User talk:Moni3/Archive 11

I see you've been a busy girl...
 APK  lives in Dupont and Gomorrah  15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you, APK. I need some columns. I shall keep them to...support stuff. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Epidemiology of infections in women
Moni, do you have a full copy of this paper? (PMID: 18954753) Graham,Graham Colm Talk 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm dipping my toes in searching for medical information. I'm using med databases for the first time. I probably do have access to it, but I just don't know right yet how to find it. Let me see if I can use the PMID number to access it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Omg. Yes I have access to this article. I used it already. It's cited. Doiii. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw the citation, that's why I asked. :-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * HSV 2, is the more commonly sexually transmitted type, but both types are. Why do you specify HSV 1? I'll check the other, non-microbiological, stuff tomorrow, when I'm back at the hospital. Graham Colm  Talk 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of more frequent orogenital practices, they may also be at higher risk of HSV type 1 (Frenkl TL - Urol Clin North Am - 01-FEB-2008; 35(1): 33-46; vi) I also made a change to the BV info per your nudge. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's move this discussion to the Talk Page. Graham Colm Talk 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn't they all die?
I can't believe it's another round of suicide cults! Let me know if you want another witness. BTW, have you considered an auto-archiver for your talk? -- Banj e b oi   02:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should probably get that reference to suicide cults, but I don't so help me from feeling hopelessly stupid. Clue, please. I archive my own talk usually, but I've been lazy. Getting it auto-archived would lead me to think I am far above my station, regardless that this is apparently my day. But I shall archive soon. Are you keeping track of the rewrite? --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Milk film drama - just simply must include Jones. I haven't been watching that hot chick action as I've been a bit stressed on some other articles and just do bits here and there. That talkpage had some trolling issues as well so I want to keep clear a bit unless needed. -- Banj e  b oi   02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitehouse.gov
Moni, have you seen http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/? Amazing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, yes. Yes, I did. I viewed that bad mofo around 12.30, 35 minutes after it had switched over, and an hour and a half after I plaintively pleaded on his facebook page to 1. restore the Everglades, 2. overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and 3. overturn DOMA. I don't particularly agree with that civil union bullshit, but it's a hell of a lot better than a constitutional amendment to crap on American citizens.
 * Strong language on:
 * Irony, since Bush was so very concerned with this sort of thing in his presidency, that he so effectively fucked this country in the ass with a sandpaper dick. With extra lemon juice to Mary Cheney.


 * Strong language off.


 * A coworker described taking an airplane out of Venezuela to be rid of Hugo Chavez. The relief she felt, she said, was indescribable. It's like gauze has been lifted from my brain, cobwebs sucked out, and I realized I shared a national depression with millions of others. People I thought I was isolated from. Good for all of us. --Moni3 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * :( When you get rid of Chavez, you miss the friends, too ... speaking of a national depression shared with millions of others, and people I'm isolated from :( Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hard to gauge - or really pointless, I suppose - how my anger and those in Venezuela is comparable. Anger is anger. I just recognized mine as a soul dropped in deep water, drifting down through darkness and loneliness, realizing nothing I could do would help me get closer to the surface. In reality, millions of people were in the same dark sea, but we were unable to find each other, and in the rare instances we did, I wonder if we didn't drift apart, just knowing it would be for nothing. This is from eight years of living. I cannot imagine being born into generations of this kind of detachment. --Moni3 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * :( Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Was a conscious choice for me to stay away from Major Depressive Disorder when it as up for FA. My reasons may be obvious. --Moni3 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not I; I just don't like being forcibly separated from friends and never being able to find my way back; always some damn referendum or something. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Newsletter
Please note User_talk:Lee_Stanley. Thanks -Lee Stanley (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhere there's a don't deliver list for the LGBT newsletter. If I find it I'll holla. -- Banj e  b oi   14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did it just go out? Clearly I didn't write it if it did. This note confuses me. --Moni3 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol. I wasn't aware if it did or they just wanted to give you a heads up if you send another. No worries. -- Banj e  b oi   14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

James Whale
If you have some time in the next couple of days, can you take a look at the article and comment at the FAC? I totally understand if you're busy but I believe your feedback would be invaluable in moving along what may be a stalled discussion. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Raccoon image
Hello, in the FA nomination of the raccoon you requested a source for the information ("image of a raccoon depicted in artifact found at Spiro Mounds, in Oklahoma") given for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spiromoundsraccoon.gif Since I could not provide a source and there are already lots of other good images in the article, I removed the image. Another editor has re-inserted it into the article and I'm currently trying to remove it again. Your short input about the issue would be appreciated on the raccoon talk page. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Review request
Hi Moni. The input you've offered on some of my previous Texas Revolution-era articles has been invaluable, so I hope you'll have time to offer a bit more. I'm about done with To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World, about probably the most famous letter in Texas history. I've never written an article on a written work before, and this is not your typical written work either, so I'm guessing as to whether I'm following a layout that makes sense. If you have free time, could you please read over this and let me know what improvements I should make before an FAC nom? I'm not in any real hurry, and I really appreciate your help! Karanacs (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. My 18-month-old nephew is a petri dish of things you didn't know you could get. He's some kind of vessel for bioterrorists. I have fallen victim to him. I'll get to it soon. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you feel better soon. Your nephew must go to daycare.  My daughter was perfectly healthy the 9 months I stayed home with her; as soon as she went to school she brought home a new virus every week.  Look on the bright side: your immune system is toughening up, so soon you'll only get sick when it's a really awful bug that makes your head want to explode.  Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My students now turn in everything electronically. That way I don't get 25 different strains of the flu. :) It was, um, so funny when people would sneeze on their papers and then hand them in to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for an excellent review! You've given me a bit to think about and I am excited about looking for some of what you've asked for :) Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian/Woman
Would you by any chance have a copy? There's a bit on p. 345 regarding the program Gay Power, Gay Politics that would really benefit the article's push to GA but unfortunately Google books snippet view cuts it off. If you have the book and feel the inclination would you be so kind as to transcribe a couple of relevant sentences? It begins "They suspected CBS..." Thanks bunches! Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got it. It doesn't have an index, so it's a bit irritating. I'll check it out. What are you looking for in particular? --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Google Books it's on page 345 so even if you have a different edition it should be in that neighborhood. There's a bit that talks about how lesbians were reluctant to be interviewed for the program because they suspected that the producers had ulterior motives. The bit I'm looking for starts with a sentence that begins "They suspected CBS..." but I don't know how much there is because that's where G-books cuts it off. There's a mention of CBS on the next page as well. Anything in that page or two that you think looks relevant and that you're willing to type would be super. Best place for it would be the article's talk page. Thanks again; if there's ever anything I can help you try to track down let me know. Otto4711 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Caged Bird
Hey there Moni. Hope you're well, and that the Florida winter is .. well, less Hoth-ish than the hideous frozen desolation we've got here in Wisconsin. Anyway, I wonder if you'd have time to do a copyedit/quick review of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. We're trying to prepare it for FAC, and I think it's close. Thanks in advance! Scartol •  Tok  19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Scartol and Karanacs, both of your articles are on my list to read and give opinion on. I know I can't ask you to adhere to my schedule, but I'm trying to finish a rewrite of what I knew would be a leviathan, and I simultaneously want to review your articles and cannot seem to stop writing mine. Must...gack! If I know me, however, I'll get out of of this zone of productivity soon and wallow in a brief period of burnout...perfect for reviewing. Soon, I promise. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No pressure from my hand - whenever you have time. Article writing is more important. Karanacs (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Moni3, thanks for your review. I'm in the middle of addressing Awedewit's comments, and it's been kinda slow.  I will get to your feedback as time allows.  I started to read them over, and they look very helpful. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Everglades Nat'l Park Mangrove.jpg
File:Everglades Nat'l Park Mangrove.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Everglades Nat&. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bayard Rustin
Hi, very belated congrats on Harvey Milk. I've been kinda nudging folks for a while in the direction of Bayard Rustin. he's not cool/sexy/pop culture-ish, I guess, so he doesn't get much attention. it's an article that you might be able to work some magic on... later! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting, interesting. Definitely an article that should be brought to FA. What were you considering my input to be? Research? Content? Copy editing? I have to say for my short two years I've been on Wiki...or three? I can't remember...that I go through spurts of a month or so of fantastic productivity, followed by periods of urrrrggggggghhhhh with light copy editing and article reviewing, followed by wtf is that? and furious article rewrites fueled by righteous indignation. I am coming off more than a month of rewriting a large article, just posted yesterday. I can feel my attention span dwindling, and I have more to add to what I just posted. If it's content you're after, you may have to wait. You may be right in store for copy editing and reviewing. Unsolicited advice I can handle almost always. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this enlightening account of the Urrrrggggggghhhhh Cycle. I decided just today that I was also in the (at that point, unnamed) urrrgggh phase of this particular process. My attention span is short. I tried to create an article just yesterday, and after two or three sentences, I gave up. I am useless for content creation. The only thing I am useful for (here "useful" is a highly debatable term) is peppering FAC and GAN and various talk pages with comments, sharing my "folksy wisdom" with the masses. With that in mind, I don't know how I would contribute. Can you enlist help from other friends? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha. Folksy wisdom. Like Burl Ives. Just in peeking at his article, there appear to be multiple biographies. Whoever wants to tackle his article is going to have to read them. Serious to all God, I just finished reading 22 books (or large sections of books), numerous articles and various whatnot, and I can barely get through a sheet of paper right now. I have 4 more books to read. Timely, your question of enlisting assistance. Although this is clearly supposed to be a collaborative effort, this Wikipedia, I have found that unless one person pretty much takes the reins, the project may never get off the ground. Successful group efforts are rare indeed. You can solicit assistance at WT:LGBT, but my last request for assistance in a core article for that project was met with a lot of yawns. What's your time frame to do this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Burl Ives! I always thought he was pretty cool... No time frame at all... If any of those books are on Google books, then I can start verifying some facts. The problem with that is, I'd be afraid that whoever wrote the article might have missed something important. Reading&mdash;or at least seriously skimming, looking for omitted topics&mdash; is indeed highly desirable. I do not have access to any English-language books that are not on the Internet, though... Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oi! There's an awesome photo of Rustin singing with Josh White (as a member of "Josh White and his Carolinians") on page 140 of Wald, Elijah (2000). Josh White: Society Blues. Univ of Massachusetts Press. The rights apparently belong to White's family. Know anyone who has any credibility etc. who could write a letter to the Whites for GFDL license release (remembering to tell them that it is NOT ONLY for Wikipedia, and in essence, they are giving the photo away forever)...? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 08:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oi again (see above)! He gave a speech at the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism titled "Democracy and Terrorism" (others included Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, Jack Kemp, Menachem Begin, George Will, etc.) that's recorded in Netanyahu, Benjamin &  Yonatan,  Mekhon (1981). International Terrorism: Challenge and Response. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0878558942. Why is this guy's article a rather weak B-class? Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 09:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Know anyone with any credibility? Ling.Nut! I have written dozens of emails to people asking for permissions for images. I've spoken on the phone to just as many pleading my cause. I don't imagine Johnny Rotten asked his friends if they knew anyone who could play a decent guitar - he just played what he wanted to play. To some it sounded like shit, but to others it was awesome. Poop on credibility. Write a damn good letter, send it to White, and become the captain of your ship. I can find a draft of a letter I've sent if you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, i think you may have incorrectly placed...
...your comments on the discussion page of the water vapor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.232.193 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That depends on the intention of the editor who opened the discussion. I've never seen a format on Wikipedia such as on that talk page. So, going by what I guess was intended, and the operative word there is "guess", it seemed appropriate to me. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * on third reading i think i may be mistaken, confused by you comment on "FAB" image at the top, sorry 79.76.232.193 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you, thank you, thank you - for your comment on the Larry Sanger article!!! — Ched (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian

 * Heh. Yay. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL. I was gonna put a diff of your edits in the last 2 days so everyone could of seen the difference but the stupid template didnt let me. When you have the time and motivation, feel free to check out Gay and Homosexuality Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'd rather shove a steel rod through my head than take on Homosexuality. But then, I put off rewriting Lesbian for nearly two years. As ever, I encourage anyone to take on these articles themselves. It just takes a really good library, time, effort, and you know...the insanity... --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You forgot "…and the willingness to work in the certain knowledge that whatever you do will be overwritten within three days". –  iride scent  01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. We draw pictures in the sand. Between waves, someone might read a well-written article and be moved. --Moni3 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As User:Antandrus at WP:WikiSpeak put it in a rare burst of poeticness "A sandcastle on the shore of the sea of time. Within play dramas on miniature stages, as the actors argue over the exact position of each grain of sand, unaware of the approaching tide." –  iride scent  02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the producers of Days of Our Lives thought 1. their show opening is depressing and makes me think all life's actions are insignificant, and 2. they might color any future reference to time and sand, branding any such metaphors as soap opera-ish. --Moni3 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, your sand picture did move someone before the Days of Our Lives wave rolled in...and I've never seen Days of Our Lives anyway, so I'm allowed to ignore any soap-opera-ness! r ʨ  ana ɢ  talk/contribs 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been quoted! Yay! This is for your edification. I don't think I've ever seen an episode of this show, but that little opening sequence there was enough to tell me it was time to leave the room. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought amazon was a RS but ok, if u say u wont forget it... Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, wow. That's such a huge topic, and you've done such impressive work with it. Kudos to you as always. It's so odd that you'd ask me about Cousine Bette right now, because I'm about 3/4 of the way done with it. I have noticed some lesbian-esque themes, but I never know how much of it is my accurate perception, and how much is 19th century sisterly-type love (especially in that twisted book, where everyone is involved in some bizarre [bad word]ed up relationships with everyone else). I'll check through the criticism books, however, and see what I can find.


 * In the meantime, however, I would suggest actually looking into Emile Zola a bit. I remember some pretty heavy lesbian themes in his book Nana, but again it could be her desire to be close to women since she devours and destroys every man who comes chasing after her (because they just want to use her for her body and leave her as a bleeding corpse on her bed at the end of the novel). I'll be in touch. Scartol  •  Tok  23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nana was mentioned. I had a hard time trying to make a point while citing enough notable works of literature without going overboard. I used some interesting sources for this article. Bummer I'm not concentrating on 19th century French literature overall. It sounds so light and cheery. --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So I just finished Balzac's novel La Cousine Bette, which actually has some lesbian/queer themes in it. I came across this article by Michael Lucey, called "Balzac's Queer Cousins and Their Friends". If you like, I could probably throw in a paragraph or so about the very friendly relations between female leads in La Cousine Bette. Or I can leave it to you — whichever you prefer. Scartol  •  Tok  16:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Duh. I see you added some stuff about him already. The text in that article looks solid to me; I could add more detail, but it looks like there's already bucketloads to contend with, and adding more would make it unwieldy. Scartol  •  Tok  16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany
Voxpopulis (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to where it explicitly states that this article is on probation and that sanctions apply.
 * Please also direct me to where is specifically states that I cannot contribute to an article that is up for review.
 * Also, please read the changes that were made in the the exact context in which they were made.
 * The edits were constructive, they elaborated upon existing content using legitimate verifiable references.
 * Headings were changed in one instance to correct an inaccuracy, and in another to establish norms regarding the use of the word criticism in a heading.


 * On the article's talk page is a box that says the article is part of WikiProject Scientology. In that box it says all articles in the project are on general sanctions and probation. On your talk page is a link from my warning to general sanctions that state what may happen to editors who violate article probation. I read your changes, and they appear to be part of a valid content dispute. However, your content dispute is separate from the reversion of Mattisse's reversion of your edits, and the tone of your edit summary. That is the unfortunate condition of article Probation. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for highlighting the issues here. I apologise for the inappropriate tone, that was a mistake, largely in response to what looks on the face of it to be an invalid reaction to edits that were in no way disruptive. If there is a dispute surrounding the edits made I will follow procedure and attempt to resolve them using due process: for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxpopulis (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The talk page is the way to go, so good for you. Hopefully the article may improve with the cooperation of Mattisse, Jayen466, and you. I hope it gets to GA, and all the better when it's done cooperatively and civilly. --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have started reviewing the edits by and will continue to do so. Results so far here; I will add to that. However, I am concerned that this user name was registered only today, yet shows clear familiarity with WP.  Jayen 466 18:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Voxpopulis posting at the arbcom under the IP 143.117.78.169 makes it clear that this is a sock of . Jayen 466 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jayen 466 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

quote
I hope you don't mind if I quoted you. If so, I'll remove upon request. — Ched (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I admire your efforts - I hate to admit it, but you're better than I was (although I did try) — Ched (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem with the quote. I'm glad you like it. What am I allegedly better than you at doing? --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your Warning
Can you tell me what you find objectionable here and also tell me why Jayen466 has not received warnings for these edits. If you have specific issues with my recent edits elaborate on the talk page. If you continue display editor bias I will have to raise this as a possible case of admin abuse. Thanks. Voxpopulis (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * From the first diff, it looks like you replaced cited information. This is, again, a content issue. The second diff is a link to the article history. Is there an edit in particular you wished me to see? --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, it was just an arbitrary point concerning the fact that a series of undiscussed edits were made by Jayen, yet no warnings were issued; this seems at odds with the notifications I have been given. I just found it odd that I was warned by Matiesse, and then by you again, when this does not parrallel the treatment of other editors currently involved in the Scientology in Germany article. That sinmply led me to feel concerned about bias, but those feelings have since dissipated. Voxpopulis (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
... for the document. I see that the page numbers are different from the Richardson book; the page 86 I referred to corresponds to pp. 324/325 in your version. Best, Jayen 466 18:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian - you go!
Lesbian looks awesome! Congratulations! Scarykitty (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I concur, but will be making one small change soon. Be on the lookout and undo me if you wish, but let me make my case on the talk page.Chrisrus (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The suspense is killing me... --Moni3 (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wonky ref columns in Scientology in Germany
Just out of interest, are you using Firefox? I've had the problem too in a couple of situations, and have been told at the Village Pump that it is a Firefox bug. On my system it only happened when I viewed the article in a maximised window. It is fine now because some refs have been added since. Also see. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 09:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I use Firefox on a PC and a Mac. Here, on the Mac, it looks ok—maybe because you fixed it. I've also only used or similar as code. --Moni3 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Milk
The White Night riots were sparked by the obviously unjust nature of White's trial verdict, and the outrageousness of his "Twinkie Defense". The information I added indicates that he himself admitted that that defense was bogus, and that the acts were premeditated. You don't think that's relevant enough to bear mention in Milk's article, since he was one of the two murder victims?

As for the quality of Featured Articles, I do not see why copying information from other articles is a bad thing, so long as it is relevant. The version of the article you favor says White was found "dead in running car", but don't you think specifying that he committed suicide by CO poisoning is a more appropriate level of detail?

As for the citation, sorry about that. I went through the article to make sure I didn't do that, but apparently I missed one, and forgot to double-check after saving. Nightscream (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This morning I've been reading discussions about whether FAs should be required to have the best possible sources. A couple days ago I reverted a change to Milk's article where, inexplicably, someone deleted an entire section, and pasted it in a new article. I apologize for any offense because you're going to bear the brunt of my frustration here, and you don't know me from Adam. Allow me on my own talk page to defend the quality of writing and sourcing in an FA that I wrote. NO NO NO NO NO copying of any other material. NO. Absolutely not. Cheap and lazy. I don't care if it's free and legal. Cheap and lazy trumps illegal. Not in an FA, and certainly not on I claim the bronze star for.


 * As for White's motivations, I read quite a bit about his mental state, his temper problems, his emotional compartments. I have the article...I READ Falzon's statements among the other sources for Milk's article. I have it with everything else I used. Falzon's points are one in 50 that discuss why Dan White did what he did. It belongs in White's article.


 * Does it matter in Milk's article how White died? Now it states he was found dead in a running car in his ex-wife's garage, which is accurate. While that allows readers to make the connection that it was CO poisoning, that level of detail is not necessary in Milk's article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Milk
Thanks for protecting this. Bearian (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to be fair
Moni3, I object to the characterization that Featured article candidates/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore as a parallel to the FAC for Major depressive disorder on User:SandyGeorgia's page, meaning this as a slur and against my contributions to Major depressive disorder and a stereotyping of the incident to mean, I guess, a shorthand for all bad FACs. There is no need to make unnecessary negative comments about that unfortunate incident because I tried so very hard to contribute and did contribute to the upgrading of Major depressive disorder. Although my objections were not given respect on the FAC for Major depressive disorder, nevertheless, I made over 300 edits to the article while it was in FAC, polishing the prose, correcting misinformation, and adding improved references. In fact, even User:Casliber acknowledged my enormous contributions and I received a Barnstar from another editor who took the time to look at what I had actually done, and praise from User:Durova and others who bothered to look at my contributions to the article, in the face of the ugly treatment I received there. I admit that the personal attacks and the disrespectful edit summaries directed at me during that FAC got me down. I had only User:Snowmanradio to stand up for me.

But that is no reason to ignore the enormous contribution I made to that article. In the month that article was FAC, I became the second highest contributor to the article. Further, I was not the only one who objected to the original article as presented at FAC. User:Snowmanradio also did, valued my contributions and stuck up for my contributions in the RFC that SandyGeorgia and Casliber filed against me. He also stuck up for me agains User:Cosmic Latte and tried to explain to him why User:Cosmic Latte remarks to me set such a negative tone to the FAC and to me. Since Casliber had only nice things to say about Snowmanradio, I hope you will see your representation of the situation as grossly oversimplified, neglecting the complexity of the situation, and an unnecessary continuance of the ugliness and unfairness surrounding that incident to the present. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me, but perhaps because I was not clear. I think anyone who participated in or read the FAC for MDD came from it remarking that the FAC should not ever have gone the way it did. I don't fault you or Casliber or anyone else, including myself or Karanacs or SandyGeorgia for not behaving differently. Behavior at FAC rarely gets to a point where admins have to step in and refactor comments, move them, or direct the participants' attention to the ultimate goal of FAC. We're pretty new about monitoring FAC for behavior as only a handful of FACs have required admin action. I did not mean to imply that you were at fault for the course of MDD, for you were not the only participant and it could not have gone sour without other editors' behavior, or our lack of stepping in to stop it. It's unfortunate that it left such a legacy, but something positive that came from it is the experience to identify how other FACs should not go. I meant no offense, nor blame to you. I apologize if you felt that's what I was stating on SG's talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I am just somewhat sensitive, since the accusations of the RFC were based on the Major depressive disorder almost exclusively. The other accusations: "Conduct with regards to FAC/GAN/DYK, and accusations of sockpuppetry" in the charges were simple untrue. The DYK people and the GAN people denied any problems with me. The sockpuppetry incident, which I do not fully understand, was over and done with 2 1/2 years ago and I paid with a 24 hour block. Therefore, it is the Major depressive disorder that caused the malicious RFC. However, I am glad that you do not see it that way and will keep that in mind that you do not. Please remember though, that not all others see it that way. That FAC was the evidence against me that drove that RFC. I had no other contact previously with Casliber until that RFC.   Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Milk (film)
You should add the fact that the film was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, it is a notable mention that should be added in the head paragraph.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings
Moni3, are you one of those "commie, homo-loving sons of guns" Sean Penn talked about last night during his acceptance speech? ;)

I really hope you appreciated that joke. You strike me as someone who would. At any rate, hooray! The real reason I'm here, though, is to see where you think the Caged Bird article is. Do you think that it's ready for FAC? If you think so, I'll go ahead and nominate it, or if you or the other reviewers want to, one of you could do it. I've already put notes on their talk page as well. Thanks again for all your great input and assistance. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not so sure of the commie part, but the homo part is fairly spot on. Milk would have loved that reaction. No one is going to nominate that article but you, but give me a few hours to read it over. --Moni3 (talk) 13:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-education through labor
Hey Moni3, just wanted to solicit your input on a recent change I made to this article. In the Statistics section listing estimates of how many people are in RTL, another source (with a new estimate) just came up, and when trying to integrate it into the text I realized that section is just a prose listing of a bunch of different estimates about different things from different years, and might be better in a table, so I organized it into that...if you have a chance could you take a quick look and let me know if you think that is a more logical and reader-friendly presentation of the information (compared to how it was before) and if the way I organized the table (tried to put the entries in order by recency) makes sense?

Also, putting it into a table made me realize how much of a ridiculous outlier the China Daily estimate (originally from Ministry of Justice of the People's Republic of China) is...while all the other sources estimate 3.5 million-ish people in RTL rom 1957 to today, that one says 400,000...a lot of sources estimate 200–300,000 for just a single year. I'm wondering if China Daily just misreported the figure (all they say about it is "Figures from the justice ministry show that about 400,000 people have served their terms in 310 laojiao institutions"; maybe they meant to say something different) and, if so, what I should do about it&mdash;remove it entirely, keep it but with a caveat, or what...

Thanks, <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 14:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a discussion that accounts for the differing numbers reported by all these agencies? Do some organizations cast aspersions on the neutrality of some other organizations? Is China Daily government-affiliated, for example? How do these agencies get their numbers? That might be an interesting discussion with the numbers in the table. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)




 * I'll have to look into that, it definitely would be interesting to be able to say more about it. Very few of the organizations these data come from are neutral; the Chinese government ones and Xinhua are, of course, Chinese government (same for China Daily, I think&mdash;AFAIK they are not officially a CCP mouthpiece like Xinhua and People's Daily are, but they're known for having that slant anyway...and besides, their 400,000 number appears to just be parroting information released by the Ministry of Justice).  On the other hand, the Laogai Research Foundation is an activist organization that is known for being very critical of China, so it's not surprising that their numbers are several times higher; I think the China Labour Bulletin is similar, although their numbers aren't as extreme as the LRF's.  The HRIC and HRW numbers might be better, as they're from international bodies, but they're pretty old....  I just found a citation for a book that might have some more information on how these data are counted and stuff, so if I can get my hands on it I'll try to see if I can add anything about that stuff.  Thanks for your help! <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any "official" criticisms of these numbers should be included. If Human Rights Watch, for example, discusses the lower numbers given by the Chinese government or news agencies affiliated with the government, these details should be included, along with an accounting of how Human Rights Watch gets their numbers (and any criticisms they have received). In the end it's all going to look like this Thomas Nast cartoon. --Moni3 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh*
From Wikitionary: Nosy

Adjective

 * 1) prying, inquisitive or curious in other’s affairs; tending to snoop or meddle
 * They built tall fences, yet the nosy neighbors always seemed to know everything about them.

 APK  How you durrin?  19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you implying the question "How you durrin?" is nosy? I don't get that. I would think "So, you're getting a small coffee. I guess we all have to accept others don't have as much money as some of us do. How much do you make, by the way? Why would you want to do the job you do? Is that all you think there is to your life? Don't you think it's boring? You really edit Wikipedia? How sad. Isn't it all full of geeks and psuedoscience proponents? Do you need ideas of fun things to do with your life?"
 * Me: "stfu. You are nosy."


 * I'm doing ok. Just rewrote an article for the ladeez. Just found out Harvey's article got 176,500 hits on Sunday. I'm stunned. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Click on the "nosy" link. You'll see.
 * Ahh, the ladeez. Lesbyterians unite!
 * 176,000? zOMG.
 * My recent edits prove one thing - I'm a big ol' fairy.
 *  APK  How you durrin?  20:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoa, dude. You are a photography machine. Mrs. Moni is scoping out postdoctorate opportunities in Bethesda. Ever so close to Dupont Circle. Doh! On the missed link. I'm surmising the user thought it was put there by some humorless vandal. It was li'l ol' self-deprecating me, of course. --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, Bethesda is only a few minutes away via the dark and brutal caves.  APK  How you durrin?  20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Background
In seeing your edits and discussion, I am curious about your background. Specifically, whether you come from academia. Feel free, of course, to decide that's none of my business. Just curious, since your contributions seem to have that feel to me. LotLE × talk 22:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a master's degree in Gifted Education. I don't use it. I was a teacher for nine years, and I quit a few years ago, donating about $3,000 worth of books—all that I had compiled during my profession—to the last school I worked at. While I respect the role that academia plays in curiosity and tenacity in finding answers, constantly questioning and searching for more, I often don't respect the way this intellectual pursuit is carried out. I work amongst faculty every day, and I see how many of them drive to achieve more to add to their own names, departments, and institutions. Their pursuit of knowledge always seems to have someone's financial interests at heart. I find Wikipedia to be the selfless manifestation of academic pursuit, almost a sort of social justice, when it is done properly. Knowledge should be free, and I'm glad I have a hand in providing some of it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you like Freire, you can even omit the "almost" :-). LotLE × talk  23:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know Freire, but I went to look this person up because I don't like to be uninformed. There are apparently a lot of notable Feires, all who seem wise. Including the baseball player. Since it's not Freire (that I know of), it's more like these people. --Moni3 (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I figured social justice + education would mean Paulo Freire was familiar to you. His work might interest you.  LotLE × talk  23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1f again

 * People will argue forever. I suggest a !vote now in the new thread.Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

FA request
As a long-time admirer of your work on Mulholland Drive, I hereby request that you add Eraserhead to your to-do list. :) -- Laser brain  (talk)  21:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jiminy. Do you know how crazy Mulholland Dr. made me? I mean, guano insane. The only way I was able to get it out of my head was to write that article. If you have been moved by Eraserhead and it has festered in your brain for hours or years, I will support you writing its article all the way. I still have access to some of the Lynch books I checked out for Mulholland that address Eraserhead a lot more. I can help, but if it's in your head, you have to be the fire. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're on. I've been obsessed with Eraserhead for years. However, it will have to wait a bit; I've got a few other fish to fry first (how's that for alliteration?).
 * Okeydoke. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks so much, yes I now realize that the L.D. Britt article doesn't meet the standards that you have here. I was merely trying to bring Dr. Britt's accomplishments to the attention of more people. Frank A W (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Everglades Geology.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Everglades Geology.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Milk/Scott age difference
Hi, I saw that recent "Milk met Scott Smith, 10 years his junior" edit and left it in - Harvey Milk says he was born in 1930 and Scott Smith says he was born in 1940; what am I missing? —EqualRights (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have The Mayor of Castro Street with me, and GoogleBooks is doing that things I f*@kin hate, showing only the parts I don't want to see... Randy Shilts made a point in the book I remember: each of Harvey's lovers were younger than him, and as he got older, the year span between their ages grew. Joe Campbell was 7 years younger. Craig Rodwell was 10 years younger. Scott Smith was 20 years younger. That's my memory working, and not the page. I'll have to wait until tonight to find Smith's birth year or their age difference. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, good idea - yes, page 45: "Harvey was twenty years older than Smith". I'll fix the Smith page.  —EqualRights (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay! Once in a rare instance I'm actually right.... Hooray for reading comprehension! --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like Scott Smith was born October 21, 1948. Couldn't find a full-length obit even in library databases, but the brief one in the Seattle Times says that he was 46 when he died. The Social Security Death Index shows Joseph S. Smith, born October 21, 1948 and died February 4, 1995, which agrees with an age of 46 and the date given in the obituary (link added on Scott Smith article.) That makes for an age difference somewhere between 18 and 19 years.--Larrybob (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany
Can we revert this? The tags query reliably sourced material, even simple statements of fact, and unsourced off-the-cuff (and wildly off the mark as well – the attempt to ban ran for a year, not three days!) material has been added ("Because Scientology or its members or believers did not call the courts, the actual status wether the organisation is a religious organisation or a commercial enterprise and the not directly according tax-exemption is unresolved" is just ridiculous, there have been dozens of court cases, many of which we mention). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the talk page. May I undo the massive deletions and revert the two unsourced insertions, as discussed on talk? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on a moment on reverting. I commented on the talk page about compromising on the lead at least. Let's start with the lead and work through the article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

heads up
I had almost forgotten - I'm sitting out the next round - too far behind in my editing. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?) 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect discussion
I got a good lol from your your comment. Thanks for that! Poor Anita. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why I logged on today. Now I can go, I suppose... --Moni3 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Museum of Bad Art
What a tour de force your MOBA effort is. Simply amazing! --Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, really? You think so? Sweet. --Moni3 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to hijack the thread, but on the same topic, I've sent you a scan of the "Pretty Ugly" article. Enjoy! Kafka Liz (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Interim edits dumped in article merge
Hmm, odd. I can't see any remaining deleted edits in the history. Here's where you added the image, so it seems like everything's been restored. Perhaps try WP:PURGEing? –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  03:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried all directions on the purge page. I closed the tab and opened a new one. I closed Firefox and opened a new window. It still does not register the edits made between the shift from the sandbox to the mainspace. Not sure what to do next. --Moni3 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, I see the problem. ✅ Fixed. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  04:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Thank ye. Argh. --Moni3 (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Aviator
Please see the following page, The Aviator. I have been observing some vandalism of a section of the article, but now it's advanced instead of through other means to a legal threat. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Looks like Rodhullandemu beat me to the punch. I guess it's not necessary to tell you to stop talking smack about crazy people. Just kidding. I have no idea what you said and where. --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Doctoring
Hi Moni. I enjoyed the article about MOBA and hope that some of my edits improved it. Regarding the image with the added "trash" frame, I hope you see that I did not alter the inner frame or its contents. So, I don't think that "doctoring" is really the best word for what I did. Maybe a better word would be "recontextualize" or something like that.

To "doctor" means to tamper with or falsify something, and really I tried to avoid any hint of that by not touching the original frame or its contents. I know you didn't mean any harm, but the last thing I need is a reputaion for doctoring, tampering, and falsifying. Any chance you could rephrase? I don't mind if you object to recontextualizing or whatever I did, as long as we can clarify that I did not tamper with or falsify the original frame or its contents. Sorry if I'm making too big of a fuss about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I made the comment in an edit summary, and certainly am the captain of my own thoughts—renegade though they may be—I may not always know what they are, but I always know what they are not. I just received the MOBA Masterworks book, and their puzzling discourse on equally puzzling art is coloring my prose. At any rate, "recontextualize" is probably closer to what I was trying to say. Should anyone ever wonder what that means and have designs to cast aspersions on your character, point them in my direction and I will be happy to clarify. Otherwise, and practically, I don't know how to remedy an edit summary. And I guarantee that I put some nutty things in edit summaries on purpose and people apparently don't pay any attention to me.


 * As an artist myself, who has nightmarish visions that something I created will be exhibited with so much glee by our Boston experts in hideosity, I have to respect 1. the aberrant vision of the artist who created Lucy, 2. MOBA, who chooses to exhibit her in her original frame so she may speak for herself in so many riddles, 3. the policy of original research which the photoshopped Lucy dances around, and 4. my compulsion for accuracy that leads me back to #1. My vision of cropping is similar to MOBA's own "study in running out of time" or "discomfort in painting hands", found here.


 * I do appreciate your assistance, and thank you very much for your generous copy edits.


 * Did I answer your issue? --Moni3 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have cleared my good name. :-)  Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Moni appreciation day
I HAVE BEEN A BUSY GIRL!!!!! FUDGE OFF! i can edit what i want hitch!!!!
 * hitch - not someone who sets up dates, its you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipp123 (talk • contribs)


 * Rock on, Sipp. I don't know what you're talking about, but go with that passion. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just found my new favorite word. Although it still doesn't top  ish.  APK   How you durrin?  15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Should I make it clear that I don't respect people who use misspelled euphemisms? If one can't be bothered to swear at me properly, don't even try. It's like trying to shoot your sibling the bird when your parents are nearby. Grow up and do it for real if you mean it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rhymes with witch! Woo hoo - you go gurl! -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

MOBA
hey, I just want to say thanks for taking up the MOBA cause. I am headding off to an exciting spring break in central Massachsetts, so I may not be arround as much this week to help out with the article. I have learned tons about editing wikipedia, espicaly how to properly cite things, through the process of tryign to get MOBA to FA status, and just want to say thanks for letting me tag along on the whirlwind of edits on the page.

Thanks again!

--Found5dollar (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are more than welcome. It can be fun, stressful, exciting, and infuriating, all in the same hour. If this article gets promoted to FA and it appears as the April 1 article... it will be quite the wild ride. You should check the talk page for Ima Hogg. It's a kick. Ima had 150,000 views last April. Have fun on Spring Break. --Moni3 (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Exciting" and "central Massachusetts" in the same sentence? Surely that must be a first. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I let that slide. Spring Break here in Florida is a reason to avoid entire cities. --Moni3 (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * hahaha, i was being ironic. --Found5dollar (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * MF passed it (and he just got blocked). Anyway I think this could be the fastest GA ever! Lol.  Ceran  thor 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Does editing usualy get this bogged down? hehehehe. we are literaly arguing over one word and one picture in the article right now. Wow.--Found5dollar (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an unusual experience for me. I have written 12 Featured Articles and 6 more Good Articles and although I have announced my intention to rewrite the existing ones, I have had only minimal help with one. I've had copy editors go over them and give me some tips, but I have not ever had multiple editors adding content and giving so many re-edits, so it's a bit different. I did have some intense arguments in a content dispute for Harvey Milk, though. Regardless, the article seriously needs to sit unedited for a couple days. --Moni3 (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, gee, Found5dollar. I gave my opinion about the photo at the top, and don't have anything more to say about it.  Not arguing at all.  I haven't replied to your further comments about it, and don't intend to.  I'm not arguing.  I said: "If that's the consensus, then fine with me, but I still prefer the Tate layout."


 * I understood from Sandy's page that Moni3 was looking for editors to work on this. ("How do I get the swarms of copy editors to descend upon it and give it the polish it deserves?")  That said, I agree the article should sit for awhile.  It will not become featured if it is continuously overhauled. Ferrylodge (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcom X
Hey! Could you please give me a brief update at Featured article candidates/Malcolm X? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X
Hi. I started making some changes to the article in response to your suggestions. Could you do me a favor and look at the recent changes and tell me if that's the sort of thing you had in mind. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You bet. Give me a mo' to go through my watchlist and I'll check it out. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Martin Luther King
Hi. I agree that the MLK article needs improvement, but I don't think I'm going to have time to work on it. Good luck. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Erm....yeah I reckon it's warranted (hehehe) ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Aw, thank you Master&Expert. I have also seen you around here and there. See, now you will forever stick in my memory, which is no mean feat since I tend to forget what I was...I would like syrup on my pancakes, please. And thank you Casliber, for your witty and erudite agreement. --Moni3 (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At least you can learn to indent your comments properly ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant it to be a response to Master&Expert: one colon for a reply to him. Two for you. I have a grand scheme for everything. Big as a Broadway show. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's always great to make somebody's day. And yep, it is most definitely warranted.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?
wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WT:FAC
In what sense am I better than Prozac? Bishonen | talk 23:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Not so much you, but the both of you. And now that I read your comments a day later, it's mostly Giano's estimation that FAC is fatally flawed, and "writing and reviewing FACs is a complete waste of energy and time". You and Giano (or rather, your comments) are not better than Prozac. In fact, my one-liner was hyperbolic ridiculousness. In a very short span, I was reading some very critical stuff of FAC and its participants, not just at WT:FAC. Where I see your points (and you certainly have the right to post your reviews in any FAC), there are some FA participants who have sincere motivations to learn more, be challenged, challenge others, and write good articles just for the hell of it. Sometimes I see that most of the people on Wiki are here for the drama and want no part in writing articles. The few who are primarily interested in content I have met at FAC. For those who are surer than sure that Wikipedia will go down in a fiery scandal—and do their best to drag it down a bit farther, it is disheartening indeed to those who actually enjoy it.
 * Had I not been drinking a little after dinner grappa, I probably would have stated that. Instead, what I thought was sizzling wit sufficed. --Moni3 (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "The few who don't" ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Casliber, at what point will you start reading my mind to know what I was trying to say? Isn't it about time that started? --Moni3 (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * hahaha, its my job, but seriously, I am enjoying watching Psych and Lie to Me, both Tim Roth and James Roday, oh and Dulé Hill are dudes :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Does it take a sociologist to point out the patterns in group behavior then? Or can you diagnose us with Group Identity Dysphoria? Are we simply butting our heads against our own perceived identities as we struggle with what we wish Wikipedia or FAC to be versus what it is for others? I'd like to think I'm among some very dedicated writers who have high standards, but I am also among editors who wish to be rewarded for as little work as possible, and are more interested in "winning" individual battles than working toward a collective good. Both are accurate. The Dramarians happen to be a lot louder, in my perception.


 * Glad to see my page mentioned in your 49,000th edit. --Moni3 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, yeah. I was amused by that ;) - philosophy..aaah. The old altruism vs egotism see-saw...but my karma ran over my dogma a while ago :( The radical changes in interactions between wikiprojects and (mostly) FAC compared with some of teh mudwrestling elsewhere are truly amazing in their starkness :) I need to sleep badly, it is after midnight and I fear I will turn into a pumpkin. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Postscript (or nightcap)
I turned off the computer and brushed my teeth and something niggled - I found this quote "I believe that Wikipedia can be the best informational resource in all of human history: And that, and that alone, is what we should be striving for." on this page, which I thought "yeah..." you know? Anyway, nighty night..zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I have never heard of him, I agree with Danny. Perhaps we should start a WP:Idealists or some such project. --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, after sleeping on it and musing, I think the answer is a lot more straightforward and visceral. I am profoundly a creature of leisure, and what I do I want to do and vice versa. What I mean is, at the end of the day I just enjoy it, and alot of the cerebral musings are in some way rationalising why I am here. When I was a kid I was fascinated by guidebooks on birds, dinosaurs, fungi, astronomy, banksias and some other topics, and reading them would be a very enjoyable pastime, like a sort of reverie. I also loved cataloguing and reproducing my own 'guidebooks' or lists of them..and now I can do it on a whizz-bang altogether way more cool way than I ever could as a 9 year old with pen and colour textas:))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I also internally justify why I do all this work for no money or recognition. Similarly, I enjoy it. And I'm rebellious. I don't like to be told what to do. Should someone pay me to write articles, I don't know how long I would do it, because inevitably I would be writing for someone else on their time, and on their topics. You've heard the adage that doctors make poor patients? As a former teacher, I must confess that I am an awful, awful student. If directed to do something, since I came from the womb almost always I have declined to do it. It caused my parents no end of frustration. I want to do it at my own pace, in my own direction. A passive-aggressive learner, I suppose. Waiting for Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, feels a bit like that, ah well, just enjoy it while at lasts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Clear
"be clear about"

What is unclear? You failed to ask. Or click on links. Or read. Or understand. Instead you come in being the one who is so polite. Don't barge in if you can't do any of that! WhatisFeelings? (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Email
Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)