This is an archive of past discussions with User:Moni3. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm done with my review of this article for GA. It's now on hold for any changes to be made.
Also, the quote i suggested as being too much detail is just the sort of thing i once thought should be the Lesbian article (I knew i'd read something of the sort, but didn't have sources myself).YobMod14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on some fixes right now. I have some questions as well. Sometimes I need to be persuaded to make changes. Other times I just like a discussion about the topic...Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
As someone who has used it for good and evil from the moment words sprang from my mouth, I will be happy to impart any insight I have, and to discuss the nature of it as an inherent talent such as perfect pitch, or an acquired skill from observation. Through humor, we have returned to nature or nurture. We are born (I have woken from deep sleep laughing), and more than a few times I have laughed so hard I have felt the cold, clammy hand of death upon my shoulder, beckoning me home. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Pshaw. I have chortled at some of your posts, although I don't know if you had intended that to happen. Maybe your audience is broken, not your funnybone. People who take themselves too seriously and take another heaping helping of offense when you do not also take yourself seriously are more chilling to one's life outlook sometimes than a polar bath...with bears. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hee hee and all that, but could both of you please refrain from bandying about the idea that Sandy and I have a secret FAC promotion orgy-fest? Mr. Karanacs won't like that idea much... although if you can somehow convince Orlando Bloom to become an editor and try to promote an article to FAC hubby's opinion might not matter so much ;) Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea that link was there. Wikipedians needs to get out more. Srsly. Into the sun. Vitamin D and all. Karan, I have not bandied that idea. It was thrown out there, and I merely predicted that someone will pick it up and run. Don't pass the ball to whoever will do it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What's frightening is that these are the people who thought "hey, I look pretty good in this photo, I think I'll share it". One daren't speculate about what the others look like. – iridescent23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm. When one finds oneself looking at Shankbone and thinking "well, at least this one looks relatively normal", something is seriously wrong somewhere. – iridescent00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
History of The Show Revisited
Hi there, Moni,
I've finally been able to address all comments on History of Sesame Street, including your image review. Could you please go over there and see if it's adequate enough to be resubmitted for GAN? Or, if you'd like, if you think it qualifies, you could just pass the darn thing. I'd really like to move on, so that we can get it peer reviewed. --Christine (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Our views are skewed. I do, in fact, have a very short memory. I get frustrated [1] (really) then completely forget why. Call it patience if you will. I have banged my phone on my desk on five different occasions today. I would characterize my day as being remarkably pissy. I suppose though, much like a marriage, that we as a group can share the burden of pissy days. --Moni3 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What, o what will I do to impress Malleus!?! Maybe the blue streak I swear out loud so I don't post it here. Does cussing like a whole boat of sailors impress you? --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
You do impress me Moni3, just not with your patience. You have a dogged determination and a sense of humour that I greatly admire. There. Feel better now? --MalleusFatuorum19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Aw. Now I'm embarrassed. I take slights and insults much better than compliments. But I appreciate it nonetheless. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to pile on the embarrassment by also complementing you on your sense of integrity. Despite us living completely different lives on different continents, I do feel that you and I are in similar in many ways. Sorry to finish off with an insult. :lol: --MalleusFatuorum20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ha! Not at all an insult. There are a rare few editors, like yourself, that I admire and whose opinion I respect. When considering RfB processes, I ask myself if I admire the candidate enough to vote in support. The folks I admire enough to support probably would not run in the first place, so I should examine that reasoning some. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
My view on RfA/B was really formed years ago, while I was studying for my psychology degree. I came across an account of a North American Indian tribe (I'm not certain what the PC decsription would be nowadays) who selected as their chief the warrior who least wanted the job. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who asks for power, but I know that's an unfashionable view. --MalleusFatuorum21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
re: Tipping
Erm, yeah, I meant to get around to that. Hrm. Are you going to put it up for PR? If not, I can look it over within the next few days and leave comments on the talk page. I'll try to think of something to say other than "squee!" María(habla conmigo) 12:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You made me lol. It's rare that I do that when reading someone else's comments. Love the squee. Won't be putting it up for PR, but if you have any suggestions about anything, please let me know. Thanks! squee...hahaah--Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I try. Done and done. I also just noticed that my last edit to the talk page was more than two years ago, while passive aggressively teaching you how to correctly format references! Ah, those were the days... María(habla conmigo) 15:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Weren't they? Shall I count myself a bit more accustomed to how to do some things? I'm a slow learner, but I get it eventually... Thanks so much for your review. I'll address your comments throughout the day. If I have questions and whatnot, I'll ask as usual. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Stowe (Away) and The Addams Family
(I figure it's not healthy for us to banter on a missing friend's talk page.) I'm happy to help with peer reviewing and copyedits as always, but school's got me crazy busy and my dog keeps chewing up everything in our house and I just started a new reconstruction, so I can't help out with research or actual writing, alas. Keep me posted, tho! (Yeah, that Stowe page is embarrassing.) Scartol • Tok13:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Map help
Hi Moni, Kmusser is a professional cartographer and very helpful with rivers - my guess is he can make something similar. If worse comes to worse, ask me and I can make something worse (or you can do the colored pencil map and scan it). Ruhrfisch><>°°17:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the triplicate - I kept trying to save it and getting the Wikimedia grey screen error message. Guess all three tries were ultimately (too) successful. Eeek. Sorry, Ruhrfisch><>°°20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I've done it too. No sweat. I'll see if Kmusser is about and can assist. I would rather not place a color-pencil drawing in the article. It just doesn't look professional to address geography with crayon-like materials. One of the books I used for the article actually does use crayons in maps, and it's jarring to see it, as if a 5th grader put the visuals together. --Moni3 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Piracetam protection
Unless I'm missing something, you protected piracetam, a day later, due to 2 edits over a minute by 1 IP address, which were reverted within 2 hours. Does that really warrant protection? I know standards have loosened since I was an admin, but that still seems like no reason to semiprotect. --Gwern (contribs) 13:52 8 October2009 (GMT)
A user asked for protection for vandalism here. I looked at the edits within the past week and it does seem that a few vandals have been inserting disruptive edits. It's a medication, and some of those edits altered language about the drug's efficacy. Admittedly, I am not a student of this drug and I do not know which is accurate. Was it necessary? In the grand scheme of things, of course not. Wikipedia itself is not necessary. Will it stem some disruptive edits for a week so you and the other folks who watch this article can take care of the cite tags and other issues? Yes. Here's your grand opportunity. --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
A few vandalisms over a week is enough? I guess standards really have fallen. As for this opportunity - well, I can't say I didn't add any citations I came across because I was worried about vandals... --Gwern (contribs) 17:07 8 October2009 (GMT)
Why is your primary concern here that the article is protected from disruptive edits when the article has fact tags and remains at start class? Why is the concern here the standards of protection for an article to keep its integrity instead of the content that goes in it? Why would you comment on the state of standards for protection when you seem to exhibit low ones for what readers actually access? I do not understand your focus. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I am concerned because admin tools are very serious and reflect issues far more general than just one article; the process is more important to safeguard than the products because a flaw in the former may contaminate all of the latter, but not vice versa. While I am far less concerned than I would be if you had, say, deleted the page, your casual use is still worth following up on.
As for the fact tags, I do not care; I care about incorrect facts, and I recognized none on my various reads & edits. And as for the start class assessment: it is the product of an arbitrary process assigning ratings only loosely connected to any objective utility or quality. When I consider how I had to fight and scrape to get articles that I researched from the ground up, like Medici Bank or Fujiwara no Teika, classified anywhere near their actual quality level, I have little confidence in the process (especially since I warned the GAers, from the very first day it was proposed, that policy/standard creep would turn them into FA-lite, yet they were unable to avoid it). An FA is strong statistical evidence of being a quality article, but not being an FA (or being start class) says little either way...
In the future, I suggest you use your tools with more discretion; a few quickly reverted & not particularly malicious edits over a week or more does not justify protection or intervention of any kind. --Gwern (contribs) 21:19 8 October2009 (GMT)
I value integrity of content over all else. The article was semi-protected for a week. You are still able to edit it. Anons and new users are not. After a week, anons and new users may edit as they wish. I will always defer to protecting the integrity of content. I do not believe the semi-protection was unwarranted or overzealous, and I do not understand why you are this motivated to pursue the matter and lecture me when you do not seem to care about improving the article. In fact, this approach is quite baffling. You know how to add to it and clearly have the interest in the article to comment on my talk page, but you neglect improving it in favor of allowing access to anonymous users who have recently shown interest in compromising the prose and formatting. I simply do not understand that logic.
If you continue to believe that my energies are misdirected and they harmed the article in some way, I would prefer you expend your efforts on improving its content than attempting to persuade me to change my approach. There is no requirement to pursue article review processes. You can create an FA-level article and leave it at start class if you so desire, but the allowing fact tags to remain...I do not know how to respond to that. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Moni, you have clearly worked hard on this article. We can disagree on whether FA "brilliant writing" includes so much passive voice construction, but any two people will find different ways to approach articles, which is what Wikipedia is based on. It seemed more like a literary review than encyclopedia article to me, which is what prompted some of the changes. But, it's all yours to revert in total. I will work elsewhere.--Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I hafta say, your response to Parkwells is classic Moni3: "I'm not going to tell you you suck." It gives me the confidence that if it's okay for you to say that to him, it's okay for me to say it to you! I mean, shoot, what the heck has Sesame Street ever done to you! Are you too busy pursuing your homosexual agenda to spend some time on this little article about this little children's TV show? 40 years, I tell you! Or is it me, is this little housewife from Idaho not important enough for you to pay any attention to?
No smiley-face emoticon, Moni, since I'm sure that your humor is subtle enough to get the joke. I suspect that you may even appreciate it. If not, I apologize. But I am wondering why no response to my note above. No pressure! Thanks. --Christine (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I like my own little world so much that I have to be yanked out of it quite often. Ok...on to read it again. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
What a good egg you are. I appreciate it, and intend on working on your comments and Awadewit's comments in the morning. --Christine (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Here or there
Please chose either here or at my talk page. I do not think it would be appropriate to continue to argue at Risker's talk page when your concern is over me. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I am unable to review an article right now as large and comprehensive as what should be for UAE. And I really quite honestly hope you did not review St. Johns River in trade for another review. I hope you passed the article on its own merits. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
On October 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Palmetto Leaves, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
As a swimmer, I've seen many swim 'instructresses' [sic] (coaches, really) and none have been too attractive, in all honesty. But that's okay. ceranthor00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what you wrote at the monitoring page
I swear when I went there, I only intended to post the diff to the problematic commentary. Things just spiraled out of control very quickly. Are there any particular points in which you felt like I stepped out of line? UnitAnode21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not on step out of line patrol, but my general advice is to treat Mattisse and everyone on her talk page the way you want to be treated, even if you get treated like shit. You have nothing to gain, and I mean absolutely nothing as none of us do, by getting angry and defensive. All you can do is let facts speak for themselves. When things go completely crazy go outside and look at a tree. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, "Go for a walk" is always good advice for dispute resolution. :) My main question, though, was whether you thought I had let my temper get the best of me at any point. I've tried to maintain my cool, and feel like I've done so, but often we're not the best judges of our own behavior. UnitAnode22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm serious about the patrol. I don't come here to judge other editors' behavior. You have a conscience and you should explore if your actions bothered you. I get wrought up in fiery righteousness in the spirit of Jonathan Edwards sometimes and it takes me a few days to settle down. I, however, never strike my posts and very rarely refactor them because I always ask myself if what I am about to post needs to be said and what harm it may bring. I have a pretty low edit count because the reply to my own question is usually "no" and "a lot". Just follow the simple rule of treating others the way you want to be treated even if it sucks and it's nearly physically painful not to respond in a shitty manner in retribution. Trees. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'll trust my conscience then. I've not felt that I "lost it" at any point. I may also cut-and-paste your posts here onto my talkpage at some point. Truly words to live your life (both on-wiki and off) by. UnitAnode22:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it spiraled out of control. I never should have allowed myself to be sucked into that vortex. I won't make that mistake again! :) Best, UnitAnode02:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I really want to thank you ...
... for that pdf you sent me yesterday. I think that after all these years I'm finally beginning to understand what The Green Child is really all about.
It's a far more important work than I could ever do justice to, but I'll keep plugging away at it, trying to do what I can. If I ever pluck up the courage to think about another novel article I think I'll stick to Victorian potboilers like Guy Fawkes. :-) --MalleusFatuorum21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, when you think that no one yet has stepped up to write the article and it ain't gonna write itself, better that someone who loves the book write it than it remain average or worse. If you need more assistance, I'll see what I can do to get some more of those sources. I may not have access to them all, but I'll do what I can. And I still am unable to wrap my mind around the fact that I wrote the article for To Kill a Mockingbird. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's totally understandable Moni. I get weird little vibes when I realize that I am basically writing the ecclesiastical history of medieval England here on Wikipedia. Some of the folks I'm writing articles on haven't had scholarly monographs published on them ever, and their articles here may be definitive. Certainly, Urse is! And I've never told you that your work is quite outstanding itself, not just the Florida stuff, but the other things you get sucked into writing, like Mockingbird! Ealdgyth - Talk22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, Ealdgyth. Truly. There are very few people I admire on Wikipedia and you are among them. Some articles I do get sucked into, but TKAM wasn't one of them. I enjoyed writing it wholeheartedly. I'd be happy to write it again just to have it plagiarized by thousands of 9th graders everywhere. You stay fabulous. No homo and all. --Moni3 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking again at your Mockingbird article I begin now to understand why the novel articles appear (to me) to be written so differently. Different things are important about different books. --MalleusFatuorum23:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm in awe of both of you, I'd never ever dream of touching a novel article. I'm scared enough of Hemming's Cartulary! If there is something on Moni's list that you really want Malleus, let me know. I think early next week is my next trip to the University here. Things are finally calming down around the home-ranch, well as calm as they get with teenagers learning to drive, baby horses needing halter-broke and a house we're still trying to finish up building! Ealdgyth - Talk23:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) It is very awe-inspiring to realize that regular people like us can fall in love/otherwise become obsessed with a topic and have a real influence in the way the world perceives it. It's a huge ego boost that comes with an equally huge responsibility. I think most serious content writers here can point to one or two articles that they worked on and say "I sweated blood over that article and I'm really proud of the result." And it's really, really cool when other content editors recognize that effort (I still remember a kind comment Malleus made about one of my first FA attempts). So thank you to each of you for giving loving treatment to really important topics (as well as some lesser-known and otherwise fun ones) :) Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed frightening, particularly when it appears over a million people a year read an article I wrote. I am glad that there is at least a strong minority who recognize and push for quality. I would have left this place years ago if others did not force me to improve and have excellence as an ideal. --Moni3 (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I rewrote some of it, but then I realized that the sources all sucked and I'd have to replace them all for FA. I don't think it's impossible, but I am unable to read what is necessary for FA quality and devote the time necessary for it now, unfortunately. Apologies. --Moni3 (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
There's this and then this. I've always been more surprised that there is no article on the Social impact of AIDS. It's a horrible topic that would be dreadfully depressing... right up my alley, I know. --Moni3 (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm requesting clarification from ArbCom and trying to collect diffs to do it before I post. Give me a few minutes. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Question about the RFARB/Clarification-thing
Since I'm a named party in the request you filed, should I go ahead and at least post something there? I'm thinking that with how volatile Philcha and Carter have been toward me, that perhaps no comment at all in that forum would be best, but I'm not sure if I'm required to post something as a named party. UA18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I was just wondering if it was kind of "expected" that I would make a comment, you know what I mean? UA18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Mary McLeod Bethune article
Hello,
You appear to be a major editor of the Mary McLeod Bethune article. I corrected her Spingarn Medal year but, as the article is so long, I couldn't find a place to enter the source. Here it is: http://www.naacp.org/events/spingarn/past/index.htm
That was one of the first articles I started working on, and it's got marks of newbie all over it. I wish I could expand it, but there are sadly so few book references on Bethune that I have so far been unsuccessful. If you have the sources to improve it, you are welcome to do it. I will assist as I can. Thanks for fixing the error, and I cited the Springarn medal. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this wiki-peace and harmony relative, to say, Sarajevo in 1994, or something more like Compton in 1989? I appreciate the gesture. I shall wear it on my head, like an apple to William Tell. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Question for TPS who have experience watching ArbCom
As the initiator of this request for clarification, I am unsure if I should continue to post rebuttals to points that others have disagreed about. Specifically, if I should clarify why I included something. Will I be asked by ArbCom members to explain myself? Will the process degrade into bickering over single points? I already find myself disagreeing with quite a few statements about editors' personalities, motivations, and characterizations, but since they have nothing to do with the structure of the mentoring method, I figure I'm going to leave well enough alone with that at least.
But I do have concerns that my suggestions are met with some opposition in greater numbers than my single voice. I have what I think are good reasons for proposing what I did, but do not know the process well enough to see if I should detail my reasoning now, or if there will be another opportunity to do so if ArbCom decides to look at the case again. Any help or insight would be appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm been traveling (extended my trip by a day), so I haven't really followed closely so can't perhaps comment coherently, but there is a problem that we seem to lose many of the good and sensible Arbs to burnout, forcing Jimbo to dig deeper into lower Support percentages to fill ArbCom.
The mentorship has been more successful at silencing those on the plague list (IMO) than at changing the behaviors. But then how can the behaviors change when others aren't allowed to report them or discuss them (recall that initially the Monitoring page stated it was only for mentors, and only recently did they change that-- and I at least never reported the incidents I observed, and watched in stunned silence as nothing was done, but none of the mentors signed on to follow her around, and there was no admin on board willing to block when there was a violation). How far to press is unclear, as it's still a mystery how a "report" from mentors which included no one not of Mattisse's choosing, and when incidents couldn't be reported, will be helpful. Have you considered that your recommendation that incidents can only be reported on the Monitoring page might result in continued status quo, and that reporting incidents to the broader community at the Arb enforcement noticeboard or just AN/I might be a better choice, unless ArbCom puts more neutral mentors on the committee?
Also, I share your concern about the number of (wild) inaccuracies that stood on the page the last time I read it, but addressing them may just muddy the focus, which is that the mentorship as structured isn't working. (And I'm referring to inaccuracies beyond "editors' personalities, motivations, and characterizations"-- although there's plenty of that as well-- to plain vanilla diffable or diffed facts). In the past, my opinion from watching ArbCom was that all evidence was encouraged to be brought forward: there seems to be a new set of rules in play here, intended more to protect one editor than those affected by the very behaviors ArbCom noted in the original case. Also this case may be unique in another important sense: I'm not aware of any other case where so many arbs had to recuse as they themselves had encountered issues with Mattisse, so some arbs may have been silenced on-Wiki as well!
I'm aware that Tony and you have tried to make some inroads to evaluating arb candidates in the future, but my concern is that things cycle, and that what is needed to balance ArbCom varies from year to year. Last year, we needed more with broader content experience: this year, we may need to add some backbone to ArbCom. Considering the serious shortage of good editors now to keep up with vandal fighting and POV pushing and article watching and admin duties, should we be expending so much time on "reports" and bureaucracy for one editor? Perhaps next year's ArbCom can benefit from an editor who has the qualities of TFM: a finely tuned BS detector, puts up with no nonsense, and can deliver an effective message in two sentences or less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe I once commented elsewhere that what Arbcom teaches us is that the best Wikipedia survival strategy is to piss off each and every one of its members, then they all have to "recuse". Wimps. --MalleusFatuorum22:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
In order to say anything even remotely truthful or insightful about this situation, one would have to be willing to put up with various forms of emotional blackmail. It's not worth it. ArbCom can't solve this problem. I think that enough people have bought into the existing dynamic that it is basically futile to challenge it. Anyone raising concerns about Mattisse is very effectively painted into a corner as the Bad Guy Persecutor. Once upon a time, Wikipedia was not a form of therapy. Empathy can't be "mentored" on Wikipedia. If an editor treats people meanly and then doesn't understand why people react negatively, then Wikipedia mentors can't fix that problem. Of course, they don't have to actively enable it, either... MastCellTalk07:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
In retrospect, I found the opposes on Vassyanna's arb election page enlightening-- we now have yet another Arb who should be recusing from this case, having crossed the line of neutrality rather dramatically. I hoped, after an ArbCom, that FAC, FAR, GAN, GAR and DYK and hard-working editors would be able to go about their business without attacks and disruption. But ArbCom accepted a faulty Plan, and has now moved into enabling, failing to take action, to do something, anything to correct the deficiencies in the Plan they accepted, with one arb now threatening those who railed against a Plan that couldn't help the very person it was intended to help. The Plan never served Mattisse, but worse, never served those plagued, or content review processes well, failed to even provide a forum for complaints, and included self-selected "mentors", none of whom signed on to follow her around and notice when her Plan was breached, or to block her when she breached the Plan. And all of these shortcomings were apparent to thinking observers (Moni) when ArbCom accepted the Plan, so no wonder the behaviors haven't changed. The mentorship might have worked if Malleus or Moni had stayed on the Mentoring committee. Does the time of hard-working productive editors have any value? Trip down memory lane; asking for reports, from a self-selected group of mentors, when there was no place to lodge complaints, at a time when Wiki editors are so overburdened with just the basics and inordinate amounts of time are being spent trying to get one editor to cease the Arb-noted behaviors. I want to have time to keep up with the articles I care about, and for Mattisse to stop disrupting content review processes and taking so much time from some of Wiki's most helpful editors, who are needed in more important ways (like content review). Clearly, ArbCom has some arbs have different priorities than those of us working in the trenches. What will be next in the bag of tricks to enable disruption and let a bad situation become worse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I would have considered staying as one of the mentors if I'd had the ability to issue those short blocks mentioned in the plan that have yet to materialise. --MalleusFatuorum14:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Now that I've read one reasonable arb response, and two unhelpful arb responses, it appears that you made the right decision; we will never know, perhaps, if things would have worked out better if a neutral admin had been assigned to the mentoring committee, and if a venue for complaints had been provided from the beginning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm away for the weekend and not able to spend enough time responding in any detail, but I want to read through everything and think on it by Sunday. Thanks for the input to everyone. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing same: today is FAC, and tomorrow out all day, and by Monday, I'll decide if Wiki is hopeless, or if I'm not going to sit around any longer and be a target, regardless of threats. I stood down in previous efforts, hoping Arb would solve this; they haven't. I'm also hoping Geometry guy, who said he couldn't weigh in until Sunday, will bring some reason to the discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help me understand if Vassayana's threats of sanctions for "rancid" attacks against Mattisse and her mentors (made completely without diffs) is standard operating procedure. UA18:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Just seems like a bog standard threat from someone who's completely out of their depth and far from impartial. I wouldn't take it seriously. --MalleusFatuorum18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Now, he's a step on further in his accusations. He's basically stated that anyone asking him to clarify his accusations is probably guilty. Good grief! UA18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
True enough. It just seemed a rather strange thing for a sitting arbitrator to say, given that there isn't any support in the evidence for such accusations. But, you're right, it doesn't really matter much. I've done nothing remotely "sanctionable" throughout this situaton. UA19:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not, or at least wasn't in the past, to my knowledge. I'd say it's now semi-official (pending input from other arbs) that ArbCom is not the place for a full and thorough airing of problems, even those fully endorsed in their first decision, even when other editors are trying to get ArbCom to do the job of best helping not only Mattisse, but also "plagued" editors and content review processes by putting in place a workable plan. Vassyanna seems to have overlooked the clause in the arb decision about changes to her plan in consensus with her mentors, so perhaps future arb decisions will need to be better worded. Or something. So that's that: another Wiki milestone ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
What'd I Say
The list is one of many critics' lists of "best songs of all time". These type of items are best reserved for the article body. In the lead, it's best to sum up critical reception instead of giving undue weight to individual items in the lead. This why ankings on the Rolling Stone top 500 songs list, or any critical list ranking for that matter, are regularly removed from article lead sections. For comparison, see "Smells Like Teen Spirit", an FA song article that also made Rolling Stone's list. Critical praise is dealt with in the most general terms in order to avoid giving undue weight to any particular voice. Additionally, there's a big difference between winning or being nominated for a major award and making a critical list. One's a recognized honor, the other is not. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that mentions of songs that earned the top 10 should be removed. The weight given to Rolling Stone is not undue. It's a recognized source for the best journalism on popular music. When they rate music, it's not a light matter. Moreover, I don't see how this is not a recognized honor. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
A recognized honor is an award (Grammy, BRIT, etc.). This is just a placing on a list. There's no official capacity to it. You're giving undue weight to the Rolling Stone list over all other such critical lists. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not. Your edits are baffling. Where do you get the authority to make these decisions? If these issues keep you up at night in this article, then don't come back to it. But you're breaking 3RR and you're making me break it because your edits are not based in any discernible logic. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not something more classic than the boyish motocycle girls' backsides up front? Like "Sappho and Erinna in a Garden at Mytilene", Simeon Solomon 1840-1905. Something like that, indisputably beautiful and overtly lesbian, not at all pornographic, showing love and commitment as much as sexuality, something Lesbians can be proud of and everyone enjoy and admire, etc. etc. for virtues of a classic image that's stood the test of time. Why not? Too idealized? Chrisrus (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to say, if just for posterity, it's not my article. I've been accused of owning articles; people get confused with high standards and ownership.
No matter what image is at the top, it will be criticized. I considered doing a kind of collage such is at the top of African American, but a mixture of celebrities and others who don't mind having their faces plastered on the Wikipedia article for Lesbian, showing a variety of gender role portrayal. I think it should be realistic. I don't think it should be constructed by a man, and I agree that a painting in the classical style would be idealized. There used to be a symbol there, but I hated that even more. I also thought of doing a tight closeup of two women kissing, showing their mouths and noses only, as hair and clothing seem to distract and I'm afraid one image of hair and clothing would be used to define and undefine lesbians. It's inevitable that any image at the top will offend someone. --Moni3 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but I'm willing to bet that if you did go the classic route and used "Sappho and Erinna.." or something, it probably wouldn't get criticized ever again. Anyone who thought about criticizing it would think twice looking at it's greatness and then not criticize it. They'd feel stupid criticizing an undeniably great work of art. Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree that it is undeniably a beautiful image. "The Chauffer" is undeniably a beautiful song and the images in that video are certainly striking, but I draw some valid comparisons between these depictions of homoeroticism. The article reiterates quite a few times that men construct women's sexuality and that when women define their own it takes on quite a different meaning. I think it would be counterproductive to do that at the top of the article with an image where a man has depicted his version of lesbianism. --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think your sexuality would probably have been the same no matter what anyone else did, whether man or whoever, it's who you are and nothing anyone does could have effected it. I think it's in your bones, so to speak. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so. There may be some people whose sexuality was created by others, but that's far from being the consensous of expert opinion or even a significant minority opinion. I've said this before, though, so I know that you know that's how I feel; this article does not support the "fact" that men "create" woman's sexuality; it's a wierd thing to think and I don't know why you think it, what makes you so sure that it's so. You disagree, so I'll leave that at that and return to the point about the picture.
My point about the picture is that who cares what was the gender of the person who took the picture or painted the piece or sculpted the statue? That sort of thinking is so biased from my point of view. The gender of the artist should not be a concideration. Of course, you'd have been able to predict that I would have had that opinion, and I probably should have but didn't expect that to be yours, so we'll agree to disagree. The article is still excellent in most ways. Chrisrus (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's quite an idealistic view that gender should not be a factor in the artist's representation of lesbianism, and perhaps my nearly 20 years of being subjected to men's ideas of what lesbians should be clouds my opinion on this, but then again, I think it may add to the overall perspective. So let me try to splain, in generalities. When lesbians are not around men, they are significantly different, and it's not the pillowfight sorority house different. I disagree that the article does not support that men control and create women's sexuality. In fact, it is cited numerous times. I can go on quite a bit about the way woman alter themselves for men, including lesbians, and the ways men try to have access to lesbians through environment and media. --Moni3 (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Now we're done - I think
Moni, Moni--
I finally got around to addressing your issues re: History of Sesame Street. I know, it's taken forever, but there's lots of stuff goin' on in my life and with my WP editing. I'm pretty much finished with transitioning to the new job, and I was waiting for some materials to arrive. Could you please go over there and see what you think about the changes I've made. Thanks, really appreciate it. --Christine (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Poet oh blah blah kill me. He started Down Beat? I'm in! I checked out a 1960 compilation of Down Beat mags to read about Ray Charles. That mag is sweet, even by 2009 standards. Where else could you find ads for the hippest bongos and saxophones back to back with the mos' wunnerful polka accordions available, as advertised by Myron Floren? Give me a few days to look it over. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
You crack me up, Moni. I get all excited by Awadewit's message because I lived in Kingston Upon Hull for a year, devoured his poetry in class, worked in the library he worked in, visited his house, even saw the lawnmower he donated to Hull Uni's Special Collections, etc., etc., and here you are being taken in by some music magazine he read as a kid? You're a hoot. (I don't think he started it, as the article says it began in 1934, when Larkin would have been twelve... awkward wording something to bring up in the PR, perhaps?) María(habla conmigo) 19:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
1. I came here to share this video with you. JaySmooth's video blog, illdoctrine, is fantastic.. This time he gives major respect to Stonewall. Thought you might like to have a look.
2. The new pic is amazing. I assume you have (or will) submit it as a Featured Image?
An impressively large hazard, 310 miles long. It does kind of look like a golf course on the other side. Gotta take a boat to go over there. I went and took pics, ruining my white sneakers by sinking into the mud. Wet seasons... --Moni3 (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
For the first 10 minutes of the day I shot pics at Hontoon Island I had to wipe my camera lens off it was so humid. I spent an hour and a half on that island, from 8.30 to 10.00 am) and my clothes were drenched. Still, I had fun and I was all by myself there enjoying the hell out of that park. Good times. Organic deodorant in Florida...I have not tried it, only heard the disaster stories. --Moni3 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ooey gooey, I hate humidity. Summer here is generally pretty sticky...but I can't complain..a friend of mine told me the he contemplated death on account of weather while on a crowded ferry in Chittagong, Bangladesh when it was 48 degrees centigrade and 98% humidity...Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I learned to appreciate it quickly when I moved to Colorado where it hardly ever rains. The first six weeks I got nosebleeds. I first year I got 8 sinus infections. I applied lotion to places I never knew lotion was intended to be applied to and before I was done applying it, the lotion was gone. So I learned to love walking outside and my glasses fogging over, my camera lens fogged for the first 20 shots of the day, always feeling like I have lost 5 pounds in sweat, and the distinct sensation of breathing water. 98% humidity. That's what it is today, in what can only be construed as "fall". --Moni3 (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that about nosebleeds in dry climates, when I was a resident I was seconded to a hospital in Alice Springs in Central Australia, and I got them too for about six weeks. I hadn't thought about that in many years - was amused at the time as I had never had a nosebleed in my life before. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've signed up to review at Talk:The Rejected/GA1 and am finding it hard to figure out the article:
There really seems to be little in the much of sources. Under the [[WP:WIAGA | GA review rules] on coverage, I think I should probably mark thr coverage adequate.
But it seems unsatisfactory. The sources that cover The Rejected seem to say say nothing about the documentary's antecedents and successors - as if the director and the show appeared out of nowhere and then vanished into nowhere.
It also seems strange that the coverage was almost exclusively California-based.
As this my first attempt at a LGBT article, perhaps I'm missing something. I know you've done considerable on LGBT articles, can you explain what either me or the article is missing? PS if you respond, please reply at my Talk page or yours. --Philcha (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in asking Otto4711 (I totally guessed he wrote it, now I'm going to check it...yay I get $5) to say that before this documentary either nothing was broadcast about homosexuality or what was broadcast was slanted in a certain way. Stephen Tropiano should be able to do that. I would also suggest Streitmatter, Rodger (2009). From 'Perverts' to 'Fab Five': The Media's Changing Depiction of Gay Men and Lesbians, Routledge, and if Otto does not have access to that source, I do and I can look it up.
I think the California-based coverage probably had to do with the location of its initial broadcast. My history of television is a bit sketchy, but the CBS News where Walter Cronkite started the first nationally broadcast news show, began in 1962 or 1963. Most news journalism shows were local ones. I'm also willing to help find sources for this. I can search for them and if I come up with nothing after a couple days the next step is looking on microfilm for regional television critics in 1961 on microfilm which is the proverbial needle in the haystack. One, inc. and The Ladder may have run something about it to get an interesting perspective from the gay communities. I have access to both of these.
The lack of sources on antecedents and successors is OK-ish for GA, as my own search got the same sources as Otto471 - and none appears to write about connections to earlier or later TV shows / radio shows / newpaper & mag articles / etc. At I said, probably OK for GA, so I think there's no need for desperate measures like searching microfilm.
The CA-only reception is a larger problem IMO, as the current phrasing "received positive critical reviews upon airing and was a popular success" looks like WP:UNDUE. Again, I think no need for desperate measures - the sources are already named, so tuning the phrasing should probably do the job.
I was mainlly concerned that I might be missing someone, as I've had no previous knowledge of LGBT topics. At present this GA reviewer is slightly frustrated, but that happens at GAN :-( --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
As much as I have written about LGBT topics, and Otto4711 writes more about media than I do, there is a shortage of sources on most of this. Otto4711 is creating articles on notable first-ever events that have never been written about this way before. I have read several encyclopedias about LGBT topics and they do not cover this kind of detail on individual shows. That's just the way LGBT history is presented. Sixty years after the occurrences, it appears on Wikipedia. When I was reading the sources for the media section of Lesbian, I was consistently surprised about what was broadcast and what I had never read about. But I agree that phrase turning and adding some fragments here and there would take care of most of your concerns. --Moni3 (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Moni3, Otto4711 is winding down at WP and I'm not sure Otto4711 will finish Talk:The Rejected/GA1 - there's one important unresolved issue, 2 reviewers have given opinions, and IMO the issue is enough to fail the article at present. Otherwise it's GA-worthy. If Otto4711 does not finish the review, do you known if anyone would step in. --Philcha (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a crick! When Mrs. Moni passed over the St. Johns for the first time she was stunned. "This is a river??? It's the biggest lake I've ever seen!" They grow rivers bigger in Florida than out west. Shawnee Falls is pretty, though. I hope to see it some day. Thanks for the review and the note! --Moni3 (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Now, see, that I don't believe. If there's a troop of Rhesus monkeys living near the St. Johns, there is no reason why a rogue band of toughass manatees couldn't make it up to Oregon and...skip over rapids...to live in Balch Creek. Sounds like a good opportunity to make up a jackalope like story, if only to sell crappy jackalope-like souvenirs in gift shops. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In Special Collections we have a copy of the children's book The Manatee that Flew: The True Adventure of a Florida Manatee, which tells the true story omg of "an adventurous young manatee named Manford, who wanted to find a "new world," and the exciting and dangerous journey that almost cost him his life." Basically he swam up to New England and almost froze to death, but at least he got a plane ride out of it. (Yes, I read it; my life is so exciting!) Silly manatee. And, yes, congrats on the FA! Sorry my additional comments took so long, but it looks you didn't need them or my silly, science-challenged self anyway. :) María(habla conmigo) 13:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
A note
"I often feel like telling OR to STFU but he wouldn't listen to me so that would be wasted effort. "
Lara, that's awesome. I lolled. OR, I'm nonplussed truly. It is so rare that I don't know what to say. I often refuse to say anything (Bambi's mother and all), but I have a pocketful of zingers for any occasion. I refreshed my page a couple times to make sure you actually meant my page and not someone else's. The equivalent of mouthing "Me?" What have I done to warrant such interest? --Moni3 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, might be a wikipedia thing - I like feisty chicks with brains...I married one too and now I gotta household with lotsa chiefs and no indians....;) Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
So who are you hitting on? Me or Moni? Or Ottava? Despite what the name may suggest, he's a guy. XD Lara02:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Lara, ahah. Silence. I'm a dog's ass. Thank you for your assessment, OR. When you're not frothing so much you give me high blood pressure (I can only imagine what abuses your circulatory system endures), I admire your dedication and work. I wish I could tell you to cut your shit and do some work around here, but I have 12 DYKs and you have 200. Instead, I sincerely wish you peace because there are a great many times I don't think you enjoy your hobby here. I don't mean this to stifle you, but in the Psalms way: be still and know that stupidity happens. Railing against it doesn't help and may only make you more miserable. I cannot imagine that is your purpose here. --Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Scary, people see me as frothing or having high blood pressure? My blood pressure is unhealthily low (probably connected to the bleachy paleness) and I am normally faint half the time. And frothing, haha, I was weepy and crying at confession today, and you would laugh at some of the movies that have brought me to tears. I like the idea of the persona (but I also thought it was fun to have people call me Wiki Satan, as if I could be the embodiment of pride and arrogance enough to challenge God and think that I won, haha). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ottava is a modern day Fonz. Only instead of walking in and smacking the jukebox, he stumbles in crying and collapses on the jukebox. The result, though, is the same. The song plays, and that's all that matters. Lara02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, does that mean you have a copy of Beaches in your DVD player at all times?? Or is this more like Rudy? Any film that features a scene of one guy clapping really slowly and getting everyone else to join in is a sure tear-jerker. I'm assigning to you the traits that would have me posting as often and as prolifically as you do about your perceived injustices. I would be frothing and the veins in my neck would be bulging. But I do not think this is relaxing for you. You are a valuable editor. Don't compromise what you could do by draining yourself so emotionally that you are unable to recover or engaging the aforementioned stupidity and causing your own banishment. Who will write about Romantic poets then? Think of the awful cockup mess I will make of it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
More like Saving Private Ryan, Brave Heart, Gladiator, Platoon (god, that movie really makes me weep) and other "manly" movies. Something about death and sacrifice and fighting for a major cause but being screwed anyway (or just trying to life and being screwed like in Platoon). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Definitely too emotional for me. I teared up when I read Iridescent's FAC about the woman who saved children before burning to death in a fire. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You'll hate me, but I clapped at the end of Titanic. "Jack, why are you dead? Is it because me, being a rich snob, stole the whole raft and kept it to myself while letting you, pauper boy, freeze to death in the cold water? Or is it because people were too stupid to use axes and create their own rafts out of a boat that was clearly sinking and made completely out of wood?" Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the 1997 version. My bad. But yea... If by "Jack, why are you dead? Is it because me, being a rich snob, stole the whole raft and kept it to myself while letting you, pauper boy, freeze to death in the cold water? Or is it because people were too stupid to use axes and create their own rafts out of a boat that was clearly sinking and made completely out of wood?" you mean "Jack, why are you dead? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! *sob*" then I not only don't hate you, but I believe you. ;) Lara03:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I must admit, she was a smoking little tramp. ;/ But yeah, I prefer my deaths to be more than a bunch of idiots smashing into ice. Now, I would cry for the poor band that kept playing to the end. Now -that- is dignity! Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting what we find so inspirational. The most emotional part of Birmingham campaign was something that I left out: an older woman, a Birmingham resident, who watched from the sidelines, cheering on the children by shouting, "Sing, children, sing!!" as they marched past her. The hope that people can transform themselves. The hope that hope itself can live when you've spent 60 years or more being denied it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I teared up some when they started singing at the beginning of Pirates of the Caribbean 3 - everyone joining together in song as they march to their doom is rather compelling. But yeah, I also cried through Schindler's List and both the Band of Brothers episodes "Why We Fight" (they find the camp and discover various horrors along with beautiful/sad string instrument playing) and the final episode in which people are all playing baseball and the dead and the living slowly merge together. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
As Lara can testify, it is mostly me making jokes and making fun of myself/responding to myself with the occasional third party making jokes at my expense. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Me? I ain't hittin' on anyone, just giving some from-the-sidelines support ;) Well, if'n we could make a list of people acting dumb in movies (one of my pet hates)....actually that'd be a loooooooooooooooooooong list...Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's beautiful. I'd hadn't seen that before, so thanks. These always make me cry, too, but they also uplift my spirit at the same time. [4][5] You guys knew that the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street is next week, right? For some reason, its article has been really vandalized in the past few days. --Christine (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The musician, Tom Smith, wrote and performed that version of the song at a convention three days after Henson's death, so the feelings were still fresh for everyone. I know it took me longer than 3 days to get over it -- heck, I'm still working on it. :-( (btw, the song was also referenced at http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp08032005.shtml, to humorous effect)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yah, tell me about it. Can you believe we're coming on 20 years? The world is a much sadder place without Henson in it. :( --Christine (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Long day "at the office"
(630): he screamed my twitter name while we were having sex.
(407): We were in the backseat and he was giggling uncontrolably. It felt like I was giving head to a 10 year old girl.
(740): He kept starring at my ass and repeating "Its Just a beautiful piece of artwork."
(708): I knew my chances of getting laid had increased after she walked into my room and yelled "DICK TIME"
You're right, you're right. Here, something helpful. You should ask her where she got that shirt. You wear something similar while archiving and promoting, no? You're slightly intrigued, aren't you?
Ga! Ow! That makes me hurt just watching that. But oddly relieved at the end, as if the end of a bout of acute indigestion. --Moni3 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, since I got my hueavas removed in an unfortunate emergency surgery some years ago, I will not only never know that joy, but forever compare birth to taking a dump. Likewise, as my sister-in-law was in labor and my nephew was impatient to be among us, kicking and moving about, in sympathy, my body produced the sensation of having to pass a whole lot of gas. Let's not mourn for my ovaries, which may by this time be peeking around a skyscraper in Denver looking for me if only to prolong the torture they once inflicted upon me. I'm ok with having the hormones of a 65 year old woman and being ignorant of episiotomies and raw nipples. Really. --Moni3 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmph. Back in the realm of serious academic literature, my recent favorite is this gem from PLoS One. Figure 2 is entitled "Relationship between the duration of copulation and total length of time that the female licked the male's penis in each copulation." The relationship is surprisingly linear. And I would strongly suggest watching supplemental video S1 with the sound on. This is exactly why open-access publishing was invented. MastCellTalk04:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't get much better than an article mentioning the null hypothesis, linear regression, Pearson correlation and then finding an evolutionary basis for extended ... never mind. Better than elephants, lions and much better than the preying mantis! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Every time I have an application for research funding turned down, I read NCBI ROFL to remind myself that the world is a horribly unfair, Hobbesian abyss. (For the record, I didn't see the fruitbat paper there, although it sounds like a lot of folks submitted it to them). MastCellTalk23:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Palmetto Leaves
What a fine creation, thanks for putting up this page. I know your work mainly from the Birmingham Movement data, and now realize your proficiency. Onwards, Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on Palmetto Leaves. I just noticed your edits to the lead of Birmingham campaign and the emphasis on Bevel concerns me. Do you mind if we discuss your edits here? Primarily, it is my impression that Bevel was one of a dozen or more SCLC organizers who were present in Birmingham and his influence was with training the children and organizing their marches. To include his name along with King's in the lead is, in my opinion, to overshadow the SCLC as a whole, specifically when Wyatt Tee Walker, Fred Shuttlesworth, and Ralph Abernathy are given some space in the article and sources do not emphasize his importance in such a way as how the lead reads now. I welcome your input. --Moni3 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and before reading this I had added a comment about the subject on the article discussion page. Bevel's role in Birmingham was pivotal and critical, and after a certain point it became his movement, in a sense, and his initiation and organizing of the events, even beyond what the article contains now, led directly to the Kennedy administration coming to SCLC and saying "Yes, we will now draft a civil rights bill. What do you want in it?". Coming from that point of view and knowledge base, to include King's name in the lead without Shuttlesworth and Bevel's names changes the data from what actually occurred. It will be enjoyable discussing this with you, and let's do some of that on the discussion page, as I think the article which you've guided so well may actually improve to a new level. That's usuallly fun, as good a word as any for things like this. (On a quick topic, why hasn't anyone created one of those little templates for people who work on Civil Rights history? There are quite a few of us, and maybe more that we haven't seen much of who would want to be part of such a group. Thoughts?) Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Just read your list of articles on your user page. What a contribution to the data on the Everglades. A great cause. Let alone your other work. An Everglades flower to you, if I knew how to create a mini-label Template (if I did I'd do a Civil Rights History group insignia as well, but the Everglades restoration is more important in present time). Thanks, Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Everglades comments. That was an interesting project, assisted by several helpful editors last year. Not sure what you mean by a mini-label template. I'd be happy to help you out in creating a template, though. They're not that difficult to do, just take some getting used to, as does everything else on Wikipedia. If you describe what you're envisioning, I'll see what I can come up with. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
These Palmetto leaves grow quickly! By mini-label I mean those user labels ("This user is a gypsy" "This user edits Rodent based articles", etc.), with a corresponding page which list who has the template and which projects need to be enlarged, cleaned up, etc.. They may be easily made, I just never looked at the code. Maybe a Civil Rights user-template isn't even needed, but it may be a good place to put suggestions. For instance, I only learned about Clara Luper recently, and expanded her article, what a hero of the movement who most people don't know. I called her home, talked to her son (she kept yelling at him that she wanted her breakfast, I can sympatize with that). And have also finally created a page for Dorothy Cotton (she's never had one!--now there's a woman who was extremely active in Birmingham, I guess women most prominent in that movement may be Cotton, Nash, and Lola Hendricks). Getting wordy again. Thoughts on a Civil Rights project meeting space? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you mean a userbox. You can find a variety of them here: WP:Userbox and how to create them and place them on your user page. I have not seen one that says This user is interested in the African American Civil Rights Movement, or more poetically, This user has his eyes on the prize. Something like this, perhaps?
There is a Wikiproject named African diaspora, but that does not concentrate solely on U.S. Civil Rights. There are quite a few wikiprojects that seem to wax and wane in popularity and activity. If you're interested in building a WP:Civil Rights WikiProject, I would ask first at African diaspora as to why one has not been developed yet, if anyone is interested in joining you. I would, but you might be disappointed to find I'm a rarity. Of the millions of editors who have registered or edited Wikipedia, only a handful--several hundred--work to build content conscientiously by reading on a topic and concentrating on improved article. They come and go. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Moni, that's a beautiful title--perfect--and userbox. I'll put it on my page immediately, and will ask at AD (although I don't consider the CRM as an African-American movement. As Bevel said, there was an illness in blacks and whites with an outward symptom of 'segregation', and both groups had to be healed of it, and it just happened to be blacks who learned the Gandhian philosophy enough to be able to act in a scientific manner to finally end it), but, back to the name, very nice. As for numbers, hundreds aren't needed, and most of the main work is already finished although it needs polishing (I added many many names to the main template:African American Civil Rights Movement in the recent past). Will get to the AD group discussion page, but the name you chose is the best I can imagine. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
Hi, Moni3, while we've had some disagreements, I like and respect you, as I've noticed that you try much better than most to be objective in difficult situations - and you can be great fun, which WP sorely needs. So I feel sad that you seem to have been stuck in a tarpit over Münchausen by Internet - most recently at User_talk:Geometry_guy#First_point. We all have occasional disagreements - e.g. I had a doozy with Malleus over Manchester Mark 1 (he "won"), but we get on well and Malleus is a terrific both as an editor and a source of fun.
Malleus and others, including me, were willing to GA review the article when there was a dispute it a few weeks ago. I'm still willing, and I expect Malleus would be too. If I reviewed it, I'd start by finding an uninvolved commentator on the medical aspects, as I would if I were to review any article with medical aspects. Irrespective of how that played out, how Münchausen's plays out on the Internet is interesting and important, and worth the effort to get it to GA. --Philcha (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a difficult question. I believe the article is already GA quality, and here it is ready and available for anyone to read it. So the GA designation is partly for me. However, a GA review does (or should) bring some constructive criticism with it. I welcome anyone to improve it or give suggestions about how to achieve that. I generally enjoy in-depth reviews and challenging suggestions. A couple of WP:Psych and WP:Med members commented on the article and managed to keep themselves out of the fray related to the GAR.
But this also may rip open a scab and I just don't have the energy or will to justify why this article should exist when it is blatantly obvious that it should. I don't think anyone can guarantee that it won't return to the unholy banter that took place during the GAR. So that's my deliberation. I appreciate your offer--really I do--but I'm leaning toward declining right now until I enter a state of blissful amnesia about the entire affair. Sometimes that happens quickly and sometimes it doesn't. If you have any comments or suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Moni3, I certainly don't want to rip open a scab, I'd rather help to heal it. As for "unholy banter", I can be quite firm about that without fear or favour (I can give chapter & verse, but would prefer not to). The only comment or suggestion I can think of is to get the GA review done right. --Philcha (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If you look, you will see. That one action happens to be what I have had to deal with constantly. Sometimes I wonder if that Cheshire Cat was right. o.o;; Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you referring to what I just saw on your talk? Ottava, if you are, why don't you start to think strategically? Isn't it nice that someone proved the point?!?!? Leave It Alone: Don't Engage! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it that I think things are funny or do funny things happen to me more often? I mean, do other people experience sitting in a bathroom with multiple stalls and some chick comes rushing in to the stall at the end saying "Oh my God, oh my God, I have to I have to....shit!" And sounds ensue that can only mean she is narrating her immediate life... I mean, does this kind of stuff only happen to me? She wasn't a crazy cat lady either; she was like 20 years old. It was baffling and hilarious.
My response to Moni, as given to me in a dream by Lewis Carroll:
Alice tried another question. "What sort of people live about here?"
"In THAT direction," the Cat said, waving its right paw round, "lives a Hatter: And in THAT direction," waving the other paw, "lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad."
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
Alice didn't think that proved it at all; however, she went on "And how do you know that you're mad?"
"To begin with," said the Cat, "a dog's not mad. You grant that?"
"I suppose so," said Alice.
"Well, then," the Cat went on, "you see, a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad."
Appropriate for this comparison. Alice is with the Duchess in the Mock Turtle's Story chapter, trying to think of where mustard comes from. She says "I remember. It's a vegetable. It doesn't look like one, but it is."
The duchess replies, "I quite agree with you. And the moral of that is--'Be what you would seem to be'--or, if you would like that put more simply--'Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them otherwise."
Simpler, indeed. When I read that to my students, I busted up laughing. What a way to make something impossible to understand. I think it's quite simple to leave well enough alone. By your extended explanations of your point of view, you seem to be imagining yourself otherwise than what it might appear to others what what you were or might have been was noth otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them otherwise. The world will not implode if you just say, "Ok" and move on. --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are in the mood for what is impossible to understand read paragraph 2 of book 14 in James Joyce's Ulysses. If you can break it down, you'll be amazed that it could have been summarized in about 6 or 7 words. By the way, I try to move on but some things tend to be stuck in the past. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ottava, speaking of Ulysses, do you have any James Joyce sources handy? Like
Bulson, Eric. The Cambridge Introduction to James Joyce. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge UP, 2006. ISBN978-0-5218-4037-8.
McCourt, John, ed. James Joyce in Context. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge UP, 2009. ISBN978-0-5218-8662-8.
McCourt, John (2001). The Years of Bloom: James Joyce in Trieste, 1904-1920. The Lilliput Press. ISBN1901866718. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Schloss, Carol Loeb. Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake. London: Bloomsbury, 2004. ISBN0-374-19424-6.
I've mentioned on the talk page before but it was about Christianity and I am bound by my CoI rules not to pursue the matter (as pushing for Catholic aspects of his life would be a direct violation of what I'm allowed to do). However, I do have about 14 different works on him if you need me to look up anything. I decided to use my free time to participate in a Joyce Seminar class while I was finishing up my doctorate. A retired professor was offering to teach it and I missed it the first time around 3 years ago. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Joyce? I've got "James Joyce Today: Essays on the Major Works" Edited by Thomas F. Staley, pre-ISBN, Indiana University Press * Bloomington London 1971, $5.00. And, Pound Joyce: The letters of Ezra Pound to James Joyce with Pound's Essays on Joyce, edited by Forrest Read, pre-ISBN Faber and Faber 1960 something, (£3.50) and a couple of other gems that I cannot find at the moment amongst the thousand plus books that have managed, mysteriously, to move into my house over the years. Graham. Graham ColmTalk21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
shoot, I ruined Moni's day ! Thanks, Ottava and Graham, but it's those four above that I need to verify some text and page nos. See Talk:James Joyce for a list of issues I'm working on. Moni, I owe you ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to drop me a line or email me when you find a section that is lacking. I will drop whatever I can onto the talk page (summaries or quotes) so people can discuss what to add. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought that Eleanor Roosevelt said: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." (I once saw a poster which added: "Of course, you would be a fool to withhold that from your superiors.") MastCellTalk23:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, thanks Durova. MastCell, you're probably right with the specific wording there. I was working from memory. And hah. Posters. --Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"
ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.
A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.
Moni, today marks the 40th anniversary of Sesame Street, and I have the perfect way you can celebrate it. I've finally addressed all the issues you raised in the GAC of History of Sesame Street. I know that it's taken forever, but I decided to slow down the process and make sure it was done right, within the confines of my busy life. To that end, I have expanded the article International co-productions of Sesame Street, and included some information in both the history article and the parent article. They both have, as you requested, something about the Kami-controversy that has improved both articles, I think. (See, even little ole me can make a small contribution to the LGBT Wiki-world.) ;) Wouldn't it be a great way to commemorate the anniversary by promoting the history article to GA? BTW, it is on the main page today, in the "On this day" section. The co-production article will be in DYK later on today. I'm actually really proud of the co-production article; it turned out better than I expected. It will probably be my next GA, although I've learned my lesson and will submit it for a peer review before. I'm too weak a writer to submit an article to GA first. Anyway, enough of my ramblings! Have a good day! --Christine (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Rock on. I've got the article watchlisted, and I've seen you working on it. It's not just you who has been gearing up for this celebration, as I have been seeing examples of muppets and Henson in various places, all of them making me think of you. Here's one in particular you might like. Aaaand one you might like better, if not just to laugh.
Oh, I love it that you think of little ole insignificant me, housewife from Idaho, whenever you see something SS-related! Makes me feel oh so special. Almost as special as when my daughter sees me every morning, smiles, and says, "Look, it's grandma!" Or when my son tells me, right after I wake him up, "Blue!" Ah well. Love the cakes! My kids would love any of the first examples. Sweetie, you rock my WP-world, so you can have as much time as you like! --Christine (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
General question for TPS
Has the banner at the top of the page advertising the most recent drive for contributions been inspired by a Duran Duran t-shirt or the decorations from a high school notebook?
It thought it was common knowledge that 13-year-olds were running everything on Wikipedia? Don't you know that pointing it out is ageism? Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Nah, but the same folks who came up with the one came up with the other. Wait until you see some of the other ones.[7] This is the *good* one. Risker (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure those weren't designed by the people at Wikipedia Review? They seem intended to not-so-subtly position Wikipedia as a sort of sinister, omnipotent threat to humanity, in the way that some of the more febrile WR elements seem to relish. I'd like to see the slogans they threw out as too creepy or cult-like. WIN THE BATTLE AGAINST YOURSELF—LOVE WIKIPEDIA? |TOMORROW BELONGS TO WIKIPEDIA? MastCellTalk18:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait, I made those last 2 up as hyperbole (lifting the second one from Cabaret, as you identified). Are they actual slogans? MastCellTalk18:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand the time was donated, but I could stand to be corrected there if someone has better information. On the other hand, this seems like a much more constructive approach. I seem to recall some community developed banners being used during the last campaign, so fingers crossed some of these get snapped up. Risker (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you seen this [9]? It's hilarious. "Lessons for the future: Before announcing any major fundraising campaign or slogan, register the domain first". Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
(snaps fingers) oh yeah...when does the thermometer come? Gonna be a more official and serious blue this year rather than a green? But green is the new black isn't it? (or is/was that so 2008...) Casliber (talk·contribs) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I left a note on the discussion page at African Dispora, but the group, to me, doesn't seem to overlap with the movement pages. Many of the people will, but the definition of the group doesn't seem to fit. I mentioned your small userbox, changed the "his" to "their", but couldn't find a way to copy it to that page or my page. When and if the group is born maybe the box should link to a member page, where we can also list tasks to be done or articles to be checked and worked upon. Plus when the box is put on a user page it automatically would put that member as a member on a group list. (I don't know the code to set it up, but have seen it done). Thoughts? On a brief other item, because of wiki and passing the data along, it looks like Clara Luper will be honored at the 2010 Selma Celebration in March, their 45th anniversary, and be inducted into the Hall of Fame there. Luper's daughter, who was eight at the time, actually suggested the sit-in, participated with her mom and young brother, along with 10 of their young friends, all still alive. (This user takes care of a dog) (OK, this user will stop with these user tags. . .for now) Randy Kryn (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: Genesis
Welcome to the dark side :) (wait, damn, wrong fiction...) What's the article? There might be some info, I'll have to take a look, but knowing what exactly the subject is will probably help me a lot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)03:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There's not much on the Biblical allusion to the Genesis device itself (too obvious for comment?) There is a lot on Spock and the themes of death and rebirth, however (Spock as Christlike figure and suffering servant, needs of the many and few, et al.) I need to dig up "Death and Rebirth in Star Trek II, it may mention "Amazing Grace" specifically. More on the production side, I have the Star Trek II Complete Score, and its liner notes discuss the technical implementation of the song (the problems James Horner faced in integrated the out-of-tune bagpipes with the orchestral rendition of the song that takes place.) Not sure if that might be of use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)03:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps not too much detail about its recording, but since that section has but one citation, and I know some stuff has been written about how Star Trek uses traditional philosophy to frame their discussions set in the future in space, I was hoping to complement what has been written about the film from a Star Trek source. I'll see if I have access to any sources you suggest. --Moni3 (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The Spock as sacrificial lamb info can be found in Star trek and sacred ground: explorations of Star trek, religion, and American culture, p. 150+ (ISBN0791443345). Author Lee Roth does mention Amazing Grace as adding to the film's promise of resurrection [Roth, Lane (1987). "Death and Rebirth in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan". Extrapolation 1 (28): 159–66.] I should point out that the mini summary you have is incorrect; Spock sacrifices himself to repair the ship so that they can escape Khan's detonation of Genesis, not wrest it from him. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)03:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Ach, yes. Well...I saw the film when I was 13. Ok. I have electronic access to this book. Cool. There are reasons why it's still in a sandbox...although I thought it was pretty close to being ready to post. I appreciate the tip and I will read the book tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I can email you the relevant Roth pages if you want (in trying to find it for Star Trek II I had to dig through my university microfiche stacks and then optically enlarge everything, which was a learning experience :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)03:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate that. My library's subscription to Extrapolation begins in 1994. All my scans from newspapers I read for Harvey Milk are from microfilm. Four shots per page. Oy! --Moni3 (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, fat lot of good I did, but I read it and reviewed it. Might I ask in return a review for Amazing Grace, which I just posted a rewrite for yesterday? It also has a peer review. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to; I'm out of town through Tuesday, so I could do a better job if you're able to wait a couple of days. If time's an issue, however, I can do something less thorough before then. Whatever you prefer would be fine with me. Эlcobbolatalk13:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Moni, I haven't forgotten this and I apologize for dragging my feet. I've read the article and will do my best to type up comments in the next few days. Эlcobbolatalk16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Moni3, there's a lot of good information in your rewritten article on Amazing Grace, but in my opinion it's too long and too broad. While it's certainly legitimate to claim that the poem was a response to a conversion experience, the same could be said about most of Newton's hymns. There's really not much to the "urban legend" that connects this song specifically with Newton's earlier participation in the slave trade, or with his much later opposition to it, yet your revision introduces the author precisely in these terms. The previous version of the article was much more circumspect in this regard. Much of the biographical coverage in the article duplicates that in the article on Newton, where it really belongs. And, while it is certainly appropriate to discuss the music for this popular hymn, is seems like a can of worms to refer to the tune as a "traditional melody" in the first paragraph, when its possible origins are discussed more fully later. There appear to be factual errors in the section on "Harmony Grove," and I have yet to see a single "scholar" cite even the slightest evidence that the melody is of Scots origin--it's merely feelgood speculation, not worth repeating in WP. I appreciate your edit and your careful citations, and I intend to make further edits in the coming weeks, but it seems a little disingenuous for you to thoroughly revise and expand an article and then immediately nominate it yourself for "good article" status. Finn Froding (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. You've already seen one of the waterfall photos.
How sweet the sound
Very interesting article. Mind if I take a poke at it? I really like the content and the style, but there are a few passives we might be able to change, if you're ok with it. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Please do. I need all the help I can get. I appreciate it. If you have in-depth questions, feel free to ask or make suggestions at the peer review. --Moni3 (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for your loss. I hope this cheers you up, mi amiga bonita. After reading what happened this evening, the striked through message above comes across as very insincere. It was one of my run-of-the-mill, random, off-color comments, but it appears the timing could not have been worse. 8-( Sorry. APKbecause, he says, it's true03:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
APK, I wish you wouldn't take pictures of me when I get all pinked up and go to Wal-Mart. There's too much pressure to be glamorous there. And don't worry about your timing, darlin'. --Moni3 (talk) 13:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry for your loss
Nor dread nor hope attend
A dying animal;
A man awaits his end
Dreading and hoping all;
Many times he died,
Many times rose again.
A great man in his pride
Confronting murderous men
Casts derision upon
Supersession of breath;
He knows death to the bone --
Man has created death.
Thanks, guys. If my cat owned a convenience store, it would be the "Squawk n' Shed", two of her favorite things. So all the neighborhood would go down to the Squawk n' Shed to chirp and shout at each other and leave their microscopically fine fur up everyone's noses. And if you tried to edit Wikipedia there, you would get shouted down and people would be walking all over your keyboard. Yet, you'd love that store, if only for its inconvenience. I appreciate your thoughts. I was tremendously lucky to have known such unconditional love, and I can only hope to learn that lesson someday. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Chocolate and kleenex are necessary in sad times like this...
My sympathies, Moni. My grandmother taught me to never show up to a wake without food, so please accept a bit of chocolate. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
And, mine too, Moni. (Written from a scratch pad with several keys missing.) Consider reading (or rereading) Eliot's Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
And also my condolences, Moni. You are absolutely right about the unconditional love our acquired family members give us. As much as it hurts to lose them, it was also an opportunity to love and to be loved unconditionally and a chance to learn from them. (I have several cat shaped holes in my heart, so I know.) Take care of yourself. — Becksguy (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Psalm 23 as translated from Hebrew to Greek to English to Lolcat
1 Ceiling Cat iz mai sheprd (which is funni if u knowz teh joek about herdin catz LOL.)
He givz me evrithin I need.
2 He letz me sleeps in teh sunni spot
an haz liek nice waterz r ovar thar.
3 He makez mai soul happi
an maeks sure I go teh riet wai for him. Liek thru teh cat flap insted of out teh opin windo LOL.
4 I iz in teh valli of dogz, fearin no pooch,
bcz Ceiling Cat iz besied me rubbin' mah ears, an it maek me so kumfy.
5 He letz me sit at teh taebl evn when peepl who duzint liek me iz watchn.
He givz me a flea baff an so much gooshy fud it runz out of mai bowl LOL.
6 Niec things an luck wil chase me evrydai
an I wil liv in teh Ceiling Cats houz forevr.
Thanks again, folks. We did try to make her last day with us kumfy, including an outing to the backyard in the sunny spot. I dream about her and think I see her out of the corner of my eyes. A friend says she's visiting me. I have had to read up on animal loss; this is the first member of my family to die, and I don't even allow others to think of her as my family. Like a secret other people can't handle or understand. I thank you for your comments, though. --Moni3 (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I happened to see the discussion on Iridescent's talk page. Elvis Presley recorded Amazing Grace in 1971, and it was first released in 1972. This is from p. 323 of Jorgensen, Ernst (1998). Elvis Presley: A Life In Music (The Complete Recording Sessions), St. Martin's Press. ISBN0312263155. ReverendWayne (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Condolences and Copyedits
Hey, I'm really sorry to hear about your cat. Our dog died at the start of the year, so I know how hard it can be. As Saint-Exupery wrote in Le Petit Prince: "on ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux". She was lucky to live with you.
Perhaps your sorrow will abate when I tell you that I finally finished the copyedit/review of Tipping the Velvet that I agreed to so long ago. It only took me seven years, but it's done! My comments are here on the talk page.
Hey Moni, I too am sorry for the loss of your kitty. I don't have a cat at the current time (my hubby is horribly allergic), but they're my favorite creatures too, and I've cried like a baby at a vet's office, too. I didn't want to pressure you, because there's no hurry. It's been a busy week for me anyway, and I've been working on Maya Angelou articles. Thanks. --Christine (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Etc.
Losing our friends and family, in any shape or form, is hard. Condolences. I did take one of your chocolates. Let me know when you have a look at the Garrow books, the march to Washington data specifically, but no hurry. And Dystopos has put up a couple new very good pages on Birmingham people and groups, impressive work by everyone connected with the main article. But even though this is a bad time with your loss, I'm glad I dropped by, there were chocolates here. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe this articles bests suits under the medicine project as it talks about an specific syndrome. It would be great if it would follow WP:MEDMOS in its sections and WP:MEDRS in its sources (altough referencing is already quite good). This would be specially important to become a GA.--Garrondo (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you suggest in the way of article layout in light of the fact that what is cited is just about what there is on the topic? I don't have access to two medical journal articles that I might be able to add info about. One of them I believe is a more clinical look at the Kaycee Nicole hoax. I'm not sure what the other one is. There is a book chapter by Feldman on it, but I did not find anything in the book chapter that was not previously covered in the journal articles already cited. The article at GAN right now, but under Internet culture. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That would be psychology project, rather than medicine project, of course. I don't think anyone's proposed a major biological basis for the factitious disorders yet, although there are very likely biological risk factors we don't know about yet.
Here's the list of stuff I found on EBSCO and Medline on Munchausen by Internet. Some is probably duplicate to what you already have, some looked novel -- I didn't cross-check. The ones that are not available full-text you can probably get from interlibrary loan at an academic library. Let me know if you have trouble -- If full-text is available, I can get that easily. I don't mind asking for a few ILL things myself, but I don't want to take undue advantage of the reference librarians for projects not really related to my official existence.
Munchausen's syndrome by Google.Citation Only Available
(eng; includes abstract) By Griffiths EJ, Kampa R, Pearce C, Sakellariou A, Solan MC, Annals Of The Royal College Of Surgeons Of England [Ann R Coll Surg Engl], ISSN: 1478-7083, 2009 Mar; Vol. 91 (2), pp. 159-60; PMID: 19317939
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
The article addresses a woman who complained of persistent ankle dislocation, with a history of multiple hospital visits in Australia and the UK, who presented to doctors with an X-ray copy she printed from the internet. The article alerts physicians to the possibility that factitious disorder patients may be getting information from the internet that they use to exaggerate their claims.
Delusional parasitosis facilitated by web-based dissemination.Citation Only Available Vila-Rodriguez, Fidel; Macewan, Bill G.; American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 165(12), Dec, 2008. pp. 1612. [Letter]
Database: PsycINFO
This is a letter discussing a 57-y.o. male with a past of drug abuse and schizophrenia who was convinced he had parasitosis, and a family of a 2-year-old who launched an unprecedented publicity and lobbying campaign to find the name of a condition that clinical perceptions acknowledge to be delusional parasitosis. The 57-y.o. presented himself as having the same condition as the 2-year-old after reading about it on the internet. The letter writers' point is that the internet can mislead patients, and when people go online or participate in support groups with others who confirm their diagnostic fears, such communities can perpetuate false perceptions and they become delusional when a community supports their concerns.
{Münchausen syndrome with forgery on biologic results. A case report}Citation Only Available
Pseudoleucémie par falsification d'examens biologiques: genèse d'un syndrome de Münchausen. (fre; includes abstract) By Thabuy F, Marzac C, Renaud MC, Fardet L, Tiev K, Tolédano C, Texier PL, Cabane J, Kettaneh A, La Revue De Médecine Interne / Fondée ... Par La Société Nationale Francaise De Médecine Interne [Rev Med Interne], ISSN: 0248-8663, 2008 Nov; Vol. 29 (11), pp. 924-8; PMID: 18387714
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
In French.
A simulated case of chronic myeloid leukemia: the growing risk of Munchausen's syndrome by internet.Citation Only Available
(eng) By Caocci G, Pisu S, La Nasa G, Leukemia & Lymphoma [Leuk Lymphoma], ISSN: 1029-2403, 2008 Sep; Vol. 49 (9), pp. 1826-8; PMID: 18608864
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
Legal issues surrounding the exposure of 'Munchausen by Internet.'Citation Only Available Feldman, Marc D.; Peychers, M. E.; Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, Vol 48(5), Sep-Oct, 2007. pp. 451-452. [Letter]Database: PsycINFO Full Text from ProQuest
Legal issues surrounding the exposure of "Munchausen by Internet".Citation Only Available
(eng) By Feldman MD, Peychers ME, Psychosomatics [Psychosomatics], ISSN: 0033-3182, 2007 Sep-Oct; Vol. 48 (5), pp. 451-2; PMID: 17878508
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
Full Text from ProQuest
Factitious Ovarian Cancer: Feigning via Resources on the Internet.Citation Only Available
Levenson, James L.; Chafe, Weldon; Flanagan, Phelicia; Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, Vol 48(1), Jan-Feb, 2007. pp. 71-73. [Journal Article]
Database: PsycINFO
Full Text from ProQuest
Article discusses a woman who presented to doctors with ovarian cancer after researching on the internet. Does not discuss manifestation of presenting a medical crisis over the internet.
Forensic web watch--medicolegal aspects of paediatric pathology.Citation Only Available
(eng; includes abstract) By Liggett A, Swift B, Journal Of Clinical Forensic Medicine [J Clin Forensic Med], ISSN: 1353-1131, 2003 Sep; Vol. 10 (3), pp. 201-4; PMID: 15275022
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
Article discusses internet coverage of child abuse cases in the area of pediatric forensic pathology. It mentions Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.
Munchausen's syndrome by proxy web-mediated in a child with factitious hyperglycemia.Citation Only Available
(eng) By Vanelli M, The Journal Of Pediatrics [J Pediatr], ISSN: 0022-3476, 2002 Dec; Vol. 141 (6), pp. 839; PMID: 12461506
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
Letter written about a parent who used the internet to research hyperglycemia and subsequently masked his daughter's blood glucose by fabricating a blood sugar diary.
Gaining vicarious self-esteem through associations with medical doctors: A self-enhancement explanation for factitious illness behavior.Citation Only Available Waxmonsky, Jeanette Audrey; Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 63(5-B), Nov, 2002. pp. 2612. [Dissertation]
Database: PsycINFO
Full Text from ProQuest
Dissertation on Factitious disorder. May offer insights on motivation, but not directly related to internet communications.
{Munchausen syndrome mimicking Meniere's disease}Citation Only Available
Syndrome de Munchausen mimant une maladie de Menière. (fre; includes abstract) By Kos MI, Guyot JP, Annales D'oto-Laryngologie Et De Chirurgie Cervico Faciale: Bulletin De La Société D'oto-Laryngologie Des Hôpitaux De Paris [Ann Otolaryngol Chir Cervicofac], ISSN: 0003-438X, 2002; Vol. 119 (3), pp. 159-63; PMID: 12218870
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
In French.
Munchausen by Internet: detecting factitious illness and crisis on the Internet.Full Text Available
(eng; includes abstract) By Feldman MD, Southern Medical Journal [South Med J], ISSN: 0038-4348, 2000 Jul; Vol. 93 (7), pp. 669-72; PMID: 10923952
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
HTML Full Text PDF Full Text
Patient pretenders weave tangled "Web" of deceit.Citation Only Available
(eng) By Stephenson J, JAMA: The Journal Of The American Medical Association [JAMA], ISSN: 0098-7484, 1998 Oct 21; Vol. 280 (15), pp. 1297; PMID: 9794296
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
Responses to unsolicited patient e-mail requests for medical advice on the World Wide Web.Citation Only Available
(eng; includes abstract) By Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL, JAMA: The Journal Of The American Medical Association [JAMA], ISSN: 0098-7484, 1998 Oct 21; Vol. 280 (15), pp. 1333-5; PMID: 9794313
Database: MEDLINE with Full Text
Article discusses medical responses to potential patient emails asking about a condition they may have learned about online. Factitious disorder is not mentioned or alluded to in the article.
Amanda Baggs [[11]] [[12]], a potential case of Munchausen by Internet, with, standard Munchausen (ie, her complex and strategic use of doctors, her selective presentation of her own medical records on her website [[13]]. Autism diagnoses start in 2000, 20 years old, she claimed DID (multiple personality) in 1994 to ___, then Schizophrenia in about 1996 to ___, then Autism in about 1998 and especially 2000.--CommunityCenter station2 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
May also be a case of Selective Autism, analogous to Selective Mutism [[14]]. Starting in about 2000, but especially in 2007 with her YouTube video. Above report shows CNN's statement that her youtube video popularity (about 500,000 hits in 2007) was their primary reason to do a story on her ..... they call her a "YouTube sensation", etc.--CommunityCenter station2 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of this case. I reliable source and an expert in the field must state she is an example of Munchausen by Internet before it can be added to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello?
Hi Moni,
Whassup? I dunno, I'm Catholic and AcoA enough to think, "Moni's ignoring me; she must be mad at me!" But of course, I hear a horn honk whilst driving and the first thing that comes into my mind is, "What'd I do?" So I choose to believe that you've been busy or having a senior moment or something. So would it be insulting if I were to go ahead and put History of Sesame Street up for peer review? Like I said last week, I've been working on Angelou articles, but I'd like to move forward with the history article. I'm also thinking about putting up Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas through the FA process, but later on, so I don't overwhelm myself. That way, I'd be eligible for one of those cool Four awards. Anyway, hope you're having a nice Advent! --Christine (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring you. I'm in some kind of Wikipedia action limbo. Not so disillusioned that I can tell everyone to piss off and retire, not temporarily insane enough to force myself to take a break, but not motivated to do anything else, like improve the articles I constructed or review other ones. I do not know to what I owe this malaise nor how to escape from it right now. Any ideas, talk page stalkers?
But on to things you give a shit about: I think you're safe enough to re-nominate the article. Give me a few days and I may be roused enough to review it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
When I feel that way I patrol CAT:CSD and leave helpful messages for newbies who have no clue what they are doing. Every once in a while I connect with an excited new user and end up pseudo-mentoring them. Their enthusiasm tends to spark the same in me. And sometimes I go find a bunch of books/articles on a topic unlike anything I've written about before and start reading...and that inspires me to begin writing again. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes when I feel like that, I decide to learn something new. Whenever I pick up a new topic I get excited about learning all over again. Earlier this semester, I learned how to make a webpage, for example. Awadewit (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The butterfly queen of ADD topic skipping, aka ME, might not want to do that. At times I think I spread myself too thin, welcoming intellectual catnaps such as the one I am in now. The CSD idea is an interesting one. But then, wandering around till I fall face down in a puddle of my own drool is also alluring. --Moni3 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I enjoy CSD tagging when I feel that wikiennui, I find it cathartic. I used to consider myself an inclusionist, but now I think that wikipedia would be greatly improved if 80% of its articles were deleted. :-) --MalleusFatuorum15:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I recently took a few days off Wikipedia to stare at stuff instead of be productive. Somehow I found my way to an sophomoric humor website stocked primarily with boner jokes. Not sure why I would find that so hilarious, but it was a new experience. I came across this article titled 7 reasons why the 21st century is making you miserable that keys in a lot to what frustrates me so much about Wikipedia sometimes. Specifically the points about criticism, online company making us lonelier, outrage machines, and feeling worthless. Curious about what others think when it relates to Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That was going to be my advice, to just take some time off, and go watch silly things on YouTube (Muppets videos always do it for me, like this one [15], which is wonderfully Muppetery weird). If I could psychoanalysis you a bit, my dear, I would say that you've been through a lot emotionally the past several weeks. You've recently gone through a significant loss, ya know. You worked on Amazing Grace, which could've contributed to your malaise, which by the way, I do give a shit about! (I find that I also get a case of the doldrums right after emotional and spiritual experiences. I hafta say, when I saw that you had worked on Amazing Grace, it warmed the cackles of my cotton-pickin' little heart.) So give yourself some time and...wait for it...grace.
So would any of Moni's talk page stalkers like to peer review History of Sesame Street? I guarantee that it will give you a little emotional lift. And while you're at it, maybe you could ease Moni's burden by promoting it to GA, if you think it deserves it. ;) --Christine (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Moni, given how attuned you seem to be to wackiness and shenanigans in general, you may have already seen this, but, if not, watching Forklift Driver Klaus - The First Day on the Job may lift your spirits. Nothing intellectual about it, but the good old (educational!) German carnage may well inspire dutiful action, or at least provide some blood to keep your drool company (puddles do need companionship, right?) Эlcobbolatalk17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Christine, good advice. To illustrate the deliberate neglect of using my brain, I downloaded several songs from Wham!, spent much of my Thanksgiving weekend playing a stupid match 3 computer game, and gained some perspective on how crazy I am not by watching Hoarders. Combined with all the dick jokes on cracked.com (fartminge? thundercunt?) the days I spent not editing were quite diverting. I wish I could see that film, Elcobbola. I need a good shocking laugh. Maybe I'll spend some time watching Mystery Science Theater's educational short films.
After voting for ArbCom, in case anyone running cares, here's my statement for posterity: if you screw up and have to make some huge confession of misdeeds, or worse that it's reported in a major newspaper like the whoring governor of South Carolina, and I voted for you, you suck. But I suck worse for voting for you. So don't do that. Seriously. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, Moni, no matter how much I screw up (and I do!), and not even remembering whether or not you voted for me, I am pretty sure I will never equal the whoring governor of South Carolina. Although I'm not entirely certain which part is worse, the whoring or the governorship. Risker (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
That's hardly the worst thing Rick Perry has done - I'm currently a little more bothered by this. Because, let's face it, Texas will never actually secede - that's just transparent pandering to utter lunatics his base, so he doesn't get out-crazied by a challenger from the right in the primary. But he may have signed off on an innocent man's execution despite evidence of that innocence, and he definitely seems to be quashing the follow-up investigation until he's safely re-elected. And to cut Sanford some slack, he's just a guy who met his soul mate a little late in life and happened to be married. It's messy, but it happens - a lot of the kids I went to school with had parents who had divorced under similar circumstances. The title of Whoring Governor must be earned. MastCellTalk19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I voted for you, Risker. No tearful confessions of the Jimmy Swaggart type. No leaving Wikipedia alone for months while you freaky freak your soulmate on another continent without appointing someone to make life-saving and life-altering decisions in your stead. No declaring yourself the Solemn Nation of Riskerpedia and plagiarizing everything I've written on your own site. No bad Son of Risker sequels who battle it out with your antagonists in epically pathetic edit wars. I feel like grabbing a habit and a ruler and whapping knuckles. --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I promise, Moni! Really I do. High dudgeon for me would be "Damn, sorry, I messed up." And should I ever plagiarise you, I promise to include an external link. (You know your life is overtaken by Wikipedia when you include words in wikilinks when writing business emails.) Risker (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Moni, although I gave it my best effort, I can't find those boner jokes on that website; please point me to them (frat boy boner jokes will counter bluejays, wood chippers, and unfortunate Christmas cards any day). Regarding the "7 reasons", I have mixed thoughts. One of my four dearest friends is a remarkable woman I first met and knew for a very long time on the internet, before we became close IRL; if not for the internet, my life would not be graced by her friendship. And ... since I don't like to expose myself to friends after crying all night (the crazy whore factor), I've not answered the phone since last night and have appreciated the e-mails I've gotten. But I noticed the weirdest breach of etiquette, an internet-induced discourtesy. Everyone knows my dog was my son's, and how much he adored that dog, and that he's away at college. I have at least half a dozen people sending their thoughts to me on Facebook who are as close to my son as to me, adding on "Please tell your son ... " and yet every one of them has my son on their Friend list, and not one of them has gone to his page to say a word to him. What a perfectly strange thing ... it wouldn't take a second to drop him a note on FB, and it seems the most basic common courtesy ... internet-induced efficiency leading to thoughtlessness ... they can post to one place, my page, and know he'll see it. How impersonal. Damn: I'd best finish my ArbCom page before I get in touch with my inner bitch. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
PS, the quote at the top of your page is priceless. Here's a sappy one for you and me:
Where you used to be, there is a hole in the world, which I find myself constantly walking around in the daytime, and falling in at night. I miss you like hell. ~Edna St Vincent Millay
I have never seen that before. However I could not watch it all the way through without the woman sitting behind me singing, "It's business...It's business tiiiimme". Apparently she has seen it. Love the idea and I'll watch it through all the way when I'm not at work. I countered her singing along with sending her to see Klaus. She says he's the angel of death. "Manga blood! Look at that!" A very productive day. --Moni3 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I did have a long term flash mob-type idea for the birds wikiproject. A while ago we had a run of red-x'ed critters, and mused a while that if we buffed up 20 or 30 bird species beginning with "Red-.." it'd make the WP:FA page look pretty funny... :) Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked the paragraph that you asked to be clarified. I hope that suffices; if not, please drop me a line. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with you?!?!111
"hiding one's radioactive superpowers and siding with Mothra against Godzilla"
I was going to post something hilarious, but the cold meds give me an even shorter attention span for pancakes. But remember this: I may have left the house this morning without my pants, and the bees will come to kill us all.
Mattisse (talk·contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk·contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
"Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
Sorry if you feel offended. My intent was only to make some points in Ottava Rima's defense that may not have been made in previous discussion. I will say no more and he can, of course, delete unwanted content from his talk page. Be well. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not offended. I assume you put all the effort into your post because you think someone is going to read it and respond or care. OR's talk page probably will not elicit that kind of response. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Salve. It was not very much effort, and there was no expectation that I could say anything that will change WP. I do not see how OR could be an issue when everything on the page at the moment is an expression of personal sentiment. I would not have said anything on Ottava Rima's page at all if it were not for MZMcBride's edit which I though a little disrespectful (although I doubt disrespect was his intent), and which was unanswered. Feel free to remove anything of my edits there you choose. I will not object. Be well. 173.52.187.133 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Looking through my bedroom window, out into the moonlight and the unending smoke-colored snow, I could see the lights in the windows of all the other houses on our hill and hear the music rising from them up the long, steady falling night. I turned the gas down, I got into bed. I said some words to the close and holy darkness, and then I slept. — Dylan Thomas, A Child's Christmas in Wales
As I've said elsewhere... hope this card isn't too spammy. It's one of the few things I really love to read this time of year. Best to you and yours, Kafka Liz (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You're on a quest to find all the right citations for this article, right? Otherwise, mass fact tagging like this makes it seem as if someone else should find all the cites for the article.
Don't get me wrong: the article should be cited, but here you have a perfect opportunity to do it yourself. That's what Wikipedia is for. I've done it many times. There is work behind the [citation needed] tag. Are you willing to do it? --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make sure that you had other steps planned. Is this the case? Will you be finding cites for all these tags? --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
TPS stalker question: image ghosts
When imaged are re-loaded for better versions, sometimes the previous notgood version shows. I don't know why.
See Amazing Grace, portrait of John Newton, which should look like the good version I uploaded here: File:Newton j.jpg. The article, however, shows the previous version, kinda blue and bloated.
Am I the only one who sees this? I'm sure I'm missing the smallest punctuation mark in code that I should know...magically somehow... to fix this. Anyone know what the magic code is? --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm seeing the new images on all three pages. I think you (plural) might have cached an old version of the pages/images. If you follow the instructions at WP:BYPASS and/or WP:PURGE it might do the trick. Skomorokh 18:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I see this on two separate computers: my mac laptop at home, and a PC at work. The John Newton image just started doing that when it was shifted to Commons and deleted from Wikipedia. Except, I switched out both the Wikipedia and the Commons images. I am thoroughly confused. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I've had the same problem. The way I get round it is to give the image I'm uploading a different name from the one I uploaded earlier—obviously the destination file name remains the same though. Works every time. --MalleusFatuorum22:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Chalk me up as another who's had this problem. Sometimes clearing the cache resolves the problem, but, more often than not, it does not. It has, however, always resolved itself in time. Sometimes making a null edit (or substantive one, for that matter) to the section containing the image remedies the issue as well. Эlcobbolatalk22:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
The WordsmithCommunicate is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
oh thank you!
Moni, how delightful to receive a greeting from you! When I look at my sentence structure, I sometimes think: erk. Do have a nice break. It's a few weeks of good relaxation, which of course I've wasted by being an ArbCom election coordinator—time Sandy think would have been much better spent slaving away at FAC. :-)
Wasted? Has an ArbCom case been opened? What a measure of success. No virtual blood has been shed. Should that make us proud or ashamed? I don't know. I look forward to the next decade, because this one kind of sucked. September 11, Hurricane Katrina and the three others I went through in 2004, a miserable divisive presidential administration, and quitting teaching--which was the hardest thing I've ever done. But there were some very good times. I met someone extraordinary and got married, I began painting as if it was a gift dropped on my head, and I came to Wikipedia and grew in thirty different ways during this decade.
Here's hoping more knowledge and understanding does not mean the same amount of sadness also comes with it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
How wonderful it is to receive a Christmas greeting from Moni3! I think that one of the best things that happened to me WP-wise was gaining you as a wiki-friend. You inspire me to give back to this project. For 2010, I will venture into Sesame Street and Maya Angelou FACs, and will look forward to following your exploits as well. Hope that you and yours have a blessed holiday, too. Thank you. --Christine (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, what she said. I wish we could come down to Gainesville this week, but with so little time off from school (and so many people traveling at the same time) it's just not in the cards. So have dinner at La Fiesta for me, and have yourself a merry little Winter Solstice. Cheers! Scartol • Tok20:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this the queue? Shall we break into a rousing rendition of Jingle Dogs/Cats or something? Feliz Navidad, Moni! Have a holly, jolly Christmas. Make the yule-tide gay. (Okay, I'm all out of Xmas songs, promise.) 2009 has been crazy-busy for me -- in a good way -- but 2010 is looking a lot less hectic, which will hopefully lead to some interesting wiki endeavors. :) When are you in town? We should totally meet up. María(habla conmigo) 21:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
We're doing the red train in St. Augustine tonight. Hope you know what that means. We'll be doing that around 6 pm, I think. Otherwise, we'll be in the area until the 26th and back again from the 30-31. What do you think? --Moni3 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
We will have the roasted beast with a few family members and make merry. I wish that all of you could come by and enjoy a quaint Northern Idaho Christmas. Don't worry--we're in a college town that makes Idaho a little bluer, so you gays are safe. Love-love! ;) --Christine (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Mutual about getting to know you here, Christine. I spent many happy years in Colorado enjoying the holiday season there and it is indeed a beautiful time, just as I imagine Idaho is. Once I drove 30 minutes through Idaho.... It's just as beautiful here, though. Wish you could see the old part of St. Augustine lit up completely, palm trees and all.
And to Scartol, please let me know the next time you are down here. I hope your real life work load lets up somewhat. I miss seeing you around here regularly. --Moni3 (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Moni, I hope you had a wonderful Christmas! (And the whole slightly drunken thing would have fit in very well at my family gatherings...it's actually required at one of them ;)) Here's to 2010 being a much less stressful wiki-year. Karanacs (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Casliber, that's southern Idaho; I'm talking Northern Idaho, which is way better and prettier than the more drier parts of the state. I'm not a native, but only moved here six years ago from California, and have never looked back. There are seasons here! There are no ugly times of the year here, unless you count the times when the snow's melting and black from the road salt. Then a nice rain comes and it's pretty again. The fall, which is my favorite time of year, can be breathtaking with the colors when the trees change. Actually, that's when I fell in love with little ole' Moscow, Idaho. Wouldn't live anywhere else in the world. Plus, the services for the kids are probably the best in the country. Affordable, eclectic, diverse, and close enough to bigger cities like Spokane and even Seattle. The only thing I miss is the really good restaurants, although there's a new sushi place that just opened up in town that's not half-bad. --Christine (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I like Seattle, so if that ain't too far, it ain't half bad ;) sounds lovely - I have family tying me down to urban living so am jealous of those that can afford acreage of some sort. We did drive up and take a look at Mt St Helens in 1991, which was amazing....Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've dreamt of Wikipedians whom I've never met before, making it an awkward discussion with shadow-people since my mind cannot picture them.
Last night I dreamt I was being accused of making up the shit in Birmingham campaign. Rather, and more accurately, Wikpedia was being accused of exaggerating the events of the article and it was about to be placed up for deletion. It was a struggle to make reasonable statements refuting these accusations, and not stooping to calling the accusers the idiots they were. I lost that struggle a few times. --Moni3 (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Moni. I saw your vote at Julian's RfB, and it seemed...inconsistent to me. Looking at a past couple of successful RfBs, I don't see any similar oppose of yours at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/MBisanz, or Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 3. While it is perfectly fine to just oppose one candidate for lack of work in contentious areas, neither Nihonjoe, MBisanz, or Avraham had substantially more work than Julian in a contentious area (and indeed, they all have far less total content work). Other stuff does exist, and all that, but still, I'm not sure if it is quite fair to single out Julian for lack of content work. Feel free to respond; I would be happy to discuss this further. Best regards, NW(Talk)22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting and challenging question and has no simple answer. But here are my multiple answers nonetheless. I did not vote in those RfBs because I did not know they were happening. I am just that deliberately sheltered. I used to have the RfA page on watch, but that drove me nuts and dumped it. I only saw that Julian was up for bureaucrat because I tripped over it on someone else's talk page. This happened both times.
So if you prefer consistency, then under what parameters? Should I vote in all RfBs? Is it my duty to do so? Is my !vote and related commentary invalidated because I miss one or all other RfB votes? Ever the quiet rebel that I am, I just posted what I thought. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense to me. I was just wondering, would you have voted similarly in the other three cases? NW(Talk)23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
As a side note, I'm not sure I agree with your analysis of those earlier candidates. MBisanz was active as both an Arbitration Committee clerk and on OTRS before becoming a 'crat; both positions entail direct participation in some of Wikipedia's more challenging and controversial areas. Nihonjoe also had experience on OTRS. Avraham worked as an OTRS volunteer and checkuser, and furthermore was previously active on Israeli-Palestinian articles, which are some of this site's most controversial. MastCellTalk23:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Quite different cases. And like Moni3 I just trip across RfA/B cases, preferring to leave them to the Hounds of Hell who frequent such places. --MalleusFatuorum07:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
XMas Discussion
Greetings. I don't recall removing anything from the XMas discussion. If I did, I assure you it was inadvertent. I've checked the talk history but couldn't find anything. If you could help me out with more specifics, I'd be obliged so I could offer a public apology.
I also wanted to say thanks for rewriting the disputed passage. When I attempted to do so, I was reverted. Your rewrite, together with wikipeterproject's recent reorgs, is certainly a great improvement. My only remaining misgiving is that it still feels out of place. I would expect History/Usage of "X" for "Christ" to deal with historical usage, not controversy over current usage. As such, I think the second paragraph ("The word 'Christ' and its compounds....") would make a better lead-in. I proposed adding a separate section on Controversy, where I think the material under discussion would better reside, not only topically but because I think the controversy is significant enough to deserve a more detailed treatment. However I don't seem to have generated much interest. CNJECulver (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.
And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul."
And a very Happy New Year to you, too !!! I did wake up without a hangover, several times, in a bed strange to me, and that's as far as I went with that :) I ran my tail off from one thing to another, with no free time ... but accomplished eventually all I had to accomplish, and am looking forward to 2010! I hope you have a happy and healthful New Year ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
For the editor who always bring a smile to my face...
The Surreal Barnstar
You make Wikipedia a thoroughly enjoyable place to edit. Your humor lightens up the serious environment and reminds us of our absurdity. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
In appreciation of this prestigious award, I must say that coyotes in rocking chairs observe naked sloppy joes floating perfectly in bowls of plum juice. (Or, thank you!) --Moni3 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming forth with a detailed article on the Okeechobean. I think you'll find it interesting, My rough draft. Sorry about the citation I wiped out. Put it back in and fix it as you like. I'll proceed on with this and post it asap. Noles1984 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC) in frozen N. Florida.
You ain't whistlin' freakin' Dixie there, neither. Jiminy it's cold here. 25 degrees when I got up this morning. Let me take a look and get back to you. After I burn all my silverware to keep warm. --Moni3 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
It is even cold here....down to 18C...and it's summer. Still beats stinking humidity and the run of high 30s and humid days we suffered before Xmas...Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Moni3 wrote: "It is perplexing why only the Hawthorne Formation would be discussed (in the Geology and ecology of the Everglades article where only a brief summary of geologic issues exists) when other formations such as the Miami Limestone and the Fort Thompson Formation affect the soil and plant life of the Everglades more profoundly. I am not trying to own these articles, but maintain them with very high standards. Communicating what you are trying to achieve would be helpful. I am not opposing incorporating new or different information as long as it is well-cited and reliable and adds to the overall comprehensiveness of the articles."
Hi Moni... You are absolutely correct with respect to "soil and plant life". Other geological articles (stored) were to follow but maybe I was misplacing what I had written in the wrong article and should be on the 'glades article itself. I was trying to establish a more exact origin and explanation for the base of the Everglades with the Hawthorn Group entry as that is the first rock (that we know of) placed through carbonate disposition and overlying the basement rock. I will write articles on the Caloosahatchee Formation, Anastasia Formation, Miami Limestone, and the Fort Thompson Formation and link to the main Everglades article. Noles1984 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Moni, thank you for writing that article. After reading it I found the clip online (Youtube) and listened to it ... again, and again. It's ... indescribably moving. Just wow. Funny that you can get a doctorate in music and never learn this stuff; I guess we live in the era of compartmentalization. Anyway, lovely article. All the best -- Antandrus (talk)18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thank you for your comment Antandrus. Very much. I think you're not alone in not being aware of this song. I myself, being a big fan of blues, was not intimate with it and it registered as what I can only describe as background noise in films or other soundtracks until I heard it again in Walk the Line and set out to find it. There are some days I am unable to listen to it it's so lonely and sad. To think that some extraterrestrial life will get hold of it and what they might think of the planet and beings that helped form and create it is quite a thing to contemplate. But then, to think they will also get hold of the aria from The Magic Flute is also interesting...
Hi, I was wondering if you would like to work on an WP:LGBT related article with me to get it up to GA, in about a week or so? It is my only Wikiproject that I haven't gotten a GA in, and really haven't done a whole lot in, let me know. CTJF83chat20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Chicago, eh? I attempted to rewrite the Jane Addams article, but got sidetracked. A user is insistent that Addams should not be listed in LGBT people in the United States, or whatever that category is, and the cited paragraph about Addams' personal life was removed. Check the recent history back to August 09 of the article. The whole thing is a disaster. I started a sandbox here. There are, I think, two museums in Chicago dedicated to Addams or Hull House? What do you think? Someone else being involved may help me pick up the pace. --Moni3 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
That will work, especially if you are well on your way to getting it to GA. It may be a few days till I start (I'm getting the stitches out of my hand tomorrow, and not sure how long till I can type well), but I look forward to working with you. CTJF83chat20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I have to take a bunch of books back to the library and re-check out some books on Addams that I have already returned. (I hope they are available!) If you are in Chicago, images of Hull House or the Addams museum might be very good for the article. We can divide the work up between us, depending on your availability to sources. I can, for instance, work on her biography if you concentrate on Hull House and Addams' work in it. We can work on her pacifism together. If you have something else in mind, let me know. Let me know what you have access to in the way of books. I imagine the Chicago Public Library would have quite a bit about Addams and Hull House, as might the museums, although you may have to purchase those books...
Addams is a big topic, which is why the current state of her article is scandalous. It might take a few weeks or months to do this. You up for it? --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'm up for it, I also get more motivated when I'm working with someone. I actually live 2 and a half hours from Chicago, I just like it a lot cause it is a huge city, and a great gay neighborhood. We have an extensive library network here though, with books available to be sent to where I live from Chicago suburban libraries. Have you read The Gay 100 yet, or should I get it from the library. CTJF83chat20:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, Addams deserves an FA, so we should approach the sources and writing from there. I have a list of the materials my library has at the bottom of the sandbox. Not everything can or should be checked out, but we certainly should include the most comprehensive and notable sources. I am using the list at the bottom of the sandbox because that's what I have access to, but her museum or Hull House will be able to tell us which of these are the best. If there are some that are not listed, then let's discuss how we can incorporate those. I don't think I have The Gay 100, but if it is what I think it is, it's a compilation of specific information about the personal lives of historic figures. I have seen books like it like The Gay Book of Days. We can source Addams mention as #26, but for sources on her personal life, it is best to go to more comprehensive books or journal articles, like Faderman's Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, which I have. Faderman makes a point to discuss the way Addams' personal life is treated by historians. I will try to get to the library this week and check out Addams' autobiography Twenty Years at Hull House, and American Heroine: The Life and Legend of Jane Addams. I had two other books about her social activism and pacifism, but maybe I'll just cut back and concentrate on two books at a time. I have a tendency to try to read five at a time and I get frustrated when I can't read them fast enough... --Moni3 (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, If you are looking for a specific book, and your library doesn't have it, try this and I can get the book (make sure after the search the far right it says all libraries). I'll see what I can come up with on Hull House. Also, do you want to move our chat to User talk:Moni3/Chicago so we don't clog up your regular talk page? CTJF83chat01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
FAC reviews
While Amazing Grace is at FAC, I should be reviewing five to ten articles.
I was looking through the FA candidates, and saw your Amazing Grace one, where you said "and then all the sudden, in 24 hours, I had gotten all inspired to write this article". Out of curiosity, I sought to find where your edits started, and found the big rewrite and was impressed. As an added bonus, the edit summary—which I fully second—made me laugh out loud at 4:40 AM local time, in an apartment building where I live among many other families. Well done, Moni3.
What an awesome message to wake up to. Thank you very much. I'm so glad you enjoy the FAC intro at least (do let me know if you have opinions about the article as well). And we all know that Conservapedia can suck it. That should be reiterated often. Thanks again! --Moni3 (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Heh, no worries. We all see or miss things inexplicably. Yesterday I found out someone had changed the wording of a subheading to something ridiculous in an article I wrote months ago, and I had no idea... --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Signpost
Moni, awesome! The first thing I would suggest is a book review. I'm not sure what your interests and background are beyond a little bit of familiarity with your article work here, but this one might be really interesting: http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745328911& . Pluto Press has sort of a political science/sociology/critical theory/quasi-marxist orientation, I think, based on the two books I've read from them, and this book isn't specifically about Wikipedia but about the broader changes in learning and education that Wikipedia is emblematic of. If that doesn't catch your fancy, maybe something else listed at the review desk? If you'd like to do a book review, you can email me your mailing address and I'll request a review copy for you.
If you'd rather not do a book review, then let me know what aspects of Wikipedia, etc., that you care most about and I'll try to suggest something else.--ragesoss (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
2010 Haiti Earthquake
Moni, I am a little bit concerned as for the past flux of income external links in the article. If there's anything else we could delete there please, do the honours. I've been monitoring this section for the past 2 days. Thanks for what you have done. Great work ! Krenakarore (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I generally do not pay attention to external links in any articles, but I would need assistance keeping out the questionable links to potentially fake aid organizations and that weird headline one. Whatever you and other editors can do would help. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
He did (and initially deleted it from the parent article). I don't think he knows what he's doing. He split another from that one calling it Aftershocks of the 2010 Haiti earthquake which is up for speedy deletion. There may be some room to expand the Geology of the 2010 Haiti earthquake article, which is why I have not reported it. I hope someone good with geology may take it up. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw the new speedy criterea A10, and so labelled it with that. If there is to be a Geology article, it would be best to start over. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably. Terrible to say it right now, but as long as he leaves the parent article alone, the others can be dealt with when the main one is less hectic. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You probably already know, but both the articles you mention now re-direct to the main Earthquake article. ('one purpose' editors are so ....annoying! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
haiti images
thanx for the advice. please realize the reason I keep doing that edit, is because the pics look just as ugly when they are stacked on top of each other... so I will "stagger" them per MOS but please realize that is something you can do just as easily as me, instead of insisting on a revert to an ugly layout over and over. Thanks again. Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
lol please read the mos before you complain to me about your mis-comprehension of it... here's the exact quote "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left" so again thanx for your help... Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thanks a lot Moni for all your help at 2010 Haiti earthquake. Relief efforts and rescue will probably be closed by the Red Cross, so I think it's okay to wait for a motion, as that's usually what the Red Cross issues once there is no hope. Thank you for orchestrating the article to remain neutral, shaping it to keep reliable, and monitoring it. Maybe one day it'll be an FA of yours. ceranthor16:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. First and foremost, many thanks indeed for volunteering to help out with the educational assignment Magical Realism Reconsidered. As always with such projects, it is of course the responsibility of the students to take the lead in editing the chosen articles, and above all to do the research and contribute reliable sources. But any help, however small, that established Wikipedians can provide, perhaps above all in guiding new users unfamiliar with the technicalities and protocols of the encyclopedia, as well (at a later stage) with copy-editing suggestions and the MOS, is very much appreciated. Please, however, feel no compunction to go above and beyond what I know is your usual generosity on the site. The project's success or failure must depend in the last analysis on the effort that the students put in. But I know that they will be extremely grateful for anything you are able to do, and indeed it is ideally part of the project that they also learn to work with people such as yourself: they are contributing to a public site, and their ability to negotiate with other editors and deal with feedback is an integral part of the exercise.
My only suggestion is that, in line with the discussion here, you might want to indicate on the project page an article or articles that you are particularly interested in watching and helping with. Again, you should not feel you have to do this; we are pleased for you to aid the project in any way that you see fit. But it does help if a particular group working on a specific article feel that they have an experienced editor or two to whom they can turn in the first instance.
I've not forgotten. I've been involved in something a little too realistic. Magic might be a good diversion, but I found out I have a TFA in 10 days and I need to read a biography to make sure it's updated, and I've neglected almost all the other articles I've worked on. I even have an FAC up, but it's not getting any reviews. I promised to review a bunch and got sidetracked by the aforementioned article. I will pop in soon and pick an article in a week, hoping that the need to patrol this so vigilantly will have waned some. --Moni3 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, no problem at all. The last thing in the world I want is to harry you. I will try to return to FAC reviews shortly, so that I can be giving back, too... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Your note
Hi Moni, I looked at your guide, and it looks good, for "covering" a fresh natural disaster and perhaps other types. I think a major aviation (or transportation) accident does have a lot in common with most disasters during the first week, when there is a large influx of news reports and new editors, but after that there may be significant divergence. For example (I'll focus on aviation for simplicity), after an airliner crash there is often a "rush to judgment", typically based on speculation in local media and websites, which have limited (or unknown) aviation expertise. Since there are often living persons affected by what we write, as well as grieving victims families, it is critical to keep this speculation off our pages, and focus on the highest quality sources, esp. for technical issues. Major transportation accidents will typically be followed by litigation, with victims lawyers suing all individuals and companies they consider responsible. This may lead to even more intense pressure on the wiki article, since every word may affect potential jury pools, and this responsibility requires us to be even more careful in what we say. Another key difference from natural disasters is the official investigation, which begins immediately after a transportation accident (a "Go Team" is typically sent to the scene within hours), and continues for many months, often years, until a final report is produced. It is usually best to stick to the interim reports of the official government agencies, even though they may be sparse and terse, and avoid media speculation about technical issues, since the latter is often wrong in the long term. WP:BLP can become a key issue, as some editors may be eager to assign early blame to individuals or organizations based on some lawyer's statement, or speculation in a news report. In general, we should avoid interpreting primary sources (e.g. detailed technical reports) ourselves, esp. for any contentious BLP issues, and use the highest quality secondary sources (e.g. widest circulation mainstream publications) to give us the big picture. As bottom line, there are many similarities early on, but transportation accidents are generally caused by a chain of human errors, and the focus of the article, which soon shifts to the investigation process, is different from natural disasters. It may make sense to separate natural disasters from transportation or man-made ones (e.g. Bhopal?), and perhaps a separate one is needed for breaking major transportation accidents. Let me know if I can help any further. Crum375 (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed comments. Perhaps a section about transportation or man-made disasters, such as Bhopal, should be added, and you are more than welcome to do so if you are interested. Otherwise, I can take your comments and try to integrate them into the guide, or change the guide if you think it's better, to reflect natural disaster articles. I'm interested in what you think, so please let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The extent of Crum's comments make me think you might want to find hurricane and flood experts as well, since they may also have some differences. Moni, I looked at the article, and was shocked that such a new article, with mainpage coverage, is in such beautiful shape. Congratulations ... I'm glad you're back in the saddle, carving out a new niche. (Speaking of niches ... apparently I've got a new one as well ... see my talk.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll consider your suggestions about hurricanes and floods, Sandy. I should make it clear that the article is not in the shape it is because of me. There are a score of editors who deserve barnstars for what they have done. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking that floods and hurricanes may present some different issues because, unlike earthquakes and airline crashes, we usually know they're coming, so there is advance preparation. User:Titoxd and User:Juliancolton would be the editors to ask about hurricanes, and the only editor I know who has done some work on a flood is User:Kablammo, although that's not his usual editing area. He may know others. Maybe you can ping them to look in on this discussion, so they can see the type of feedback you're after, relative to Crum's response? You might also peruse Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management and its talk page for guidelines or helpful editors. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Citations
Hello, and thanks for the note you put on my page. I personally prefer cite templates because they include everything that can be added to that type of citation...so the benefit is that if you find additional information about a particular source at a later date, you can easily insert it in the appropriate location. Just FYI, I use this tool to help with citations: [18] -- WhaattuSpeakwhat iDone19:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Why I deleted this sentence
I removed the following sentence from 2010 Haiti earthquake which I think (the edits move so fast!) you re-inserted after I deleted previously?
Inured by generations of political instability and corruption, many Haitians took the lack of authority in stride, using the Creole proverb "Grés kochon ki kwit kochon'" or "the pork has to cook by its own fat" to explain that they had to take care of themselves.
Anyway I'd just like to explain why - I think it fails WP:ASF. The words "Inured by generations of political instability and corruption" and to a lesser extent "many Haitians took the lack of authority in stride" are opinions. Yes, they are in the reference given, but we musn't regurgitate other source's opinions, only use the source to support our statement of facts. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there's some way to include this that supports the multiple sources that have stated Haitians are fending for themselves because they're used to doing it. I'd like to work on rewriting the sentence. I just got home from a 12-hour work day and I can't do it tonight, but there is value in putting their culture of coping with unreliability in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, I was working on another article for a while. There needs to be more of a response. It should be GA, but it will not be until the people involved in it actually agree to work toward a common goal. That has yet to happen. --Moni3 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
There were 6 people who signed up. With me 7. We can find one or 2 more perhaps. That looks enough, especially if you participate instead of being a coordinator. Phoenix of923:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe at least 15-20 should work on it doing small tasks. There are active editors who participate on the talk page or make substantial edits who did not indicate their interest for whatever reasons. I'm not interested in organizing an effort to be opposed by individuals who create roadblocks. Even the article's vocal opponents should participate. I will not write the article myself. I'm not even interested in writing sections of it. If you think you can get the 6 of you to take on much larger tasks, then good. But I cannot overstate how much work will go into reading and writing for this topic. --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Re Mass Tagging
Hello Moni3,
Answer at your convenience as I see you are very busy with 2010 Haiti earthquake & I am way overdue to sleep as I am in Australia!
Somewhere in my meandering around the 'dark' corridors of Wikipedia I came across your concerns about mass tagging of the ABBA article (23:04, 20 December 2009). I later found a fix I made to a reference at Port-au-Prince had been 'messed up' by the same editor (not the only one either.) Have you been able to keep an eye on this?, as I have found the same tagging happened at 221B Baker Street.They are also marking every edit 'minor', which seems incorrect from my 'enquiries'.
Noticed I have contacted you before re Geology of the 2010 Haiti earthquake (memory ....going? :-o ) Surprised how many article 'spinoffs' from Haiti quake (I count SIX!). Ramen!.
--220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moni3! I saw what you had written on the WP: MRR talk page and thought I'd let you know that our groups are currently creating a bibliography list and we'll then begin to add information to our respective articles. Look for new additions soon!! :) If you are interested in helping with the Alejo Carpentier page, that would be great! Let me know if you'd like us to contact you when we need some help. Thanks for your interest in our class project! Katie322 (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
Wow, I just wanted to thank you for your amazing edits on Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill! I was one of the primary contributors, and haven't been keeping up with it for a few weeks. I just notice what you've done and wanted to say thank you! Great work! --Dan LeveilleTALK17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Everglades
To give you an excuse to take a break from Haiti, I finished the draft of an Everglades map, take a look and comment over on my talk page. Kmusser (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
