User talk:Moni3/Archive 4

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Image deletion questions

I must admit that I'm a little confused about the Marjory Stoneman Douglas photo. Is that really your upload? For whatever reason, I had thought it was done by Noles1984. In any case I explained the details to that user, along with a possible solution [1]. If that's not enough, please get back with me. Tim Ross·^talk 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Everglades National Park

I just want to say thanks for keeping such a good sense of humor about the FAC process (I laughed out loud at your lonely crocodile comment). Some editors have a hard time with the sheer volume of suggestions, and I know I dumped a lot on that page all at once. You've done a really good job on the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Yes, I also have a hard time being stubborn and thinking my writing and my thought processes that are logical to me should be shared by the rest of the English-speaking planet. I knew what I was in for when I put it up, though. Thanks so much for helping improve it! And won't someone please think of the crocodiles?? --Moni3 (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Gittings peer review

Hi Moni, I've just done a peer review for Barbara Gittings. I'm afraid biographies aren't really my forte, and quite frankly, it's a great article, so I couldn't find much! Copy editing's not really my thing either, so if there are any writing issues, hopefully someone else will take a look. I mentioned films & using IMDb for refs, it's probably best if there are articles to link to. I'll try & start stubs for at least some of them. --Beloved Freak 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reading it. I just wanted to make sure it seemed like a comprehensive story about her life, made sense, and didn't seem POV. I appreciate your input very much! --Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's all of the above. I'd definitely submit it for GA. --Beloved Freak 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Moni3 deserves this award for the extraordinary work put to improve the Everglades National Park‎ article. -- Alexf⁴² 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I appreciate it very much. I'm very glad you like the article. Still working on getting it to FA! --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your message. I appreciate the frustration (I've been there once or twice myself so I can empathise!). I'll take another look, both at your response at the FAC page and at the article itself and see if there's a way I can change in good conscience to support. However, I do want to make two things clear. First, that other peoples' supports (even those I respect immensely) cannot and will not ever persuade me to change my mind if I honestly think something is fundamentally wrong. This is different from other peoples' arguments, to which I am always open, even if I don't respect them! Secondly, I maintain that FAC is not the place to be working through huge amounts of problems with an article. I sympathise with you that you had a poor response at PR (that happens too often these days) and think you've had a harder time at FAC for it, particularly from me. Anyway, as I say, I'll take another look and see what I can do. I might also drop a line to one or two others and see if they'll take a peek. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Hi, I am working on expanding the dreadfully undersized Environment of Florida article (in User:Horologium/sandbox2), and I am aware of your contributions to related articles. I'd like to solicit any feedback you have on my proposed version (and any proposed additions or emendations you can suggest). Right now, my expansion is a little bit shy of the threshold required for a DYK feature, so if you have any suggestions for new sections, I'd love to hear them, as this is an interesting topic that certainly needs more coverage than what is currently in place. Horologium (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Nice article so far. I have to say one area I would address is land development, starting with the land boom in the 1920s in South Florida, and now Flagler County, Marion County, and St. Johns County. Has the Florida EPA or a non-government environmental group listed or prioritized their biggest environmental concerns for the state? That might be a good reference point. Perhaps National Geographic has addressed particular issues for Florida or regions in the state. I'm interested to see how the article progresses. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm finished. I added a big section on development, focusing primarily on the Everglades and the current boom in Flagler and St. Johns counties. The state Department of Environmental Protection website is a pain to navigate, so I was unable to find anything about prioritization, so that was a wash. I ended up adding sections about offshore drilling and desalination plants, though.

I found this section to be very difficult to write from an NPOV standpoint, primarily due to my dedication to free markets and small government. I tried to compensate, but I am not sure if I succeeded, went too far, or didn't go far enough. I'd appreciate some honest feedback on that issue, and would appreciate your assessment of factoids that might be useful for a DYK submission. I plan to push this onto Wikipedia shortly, replacing the stub that is currently in place. Horologium (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham campaign FAC

Hey Moni3, just thought I'd let you know that I've reviewed the article at FAC and added a few comments that I feel need to be addressed before I can support. Hope you find them helpful, feel free to let me know if you need anything more. Incidentally, while I'm not supporting right now, I did find the article to be extremely interesting, it's just the high FA standards mean that I can't support at the moment. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

TFA requests

Hi there Moni, I am afraid I have had to remove your request from the Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests for the time being. The instructions at the top explicitly state that only five requests are allowed at any one time. I know it can be frustrating, that is simply how the system works. Any questions can go on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Balls" is all I have to say. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I thought the same thing when I wanted one of mine up! Raul was planning on scrapping the whole system originally but this was something of a compromise. It was an unruly mess at one point with over 100 requests. You will just have to keep watching the page until there is a gap I'm afraid. Woody (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

TKaM review should be up this weekend

I just wanted to let you know that I am preparing a peer review for To Kill a Mockingbird, and I should post it some time this weekend (probably early Saturday). I apologize for the delay in my comments, and I hope they'll be useful. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 01:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's up. Please let me know if you have any questions. Good luck with the article! – Scartol • Tok 13:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feel the need to rush or leave little green check marks or anything; my suggestions are precisely that – suggestions. – Scartol • Tok 19:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Everglades National Park

Hi Moni, I saw your post on SandyGeorgia's talk page and I just want to say PLEASE don't get discouraged. FAC can be a royal mess sometimes, and the longer an article is listed, the more comments they get, and with more comments (commenters) you run the risk of ... interesting ... objections. I highly recommend that you follow Sandy's advice, and, if this closes without being promoted, wait a few weeks and nominate it again. The people who liked the article will likely support again, and you will probably get fresh eyes to look at it. You've done a great job on the article, and I think it can get to FAC, even if it doesn't right now. Good luck!!! Karanacs (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your support, Karanacs, and I'm impressed that you took the time and energy to write it. It helps. I don't intend to give the proverbial internet threat of leaving just so people will beg me to stay, however, it seems that FAC is a seriously flawed process that at times I cannot make any sense of. To nominate in a process like this is a bit foolish. To renominate when nothing has changed would be really, really foolish. I write freakin' awesome articles on a website accessible to millions. I've had my words plagiarized by some surprising people. I'm a nobody and it's fascinating to consider the impact my words have. That's why I contribute to Wikipedia. As it stands now, the FAC process is a noble goal and has made me a bit better but much less confident writer. Wikipedia has changed quite a lot since I started poking around here a couple years ago. I hope it has room to improve in this department. Again, thank you very much for your words. They mean a lot. --Moni3 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I know exactly how you feel. All I can say is: FAC tends to attract those with eagle eyes and razor-sharp claws to match. But you know – and those who read your work know – you have skills which are indispensable to this project. Besides, you understand how important the work is, so don't lose heart when the setbacks come. I agree that FAC is frustrating, but as we learn from each time through, we can head off future frustrations at the pass. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 13:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!! It's nice to see hard work pay off, and I thought you did an excellent job justifying your objections to some of the objections. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham campaign

Did not mean to slow down your approach to FAC; somehow did not check Discussion page first this time. My intentions were good, however. --Parkwells (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Please don't take offense that I reverted some of your edits. Thanks for taking an interest in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

FACs

I'm sorry things have been discouraging lately. I don't see much more I can do at Birmingham, but perhaps I can help with Everglades. I haven't yet had the time to review it, but I just glanced at it and I see some reference formatting inconsistencies. Would you like me to clean those up like I did with Birmingham? I know it's been pending for quite a while, and I'd hate to see it fail for something silly like formatting. I'd be happy to work on the references later tonight. If the FAC is kept open another day or two, I'll try to review it in full, as well. Maralia (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll be able to finish my copyedit this morning. If so, Maralia, how about you give it a final proofread when I'm done? Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. (I've left comments on the talk page.) It's all yours. – Scartol • Tok 15:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we nailed it. Una is the lone oppose remaining. Huzzah! – Scartol • Tok 12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, my pleasure. Can't wait to see that FA star. – Scartol • Tok 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the twofer. You're insane, running up two FAC's at the same time, but you managed to pull it off without killing anyone. (big grin) Good job. Horologium (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Other people were not the issue. Next time I do that remind me to kill myself. Thanks for the note! Now on to work on the massive and daunting Everglades article. Holy crap. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		In recognition of your three FAs. Thank you for your devoted contributions. And for not throwing your laptop out the window. Keep up the good work! – Scartol • Tok 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scartol. Here's to another in our future working on To Kill a Mockingbird....faaaarrrr in the future right now... --Moni3 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham campaign is now an FA!

I'm so pleased to see that Birmingham has been promoted. Your research and writing, and your efforts at FAC, have resulted in a great article. It's been a pleasure to work with you. Good job! Maralia (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That was...eerie. Your message ping came up when I hit save page here, on my message to you! Thanks for the sweet note; it really does mean a lot to hear that my efforts are appreciated at FAC :) Maralia (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ROCK ON!!! Thank you again. Clearly, it would not have passed without your help. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Congratulations! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks so much for your assistance, Carcharoth! The photos you got for the article appeared on my birthday. That was like a present. --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

psst

You have both an FA and GA link to Ann Bannon up top (on your userpage), and you don't have a link to her in your LGBT list at the bottom. Horologium (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I created her article. It's under "Articles I created". I have an evil plan. --Moni3 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To kill a bird

Hi Moni, I would be delighted to look in on such an important article and I owe you after your helpful review of Ryan White. I have a few other reviews I need to do first, but will hopefully have something useful to say within the week. --JayHenry (talk) 06:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Moni,

It's an excellent article! :) I've been making minor changes here and there, to (hopefully) clarify things that might be unclear for readers unfamiliar with the novel. But you should revert whatever you don't like of my changes! :)

Some broader points:

I think the first section on "Background and composition" might benefit from more details about Harper Lee and the chronology of events that led to the novel? I'll try to add a few details, so that you can see what I mean.

I wasn't clear what Truman Capote meant by "apart people"? I'd thought he meant that he and Harper were set apart from other people in their world, not from each other. That's why I was a little confused by the clause preceding it, "Although they became very good friends"?

Hoping that this helps, Willow (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for looking at it. I've been reading your changes. Your take on what Capote said about "apart people" is accurate. I think in the many edits from various folks have obscured the meaning a bit. I'll see if I can add more detail about Lee's writing of the novel. I appreciate your assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The "Genres" section is awesome! :)

I'm not quite following the sense of the first paragraph of "Legal allusions"? Actually, the whole section might do better under "Themes", don't you think? It seems to be about the role of law in the novel. The section about Atticus as a role model for lawyers might do well under "Reception"? It doesn't seem to be a stylistic element. Willow (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments on the Genres section. Scartol gave some good suggestions for that. For the legal allusions and section about Atticus, that poor section has been moved, deleted, re-added, re-arranged so many times it's a miracle it's still in English. I am no longer able to tell where it should go and anticipate it will be cut and re-arranged again half a dozen times. I feel they belong in the article, so any suggestions would be appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Moni,

I have to dash off now, but I'll stop by again tonight or tomorrow. I just now looked over the previous FAC, to set my brain whirring overnight, and was initially a little surprised to see Awadewit's name there. She does set very high standards, to be sure, but I think you'll be happier with the article in the long run. I remember, I was a little aghast at all the things she found wrong at the FAC for Encyclopædia Britannica, which I'd been working on for months. But I was also really grateful, and it's turned into a wonderful friendship. I'll try to engage the awesome microscope of her analytical gaze on your article before it goes to FAC, as a kind of pre-emptive innoculation against any other criticism. ;) I think she's rather swamped right now, but she might be kind enough to do us the favor. :) Willow (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your assistance. It was a good thing that I concentrated on some other articles and let this one sit for a while, putting it up in some peer reviews. I have no hard feelings for Awadewit. I recognize the article in its state during the first FAC was not ready, but I'm really stubborn and don't want to believe things sometimes. I'm going to name that "Atticus Finch in the legal profession" the Great Wandering Section. Its Gypsy ways will take it other places before the end of all of this, I predict. Thanks so much, again!--Moni3 (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise it was undergoing intensive work - I just happened to be reading it. I'm interested in this partial reversion though [2]. Which bit was particularly requested at peer review? Yomangani ^talk 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Yomangan. No worries about the edits. I realize it's a hugely popular book and lots of people take a great interest in it. The article has had three peer reviews and an FAC. This is the latest peer review, and the request was by Scartol to expand how Tom and Atticus escaped the lynching attempt. Maralia is updating the references on my request. I hope to nominate this again for an FA soon. I apreciate your understanding. --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah OK, though I think you are straying into interpretation rather than plot summary there. Some things I maybe misremembering, so I'm not confident enough to change, but believe are incorrect. Feel free to ignore me if you know they are right:

Jem and Scout are then subjected to the taunts of "nigger-lover" from other children. I think Scout is subjected to taunts that Atticus is a nigger-lover by Francis, and I'm pretty sure she reports that somebody else called him a nigger-lover later in the story, but that doesn't equate to both of them being taunted as nigger-lovers.
Scout is tempted to stand up for her father's honor by fighting them, even though he has told her not to. She does fight Francis, and I don't remember Atticus specifically telling her not to (though it feels like he should have done somewhere).
They eventually settle on the story that Ewell simply fell on his own knife during the struggle with Jem and Scout. - the wording here is weak. Atticus accepts this version only when Heck Tate insists on it regardless of whether Atticus agrees, and there is no mention of the struggle in Tate's version. Yomangani ^talk 01:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Both Francis and Cecil Jacobs taunt Scout. At the beginning of chapter 9, Scout fights Cecil after he spread it around school that Scout's daddy defends niggers, and later, Scout says he also said, "My folks said your daddy was a disgrace, an' that nigger ought to hang from a water-tank." (p. 87) That Jem is taunted isn't readily described, but Cecil's comments are close enough to Francis' to apply. Atticus said to Scout, "You will hold your head high and your fists down. No matter what anyone says to you, don't let 'em get your goat. Try fighting with your head for a change...(also, p. 87)

The issue with Boo Radley killing Bob Ewell is left open to interpretation and difficult to pin down. However, p. 317, Tate claims the reason he's resisting Atticus blaming Boo for Bob Ewell's death is that it would yank Boo into the limelight, not cause him legal problems. After Tate leaves, Atticus asks Scout if she understands why Tate said so, and she agrees with him, bringing back his own words about killing a mockingbird.

The plot summary was unwieldy and clumsy before I began to edit the article in earnest. Keeping it very simple and streamlined, with few references to all but the major characters is a deliberate act of editing.

Thank you for caring about the article enough to make these points. --Moni3 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an impressive knowledge of the book you have there. Some suggestions for rewording those sentences in light of what you've said above and a quick glance at the book this morning: Jem and Scout are then subjected to taunts that their father is a "nigger-lover" from other children - more accurate and ties it to the next sentence about Scout fighting for Atticus' honour. Scout is tempted to stand up for her father's honor by fighting them, until he tells her not to - since there is no fighting after Atticus' warning. Atticus eventually accepts the sheriff's story that Ewell simply fell on his own knife. - indicates that Tate rather than Atticus is the driving force behind that version (I think "they…settle" somewhat undermines Atticus' morality), and leaves the out the mention of the struggle in that story as the book does.

I still don't like that For his part, Atticus faces a group of men intent on lynching Tom, but this danger is averted when the arrival of Scout, Jem, and Dill shames the mob into dispersing by forcing them to view the situation from Atticus' and Tom's point of view. After dispersing you are straying into interpretation. I don't think the mob sees the situation from Atticus' point of view (and certainly not from Tom's). I've always seen that as Scout's "speech" about Walter and the entailments reminding them of their individual humanity outside of the mob mind that has brought them to the jail, but since that's my interpretation I wouldn't include it in a plot summary. Also, there is debate over whether the movie is in the public domain, so you need FU rationales for the pictures unless you can find a definitive answer (in which case a picture of Boo or Scout as a ham would make nice additions-I can do screencaps for you if need them). Anyway, I'll leave it to you now as I'm sure you have enough to deal with if you have many people looking at it. Good luck with the next FAC attempt. Yomangani ^talk 11:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, almost left it alone. Perhaps a better pic of a mockingbird? Yomangani ^talk 11:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reset indent: My knowledge of the book isn't as impressive, more that I have to have it right next to me when I edit the article. This makes for hefty library fines for other articles, and hefty Amazon bills when I just say - screw it, I gotta buy this book. I changed the photo and the wording of Scout fighting, (Atticus tells her not to, then she beats up Francis), and Atticus accepting the sheriff's story. I need the book to check the next change. I believe the next day Atticus tells them at the breakfast table that the children make the mob see things from a different point of view, but I have to get the exact wording of that. I may end up changing it to the way you suggested - I just want to read it first. --Moni3 (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that Commons consider that the lack of a copyright notice on the film makes it public domain, so I've moved the court scene over there, and flagged the one here for deletion, so a FU rationale isn't required. Yomangani ^talk 16:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Hmp, maybe we need a police force of children...you children last night made Walter Cunningham stand in my shoes for a minute. That was enough." - Atticus, p. 179

Thanks for working with the photos. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Chirp chirp!

Thanks for catching my misguided Americanization of that word—it caught my eye while I was doing the ref formatting and I entirely missed that it was in a quote. The bulk of the references are in good shape now. There are about 10 or so that need more work (really not bad, out of 120+). I deliberately avoided actually reading more than required to format the refs, afraid that reading it piecemeal would handicap me in trying to copyedit it later. Probably silly of me, but you know how impossible it is to see something clearly when you've read it a zillion times. I'll put together a list of the problematic refs soonish. Maralia (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!! You are a rock star! Thanks so much. Let me know which ones just won't do and I'll see if I can fix them or what...--Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I have neglected you. I'll revisit the lingering ref formatting issues. I notice Awadewit reviewed the article in detail; has she (or someone else) already reviewed references in light of WP:RS? If not, I'll do that too. Also, would you drop me an email, if you don't mind sharing your addy? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Mona: I have been working with and on MSD for over 30 years. I think there should be a separate link to the original part of my research. What I found was something in the footnotes that refers to the hard to find original paper publication of my MSD bibliography. Please leave what I entered alone. I also have some other concernes about what you are saying that may be very incorrect and I will ask a friend who is even more knowledgable then I am to share his concerns. Again,Please Leave what I have Entered Alone. Please leave all three of my entries alone.

Thank your,

Rosalie E. Leposky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Releposky (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins FA

Hello Moni3. Thank you for your constructive suggestions. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

David Leavitt

Just a reminder to see if he's teaching at UF this spring? For a pic? Was surfing through the archives on an errand and came across that notice :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I contacted him and he didn't reply. I suppose I can try to hunt him down on campus and ask him, though. I may be that impressive in person... --Moni3 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Ann Bannon - I see that article is selected for Portal:Illinois - have you considered what other portals it could be a good addition for? May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Moni! You sure are racking up the commendations around here, and they're well deserved indeed. I'm looking forward to working on TKAM - scroll up a few sections; I think you missed my last note :) Maralia (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, yay! That's very nice to be noticed by other editors. Rock on. Thank you, Cirt. Maralia, I apologize for missing your note up there. Thank you very much for giving those references another once-over. I'm going to be doing some work on that article within the next week (finally), and then it's going back up for FAC. I appreciate your time and attention with TKaM! --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I created the Clarence Lightner article and was wondering if you see where improvements could be made before I submit it for DYK. I see you've written some DYK articles before, so your opinion would be appreciated. The one thing I'm trying to figure out before I submit the article is whether or not he was the first African-American mayor in the South, or first in the South with a white majority. It's kinda explained on the talk page. If you get a chance, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. (I don't know why I'm stressing about that article, I guess it's because it will be my first trying for DYK and I want to make sure I get it right.) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, as soon as I wrote this I notice HouseOfScandal is now looking at the article. He's a DYK beast. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I submitted one DYK successfully, almost by mistake, and several unsuccessfully. DYK is too rule-laden not to give me headaches. Ironically for someone who doesn't like rules, I do have 3 FAs and 6 GAs. If you're interested in submitting your article for these processes, I can give you some tips. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What are some good tips for DYK? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Make it an interesting fact. Make sure in an editing program that has a Word Count function like MS Word that it's less than 200 characters long. It has to be cited. I would submit something like: ...that Clarence Lightner, the first black mayor of Raleigh, was elected by a white majority in 1973?

Felicia "Snoop" Pearson vs. Felicia Pearson

Hey Moni, you said you tagged Felicia "Snoop" Pearson for the LGBTproject, but I think you meant to tag Felicia Pearson. The first article is about the fictional character, the second about the actress that portrays her. Aleta ^Sing 01:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You watch the show? I'm in the 4th season, watching the final episode. Bunk Moreland has Snoop and Chris on the step ready to arrest them, laughing. He says, "I'm thinkin' about pussy." She says, "Me too." I haven't seen the 5th season yet. Is there any evidence that says she's not? --Moni3 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know anything about it. I was just going by the articles. I didn't see anything in the character article about her being lesbian. Did I just miss it (entirely possible)? Aleta ^Sing 01:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Sadly, Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been abducted by the Easter Bunny's evil cousins, Frank and Billy Ray. But don't let that stop you from having a great Easter! Cheers. The one and only ----> AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mockingbird Cover Art.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

TKaM sequel: The Deadly Arts? ;)

Hi Moni! :)

I see that you got a Triple Crown — congratulations! Although I think you'll be up for sainthood once you shepherd TKaM through FAC... ;)

I'm newly returned from bailing my sister out (long but fun/funny story), and I see that you're about to put TKaM up for its candidacy! :) I'll try to help as best I can, although right now I don't want to do anything lest I damage it. If you'd like, I could read through it or anything else that'd be helpful to you.

A friend wrote to me just now asking whether I knew anyone artistic who might like to help longer-term with an art/art-history article. I thought of you right away, once TKaM is finished, but I also had some reservations because he's interested in a rather far-flung corner of Art. He'd like to make an article for funerary art (which is only a redirect right now) with more of a multi-cultural and historical viewpoint. It might not interest you, but it could be cool, too; we all meet death, first our beloveds' and then our own, so it's very human to, ummm, deal with it artfully. When I was only a little younger, I thought about making pretty coffins for young people that their friends could decorate, like they do with their casts when they break an arm or leg. I haven't followed through, and it's a little strange, I know, but I think it's very important that we can say goodbye in a good way. Anyway, would you be at all interested in helping him out? If not, that's totally cool. Hoping all's well, Willow (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Funerary art is something I know very little about. That hasn't stopped me from writing articles before, though. I'm intrigued a bit.

I would very much appreciate your assistance with TKaM, whatever you can do. Right now there are a couple of editors new to the project who are keen on adding information about first edition "points". It's the first paragraph in Reception, and I think it doesn't belong. When I questioned its place in the article on the talk page, one of them suggested 75% of the themes information should get cut. I was stunned. Perhaps someone else's opinion would be beneficial - particularly someone who knows what goes in a literature FA.

Bailing your sister out? Of jail? I'll have to hear that story some day... --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

semi-protected

Moni, 72.76 has started on your page now, so I semi-protected it for 5 days. Aleta ^Sing 21:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the diligence. Who knew I was such a polemecist? I was so happy sticking to articles that no one ever contests.--Moni3 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A humble, tentative "knock knock"

Hi Moni3! Willow mentioned that at some point you might be willing help with User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art‎.. BUT.. she also stressed that you are deeply involved with To Kill a Mockingbird at the moment!

That is one of my favorite novels! It richly deserves FA... So please don't even cast a glance in my general direction until that work is done.. and in fact, not until anything else important on your dance card has been completed as well...

But, if you have any free time LATER, would you mind taking a look? many thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I took a quick glance at the article and it looks very interesting. I would like to assist if I can. It's true, TKaM is about to be nominated as a Featured Article Candidate, and that might take some wrangling, but I don't mind getting more involved in Funerary art when I get a chance. Do you plan to cover mourning photographs or graveyard sculpture, such as what adorned the cover of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil? I understand the statue became such a tourist attraction after the book was published that the City of Savannah had to remove it from the Bonaventure Cemetery and put it in the Museum of Art. Just curious. I'll keep an eye on your article and give it some scrutiny soon. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Moni3,
One day I discovered quite by accident that Funerary art is a redirect to Church monument. Now, the latter article is very nice, but far too limited in global and historical scope to qualify as a legitimate redirect for "funerary art". So the current effort in my userspace is an attempt to give the topic a more thorough treatment— especially in terms of greater global coverage, but as within a very rough and highly abridged timeline.
Mourning photographs probably would not be relevant, unless my definition of "funerary art" is incorrect (and it may be).
I think graveyard sculpture would be, but we don't have a Modern section yet. If we don't add one, then the article should be named "Ancient funerary art." I think adding a Modern section would be preferable.
Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

TKAM

You should really be proud of it, it's great work. Not to burst your bubble (!), but for some reason contemporary literature on Wikipedia has not gotten a tremendous amount of attention at the highest levels of quality. If you look at Wikipedia:Fa#Literature and theatre many of the recent works are older FAs and most of the best FAs are the older works. Not sure why that is really, but regardless it's nice to have a recent work of such high quality, even for an FA in my opinion. --JayHenry (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I love the caption on your image in the top right corner of this page! I hope it's not information getting decapitated, but some days I'm definitely not sure which side is winning... --JayHenry (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that other influential books of the 20th century: Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, and The Grapes of Wrath, for example, have not been given the attention they deserve. I hope someone will come along and love those articles up like they should be. No worries, though. Thanks for the caption comment, too! Cheers! --Moni3 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given the article my full support at FAC but I want to congratulate you less publicly here. I re-read the novel in between my first and last comments, (- a dusty, browned copy I have had for many years), and I really appreciated the new insights the your article brought to the reading. I hope my nit-picking didn't stress you. Thank you for a really enjoyable couple of days. Best wishes. Graham. --GrahamColm ^Talk 15:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have yet to see just how much this novel means to people and how pervasive its lessons have been. JayHenry pointed me toward the hit counter for articles, where I was almost horrified to learn that the article gets between 120,000 and 148,000 hits a month - more than a million a year. Contributing psuedo-anonymously makes me tend to think no one ever reads what I write. I very much appreciate your taking the time to read the article and making such generous statements about it. Anything that can be done to make the article its best is appropriate, so I don't consider your comments nitpicking. Thank you once more, GrahamColm. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Award

		The Literary Barnstar
		For your unflagging efforts to make To Kill a Mockingbird one of Wikipedia's best articles, I award you this tiny token of the community's esteem and gratitude. We need more editors like you, who are willing to take the time to do serious research and to pore over their prose. Thank you very much. Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I second this award. Your dedication and hard work are inspiring to us all. And thank you kindly for the lovely gift of the bird – more pleasant to look at than any barnstar. (Except that literary barnstar. WOW, that's well-designed!) – Scartol • Tok 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"A thing of beauty is a joy forever." Keats, via Mary Poppins. I wish I were as handy with visuals as you. I'd put the bird on a star. --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems I steered you wrong with claims of the movie being PD. I'll understand if you want your mockingbird back. =) Alas, I guess it'll have to be fair use rationales, or no images from the film. Sorry again. – Scartol • Tok 11:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah, you guys all beat me to it...well done on the booky-barnstar...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!! --JayHenry (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG! You must feel radiant. :) Willow (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I did my happy dance last night. I'm pretty stoked. Think Harper Lee would care at all? I actually have no idea. Love the poem, by the way, and the little sneak-in reference to Ruth and Naomi. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who helped with it. And many thanks to those who have read it. It's very neat that it's featured. Yay!--Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on a fine piece of work. --Dystopos (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dystopos. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)