User talk:Moni3/Archive 14

Hamilton Disston
I've looked over the changes, and there are still some things that need to be addressed. I do indeed feel that we either need a cite for the birthdate in the lead or the birthdate needs to be in the body of the article with a citation. As it is now, there is no source given for HD's birth date, and that's kinda an oversight. There are some other concerns still outstanding. And I'm still concerned that we are really discussing Disston's land purchase not his life, and thus its still feeling coatracky. Some digging I did turned up the possibility that he was involved in some Philadelphia philanthropic organizations, etc. Did he have labor issues? Did he continue his father's policies? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm constructing a response to the unstruck issues. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you think it's ready for a recheck ... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and give it another read-through, if you don't mind. I added some more information about Disston's philanthropy and political life, but I had to use print sources from the 1880s and 1890s, and after my experience with such news sources for Rosewood massacre, I don't trust them very much. You may also notice that there was a lot of info I did not add, as listed on the Disston talk page. That leaves the article with the majority of information focusing on the land deal. There may still be some areas you don't quite understand. I need to know again specifically what to focus on to explain better. But also, I don't consider this really "my" article or "my" rewrite. It should be Wknight94's, and I want credit for none of it. I appreciate what you can do nonetheless. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It passes. I'd still like to see more on other things besides the land purchase, but it's clearer now that there isn't much in secondary sources about it, which relieves my mind on the coatrack angle. Given a bit more work, it might make an excellent FAC with more looking into those other aspects of his life. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I contacted the talk page of the Philadelphia article to untangle Disston's role as one of the Big Four. There might be some interesting stuff there to expand on if Wknight94 can get hold of some well-written histories of the city government. Apparently Disston was a part of a Tammany Hall type oligarchy in Philadelphia. Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Layout of the Stonewall Inn 1969-en.svg
Hi. I created the SVG to translate the image into Spanish: I would have the same work translating a PNG or making a new SVG. As I had already done it in Spanish, I just translated it into English. The second reason for making the SVG was that Wikipedia usually prefers vector graphics, they are scalable, etc.

Sorry you don't like it. Feel free to change whatever you think doesn't look good. It's one of the advantages of SVG files, you can open the document and change easily all the elements. If you don't know how to do it, you can just leave me a note with all the changes you would like to have.

Cheers, --Ecelan (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not very often in en.Wiki; you can leave the message at Commons or in my Spanish talk page.

Everglades articles
I understand that much work went into the Everglades articles, but they have issues. The capitalization does not follow Wikipedia standards, which is why I made the changes. If you prefer it your way, that's fine by me, authors can follow whatever formatting they want. However, the internal links were not implemented correctly in a few cases. For example, White-crowned pigeon linked to just pigeon. Why would anyone do that? In addition, it was not realized that there is only a single species of opossum in North America, the Virginia Opossum. I can understand using and linking opossum for articles describing the wildlife in places like South America, where there are several species of opossum, but it does not make sense for the Everglades. Lastly, I spent time creating an article entitled "South Florida rocklands", which describes tropical hardwood hammock and pine rocklands as an entire ecoregion. I followed the World Wide Fund for Nature definition, but also used other sources. Since your articles had sections on the same subject, it should make sense to link the two. If you don't want those internal links, go ahead and remove them, I don't care. --TDogg310 (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I understand the issues in the Everglades National Park article. I am working on it now, and updated it earlier this week. I think there's value in some of the revisions you made, and I left in the link to the South Florida rocklands article, but the piped link to halophyte I have to find a cite for. Common sense might prevail, but I want to make sure that the brackish water plants of the Everglades are classified as halophytes per my sources. Otherwise, I'll be working to improve ENP. --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note
In regards to this, Julian has helped me on many of my literary articles. Yes, he spends his time with weather, roads, and the occasional ship, but he has branched out into that scary world of literature every once in a while. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, there were a few big content disputes in the weather wikiproject. It was mostly over notability. I got dragged into it for a while because a series of GAs were being listed for deletion. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. --Moni3 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded to your latest concern. I can show you the dispute. By the way, Julian had to deal with me fighting with Hurricane Hink and accusing him of wanting to delete two GAs just to get a Feature Topic (the 3 GAs brought the percentage too low). The fight lasted for a very long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is the personal stake in it. I can have all the cheerleaders on Wikipedia giving me advice and telling me to buck up, but it's my responsibility to make sure my articles are well-written and I have to defend them when they are called into question. I have to go through mediation, ANI, and all that bullshit when someone gets a thrombo and has a conniption on the talk page of the FA I wrote. I have to see it all the way through, work out some kind of compromise, or abandon it to watch my work get reversed. I think either we're talking past each other or we'll just have to agree that we have two different views of what each of us wants to see in an bureaucrat. Your mention of my talk page prompted me to respond. I did not wish for anyone to get the idea that I have been persuaded to change my mind. --Moni3 (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it helps: Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007), Featured article review/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)/archive1, Articles for deletion/Tropical Storm Erick (2007), and Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive31. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice
Hi. Just wanted to say thanks for the advice and constructive criticism, but I have a question as well. You said I should branch out more into other areas of the project, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions as to what you think would be suitable. Please note, however, that mathematics and most science articles are beyond my ability. :) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Once I bandied the idea about of getting an FA in each category. The math category killed that idea after 30 seconds, so I understand your obstacle. Someone could accuse me of a similar issue: I have six Everglades articles to my credit, but each one requires a different type of research, different sources, and different issues. Unfortunately, no one really gives a shit about the Everglades except for me, so to keep my knuckles bruised I write articles that attract attention and neutrality disputes. They involve homosexuality, sure to attract a menagerie from the Island of Misfit Toys. The disputes are seldom, however, but I think anyone in any position of authority here should know intimately what it is like to be in a content dispute with someone diametrically opposed to you who may or may not have read the sources. I respect Wasted Time R, Aude, and Nancy Heise for doing this. I suggest writing about something that has interested you but that you would not be able to construct a lead for. Start from scratch, get frustrated, falter, fail, ask for advice because it's new, and I assure you, you will be much prouder of what you have accomplished in the end (though, we all know there is really no end). Once you have done that a few times, pick a subject that is high profile, vital, core, or controversial (grand slam if it's all three), and sure to attract any number of nutcases. Rewrite the article and watch what happens. When you're juuuuuuust about ready to retire forever from teeth-grinding frustration, that's when you take a break and reflect on what you learned. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Moni3 is very wise, listen to her. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't yet weighed in on JC's RfB, not sure if I will or not, quite honestly. But Moni's advice is quite good. At the very least, get away from storms and roads, edit something a bit more controversial. (Yeah, I know, I edit horses and bishops, but I'm not an admin either!) It might help you see the world a little less in black and white, which is not quite a fault of yours, Julian, but it is a concern to me. Sometimes, life is boring gray, or compromise is needed. Roads and storms don't much require compromise, editing something more controversial (Stonewall riots, or even Horse would give you a bit more exposure to nuances and help reassure some of the opposers that you're ready to handle the responsiblity of the 'crat role. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone. Sound advice indeed. You're entirely right in that most of my content work has been boring and fairly unsubstantial. For a while I'd been considering working on Connecticut, which would of course require months more work than, say, Tropical Storm Gabrielle (2007), but still isn't terribly controversial. Once my RfB is over, I'll search for something more complex to work on. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Julian was a good help in Christopher Smart's asylum confinement on and off wiki. He was originally going to be a co-nom for the FAC but didn't think he put enough time to deserve co-nom status in nor had enough time to really stick around for the FAC. I would think that is quite out of the traditional area people feel Julian edits in. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed section on the Gropecunt Lane talk page
It looked like trolling to me. The section was added by established vandal 129.230.248.1. I saw no reason to keep it. a little  insignificant  16:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably was, but within the types of comments the article is getting today. I would not allow a comment of any kind to go unanswered when one of my articles is on the main page, and I have received some obvious troll-like statements. The best thing to do with trolls is treat them literally and do as Wikipedia does, . Removing them is one way to do it. Asking for accountability in a dispassionate way is another. --Moni3 (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Nature
Hi Moni, I think it is a great idea. Unfortuantely I would not be able to come to the Everglades in November (not sure if that was meant or not) and the Pennsylvania state parks and state forests and Important Bird Areas I write about would probably look better for photos in October or September. Weather would also be an issue - a weekend with great weather in one state or country might be terrible weather someplace else. What if it were spread out over a month or two (or three)? There could be a Wikipedia Loves Nature project and people could be encouraged to get photos of protected areas, wildlife and plants, waterfalls, rivers, mountains, whatever. I think this could involve several Wikiprojects (Protected Areas, Mountains, Rivers, etc.). It might be useful to see who coordinated the Wikipedia Loves Art project and see how they did it and if they have any ideas or advice. Let me know how I can help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can envisage a competition somewhat like Wikicup - but with photos - score 1 point for each stub created, 10 points if DYK, 30 for GA and 50 for FA. Multiply by 1.5 for endangered species, commercially important species, or weeds/pests/invasive species. All entries must have a photo. An extra 10 points if the person can describe a diary of their exploits with photos and articles of four or more organisms on one outing. The page Wikipedia loves nature can have a diary log, recording wierd and wonderful places people are walking around, and who they are walking around with. (e.g. everglades with a ranger)


 * How's that sound? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right now, it's just an idea that I had. I have no clue how it might turn up if people are interested. WikiProject Florida and WikiProject Protected Areas are not really active, unfortunately, yet there are editors who are adding to nature-related articles all the time. Casliber seems to be envisioning a competition, and if it turns into that, then that's what it turns into. I was envisioning more like Wikipedians getting together on dates in certain locations. Not to drink beer and sit in a restaurant, but to go out and do some work for articles. I don't think anyone would want to slog through the Everglades but me anyways, but what if a day in each season, so four times a year, there was a Wikipedia Loves Nature event regionally? So like one in the Southeast U.S., New England, Midwest, Pacific Coast, Eastern Australia, Western Australia, Southern UK, Northern UK/Scotland or some such, and a central state or national park/protected area was the meeting place for Wikipedians to spend a day or two. Each protected area has a list of associated articles about plants, animals, climate, geological formations, water bodies, etc., for Wikipedians to get an idea of what needs to be improved. That would be enough for me to do stuff. Others might need a cup for it per Casliber's idea. --Moni3 (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We-ell, it was just an idea. The non-competitive is a diary-type thing where forays are recorded. I worry that many areas outside of some major wikipedian areas will struggle to attract more than one person that's all (hence a place where single-person forays can be recorded :)). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say or think it a bad idea. I'm just naturally wary of cups and whatnot. Not the athletic supporter kind. I have no opinion of those. I'm also wary of a hot idea that peters out after a month, so I was trying to gauge interest. --Moni3 (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I for one would love to slog through the Everglades, just can't make it to Florida (alas). Anyway, why not encourage both kinds of things? Some people would be motivated by the competition aspect, others would like meeting fellow Wikipedians, still others just need an excuse to get some more photos (20 out of 120 Pennsylvania State Park articles still have no photos, and many of the PA state forests are missing images too). I also think anything that encourages interaction with rangers and foresters etc. is good too. Why not try it once for a three month period and see how it goes? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree both ways is a good idea. Do you think it can be an international effort, or even one in more than one region in the US? Or should we start small just to see how many people would participate? --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Not liking cups, competitions, and measuring certain parts of male anatomy what what what...." (goes and has cold shower) .....sigh...just my testosterone going off again. Starting small is good, essentially any wiki-foray could happen anywhere - e.g. there are a number of wikipedians in Perth, Western Australia (Hesperian and Gnangarra) who do alot of nature articles and photography, Sydneysiders like me are lazy by nature, though I know Tony1 has a very energetic dog so we could go dog-walking together and he can mentally copyedit as we go.... :)


 * To sum up, I'd cast the net as widely as possible geographically and wee what comes up, you may be surprised. MONGO I am sure would be interested too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moni. Sorry for the late reply - had a busy weekend, which included breaking down and reassembling my 55-gallon aquarium (remove 400 lb of water and perhaps 100 lb of gravel, catch the fish, wash said gravel, move tank to new stand, level new stand, replant tank, refill without disturbing all my aquascaping) and recovery from 9 straight hours of moderately demanding physical labour.

I had never heard of Wikipedia Loves Art, so I had to read up on that a little. It sounds interesting - either as a tour with photography, or as a competition. Unfortunately, I don't know other Wikipedians IRL, and I've never heard of meetups in this part of the country. At this moment the idea of going outdoors sounds like a horrible idea to me :) (I think yesterday was the third consecutive day of ~105°F weather), once it cools down a little I would love an excuse to get out and explore more of the local nature. So - interesting idea, but I'm not entirely sure how to proceed.

Speaking of the Everglades, we took a class to FL in May, did a transect from Ocala to the Keys. Apart from the rain (it never stopped raining the 3 days we spent camping in Ocala, not once), it was a great experience. And we got a tour of the Everglades from someone who works on the sawgrass meadows. I have lots of pictures - most are pretty bad, but a few of them are decent enough that they will end up in Wikipedia (though so far it's mostly been shots of palms from Fairchild). Guettarda (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, Guettarda. I loved those 2 weeks of rain. Bummer that you got stuck in it though. Camping in the rain kinda sucks.


 * To all, I am in the middle of rewriting the utterly pathetic article for St. Johns River, and it's kind of turning into a red link fest, though it did get me a DYK (below), and I anticipate it will get me more... I think I'm going to take a few days off in the near future and illustrate the article with self-taken images, starting at the headwaters and ending at the ocean. When I'm not actually doing work at my job or house renovations, I'm trying to finish the article rewrite. I'd like to make a project page off my user page and invite folks who may be interested to participate in its construction and formation. Of course, I've also been involved in the arbcom advisory committee discussions, so as soon as those die down, I'll have some more time to tinker on it as well. To plan for this, I was thinking of a first attempt in late summer/early fall, with group participants proposing locations that are regionally central (i.e. Cumberland Island National Seashore for the Southeast U.S.). I have the project page in my head. If you can, think of some other folks who may be interested. When I am able to construct the possible project page, I'll invite those folks to participate. --Moni3 (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day 2010?
Not sure if it qualifies as a 'good' April Fools article subject, but I thought I'd try to help and point you at Project Pigeon. Easily one of the oddest things I've seen in awhile. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rights
this may be relevant to your interests. Haven't started on a Constitution yet, but it's a start... → ROUX   ₪  15:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Zephaniah Kingsley

 * I just read your article on Zephaniah Kingsley and enjoyed it very much. Nice job! Silverchemist (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. He seems to be an interesting guy, full of contradictions and apparently completely flummoxed by his times. There's more to add to it. I'll get around to it soon. I'm glad you enjoyed it. --Moni3 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Six of my articles have appeared on the main page."
Perhaps you could rephrase it. The "my articles" part seems like WP:OWN and may contribute to unhappiness and dissatisfaction on Wikipedia, for you. If you really feel they are your articles, then you will be unduly upset when other editors modify, or even vandalize "your articles", and may not be able to maintain perspective. Also, it is possible to be more tactful by saying "articles to which I was the major contributor" or alternative wording used by other editors that mitigates the "these are mine" message". I think you will still get credit, prestige, etc. with the toned down wording. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I peed on them. That makes them mine, doesn't it?


 * More seriously, I wasn't in the mood at the time for anything but severe brevity. "My" was much more efficient than "articles to which I was the major contributor". And quite honestly, prestige, credit... sparkly things that distract us from issues we'd rather not deal with. Anyone who looks for prestige and credit on Wikipedia got off the bus at the wrong stop. Anyway, I can change the wording. Or you can. It's good either way. --Moni3 (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

White Night riots
Thank you for giving my article a thorough peer review. I have acted on everything actionable that you gave me, save copyediting and reference consistency. Before I do those, I would just like to know if there is anything else content-wise that needs to be done to prepare it for FAC. I am grateful for all the help you have given me with my first GA and what will (hopefully) be my first FA. Any additional tips you could give would be a tremendous help.

Thanks again, Firestorm Talk 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Save Our Children Brochure inside.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Save Our Children Brochure inside.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's it, dammit. I'm getting the torches... --Moni3 (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Calusa gator head
I just found your photo of the gator head using Google images, and added it to the Calusa article. Do you have any more? -- Donald Albury 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do. I have images of tools, nets, shells, and the mock structure of a Calusa dwelling on shell terraces outside the Florida Museum of Natural History. I also have an image of Seminole calico patchwork in the museum.


 * I went to the library but the book you wanted is not on the shelf. I can check again next week or fill out a search request to find it. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Images always help in an article. :) I can check with the FMNH next week. I'm sure they have a copy of the book, as the two authors both work there. -- Donald Albury 22:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rivers and such
That's it, next time there's a cute and fuzzy baby animal in the news, we're collaborating on its article. In fact, I'm assigning you homework in preparation. Our old apartment in Avondale actually sat right on the St. Johns, and despite the smell, it was awesome. There were ospreys, muskrats, pelicans, soft shell turtles; all kinds of fun stuff to waste time watching. That's what the article needs: more funny animal antics! "I know the raping and pillaging of the St. Johns is depressing and all, but look at the river otters playing tag! N'aww!" Anyway, I'll give it a read and comment on the PR once I get a break from schoolwork -- I'm taking an environmental poetry class, so good timing? María ( habla con migo ) 12:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have otters on my list of things to add to the article. I have also been strolling in Riverside Park to peek over the railing to see a manatee saying hello. So yes, more critters (less varmints). I don't recall the river smelled when I lived for a brief period in Riverside. But my mom, who worked in a hospital near the river, used to say when someone fell in back in the 1970s, before they were treated for wounds or drowning, they had to be washed off. Gross.


 * My nephew is a zoo freak. He can't get enough. We took him to the Jax Zoo on his birthday last month. He's into birds and big cats, and we stood looking at the jaguar cage while he chirped "Kee ka!" (kitty cat) over an over at a woman standing next to him, as if schooling her on the ways of the kee ka. When he opened his presents (he's 2) he got a stuffed lion and a book about big cats from his cool aunts. He opened them, then left the rest of the presents on the table unopened. Score! One of my brother's friends worked at the zoo in the 1990s, and was scooping poop or something next to the rhino enclosure when a rhino saw him and charged. The guy crouched down in terror blurting "No rhino bad help", only to find the rhino was perfectly confined by the fence. Good times. --Moni3 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your nephew and I should totally hang out. I'm such a fan of the zoo, especially the new Asian gardens they just opened.  Did you get to see the baby jaguar, in all his pint-sized ferociousness?  The mature and worldly woman I am, I was reduced to wibbling in LOLspeak while in his presence.  "OMG!  Liek!  LOL!"


 * We lived near Big Fishweir Creek, which is probably where the smell emanated from. It's lazy and very silty (the powers that be keep threatening to dredge it), and after seeing several pelican and fish carcasses wash up during low tide, we used to joke that it was where animals go to die.  The boyfriend kept threatening to buy a kayak so he could go out there and collect the garbage from nearby restaurants and businesses, but he never got around to it.  I miss living in that area of town; the man-made pond in our suburban backyard just isn't the same, although it attracts its fair amount of ducks, geese, herons and water turkeys.  One morning we even had a flotilla of water turkeys visit; the goofiest bird of all, IMHO.  María ( habla  con migo ) 14:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

STFU Marrieds
Thank you for introducing me to this (Iridescent's talk page is still on my watchlist and I noticed it there). That is too funny. MastCell Talk 19:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! You've never seen that... It's possibly the only reason I ever go to facebook. Just to watch the carnage some days. You are very welcome. --Moni3 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want comedy value, this (genuine) press release has got to be the single greatest scientific press release ever. "We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population", indeed. Someone, create an article on Cyclone Power… – iride  scent  20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. Futuristic robots feeding on humans. Reminds me of the discovery of evidence of "ravenous man-eating clams". Don't believe snopes. (These folks didn't - p. 46) I know it's true! --Moni3 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there goes Facebook. Or maybe it was always gone. I'm now hiding on Wikipedia hoping these people don't invade. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops
Oops! When I start getting editors mixed up in my head I think it means it's time to try getting more than four hours of sleep a night..... sorry about that! r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 20:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Once I undid a copy editing session of Casliber's on an article of mine at FAC after not sleeping for two days. Sheepish apology to follow... --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Halifax River
Hi Moni, I saw you did a nice job expanding the St. Johns River article recently. Could I ask you to take a look at the Halifax River and if you have any ideas on how to expand this article? Thanks for your time. Gamweb (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't think I would have difficulty constructing the article for St. Johns River with authoritative sources, but I was surprised at the few comprehensive looks at the St. Johns. I found a couple guidebooks and one from the Rivers of America series in 1943. I would try the St. Johns River Water Management District website and the Army Corps of Engineers website because they maintain the Intracoastal Waterway. The library at the University of Florida appears to have quite a few materials on the Intracoastal Waterway in Florida. If you're in St. Johns County, their library would have some stuff on this. I would look at these materials, or at least use them as a starting point. Try here, too. Broaden your searches. The Halifax River is in St. Johns County, so consider the history of St. Johns County when constructing the history of the Halifax River. Focus then on how people in the region related to water and the Halifax. The ecosystem is estuarine, so look for sources on plant and animal life that live in brackish water in North Florida. Engineering the Intracoastal Waterway appears to be an interest to a lot of folks. I don't know about environmental problems in the river, so you would have to check the St. Augustine Record and the Florida Times-Union for that material. Hope that helps! --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt
First off, thanks for deciding to do the GA review.

I have mostly taken care of your first volley of suggestions.

I would appreciate any further suggestions you can make before the formal review.

BTW, I started the article off by copy-pasting from David Irving. That's why some of the stuff in the testimony section isn't yet right. The whole 'Trial' section is still under construction. I intend to expand it, also including whatever stuff I can come up with about the Opening statements and Closing arguments. I also need to expand both 'Evans' and 'Pelt', both of whom had quite alot of testimony and cross-examination. They both wrote books about the trial, so that should help me compose material. Still, I find it difficult to read detailed and graphic descriptions of the mechanisms of mass murder, and that's exactly what Pelt testified about. I will try to write what I can about his testimony, but at some point I may need to enlist the help of someone who is less sensitive than I am. --TachyonJack (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I read the article and thought some of the sections were small for the concepts covered in the trial. Please think very carefully if you want the article to be nominated. I was planning on doing my review tomorrow. After I list questions and suggestions, you'll have seven days to make improvements. If it's not ready after seven days, the article will have to be failed and you'll have to wait a few weeks before nominating it again. If you have multiple sections you're considering expanding, you might want to take a few days or weeks to do that. Generally, articles are (or should be) ready for the GA review when they are nominated. There's no problem or shame in postponing the review by removing the nomination to renominate when you think the article is the best you can make it. Let me know what you decide. --Moni3 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now I am stuck. I don't know how I should organize the trial section. I am not happy with the way I was planning to do it (openings, testimonies, closings) as it does not seem to lend itself to a comprehensive, natural presentation of the material. I did a whole brainstorming thing, listing all the different ways I could organize the section. But I don't really know which to choose from. If you have some time, would you look what I did over, and possibly offer me your insights or preferences.

Should I continue to write with the orginization I was already planning? Delete all headings, and just write, hoping order will emerge from chaos? Decide on a different way to organize it? I realize that I will ultimately have to make these decisions myself (or give up and hope somebody else will do it), but I could use some guidance from a more experienced editor. --TachyonJack (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. I took a look at three legal case featured articles: Al-Kateb v Godwin, Dietrich v The Queen, and Roe v. Wade. They appear to follow a Background-Arguments-Judgment format. All three are from different countries, so it might benefit the article to have you read these to see how they are written, organized, and cited. These are FAs, so they should be exhaustively researched. I don't expect your article to have this kind of detail or quality, but it is something to aspire to. There's a section on legal cases for good articles, too. Ultimately, it's your sources that will dictate how much emphasis you put on each section. --Moni3 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of the genre in Pussy Galore
See the genre in film in Cat-Women of the Moon. Pussy Galore and the Abrocats who don't need men, are pure 1950's. Funny but true. S B Harris 21:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, gosh. I wrote the article for Lesbian, and should direct your attention to the Literature and Film sections. In the most excellent sources I used, none referred to lists of any length that address "dangerous bands of cat-woman lesbians". Rosa Klebb is mentioned as a archetype of evil lesbian villain, but she was not dressed as a cat-woman, sadly, and Klebb does not constitute a list, much less a long one. Why stick to legitimate literature? I try not to. I also wrote most of Lesbian pulp fiction and think the art and themes are quite campy bordering on the tragically hilarious. Yet of this genre, sadly again, no dangerous bands of cat-woman lesbians. The film you linked to, though no doubt highly entertaining, and entertaining while high, does not mention lesbians. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Johns River PR
I see that you've listed the article at PR... I really hope you consider working on geographic articles, they're quite fun. Anyway, I saw that Ruhrfisch was commenting, I'd also suggest Finetooth who is an excellent reviewer in general and quite familiar with geography articles. :) ceran thor 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to predict what I'll work on. I have no idea from one day to the next it seems. Finetooth has copy edited and done a fine job on Birmingham campaign, so I am familiar with his mad skillz. I am as yet undecided if I will try again for FA. I continue to meditate on the wisdom of such actions. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not try for FA.... hmm... I think I'm missing something. Are you okay, Moni? And you have your own set of 'mad skillz', in case you are unaware. ceran thor 22:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Milk in Dress Navy 1954.jpg
Hi! Harvey Milk in Dress Navy 1954.jpg needs evidence of permission, I tagged it. Regards Hekerui (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't give OTRS ticket numbers. They used to be mailed to me, but no longer. Find someone who can read emails to permissions and that's where it will be. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh-Haaaa
"Ched doesn't know probably that I'm full of shit half the time I post..." I just noticed that ... lol. ;) ... Hey, you've always been willing to help me when I asked for assistance - that's all I ever cared about. Well, actually, I do rather enjoy your sense of humor as well. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Julia Tuttle Causeway sex offender colony

 * Nice work. I cannot believe that the gov't allows such treatment of our citizens to exist. This is awful, just awful. Dincher (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't quite know what to think of it. It's pretty mind-boggling, the whole thing. --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lynch book
Hey, I wonder if you ever looked at David Lynch Decoded by Mark Stewart while you were researching. There are oodles of books out there... how did you decide on the ones you used? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine was easier, I think... at least for books. Much literature was devoted to Lynch when he was the weirdest dude out there, pre-X-Files. Now weirdness is almost required. Mulholland Dr. was made from 1999 to 2001, so it was a safe bet that any book published before then would not contain information pertinent to the film. If you're doing Eraserhead you get to read all the books about Lynch. Awesome. But less reviews since I understand it wasn't widely released. Have you checked out film journals and stuff? I have a pretty good film literature database at my fingertips. --Moni3 (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have access to the databases as well, but I really haven't gotten the knack of searching. I end up getting results where someone is writing a blurb about the DVD release, etc. I've yet to find any serious scholarly work in film databases. I tried e-mailing a couple film professors who looked like they teach Lynch, but no one responded. Phooey. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  14:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I had not found most of that stuff, proving I have no idea how to search. Fortunately it's an unambiguous search term (try finding anything on the band Chicago). I always thought I should be European, because I always end up getting into things that are wildly popular in Europe. You know, Lynch, Toto, lutefisk. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I don't know if I have access to all those articles, but probably most. Let me know if you can't get hold of some and I'll see what I can do to forward them to you. --Moni3 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Le sigh.. it turns out I will not be able to access any of these. My database access has been cut way back. When I get 'round to this, I may ask you for a favor. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okeydoke. Give me a holler when you're ready to go. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wildfire FA
Thank you for your detailed input on the Wildfire FA review. The article has been removed from the FA review for the moment. This was my first GA and FA review (and only, so far), so I must admit I'm a little inexperienced in the editing process. Also, my writing style tends to be a little too technical due to my science background. When you get a chance, perhaps you could further direct the talk page discussion as to how the article might be improved. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to do that. If no one has told you yet, be patient and ask a lot of questions. My first several FAs I found very frustrating, and I find danger in taking comfort that future FAs will be effortless. Getting the article featured is secondary to being thoroughly challenged and learning how you react to it...at least in my experience. I have the article watchlisted. If you have questions and would like my opinion, feel free to ask. The article is worth working on and getting it the best it can be. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes and added some questions to the talk page. When you get a free moment, could you review the changes and possibly reply to the questions? Thanks,  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 22:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will be submitting the article to FA review within the next few days. Please feel free to comment if you do not agree. Thanks,  Mr  Bell  ( talk ) 21:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Milk lead
I considered including "posthumously" in the lead, but thought it rather obvious since the lead discusses his assassination. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just think it sounds awkward to say that a dead person will be awarded something without clarifying it somehow. Otherwise my first reaction is that it's a typo and should say "was awarded". Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, all right. Either way it will be criticized. Foo. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block of IP address
Hi. Why did you block 165.139.243.247 indefinitely per this log when Blocking policy specifically states "IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely."? Thanks. — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 02:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't remember so it should be undone. --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!
Congrats on Rosewood massacre making the mainpage! I hope it doesn't incur too much damage. María ( habla con migo ) 12:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So far so good. Thank you for helping to get it there! --Moni3 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again with the front page. (smile) How many of your articles have been there now?  Horologium  (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh. This makes seven. And six more reasons why I think long and hard about trying for another FA. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! I first heard of Rosewood when co-workers in Gainesville talked about it more than 40 years ago. I was reluctant to ask for details, as I was still a bit of an outsider, and it was a folk myth by then, any way. I learned more from the battalion chaplain in Vietnam, who had grown up in Gainesville, but that also had been passed by word of mouth. It is nice to read the real story. -- Donald Albury 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I read some of the anecdotes following the incident, of survivors and Rosewood or Sumner residents meeting up in Gainesville or Lacoochee years later, trying to find out what happened to friends, family members, and their property. One survivor, Lonnie Carrier, lived in Gainesville for a while and after meeting a few Sumner residents, changed his name to Lonnie Carrol and moved to South Florida. My sources did not say what was the immediate reason he did that. I have found while writing and improving the article that I am separated by degrees from some folks related to the incident. I spoke very recently with a Cedar Key resident who says that no one talks about it, ever, and it is still very much festering in some parts of Levy County.
 * Thank you, however, for reading it and commenting here. I am very glad you find the article interesting. I can't really say "enjoy the article". As much as one enjoys lancing an abscess. --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And let the world know that Moni3 spanked that bad boy into shape.. Congrats! Scartol  •  Tok  23:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My articles are big piles of stinky runny crap til you get hold of them, Scartol. Thanks again for a copy edit on Rosewood. --Moni3 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternative text
Hello, I've been issuing notifications about alternative text for GAs and FAs under WikiProject Films. Looks like you address Mulholland Drive (film) already! According to the tool, though, there's one image that still needs text. Care to take care of that? :) Hope you are well! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was puzzled by why I would leave out one image until I went to fill it in and remembered why. The caption would be the alt text. It is simply what it is. Suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt text is not supposed to copy the caption. From the examples I've seen, it needs to be physical descriptions of the people.  Naming them is not useful.  An example of text for that image (and perhaps the rest) would be: "Four people stand together side-by-side against a bright white background.  The blonde woman on the far left, Naomi Watts, wears a tan dress suit.  Standing right of her is David Lynch with salt-and-pepper hair and a dark blazer over a white button-up shirt and slacks.  Right of Lynch is a brown-haired woman, Laura Elena Herring, who is wearing (???) and red pants.  On the far right is Justin Theroux, a man with spiked-up dark hair and wearing a black leather jacket on his black wardrobe."  A suggestion I've heard to approaching alternative text is to act like you're explaining the image to someone on the phone so that person can visualize it.  Hope that example helps! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would I not have to do that for the rest of the images in the article? Whatever they're wearing isn't necessarily integral to understanding the concepts presented in the images or the article. This is the gray area about alt text I'm just not sure about. --Moni3 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Butting in here, I think Erik's suggestion for alt text misses the mark by a country mile. Far too long for one thing, and "on the far right is Justin Theroux"? Duh? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree somewhat. The alt text in the rest of the images in that particular article reflects issues discussed in the text. Maybe because the image left "unalted" is about the Cannes Film Festival and people care what stars at Cannes wear or something. It escapes me. --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You and I take being able to see an image for granted, Moni. We can't assume to know what visually impaired readers want to see, and WP:ALT says that there's a clear difference between captions and alternative text.  So obviously there needs to be more.  Perhaps not as much as what I wrote (I wrote the example on the fly, so pardon me for the "duh" structure), but there needs to be something more than saying the names of the people. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 02:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that many folks can't see, but why must there be something more than the names of the people? Why is the caption not sufficient? What more detail would add to the understanding of the article? Not appreciation of the image, but understanding the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then maybe ask why include that particular image at all? I assume the image helps illustrate the article in a free manner, but it's unfair to visually impaired people to be robbed of any kind of description of the image where you and I take it for granted to see and enjoy.  It may be worth asking Eubulides what he thinks -- he's tempered some of my alternate text examples, but I think he'd say that there should be more than a duplicate of the caption. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I considered that question, too. Most of the images, including this one, were in the article before I rewrote it. I did not question why it was there. However, this now brings up a new question: are sighted users then going to be, err...."punished" for lack of a better word, if policy clarifies that if there is no alt text necessary beyond the caption then it should be removed? Sure, lots of images are illustrative, but so what? I'm not demanding you answer this, but it's just another question on top of all the other questions. --Moni3 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank God someone has at last voiced one of my major concerns over this alt text fiasco. We need to do all we can to accommodate visually impaired users, obviously, but levelling down is never the right option. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Including alternative text is part of the FA criteria (as evidenced by the addition of the alt tool to the set of tools). There's no punishment, but there's no reason to grandfather Featured Articles that didn't get tested for alternative text.  We're all still learning how to apply such text, but WP:ALT makes it clear that the alternative text should not just repeat the caption.  Visually impaired readers already read the caption, so we'd sound like a broken record. :)  We can simplify my example (as I admit I've tended to overdo it) to something like: "Four people stand beside each other facing off-camera, from left to right: a blonde woman wearing a tan dress suit, a man with salt-and-pepper hair wearing a blazer over white shirt and slacks, a brunette wearing red pants and a black top, and a dark-haired man wearing a black leather jacket over black clothes."  Any better in shorter form? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And if I was blind from birth, what would I get from "blonde", or "red pants" etc. Who exactly is the audience for this alt text? How would you describe a picture of an elephant? To someone who has lost their sight, simply saying it's an elephant will do, but how would you suggest it ought to be described to those who have never seen? To be fair, I ought to warn you that there have been psychological studies on this question, so don't rush your answer. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Visually impaired people are not always impaired from birth. In addition, WP:ALT explains reasons for the alternative text.  There's no one right way to write text for an image, but it does not mean we should not try.  I'm inserting my example to go beyond being a repeat of the caption. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No they're not, but who are we writing for? Those born blind or those who have become blind? Or are you suggesting that the same alt text suits both? Please just answer the question this time instead of pointing me to yet another half-baked interpretation of what "blind people" might or might not find useful. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I get your point. I think mine are just as valid. --Moni3 (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re the addition. I don't agree with it. I think it's rather pointless. I don't own the article. My judgment loses out. Such is the way of Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Moni, I liked the alternative text for the other images. If you want to seek clarification about this particular example, you could ask Eubulides or on WT:ALT.  He helped clarify the application of alternative text for me on a couple of other articles.  I didn't mean to get on anyone's case, though... happy editing, and perhaps we will cross paths again soon! :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 03:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I started a thread at WT:FAC. I like the alt text for the other images, too. I still think your suggested text is unnecessary and in contrast to the sufficient text in the other images, perplexing. I do not think anyone's understanding of these alt text issues is more significant than mine, and I'm not sure what I'm doing. I added alt text to my FAs weeks ago, two days, I think, after the thread appeared at WT:FAC. I get why it's needed. Yet you're going on about why it's necessary. You dismissed my confusion and valid objections by editing the article. This entire thread is perplexing and disappointing. --Moni3 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel like I'm on the wrong page with everyone tonight! Moni, I don't mean to be dismissive of your thoughts.  To reiterate, we both understand the need for alternative text.  For the image in question, you believe that nothing beyond the caption can be said, right?  My opinion, based on reading WP:ALT and WT:ALT, is that names of people are not descriptive enough.  I added the text because I felt it was better to overdo it than to underdo it.  Maybe there's something between our examples, like, "Two men and two women stand together in nice clothes against a lit background."  I'll follow the discussion at WT:FAC and see what others say and shape my WP:ALT mentality accordingly.  Please forgive me for being disappointing! :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a butt-insky question/comment. It sounds like we should assume folks utilizing those alt texts read the caption provided for sighted folks then read the alt text, no? So the alt text needs to add information that sighted folks may take for granted and be descriptive and hopefully add to what the article content reinforces. Am I getting all that right? -- Banj e b oi   20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's about right. Screen readers will read the caption, so the alt text has to add value for visually impaired editors. The major unresolved issue I see though is whether the audience for alt text should be assumed to be those who have never seen or those who lost their sight later in life. For instance a description such as "red dress" would make sense to the latter but not to the former, who will have no sense of colour. My own view is that alt text ought to be targetted at those who have never seen, as the caption is likely to be able to convey a lot more information to those who could once see. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, FWIW even though someone may have never seen a red dress they may certainly have an understanding what cultural significance that colour would have. -- Banj e  b oi   22:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

TOnight would be perfect.
Have you been spying on me under the full moon ????? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm. Would I be at all convincing if I completely denied posting that thing? --Moni3 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For TPS who may be interested, and on a new potential for Wikipedia
Guest column in the Cedar Key Beacon. I hope the link works. It may not after 7 days. --Moni3 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moni, that's so beautiful. I suspected that you were a marvelous human being; now I have proof of it!  Your WP editing has truly made a difference in this world. --Christine (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Christine, you have a much higher opinion of me than I do. I see my best talents lie in inventing new ways to fail at life. Or at least fail at what conventional wisdom has told me should be achieved. I appreciate your comments nonetheless. I honestly hope someone takes the initiative to do something about it there. Not sure what or if I can do something if it falls on deaf or apathetic ears. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's true about us all, isn't it? We all just go about life, plodding about the best that we can.  None of us are perfect, but many of us do the best we can.  You are, as my deceased mother used to say, "good people".  Or as Sandy says below, in her Gen X way, "you rock".  You gladden my heart by demonstrating my core belief that there are decent folk out there, even in cyberspace, and in spite of a lot evidence to the contrary (like the events at Rosewood).  Thank you for that. --Christine (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Me, Gen X? Christine, flattery will get you everywhere !  Moni, knock if off ... if you're great at failing, the rest of us suck.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You rock. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations (bows).  JN 466  19:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Permalink for if/when the original is taken down. – iride  scent  19:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooh, thanks for that! Kewl. You too Sandy and Jayen. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow - pile on congrats :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're published. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I do appreciate the supportive comments, it's important for me to point out that the letter, and the reason I posted this here is not about me. If I could have had the letter published without my name, I would have preferred it. But the editor wanted my name on it. I don't deserve congratulations, but Levy County deserves all the help it can get. --Moni3 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. While I strongly suspect that there are people in Levy County who think you should have not have aired the dirty laundry, I'm sure there are others who at least accept that the story had to be told, and still others who are relieved that it has been set straight. It is important to not demonize the whole county, and to not push people who are willing to acknowledge the horrors that occurred into a defensive posture. -- Donald Albury 12:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Donald. I hope they can do it. I really do. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

adoption
Hi Moni3, I'm a new user, looking for someone to adopt me, and you seem like a good match. I plan on spending my time getting articles to GA or FA status, just picking random things. The subject doesn't matter much - I like the research, the reorganization, and the editing. Maniacmagee (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to help anyone truly committed to improving an article to GA or FA status. Let me know what I can do. --Moni3 (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just finished my first major edit. I thought it would be fitting to start with my namesake. Do you think you could look it over and tell me what it needs to get to GA/FA status? Thanks! Maniacmagee (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I taught Maniac Magee. I enjoyed teaching The Giver much more.

I will be away
Hey,

I just wanted to let you know that I am and will be away from Wikipedia for some time. I am going to school in another country and don't expect to have much time or internet access.

If you decide to evaluate or improve Irving v Lipstadt anyway, that's great. Just know that I won't be there to respond to your review.

Sorry I didn't let you know sooner. I just sortav ran out of time.

-TachyonJack (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Best of luck in school. There are school projects that take on Wikipedia articles, by the way. I'd say getting an article to FA, depending on the topic, is very advanced work. Keep it in the back of your mind. It might take an entire semester to do it and not only would you have an FA but you'd get credit for it if the instructor agrees. --Moni3 (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I noticed you're involved in the Adopt-a-User program, and was wondering if you could please give me some pointers/help me research a few articles I've been working on to bring them up a class (not entirely a "new" user, but I would definitely consider myself inexperienced). Any help would be greatly appreciated. Granny Bebeb (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What article(s) are you considering improving? And what kind of access do you have to research materials? --Moni3 (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The two articles I'm primarily focusing on right now are Clint Catalyst (a lot of important information about him is missing from the article and I'm having difficulty getting any source to stay, although the links I use (I also have some print sources regarding this subject) seem to be WP:RS-compliant...I'm mostly concerned with the lack of mention of his TV producer and screenwriter credits - particularly notable as he was one of the writers involved with the infamous America's Next Top Model strike. It was one of the first things I found out about him) and Luci'fer Luscious Violenoue (there is information on her that should easily establish notability, but not much is in English...I can find Japanese sources myself, but I'm wondering which places in the article you feel could use citation the most - as the warning templates have been up for a while, I want to make sure it doesn't get deleted, and I'm not entirely sure the best way to go about this).


 * I also edit Tiffany (singer) from time to time, but I feel that in addition to lacking some important information that I'm not sure how to properly source, the tone and structure are done in such a way that I find editing the page a confusing task at times...not sure what you could do for that either, though I've been wondering if there's a good way to cite her first single that failed to chart - last I looked, it wasn't even mentioned in the article ("Danny"). What would be considered a reliable source for its existence? I've been getting most of my sources from the internet, but due to the age, a print source would likely be all that was available...however, this single was not given promotion - I am not certain it would be mentioned in print even if I knew where to look. I believe it was mentioned in a VH1 show at some point - if I was able to find out the name/episode of the show, would that be reliable enough?


 * Anyway, I hope it's not too tall an order...any advice/contributions on any of the three would be greatly appreciated. Granny Bebeb (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Broken Coord
Hi. I'm working on clearing out Category:Coord template needing repair. Would you mind if I changed the coords for the source of the river on User:Moni3/Saint Johns River — 27°40′73″N 80°45′11″W — which have an out-of-bound number. The actual St. Johns River article has different coords anyway: 27°57′18″N 80°47′3″W, from the GNIS. —WWoods (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not set those coordinates. They are wrong, but I need to find the most updated ones. I believe the headwaters coordinates in the 1996 GNIS source places the headwaters farther north than Blue Cypress Lake in the St. Johns Marsh in Indian River County. If you can find that, that's the best bet. I was getting around to it one of these days. If you want to do it, I'd appreciate it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The GNIS coords in the article (27°57′18″N 80°47′3″W) point to a location in the Marsh about 3 miles north of Blue Cypress Lake (point "A" on this map), at what looks like the end of the natural channel. 27°41′13″N 80°45′11″W (point "B") is just south of the lake.  So it looks like the article already has the right coords.
 * —WWoods (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So, may I change this? —WWoods (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, go nuts. I don't own the article. If it's accurate and cited to a reliable source, change away. --Moni3 (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks.
 * You do sort-of own that page, as much as User:Moni3, or any other user pages you have. If it had been in the actual article page, St. Johns River, I'd have just fixed it without asking.
 * —WWoods (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I ain't no troll.
Don't listen to anything Noloop says about others stalking him or being trolls. Not to be rude or anything. As one of the accused, I am getting tired of Noloop telling other admins that so and so are trolling. It's even got a RFC about it. <font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2 | <font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">Aww nuts! <font face="Papyrus" color="#FFAA11">Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into whatever dance you have going with this user. The issue of being a sockpuppet is the least important issue in the GA review for the article that Noloop quick-failed. --Moni3 (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. But just telling you that so you at least know what Noloops talking about.<font face="Fantasy" color="#3366FF">Abce2 | <font face="Verdana" color="#0099AA">Aww nuts! <font face="Papyrus" color="#FFAA11">Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The needless and endless stupid drama that occurs here and on other venues is the precise inspiration for my writing the Munchausen by Internet article. Unless a user is standing in front of me showing me government-dispensed documentation, I tend not to believe anything said by anyone. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey Moni, i completely agree that ignoring the drama is the way to go. You are like my article writing hero, so i know you know that answering concerns (even if lame like mine!) is the way to win over univolved editors, even when the wiki-world seems unreasonable. Don't give up, and remember, we are all here to help! (in our own ways!) :-).<font color="#0000CD">Yob <font color="CC3399 ">Mod  00:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this nonsense Moni. I think it's bloody ridiculous that the article was quickfailed, particularly as I feel somewhat protective of GA and don't like to see it being brought into disrepute like this.

The article isn't perfect—what article is—but it's a fine effort nevertheless, and not far short of what I'd expect of a GA. I think you've done a great job with it, and if the GAR results in the article being renominated then I'll undertake to do the review if it's not picked up quickly by someone else. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support this remedy, as Malleus said somewhere that he had a background in Psychology and hopefully he will do the right thing regarding fixing up the article and removing the misleading DSM references. Even if it is one man's theory, more general support must be shown for the theory than quoting the one man in various articles and reditions. Original research (your speculations on the internet culture) are not ok.  Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unless a user is standing in front of me showing me government-dispensed documentation...": I have a note from my mother that says I am handsome, special, and a Very Good Boy. I know you'll accord this document with all proper respect... I'll peek at the Münchausen thing and see what's going on. Is we is or is we ain't getting our daily dose of dramaz? Ling.Nut (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me your email address and I'll send you a copy of my psychology degree. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No need. I accept that Ling.Nut is handsome, special, and a Very Good Boy. No  documentation necessary. I perceive his "essence".  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading through the article I think it's unlikely that the the GAR will come up with anything other than a recommendation to renominate. There are no sanctions that can be applied to a crap reviewer, or any will to apply them even if there were.

I do think this is an important article, and one that it's important to get right. During my time here on wikipedia I've seen a few glaring examples, one in which an administrator who was apparently at death's door following a road traffic accident miraculously recovered once the local police and hospitals had been contacted. Some of the language does need explaining though, like "factitious", but I don't see anything other than some tidying up is needed. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia admin? Who? Email me if you don't want to post it here. This is simply too delicious to be believed. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll email you, don't want to reopen old wounds in public. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, if you want to do a GA review for the article, go for it. I'm open to any suggestions that improve the article. --Moni3 (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just seen that Ling.Nut has offered to take on the review if, as seems likely, the GAR closes with a recommendation to renominate. I think that's a good option, and I'll offer what help I can. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also discussing ways to rewrite the lead with Yobmod on the article talk page. Feel free to participate. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like things are nicely in hand now then, especially if Yobmod can get hold of those papers you mention. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are good options now. Geometry guy 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Moni, I'm sorry this GAR hasn't been a great experience: by and large GARs are much too quiet, in contrast to this. As seen in the thread above and elsewhere, more than one respected GAN reviewer has offered to respond to a new nomination, and I have proposed this at GAR. It just needs for one such reviewer to step forward, with your agreement, and the GAR will be closed within 24 hours.

To other commentators on this issue, I would say, please don't make posts of outrage in multiple places about an issue open at GAR: it doesn't help anyone (especially those involved) reach a balanced judgement, nor does it help the reassessment find consensus. I would also suggest that some editors refresh their memories on what the GAR guidelines say about what GAR is for and how it works. GAR is about the article and the criteria, not the editor or the reviewer. This particular reassessment also got cluttered by metacomments: please direct these to the talk page of the reassessment in future. Thank you, Geometry guy 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm open to improving the article. If someone with experience wants to assess it for GA, that's fine. I'm more concerned with the objections. --Moni3 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Münchausen by Internet 2
You didn't have to list it for reassessment. You had enough to just ask for a second review. Regardless, I can process Münchausen by Internet if you would like. The article looks rather clean from what I can see. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your offer. There are some lead clarity issues that have been discussed on the article talk page. I would like it to be as clear as possible. Otherwise, the unfortunate fallout resulting from the initial GA review needs some time to die down before it goes on to further assessment. I'm not interested right now. If you or anyone else wants the sources to nominate it yourself, you're welcome to them. Just email me and I'll attach them. --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have enough noms right now. :) I'm just trying to pick up the slack at GAN and FAC and do whatever I can in reviewing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This helps with the backlog then. One less to do. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moni3, everything I've seen of you made me think of you as one of the more likeable and level-headed people in this MMORPG, so whatever's got you stressed out, I hope it improves soon.
 * Please re-nom the article. At the GAR half of WP:GAN was begging you to do so because they thought it was pretty close, and would-be reviewers were forming a disorderly queue. Getting it over the GA threshold may also help you to put the recent hassles behind you. That's not empty words, I got pretty steamed up at what I considered a deficient review of one of "my" artciles and I got considerable satisfaction from seeing it pass 2nd time fairly smoothly and with a few laughs during the review. --Philcha (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Not appropriate
Please Moni3, whatever your disagreement may be it is not appropriate to make abusive and uncivil comments like you did here. Wikipedia relies on a civil atmosphere. For more information please read WP:Civility which describes our standards in this matter. Thank you. <font color='#696713'>Chillum 16:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The same thought struck me, and as I've commented, it would be advisable for you to strike that comment and try to find a more productive and patient approach, as well as being civil about it. . . dave souza, talk 16:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will absolutely not strike it. It took incivility to direct attention to the lackluster and perverse application Mattisse's ArbCom ruling. That's what people respond to. That's quite sad. --Moni3 (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please find another way to direct attention than incivility, this motive in no way justifies or excuses such behavior. If this becomes an ongoing issue it may lead it blocks, as an isolated incident I don't see the need for further action. <font color='#736313'>Chillum 17:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazing. Mattisse has breached almost every condition of her ArbCom Plan (within mere weeks of the ArbCom closing), without one of her mentors saying a word, but when Moni points it out, she's reprimanded.  I'm speechless. Moni is asked to strike comments, but not one mentor asked Mattisse to strike her accusation that I stalked her to James Joyce.  Most interesting how these mentors are working.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Find another way to direct attention... ok: MATTISSE'S ARBCOM MENTORS ARE INCOMPETENT . How's that striking you? What, Chillum, do you think I have left here to respect? You? Why don't you do something about this? Think you can make any sense out of Mattisse's bizarre ramblings on the article talk page? Then do you think you can make sense of Philcha deferring to her expertise on her talk page when contemplating a GA review of that article? I have to turn into a complete whore here; respect does not earn results. Conflict forces value reassessment. By all means block me and ignore the crux of the problem. It is not limited to the Munchausen by Internet article. Do your damn job. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Moni, don't let it get to you. Mattisse has already violated almost every part of her plan, and the mentorship clearly isn't working.  To ArbCom's defense, they gave it a fair shake, and they kept jurisdiction.  When the diffs are presented, ArbCom will do the right thing.  My previous edit summary, calling this an ArbCom failure, should be retracted ... it's actually working just as they likely intended.  They gave it a chance, they gave mentorship a chance.  Moni, don't let it get to you.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your thoughts, Sandy. I said what I meant to say. --Moni3 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I spent as lot of to-day working on an unfamiliar subject. So I didn't checking my watchlist much, and was unhappy to see how this affair had turned into a sub-standard of Westside Story. I just posted at Mattisse's Talk page "Everyone chill out", and the piling on, drawing of battle lines, etc. should stop here too - for everybody.
 * Re "MATTISSE'S ARBCOM MENTORS ARE INCOMPETENT", everyone makes mistakes. I started that thread hoping to get Mattisse to calm down and also to realise that the topic did not have to be entirely viewed from a technical medical perspective. If that got things off on the wrong foot, I apologise. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The apology is nice, Philcha, but please do your job as a mentor rather than focusing on other editors' frustration when the mentorship clearly isn't working. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I know, Moni. And for being willing to point it out, you have my respect, but don't go down with a sinking ship.  The sad thing is that, by allowing her to choose mentors who never acknowledged the behaviors that led to the ArbCom and won't point out to her that she continues to breach her own plan, the situation now is that her mentors are harming Mattisse more than helping her.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Philcha, if my rant is what it took to get your attention, then apparently it was the right thing to do. I think that's unfortunate. Anyone who has any experience interacting with me should consider this quite atypical behavior on my part. I did my damnedest to express my distaste for this king of stupid melodrama in several venues. I do not know how to make it clearer that I do not wish to function this way. I do not respect editors who lose their shit over small issues, and this is not a significant one, but it is one example in a pattern of violations on Mattisse's part. She needs you to defend her when she's up against stupid melodrama of her own and crazy left-field accusations. The rest of Wikipedia needs you to tell her to make some goddamn sense and address article issues at hand or shut the fuck up. Now, I'm off to the med library to continue to work on this article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to point the obvious, I'm not one of Mattisse's mentors, but the rant certainly got my attention. Incivility and impatience aren't a good way forward, as always well sourced calm and clear statements should convince most editors. So, hope that works out. . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the point; while the rant got your attention, that means you follow her talk page, yet you didn't see the other issues there ? That's the interesting aspect of the messes that the "mentors" have allowed to continue.  I was sad to see that ArbCom allowed Mattisse to choose mentors who refused to acknowledge the behaviors that led to the ArbCom, as this is not in Mattisse's or Wiki's best interest.  Now that Moni has had the guts to point it out in a way that finally may have gotten their attention, I hope these "mentors" will review her plan and begin to notice when she breaches it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For fuck's sake Sandy, will you stop trying to blame everything on Mattisse's mentors? I made it very clear during the ArbCom case that I did not consider mentorship to be an active policing role, as you seem to believe that it ought to be, but rather a passive advisory one. I have though on several occasions drawn Mattisse's attention to some behaviour that I thought needed to be addressed, and my comments have not always been appreciated. So far as this recent spate is concerned, I became involved in the discussion because of the failed GAN, nothing to do with Mattisse, whose view of the article I largely share. What is that you expect me to do? I have no authority here, and I can do no more than I have already done. Frankly I think that your and Moni's behaviour has been at least bad as Mattisse's. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * None of my concern is directed at you, Malleus; you were the most clear and responsive editor during the ArbCom. But the current situation is that her "mentors" are overlooking her behaviors until it gets to the point that an editor like Moni has to go overboard to get their attention, in spite of there already being multiple breaches of her plan.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll admit that I have seen a few incidents over the last few weeks that given me grounds for concern, but I don't think that the MBI GAN fiasco was one of them. That really wasn't anyone's finest hour, and I was probably as much to blame for the fallout from that as anyone. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I try to avoid taking a position on GA fiascos, as that never leads anywhere productive, but the point here is that the mentors are quick to defend Mattisse, but not as quick to help her see when she's breaching her Plan on her very talk page. I left several suggestions on her talk, after her false accusation, of things that her Mentors should explain to her, and at WT:FAR, after she personalized discussions there, and unless they did it privately, none of them responded at all.  So, exactly how is this ArbCom supposed to work when her mentors don't even point out Plan breaches that occur on her own talk page ?  IF they don't do their job (and Philcha's recent post to your talk is quite a concern), how are they helping Mattisse ??  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a fair way to summarize her behavior is to say that most of the time, Mattisse has been making positive contributions, but she is still not fully able to avoid tense situations in which she tends to personalize a dispute she has with another editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabomb87, few people manage to change habits instantly. I may have made a mistake in the way I presented the issue at Mattisse's Talk, and have already apologised to Moni3 if I've made the situation worse rather than better. I don't think further dissection will help. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How long has it been since the Arb case? My own interactions with Mattisse (mostly at WP:FAR) have been positive, so I'm not biased toward her or anything like that. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fair, Philcha. Then I'm going to stop, here, now and hope that the mentors have learned something from this debacle, and that they will begin to serve Mattisse's and Wiki's best interests, fairly and objectively. But while people are asking Moni to strike things, you might consider striking your AGF breach on Malleus's talk.  Her mentors should model appropriate behavior for Mattisse.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Swooping in nosebleed comment. I respectfully suggest striking comments you wouldn't wished directed at you. They may be honest, effective and inspiring but they also belittle the person beyond the words on all sides. When mentors and the subject themselves are a mess you look poorer for pointing it out. It's not fair but that's the way it is. Be creative, strike out key words or just the vowels which actually brings more attention to the barbs and thistles. You could even employ disemvoweling and really spoil the fun forcing folks to dig through diffs. If it is a sinking ship allow it to pass and have a Bloody or three and pick anything resembling constructive suggestions. Ignore the rest. Frankly I've been waiting for your descent into divine madness as you deal with seemingly well-meaning Wikipedians who seem to be getting strange voices through their dental work encouraging them to redecorate. I'm hoping many find me in that category quite often actually. If you must slay a windmill at least make it one worthy of your time and energy. Frankly we need to keep pumping blood to your fingertips so the good content keeps flowing. I guess I'm upset that you're were driven to madness so allow me to waive a virtual faerie wand to turn all your angst into fluff that feeds the darkest demons of your creative soul so you can channel out some brilliantly disturbed content that speaks miles of class for all to kiss your ass. -- <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   01:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * On the surface, your comments make sense. I quite honestly make a concerted thoughtful effort to consider the impact of my words, no matter who they are presented to or for what purpose. I had to escalate this unfortunate situation to direct attention that all is not well with this ArbCom decision. What gets the most attention around here? By the evidence in this situation, incivility. Or in this case, implied incivility. My intention, rooted in sincere frustration though it was, was to make it crystal clear that Mattisse has breached her ArbCom agreements and the devices created by the ArbCom decision are not being employed. Secondarily, it was to question why I have to pitch a holy fucking fit for someone to pay attention. The way I govern my words is not satisfying; it is hard work sometimes to hold my tongue and be constructive. I don't let myself lay down zingers and issue statements that intone my moral leverage. They are generally useless anyway. It's not fun, but it's respectful and I hope conducive to collaboration, which should be the goal of all editors. The channels I employed through respect neither affected a crapshit GAR nor alerted Mattisse's mentors to a very real problem that is blindingly obvious to me. I had a choice: abandon review processes altogether and go out of my way to avoid behavior that has been officially recognized as disruptive by ArbCom, or step it up and create some noise. Surely you have read the articles I write? They reflect the statement I keep repeating: conflict forces value reassessment. I'm sorry it had to be done, but I'm not sorry I did it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sorry you did either. It's unfortunate that we need to flex battlefield strategy to get good people to do the right things. Hopefully this will all fly into the Aether and feed the fishes or angels or whatever Aether is into. As far as I'm concerned you've done your job. If the situation persists post at WP:AE as Arbcom seems to be functioning at a healthy level. Hope all trods peacefully enough from here. p.s. I'm thinking of birthing a newsletter over the next few weeks if I prattle on a bit would you  be interested in jumping in?  -- <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   02:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment

 * Moni, I offered you a direct review for the GA and it still stands. I do not care what other people have stated on the issue, or past comments. I also think that no one acted properly in the matter. With that said, I would ask everyone to drop it and if someone wants the GA to be processed, I will handle it. I do not care -what- the problem is with the article. If I find something, I will work with Moni if she would want and take as much time as she would want. That was the offer I put up before. However, none of that could be accomplished with fighting. So please, everyone, just stop the fighting as everyone involved in the fighting is wrong if only for continuing the fighting. I'm not in the mood to witness the disruption, especially with the strain having to go through so many sources on so many different topics is while I am still trying to finish 13 more pages for the two sets of 9 (18) articles I am putting up for DYK along with some other pages. So, all I want to hear from anyone here, on Mattisse's talk page, Sandy's, Malleus's, etc, on the GA matter is if someone wants -me- to look it over and give a thorough review or just drop it in general. There are processes that are lagging behind and we do not need three reviewers busy fighting amongst each other instead of helping out people. There are many people who have waited months for reviews and who have just started and don't understand why they are being neglected. The more you guys fight, the higher chance of them being alienated from the project in general. So yeah, there is no reason to continue this. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gracious, Ottava. I hope I impressed you with my orbit as a super lunar freak-o-naut today. I had you in mind, you know, as my inspiration.


 * There are multiple compounding issues to this clusterfuck of a GA review/reassessment. The first is Noloop's insistence that the article is "bad" when contrasted with his lack of suggestion on how to make it unbad. Lest I pour lemon juice on the incivility wound I already opened up, I'd say he was trolling. But his view either needs to be clarified, which I have attempted to do, or it needs to be discounted entirely. I intended to let whatever drama he's involved in get resolved before turning attention back to GA status of the MBI article.


 * I have not ever claimed the MBI article is perfection, and there are issues I would like to resolve with more research and creative feedback from someone who knows what they're talking about. I remain emphatic, however, that any concerns over my synthesizing information, placing my own original research in it, and by extension restructuring it to appear like a pop culture article can only be addressed by someone who has read the sources. I offered to anyone on Mattisse's talk page and the article talk page to send them along, to no avail. Meanwhile, more rambling confusion by Mattisse on the article talk page. Not to improve anything, why no. That would be nutty to use the talk page and a GA reassessment to improve an article! 'Tis to laugh, holding both sides! How's the sarcasm working out today? Still the language of the weak? Charles Manson's attorney, Irving Kanarek, during the famous trial, would shout five or six objections at a time to the court; sometimes there was an actual valid one in there, but the judge had to stop the trial to figure out which one might be answerable until he required Kanarek to put his objections in writing.


 * I have ordered two articles from ILL, and they may get here in a week or so. I will state once more, if there are logical, honest suggestions to make to improve the article, I have and will discuss them on the article talk page. Until this issue with Noloop is resolved, and if anyone can stop court and figure out which of Mattisse's objections are valid and can be resolved to GA criteria, I will be happy to work on those as well. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, right of the bat - I am ignoring any of the previous comments about the article. I am also ignoring what went on at the reassessment. As I said before, a glance over the article showed that it was good enough to actually merit a thorough review and I am willing to do such. If you would like to forward me the sources so I can check through them, you should have my email or you can find that via the e-mail this user interface and I will respond. So, you can ignore all the rest and we can just focus on what matters together - the truth about the article and how to make it better if it needs such. Shall we? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's! --Moni3 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am halfway through and it still appears to be a strong read. Here are the first set of comments. The page feels as if it could be at FAC right now if it had images. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I will be giving you a proper review, so sourcing comes next. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I finished the first read through and am beginning a source analysis. Many of the requests for "clarity" can be used to introduce specific articles and academic works to further establish this as a proper medical article so there will be no more disputing. I will go through accuracy and neutrality now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not go overboard with aspirations to take the article to FAC. There are valid reservations by other editors that MBI is one guy's interpretation of Factitious disorder expressed through internet communications, although he is an apparent expert (playing to the media notwithstanding). I think it would take a considerable expansion and bolstering of sources that may not yet exist. --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Outdent - the one article is by Marc Feldman, but he is joined by Maureen Bibby (an MS, so only an assistant) and Susan Crites (LPN - or a type of qualified nurse). Other scholars seem to have reviewed or used Feldman's research - 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. There is another work here. I don't think you used it. Munchausen by proxy: identification, intervention, and case management (2004) By Louisa Lasher and Mary Sheridan. That was all I found by page 3 of a quick search. As you can see, I did some research while checking the sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A 2009 book dealing with it. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see if Munchausen by proxy: identification, intervention, and case management provides information about MBI or is mostly related to how parents research medical conditions on the internet to give them more information to mask their kids' symptoms. Wish I could see the references for the page in Online Communities and Social Computing: Third International Conference. I bet it's Feldman. There is room to research more on this, I agree. The Chicago Tribune wrote a story about "April's Mom" in June 09. Other questions are surrounding an autism activist who may not be either, gained her notability on YouTube. There are a couple blog links you can find by Googling her name and adding "fraud" after. I'd like to link them, but they are apparently so intellectually scathing that in any carnation is forbidden to link... stupid.... I've not found reliable sources that call these cases MBI or virtual factitious disorder though.  --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you've got my interest !! I've long thought the Amanda Baggs article is borderline AFD-able.  And Asperger's by internet is all too common ... it's a cottage industry. Do those articles contain any text that I may need for autism articles? If your sources can justify it, I'd like to AFD Amanda Baggs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow the links in this recent edit that were removed by a spambot. I am unable to post them here for the same reason. The sources are not good enough to use in an article. As for AfD, I don't know. --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that all of her notability stems from Youtube and a CNN blog. At minimum, I should try to develop the article better, but autism activists wreak havoc there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever she is, she's getting a lot of scrutiny. A blogger accused her of having virtual factitious disorder. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything appears to check out from what I can see. You can notify me when you relist it. I would wait a week so things can die down and for you to go look through some other information if you want to include other information on the topic. The article is fine as written, but some people will still have concerns about its "medicalness", which more sources would easily overcome. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Moni - the blog you have been trying to link is a bona fide fraud. Amanda Baggs is a genuine Autistic. The people quoted are lying and do not know or understand what she is. If you speak to people who really do know here, you'll realise you've been taken in by an attack on Amanda by the enemies of the Autistic community.  Get  Dumb   07:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I actually don't care about Amanda Baggs. My point in bringing it here is that attention to Munchausen by Internet may surge if information emerges in a reliable source -- not a blog -- that she was faking. It certainly is some compelling information in the two that I read. Furthermore, blocking the ability to link to a blog on a talk page is quite frankly, stupid. Whether Baggs is or isn't autistic is not a concern of mine. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not compelling information. It's a flagrant lie created to destroy Amanda, and placing fraudulent links on Wikipedia - even on talk pages - could be construed as a violation of WP:LEGAL. The links have now been removed by the way as they should have been. She is not faking and that is the end of it.  Get  Dumb   03:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be surprised if I don't take your word for it, because I don't. I don't take the blogs' either. Forbidding links is akin to silencing discussion. I oppose that wholeheartedly. Baggs is a public figure now. She has opened herself up to scrutiny. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Forbidding links that are in violation of WP:LEGAL is a requirement. That makes the public figure argument irrelevant. Such a shame you aren't interested in the truth. You should ask people who really do know her (I don't mean me BTW).  Get  Dumb   13:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How long have you been on Wikipedia? How, after even a day of watching what goes on in articles, can you look at what you refer to as truth so binary: it either is or is not true? Wikipedia exists to prove that truth is relative, and more often than not, what an individual insists on believing. We are now discussing the validity of how Amanda Baggs has portrayed herself, which...seriously...I don't care if she is or is not. I care very much that links are forbidden to blogs. That quashes discussion on talk pages. This is not article space and no one is suggesting using a blog for a source. I can and have told people to Google this woman's name and add "fraud" after it...which I got by following a bot-deleted edit. So I can send them to the same source by explaining it, without linking. Just skipping a step. That's just incredibly stupid. --Moni3 (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how long I've been on WP for. The reality is I am familiar with the issue being spoken of. There are legal ramifications for WP should this link be provided, such as aiding and abeting a fraud which is what that blog is. This is one of the many reasons why such links are blacklisted. Discussing this particular issue violates WP:LEGAL in that "Wikipedia is not the place for legal disputes." Discussing the blog is a legal dispute because it has been identified off WP as a fraudulent blog. So the link has to go. That's why you can't skip a step as you put it - policy won't allow it. You can't argue with WP policy, and calling it "incredibly stupid" is a bit risky per WP:CIVIL isn't it? Incidentally, by looking up Google with such an entry, you'll get bombarded with more lies about Amanda by people who are utterly unreliable and one that I know of has been blocked from WP for pressing the issue some time ago.  Get  Dumb   05:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. It's an attempt to silence discussion. It's one of the most stupid things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. If you want clarification on that and the civility policy, then report it to an admin. --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Get Dumb bordering on legal threats here? Moni, I wouldn't worry about the blog; the Baggs issue will eventually be reported by reliable sources, and can be sorted then.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what GetDumb's motivation is. I don't know why it is not possible to link to this particular off-site blog, but the insinuations that it's somehow promoting slander or libel is illogical and again...silences discussion. Someone who really cares about this can take it to ANI and cause a really big stink about it. The half-threats I'm getting here are pushing me that way. --Moni3 (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I won't be around to help; maybe Eubulides will look in? The way Baggs was promoted initially is problematic (YouTube and one CNN blog), and it continues to trouble me that her "notability" was attained that way.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC check..
Can you do me a major favor? Chicado V, which is on a race mare, is my next planned article for FAC, but I'd greatly appreciate someone checking it over for intelligability for non-horsepeople. I'd be very grateful if you could. Thanks! (And of course, any talk-page stalkers out there are welcome also!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it tomorrow. --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sympathies
I am reminded of why I have been taking more frequent and longer breaks from editing Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How fit do you think I would be if I dropped the laptop and did 20 situps every time Wikipedia does that thing that makes you go, "Gaaahhh!!"?
 * You would be very fit. I should just ride my bike. If I spent 2 or 3 hours a day on the bike instead of just one, I wouldn't have as much time for Wikipedia and would therefore be proportionately less aggravated. -- Donald Albury 12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

St. Johns River offer
I was going to offer to review this at GAN (provided you were OK with the same person doing a PR and GA review), but I just went there and saw it was not listed. I think it already meets the criteria for GA based on my PR, but was going to reread it first before doing the GA review (if you wanted me to). Would you still like me to review it for GA?

I also wanted to let you know that I really liked your letter to the editor (and your artworks on the web). Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offer and comments. I might put it up in the future. I appreciate the PR and am still interested in improving the article at any time. I've addressed most of your suggestions, and will continue to work on it. I think it's a good time right now to improve articles for the sake of learning and doing instead of having a goal of getting them promoted anywhere. I will definitely keep you in mind though, for the future. --Moni3 (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I personally think it is pretty close to ready for FAC - you might want to see that others agree here (very end). Take care, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. Cool. Thanks for pointing that out. If Floridians aren't impressed with the river, perhaps Wikipedians might be. --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the problems is that all the current river FAs are for relatively small streams, the bigger the river the harder it seems to be to get it to FA, which makes your achievment with the St. Johns River all the more remarkable. Take care and know that you do very good and important work, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I found another longer river that runs north: Red River of the North ( in the US and Canada). Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re; Map error
I would see what the authority says / does. I see the OTRS tag is also not clear on the license, but assuming it is GFDL, then we can fix it here if worse comes to worse. I think I could move the label without too much trouble. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm not too pleased about that interpretation either. I'll wait for SJRWMD to reply to my email. Thanks for responding. --Moni3 (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current map, the dot for De Land seems to be at the location of Hastings, Florida - is this someplace that should be on the map too (I wonder if the dot got mislabeled)? I have had good luck letting Pennsylvania state agencies and the USGS GNIS know about map and other errors, so good luck. Did you ask for a copy of the OTRS email to be sent to you? I do that so I can see what the probelm is - also know some users with OTRS priveleges if you have a question. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hastings, not so much. It is the ah...potato capital of Florida, and there is some commentary on agriculture along the St. Johns, but Hastings gets no more mention than any other area growing oranges and farms around the Wekiva River growing commercial ferns. The closest town to Hontoon Island State Park is DeLand. It's a significant error, placing a town two counties north of where it should be... I got a response saying the SJRWMD was looking into it.


 * As for the GFDL license for that map and File:Floridan_aquifer_illustration.jpg, the media rep for SJRWMD agreed to release the images using the basic release statement I've used in the past: (I own the copyright to the images found attached in this email. I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify these documents under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts), but whoever responded to it at permissions did not like the language. This has always been muddy. Either I am misunderstanding what I am supposed to be asking copyright owners, the person responding to the permissions email misunderstands, or there was some error in the way it was presented. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I have fixed the map and uploaded the new version (will delete if needed). I see User:Andrew c was the OTRS person - you could ask him what the problem was. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you just move DeLand yourself? I suppose I could have done that, but I guess I didn't want to alter the source. Thanks, though. Quite honestly, I am suspect of everyone's understanding of image policy; it never seems to be interpreted consistently. Asking clarification from one user does not guarantee that it is correct, or that the same interpretation will apply in the future. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did not see a problem with what you wrote and so assumed that the license would be cleared up. Since the GFDL allows edits to the image, I just took the "DeLand" name label out, removed the colored background and put it back in the correct place (with a dot). I am not an image expert, but User:Jappalang is. User:Howcheng has also helped me with OTRS issues, as has User:Cirt. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

From my recollection, the problem with the OTRS is that it appeared as if the copyright holder was just giving permission for use on Wikipedia, and the GFDL disclaimer was signed by you, not the copyright holder. If that is because the headers of the original message were edited, then please forward the unedited message to me. Alternatively, if the copyright holder did not clearly state "I am the copyright holder and agree to release it under the GFDL", then you need to see if they will agree to that, and have them e-mail us that declaration (or use the WP:CONSENT form). I believe I explained all this in a reply to you, so you may want to review your e-mail for more details. Sorry for the confusion. Hope this explains why I felt the permission wasn't adequate. -Andrew c [talk] 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just reviewed the email to make sure I included the GFDL statement in my original message to SJRWMD. I signed the email I sent to Permissions. It looks like I signed the GFDL statement, and that is not what I intended, nor is it the case. Ms. Hickenlooper's contact info is in the email chain. As a a representative of SJRWMD, she viewed the GFDL release and agreed to it. This seems to be simply a matter of resending the GFDL license and adding Ms. Hickenlooper's name under it with her contact info. I'll do it if that's what it's going to take. --Moni3 (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we be asking them to release under the CC-by-SA (see Licensing update). As I read the licensing update, WP will no longer accept material that is released only under then GDFL. -- Donald Albury 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect someone is trying to make my life more difficult... GFDL or CC-by the sea, either way, tell me what I have to do to get those images rightly tagged. --Moni3 (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dropped out of OTRS quite a while back. You need to ask someone who is active at OTRS for help. -- Donald Albury 23:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, Don, regarding the CC license, is correct only for text. Images can have multiple different free licenses. The Commons is still accepting GFDL licensed files, so that shouldn't be a problem (though personally speaking, the CC license is much more friendly to images than GFDL, which requires full text of the license for reuse). Anyway, in regards to fixing the image, you simply cannot attach Ms. Hickenlooper's signature for her, unfortunately. We need a message originating from her e-mail address with the declaration or equivalent text signed by her. I've re-check the ticket. She wrote "The District gives its permission for you to use the referenced images for your article in Wikipedia." As I stated above, this sounds like she is only giving permission for use on Wikipedia. She has not acknowledged that the license allows reuse outside of Wikipedia, modification, and possible commercial use (the three points that tend to be the most concerning to image creators). While your first e-mail to them did explain the GFDL, we need to err on the side of caution, as their final e-mail seems to imply use on Wikipedia only. We really just need to be clear that the copyright holder agrees to a specific free license. So, if the copyright holder could send us a consent form or even just a note like 'We, as copyright holder, agree to the GFDL for these two images', that would really clear things up for us. Sorry of this is a bother, but OTRS is a stickler for details such as this. Hope this explains it more.-Andrew c [talk] 03:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, really I can cook that all up myself in an email. It seems I just have to find what each OTRS volunteer will accept and tailor an email to their tastes or individual interpretation of what the GFDL license release means. I just have to go through an extra step beyond what worked for the past dozen OTRS volunteers. And I'm saying this to the cosmos more than to you, Andrew, but my God...she is the representative of an agency that owns the copyright, she agrees to the GFDL language, and is answering a series of emails from someone she has never met requesting she grant the use of agency material for free...why would she not reply as quickly and bluntly as possible to get me out of her inbox? Yes, fine, Wikipedia, move on. Whatever. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if there is inconsistency in OTRS responses, but I find it entirely unlikely that any OTRS agent would accept a permission that says "for Wikipedia". We have a default reply for such cases. I'm curious now. Would you mind telling me an example of an image that passed OTRS with a similar statement? -Andrew c [talk] 13:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't have to. You're having fun on your own. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What I was in the middle of writing when I got the flag on the Milk image (one of how many?):

Just as I was about to list them all, it occurred to me that as GFDL and image policy is arbitrary per the individual, should you decide that the wording in the emails I've sent is not as precise as you would like it, problematic flags would go up on images in several FAs and GAs. I'm not accusing you of being petty or deliberately difficult, but I have asked dozens of people, some of them professional photographers, to use their images. I have to apologize and admit to them that they will get no compensation and it can be used beyond Wikipedia. I feel very uncomfortable doing this sometimes, particularly as I am also an artist and I understand what it means to let the copyright of your creation go. My unease is not directed at you specifically, but at a policy that decides if images can be used or not, not necessarily depending on the letter of the policy, but each editor's interpretation of what that policy means. For OTRS volunteers, that means you can decide personally if I get to use images in an article or not. If not, I either have to remove vital images or let the article linger below GA because the licensing is problematic. For other issues, images go up for deletion arbitrarily, depending on what the nominator believes is lacking. See both this mention in the Wikipedia Signpost (near the bottom), and the same image weeks later. It boiled down to what a single editor wanted to see. A similar problem with this image after I was advised to place a pre-1978 tag on it at the NFCC talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Moni. Image policy is at best poorly understood and inconsistently applied. I hardly ever bother uploading anything that unless either I've taken/made myself, or it's so old that there can't be a reasonable scintilla of doubt that it's out of copyright. But even then demands still come in for the names of photographers obviously long dead and unrecorded in the first place, wanting to know what steps I've taken to try to establish the photographer's name. Who needs it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I honestly believe that any OTRS agent that saw the phrasing "for your article in Wikipedia" would have (temporarily) denied it and asked for more specific permission from the copyright holder, as we have a templated message for just those instances. I understand that there is a lot of inconsistency related to images, and non-free images is another can of worms. However, this has concerned me, so I've asked other agents (at Commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard) to review my response to your e-mail and this discussion here. I encourage you to join in on that discussion where you see fit. Thanks. I'm doing this because I want to know if I've made a mistake in my OTRS duties.-Andrew c [talk] 15:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I ran into the same roadblock when trying to obtain permissions from the San Francsico Public Library and the State Archives of Florida, who both use their own releases which they signed and I scanned and sent to permissions and the Wikimedia Foundation. They specifically gave permissions for Wikipedia only to use the images. Had the GFDL release language not been in the email I sent regarding the permission from the SJRWMD I would go back and make sure they understood it, but it was. The SJRWMD saw it and agreed to it.
 * I'm not interested in trying to prove you wrong. I just want the images properly tagged so they can be used with the least amount of problems for the copyright holders. My going back to them time and again to get clarification on something they already agreed to seems to be prohibitive not only that they might hesitate to agree further with Wikipedia editors, but that editors who are genuinely trying to do the right thing get so frustrated that it might be quite worth it not to try to get the most authoritative images loaded to an article. The next plan is for me to make my own map, which would not be as good as what the SJRWMD provides (notwithstanding the error I pointed out to them and which they have already fixed). --Moni3 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

...and look what else was a stubby stub
I was comparing some Australian rainforest plants (which I have grown in my garden) and making a DYK comparing them with Gardenia jasminoides when I realised the latter article had been a stub too, which I have now expanded five-fold (5x DYK a-comin'). Some tantalising stuff on google books about gardenias in antebellum gardens which'd be nice to add to the cultivation section....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Spring is a-coming here and I was musing on making articles of all plants I had tried to grow in my garden..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Harvey Milk at 1978 Gay Freedom Day.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Harvey Milk at 1978 Gay Freedom Day.jpg I was going through your past uploads based on our discussion above and came across this image. It says that an e-mail was sent in, but no OTRS ticket has been attached to the image. I've searched OTRS for a reference to this file name and found none. I also searched based on e-mails you personally sent, and you did not send anything in the month of November 2008. So, I'm writing you now to see if you can help clear this matter up. Could you re-send the e-mail? Or do you know the ticket number for this image? I'm sure this is a simple mix up that can be fixed. We just need to have the ticket number attached to the image so that the permission is documented. Thanks! Andrew c [talk] 14:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are joking. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I sent an email to permissions on November 6, 2008 including the contact information of Rebekah Kim, archivist at the San Francsico GLBT Historical Society. I just had to wade through my email to find it. Perhaps someone with OTRS permissions can wade through theirs to confirm it. I'll resend it if I have to. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a joke. Images that have e-mails attached to them should have OTRS ticket number on them (or they risk speedy deletion). This image does not have that ticket. But presumably, I believe it should. I'm just trying to track it down is all. I've searched OTRS and we have exactly 0 e-mails with the name "Rebekah Kim" in them. We can also search based on sender: we have an e-mail you sent on 10/10/2008 and then the next one you sent was on 03/04/2009. Nothing on 11/6/2008. Or at least, not originating from that e-mail address. Perhaps you sent it from another e-mail address? Anyway, it could have been lost, or something else could have happened. If you've found the e-mail you sent, perhaps you have the reply from an agent? That will have the ticket number in the subject field. Could you tell me the ticket number? Or if not, could you resend the e-mail. Sorry about this, but that image could be deleted if it doesn't have a permission ticket attached to it. So I'm just trying to get that image straight. Do you have any ideas why the ticket was never added in the first place? Seems odd, but people make mistakes. Perhaps the agent that handled that ticket had a brain freeze or something. Sorry about this.-Andrew c [talk] 15:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just resent it. Between July 2008 and March 2009, I got no responses to permissions. I did not send many during that time, but I do recall a few of the emails I sent did not get responses. --Moni3 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking again. It has been 24 hours since I resent the permissions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 16 day backlog on OTRS. That said, under these conditions, I've bumped this up, and handled it myself. -Andrew c [talk] 13:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Email from Rebekah Kim forwarded. --Moni3 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Received and passed! Thanks. (due to the way OTRS works, if you have the ticket number from previous correspondences in the subject line, it will get sent right to the agent in question. If not, it just gets lumped in the queue with everything else and thus could go unnoticed for days). Anyway I noticed the e-mail referenced 2 image. Did you happen to upload that 2nd image as well, because I can go ahead and add the ticket number to that image. -Andrew c [talk] 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Originally I did upload the image to the article, but Kim wrote back a few months later and said they made a mistake with that image and they did not own it. I deleted it immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Harvey Milk at 1978 Gay Freedom Day.jpg
File:Harvey Milk at 1978 Gay Freedom Day.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Harvey Milk at 1978 Gay Freedom Day.jpg. 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) 20:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Everglades National Park Florida Panther.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Everglades National Park Florida Panther.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

✔ Check

 * Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Anne Heche is a skank. I should get a barnstar for not adding that. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What!?!?
 * No, lol, you're lucky I'm not a fan of hers.... ;)
 * Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Alice Ayres
If you get the chance, would you be able to have a quick read through the latest installment in my quest to mention Natalie Portman in as many articles as possible and see if you spot any problems that need fixing? (I haven't plucked you out at random - this is one of that odd subgenre of "people notable only for the public reaction to their death", and I remember you managing to do something similar with Rosewood.) TPSs welcome, too. – iride  scent  21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. Give me a couple days. --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ping - very long reply at Talk:Alice Ayres. – iride  scent  17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Milk
Harvey's nephew doesn't have an article: I think he's notable, isn't he? occono (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on what information is available about the subject. Take a peek at the policy page and decide for yourself. --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try and find coverage in major media sources of him, but is receiving an honour on Harvey's behalf from the POTUS not enough for "Notability" credential? occono (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. What else has he done? Milk's brother, Stuart's father, has received some mention in the San Francisco Chronicle and in Shilts' The Mayor of Castro Street, but besides being Milk's brother who had a different view of Milk, is he notable? More sources would confirm this. I understand Stuart has spoken to some audiences about his uncle. I have spoken to Stuart Milk on the phone a couple times but I am no reliable source. --Moni3 (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. It's a shame, he seems interesting. occono (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See what you can find on him. See if you can add to the fact that he accepted the Medal of Freedom for his uncle. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Pycnogenolic block
Hi, hate to step on your block but a couple of us extended this block to indef. I didn't see the other admins block untill I submitted mine...if you think it's too much let me know and we can figure something out...thanks! But I think those dits were way past the line. RxS (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'm a minimalist. An indef block was probably in the cards anyway. I'm good with it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre discussion
Doesn't look like anyone's actually notified you of this outright surreal discussion. – iride  scent  15:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I still make the mistake of thinking I've seen it all on Wiki. Then something like the last few days, and this, shakes me back to reality; the possibilies on wiki are infinite!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, clearly I had no idea that was going on. A peek at the archives of the Milk talk page will show that this is not really a bizarre discussion but another of a series of attempts to decrease the quality of the article by insinuating it is too long, it is too devoted to Milk...in his article...it is biased, it is something. Eventually the arguments come to nothing. Where I have thought in the past that editors were simply uninformed about FA quality and criteria, I'm starting (very late in the game here) to notice a pattern. Harvey continues to piss people off 30 years after he was shot.


 * On a dubious bright side, he may be accusing me personally of being remarkably prolific. As I recall, only four editors in WP:LGBT have promoted FAs: me, Otto4711, Jeffpw, and Celithemis. Such a lavender mafia are we. Why doesn't someone accuse the alligators in the Everglades of conspiring to sway information? --Moni3 (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I wonder why he's not complaining that there are too many bishops on the main page, or horses! (The mind boggles at what could be inferred from the subject matter I work on!) I've long thought Milk's article is an excellent example of what Wikipedia is best at...Ealdgyth - Talk 15:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pornography in the United States is a far more suitable topic for FA—we can tell, because he nominated it twice. Maralia (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, shut up!!! Did he really? That's more precious than kittens. --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Meh ... I laugh at anything these days ... I think the thread right below this one is hilarious, but I won't barge with my linky, linky please pet peeve !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to come in here and wibble about you rewriting and GAC-nominating Tipping the Velvet, but then I saw this, and wow. This picture always comes to mind when I'm presented with crazy of this nature. Anyway, TtV is one of my favorite books, so great job! I used to have the article watchlisted, but I'm not sure why I dropped it. If no one touches it at GAC, watch out, because I may go all fangirl on it. Did you read her newest one? Not as good as the others, IMO. María ( habla con migo ) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who took that picture of my lab eating my entire sprinkler system when he became convinced the house was being attacked by aliens? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * MARIA! That is twice in 5 minutes that you have made some kind of liquid shoot through my nostrils. First with this ("hot, sweaty sex with men"), and now with your picture there. Brava. Warrgarble. My dog does that, but her jowls are huge. She collects water in them then plops her face on your lap. Dog love. --Moni3 (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have one better than that. My severely developmentally disabled son (really dd, your dog is probably smarter than him) has difficulty eating, but one morning, he was eating raisins.  He tends to "chipmunk" his food (i.e., hold it in his cheeks).  He came over to me and gave me a big, sloppery kiss...raisin juice running all over his chin (and mine!).  Talk about true love. --Christine (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Seriously, with the interruptions...Anyways, please...if you want to make comments on Tipping pre-GA or Pre-FAC, I would love them all. I love this book so much I'm contemplating an FA for it. I love this book so much I had to buy Mrs. Moni her own copy because I did not want to part with mine. --Moni3 (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly apologize for any injury caused to your nasal passages, and I most certainly won't link you to the "flying wharrgarbl" version of that meme, which is accessible via Google Image Search and features a dog that mysteriously looks like my mom's evil wire haired fox terrier. I tried to get the husband to read the book, but he only skimmed for the naughty bits.  Bah.  It's a great book.  María ( habla  con migo ) 18:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, my, Christine, I also have a seriously developmentally disabled dog ... MRI-verified half a brain ... but the sweetest thing ever, and now 14! And, he has a movement disorder ... can't keep his tongue still.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my George is the sweetest creature in the known universe..except when he's not! He also has a seizure disorder and drools like a faucet.  He is my heart. --Christine (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Were you in front of me, Christine, I might poke you to make sure you are real. When I was taking my masters classes for gifted ed, I sat with other special ed students in general ed classes who would share their majors. Going around the table it was severe emotional handicap, severe physical handicap, learning disability mild/moderate, hearing impaired, sight impaired, and then me, gifted ed. I swear to God they all looked at me and said, "Never in a million years would I want to deal with gifted kids. Those kids are awful." I didn't know how to respond to that. They gladly helped 21-year-olds with learning how to feed themselves, changing diapers, marking progress in writing one's name--which I simply...honestly it boggles my mind--and they flat out refused... you get it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I swear, Moni, you've made me laugh more than any one else on WP. I promise you, I's real.  That kinda of reminded me of an experience when *I* was in grad school for counseling.  I was talking to a classmate about how much fun it is working with persistently and chronically mentally ill, and he remarked how he had witnessed a group of guys in Berkeley making their aluminum foil hats to ward off the aliens and how much it had freaked him out.  Of course, he worked with dying AIDS patients, and I absolutely hate hospitals and being around people who are dying.  It's all relative, I suppose. --Christine (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can relate to that. It's always seemed bizarre to me that we spend so much time and effort to help those at one end of the ability spectrum but so little at the other. Gifted kids have problems too, just not such obvious ones. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I get it. It's kinda like suggesting affirmative action for articles, especially FA articles. BTW, love that photo of the lab. — Becksguy (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moni..
Not sure why you are undoing my updates... I feel they do meet wiki guidelines....
 * What are you referring to, please? --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I came across this, and I thought of you
I came across this article earlier, on a very public person in the UK. Take a look at the second paragraph of the lead; are we all so confused about our sexuality these days that we need to be reminded by a wikilink of what a woman is?

I'm fairly certain that I can tell the difference between a woman and a man, whatever their preferred sexual orientation, but maybe that's a becoming a lost skill? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GrahamColm, bless his heart, encouraged me to work on Duffy's article. But I strongly believe I have to have some kind of intellectual connection with the material. I am so hopeless at poetry...maybe it's a reflecting of my bygone days of teaching as per this. More likely, Ogden Nash ruined me forever.
 * As for the perplexing tendency to link the blatantly obvious...paging Counselor Troi...this hedonistic orgy of wikilinking brought similar results with the same "You did not just do that" reaction. Now, just what is a woman? A brief hover over that blue link might give me an idea... --Moni3 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe I know what you mean. I happen to be heterosexual, and I do like a drink, but that's very far from making me any kind of expert on Dylan Thomas, whose poetry I do nevertheless admire. I think there's a tendency to stereotype the LGBT stuff, and to forget that it's just one part of life's rich tapestry. There's not one single thing that makes us the people that we are. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Shall I stir a hornet's nest and say that perhaps the folks who do some of the stereotyping are LGBT themselves? As in, some will expect my first allegiance to be to the cause, my first and primary identification to be with this community, and I should never question its motives? We are merely at odds with our individual journeys in life, donning or being forced into an identity of apartness when that reality faces us that we are not what we were expected to be. The zeal of the convert often takes time to mellow into a three-dimensional being who thinks thoughts other than righteous indignation. I read on AfterEllen.com once that it's no wonder Jodie Foster doesn't come out with a public flourish: she could never make everyone in the gay community happy and would always be a target for criticism in this regard.
 * I just like to write about what is freakin' awesome...or disturbing. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We're none of us one-dimensional, and I think that's a little of what sometimes jars with non LGBT folks. Gays do sometimes seem to have a tendency to define themselves by their sexuality in a way that heterosexuals do not. I guess I can understand why, but to return to Duffy, she's a poet who happens to be bisexual, not a bisexual who happens to be a poet. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty critical of aspects of the gay community, and I understand where you are coming from, Malleus, but it's also hard for non-LGBT people to experience what LGBT people experience, or even get an inkling of what it's like for us. The experience of puberty, definitional for any human, could not be any more different between straights and gays. While straight kids get to go home after first dates and talk to Mom or Dad about the complexities and issues of dating and relating to the opposite sex, gay kids already know that they are the worst thing one could possibly be and learn the art of deception to hide who they are.  That creates a good deal of damage.  One response to such a harmful situation is to wildly, aggressively embrace one's sexuality.  To people who are in-your-face about their sexuality, criticizing them does nothing since they are like that primarily in response to criticism about who they are.  It just puts them more on the offense.  You can see this with any marginalized group, from African-Americans to Teabaggers.  --<font color="navy" size="2"  face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  16:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree, but I wasn't being critical, I was merely making an observation. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't think you were being critical, I was just over-explanatory about something many people rarely consider when wondering why some gays seem so one-dimensional. --<font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">>David <font color="navy" size="2" face="comic sans ms">Shankbone  17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One would think that with it being confronted with an "other" identity that such a universal experience would be widely understood. I may not know what it is like to be African American, but I know what it's like to be "other" in a different way. That gives me no more special knowledge than any other group, and no righteous leverage to use against those whose views differ from mine. Young people of all conditions hold dear their identities, whether it's a frat guy, Marine enlistee (hoo-ha!), inner city minority, or young wife and mother. All of them claim that no one understands their experience. --Moni3 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street
Hi Moni, I was hoping I wouldn't need to ask for your assistance with this article until a little later in the improvement process, but it looks like I need it now. (BTW, thanks for protecting I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings; I really believe that it needs permanent protection.) I recently put this article up for GAC, and then requested a review from User:SilkTork. Big mistake! Who knew that I'd be getting myself into the midst of not just one drama, but two. The first one being when he asked your good friend Matisse to review it, and the second one being the discussion about changing GAC. I suspect that the guy has an agenda, and my innocent article is its victim. Argh! Anyway, Silktork failed it, for reasons I disagreed with. I also think that even with his issues, this article is good enough to be GA. Would you mind taking a look at it and weighing in? My goal is to get the article to FA by The Show's 40th anniversary in November; that may not be possible, but I'm gonna give it the old college try, as they say. I'd appreciate your assistance. --Christine (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind taking a look at it. I can give suggestions on the talk page independent of any previous commentary. Is this another GA review or just helpful comments? --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm asking for another review.  I'd like to see what you think about the reasons for the fail, and if you think it fits the GA-criteria in spite of the original reviewer's objections.  Thanks. --Christine (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I mark it up with hidden text, clarification tags, and stuff? --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust you explicitly. You can do whatever you like to it. --Christine (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Moni, I've completed your first run of questions/comments. Just thought you'd like to know. ;) Hope you're having a nice holiday weekend. --Christine (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's me again. I've completed addressing the 2nd run. Thanks for the images tutorial. It only gave a slight migraine. Kidding--I'm kidding! Kinda. ;) --Christine (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

KT GA Review
Hi Moni3 -

As far as I can see, we have completed the work on the article The Kingston Trio as outlined in your GA Review of it, including providing WP:RS for the several tags and the clarification tag, as well as making all citations uniform using Wiki templates. The text edits as suggested and proposed by you have been incorporated. All of the steps are described in detail on the Talk:The Kingston Trio/GA1 page, beginning with the subsection titled "Intermediate Edits" through the end of the page. You had asked that the work be completed within a week, and I believe it has been. Thanks for all your help!Sensei48 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart's asylum confinement
I responded to your comments at FAC. I summarized Smart's life from 1740-1755 from the main biography article in a new paragraph added here. It allowed me to introduce 7 more Wikilinks, which hopefully will satisfy the person that wanted more wikilinks in the article. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I realized that in fixing the "fit", my changes would have made the whole paragraph rather stupid. Therefore, I rewrote the whole paragraph. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Don't forget to add date, topic (not the same thing as subtopic, confusingly enough) and, if possible, oldid when you pass a Good article nominee. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Silence, mortal! Can this tidbit of instructional info be added to the Pass section of the GAN page? I try to follow it to the letter. I don't review GAs enough to keep track of the changes in directions and the only difference between my memory and a bucket of poop is the bucket. --Moni3 (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. I thought the current wording already covered almost everything, but I'm in a good mood after spending the last half hour with Johnny Hartman, Esperanza Spalding, and Lady Ella, so I've added a bit to the instructions. I personally think GA should just be deprecated in favor of ArticleHistory already, but people seem to have a lot of trouble using that, so I guess I'll just keep racking up my edit count by periodically clearing Category:Uncategorized good articles and Category:Good articles without an oldid. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help with that. As an aside, the templates already convert subtopics (the second level at GA and GAN) to topics (the first level), so it would be possible to get the GA template to reinterpret a "subtopic" parameter as a "topic" parameter if that would save effort. Let me know. Geometry guy 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I do think that would be quite helpful, even if only as a back-up for when reviewers forget to switch "subtopic" to "topic". Perhaps "redundant parameters are cheap"... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

that 70's feeling
...when we all had these lying around on coffee tables and bookshelves etc. Amazing it wasn't even an article until late 2008. ....new project for a new wikiproject? Wikipedia loves beachcombing? to take photos of shells etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, shells. Wikiprojecta molluska. I added some info about conchs to Geography and ecology of the Everglades. My recent construction of St. Johns River had me reading up on them again. --Moni3 (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber, I bet you didn't know that Canada had a hit TV show about beachcombing. Maybe not in the same sense, but... Outriggr (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, that filtered down to the antipodes too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moni3. I replied on my talk page re WBFAN. Outriggr (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request
Would you - or any non-Commonwealth English speaking talkpage stalkers - be willing to offer your opinions on this one? Basically, the standard British (and Australian, Canadian etc) way of differentiating "traditional city" from "larger modern city that grew around it is" to use "City of..." for the original city, and "Greater..." for the modern city (City of Manchester/Greater Manchester, Île de la Cité/Paris aire urbaine, City of Sydney/Greater Sydney, City of Toronto/Greater Toronto and so on). While the "formal city"/"broader area named after it" formulation certainly exists in the US (the Las Vegas strip isn't formally in Las Vegas, Miami Beach isn't formally in Miami, etc); the problem is that while the meaning of "City of" will be immediately obvious to Brianboulton's concerned that City of London will be misunderstood. Unfortunately, there isn't really an obvious simplification; London is an agglomeration of multiple cities that have merged together, that happens to have been named after one of the older cities, and the City is neither the oldest nor the most important part - just the part that happened to give its name to the remainder - so none of the usual "historic centre of" or "the core of" formulations apply. Any thoughts on how to disambiguate it without jarring phrases like "the City of London in London"? – iride  scent  19:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Grammatically, City of X means the incorporated, government-recognized entity where municipal laws apply. I traveled to the city of London, with a lower case c, while perhaps fanciful and redundant would basically mean I went to London, the globally recognized largest municipality in the UK. If City of London has a different meaning than Greater London--which I gather it does from the talk page of the article--that should be differentiated in a note for non-commonwealths like me who just don't know. Perhaps add further info to note 1 (Finsbury Park) to say, for example, The City of London in 1885 took up 345 km2 and Postman's Park was the largest park in it. Greater London, however, was 1,456 km2 (I'm making these up)...and on. Do you get what I'm trying to say? --Moni3 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Get it entirely (the distinction is the same here; the City of London is the part of the city of London electing the Lord Mayor of London, patrolled by the City of London Police etc, as opposed to the miles of urban sprawl). I'd be happy with a footnote (as you may have noticed I'm quite a fan of long tangential footnotes) but don't think it would solve the particular issue Brian's raising. Do you think this looks too clumsy? – iride  scent  19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that wording is clumsy. If Brian is asking for more differentiation, I think a note is the place to do it, and if you do that, much more detail can be divulged about how large the City of London is vs. Greater London and perhaps the ages of both. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd include a potted history, but the history of the City of London is so murky - founded in 50 AD, destroyed in the 5th century, refounded in the 7th century on another site, relocated back to its original site in the 9th century, so many records lost that some of the most important characters are effectively mythological - that it's impossible to explain exactly what the history of the City of London is (even their own website doesn't try). – iride  scent  21:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Manos to-do list
I see you've been helping out cleaning up Manos: The Hands of Fate. I was the one who put the article up for review, but I'd love for the article to stay as a featured article, but some work must be done first. I created a to-do list at Talk:Manos: The Hands of Fate with some things that will help clean up the article. Feel free to add a strike through the completed tasks or add your own to the list for us (and other editors) to work on. – Dream out loud (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All right. Let's see what we can do to save the most astounding use of celluloid of all time. Twenty minutes on this film is my limit, even not sober. Then I have to go off and do something interesting for an hour and come back again. Took me several days to watch it the first time. This movie is freakin' awful. --Moni3 (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This mentions the documentary. Do you think it could replace the Amazon.com citation in its entirety?  Maybe don't talk about the DVD release but just say in general that a documentary about the film came out. Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can find a better mention of it. Not surprisingly, nothing about Manos is in the AFI film index. Let's not be shocked. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Distributor's website:

Another favor...
Can you check over Barbara L for me as a pre-FAC check thing? Malleus hasn't really gone over the prose, I'm more looking for logical leaps that leave readers lost, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

History reminder
Hey Moni, I asked you about this a few days ago; perhaps you didn't see it. I finished addressing your comments about History of Sesame Street. Would you mind taking a look and seeing if it now fulfills the GA criteria? Thanks. --Christine (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, sorry. I got sidetracked. Give me a day or so. I have another GA review I need to do as well. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob. Know the feeling, about getting sidetracked, believe me.  Take your time. --Christine (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Marcas!?
Hey there Moni.. Many thanks for your recent vandalism vigilance on Harriet Tubman. I wonder if you have some time to take a look at the article for Balzac's novelette Z. Marcas? The PR is here. If not, no worries — I know you're always crazy busy. Cheers! Scartol •  Tok  13:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The list: --Moni3 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Finish Enron scandal
 * Finish History of Sesame Street
 * Barbara L
 * Z. Marcas PR
 * Add info to Manos: The Hands of Fate
 * Add info to Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, PR for removal of tables, other structural info


 * Cool. I wish I could say it's anywhere nearly as important as Enron or Sesame Street; alas, it's just a quirky little story that started from HdB being obsessed.. Thanks for your indefatigable dedication. Scartol  •  Tok  16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you get a wild hair in all your spare time and feel like reviewing one for me, I have this one at GA and I hope to take it to FAC. I need your expert opinion on prose and comprehensiveness. --Moni3 (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WT:FAC
You were asked for by Fowler to opine. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lesbianism
Hi! First of all, I'd like to congratulate you for your article Lesbianism. I'll be translating part of it into Spanish in the next weeks. I wanted to comment two points with you. If you don't mind, I'll be posting here my impressions as I translate. Keep up the great work! --Ecelan (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, tell you my impression that the article is extremely US/Britain-centered, mainly in the "history" section. I could understand it for the history after the 2nd WW, but not for the history before. We (in es:Wiki) will have to work quite a bit to make it less foreing for the hispanic public.
 * I'm missing the Middle Ages. There are is interesting story to tell. Even some pretty crude poetry from the 12th century


 * I quite understand that the article slants toward English-speaking countries. Although I apologize that this is true, it is because the sources concentrate only on what little has been written about female homosexual behavior. This is further limited to my own singular knowledge of English; I neglected sources I cannot read. I can try to find some information the focuses on Spain, Central, and South America, but I do not know how much will be available. If you have access to such information, please feel free to present it on the talk page. It is possible that translated sources can be used if you are confident in the material.


 * The Middle Ages is broken up over several sections. There is a Literature section and the Early modern Europe section. Female husbands also focus some on the Middle Ages. Is there a source or topic in particular you think I should find? Is there an English translation of the Portuguese poem? --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'll pay you a million dollars to get rid of that awful photo at the top of the article in Spanish Wikipedia. (which translates to 35 cents in pesos...) --Moni3 (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just changed the photo. You owe me a million dollars or 35 cents in pesos, whatever comes first
 * Don't worry about finding information about lesbianism in hispanic countries, I have some. If you are interested, Catalina de Erauso, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, Gabriela Mistral or Mujer contra mujer, will be in the Spanish article. But for instance, I am missing a little bit more about the culture in Berlin in the 1920s or the lesbians during the nazi era. People like Claire Waldoff, Jeanne Mammen (it's a crime she hasn't an article in en:Wiki, her paintings are well known ), Christa Winsloe or Anna Elisabet Weirauch in the culture, or the activists of the first homosexual movement Theo Anna Sprüngli (the first lesbian activist ) or Emma Trosse Johanna Elberskirchen (the most important lesbian activist in the German homosexual liberation movement before the 2nd WW) should be mentioned.
 * Just some thoughts. I also tend to have a bias towards Germany and the Spanish-speaking countries, so you may choose to ignore it.
 * I'll translate the poem myself. Please bear with my English:

Mari'Mateu, I want to leave because I can't get a cunt; the one who would give it to me, doesn't have it, and the one who has it, doesn't want to give t to me; Mari'Mateu, Mari'Mateu, You want cunt as much as I do!

And God made many cunts, here other people have enough, and make you and me desire it, but you are woman; Mari'Mateu, Mari'Mateu, You want cunt as much as I do!
 * Mari'Mateu is a woman's name. It's in the Vatican Songbook  And btw., it's form the 14th century, not the 12th (sorry).
 * Good night, --Ecelan (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They don't (HA! ha) pussyfoot around with what they're trying to say in this poem, do they? I think Spanish and German issues belong in the Lesbian article and I am willing to add information if I can find it in English. If I cannot, I may come to you to ask you to translate from reliable sources. The film and television sections are also very US-centered. I was unable to find any European film and television references outside of Madchen in Uniform. However, you may have noticed how incredibly long the article already is. The more I add to it the more I may be forced to consider cutting. --Moni3 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This page may help you: http://www.lesbengeschichte.de/Englisch/seite_e.html. They have a list of German LGBT films: http://www.lesbengeschichte.de/Englisch/film_filmliste_e.html. But you have the most important, Madchen in Uniform. As far as I know, there are no important lesbian films in Spanish. The only somewhat known is My Mother Likes Women, a comedy.
 * On the web page you also have some information about Elberskirchen in English.
 * About TV, in Spain 7 vidas was important. The lesbian actress "Diana" played by Anabel Alonso was an important turn in Spanish TV. She won two "LGBT" prices for it. But I wouldn't mention it in the article, its importance was too local. I don't think there is anything worth mentioning on German TV either. What might be worth mentioning is Chica busca chica, a web series (10 min per chapter) done by aficionados. You can watch it on Youtube, and I think they even have English subtitles.
 * Long article? I have written one with 215Kb, but shhh! don't tell anyone.
 * Cheers, --Ecelan (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think that on TV and cinema, after the 2nd WW, American culture is simply overwhelmingly dominant. I wouldn't be too worried about that. --Ecelan (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's me again. I don't know if you want me to discuss the article here or in Talk:Lesbian. I feel is more inconspicuous here, we are "among us", so to speak. In the article's discussion page I have the impression I'm criticizing, here I have the impression we are just chatting a bit. But I will do as you please.
 * I'm getting to "Outside Western cultures" and wanted to comment a couple of things. From Rictor Norton, The myth of the modern homosexual (1997), talks (p. 186 f.) about lesbianism in China being mentioned since the the 2nd c. as dui shi (paired eating): "when palace women attach themselves as husband and wife it is called dui shi". He talks also of the Golden Orchid Associations, that included "marriage" ceremonies between women that could adopt female children and inherit property. I think it's worth mentioning.
 * Norton also talks on page 189 (citing Judy Grahn, Another mother tongue: gay words, gay worlds, 1984) about Enheduanna, a priestess from around 2300 BC, that prises in a pretty personal hymn the goddess Inanna. Grahn has interpreted it as the "first lesbian literature". It might be worth mentioning.
 * If I'm being a pain, please say so, and I'll leave you alone.
 * Cheers, --Ecelan (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you need any translation or references in other languages, I'll be happy to help.
 * P.S.2. Information about lesbians in Spain can be found in "La escondida senda": homosexuality in Spanish history and culture y Homosexuality in Encyclopedia of Medieval Iberia from Daniel Eisenberg, but you'll have to skim through the text, because the majority is dedicated to gays.


 * Hey Ecelan. Some points:
 * I have to work on this article in phases. I'll concentrate on it very diligently for a few weeks or a month, then leave it alone. I spent a month constructing it more or less the way it reads now. Some months later I spent another couple weeks adding some more information to it. The time I don't work on it and concentrate on something else, I am able to see where language needs to be fixed in places. Please don't mistake my inaction for apathy.
 * You are more than welcome to place these points on the article talk page. There are a few errant poopheads who will add nothing to the conversation, but the article is watched by hundreds of Wikipedians. Most of them don't have my talk page watchlisted, and I think a greater response would be given there than here, particularly by editors who have watched the article for years. I, of course, will participate in the talk page discussions there.
 * This is a difficult article to construct as the concept of lesbian identity vs. female homosexual behavior is nebulous depending on the culture. Your suggestions are all very useful and quite wonderful. I hope I am able to find these sources in English, but I may have to use your Spanish translations. I am ever-conscious regarding the size and scope of the article. Although I think it is somewhat comprehensive, it is nearing being unreadable in one sitting. While I think it is necessary to be as inclusive as possible, I am mindful that information should be integrated within the text to flow smoothly. Also, I attempted in writing the article to make sure that sources indicated the names of people who where mentioned were superlative in some way, inherently notable: it would be impossible and bordering ridiculous to name every lesbian or bisexual woman who has an article or impact in some way on lesbian culture. But if the source refers to them as superlative or responsible for a trend, then of course they should be mentioned. It is in this context we should reassess if information in the article should be cut, or how to integrate further sourced information about Spanish and German culture.
 * I have access to Myth of the Modern Homosexual and will read it today. --Moni3 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Undestood, I'll go to bother the people in the talk page  --Ecelan (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I just read the first page of Chapter 7 in Myth of the Modern Homosexual: Lesbian Historiographies, and I wish I had read it long ago. Thanks for pointing me to this source. On this page alone, it says much of what the article should. --Moni3 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Maniac Magee
Hello, Moni3. The article history and talk page for Maniac Magee indicate that you have recently worked on the article. I've begun a GA review on Talk:Maniac Magee/GA1, so feel free to participate if you want to. --Edge3 (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cockettes
Hi, despite your heat I hope you can see I am only interested in writing good content. To that end I think "Two theater troupes, the Cockettes and the Angels of Light, formed in the Castro" is wrong. Angels of Light was an offshoot of the Cockettes and both came from the Haight hippie communes, as did the early Sisters. I think the main ones all lived together. There were many radical theater groups that came out of the hippie movement so I think it's misleading to suggest there were two. There were also many radical LGBT performing street theater groups some which turned into more traditional theater groups although Theater Rhino is the only one I think could be cited in that way. In any case happy editing. -- <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   12:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources, please? --Moni3 (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you could start with The Cockettes film itself which was pretty specific that Angels of Light was an offshoot. Theatre Rhinoceros is one of the oldest LGBT theater groups in the world, no idea what the Castro connections are. Here's one account of their earliest activities. The members change names and she documents this and seems to be one of the main forces behind RFD which is where I think I've read a longer history of the origins presented. The online site for RFD only seems to have the latest version available. -- <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   13:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Never Coming to a Theater Near You (p. 269) states The Cockettes started in Haight-Ashbury. Jim de Strange's book about the Castro neighborhood features a paragraph on The Cockettes. The SPI article already says that the Angels of Light are an offshoot of The Cockettes. This discussion, however, has prompted me to find two articles that discuss drag as a theatrical element clearly employed by SPI in JSTOR. And seriously, Benji. Get out of the information superghetto in blogs. If you take anything positive from this exchange, find my sensible shoeprint on your ass pushing you to look in better sources than blogs and crappy self-published websites. The San Francisco Public Library is a font of information and access to databases, just screaming to be used like a cheap whore. LGBT social issues are not Russian construction projects where we have to find whatever castaway crap sources to shore up a sinking building. There are serious academic scholars writing about this stuff.


 * My "heat" as you call it...reminds me of a yowling cat and Agador Spartacus in The Birdcage: "they are afraid of my heat...my huatamelanness". Regardless, it's not very focused. It will be, however, if you continue to wallow in this godawful sourcing and blame Peter Damian and Wikipedia Review that you can't do any better and complain that they dedicate the same scrutiny that anyone should to Conversion therapy as they do to articles you have constructed. Serious, man. Think about the reason Wikipedia exists. Everyone should be skeptical of everything they read. Your job as a content editor is to make an article so full of excellent reliable sources that being skeptical is too overwhelming. The skeptics win in your case. You can choose to counter with better writing and better sources or howl about the perceived injustice of it all. If you howl about homophobia though, you'll be alone. Not until you have exhausted every possible avenue in sourcing do you get to pull the homophobia card. --Moni3 (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

''<Risker, who turned up to find out what "huatamelanness" meant, applauds in the background on reading Moni3's impassioned plea for the use of high quality sources. 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)>
 * My issue has nothing to do with wanting to use poor sourcing. Seriously there are movies on Fudgie Frottage but I really would have to rent and watch them, I still might. Besides that I've leaned on newspaper accounts. In some cases those are the most reliable sources. Many of the topics on which I write are along the same lines. I tend to avoid the blogs unless people are talking about themselves which the one I link to above does. And these editors harassing me don't seem to care about any of that, they simply are on a mission to remove that which they don't like. So no, a campaign was organized against me offsite on WR and was led in part by Damian. This is not paranoia but rather organized harassment. Call it what you will but it has been condoned, in the words of a number of long-term editors, because of the subject matter - those gays. And no, no one deserves to be wikihounded, ever - our most troublesome banned users should also be treated civilly, always. As for the Sisters article the concerns I mentioned above are yours to sort out now. The way it is currently worded suggests that two theater groups formed in the Castro; I think many theater groups did form in the Castro but not those two and not the Sisters. I believe all three formed in the Haight neighborhood as part of the hippie communal living. Angels of Light was a schism after the Cockettes became quite popular and famous. The face make-up of the Sisters emulated that of the two other groups. It might make sense to rework the language to more fully encapsulate that the entire Bay Area was profoundly affected by the radical hippie movement which included the genderfucking theater troupes including the Cockettes/Angels. The early Sisters also lived in the Haight but likely were more at home in the Castro district which was replacing the Polk street as the main goto hangout for "the gays." Our methods are different but our goals are quite similar. I triage several thousand articles to stop the bleeding and you build stellar ones that quite eloquently stop a lot, but not all nonsense in its tracks. Like most editors I think I've improved quite a bit since I first started yet the deleted article I wrote in 2006. I can't tell you why I wrote them without likely revealing my and likely other people's identities but they were very short bios bits and neither of those people (I think they are a couple despite the hysterics) seem interested in any promotional anything. Nuff said.  -- <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   15:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your issue has just about everything to do with poor sourcing, and like a Greek tragedy, your own faults in poor judgment and prioritizing something else over the integrity of content. You are unable to convince me otherwise. Stop blaming Wikipedia Review. They did not make you construct two articles about the same person. They don't give bullshit answers about your identity. I don't understand how you don't get the natural cognitive connection between "I won't say I'm not this person" and the assumption that you probably are. They know what goes on at Wikipedia and look for flaws in sourcing. Wikipedia Review is preparation for a conflict you keep dodging, and though they portray misguided glee in catching editors when they slip up, surely these doubts and skepticism are not far off when you construct articles? Reading the mirthful banter at Wikipedia Review should be mandatory before an editor goes through an RfA to understand the circumstances when admins make bad blocks and behave reprehensibly. That's Wikipedia's cranky Greek chorus. Every word I put in an article is formed to prove a point made by a source, in anticipation of the inevitable skepticism an article I write will receive. Our approaches are quite different: I invite criticism and scrutiny because it makes my articles stronger. You froth at the mouth and cry foul, when you could anticipate the mess beforehand and improve to avoid conflicts in the future. Do what is hard because it is harder to do.


 * I'll continue to work on the SPI article without getting dragged down into tangents like the article on The Cockettes and the nonexistent article on the Angels of Light. I'm in the middle of five different things right now, so progress on SPI will be slow, but I venture to say it already is more informative to an average reader than it has been in the past. I think a part of that is my distance from the organization; I have no conflict of interest to muddy my thoughts about what it is and what it does. As my suspicions naturally rage that you are the former archivist for the organization, your input on the talk page is invaluable. Simply your challenge that the Cockettes and the Angels of Light were not Castro-based just prompted several edits to improve accuracy. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um no, harassing people - even if motivated to improve sourcing - remains unacceptable. Harassing people off articles and in my case WP:Paid, does not make those better pages, it squashes discussion and crushes the spirits of the kid who asks the "dumb" question that improves everyone's understanding. Bullying bad - that is the point. Our approaches are different but characterizing my as some sort of crybaby only enforces what unfortunately I had hoped I never would hear from you but you actually may read and believe what WR writes. As for the SPI article, it's vastly different and I think better although I was going by news hits of what seemed to spike news on a large scale. Despite your suspicions I have precious little to do with the group. Sweet Pam (aka Pam Tent) BTW did write a book on the Cockettes likely anything you need on them can be found there. Another source for the Sisters might be White Crane. -- <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   18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think your disappointment in my reaction is equal to the disappointment or astonishment I felt when I realized what a cockup you made of the DJ Pusspuss/Kitty Catalyst articles? I don't know how you can't see that what you have done in the past affects editors and articles beyond you. Should we just count it right about even? How about if my disappointment deepens as you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions?


 * I responded to a thread at WT:LGBT where you were accusing Cameron Scott of all kinds of things. Maybe you and I have divergent definitions of harassment. I think it rather logical that once an editor shows he is unwilling or unable to make an article comprehensive, he is willing to do it again and probably has in other articles. That's not harassment or homophobia. Despite the best intentions to make a community of completely anonymous users, we actually have reputations that may precede us, for good or bad. --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote those articles three years ago and generally ignored them. I certainly wouldn't write the DJ one again as it wouldn't cut the notability threshold. The Catalyst one, I might, as co-founding several groups and getting awards she sure seems to be notable enough. And I have taken responsibility, I wrote some poorly worded articles and at the time - and even today - a newby article along those lines is quite common. Cameron Scott, for months, possibly longer, has targeted mostly LGBT hate-crime victim articles speciously arguing that since the authorities didn't rule something was a hate crime it must not be. We'll just gloss over the fact that in many if not most cases a crime couldn't be classified as such because the legal systems hadn't developed the classifications yet, we are only this year seeing the first federal level hate crime classifications in process. So you may have felt I was out of step, however there was more to the situation. And no, it's not my job or anyone else's to make any article comprehensive unless they make it their job and wish to elevate an article to GA or FA. I've cleaned-up hundreds of articles that were stubby and accurate and will keep growing. Is it my job to fill out early life, bibliography and various appropriate backgrounds on every article I touch. No. I might but it's not my or anyone else's job to. If you're insinuating that I should have linked the two articles? Sorry, I had no sources supporting it. You might not believe me but I generally start with books, then work through periodicals and maybe look at someone's website to see if they have major information that is missing, if I'm lucky they actually have press mentions linked. I generally don't bother to even look at blogs unless looking for key pieces of information. I only used Google searches three years ago and frankly even after the question was raised there was nothing as far as I saw that linked the two in any reliable sources, even all the google hits didn't show anything worth pursuing. So accuse me of not calling in a sleuth but I saw no reason at the time. Frankly there was more compelling hunches that Catalyst could have been one of the other Sisters as many of them have multiple names. I really didn't care that much and still don't. They were my newby articles and like a lot of newby articles, deleted. What remains is a disportionate, venomous and vindictive reaction that is largely absent of civility. Harassment, hostile or not, remains harassment. It drives good editors away and squashes civil discussion. Consensus was to delete both articles, I agree only with the DJ one but I respect consensus. Harassment wasn't questioning the articles or the content; it's wikihounding me and labeling thirty other articles with no evident problems as COI against guidelines and continually accusing me of variously working for all those entities in some way. Good grief, if I was ever paid to write an article I personally would aim for it to be a GA not a stub. You can certainly believe whatever you wish but as long as I'm around I'll defend you and anyone else against harassment as well. We don't need wikibullies we need editors to feel free to participate in helping build articles. If volunteers are abused they'll take their talents elsewhere. I think Cameron Scott and the other four editors who have been wikihounding can do good work but there does seem to be an organized effort to harass here. And harassing editors is wrong, no matter how justified they may feel. There's a saying - even if you're paranoid it doesn't mean someone's not out to get you. Check out this bit of bad faith. This ongoing situation failed the duck test at least a month ago. May you never have the devoted attention such as this.  -- <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   22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, for months, possibly longer, has targeted mostly LGBT hate-crime victim articles. I'll let you read the article talkpage youself and decide what happened. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "that since the authorities didn't rule something was a hate crime it must not be" - So, Benjiboi wishes Wikipedia to promote the "truth" about a crime since it knows better than the criminal justice system? I guess Benji has not heard of "libel" before. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Knock it off. Insinuating I would want to libel anyone is false and I hope you know better. We follow reliable sources here so if you want to play the libel game take it up with them.  -- <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   21:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet above you claim that people should be labeled as hate criminals even if courts don't decide such. That is the very definition of promoting libel. There is no way for you to justify or excuse such a claim. I suggest you strike it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Gah! GAH!! GAAAAHHH!!! Don't make me archive my page just to stop this insanity. Benji, we're using English and not speaking the same language, so I don't know what else to say. OR, if you are inspired to address Benji's issues at length, use his talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't resist responding to a crazy TL:DR that I actually caught a bit in the middle of. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Moni3, I was only addressing - still more - character attacks. I will write a note at Ottava Rima's as I think they are misinterpreting what I meant. -- <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   01:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan episodes
If anything, most of the edits from the 209 IP have made it slightly less coherent. I'll do what I can to tidy it up. HalfShadow (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sacagawea
At RFPP, you said you had performed a 6 month semi, but the log says no protection was applied.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I remember doing it. But you know...the protection log didn't have my protection in it. I am confused. But I did it again and saw that it was protected. I get interrupted frequently sometimes and so distracted that I don't double check to make sure comments and edits stick. I'm fairly screwed during edit conflicts. At any rate, it should be taken care of now. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks better.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for protecting Cannabis (drug) ... enough was just enough... at times there were so many bad edits, to weed them out (no pun intended!) it took forever! Thanks! <font color="#000080">tommy <font color="#808080">talk  16:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Best of luck in improving that article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the copyedit
Thanx, Moni3, for that copyedit in the lead for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. If you detect anything else that needs copyediting in the article, please don't hesitate to fix it. Happy editing! ATC. Talk 15:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I tripped over that article, but noticed it is at FAC. I suggest you go through it and look for the repetition I found in the lead. Keep asking yourself if the words you have used are redundant. If nouns and verbs appear multiple times in a paragraph, start looking for synonyms or search for punctuation to shorten the sentence, or attach it to another one. Read your article out loud to someone. Print it one paper and read it there. For some reason, it looks and reads differently on paper. Best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanx! ATC. Talk 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Sources en español
Sure, I'll see what I can find. Adding to what Ecelan has already said, aside from 7 vidas, Hospital Central made a pretty big impact in Spain, and perhaps might be worth mentioning. Source in English. I'm not sure there are Spanish lesbian films of note, but maybe there are lesbian films in Spanish that could work their way into the article. I gotta check that. I have an Argentinian friend, I'll ask her. I'll get back to you on that one. Let me poke around, see what I can find. ;) Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  18:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:British or English?
Sorry, but that discussion at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board seems to gave got out of hand. They're not edit-warring that page yet, but it's creeping closer; I have unwatched the page as a silent protest. My own observation of things is that no matter how you describe somebody or something, there will always be people who take offence. NPOV is pretty much unattainable, unless we ban all adjectives.

Anyway, I promised to look for clippings re Ashes to Ashes (TV series) - these have now been found; but there are neither interviews with Keeley Hawes nor a description of who she is/what she's done before. So, no good I'm afraid. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should feel immensely satisfied with myself for being such a tempest, but I suppose if these issues did not exist in real life the conversation wouldn't be so lively. At least, I hope, it is recognized as a problem that should be addressed to avoid future edit wars. Thanks for letting me know. --Moni3 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I promised...
...to review Tipping the Velvet, but I have a Herniated disk and can't do much more than lie around a feel sorry for myself atm. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, well feeling sorry for yourself is always first priority. When I'm sick I treat myself to as many drugs as possible without consideration for their DEA listing or legal status and sit back and treat myself to a Mystery Science Theater marathon. Mrs. Moni can't stand MST3K sometimes, so I have to make sure to do it when she's not around. It's a trade-off. I can't stand cheese, so she has her personal cheese orgies when I am away from home.
 * When you start feeling better, I would appreciate your scrutiny and suggestions should some other poor soul come along and take on the GA review. Feel better. --Moni3 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Though I doubt my half-review like a year ago or so did any good, rock on witcha bad self. FA for Columbia River. That's awesome. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Socks / alternate accounts
Hi, Moni3. Your post at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard shows that you are as uneasy as I am about socks / alternate accounts in general. I'd be happy to work with you in producing an RfC on the issue. --Philcha (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting idea, but I have some reservations about it. I find myself losing patience a lot with editors who have been on Wikipedia for a long time and still cling to crap sources, justifying a version of an article that is poorly written and cited. I figure 6 active months here should be as good a crash course on reliable sources for anyone, so I don't understand the insistence or dependence on blogs and fansites. But chastising people doesn't get us anywhere and it's probably more divisive than helpful.
 * Similarly, I don't change my user name or use alternate accounts. Online identities are too easy to manipulate to present oneself in a different light. Reinvention is super for Madonna or Lady Gaga, but when no one could see anything but your words in the first place, online it's duplicitous and deceptive. It forces others to engage in one's manipulations and makes accomplices of editors who have knowledge of these changes. And the drama! Every week some sock of some user blah blah blah.
 * I think it's also an issue of personal honesty and how confident each editor is in his/her own being and personality. These alt accounts and name changes are crutches for some, used because they are inherently self-conscious or focused too strongly on "winning" whatever disagreements they're involved in. Confidence cannot be forced upon others, and folks should learn on their own to pick their own battles and understand that when they don't get their way the world won't end.
 * Do you think it would be effective to moralize in such a manner? I figure if editors don't have the insight not to sock in the first place and can understand that alternate accounts are confusing to all editors--not just newbies--yet they just don't care, what kind of change would I be able to enact by preaching about the evils of socks and alt accounts? Students have to be ready for their lessons. Forcing them turns them off and makes them resentful.
 * I'm open to a discussion about it. At the least, The Signpost is taking submissions for op eds. What do you think of co-writing an op ed first to see just how much fail an RfC would get? --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh bugger, you're right. Whatever was I thinking of when I started my Disney-themed sockpuppets. I'll get rid of User:BambiAdminWanabee1, User:PeterPanAdminWanabee1 ... you've shamed me into it. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I keep staring at that response and I have no idea what to say about it... --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean no more Muppet-themed sock puppets, either? Bye bye User:Mahnamahna, User:It'stimetoplaythemusicit'stimetolightthelights, and User:It'snothateasybein'green. --Christine (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Moni3. I've also had a conversation at User_talk:Tony1 - Tony also has concerns, although I think he takes a less restrictive line than I would or you seem to do.
 * Using an op ed in Signpost looks like a good way to test the water - presumably feedback would be at the Talk page of the oped?
 * How should it be?
 * How much evidence of abuse of and confusions by sockpuppets would we need, and should we try to restrict evidence to e.g. 2009? --Philcha (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose writing it would be the first step. In a sandbox. I have an apparent infinite supply of them and continue to multiply, but I don't mind hosting it. I would appreciate Tony's input and I have his page watchlisted so I'm reading the discussion there. I have my views on personal honesty and integrity that are based on my experiences, as do you, and as does Tony1. Both of you think it's worthwhile to pursue a policy against socking, where I'm more impatient for people to grow up and realize how detrimental and counterproductive they are and for the community to realize as one that alt accounts, socks, and random renamings keep it crippled. I think our divergent views would flesh out an interesting essay. --Moni3 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Moni, an op ed could be the right way to go, although I'd like to see it published soon, while the issue is well and truly alive. I can assist if you wish. Commenting on the above, I was thinking I took a more restrictive line than most others. I hope you don't mind my inserting a link at the WT:SOCKPUPPET thread to your recent statement on my talk page. Tony   (talk)  17:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind it. I said it.
 * As for an op ed, we can start with that comment as a basis, cleaning it up a bit. Renaming should be addressed as well. I would start it off usually by mentioning the reason for the sudden activity or flurry of discussion, which is Law/the_Undertow and Casliber's resignation from ArbCom. But I like and respect Casliber and don't know how I feel about using his resignation to direct more attention to his reasoning in this case. I can start in the middle, I guess. The sandbox is linked above. Feel free to edit it and use the adjoining discussion page. --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't even got to Cas's issue this morning, and I'm very disappointed he's resigned. Pffff. How about an RfC on the removal of one word? Tony   (talk)  03:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you lost interest in the "socks" issue and/or the idea of an op-ed? --Philcha (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with the Nightwish page
People who are not even joing Wikipedia keep taking things out and addings things into the Nightwish page. The changes I did make were fine with Tedder. I believe the Nightwish page should be locked down again. --Epica124 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Exceptionally thick or exceptionally busy
... or both. Trying to catch up at FAC, but missed three weeks of "politics". I haven't been able to figure out why TFM was blocked, or why Cas resigned. Brief clue stick? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone should try to quantify the crests and troughs of activity at AN, ANI, and ArbCom. Maybe people as a group simply cannot abide long periods of productivity and complacency. Maybe we just get too bored too quickly and have to stir something up.


 * Casliber knew that Law, who blocked or unblocked (who knows or cares?) ChildofMidnight used to be the_undertow, a blocked editor. With great gravity he confessed his sins and left it up to (seriously...he must have wanted to do this anyway) ArbCom watchers, most of them having been sanctioned by ArbCom in some way, to dole out his punishment.


 * The Fat Man made a comment as a anonymous IP that was apparently so uproariously funny that he got blocked for it. Srs he kills. We are a safer place for his being blocked for a week because I, who spend no considerable amount of time at admin boards, know as a mantra that blocks are not punitive.


 * Usually it's at this point during a show or conversation that I just blurt out, "That's it! Get the gun!" and I dream of exacting some horrible moral revenge upon this collective stupidity. O, Grace, Wikipedia has confounded me once again and I beseech thee for calm and wisdom. Or at least concentration enough to work on content without being sidetracked by this utter bullshit. --Moni3 (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Bang. --Tznkai (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Moni. I've been asking everyone with a brain, and I finally got an answer that makes sense.  We can't blame Cas if he was tired of the silliness; the good ones do seem to burn out.  As to my favorite Fat Man, it is my personal and highly biased opinion that when TFM-- who has more brains, writing ability, humor, good sense and charm than any ten Wiki scholars combined-- is blocked, we might as well all go have a party somewhere off-Wiki with Cas.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As a complete aside
Shakespeare is overrated.--Tznkai (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because he wrote about poop, right? --Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I just happened to think As You Like It was incomprehensible except for the occasional rhetorical flourish. The main value of the sonnets is that they are just vague enough to keep professors of literature employed into perpetuity. When I saw Ran (film), then and only then, did the potential in King Lear become apparent.--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can barely understand him either, but then, I can't understand the voices on South Park or the accents in The Full Monty without some brain-slowing chemical to make it make some sense.


 * There. You unblocked The Fat Man. A commendable action and one that is apparently in short supply around here to undo oneself and admit to a diverging judgment (not an error, but a difference in opinion) without melting into a puddle of self-abuse. I, at least, appreciate that. Not that that should mean anything to anyone, but there you go. --Moni3 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no, it wasn't. I'm simply too exhausted to deal with the unnecessary guilt I feel for distressing people like yourself, and too tired to deal with the pervasive meanness and mockery in this place. I'd frankly rather get into a knock down drag out with my old high school English teacher (who, for the record, was a newly minted PhD at the time) on the feminist interpretation of Waiting for Godot. At least now, I've can state more in more sophisticated language that for all her intelligence, learning and writing abilities that she's full of crap. The only kind of fun anyone has around here anymore is at the expense of someone else, and the factional maliciousness has infected the "good ones" as much, if not more so, than the others. --Tznkai (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not quite. I did have quite some fun creating that post on The Fat Man's page, and none of it directed at you. Most of my scathing scalpel-sharp wit I direct at myself. Intellectual masturbation, no doubt, to a fundamental Freudian. --Moni3 (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit conflicted with you, and have expanded on what I said above. I'm not sure why you're the unfortunate soul who's on the receiving end of this particular lament, but please take it as as sign of overall respect colored by the stress of current events.--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for butting in (Moni3's Talk page is on my watchlist following a recent discussion), but "The only kind of fun anyone has around here anymore is at the expense of someone else" would be very sad if it were true - but fortunately it's untrue. I won't you bore with the things I find fun, as my tastes are probably different from Tznkai's, but there's enough fun around that isn't at the expense of someone else. --Philcha (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No act of hyperbole should go uncorrected. You are correct. I am merely suggesting that the culture has turned to minimize fun that doesn't evolve some sort victory over another.--Tznkai (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)