, which is why it's unfortunate Sk is allowing this piece and missing the real story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish I shared your optimism, but I dont see any critical distance, or even curiousity, I see somebody peaked by drama, stoked by a story and on a straight line path and willing to humulitate any amount of editors to get and deliver. I might be wrong, but I doubt it. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a recent "gender gap" survey (foregone conclusions in the way the questions were worded) by the title, "Question: are core articles being neglected at the top?" That's not the question, and the piece starts off with an agenda by the very title. The questions are, Are core articles neglected across Wikpedia, is Wikipedia capable of generating barely decent core articles, whether at the top or anywhere else, does anything below the GA level even meet the basic pillars upon which Wikipedia supposedly stands, are we losing top content and top writers in favor of children wielding huggle and twinkle, how many POV, OR, etc articles are out there, neglected, while one editor is allowed to unfairly personalize his issues with a few FA writers via The Signpost? Time sink. But I hope to understand where Sk is going with this, that it's not as it appears to Moni3 and Ceoil, and hope springs eternal :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sandy, a serious fact-checking will be a pre-requisite to publication, so once I am done editing the piece to fit the structure and the topic (topical importance, not personalities) I would very much appreciate your help on that front. You might be pleased to know that we will be following up this edition with intensive coverage of Sue Gardner's latest pronouncements on the quality issue, with an interview in the works.

I'm not around all the time you know-- there may be a timing issue-- I see you're at work cleaning it up now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Moni and Ceoil, I don't think at this point we are doing ourselves any favours continuing this discussion; I am losing the capacity to empathise with your positions after that latest round. For my part I regret that I didn't foresee the emotional reaction and anger this exercise has provoked, I would have trodden more lightly had I known. Regards, Skomorokh 02:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Dude, as I said before, thats your problem rather than ours, so spare us any belated reflection. I have no regrets, quite frankly. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Empathy is too far a luxury to consider. I don't even think you understand my protest in the least. It's disorienting because I keep hoping or thinking at some point people are going to have high standards, or at least agree on a set of standards. Intellectual standards to do their best writing and research and moral standards to be open and transparent about what they're trying to accomplish. You're sticking to some standard I don't understand, Skomorokh. The only standard I can see TCO sticking to is what's going to garner him the most attention despite who he has to knock down to do it. And you're allowing it to happen...because of your standards. --Moni3 (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Moni your trying to explain apples to oranges; I advise to not bother unless you want to have a big heart attack in the next twenty years. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignore it or throw a conniption fit and die early so as not have to deal with it? Robert Frost wrote about this, didn't he? --Moni3 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose he did. I was amused at your post starting with "gender gap", and this has nothing to do with Skomorokh or anything, but I grew up in 1980s Ireland where the same shit went on. Mid 80s were the time of the pro divorce and anti-life referumdums, and anybody that disagreed with the chruch line was wont to be publically walked out of the church. It was the first time the liberal voice was confidedent enough to stick thier necks above the chopping board. What I mean is that all sorts of defimation was thrown at them, its nothing new. Its a pity, but its just a stage any sociery needs to go through. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you intwested in Twismas? --Moni3 (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah fuck you Moni. My mother likes me at least. Ceoil (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Problem

What do I do with someone who insists on writing on a large number of articles, yet admits to having very poor grammar? I have been following this person around for days, reverting or rewriting what he can't seem to say in even basic English. Please see this exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NeoBatfreak#Buffy_edits I have no idea what to do about it, except continue to beg he stop. Sorry to bother you, but I thought you might have a better suggestion.--TEHodson 18:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Always kind of tricky when a user may not have a good grasp of English. I see he's agreed to stop editing prose. I removed some stuff from this guy from Willow's article because it was nearly indecipherable. You can see his talk page is a huge list of bot reminders to stop adding inappropriate images. Probably having to do with licensing info, not nekkid peoples. Has he still been adding bad prose after he agreed to stop? --Moni3 (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For the moment, he appears to have stopped. The images promise to keep coming, however. He's using screen captures for television eps, including Buffy and Angel. I don't know what the rules are, and it doesn't appear he does, either. Those bot warnings go back forever, but he seems to have ignored them. No nekkid people, sadly. Thanks for answering. I'm trying to be gentle with him--last time I told someone I'd had to spend two hours cleaning up after him I was stern; he said I was the rudest person he'd ever met on the Internet. I told him if that was so, he'd been incredibly fortunate. I am trying to avoid communicating exasperation, let alone outright despair, as it never helps anyway.--TEHodson 19:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Images are tricky. It's almost guaranteed if he doesn't have a good grasp of English that the images are going to be wrong. Every once in a while there's an editor who gets warned by 10 people to stop making crap edits or stop uploading images. Sometimes a short block gets their attention. Mostly not, though. The rudest person on the Internet? Can there be such a person? I thought the Internet itself was responsible for its own rudeness... --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have a good grasp of grammar, but there's nothing to indicate he's a non-English speaker. He comes across as very young and very eager to contribute, but I've just had to remove additions to the Jenny Calendar page (not prose); he just wants to put stuff in, every day, someplace. He asked me first if he could, then when I was out, you know, having a life away from this glorious place, he ran out of patience and put it in anyway. He's making me tired. I'm crawling into bed with a book. Written on paper. Bound. Not a pixel in sight. I'll try to copy-edit tonight, when everyone's in bed and I don't end up in edit conflicts (hate that), but it may have to wait till I'm not so tired. It's turning out to be a difficult week.--TEHodson 00:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The questions

Can you reiterate/verify for me what the Signpost questions are. I'm thinking they're something like:

• In addition to the TCO opinion piece, will Signpost be presenting a news story which covers the context and methodology of the study?
• What input do you want from the Featured Article (FA) community regarding the TCO opinion piece?
• When should the larger Wikipedia community consider the TCO opinion piece in nearly final form and ready for review?
• When is the deadline for feedback from the FA community?

Is that about right? Gerardw (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty close. --Moni3 (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted these on Skomorokh's talk page. Hope it helps. Gerardw (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Moni how are you? Hope everything's fine. I have recently developed "Like a Prayer". Would you mind taking a peek at it and tell me what is your opinion regarding its FA chances? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary problem

Dearest Moni, please lend me a hand. Here on the We Need to Talk About Kevin (film) page, a guy who does not write either good plot summaries or perhaps, good English (he seems to be Scandanavian by his Talk page), is insisting that the most incoherent plot summary I've ever seen should stand. The previous one was a one-word sentence, which isn't enough, but at least is accurate and well-written. I've spent a great deal of time asking him to please read how to write plot summaries, given him examples, shown him how to do one, left messages on his Talk page, on the article's Talk page, but to no avail. He just keeps reverting to his nonsense. It is not even remotely acceptable by WP guidelines, and I can't seem to convince him of this. Can you help, please? Thank you.

It looks like he removed it. Can you work with him to improve it so it makes more sense and adheres to the MOS? I agree it doesn't read well, but it should only take a few fixes to make it coherent. I've never seen the film, but I know that archery is archery and one doesn't start a sentence with a number, etc. --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed it, after he restored it three times. I haven't seen the film, only read the book. The film is not in release yet (except in Europe) so there doesn't seem to be a rush on it. I asked him to please do a draft on the Talk page so I could fix it and ask questions before posting it, but he has ignored all suggestions and reverted it three times. I could try winging it, but that seems a bad idea to me. I could expand a bit on the one sentence that's there, but could end up putting in something that is in the book but not the film. It might help if you, too, asked him to write a draft on the Talk page. I'm not sure what else to do.--TEHodson 22:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope that will help. I've been taking a break from WP; it's given me a headache. Hope you're not exhausting yourself.--TEHodson 23:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

For defending History of Sesame Street. Nice to know there's someone out there committed to ensuring that FAs retain their high quality. And nice to know that you've got my back. Anything you need you got it, just let me know. This happening and the barrage of vandalism that took place at Sesame Street today. What an uphill, battle, eh? I'm glad that you're around to help, and you do. Christine (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Something of interest about the Ten Thousand Islands

Have you seen Schwadron, Margo (2010). "Landscapes of Maritime Complexity: Prehistoric Shell Works sites of the Ten Thousand Island, Florida". University of Leicester. Retrieved 8 December 2011.? I've used it as a source in List of shell ring sites. -- Donald Albury 13:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Leicester? What kind of wetlands study is going on there? So no, I haven't seen this. University of Leicester is not one of the first places I tend to look for info about the Everglades. I'll readjust that attitude in the future.

But thanks for bringing it to my attention. Let me see what it might say of interest to the Everglades. I also have to update a couple articles about the progress of the Kissimmee River restoration, which was slated to be all done and stuff by 2011. Has the Army Corps of Engineers fulfilled its promise? Inquiring minds want to know. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing what will pop out of Google. It's a dissertation, and she did her field work in TTI (as she likes to abbreviate it). So, it's about the Ten Thousand Islands, not the Everglades.

As for the Corps, I haven't driven through the Kissimmee Valley in more than ten years, and don't remember seeing any news about it in recent years. -- Donald Albury 23:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Tara Maclay

Regarding this edit:

I think the second bit is at least arguable; here at least something is being insinuated about the effect that Tara's death had on Willow (although I think it goes into far more detail than necessary). The first bit just looks irrelevant to me; the fact that what happens to Tara prompts Willow to go after Glory is relevant to this article, but details about how powerful Willow is do not seem relevant. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put it in the article if sources had not stated it was important for Tara's character. As Willow becomes stronger, she becomes less ethical. Tara takes over in that area, becoming the moral center of the group. Following Tara's death, Willow's rampage is the exact reason why the writers chose to kill Tara: to push Willow right over the edge, to force her to deal with her tendency to avoid pain by trying quick fixes. By going off the deep end, Willow illustrates how quickly and easily she abandons Tara's wishes for her to use magic for less selfish purposes.

There may be better ways to incorporate this information to make these points, but removing it is not the way to go, and it's certainly not irrelevant. I'd appreciate your input as to how to explain these issues better on the talk page if you feel strongly enough to participate. --Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with your reasoning. As for the first sentence I removed, this is simply not about Tara; it just says how strong Willow is, and no connection is made (at least, not in the article) between that factoid and Tara. Maybe the books you have make that connection, but it certainly is not clear to me in the article; like I said above, saying how strong Willow is doesn't tell the reader about Tara, who is the subject of the article.

As for the second part, the details about Willow's rampage, again I don't see how this is about Tara (although, again, it may be easier to make a case for this than the other one). Everything you said (how quickly and easily Willow abandons Tara's wishes) is stuff about Willow, not about Tara. If there is some way that this helps the reader learn something about Tara, then it needs to be made much clearer to the reader (who probably doesn't have access to all the materials you have).

Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Your marked confusion indicates more to me that I didn't do a hot job explaining Tara's importance to Willow's storyline and it should be reworded. It may seem irrelevant because I didn't connect it well enough. But then, I've also read more about Tara since I wrote the article and I haven't been able to incorporate everything I've read recently. Sources do state that Tara's interactions with Willow and Buffy indicate more about Willow and Buffy than anything does really about Tara. As a mostly static supporting character, she functions to highlight the actions of the main characters: Buffy, Willow, Giles, and Xander. Her character just has more to do with Willow and Buffy than the other two. Sources certainly state that as Willow becomes stronger, she becomes less ethical. Tara comes forward to take that role while also expressing her disappointment in Willow's direction. As each article must stand alone, it begs an example of how Willow becomes stronger--in what way? Stronger than whom or from what previously? That she becomes stronger than Buffy is important to state. Tara sees this and cautions her more than once. Tara certainly did not wish for Willow to go on a murderous rampage. Willow's rampage signifies how deep Willow's psychic pain is as a reaction to Tara's death while also illustrating what tenuous grasp Willow had on the morality of magic in the series--a morality that Tara championed.

So, as I've said, sources make these points. If you have suggestions as to how to state them more clearly, suggest away. --Moni3 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Other issue

I hope this is the right to discuss this. I want to use the comments from the official posting board, and only a fraction have appeared in print. However various books and articles site these documents. I would like to bring the information in because the poor judgement came off as taunting. I wonder if you could assist me in this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlloyd11 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The best place to discuss this is the talk page for the article. Specifically, I started a discussion on your edits on that talk page here. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Query

Hi Moni. My name is Jivesh. I am simply impressed by the number of FAs you have worked on. You must really love Wikipedia, don't you? Moni, I wanted to know if you comment on peer reviews? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that certainly is a new perspective. I come across so many crazy people on Wikipedia that assume I'm just as crazy as they are. I would have to be to continue doing this.

At any rate, I have to disappoint you here. I don't have the energy and time necessary to review articles for FA and such. But I commend you for trying. Seriously. Good for you for trying to improve an article or two around here. I hope you find it enjoyable and you don't see everyone you come across as crazy for another few years. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My Sincere Wishes For This Festive Season

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Holiday wishes...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Master (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CGI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

personal attack

I have no idea what a dingus is, but it sounds bad. [7] Please block yourself for personal attacks . Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dingus: doofus, asshat, dumbass, fuckwad, touchhole, douchelord, fartface, shit-for-brains, dummo, cannibalistic humanoid underground dweller, or Florida State University alumni. All interchangeable. --Moni3 (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Er…not quite, though it's often colloquially (mis)used that way. "Dingus" actually means A gadget, contraption, thingamabob, whatchamacallit, widget, etc. This per the Oxford English Dictionary, which is a fairly reliable source. It derives from Dutch and/or German ding, i.e., "thing". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This dictionary of yours is not a resource in a language I want to speak. --Moni3 (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yakka foog mub wurkle chumble spuzz greedle greedle chuzzumph grak fraw Pauquee fweeza yudle grop miffle. Ti Ranfla Aflanaff, "Yerg todel! Gucfa poi! Elfeem tonono! Esdera floy? Cho!" Brzeek, creckle, crazkkklezeek nguh frumph, glark murp, waf nini, pofda. Lo powt gort cugglo qoply bugla. Afflanaff Jappelap, bargla furble.

Creegie:

H) Skisk fris gno yurf drof. Ki lople, morpner troffle.

Q) Efra Japplejap, serd fruyer bertermerter.

X) Craganfaranmakla, ise redlo quab ugglefrumph!

Warnafreep, Bloy Gravpotom. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Munee is zee greetest Veekipedia ideetur ifer. I vunt tu be-a her. Merry Chreestmes! Bork bork bork! Christine (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, finally, we can all come together and celebrate our collective nonsense. Overcoming our communication differences by acknowledging that none of us knows how to communicate. I have a tear in my eye. --Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice

What you said on Malleus' request for arbitration is everything I've been struggling with and has sent me away for a while because of this mentality. A few days I ago I went to the library and dragged home a stack of books with the intent of getting back to article building. I'd unwatched hundreds of pages and user pages after my last unwelcome visit to AN/I which is a huge timesink. Last night I peeked at someone's user page (can't remember who) and stumbled across this entire mess. What you wrote at the arbitration request goes to the heart of the matter - are we building an encyclopedia and will rules be put in place to protect such building, or are most of the people here just to for a game? I think it's a game to many; those who are serious, like myself, are perennially discouraged. Anyway, just wanted you know that your statement says everything I could have said and much better. I hope they listen. I've unwatched a few user pages and am saddened at the fall-out here, but not surprised. Anyway, enjoy you holidays! Truthkeeper (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well. I understand your frustration. Sometimes this site is harder to take than other times. Sometimes I take this dumbass catshitstink more personally and sometimes I can make wise one-line sayings summarizing Wikipedia's nature that make me seem like an epic sage.

I'm surprised by the number of folks involved on that Case page, but not really. What an odd place this is. It devalues the contributions of individuals on its face by not giving credit to major contributors to articles in mainspace (not that I disagree with that), then it displaces that lack of recognition by heaping importance onto individuals at its most ostensibly functional venues at ANI and ArbCom/Case pages. For folks who require external acknowledgment as motivation, there is no better place to shine than ANI and making grand statements at ArbCom. It makes ANI and ArbCom/Case pages the crowded, jostling Wal-Marts (or would that be Wals-Mart?) for people shopping for their purpose here. Getting FAC in a tizzy is amateur night.

So this is the Case of the month, Malleus is the biggest assclown to grace the presence of the Wiki, or hungry self-esteem hounds are sniffing the air for opportunities to augment what they lack. If we were truly wise, we'd recognize these are all elements of truth existing to some extent at the same time and ArbCom has the ability and the authority to change this. Will they? Probably not. It's the tragic aspect of human nature: our faults have been pointed out to us and the problem is not insurmountable at this time. There is therefore no reason to change, and our time to grieve for what could have been is reserved for our futures.

Only a musical paragon such as ABBA can encapsulate the fine nuances of the sentiments of what I just wrote and stick it in a hook-filled, holiday-themed pop song. Enjoy. --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - ABBA was perfect. Keep your voice here Moni - it's important. You're witty yet wise. We need voices like yours. The message that resonates the most with me is your question about why people do not go to the library to bring home sources and build content. As long as only a few are reading and writing the others will have to find justification for hanging around elsewhere on the site. I'm staring at a stack of five/six books and about 200 pages of journal articles I recently downloaded, yet wondering whether my time is better spent doing something else. Ultimately I always come back because I learn about things and I think knowledge is priceless. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bravo! Finding reliable sources for Wikipedia articles is a marvelous way to learn new things, and it's fun, too! -- Donald Albury 17:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Xmas

	Merry Christmas
	From me, a happy NSW Xmas bush Xmas from us all down here in Oz (damn, should have 5x expanded that for this Xmas...is there still time I wonder....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Donner Party

The reason for putting the date for Dolan's death (and thus the first incidence of cannibalism) was to conform with the rules for inclusion on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries, which requires that the relevant date (December 26) be actually mentioned in the article and cited to a reliable source. If you can work that in somehow, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 07:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You want the prose to indicate the death date for one person among 40+ so you can arrange a selected anniversary on Wikipedia? Just trying to clarify. --Moni3 (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If you put it that way, it sounds stupid. But spin it another way: I want the date that members of the party first engaged in cannibalism in the article, which I think is a significant enough event to warrant such attention. Is that better? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to get to this. Major internet outage here. At any rate, I think there's a way to comply with a selected anniversary, but if you add the death date for Patrick Dolan, it's going to have to be added for every member of the Donner Party that died that winter. At least the way you added it in the edit I overturned. Must it be the first instance of cannibalism? Why not the day they got stuck in the Sierra Nevada, which was the prelude to their own personal hell on earth? That way, it highlights all the members' circumstances instead of one (giving him undue importance)? --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. I just picked the cannibalism thing because when people think Donner Party, they think cannibalism, but any way of getting them onto OTD is good. There's no hurry, either, since you have almost a whole year to get to it. Thanks! howcheng {chat} 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Bob Wills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sisters

Responded on article talk page –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Moni3. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Civility enforcement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 902 words and 2 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 18:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As I myself am not a clerk any more (I just run the bot), I likely won't be doing that myself, however due to the extreme amount of evidence we've received already I do plan to ask the clerks to enforce length limits fairly strictly. If you truly believe that everything you posted is necessary, and that there is no way to reasonably shorten it, we (you, the other drafters, and I) can discuss giving you an extension which the clerk bot will acknowledge. Keep in mind, though, that many diffs will speak for themselves, and tend to be preferable for us rather than paragraphs of text. I see you've only included two diffs, so adding some more may be helpful. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of my comments can be removed and I'm happy to point out which ones, but I don't think I can remove 400 words of comments. The questions I'm posing are essential to answer in this case.

I understand diffs are strongly encouraged to prove a point, but a couple of my points are borne from experience, supported by multiple conversations across multiple pages in weeks, months, or years. I don't quite know how to provide evidence for this. Were this a case just about Malleus' behavior, it would be more appropriate to provide diffs. But this is about civility enforcement, as the title suggests. Civility is a malleable concept, which is obvious (at least to me) and it varies in definition and enforcement from one editor to the next.

Let me know what you suggest is best. I appreciate the discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading through all the evidence now to see what sort of stuff we're getting - at the same time I'm drafting an email to the clerks on the subject. I'll probably have a better response once I get down to your section, but in the meantime I'd recommend trying to cut down and condense what you feel you can. I'll stop by later with some more specific pointers. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are very valuable, but many of them cannot really be considered as "evidence". Hence, rather than redacting them, I suggest moving some of them, e.g., to the workshop page. Geometry guy 20:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My comments, which will more-or-less reflect what I'm asking the clerks to look out for in general:

• Offering to forward us email evidence is useful, however bad-faith assumptions that we'll simply ignore it are not, nor are they appreciated; do also keep in mind that there are four new arbitrators now, two of whom are drafting this case. (P.S. - please email such evidence to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org - due to the high number of recusals on the case, we're using the alternate mailing list for this one.)
• The evidence page is for the presentation of evidence - information that we need to consider when determining an outcome for the case. Questions such as the ones making up the bulk of your section are best posted to the "Questions to the parties" section on the workshop or on the case talk pages. Comments on the evidence presented by others should be placed in "Analysis of evidence" on the workshop or (again) on case talk pages.

As Geometry guy says above, your comments do seem to be useful and indeed, central to the case, however, they're not evidence per se, but more a commentary on the general situation. I believe a lot of it can be moved out, but any particular experiences you've had in regards to these issues can certainly be documented there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hersfold, will you allow me 24 hours to consider moving nearly the entirety of my comments to the Workshop page?

I will forward my correspondence with Rlevse to Risker, Casliber, or NewYorkBrad upon any of their requests. I will not email to the ArbCom list directly. I do not trust the ArbCom list and offering to forward emails to individual arbs, I hope, reflects an enormous leap of faith on my part.

Again, I appreciate your efforts here. I'm not trying to be an ass. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Moni, the peanut gallery has already taken over the Workshop page, even before Malleus has submitted evidence. I suspect this will be one of those cases where the Workshop page is largely ignored, since everybody who thinks they are or should be an admin is in there, many saying really dumb things. I think tighter evidence might be more helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have read through the evidence and workshop page to date. I agree that there are some misguided contributions and unilluminating threads there, but believe the drafting arbitrators can be trusted to sort out the chaff from the wheat. Risker has a stated reputation for reading everything, and Hersfold has essentially asserted here that valuable comments will not be ignored.

Best wishes for 2012, Geometry guy 23:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I find the workshop format daunting and unhelpful. The clerks and arbs need to get a tighter grip on a case like this, where every Tom Dick and Harry has something to say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me the benefits of shifting my comments to the Workshop page?

• I also find the workshop page a tarpit, and it neatly reinforces why I never get involved at ArbCom.
• I like the way my comments are worded now. If I shift them to the Workshop, must I format them in the "Proposed findings of fact", "Proposed remedies" way the rest of the comments are currently formatted?
• Must my comments also be open to responses from other editors--responses that I find confusing and unconstructive? I don't lack confidence in my opinions about this case, but under no circumstance am I eager to engage in the bickering I see on that Workshop page. It seems to me that one must go with the other: if I post at the Workshop, that engages me to defend what I've already stated clearly and I find that a pointless venture.
• What's the alternative? Leave my comments currently at Evidence, have them abbreviated by a clerk who assumes my intentions? --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would not move to workshop which is unreadable. I suggest you try to hack at them as best you can to get within range. The comments are good - prioritize and chose which you can lose and which have to stay. Let me know if you need help hacking. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

My first issue is that I don't have a word processing program that includes a word count function. --Moni3 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't either, I can copy to google docs and do it there. So hack away, let me know when you're done, and I'll run through to give you a word count. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Moni, I hacked at it little and stashed a version in a sandbox that's 530 516 words. Could you live with something like this? It's not as good as the original but the spirit is close and you won't lose it altogether. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Moni, and you TK. I have to say that I find the structure of the various pages and the different rules for each to be almost completely impenetrable. BTW, are you two the last females I haven't driven from the project? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sick to death of this already. The pages are indecipherable, the 500-word limit makes it impossible to say what one intends to say (I'm getting jumped on by thin-skinned editors on my talk who are experienced enough to know better), everyone and their brother thinks they have something meaningful to say, people who should know better are grinding axes, and all I can come up with is wonderment at why the heck the arbs accepted this case and how anyone can meaningfully contribute. I'm on the verge of striking my evidence and walking away. The case is not about Malleus, it's about problems with how we define and enforce civility. 22:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, in the totality of my experiences in life (certainly not limited to the Internet), your using the word "cunt" is a blip and the perspective of this situation is simply bizarre. Although I have my guesses as to why you provoke RfA as you do, I don't know how you find it practical in any way. To me your fine line between challenging the status quo and tilting at windmills is sometimes indecipherable.

I don't understand why this case is about you. I mean, yes, I understand that it's about you and you called someone a cunt. I find it reasonable for you to be blocked for saying it, although indefinitely is abusive. I would have expected to get blocked for saying it too. But this case really is about the notion of civility being so mallea...heyyyy....anyway, malleable, shifting from one person to the next, dependent upon one's cultural parameters of civil discourse, while the other pillars of neutrality and free content are pretty clear, and the last IAR pillar destroys any clarity anyone may possibly gain from attempting to understand what this site's standards are. No wonder the Arbitration Committee is so necessary. In the realm of pedagogy--or basic communication--the 5 pillars are a complete failure. They reflect an idealism that has become increasingly ineffectual in practice.

I'm participating in this case because I have to face admins/editors who can only see the primary hallmark of disruption to the project is profanity and much more disruptive actions are allowed by policy and condoned not only by written guidelines but administrator ignorance and inaction. I do not understand the collective desire to make this case about you. Because people must have symbols and you are the symbol of something? I don't know what you symbolize to other editors. Caustic communication? What's the point in having civil communication if much more essential problems are overlooked? I don't understand it. I don't think you can explain it either.

I'm writing this mainly for me to be able to put stuff into words. New Year's Eve and Day are not optimal times to try to put one's thoughts into concise statements. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Cutting it down

Sucky rule, but whatever: stupid little ways to reduce words for example, did not --> didn't

Evidence presented by Moni3

I have unblocked Malleus Fatuorum twice following what I consider blocks I considered so poorly thought out that they did not didn't warrant discussion at ANI.

1. First instance, blocked by TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) March 6, 2010 for making this comment.
2. Second instance, blocked by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) July 10, 2010 after Rodhullandemu made clear his desire to block Malleus. Full exchange here.

Questions and matters of clarity

The first time I unblocked MalleusMy first unblock speaks to the purpose of this case.

• What is the difference between a civility block and the frequently-deprecated-at-RfA cool-down block? This needs to be answered clearly by a clear answer from the Arbitration Committee.
• Are blocks intended to be used as behavior modification, particularly on experienced users who are outwardly unrepentant at the behavior that initiated the block in the first place? I saw TenOfAllTrades' block as an attempt at behavior modification that was clearly ineffective and served only to inflame a bad situation.

• What do blocks of these kinds like these protect? What was protected in these two instances? What can ArbCom clarify about what admins should do with editors they find offensive in the future?

Stopped there, just some samples ... whole method is just stupid, especially with all the ridiculous posturing and pontificating going on on the workshop page, but what is really sad is seeing editors who never do anything to help others, no reviews, no selfless participation at GA or PR, only here to rake in their stars or generate drahmaz without ever helping out fellow editors acting in a way that will only undermine. Human nature in these cases is not a pretty sight to observe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Never speak ill of the dead

Moni, Moni, Moni, do not speak ill of the indeff'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

All pumpkins are great but you tried to eat the wrong one

"Like offering to assist you on Otis Redding? --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a different Pumpkin (User:GreatOrangePumpkin vs. User:PumpkinSky) — Ched :  ? 01:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC) " PumpkinSky talk 02:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Rightly corrected, Ched. However, PumpkinSky, my points are salient. Dialogue in that discussion is not focusing on what can be fixed. It's language that is overblown, comparing the FAC director and delegates to God and dictators. That does not introduce specific issues to be fixed in the process. The editors using this language have very little if no experience at FAC. They have no valid complaints because they have no experience in which to observe the ways FAC may not function well. They must instead depend on hyperbole to make an impact if not a valid point. I do not understand why you and most of the other editors pushing for elections are involved in this discussion. If you have specific problems in how the director and delegates are harming the system, you should state them so we can figure a way to solve the problems. If you have no specific problems, you are wasting time. --Moni3 (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

=D ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this makes me think I did not make a mistake in misidentifying (either of) you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing others comments

Why is okay for you to edit others comments? Isn't there some rule against that? Seems to me you're the one edit warring and should stop. PumpkinSky talk 14:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you run through the sequence of events for your own edification and post them here so you and everyone else can see what's going on? --Moni3 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should do that.PumpkinSky talk 15:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I already know what has happened. It does not appear that you know what has occurred. I'm offering you a chance to put together a sequence here that proves I've edit warred, as stated in your accusation. I think you shall decline, if only for the fascinating aspect of human nature in which people often accuse others of behavior they are blatantly exhibiting, such as cabals and tag teaming. But again, if you have no valid point and hyperbole doesn't seem to be working, disrupting the conversation and misdirecting attention from the heart of the discussion will also work sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's good delusional and self serving thinking at its best.PumpkinSky talk 15:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling into question the sanity of your opposition also works sometimes. Well played. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Editing others comments" — there's a "WP:" page about that; go read it and stop removing post that you don't like. Alarbus (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus, you edited my comments as well. Twice. And yours were shifted down, not removed. I did not shift your comment because I disliked it. Actually, I didn't remove it in the first place. Or the third (fourth? I lost count). But once more, I'm encouraging you to respond to the heart of the discussion, provide concrete examples of problematic behavior of Raul's or Sandy's, so this can be a discussion about the problems at FAC. The more you avoid the heart of the argument, make it about me, or interject in inappropriate places, the more it seems you have no position and are trying to be disruptive just for the sake of it. Indeed, I cannot see your perspective at all. You've never written an FA, so why should you care? What experience do you have in writing or maintaining FAs? I don't understand why you have a dog in this fight, so to speak. So dazzle me with your intellect and ability to see solutions where there are problems. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[8] Point 1, thanks Alarbus, for removing the aside. Point 2, about the politicking and campaigning, has it begun per your edit summary? Shall the ratfucking begin? --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it started on my page a month ago and he's not forgotten. I tried to give an olive branch but ended up at AN/I instead. Now I'm trying to decide whether this kind of stuff will make me walk from here or whether it's worth just getting on with article building. A very wise person once told me something to the effect of taking Wikipedia day by day - I'm currently in that mode. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but I have a wonderfully short memory and had forgotten who Alarbus was. I can barely remember the exchange on your talk page. I'm quite certain, however, none of it had anything to do with electing FA directors or delegates. It is possible to have a discussion about actual issues, like elections at FAC, without bringing up irrelevant issues. What kind of chaos would it create for me to bring up Wehwalt's support of Mattisse? It would be useless and pointless and entirely irrelevant to what we're discussing at WT:FAC. And for God's sake, I'm only using it here as an illustration, not an invitation to re-enter that shithole. It's inevitable that on a social site like this we're going to disagree with other people. I disagree with people all the time, including Raul and Sandy. The mark of intelligence that is often found at FAC, if nowhere else on this site, is that editors can drop their previous squabbles and concentrate on solving problems while prioritizing high quality material. --Moni3 (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Point of order on Alarbus connection

You've never written an FA, so why should you care? What experience do you have in writing or maintaining FAs? I don't understand why you have a dog in this fight, so to speak. So dazzle me with your intellect and ability to see solutions where there are problems. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not factually proven that Alarbus has never written an FA, nor known what his dog in the fight is, as he is rather clearly a returning account. Sticking to facts: Wehwalt's long-time mentee (TCO) wrote an article attacking FAC and calling for elections during a time Wehwalt avoided opposing FACs or RFAs so as not to "risk alienation" (his words) and because he "finds it hard to judge other's work", some of us nimwits were distracted into thinking TCO was after me (I'm just a small-fry grunt), it is subsequently revealed that Wehwalt aspires to be FA director (curious for someone who finds it hard to judge other's work and couldn't even keep up with WP:TFAR), a review of old history reveals that this push started long ago, and y'all figure out the Alarbus connection and his ire at Raul from there. Naturally, Wehwalt doesn't aspire to first do the real work of being a delegate or the years of work that Raul put into building the FA process to the best functioning area of Wikipedia, since being a delegate is a lot of really hard grunt work-- now being director of the whole process without doing anything to earn that, that's something worthy for a mentee to write up an attack on FAC and bring in The Signpost. Nothing clear until Wehwalt was suddenly upset that I launched a discussion in the New Year, just as I promised I would, without first checking with him, a person previously thought to have no pony in the race. Unfortunate that all of November and December was spent on the small stuff, missing the much bigger picture-- time wasted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec x 4,000) At this point in my tenure on Wikipedia, I assume everyone who I've never encountered, including the people I have encountered and I forgot I encountered, are Wikipedians I have previously encountered or have quite a bit of experience on Wikipedia. Any influx of new editors is probably a recycling of previous editors who have been blocked, banned, or left one username in shame. The right to vanish and rename oneself is not something I approve of unless one's identity has been compromised. It allows duplicity and discourages learning tough lessons. It allows people to continue engaging in underhanded infantile behavior.

That said, I have no idea who Alarbus is. The discussion really would go much more smoothly and I just may be persuaded on some points relevant to the issue if the editors pushing so fervently for elections were able to word their opinions in ways that have value. Their experiences writing articles, concrete examples of instances in which the leadership at FAC has failed, and the ways in which article quality has been diminished because of it. I haven't seen this and for the most part have seen underhanded infantile behavior. I remain unpersuaded and the more I watch what is occurring the more I am convinced that any election at FAC will be taken over by dirty politics. Imagine an FA delegate elect whose FA(s) are swarmed by other editors opposing them at such an election, making poor edits, forcing them to 3RR and the Wikiquette boards. Any way you slice it, elections will only hurt content. --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

... any election at FAC will be taken over by dirty politics ... . Will be? Already has, and it was well underway long ago. Kind of a disgusting commentary on the nature of some human beings, but whatevs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So is it your opinion that discussion is pointless? Shall I retire to my boudoir and ingest chocolate covered fruits, leaving the surge for progress to its inevitable conclusion? --Moni3 (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any good reason you can't retire to your boudoir and ingest chocolate covered fruits while also engaging in the discussion? You inferior being! Sometimes good guys don't finish last, and people see straight through nasty politics and campaigning. And life goes on ... I don't know what the "inevitable conclusion" is, but I do know it depends on how many IRC buddies they can bring in. Darn Raul-- bringing in people just like himself who believe in openness and transparency and keeping communication on Wiki for all to see!! Wonder how that will fare with these dirty politics-- but you do what you do, and remember "it's the internet"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence/Blocks

In the course of an ongoing case, the Arbitration Committee has decided to collect all relevant information regarding Malleus Fatuorum's block log and, as such, has created a table of all blocks, which can be found here. Since you either blocked or unblocked Malleus Fatuorum, you are welcome to comment, if you wish. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Moni3. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Civility enforcement Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 657 words and 2 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 03:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I'm currently fixing the bot, and running it from my local machine, so it doesn't have the same warning log it usually has. This should be the last time you receive a notice for this case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Signature

Again? We've talked about this. I don't want my signature on here. It's your talk page, but my signature. I only want it in the context it was meant for. RAP (talk) 23:30 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What a coward you are, Rusted AutoParts. You made a complete cock-up of all those Buffy articles, were rude to everyone who objected to your cowboy actions, then left us to clean up after you (an effort that is still ongoing--thanks for that). And after being such a dick and making the comment Moni has left here for all to see, you want anonymity? Why? For a while you seemed quite proud of your outrageous behavior. When, exactly, did you figure out that it wouldn't win you friends here? At least stand by your own statements; you're a pathetic little boy.--TEHodson 01:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, bitch. I'm done with that Buffy shit. Piss off. And yo are so welcome. I decided to leave that to the Buffy "experts". I had nothing but intention to help improve, but all you could think of is how to make me feel more shitty. Do you know what it's like to go through that? To go through that when you aren't hot on yourself in life? Driving you to the point where you no longer want to put up with it and just find a permanent solution to it? HAVE YOU?! RAP (talk) 2:33 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Knowing the definition of "improve" would have helped.--TEHodson 03:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That made me smile :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Women editors

Moni, did you see this? http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/#comment-1318 There is a long string of comments, including ones from me at the end (under the name MirrorGirl) and I'm wondering what you have to say about it. I notice you've been a bit, shall we say, absent?? Hope you're well.--TEHodson 20:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't see that, but I participated in a study by User:SarahStierch about female editors. I know Wikipedia is a massive place and I'll never see all its nooks and crannies, but frankly I don't see the problems other women have reported. In fact, participating in writing and reviewing FAs and GAs puts editors right up against some of the strongest female editors on Wikipedia (be that for good or bad--they're still very strong presences). Editors involved in content review at FA and GA are usually highly knowledgeable and competent, and by assessing articles with high standards, are able to shape the way Wikipedia presents its best work. I've never been called something degrading for being female (unlike you, such is evident in the section above). At least I can't remember if I have. If I have, it didn't make much of an impression on me. I've caught flak instead for being openly gay, but har har, most of the folks slighting me for being gay have assumed I'm male. It's my love for disco, no doubt. ABBA rules.

I started farting around on the internet, on IRC and whatnot, in 1994. I've been involved in usenet and other chat boards here and there, and really Wikipedia is not terribly different from other places on the internet in the way people communicate. That is to say that internet communication, with the audience and anonymity, generally presents sharp communication that is short and to the point and can be taken badly if one has low self-esteem in the first place. While most people argue on chat boards and usenet just for the sake of arguing, on Wikipedia arguing ostensibly has a purpose: content of articles. I find most of the editors doing most of the arguing spend the least amount of time working on content.

I read your comments and was both unsurprised at the lack of familiarity and sloppy adjectives some of the other editors claiming bad experiences, and pleased with your dry, factual replies. So go you. I read once a magazine article about the US Women's Soccer team and it must have been 10 years ago now, but the coach of the team was male and he had worked both with men and women in the past and he said stuff about how it's necessary to coach men and women differently. When a coach tells men "Some of you aren't working hard enough", he said the men will assume he's talking about someone else where the women will assume he's talking about them. I guess that's to illustrate that women tend to personalize some issues more than men do.

As for being away, I've got some books I need to read through to finish the Buffy articles I said I would write. I can only work in bursts of a couple months or so and then I'm back to not being able to pay attention to anything for any amount of time. While working on Buffy, I got sidetracked when I discovered another area of interest I would love to learn more about and then write articles for, but I just don't have the time and energy to do it. Things suck all around, but it's not because I have boobs that they suck. Btw, I have boobs. Ha. I'll get back to writing the character articles soon, I hope. Or maybe someone else will knock them out and surprise the hell out of me. --Moni3 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You should consider naming your boobs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a fashion among a certain class of women some years ago to have their breasts tattooed, one mild, the other bitter. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If you closed your eyes, could you tell the difference?--TEHodson 23:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad you're alive and well (breasts and all). I still haven't finished the copy-editing for the Master, as I got burnt out, too, so I can certainly understand taking a break. No rush.

I thank you for the commendation; I don't know if my last comment was up when you read them, about becoming a film director, but it has never seemed to me particularly sensible or fruitful to consider myself in any way hindered by my sex. And it seems to me that, sadly and ironically, some of the women's comments actually made the case for poor efforts by women more effectively than anything any man has ever said. As for dear RAP above, he is 17 and not the brightest bulb, and I put his animus down more to being a defensive 17-year old than a sexist (and he apologized on my talk page, as he inevitably does). It can be hard to get along here, but as I've almost never been identified as female until I myself spoke up about it, I just can't see that any problems I may have encountered had to do with that. I do feel a sisterly solidarity with women such as yourself because I am, without apology, a feminist and therefore will always support you (or anyone else for that matter) if under attack (and I'll tell you myself if I think you're wrong or not handling a problem constructively). And if I saw such bullying I'd do my best to stop it, but when I've been bullied there's been no indication that it was because someone guessed I was sporting breasts, and none of the bullies has bested me yet. And I've gotten tougher (stern, is my usual word for how I deal with difficult people) as I've got surer of myself. I can't imagine quitting after 20 minutes because of one or two irksome encounters. Quitting only reinforces the problems, it doesn't solve them.

I found Yonmei's contention that American males were running the show interesting, too. I've encountered more strong British male editors than American. Smarter, surer of themselves, and usually very good at what they do (even if they are, like Malleus, a handful; he was the first experienced editor I asked for help, back when I started, and he was incredibly generous with me). But then, I haven't tried to dissect the population into sex, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, hair color, fashion sense, taste in music. All that said, I'd like to see more women editing, and with confidence, about subjects they're interested in. I'm about to tackle a re-write of the Dorothy L. Sayers article. You should read it--it reads like a People Magazine piece crossed with The Daily Mail. Crikey! I gave fair warning that I was about to go to work on it so that those to whom it is dear will have a chance to start the clean-up themselves.

I also left a message on Yonmei's Talk page suggesting she check you out, as you have common interests. I did warn her that you are a monster who will eat her alive if she's not perfect, and told her of the many corpses littering your back yard--male, female, even very small children who have, while trying to reach the keyboard, made accidental typos. Live by the sword, Moni, die by the sword. Hope that was okay.--TEHodson 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahah, what the fuck? A monster who eats editors alive? Hahaahha! I haven't even seen your comment. You are high. (After seeing it...pull the other one...this leg is long enough. Gave me a laugh though.) --Moni3 (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And I've seen your backyard. Those poor little kids...--TEHodson 22:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My father has a habit of cutting off his finger and getting it sewn back on. After the third time the doctors just said what the everloving shit? you don't deserve a finger anymore and they took it off. The next year I drew on his father's day card a cemetery of fingers instead of headstones. Knowing that I have his genes, I stay away from most sharp implements--although walls and doorknobs get me all the time. --Moni3 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I love your phrase "has a habit of", as though it's one he's developed and cultivated. Very funny story. But you only have half his genes, or rather, half your genes are from him, so probably one of your hands is safe. When you get right down to it, a girl really only needs one...--TEHodson 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we just won the "Fastest time from serious commentary on misogyny to advice about self-pleasure". I'm honored to hold this record. I shall cherish it for as long as I can remember it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversational entropy or evolution, would you say? (And you should preserve it up at the top of your page, right after RAP's charming comment--your Talk page will become even more popular).--TEHodson 22:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I can be a bit of a handful, but there's nothing gender-related in it; I'm just as happy to wade into a male as a female if I think it's warranted. I'm glad though that you found our first encounters to be encouraging. I do like to know something about the editors I work with here, as it helps to set an appropriate tone and style. Teenagers, for instance, are an entirely different species as far as I'm concerned, and I've been told often enough that men and women sometimes think about things in different ways. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Malleus. Welcome to the Pleasure Dome. Someone has just this second left a comment on the above-linked blog about you and your nefarious ways.--TEHodson 22:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I found that blog post very interesting in a make-my-eyes-roll kind of way. Basically, a lot of people don't know/don't like the rules here. We'll cherry-pick the females who complain about it and make it essentially a problem with women? I would love to see disruption nipped in the bud earlier, and I think that will help recruit all kinds of people, not just women. Karanacs (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I find the idea that women are more put off by the atmosphere here on Wikipedia than men are, and that I'm some kind of chauvinist pig to be rather a strange one, as my personal experience is that I come across more female editors than male. And with only a few exceptions it's the male editors I tend to have problems with. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I just saw it: "Interesting that Wikipedia thinks that the word “cunt” is alright to use. There’s a guy Malleus Fatuorum, who regularly calls other editors 'cunts', and uses other sexually derogatory terms, yet he is considered one of the best editors on Wikipedia." The facts clearly mean nothing to these people. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"John Cook" writes just like sumbuddy we all ... erm ... know and love. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe chrisoff thinks she isn't getting the attention she deserves on WR. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer such words not be used (I do understand that British usage is different from American usage, though some women may not realize that), as I don't think they're particularly helpful, but it doesn't make me feel that it should be banned, or that the user should be banned. I object not because I'm a prude or averse to bad language per se (as you'd know if you heard me in conversation with my friends), but because it ends up making the argument about something else instead of the actual substance of the issue. It takes time and energy away from the real problem. That said, it does feel good to say those things and if my computer picked up what I say to it rather than just what I type on it, I'd be right up there with you, Malleus, in the "uses bad language complaint" department.--TEHodson 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, but I'd switch it around a little. I'd prefer to see an environment in which nobody felt exasperated into using using such words. Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I did just call RAP a "half-wit bumbler" the other day. That was very strong language for me here. What I called him inside my head, well, never mind.--TEHodson 22:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reason Number 10 (and it amazes me that Sue Gardner isn't aware of this): I have worked (and mostly work) with amazing women on Wikipedia (some of Wikipedia's finest editors), and I have worked with amazing men on Wikipedia, and I have encountered some very disruptive men, but the most frank psychopathology and Real Serious Sickness that I have encountered on Wikipedia has been from women. Who needs it? Now, if a man said that, he'd be shot, so I'm saying it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Quickly, someone. How the fuck do you spell "perogative"? I don't know why, but I can't spell nor find the damn word. Someone just lifted my comment here wholesale and stuck it on that blog. Now I'm mad.--TEHodson 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's Mattisse, aka Chrisoff -- someone might tell Sue Gardner she's entertaining an indeff'd editor on her blog-- one who just LOVES it when we pay attention to her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

BOBBAY!!! --Moni3 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why did I not know about that first "r"? How odd. Thank you. I left a comment, which is "awaiting moderation." That really made me angry. I hope my comment goes up quickly.--TEHodson 23:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you guys know who this clown is, the one who is copying and pasting bits of our conversation here onto the Gardner blog?--TEHodson 04:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You people. All this female editor wants to do is to improve Maya Angelou to the point that I'm not embarrassed when she dies. I did enjoy the one-handed joke, though. So true. Christine (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:University of Florida Taser incident

I disagree with erasing that comment I've made - it could have been moved. A bit too cocky of me to write on top of the other user's comment, I can agree with that, but I had a point and his comment was dead boringly long. About me correcting something that was written three years ago I think it's never late to correct a wrong or have a say about something, especially if that something is still online, molding younger reader's perceptions. I do appreciate, however, the gentleness and clarity with which you communicate. And thank you for welcoming me, btw. ~~RDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.201.87 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hon! Favor?

Hi, Moni! Hope you're doing well! I have a favor to ask... I've worked on the List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople to the point that I have the list in really good shape. The only thing I'm missing to get it to FL status is a lede. I'm not all that good at content, so I was wondering if you might be able to write up a section? I could be shooting in the dark, but I was thinking that one could start with the introduction that's found in all the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people lists and rework it from there? Let me know if that's something you feel like doing. Thanks!! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have anything written so far? If not, do you have access to sources that say anything about LGBT people in sports? Any lead would be a summary of what reliable sources say about the topic. I can help polish it up for you, but there has to be something there to polish. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I haven't written anything. I'm pretty sure there are some good sources out there - I'll see what I can find :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thought of you...

Hope you like :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Lady Gaga as gay icon

Hi Moni, how are you? What do you think of this article being developed? Please give your cents about it.:) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure really what I think of it. It's massive. I can't separate my thoughts about its quality from my thoughts about Lady Gaga perhaps exploiting her fan base. Tell me there's someone out there who has written about her appropriating facets of gay culture to sell a million records. It's a complicated issue: she really has shined a light on disparity and discrimination, all while claiming she's a part of a minority she really is not. I'd be less conflicted if she were honest with herself and the media.

The article also causes me some unease in that I wrote "What'd I Say" with the best sources I could find, making it one of the shortest articles I've written. It's miniscule in size compared to the volume of information available about Lady Gaga and Rihanna, although its importance is far greater. There's a global issue with WP:UNDUE that is bound to be a factor in the future for pop stars who record after the advent of Internet sources.

Also, re: "God put me on Earth for three reasons: to make loud music, gay videos and cause a damn raucous." "Raucous" is an adjective, and not even Gaga can cause "raucous" to be a noun. Perhaps she meant "ruckus".

These are just my initial thoughts. They aren't an indication of the quality of the article or the job you and/or other editors have done writing it. It seems a lot of work has been put into it, but I think these issues are going to arise at some point if you are seeking to bring the article to GA or FA. Or, in light of the often pedantic nature of some editors, these considerations may arise at a discussion for keeping the article on Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Moni for your honest opinion. They really shed a different light on the subject. Personally I would want her to really do things that she is good at, not claim to be someone else just for the sake of supporting. Articles like this are also present, hence decided to create something along it. I do agree that WP:UNDUE and perhaps WP:RECENTISM might be the policies that it is violating. I will rather wait with the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't do anything rash. My comments are intended to challenge you and the other writers, not douse your enthusiasm. Maybe a difficult/challenging discussion about the content of the sandbox is in order before it's posted to article space. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Save our Children

Thanks for uploading this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Save_Our_Children_Brochure_inside.jpg

Do you have the entire brochure or related materials? 108.71.14.120 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Try the Stonewall Library & Archives. I called them to get the images in the article, except for the one of Bryant after she was hit with the pie. --Moni3 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, how I'd like to see that picture! I just checked and the external links at the end of that article (Stonewall Library & Archives) seem to be dead or obsolete--the 2nd one takes us someplace else entirely. Wanted to let you know (and to say Hi).--TEHodson 01:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Pic in Save Our Children. Or this. --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!! I knew about it when it happened, but never saw the footage. "...go across the country and do away with the homosexuals..."? Wasn't mass murder illegal in the 70s?--TEHodson 03:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Homosexuality

Hi. Were you talking to me or James Cantor? garik (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hurricanefan25

Not only is he removing the tag from the checkuser confirmed and Rlevse confessed Pumpkinsky, he's also removing it from Barkingmoon, even as a multitude of connections between the two are being made on AN. I've warned him on his talk page if he continues he'll be the next one on AN. Raul654 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with anyone removing the template from the BarkingMoon userpage at this time. Evidence is being discussed at AN, obviously. There does not seem to be a definite answer from an...authority...about BarkingMoon, just a lot of questions and suspicions. Someone really should perform a checkuser; should it turn out to be too similar to ignore with the neat little check image confirmation and everything, I would protect that page as well should others remove the sock template. --Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Barkingmoon/Rlevse checkuser was performed last year and the results were inconclusive - some evidence in favor, and some against. The arbcom said to rely on editing behavior to link them, and the evidence that's coming out is (IMO) pretty conclusive. Raul654 (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's your use of IMO that's giving me pause. I'm inexperienced with locating and ferreting out socks, but a little too experienced in watching moral panics--not that I think this is a moral panic at this time. I would rather err on the side of caution for now. I'd rather wait for a confirmation from checkuser or community consensus that the account should be blocked as a sock. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An eminently sensible and well reasoned position, if I may say so. Geometry guy 23:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help on the Burmese Python in FL page - it's been languishing on my to-do list forever. HCA (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification II

Hi. When you recently edited Burmese Pythons in Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secretary of the Interior (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I got it, Moni.--TEHodson 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, screw bots. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You first. Sounds uncomfortable to me.--TEHodson 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In love

I think I'm in love. (You and Sandy.) How do you respond sincerely w/o getting indef'd by trigger-happy Admins? (If I say something an Admin doesn't like, next think I know, "final warning" for "behavior" and a gun to my head. What kind of totalitarian wack-o place is this? I am trying to figure it out.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Which admins have guns? This is a serious accusation. If they're holding guns to your head, it's probably a felony where you are. Perhaps you should contact law enforcement. --Moni3 (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Moni, obviously I was using "gun to my head" figuratively to mean threat of indef block. Blocks and threats to block are often used punatively in WP, I don't need to point that out to you. I have no doubt some Admins use heir blocking power to satisfy a craven need to dominate and control others. Simple abuse of power, but pretty sick nonetheless. (If anynoe tracked me down physically because of a WP dispute, or threatened to, I'd probably call 9-1-1. Has that ever happened on WP that you know? I suppose I shouldn't be shocked if it has. WP is just a subset of an already corrupt and sick world.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's what's obvious:

• You come to my page telling me you love me. I don't know you from Adam. You speak in idioms, cliches, and hyperbole, just like everyone else on Wikipedia who've never met a sentence they can't wreck so that it can be interpreted 20 different ways. That's not linguistic sophistication; it's a complete breakdown in communication.
• You refer to guns and/or stalking in both comments. I make about ten edits a day, which is hardly a blip on the radar of Wikipedia and you're here asking me my opinions on...actually, I can't tell. Why in God's name are you here, Lambchop?
• Yes, Wikipedia editors' information is often publicly posted in other forums because people can't help being assholes. I've never done it. Private information that can be used to identify Wikipedians that is posted on Wikipedia is frequently removed by admins and oversighted if it's caught. If you have a concern about your personal information being posted on Wikipedia, I don't have the ability to oversight. You would have to go here.

If you want to continue this bizarre discussion on my talk page, do me a solid favor. Cut the bullshit and speak plainly. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest to fight with you (or anyone here). I came here because I admired what you said about loathing and avoiding ANI. It was a simple compliment since there are not many who speak out about it. It's as simple as that (no bullshit to cut) and I'm asking nothing of you. (I have no concern about public posting of info, and no one has pressed cold metal to my head. BTW if that had happened it would be a serious crime, not serious accusation.) I see that ANI was put up recently for deletion since my compliment was left for you here, or they are looking for some kind of reform there to minimize the insane environment there. That is reassuring, too, based on the one experience I had there which will be enough for me in a lifetime. I trust this reply is plain enough. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. It's also true, I've been trying to figure things out around here, e.g., how you're able to speak your mind about ... anything ... whereas if I even respond to someone who's brought comments for my attention, well, that's grounds for block or threat of extended block?! (For that reason I don't like to put specifics here, but, I'm not asking for your help about anything. Neither do I know where to ask, but that is not your problem too.) Cheers. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, you came to this page and posted an attack against admins. Incivility and crudity may get you warnings. Making personal attacks (and calling admins "trigger-happy" sounds like an attack to me) will get you blocked if you keep it up. -- Donald Albury 12:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's chill on the over-the-top blocking threats, please. WP:Lèse majesté isn't policy quite yet. (It's not like Ihardlythinkso said "sycophants" or something truly horrifying like that) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, aren't we sensitive ("trigger-happy" is just a horrible thing to say, I'm sure!), and un-invited, and threatening, and making ourselves feel all better today. Can you read? "Trigger-happy" was a descriptive qualifier to those Admins who would block over someone giving a "sincere response". It was not a generic qualifier as you so accuse. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You want to chase somebody? Go chase this guy: "Some administrators are people who are vile and despicable individuals, who back stab you, who vary their policy to suit their ends, whose arguments are pathetic self-justifications aimed at serving their own personal needs. Some administrators routinely and habitually break social norms of courtesy in order to abuse other users. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)"

Or this user: "Unfortunately a kick in the bollocks is an occupational hazard of speaking truth to power. Particularly when it's in the hands, or rather boots, of the infantile. Adminfants are the curse of WP. Writegeist (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)"

• I still can't figure out what this thread is about. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I'm not fighting with you and I don't have an interest in it either, but it takes a pretty sharp knife to cut through bullshit of even the simplest kind. People are entertained by games here. I'm entertained by other things, but the pandemic miscommunication here, worsened by the fact that it's over the Internet, often makes even the simplest discussions into a tumultuous clusterfuck. And quite honestly, what do you think would be worse: getting block warnings after instances when you post your opinions (and post them frequently) or saving your comments until you really, really care about something and knowing that no one reads them? In reality, I'm sure you don't get warned every time you post your opinion, and there are probably three editors who read my comments when I post them. If you think important wheels are turning because I stated that I loathe ANI at ANI, you are perhaps conflating the importance of my comments or their impact into something that's not quite real. I consider that post a pebble I tossed down a well; I'll never hear from it again, I'm guessing. But I honestly think the sentiments in the post and I could hurt nothing or no one by posting it. (Also, I'm pretty surprised this many people are responding in this discussion...or even this many people have my talkpage on their watchlist.)

It's useless to advise others when they're not asking for advice, so I won't do that. But you seem to be saying you want it without asking. Or want something. Do you? --Moni3 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx for your sensitivity. In a way I was (asking for advice), yes, but would never infringe on your time & attn. (General was sufficient, which you've given, thx.) Meanwhile happy accident, Floquenbeam has aligned to discuss w/ me. Also meanwhile, Albury's threat s/ be apt & ample inadvertent demo to satisfy an alert Laser what the thread was about. Thx again, Moni. "...Nostromo signing off ..." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on clerking proposal

Hi there, I hope you don't mind but in this edit I moved your comments on the clerking proposal to the page where a fuller discussion is happening. There was a danger of them being overlooked at AN. Please forgive the boldness and thanks for the comments! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Socking at Mulholland Drive

I blocked Jeremy28 as an obvious sock. I'll keep an eye on the sockmaster account but please ping me if you notice anything and I don't seem to catch it. I would normally block the sockmaster as well for at least a week, but seeing as you've warned him already, maybe we can let it lie. --Laser brain (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Work proceeds

I let myself get annoyed yesterday - I should know better, but oh well. Anyway, work proceeds.

I finished the basic framework yesterday. The schema allows for diffs to be mapped to a user, to a specific thread and to an archive. These individual diffs can then be scored, and these scores can be rolled up to the thread level. I've also made room to expand the system to consider other noticeboards apart from AN/I, but I'm not planning to use that functionality in the short term.

Thread data includes who started the thread, how many comments it attracted, the open and close date, the general category (user complaint, sock, vandalism, page prot, etc) and whether it was resolved. User data includes whether they are an admin or an editor. (There are numerous other editor attributes we could include, but this was enough to get started). Diff data includes which user started it, the full text of the diff, the edit summary, and some analytic parameters.

The diff analytics consists of a set of 1-10 scores on various parameters. To get started I chose the following parameters: "Tone", "Relevance", "Sarcasm", "Hostility", "Constructiveness". I also have a flag for "Side Topic", and a measure for "Side topic relevance" - part of an attempt to analyze thread drift.

Note - It is already apparent to me that these parameters need refinement, but whatever, that's why we have prototypes.

I have loaded about 1000 users into the system (based on a scraping of who edited AN/I) and the threads headers from AN/I Archive 729 and 730. I've loaded about 50 diffs as well, but I want to get to 1000 before sending it over to you for review (1000 diffs is only about 3 days worth).It takes about a minute to enter a single diff (this will get faster), so there are quite a few hours of work ahead. I hope to have something to you by the end of the week.

Do you have MS Access available to use? I chose Access because it is great for "quick and dirty" development, as there are (no doubt) numerous fundamental changes yet to be made before we have a system we're all happy with. If you don't have Access I can dump the results out to a Google spreadsheet or similar resource. If the system seems useful we can look into making it more permanent in nature, but that's a long way off. Manning (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, Manning, and thanks for the work. I'd love to look at what you've done - I might even have something sensible to say - it's not unknown, just rare :-) My home computers all stop at Access97, but I have the later versions on my work machines. It might be a day or so before I can spend much time looking at it, though, so don't hold anything up on my account. Thanks again for the work, and the heads up. Begoon ^talk 04:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I can downgrade to 97 no problem, I'm only using 2000 (I prefer it to the later versions). Since posting the above I'm looking into getting a SQL dump out of the mediawiki database. While extracting one diff at a time is fine for preliminary development, it would be a lot easier if I could do a bulk read to get a few thousand updates loaded. (We'll still need to score each one manually, but at least having the basic data in place will save a massive amount of time). Of course, I've never tried to get my head around the Mediawiki schema before but I'm sure I'll figure it out. I might even take the 13 GB dump of the whole thing just for giggles. Manning (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool - well if/when you get to a point where you think a second pair of eyes might help you, let me know and we'll work out a way for me to get hold of it. As I say, I'd be happy to help, but if it's all going along swimmingly, then maybe wait till you're ready for "reviews"? Whatever suits you, really, since you're doing the work. I've got a local MediaWiki install on my web server that I just use for a testbed really, but I haven't, like you, studied the schema in depth, just poked around a bit when I needed to modify something. I've never had a problem finding or extracting what I needed though. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 08:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah should be good for now. I just discovered this service - Query Service which should give me everything I need in terms of raw data. I can then upload that and we'll have thousands of diffs to look at. The real challenge will be deciding how to go about scoring them, but that will come later. All of you will get to have some fun then. Manning (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You could also ask User:CBM for help. He has toolserver access and seems very good with SQL. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, thanks for the heads up on this and very glad you're still going. I have Access too if I can help at all, and some statistical skills if we come to start analysing data - my preferred tool is SPSS but I think it can take an Access flat database and read it. But maybe this is already something you have covered. In terms of actually gathering the ratings, it's probably completely far-fetched and over the top, but I was thinking about the crowdsourcing solution at Galaxy Zoo. But I think that's probably just silliness.

I was looking at the suggested variables of "Tone", "Relevance", "Sarcasm", "Hostility", "Constructiveness". Will you have anchor text to describe each end of the 10-point scale? Also, I suspect there'll be a lot of correlation between some, which will make some redundant - eg I suspect tone, hostility and constructiveness will all correlate. We could get rid of one or two of these, and maybe have a further variable on something like "Use of policy" - ie the degree to which WP policy is invoked, quoted or linked to in the diff? Does the thread data need a bit more detail on the resolution as well? Not just whether it was resolved but how - block, page protected, editor warned, complaint dismissed etc etc...

Sorry if that comes off like an academic research supervisor advising a PhD candidate - I AM an academic research supervisor and old habits die hard. Thanks very much for doing this, I think it will be good to have the data to go with all the speculation we've been having. Apart from anything, it'll give us a benchmark against which we can measure any changes we eventually decide on. Thanks Moni3 for your input and the loan of your talk page also!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Kim - I'm just using Access for prototyping of a data entry system - once I load all the diffs, we'll need to go through and score them and I can't use SPSS for that. Ultimately the best system would be a web front end over a MySql database, but I'm using Access for now because it is ideal for "quick and dirty". If we started with a web-based system then every time we change our mind about the params we'd have to recode the user interface (which gets really tedious). Once we have the data loaded and scored then SPSS would be ideal for analysing it (or Cognos which I work with).

I'm not real stressed about the params just yet, I think when you actually have diff data to work with your thinking might change anyway (it did for me). Once I get something out to you with diff data loaded you'll be in a much better position to make design choices. Cheers Manning (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Heck yes, I didn't mean SPSS for data capture - just for analysis once the data are assembled, cleaned and locked down. Look forward to seeing what develops! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, et al, when I said I was short on time...that wasn't an exaggeration. This is the earliest I've been able to reply to Manning's original post on my talk page, and the rest of my week(s) are going to go the same. I feel like a dingus suggesting stuff and then having others do it, but it hadn't been suggested and it seems Manning and company know what they're doing--far more than I would.

Feel free to use my talk page to discuss it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Moni. No dramas about you being time-poor. For general info, there's now a parallel discussion with CBM going on here (Thanks to Ascii for the tip). Manning (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to all - this discussion is getting so fragmented I've created a userpage to centralize things. Please join me at User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis. Manning (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Otis Redding

hello,

thanks again for your comments on the talk page. I wonder if you could borrow a book from a library? I don't know where you live (I guess in USA?), but maybe there is somewhere a library near you (you know, in my country the libraries are not very large): The book in question is this. If you can, that would be excellent! :) Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If I get this book, what do you envision my involvement with the article would be? I've summarized a couple pages for editors before, but not an entire book, and not one central to the article. This is a biography of the subject. It's quite possible that should I find information relevant to the article that I would rewrite portions of it. As I've written 20 FAs, you know....I could end up taking the article in another direction. This might be upsetting. Often, editors who are responsible for shaping some form of the article get upset when others who have some knowledge make large edits to the article. I'm guilty of this myself. What's your vision here?

Also, after reading your response to my question above, if I decide to get the book, I'm severely short on time. I wouldn't be able to get the book until this weekend and perhaps a chapter a week is as fast as I could go. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Moni! I would like to know more about his personal life, personality and singing style (I even don't know if he is baritone or tenor...). You don't even need to borrow it, just read the book in the library and if there is additional information then you could write it down somewhere. Also, if you find another book about him, such as [9], that would be also great! :) Thanks again.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read my response to your request again and answer my questions. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, you could photograph the pages and sent it through eg Dropbox, or as I said you could write it in note form and then paste it here :P.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's not going to happen in any universe. I am severely limited in my time and I don't know how else to say that. Look at my edit history for the past couple months. I can spend an hour or two on a weekend, but I can't write anything substantial. Perhaps you do not know the time it takes to write an excellent article. I have, in the past, taken images of microfilm sources then emailed them to myself. One 20-page article took me 3 hours. Notes from a full-length biography would probably get done by October. I just don't have the time and dedication right now to research the topic and rewrite it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You told me so

Moni dear, you did say that the RfA process was brutal, but really I had no idea. I mean, I didn't disbelieve you, but man! My RfA demonstrated another thing I remember you saying (at least I'm pretty sure it was you)--that the process is inherently flawed. I mean, I'm qualified to be an admin, but because I didn't cow down to their attacks ("Thank you sir, may I have another!"), some of which were personal, I don't "get it". And the Blue's Clues jokes? Please! I can't defend myself when I'm being piled on? And did you know that I'm a meanie who bites both newbies and established editors? And when I present evidence to the contrary, I get attacked even more? And when I withdraw, I'm accused of not being open to criticism? I have just one thing to say about that--Wow.

One thing is for certain, I'll think twice about submitting myself to that again. I missed the premiere of "Survivor" for that? The whole thing confirmed another thing I know you've said: content editors aren't supported here enough, and are even discouraged. Like I said, Wow. Anyway, rant over and I'll retreat back to my little corner and work on my insignificant articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. I stupidly allowed myself to be persuaded for a second attempt after my first mauling there, but never again. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. That sounds like the hazing ceremony required for entering that particular club. No wonder all admins are assholes... or so I'm told. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I wasn't expecting that. I've been running round like a headless chicken and missed it. Damn. I find "reluctant" opposes odd (no-one's twisting any arms...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Casliber - oh dear. I missed it too - but I unwatched RfA a long time ago. My sense is that editors who write, and I know Christine from her FACs, aren't well-known enough to get through an RfA. Certainly I never would. But still, so sorry this happened .... Truthkeeper (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The other thing I learned is that I should've "campaigned" more. I know you're not supposed to, but at the very least I should've put the template up on my talk page. But I was naive and didn't expect such nastiness. They say that I don't AGF, but one of my character flaws is that I expect the best of people, and I get disappointed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I applaud you for trying and I noticed it was a Karanacs nom. I briefly looked at the page and though, "yuck". I'll read it through later. I've recently unwatched hundreds of pages, (obviously not Moni's) so as to cut out some noise, but you're right, would have been nice to have known about this. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A good tip is to post on highly watched editors' talk pages asking if they think you should put yourself forwards at some specific date in the not too distant future. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There but for the grace of god....sometimes I wonder. 15 years ago I was an avid roleplayer and gamer. Had I been editing then I'd have been getting into wiki-scuffles at AfD trying to keep the stuff in, possibly alot more aggressively than I do now....my name would have been mud maybe....instead I mainly edit after my current hobbies of gardening, birdwatching and mushroom picking...hmmm. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Christine, I saw this last night and didn't quite know how to respond. I don't remember telling you that RfA was brutal, although I don't disagree that it can be for many editors. It was more unpleasant than brutal for me and I got over 100 supports. It's a system that tries to weed out the useless and brainless, but editors, both nominees and supporters/opposers see it instead as the Wikipedia community's consensus vote that you are (not) a fine person, a conscientious editor, and a reasonably intelligent feeling human. Don't make the mistake of coming away from a failed RfA by assuming the community is able to tell what a fine person, a conscientious editor, and a reasonably intelligent feeling human is, then voice their opinions about it en masse, like consensus. Don't also conflate RfA with some rite of passage that initiates you into the tribe, showing you represent the highest standards of Internet humanity. To accomplish that, the highest standards of Internet humanity would have to be spelled out clearly somewhere and all admins would have multiple originally written FAs, and know how to program shit so complex I don't even know how to describe it. I say this, you know, knowing I wasn't entirely able to approach my own RfA as if it was the same rite of passage I'm telling you not to see it as.

It's astonishingly simple to summarize the worth of a person in a Support! or Strongest oppose possible comment. I often wonder where we get the balls to do such a thing. Anonymity, not looking a person in the face (or the crowd that would inevitably be gathered to watch it in person), and humanity's desperate need for things to be simple factor largely into this. It's unicorn rare to see a discussion anywhere on Wikipedia where two or more editors arrive with their views, present "have you thought of it this way?" statements to each other, admit that perhaps they had not thought if it a different way, then leave the discussion with an even slightly different view. Arriving to a discussion with your mind made up and your statements emphatic and never wavering is seen as a hallmark of strength, instead of stubbornness and arrogance that is often is. It's ironic that RfA demands the nominee be pliant and flexible while the voters remain steadfast and tenacious. It doesn't make good admins at all. Instead, it initiates aspiring admins into a system that proves itself to have conflicting standards, and a corps of admins who disagree so frequently that serious sysop decisions can never be made without the knowledge that another admin somewhere will not only disagree, but probably take you to ANI, ArbCom, or attempt to recall you.

At any rate, don't waste any time getting down on yourself because of RfA. If you want to run again, I'd be glad to renominate you. Look at the issues others commented on and decide for yourself what you want to change. I think overuse of Twinkle may be a valid issue; I didn't see what the other complaints were. If you decide not to run again, then bully for you. There are entirely too few editors who write strong articles, make decently intelligent statements here and there, who do not aspire to please large groups of people in preparation for an RfA. Sometimes I wish I was one of them. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Florida cultural events

Hi Moni3 :-)

Great see that you still around and editing. I remember seeing you bring the Saint Johns River article to FA and was pleased to see fine writing on this kind of topic.

I now live in Saint Augustine, Florida, and plan to work with cultural heritage organizations and institutions in the area. I'm reaching out to you because you edit loads of articles about FL and you live close by to me.

Do you have any interest in doing either outreach to cultural heritage organizations in FL or on wiki assistance to new editors from this sector, or create content focus on holding found in the institutions.

In particular, I want to get the ball rolling planning Florida events related to Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 that will happen in September 2012. This years focus in the US is images of places on the National Register of Historic Places. While living in Kentucky, my husband and I took and uploaded images of places on the NRHP so I have a general idea of the process. I'm most interested in finding the gaps in coverage of historical sites in FL, and figuring out the best way to get these covered with local events. We need both people to take the images, and people to create great articles where they will land.

Additionally, I plan to work with the Saint Augustine 450 Commemoration (a four year initiative to celebrate the founding of Saint Augustine and settlement of FL through educational and legacy projects) to see how that we can add value to their current events, and possibly plan some joint initiatives.

I'm also working with User:LoriLee, the U.S. Cultural Partnerships Coordinator for the Wikimedia Foundation, to create an listing of cultural organizations and institutions in the United States, and WMF volunteers interested in working with these organizations. The beginning stages of it are at Wikipedia:GLAM/US/Connect. We also plan to have State specific pages that link to the Wikiproject for each state.

Would love to hear your thoughts and idea, and to see if you have an interest in one or more of these projects? --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I have a red hot hate for anyone living in St. Augustine because I am not there. Call it jealousy if you wish; Mrs. White from Clue explains it pretty well.

LOL!

You didn't bring 300 of your kinfolk to St. Johns County, did you? God forbid St. Johns County gets as overrun as Flagler, Marion, or, perish the hideousness of it all, South...Florida... Those who live in St. Augustine are bound by God's law not to advertise it so any semblance of natural beauty can be strip-malled and gated-communitied.

My daughter graduated from Flager College 5 years ago. We loved the area so much from visiting her there that we moved down here. A really fun place to eat out and hang out looking at the sights.

Secondly, my time here is now so limited that I am unable to create any new articles of any substance. I recently rewrote Burmese Pythons in Florida, but that took me an afternoon. I am unable to devote any more than one or two hours a day to Wikipedia, and hardly any of my weekends. But I applaud your efforts.

Keep a watch to what we are doing and if you have any spare time pitch in and help. An hour or two a week could be a big help from a talented, experienced contributor like you.

Check out the Florida Music Festival at Stephen Foster State Park near White Springs (I think). It occurs once a year but it's worth visiting. Also, go to the Shrimp Festival in Fernandina Beach, get drunk, eat shrimp, call it "skramp". I'd love to see Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings written like someone means it, Etonville, Zora Neale Hurston, Fort Mose Historic State Park, and the gem of all gems, Castillo de San Marcos and History of St. Augustine. Why is that a red link??? Also, Florida cracker. Go to the Florida Cracker Cafe on St. George Street, get their fried shrimp then pound cake a la mode for dessert. Instant diabetes and so worth it. Sit outside. We saw the Space Shuttle go off at night once while sitting at the Florida Cracker Cafe. Best restaurant in town and the Columbia can suck it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We truly need to get rid of the red link History of St. Augustine. I took that horrible pic of Eatonville, FL city hall in the article several years ago when I traveled through there. I'd read Zora Neale Hurston and saw the city had no pic. But the sun was all wrong :-(.

I'll take your advice as Gospel about eating at Florida Cracker. Love shrimp and adult beverages to aid in relaxation. :-) --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

My husband got food poisoning from the Columbia years ago, before we met, so I've never been. I've heard the Cracker Cafe is good, but it smells of fish and that makes me sad. (Yes, I live in NE Florida; no, I don't eat seafood; I know, I know.) The Bunnery, on the other hand... *drools* María (yllosubmarine) 19:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You've only heard that the Florida Cracker Cafe is good but you know it smells like fish? Also, it has outdoor patio dining...not on fish entrails. Bunnery. Hah! --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I've walked past it before! I know what it's all about, with its down-home charm and sleazy gator mascot. The person who told me it was good also swears by the Conch House (bleh) and that place at the beach that uses dead things as decoration. (I mean, it practically has fur, skin and teeth for wallpaper. What remained after an especially hungry lunch crowd fifty years ago, I'm guessing.) Obviously I wasn't made to live in these conditions -- unlike my husband, who is the son-of the son of Florida crackers, I'm the daughter of a Navy baker from the Bronx, so... yeah. Cinnamon buns as big as my head FTW! María (yllosubmarine) 13:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to assign your DEFCON codes to past ANI complaints

Hello Moni3. Please see User:Manning Bartlett/Moni3 ANI analysis#Coding the first few items from ANI729. Hopefully this fits somehow into the project of ANI improvement through data analysis. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

... good advice given in the edit summary...

Thank you for your good advice given in the edit summary when you were reverting my edit in the article on the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird earlier this morning.

With best wishes from Wales, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In nearly six years and 26,000 edits I've made to Wikipedia, you are the first editor to thank me for anything related to reverting their edit. I don't quite know what to say, other than you have a superhuman Grace--which shows even in this small instance. Have a fabulous day and enjoy Wales. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again. You are an inspiration. With kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, "inspiration" may be a bit over the top. I know a handful of Wikipedians who no doubt spewed their beverages on their monitors reading that I may be inspirational. Happy editing nonetheless. --Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha! ha!

We have just had our first Spring-like day here. Yet, we witnessed our first snow this winter as late as the end of the first week of this month. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No spewed bevs here. Moni both needs and deserves some good ole-fashioned butt-kissing from time to time. Come to think of it, so do I. ;) Yes, Monidear, you are inspirational, and people whose opinion mean anything at all agree. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Moni and Christine, consider your butts officially kissed, ole-fashionedly. And, what the hell, you too Gareth! I would have used a wiki-love thingy to do this, but couldn't find a decent image. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are plenty of relevant illustrations on Commons... although you may need to have your eyeballs bleached after you spend some time looking around for them. MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What have I started? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My favorite wiki-love images are either of chocolate chip cookies or fruit salad. Both are yummy-yummy! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite

You make a fair point that no one asked on your talk page about reducing or ending the indef block. So, I'll ask you straight out: do you object if it's reduced or ended? (If the answer is "no", I'm not going to just go do it. Obviously input from others is still needed.) 28bytes (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have objections at this time. Most of them have to do with Rlevse not owning up to and facing his own behavior. I saw it dismissed recently with the convenient summary that certain editors are out for their "pound of flesh". I don't think you or the other editors involved in this discussion are helping him by dismissing this. Certainly assigning me motives doesn't help him in any way. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If I've not made it clear that I do consider there to be legitimate concerns with his editing, I apologize; I have told him myself that some of his behavior has been completely unacceptable, the pretending to be a newbie to reignite disputes particularly so. I recognize that not all of his supporters are willing to do that, which is unfortunate. The battleground behavior on both sides saddens me, and to the degree that I've contributed to that, I regret it. 28bytes (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I was quite familiar with the concept The Dozens but had not read the article, and am enjoying doing so so far. There's something quite endearing about the juxtaposition of the calm, encyclopedic tone and the topic itself. 28bytes (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your replies. I understand people are emotional about Rlevse. There are editors for whom I have affection who have done less than wonderful things. Shit, I do less than wonderful things. It's a very difficult predicament. I understand in part where you are, and I'm not trying to be presumptuous. I don't hate Rlevse. I think he's got some issues he needs to work through. His best friends will help him do that. Others, who are quicker to dismiss his problematic behavior to hasten his return without examining the reasons behind that behavior are not doing anyone a service, and in my mind, need to ask themselves why they are so eager to prioritize Rlevse's return over Wikipedia's policies.

I'm glad you like the Dozens article. It can be expanded. Sadly, I don't have the time right now to do it. I hope someone does. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you be willing to work out with me the necessary conditions for an unblock? I don't want to prioritize his return over WP policies, but if we can have a returned editor who's willing to following policy and stay out of trouble, that seems like that would be in everyone's interests, no? 28bytes (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your block of PumpkinSky

Hi, Moni, I see that Diannaa has requested an explanation of your block of PumpkinSky pursuant to WP:ADMINACCT. I also join in that request.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Super. I have no problem responding, obviously, as I have already done so. Would you similarly explain why you tolerated unhelpful commentary from both Rlevse and Alarbus? You are an admin. None of it was helpful. You should have stepped in and asked them to redirect their comments to something much more productive. All I could ask myself is why you expect so little from the editors with whom you commune. --Moni3 (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe we've had that discussion, Moni, but thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

So why the double standard? Why do I deserve the scrutiny here but you deserve none for doing nothing? --Moni3 (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume that's a rhetorical question? Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely is not. Internet discussions are rife with accusations, cliches, and pointless finger-pointing. I said pointless pointing... No one here really wants to dig down and be honest about themselves (cough, Malleus, you too) but they're more than willing to shift blame on others. What does this help? What true understanding or communication is achieved by this? None. It just places people into camps. I assume just to make things easier: I can't agree with all your points and I don't know how to respect the ideas I disagree with, so I'll simplify you by assigning you motives and questioning you without scrutinizing myself. I guess it makes people feel more solid to be so sure of things. I find it empty and useless. --Moni3 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

None of us have been given the power "To see oursels as ithers see us". All any of us can try to do, including me, including you, is the best we can to act in accordance with the principles we believe in. I have long lived by the principle that if I wouldn't be prepared to call you a "cunt" or whatever to your face then neither should I describe you as such to a third-party, and I extend that principle to Internet communication; whatever I may say to anyone here I would be more than happy to repeat to their faces, else I wouldn't say it. That's what I call honesty.

On the subject of Rlevse, it seems to me that there's a distinct whiff of cover-up, and an unwillingness by certain parties to recognise the scale and extent of the problem. The Mattisse farago surely ought to have been a clear warning that the worst possible outcome is likely to be the appointment of sympathetic mentors approved of by Rlevse. (The idea that he doesn't need mentoring is risible.) Therefore I think your indefinite block is at least eminently defensible. Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't a step here been missed out? Shouldn't PumpkinSky be talking to Moni about the block, instead of others asking Moni? I suppose it has moved beyond that. Anyway, the longer this goes on, the more confusing it will get. I had my disagreements with Rlevse while we were arbitrators, and I felt very strongly that he should have stayed and dealt with the events of October 2010 at the time, and I was dismayed to find that he had been editing as PumpkinSky (though I wasn't that surprised), but have been more dismayed by the disagreements it has provoked among those commenting on and handling it. Maybe one way for things to move on from this point is for a clear timeline of events to be provided, along with outstanding issues to be resolved or discussed, to help see where to go from here. I suggest those with the time to do that start some centralised page somewhere, with links to all the discussions that have taken place so far (including the unblock request at AN that was later withdrawn, and the current discussion at AN). Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He should indeed have held his hands up and helped clean up the problem, but instead he chose to "vanish". I was one of those caught up in the aftermath of the Grace Sherwood TFA, and I will never forget being accused of engineering Rlevse's downfall because I'd copyedited the article without checking the sources. There's a great deal of dishonesty on display here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Great Dismal Swamp maroons

Did you read about the Great Dismal Swamp maroons? Do you agree that more articles like it - in terms of topic, depth, sourcing, relevance - should appear? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the second most loaded question I've ever seen. On my talk page.

Assuming you've read my user page, you should have seen that I've written 20 FAs and some other shit. Some of the articles are about civil rights, African Americans in the US, including some about slavery. I have no reason to object to any article that is based on the absolute best reliable sources concerning notable topics, all of which comply with Wikipedia's highest standards. (Although your wording "should appear" leaves some questions: appear where? as what? and some speculation that magic may be involved...) But I also see that Rlevse has the second highest number of edits to this article, so do me a favor and just skip right to the point of your posting on my talk page. You've never asked my opinion about anything before and call me cynical, but I don't really think you care much about my opinion now. Prove me wrong if you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Please understand that English is not my first language. What is a "loaded" question, for example? I rescued the article from the sandbox of PumpkinSky. It would have not appeared otherwise as long as he is blocked, but I decided it should appear on Wikipedia. I like your hint at magic! Assuming you've read my user page, you know that I would prefer to see PumpkinSky unblocked, write more articles like that and be able to face his Rlevse past (which I don't share). Did you read related thoughts, initiated by Geometry guy? - I admire your FA contributions and just nominated a GA for the first time, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

While I was writing this, the GA passed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Loaded question is a question that makes assumptions or otherwise makes answering problematic. An example would be "Have you stopped kicking kittens?" - answering either "yes" or "no" would be interpreted to mean that you have previously kicked kittens, and thus the question assumes you are guilty of kitten abuse. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, Nikkimaria, also thanks for pre-viewing the article before it appeared on DYK.

I didn't mean to "load", but keep things simple. Sorry, I didn't introduce myself, thinking that my user and my talk would do that for me. I asked 2 questions, the first one establishing the topic. I didn't know, Moni3, if you had been among the more than 8000 ones who had clicked that article already when I asked, nor did I know if you were familiar with its history. It looks to me as if the community of the readers is interested in this article, so is the group of people who helped to improve it (17 and I), approved it for DYK, cropped the pic for the Main page, reviewed it for GA (2 stepped forward as soon as I nominated). Then the second question, very simple logic: if you want more articles from a blocked editor, he needs to be unblocked. If you have the key you could silently unlock. We would as silently return to content creation and cleaning up Rlevse. April Fools' Day might be a good day to do so :) You mentioned magic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is problematic. Of the several thousand registered users working on Wikipedia, only maybe 150 to 200 of them produce content on a large scale, as in, write more than a paragraph that can be considered good sourced information. This creates a belabored minority of content producers, which I consider myself when I can edit, and which I am assuming Rlevse also considered himself, as he had 10 FAs to his name when he left.

The faulty logic here is that the thousands of registered users are helpless to write articles without me. Or Rlevse. Wikipedia does not stop because I don't check in every day. Nor does it stop because Rlevse is blocked. It certainly slows down and content does not get written because the majority of registered users think that someone else will write whatever needs to be written. Similar to diffusion of responsibility. Rlevse is incidental to this and my opinion about it. ALL Wikipedia's users need to shift their attitudes from waiting for good articles to be written by someone else to going to the library and taking that responsibility into their own hands.

So I don't want more articles written by a blocked user. I want better articles written by people who realize it is completely within their power to write them. Preferably users who focus on writing and discussing content instead of doing things that get them blocked, as nebulous as that may be at times. However, when a user gets blocked, retires, exercises his right to vanish, or whose life takes too much time from this site, others should pick up the slack. Every last Wikipedian should easily realize what a good reliable source is and how to construct an article. Then do it.

Lastly, this is more of a gray area here, and I hope I'm not about to open a can of worms when I cannot participate either to make it less a can of worms or make it worse, but here goes: admins are turnkeys, but many of them--and other Wikipedians--consider them to have power that goes hand in hand with identity. I'm confused by the recent assertion that I am responsible for Rlevse's block (hold on, don't get crazy yet) and that I am the only person standing in the way of his return. I repeat: I'm a turnkey. I blocked him as a matter of course because it was clear to me that he was abusing his right to vanish and using the PumpkinSky account as a sockpuppet to influence procedural discussions. It did not seem to me to be a controversial block; I was surprised I had to do it. Most admins are much quicker than I about this kind of thing. The community has no problem whatsoever arguing about blocks. In fact, instead of creating content most registered users seem to argue about blocks and other stuff I find painfully tedious. If the Wikipedia community disagrees with the block, overturn it. If that's the community's decision, then that's what it is. Turnkeys get overturned. I do not expect any decision of mine as an admin to go unquestioned or unchallenged. However, I believe this has been brought up twice at AN. The first attempt resulted in Rlevse abandoning it after some questions from me and other users. I haven't been able to respond to you quickly; you can see that I can't spend a lot of time here lately so I haven't seen if he has expressed any interest in returning. If he has, that needs to be discussed at AN. I don't consider it a light matter for an ex-arbitration committee member to abuse policies with such ease and so little conscience; this matter should be decided by the community, not by one person. If Rlevse has not asked to return, I don't know why we're talking about this. --Moni3 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your position in detail. You remember Rlevse, I am involved with PumpkinSky. I confess that I came to be afraid of AN, remember saying at one point: "I don't understand, not the language, not the spirit". At another point Geometry guy had reason to write what I framed on my user page. I fail to see the few people speaking up at AN as "the community", my idea of community are the readers. - I saw an appeal at your heart below, smiling. Couldn't you just assume good faith in an editor who served Wikipedia on 729 articles (see CCI), not flawless in terms of close paraphrasing but trying hard, sourcing well (see maroons article)? Ignore some rules, simply unblock him? He might return, I would hope so. As Wehwalt put it: "Where is the risk?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already explained myself pretty well, Gerda. Wehwalt may not see risks, but that doesn't surprise me. I'm sorry you don't like AN or ANI. I don't either, but no one is going to change it just for me, so if I care enough about something enough I have to go there.

You didn't answer if Rlevse has expressed any interest in returning. I surely don't know why he would. Most days I don't want to come back here. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I said elsewhere: "I would like to do the opposite, not investigate a past, but set the tone for a future where the contributor who donates time and skill to this project is first of all treated as a human being, with decency and respect, and not some thing "serial plagiator"." - Wehwalt made my day today with this edit. - I learned one thing from Rlevse: Peace, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

Hi Moni, I know you're busy, but I think that I can ask you this HUGE favor. I've finally, after four years, gotten this article about this wonderful person and writer, I believe, comprehensive enough. It's been, as you know, a huge undertaking, because unlike the articles you write about important things like Florida swamps, I've been mostly alone in my endeavors. ;) Which is fine, because perhaps you didn't know this about me, but I'm a control freak who avoids conflict at all cost. Plus, you're a good egg and you've helped me before. Would you mind taking a look at Dr. Angelou's article so I can submit it to FAC? I know, it's huge, but one of my issues with it is if it should remain huge or get forked, he he. I even made a list for potential copyeditors: [10]. I'd appreciate it if you took the time. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Maya Angelou, as I'm sure you know, is a completely worthy topic. Certainly no less important than the Everglades. Unless, of course, you're drinking fresh water in South Florida--then the Everglades may be a tiny bit more important...

At any rate, I really wish I had the time to read the article and give you my feedback. I simply don't right now and I'm very sorry about it because I'm sure Angelou's article deserves to be as awesome as you make it. If I spend 30 minutes on Wikipedia over the next several days, I'll be surprised. A thorough copy edit takes hours. I feel bad about this. --Moni3 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What, you're letting your rich and full life get in the way of editing WP? And there's a saying here: "Ugh, that's Moscow water for you", 'cause it tastes nasty with all the additives in this liberal bastion in the northern part of this red state. I understand. How about instead of a lengthy copyedit, you take 20 minutes reading it and then answering the two most compelling questions I'd like answered regarding this article: Is it too long, or does the current length warrant its length; and if it's too long, what sections should be separated into new articles? I'd greatly appreciate it if you could do that much, but if you can't do that, I'd still understand. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Christine. I know a very good copy editor - he's a professional copy editor and I believe that he does have the gift of words. [11] Gandydancer (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Gandy, thanks so much! I knew that the WP community would come through for me. I'm going to ask Ryan straight away. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Moni, could you please take a look at the Great Dismal Swamp maroons article? Please take a look at the talk page re my edit about caps for "maroons". I come to you because in my experience you are not only very intelligent but you have a good heart as well. I furnished a few links that offer info re whether to use caps for maroon - or not. Of course, I realize that we all have a limited amount of energy and time and this may not be something that you have interest or time to be involved in. As for me, once and awhile I draw my line in the sands of Wikipedia...and this is one of those times. Gandydancer (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Gracious, appeals to my intelligence *and* morality. How could I resist?

Rather simply, I'm afraid. I read the talk page. That's the best place to hash it out. I'm afraid I don't have access to sources and cannot get access to sources to resolve this in a timely manner. --Moni3 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm an optimist by nature and I always forget that everything here can get so complicated... I remain unsatisfied with the situation but it seems that a lot of argument has gone on in the past and they are all sick of it - which I can understand because I get sick of endless discussions too. BTW, be assured that I was not just trying to butter you up or doing a "That's a very pretty dress, Mrs. Clever". I have been watching your talk page for years off and on. I've dropped others that I watch, but I've always kept yours. You really are a remarkable person.

Remember way back when I asked you about a Slim Whitman clip for the yodeling article? I finished the article and I really like it. I read it once and a while and it always cheers me up. Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh! BTW, I'm not asking for a clip! I found a lot of free music for the article and it's not needed. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Mulholland drive plot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mulholland_Drive_%28film%29 take a look here for discussion thanks. --JTBX (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

one more thing before I leave

This may be petty of me to make one parting shot as I retire from Wikipedia for good, but for the record, you are an asshole. A serious, no doubt about it, 100% asshole. So much of an asshole that you probably take great pride in your assholivity. I have never called anyone an asshole in my life, but hoo boy did I choose the right one. For the sake of the world around you, I hope that one day you will realize what a waste of everyone's time, including your own, your assholeness is. Until then, all I can say is -- bye, asshole! Minaker (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm way ahead of you, douchebag. I was an asshole before the word was invented. But good luck on your travels, wherever you may go. May you find it paved with colorful characters you misunderstand for assholes.

And next time you claim to have read the sources in an article, prove it and engage on the talkpage. It's what all the best assholes do. --Moni3 (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like you've made a new Wiki-friend. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing here but cuddles and hugs. Here's a flower. Join our love parade. --Moni3 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it an edible flower? Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)