User talk:Moni3/Archive 5

Mulholland Dr.

 * Thank you very much, Lugnuts. "Work", you call it. "Exorcism", I contend. I appreciate the star and the acknowledgment with all my heart. --Moni3 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats- great writing. My work on the citations will only serve to improve the already great work you have done on Mulholland Drive (film). Bzuk (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Thank you, Bzuk. I saw what you did, but I'm not strong enough tonight to jump in. It's a job for another day. I appreciate your acknowledgment and your assistance. Citations make me whine a lot. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The citations contain small errors, not huge ones but here are some examples where changes are required:


 * Mulholland Drive (film) example: <!ref name="david">David, Anna (November, 2001). "Twin Piques", Premiere Magazine, 15 (3), p. 80–81.

Using MLA style guide which is what is generally used in formatting the references in the article, the guide indicates, Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date. The citation would therefore be written:
 * <!ref name="david">David, Anna. "Twin Piques". Premiere Magazine, Volume: 15, No. 3, November, 2001, pp. 80–81.

Another example, this time I will write it in text not formatting:
 * Mulholland Drive (film) example: Fuller, Graham (November 2001). "Naomi Watts: Three Continents Later, An Outsider Actress Finds her Place," Interview, Vol. 11, p. 132–137.
 * The MLA style guide example: Fuller, Graham. "Naomi Watts: Three Continents Later, An Outsider Actress Finds her Place." Interview, Vol. 11, November 2001, pp. 132–137.

And a final example:
 * Mulholland Drive (film) example: Wyman, Bill; Max Garrone, Andy Klein (2001-10-23). Everything you were afraid to ask about "Mulholland Drive". Salon.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-08.
 * MLA example: Wyman, Bill, Garrone, Max and Klein, Andy. "Everything you were afraid to ask about 'Mulholland Drive'." Salon.com, October 23, 2001. Retrieved: April 8, 2008.

If you read carefully, there are subtle changes in style (note commas and periods are corrected, dates placed beside publication and two dating styles resolved into one) not massive corrections, but nonetheless, changes to be implemented. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC).


 * Ok. I intend to take this to GA, as I'm sure you have surmised, and I hope farther. However, in the 4 FAs and 6 GA processes I've been in, the citation format I've been using is the one that seems to be acceptable. I don't think it's MLA style, but it is the one that seems to be accepted widely in the FA process. I have asked my citation checker Maralia to step in. I'm waiting for this citation issue to be resolved so I can get Peer review feedback and put it up for GA. I do appreciate your assistance nonetheless. I'm just really confused. --Moni3 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Bzuk, haven't come across you in a while :) Per WP:CITE nearly any reference style is acceptable even at FAC as long as the article is internally consistent. Moni usually uses the WP:CITET templates, which are perfectly acceptable; admittedly, she hates the damned things and it takes some work to clean up her stray formatting, but the style itself is acceptable. I'm not sure why you would convert citations to a different format. Are you under the impression that MLA is preferred? Or perhaps you couldn't tell that she was in fact following an established form? Maralia (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Maralia, a longer reply on your talk page, but my "internal checker" goes off if there are more than two errors in formatting in the style guide standard used. I then normally correct all citations to a consistent format. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC).


 * There does not seem to be any interest in collaboration, so I will leave the article's referencing alone. Too bad, because it's an interesting article, mais c'est la vie. FWIW, I'm taking the article off my "watch list." Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC).


 * I disagree. I'm collaborating well with other editors. I don't feel like I'm blowing you off, but I don't understand why I need to replace citations to an unfamiliar format when the ones I was using are acceptable. They may be flawed and I may need to tweak them, but I have been instructed to format my citations just this way. I feel badly that you may feel dismissed. Please don't. My knowledge in citations is limited, obviously. I have to depend on what I already know has proven to be effective. I have to maintain the article and continue to add to it in the format I'm already familiar with. --Moni3 (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OWN. I was asked to help in the references for this article. I made suggestions and showed variances. These were summarily reverted and excised as being an "unfamiliar format." FWIW, I offered help nothing more. Bzuk (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Definitely my last word on this topic. Well, if you knew me, last word is often impossible, last words, maybe. I am an editor (by trade, now that is an arcane term if there ever was one) and have been an author and editor for more than a decade, previously I had been a reference librarian involved in cataloging for more than 30 years (yes, you are corresponding with Methuselah). The request made by another editor to help you was because you needed help in referencing. The citation templates are provided for newcomers and wiky editors unaccustomed to academic writing, to be able to provide authorities to substantiate research. Templates are an aid but do have limitations especially in specific aspects of citing multiple authors, changes of editions and numerous other special notations. Due to the inherent difficulty in trying to manipulate what is basically a form into a proper citation, many editors have learned the rudiments of cataloging in order to provide proper attribution. You have already indicated that you have another editor check your use of referencing and citation formats. My involvement in the article in question was because an experienced editor had "called me in" to provide exactly that, expert advice on how to reference a well-written and comprehensively researched "piece" that required consistent and accurate citations and references. The first comment that came to mind was that you established a proper endnotes and bibliographic record which is often absent from the usual Wikipedia fare. What was also evident was that there was inconsistency in style and format that would have been attributed to the problem with templates and simply not following a standard style, which is perfectly understandable given that editors not an editor is responsible for the work. That all the advice was not only unacceptable because it was of a style that was "unfamiliar" struck me as problematic since the guide that was present in the article was being adhered to with the strict application of standard punctuation, dating and publisher source notation. You may be unaware that the style guide you are following is the world's most prolific style guide, namely the Modern Language Association (MLA) guide that is routinely utilized for research articles in the social sciences. The Wikipedia template that was being used was the American Psychological Association (APA) guide which is also in use for research but eliminates a publishing source and applies dates to author, a style that was assimilated in some of the periodical citations but inaccurately used as the dates of a periodical are mated to the title note. The Harvard Citation guide that was also in use in the article provides a "shortcut" to a full bibliographical record by indicating Author, date of publication and page number/location in a citation. I am perfectly willing to revise all the citations and teach you or any other editors how to provide references, even in a template form. However, as I earlier indicated, your comfort level has to be such that you can work with another editor on a complex task. No one expects one writer to take on all the load of writing and editing; I certainly do not expect that of writers that write for me. Editors who "know their stuff" preserve the "writer's voice" and do not stifle it. Editors assist, teach, and collaborate. Editors do not preach (as I am doing right now) but provide the necessary guides to complete a project. You Tiger Woods, me caddy. FWiW, (In brief, take it or leave it, I will not be offended.) Bzuk (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

Birmingham campaign May 3 nomination
I just want you to be aware that I removed your request to have this article on the Main Page on May 3, replacing it with a three-point nomination. However, I would suggest you keep an eye out for when the fate of the April 16 nomination is decided (which should be soon) and consider re-adding it then. --  tariq abjotu  07:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay. Ok. --Moni3 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Mulholland Drive Mr Roque.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Dr. review
Er... Wow. Actually, I haven't given it a good look yet, but from what I've read so far, it looks frickin' awesome Moni. And yeah, that's some of the hottest girl-on-girl action I've seen on film! I will try & review it over the next couple of days, although I hope other people do too. I anticipate it being a difficult article to review due to it being such a complicated film. -- Beloved Freak  21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks! I love your input. You've helped out quite a bit on a couple of my other articles. I need all the help I can get on this one. So - rip it to shreds (but be nice). Yay! BelovedFreak is gonna give me a pr! While you're doing that, I'm going to go watch that scene again...*cough* --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've reviewed it, FWIW. Not sure how helpful it will be, I know you've had a fair amount of input from others already, but I also know that every little helps. Looking over what I've written, I hope it doesn't sound too harsh. I've mentioned original research a lot, not because I think it is OR, but that it might come across as that in some points. I think that's one of your biggest jobs now, to just make sure it's as neutral as possible. You seem to have cracked the complexities of it. Anyway, best of luck with it, you've done a fantastic job with it so far, and I have no doubt you'll get it to FA. You're an unstoppable FA machine!-- Beloved  Freak  21:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha. A machine! You have more confidence than I. Ok. I'm off to read your review. Thanks again, so much! --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate receiving the barnstar - my first! - for what really was a very minor contribution to Mulholland Drive, especially compared to the amazing amount of time and energy you devoted to the article. I feel the very least I can do now is rent the DVD and see if I share your passion for the film. Good luck with the GA nomination! MovieMadness (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I've seen a lot of 10-clawed bitchfights over various topics here. I do my best to stay away from them. We didn't seem to have a very illustrious start, but I'm very glad we were able to work together. That was worth the barnstar itself. Yes, you should see the film. I can't assure you that you'll be swept off your feet with it as I was, but whenever you are by whatever it is, let me know and I'll help you. --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Four Freedoms
I hope I have answered some of your queries about Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell). I have exhausted my resources since I checked out two Norman Rockwell books, two modern art books and three American art books at the library last week. I have learned that I missed the most important one, however. I hope to get access to a copy of that one soon. I have made separate articles for each of the separate paintings in the series, btw.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Orange Freedoms
Thanks Moni3 for the terrific Surreal Barnstar (heavy-duty staples swimming in a blue bathtub filled with creamed corn) even though you deserve it far more for all of your great work on Mulholland Drive. I keep distracting myself both on and off-Wiki, but I'm trying to pull together some additional material for the interpretation section (I've got some rough notes in my sandbox). I've started to look at a particularly useful article from Journal of Film and Video called "An Oneiric Fugue" by David Andrews. It's quite interesting. I plan to finish looking at that and probably a couple of other sources you did not use yet and then think about adding some stuff to the interpretation section (and possibly others if appropriate). It may take me a little while, and I'll bring it up on the article talk page before making any big changes since I don't want to radically alter the structure or anything just prior to the article going into GA review. If you want help with anything in particular going into that process just let me know and I'll be happy to help. At the least I'll be sure to do one or two full copy edits (which I'm fairly decent at) to make small corrections, tighten up the prose, etc. I might end up having some more large scale suggestions as well but will have to wait and see. Anyhow, thanks again! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a teeny bit jealous that I didn't get hold of what you're reading. I'm anxious to see what you're putting together, though. There was an overwhelming amount of interpretive information that leaned towards Betty is Diane's dream self that I streamlined as best as I could. I don't think it would do the article justice to dominate the interpretive section with that viewpoint even more, so I really hope the articles you're reading offer some variety. I found so little variation in interpretations from journals that I'm writing an article of my own. I might post it off my userpage. I'm looking forward to what you're going to add! Keep me posted. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done with your work on Mulholland Drive
Your work on "Mulholland Drive" was excellent, if you ever get the chance, I'd like to assist you on working on other David Lynch articles, particulary "Blue Velvet", which I feel warrants a lot of attention article-wise.Jv821 (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, gosh. I really appreciate the acknowledgment! Thank you so much. I don't know if you looked at the talk page, but I just saw Mulholland Dr. for the first time on March 22, and just rather flipped right out with being obsessed with it. Rather fitting for a Lynch film, in fact. I couldn't stop watching it, and I dove into everything I could read about it, although I was apparently very afraid to do it. The obsession helps quite a bit in writing the article. More importantly, Wikipedia helps so much more with the obsession. I was able to go through an entire day without watching it a couple days ago... In light of that, I haven't ever seen Blue Velvet, I'm almost embarrassed to say. "In Dreams" is a musical masterpiece that is one of my favorite songs of all time. Roy Orbison (who is a god to me) was shocked at what Lynch did to that song. On that basis alone, I'm hesitant to watch it. Petty, no?


 * I have Inland Empire to watch as well. However, regardless of watching the film, I can find information for you. Blue Velvet has more written about it than Mulholland Dr. does. I can assist if your vision is your being the principal author and I could point out where the article needs work here and there. The energy to bring the article to GA or FA has to come from someone, in some way. My obsession took care of that for Mulholland Dr. Even if I see Blue Velvet, I may not get that spark that made me half-nuts for all I did in 7 days for Mulholland Dr. You may have to carry the crazy torch. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I am glad to have been of some help with the film article. :) I think that the article can definitely be pointed to as an example for future contributions, especially for Lynch-esque films! — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mirth & Girth
Thanks for your comments! I'm hoping it gets reviewed sometime soon - looks like that particular subtopic doesn't have any active reviewers. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Mulholland Dr.
Hi there, and thanks again. I appreciate (really!) taking apart the article. I think it's funny because I get all huffy at first, then I calm down and change it, and it's usually is a lot better. I can't ever seem to skip the huffy step, though. I appreciate your input. Anything else you can think of that needs changing, please suggest away. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem. I think the huffy phase is inevitable really, when you've put so much work into something, lived and breathed it for that time, tweaked it as much as you can and then someone comes along who hasn't put any work into it, and points out a load of faults. It's looking good though. I'll keep looking over it to see if there's anything else I can think of, but I imagine it will soon be ready for GA. -- Beloved Freak  12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, didn't realise it was already up for GA when I said the above. Anyway, the rest still stands...-- Beloved Freak  16:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I figure it will be weeks before anyone sees it. It's pretty far down on the list of films, so I hope it will give me some time to do improvements suggested through peer reviews. --Moni3 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I was a moron to say "Adam and Melissa" instead of "Adam and Camilla": apologies for the typo and thanks for all the other comments. Geometry guy 23:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why it takes peer reviewing. I completely forgot the address was on Mulholland Dr., like a dork. What I see sticks with me better than what I hear. Thanks for the help. --Moni3 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've cut back my edits in response to your helpful comments. The article is now shorter than it was before I came in, but there are still issues to be settled, which I look forward to discussing on the article talk page. Geometry guy 19:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't mind discussing content at all if the quality of the article is what is the goal. Please continue to participate. I need help with it. --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good. Nice copy edits by the way: as you say, that's why peer reviewing really works! Geometry guy 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Your citation question
Hey, Moni;

Although you found the article on a fansite, you've taken the steps to verify it is an accurate copy of the original article; that you've verified that you're citing the original, and providing a courtesy link, might not be apparent if you use a citation method that buries the link to davidlynch.de under a different publisher name. I've seen this situation handled several different ways, but one example would be something along the lines of:


 * Retrieved from davidlynch.de on 2008-04-16.

I try to avoid linking to a copy in the title that is only a convenience link without somehow making it more apparent; the citation above is one suggestion of how to clarify, but I've seen it done many ways. At any rate, Ealdgyth is likely to notice that the fansite and publisher are a mismatch and query you about it at FAC, so pointing her to this discussion now will save you having to cover it later. I hope you get through quicker than Birmingham this time :-) Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks Sandy. It will be some time before the article gets to FAC, if it does. And don't I wish all my future FAC's could be the veritable love-fest To Kill a Mockingbird was (the second time around)? I'll go amend the citation now, and keep a link to the discussion on citations, since I'm sure it will be buried in archives by the time the article is ready for the scrutiny of Ealgdyth and others. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about citation here.


 * Great (solved) ! There's a big difference between finding something on a fansite, blog or webzine that we don't know is reliable and actually verifying that you've located an accurate copy.  That goes back to my first recommendation to you to just locate and cite the original article (since you have verified you have it), and you don't need the link (it becomes a convenience link only) ... you want to highlight this in your citation method.  I've seen people use Retrieved from ... on date, or Courtesy link available at ..., retrieved on date, or Coutesy copy retrieved from ... on date, etc.  Good luck !  I'm going to go ahead and point Ealdgyth to this discussion, as it may be helpful to her in her daily checks at FAC; also, it's good to clear up sooner rather than later the apparent mistaken assumptions made on the thread at the citation page.  If you had only found and cited a fanzine, personal website or blog on the internet and hadn't verified it was accurate and that there were no copyright issues, I would still object, but when you can cite the original and provide a legit courtesy copy, there's no issue.  Using this citation method is more clear, while burying a link to a personal website in the title, with a different publisher listed, would trigger a lot of questions and doesn't do justice to the fact that you know you're citing the original.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help, Sandy. Just curious - how common is it for an editor to hunt down citations like this? Am I a freak amongst the cool kids, or midguidedly tenacious? (I called three other publishers for their citations as well, paying for one to pull it out of storage so I could have the original copy.) --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, Moni; that's why I'm glad this came up (although SlimVirgin seems to have misunderstood) and I pointed Ealdgyth to the discussion ... many issues here about how we cite, etc. But you certainly did your homework !!  I'm a bit concerned about the copyright issue, since we should never link to copyrighted material (does Davidlynch.de have permission?), but it seems you spoke to the NY Syndicate and they don't care, so ... ?  There are issues here in how we handle sitautions like this, but it seems like you've covered most of the bases.  Out for the afternoon, ping me if I miss a response.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

GA
Yeah, request a reviewer is perfectly okay. Let me take a look at it, and I'll try and do a review soon. Thanks very much for the request! Van Tucky 01:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This should go without saying, but go nuts and tell me what I need to do. Thanks, VanTucky. --Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies
I only just read the backthread on the Mulholland Drive talk page: I came to the article somewhat randomly and just expressed my views. I didn't know about your enthusiasm for the film and I didn't mean to challenge your interpretation. In fact I think your interpretation is an entirely reasonable and a very interesting one among many. I admire your goal to produce an fantastic article which does not implicitly interpret the film. I read through the article this evening (UTC) and was extremely impressed: there were only three or four sentences which I felt presented a point of view.

I also read the script for the pilot. I think the changes made between the pilot script and the feature are very interesting. Maybe the pilot script should be a link. Geometry guy 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, now. Quit apologizing. Apparently I choose articles to work on and go completely nuts about, that challenge me to the point of madness. If it's easy, it's apparently not worth doing. I pitched a holy fit with the changes you made to the Plot, but I think it's better now that we both worked on it. Let me know which sentences pose a POV problem and I'll see what I can do to undo that. If there's a good link to the pilot script (I've seen fansite scripts that were typed by their hosts, so that won't quite do) let's add it to the EL list. Thanks again for your help. --Moni3 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like the plot section now: a good collaboration! I'll think about the (really quite minor) issues I noticed in two or three places and get back to you on the article talk page. Geometry guy 21:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive peer review
Hi. I don't know how I missed your note on my talk page (or maybe I didn't and I simply forgot) either way, my apologies. I will make my best attempt to look at the article tomorrow, I'm having problems with my computer the last 3 days with spyware and crap. I'm going to dump the harddrive and start over, so if you still want me to, I'll take look around 5pm Pacific time. Regards, -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would very much appreciate your input. Thank you for your time. --Moni3 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your message on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Mentors
Hi Moni3, and thank you for your interest in reviewing GA nominations. You might find this guide useful for your first review, and if you have any questions or comments, or would like someone to look over your review after you've completed it, you can get in touch with any of the mentors on our talk pages. Once again, thank you, and we hope to see you around! All the best, EyeSerene talk 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Hey!

No, not a year and a half, but half a year, but I have now updated it, and now it's in the FAC section, which means it will be more noticed.

If tomorrow there is still no involvement by any copyeditor, I'll turn to those you mentioned. Thanks for the help, your input is much appreciated ;) Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review
Thanks for your message. Apologies for the delay in replying; my laptop died on me in a fairly catastrophic way & I've had to go and spend some of my hard-earned on a new one :(

Your review looks great to me; very detailed, you've not only said what needs looking at but suggested some fixes too, and you've picked up virtually everything. The only additional points I noticed were a few instances of spaces between end-of-sentence punctuation and a following in-line citation, and the presence of a 'citation needed' tag that will need to be addressed. There's also a misplaced quotation mark at the start of the blockquote in Recognition (shouldn't be there), but you've got this covered anyway in one of your comments where you point out it's rather short to be blockquoted anyway.

There may be a small misapprehension regarding date linking... enclosing dates in square brackets does indeed have the effect of wikilinking them, but this is unintentional and an oft-criticised side-effect of the wiki software that will very likely be removed in forthcoming upgrades. The real reason for bracketing them is so that they display correctly, according to how the reader has set the Date format in their preferences. Thus while you may be seeing January 20, I see 20 January (because I'm a Brit and have set them to display that way!). This means that it's fine to "link" days and months (without a year), or full dates, but not any other combination (as no-one would be likely to prefer year/month, for example).

Regarding the review template, if you copy/paste   or    into a new section on the talk page, save it, then return to edit mode, you can fill in the sections with your own comments. To be honest though, I use my own review layout, as do many reviewers - there's no fixed format. If you want to copy and modify mine, which I just copy/paste to the talk page then fill in the gaps, feel free to help yourself (my various review templates are here).

Hope this helps - if you have any more questions etc, let me know! All the best, EyeSerene talk 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EyeSerene. Seems IvoShandor did some copy editing after my review, and placed the fact tag there. I amended my review to reflect your comments and IvoShandor's changes and placed it on hold on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, and thanks again for your contribution to WP:GAN! EyeSerene talk 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Harper at the willow
...for they required of us a song. ;)

I sent you a little letter — I hope it's helpful! I used to play Celtic harp myself, but briefly and ages ago; but maybe I'll bring it up to Featured Article status one of these days. :) Willow (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Need opinion...help!
OK, we need some more eyes at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est - some are supporting while others have a problem with comprehensiveness, criticizing it as a book review. I have niggling doubts along these lines too but Cirt can't find any more material to expand the last two paragraphs. I am happy to go with a bigger consensus so am keen for more folks to look in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Let me look. --Moni3 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est
Thank you for your comment. I have replied at the FAC page. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have returned to your message centre in order for the purpose of responding forthwith to your communiqué
Alas, I find lolcat to be irritating and trite, not unlike 1337 and Pig Latin. (Thus my attempt herein to write in an idiom of the polar opposite.) I must augment the negative tone of this missive by informing you that my time is sadly too occupied at present with sundry activities to accept further assignments involved with the project at hand. I wish you the greatest success with Ms. Douglas, however, and I hope to be of assistance in the future.

With warmest regards, – Scartol  •  Tok  11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bummer, dude. I'll get you next time. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! :)
Hey Moni,

I'm running out of time today, so I'll get to M tomorrow, k? From my first initial read-through, it looks ossim. ;) Willow (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yay! Whenever you can would be great. The keeper of Davy Jones' locker looked at it today, too. --Moni3 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A Day in the Life
I took care of the list. Cheers. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 00:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes your edits were smack on. Realist 2 ( 'Come Speak To Me' ) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good deal. I already noticed something I missed - Daily Mirror in italics. It's good to take a break and come back once more for once last peek. Excellent article. Great job. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Mo thanks

 * Congratulations! If it ain't hard, it ain't worth doin'! --Moni3 (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sweet! WP:FLORIDA needs one of these. With a flamingo standing on an alligator, both being eaten by a panther beneath a palm tree. Next time I visit Pennsylvania, I'm going to be looking for beavers wearing bronze stars, like so many disco medallions. Thanks so much! --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Marjory Stoneman Douglas
You've done it again :-)) ... journalist, writer and environmentalist  ... Literature because she's a journalist/writer, or Culture and society as an environmentalist? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I am drawn to the utterly ambiguous. If it weren't you, I'd tell folks to leave it open to interpretation, but I wouldn't ever want to deal with the crap you deal with, so I'm leaning toward Culture and society. Just in case you have to figure out where to put her in the FA list...should it pass. --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Jawga, LOL; I've been to the airport in Atlanta :-)) Thanks, Moni !! Just in case, that is.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, freakin' I have too. I spent 10 hours in the Atlanta airport last August. Dang. Although I've otherwise spent quite some time in your namesake. Thanks for checking. --Moni3 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was one of the best edit summaries ever seen outside of Yomangani's or The Fat Man's talk pages :-))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What, isn't there a notable edit summary list somewhere? Or is that just another gem that we keep amongst ourselves? --Moni3 (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back keeps track of unusual names; bet we could get him to track stupendous edit summaries. Well, back to work here; watch out for those drunken truck drivers !! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd sign a petition for this new list; with The Fat Man at the helm, it would be nothing short of glorious. Maralia (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know The Fat Man's foibles: we can surely get him to head this venture (but first, let's get him to copyedit that FAC at the bottom of the list). He pretends laziness: yea, right. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a contest to see whose edit summaries will become the basis for a Stephen King novel, David Lynch film, or in Sandy's case, plot for Laguna Beach. But nonetheless, I'm sure Mrs. Douglas would be very pleased to be so associated with these edits. --Moni3 (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we keep this up, Outriggr and Ceoil will catch on and come over to illustrate the book; just don't let The Fat Man get near the illustrations, or we'll all be blushing :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think avant garde high school performance art would do these summaries justice. --Moni3 (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceoil will throw some YouTube videos at it, too! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on another great job.  Horologium  (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Horologium! I would like to bring Everglades and its 4 or 5 associated articles to FA and perhaps make it a Featured Topic as well. I also responded to some comments at WP:Florida yesterday. Don't know if you saw them. --Moni3 (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hippie
I've responded to your offer of help, here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Please keep the talk page on your watchlist as I'll be adding a second reply soon.  Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, again. I just wanted to let you know that one of the authors User:Benjiboi suggested, a Dr. Margaret Cruikshank (author of The Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement), covers the issue quite nicely.  I thought you would like to know in case anyone ever asks you about the relationship between the hippies and LGBT.  Of course, if you can offer any other authors for inclusion, that would be great too.  I've asked Benjiboi to consider adding  LGBT to the counterculture of the 1960s article, but your help would also be appreciated.  Thanks again, and please keep an eye on the hippie article for new edits on the way. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Katie Sierra GA review
Yo Moni, thanks for taking the time to review Katie Sierra! I don't know if you have the talkpage on your watchlist, but I have left a few comments addressing some of the points of your review. As it has been nominated quite some time ago, I am quite anxious to bring the article up to standard as soon as possible, so if you could drop by the talkpage, that would be great. Regards, Skomorokh  15:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have it on my watchlist, and I just left you some comments. Don't make me come collect that $1000. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha ha I am rather coming to enjoy this review. Thanks for the prompt response! Skomorokh  16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Katie Sierra
Hi Moni, and thanks for the note. I've given the article a very quick once-over (pushed for time at the moment!), but for what it's worth, I agree with you on both points. The article does come over as slightly non-neutral in places, though I'm sure this is a function of the prose rather than editor bias. To take one example, from the lead: "The actions and attitude of the school toward Sierra were sharply criticized in the media for what critics perceived as censorship and McCarthyism, as a dark sign of post-September 11th American society and its conception of freedom of speech." It's not clear whether it's the media claiming that American society has entered a 'dark' phase, or it's the article writer's opinion. Such a statement is also open to challenge, so, assuming it is media opinon being paraphrased, it should really be cited (even though I'm not generally a fan of cites in the lead).

Regarding your second point, per WP:MOSQUOTE, the first indented quotation is far too short to use that format, and I agree that it over-emphasises the phrase in the context of the section (possibly giving the impression of POV). The MoS also strongly discourages wikilinks within quotes. The second indented quote at the end of the article is also slightly short, although I would argue that one less strongly as it is more directly relevant to the section it's in. I'm not sure why one would use epigraph rather than blockquote either (it's the first time I've seen it!). No problem with the boxed quotes though, as they are permitted by the MoS and give a balanced viewpoint from both 'sides' of the dispute.

Hope this helps! Any questions, etc... you know ;) All the best, EyeSerene talk 20:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, EyeSerene. Thanks for getting back to me. As per a discussion with the nominator of the article, he's going to remove it from the list of GA noms for the time being. I'm recusing myself from the review process, since I assisted him in locating better sources than what he had. I sent him I think more than 20 emails of newspaper stories to replace the more liberal sources he had. He stated on his talk page that he's going to read what I've sent him and rewrite it depending on the material. I may remain involved in the article, but I don't think I can remain as neutral about it as I was since I read the majority of what I sent him. --Moni3 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I think you've made the best decision - if the review had continued I don't think you would have needed to recuse, but a major re-write is different (and would probably in any case fall foul of the instability criterion). I'd also like to say what a pleasure it is to have reviewers like you on the team, who are willing to pitch in and work on the article they're reviewing ;) Fantastic work! EyeSerene talk 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Is my playhouse that interesting?
Your performance has been outstanding, so I assumed that I could "take the plunge" and improve your works. I would certainly be willing to offer some help for the articles. You have completed several impressive ones, and you're a comprehensive editor. I did recall a source for the Spanish moss garments, but I couldn't find it. I always attempt to cite my sources for various changes. Good luck on future FA endeavors! I will continue to add further details to the current culture sandbox. CVW (Talk) 22:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, well in that case, jump right in! I altered my userpage to reflect what I'll be working on. I need all the help I can get. This project is massive. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Mary Meader
Hello Moni3. I noticed you failed Mary Meader as a GA. Would you mind putting the article back on hold? I completly forgot about the article and I will be addressing the issues tommorow or the next day. I would otherwise have renominated it for GA once the changes are made, but since there is such a backlog there I would rather not go through the experiance again. I have very little experiance in the GA field being that this is only my second (the first was Lazare Ponticelli, which is now an FA!). Please give me feedback on whether this is possible or re-review it after the changes are done. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. You're new to writing, and I'm new to reviewing them. I think you're good to just renominate it at any time. If you want me to review it again, I can. Just let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Everglades region
Looks good - have you thought about nominating it at WP:DYK? You may like recent changes to the Native Americans section of Worlds End State Park. I think we sould also work on a Indigenous people of Pennsylvania article, or at least add it to the ever lengthening to do list. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've nominated maybe half a dozen items to DYK, and all but one have been turned down. So, like a big dumb idiot, I offered this article too. I eagerly await the creativity with which my factoid will be denied... Worlds End is looking good! --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Climate content check in Everglades
Hey. Sure, I'll be happy to take a look. Just give me a few minutes, and I'll get right on it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I gave it a copyedit and corrected a couple things, but it looks good for the most part. It should be good to go now. Juliancolton Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  19:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Julian. You can see it's got many miles to go before it's ready for anything. I'm working on it steadily, so I just wanted to make sure what I've done in clear so far. I appreciate your time and effort. --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Backlog at
You lurk on other user's talk pages too? (LOL). Anyways, we'd be glad to have you aboard, just add adopting to your userpage. and then go into the ADOPT and leave messages for users who haven't been offered adoption, and then make sure make the appropriate change to their adoptme as explained above.


 * Ok. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Marjory Stoneman Douglas
Dear Moni, please accept my congratulations and best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Graham, thank you once again for your support. I look forward to living up to your high expectations with future nominations. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice Job on And the Band Played On
Hi Moni. In case I forgot to mention it, nice job getting this article to "GA" status. The last time I looked at it (more than a year ago) it was a mess. Uranographer (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Seacole
All done. Rudget  (Help?) 13:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

heads up on Melaleuca quinquenervia
Given yer gonna work up Everglades at some point, I was just giving you a heads up on Melaleuca quinquenervia, a stub I completely forgot I started way back when, which I think would be good to get to GA or FA at some stage. Someone has added a lot about the situation in Florida which may need a look over a bit later. I am just tidying it and I'll get some more taxonomic and ecological stuff from my neck of the woods (Oz) as well but I am not familiar with stuff in US. Anyway...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that change. I'm going to rewrite the entire second half of the article, expanding it significantly by creating larger articles. I'm in the middle of the Geology and ecology of the Everglades right now, and the next one I'll be doing is Draining and development of the Everglades. Restoration is coming up after that, and those last two are probably where invasive species and encroachment will be addressed. It's going to take me a couple months at the least to get them all up to FA quality. Let me know when you're working on Melaleuca and if there's anything I can do to help out. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just pulled out my local aussie plant books to spruce up the beginning bit on basic description/taxonomy etc. -the only other thing initially is finishing off converting the refs to inline. As they are from peer-reviewed journals etc. I suspect they will end up staying. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

White Mountain art
I thank you for taking the time to review White Mountain art. I have made a number of changes already. Some require the use of my reference materials that are not currently available to me. I will continue to make changes that you suggest to which I agree. On the talk page to the article, I will respond with comments where I feel strongly that I agree with Jack Bethune. Is this OK with you for a way to proceed? And, please give me two weeks to make changes and have discussions. OK? I feel we are all trying to make this article better. JJ (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me take a look at the article with some fresh eyes tomorrow. I've been writing one steadily throughout the day, and that overtaxes my copy editing abilities. I had two featured article candidates that went on many weeks after I expected them to, and I went on vacation without my materials to respond to the comments about them. I know what that's like. Where we seem to disagree, we'll have to get consensus from other GA reviewers. It's not time to get stressed out yet. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have been very helpful. I have implemented many of your suggestions.  I have taken exception to some.  Please see may comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:White_Mountain_art#GA_review:_evaluation_and_responses.  I continue to believe that everyone involved wants this to be a good article on the subject.  I hope you will find that I'm opinionated but reasonable to work with.  And, again, thanks for doing such a thorough and thoughtful review.  (I did mention that I have not read guidelines.  And, I probably won't unless they will help clarify issues that to me are common sense.)  JJ (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Moni3: I have implemented most of your suggestions, with only one exception that requires reference materials that I won't have until next week. Those which I dispute are discussed on the article's talk page (see above).  Please 1) review my changes and 2) discuss disagreements on the article's talk page.  I feel confident we can reach compromise on these outstanding issues.  JJ (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Moni3: I have noted on the talk page of White Mountain art that I would like a re-review by you (and others?).  You did note on May 12 that you were reading the article again.  Can you give me some guidance about this process and how I should now proceed?  I will not make any further edits until I "hear" from you.  And, thanks again for your help.  JJ (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Moni3/Mulholland Drive
So sorry to be a total pain, but you'll have to remove all the fair-use images from that user page per our policy. :) indopug (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not want. --Moni3 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, poop on bots. --Moni3 (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ?????  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I was abusing a scripted message. I was actually, but here you are putting multiple question marks after my unwitty debasing comment. I'm so civil to everyone else, I had to release that energy somehow... --Moni3 (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie

 * Ah. Thank you so much. --Moni3 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re White Mountain Art
Lol, that's an impressive knack you have! My first impression is that you have done (another) quality review, and all wikilawyering aside, the article is not currently GA standard but won't take much work to get there. You haven't raised anything that's too far above and beyond the GA standard, which is on a steadily upward curve. The criteria (as always on WP) lag behind current practice, and although some of the issues you've raised are perhaps negotiable, you seem to feel as I do that, given a suitably knowledgable reviewer, GA is a good opportunity to fix those things you know from experience will be raised at a later date. The only important proviso is not to fail the assessment for those issues that aren't in the criteria - some reviewers split their reviews into "GA blockers" and "Nice-to-haves", with addressing the latter completely up the the editors' discretion (I'm not suggesting you should do this btw, I'm just illustrating the fact that what you've done is completely in line with current GA-review best practice).

If you'd like more detailed comments on the article itself, let me know where you want them! I'm not sure whether you want comments on the article talk page or not, given the potential to further confuse the nominator there. In any case, you were completely right to insist on the re-review given the unsafe pass - if these things aren't challenged it affects the credibilty of our project - and as a trusted GA reviewer it's assessment is your call. Regards, EyeSerene talk 08:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions re Wiki Guidelines
Moni3: I would like to ask you questions about guidelines in an effort to make White Mountain art a GA. Please answer below each question.
 * What is the guideline for external links? Specifically, please look at the second image in the article.  This painting is in the collection of the New Hampshire Historical Society.  There is no wiki article on this organization.  (I could start one, but it would be a distraction from my current article.)  So, I put an external link to the organization's Website.  Since there is no wiki article, this seems very helpful to readers to get more information on the organization.  Is this acceptable, or will you dispute this external link?  Please advise.  I'll continue to post questions here if that's OK.  JJ (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An FAC discussion that you commented on was restarted
The FAC discussion Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est, which you had previously commented on, has since been restarted. Would you care to carry your !vote/comment forward from the FAC before it was restarted? Cirt (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me take another look at the article and comment. Thanks for the invitation. --Moni3 (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Like a sweet apple that ripens on the uppermost bough, just out of reach
I really would appreciate your help with my favourite poet, but I'm not ready yet. I've been thinking about her for a long time, pretty much since I came here, but it's kind of like treading on holy ground for me, so I've wanted desperately to do it right. I've been working on some Catullus as a warm-up exercise; he's totally different as a poet, but somehow similar in being intensely personal; if I can do well with him, then I'll feel more confident about singing of deathless and dazzlingly cunning Love, and of flames running just under my skin.

I'll try to help out later today with the Everglades; is there an article you'd most like me to look over? I'm still feeling under the weather, but I'm gradually coming back. My new problem is that I'm so sore from gardening (ploughing is not for sissies ;), that I feel it even when I'm typing. :P Willow (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. I wanted to say how much I appreciated your Friends' testimony on your user page. I do see how they apply to the wiki-world, and also to me. I feel the peace testimony most strongly, but all of them seem vital (in both senses); I can also imagine me becoming more balanced as I learn more. Anyway, thank you for giving me the chance to learn more. :)


 * Hey there! It should go without saying that I enjoy your messages. There are topics that I find I just can't do until all the sudden, I can. Everglades is one of them. Several months ago I was chilled by the prospect of how much work has to go into this. I don't know what changes, but it does. I created Indigenous people of the Everglades region and posted it on April 30. On May 5 I posted Geography and ecology of the Everglades, and that one for some reason was more difficult and may have weird prose in it. I think I have to add more to that, but I would appreciate (and think I really need) a copy edit. I'm also concerned that it's too sterile or too sciencey, if there is such a thing. I'm starting to write Drainage and development of the Everglades now, and that may take me a week or so to do. Then take a couple days off and start Restoration of the Everglades.


 * Any suggestions for any articles you might have I would love to hear. I'm adding content to the big kahuna Everglades article each time I post a satellite article, so I've added through Native American people - everything after that is something I'll be rewriting. This may be a lot of reading for you - do only want you want to do. A few other editors are assisting. CapeVerdeWave watches my sandbox and comes in rather like a cattle egret to pick the ticks and bugs off of my facts. Ruhrfisch and Cryptic C62 gave very helpful peer reviews.


 * I thought last night my testimony was hackneyed, so I took it down. I might put it back up. Why are my cucumber leaves turning yellow and dying? Is it a fungus or is that what cucumber leaves do? (You plow?) --Moni3 (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're amazing for all that you're doing for the Everglades; you could make them into a Featured Topic! :) We're pretty similar, I think, in how we throw ourselves bodily at articles, although I think you're at least slightly less distractable than me. ;)  Case in point: I was going to look at the science-y one today, but I have to run to the library to get something for helping User:Scartol as well. (sheepish) But I'll try the waters of the river of grass tomorrow.

I do plow my vegetable garden, although perhaps it's over-the-top. (People in my village are always kidding me about my "small farm", at least until I feed them some asparagus or berries. ;) I don't plow the perennial gardens, trees and sundry plots of berry bushes, of course, although I do try to amend the soil as needed every year. I don't use any chemicals on my gardens so I make yards and yards of compost, which I plow into the soil; plowing also helps me to turn and aerate the soil, bringing up nutrients and introducing oxygen. For my vegetable garden, there's a certain consistency to the soil that I'm looking for, rich and organic but somehow "fluffy". I like to plow twice in the spring, a few weeks apart, but also a few weeks before the main planting time, so that the local soil bacteria have time to digest the compost, without hurting the plants with byproducts.

I'm not sure about the cucumbers, since my own luck with cucumbers is rather hit-or-miss, although I do pretty well with the rest of the Cucurbitaceae. :P (Have you ever eaten kiwanos?  They're delicious!)  The yellow leaves might be normal, if they're just the initial leaves from the seed, you know, the cotyledons? If they're "real" leaves and if you don't see any pests, my guess would be that your plants are being overwatered or maybe not getting enough nitrogen? Do you have good drainage in your soil? Other general things I usually worry about are the soil pH, the temperature and whether the plants getting enough sunlight? Unfortunately, there's roughly a bazillion things that might cause yellow leaves; I'll think some more about how you might figure out what's going on. Good luck with everything and hasta mañana, Willow (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ooh. Sshh and don't tell anyone, but I was thinking of going for a triple crown for each satellite and a featured topic. I'm writing to Everglades too slow for it to get a DYK (those pooters at DYK!), so no triple crown for it, alas. I don't know about who's more distractable. Once I'm finished with all of this, I probably won't be able to read these for a month or so. I come back round eventually. Like I said, read it whenever you want, or not at all if you don't. Though if it proves so deathly dull you'd rather poke a fork in your eye, please let me know. I need to find the fine line between high school textbook boring and Steve Irwin shouting, "Crikey!"


 * I need a gardening book. My poor gardenias look so haggard every spring. I'm not doing something right with them. I've never grown cucumbers before, so this is new to me.


 * Scartol needs help too. Get to me when you can, but let your passion direct you. --Moni3 (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackintosh Article
It was very kind of you to write the note advising me on getting a bit more interest in the Aeneas Mackintosharticle. There was quite a lot of interest in at at peer review, which hasn't for some reason transferred to the FAC stage. It would take a short essay to explain my motives in writing the article. I have been interested in polar exploration since inheriting my father's travel library, with a particular soft spot for the second-string characters who weren't lauded as heroes but whose contributions were in their way just as important as those of the big-name stars, Scott, Shackleton and co. Mackintosh, an almost unknown figure, combines misfortune and heroism to a remarkable degree; he died after doing his duty - and nobody knows about him. For this reason I chose him, as I explained at the peer review, as the subject of my very first Wikipedia article. It was so bad that I abandoned it in shame and confusion, before sharpening my skills on other polar articles and gaining confidence through the GAN and FAC procedures. I then returned to Mackintosh, and have developed what I hope is a article worthy of him. But I can't say all that in my "reasons for nomination". I'll try and figure out an appropriate sentence, though. And many thanks for your advice, and for supporting the article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I inherited my father's travel library x years ago and read about this explorer, and I discovered a soft spot for underdogs who weren't lauded as heroes. Mackintosh, an almost unknown figure, combines misfortune and heroism to a remarkable degree; he died after doing his duty - and nobody knows about him. For this reason I chose to write his article, and I hope I have been able to honor him by writing it.


 * Well, I hope it works. It helps when I'm scanning FACs to read a particularly engaging and poignant reason that someone worked like such a dog to get an article that far. And I like your reason and identify with it. Had I known it, I would have read it earlier. I hope you get some takers if you edit it. Good luck! If it gets restarted, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Zelda F.
Hi Moni, I'm looking for help from Wikipedia's smart literary types. I tend to review these articles but have yet to take one to FAC myself. Hoping to start with Zelda Fitzgerald (and eventually work myself up to Scott or even my namesake!) and so I've listed Zelda for peer review. As you're one of the aforementioned smart ones, I wondered if you could help me out! --JayHenry (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who lied to you about my being a smart literary type? I read Zelda when it was waiting for GA. I liked it, but that was before I started reviewing GA noms. I'll read it again since you probably changed it. Somewhere locked in the deep chasms of my memory is the idea that she used to get violent obsessions with her women friends. Did you come across that in your studies? I'm doing a few things today, so I'll try to get to it at some point within the next 24 hours. Good job, by the way! --Moni3 (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Larry Norman?
Hi, hope you're doing well. I noticed you put an "On Hold" template under Larry Norman on the WP:GAN page&mdash; but unless I'm mistaken, your username doesn't appear anywhere on Talk:Larry Norman...? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohh dude, that's too confusing for someone as feeble-minded as I to figure out first thing in the morning. I think when I passed A Day in the Life I neglected to remove my name. I think. I removed my name. I'd review it, but I have a few too many balls in the air right now. --Moni3 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I can understand being busy. I was just wanting to see whether you placed the article on Hold, or if it was just some mistake. It's OK. Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous people of the Everglades region
I hate to rip on that map (seeing how the peer review was not kind to it), but when you redo it, you might want to omit "Jobe", as that is simply another name for the Jaega (see the article). I had not encountered any reference to the "Jobe" before while I was researching for History of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and I suspect the citations in the Jaega article will adequately reference that point.  Horologium  (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Took me and someone else two freakin' days to do that map...poot. Guess it's going to take two more. Don't hold back if you see errors, please. The object is not to spare my feelings, but to make sure the information is accurate. You don't have to call it garbage, per se, but please point things out to me. --Moni3 (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Butting in - when I make a map, I try and save a base map (no labels) so that if I have to redo it (and I usually do) I don't have to start from scratch or erase lots. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, lesson learned. I have a base now. All hail wonderful map makers! I have a headache today and I seem to be, what is the word? ahhh...a complete witch... --Moni3 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte Broward
Your performance on these articles is remarkable. I have one plausible suggestion for the section on Napoleon Bonaparte Broward in your sandbox, which involves the Everglades' drainage and development. Michael Grunwald's The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise notes that Napoleon's popularity and praise eventually lead to the christening of Broward County, Florida. Additional landmarks and sites across the state also bear his name. Unfortunately, I don't own the book, and I can't recall the exact pages that contained the information. Regardless, I think that notable fact should be added, and it definitely fits the context. Additionally, Napoleon supported the dredging of canals across southern Florida, including the present location of Broward County. CVW (Talk) 02:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I probably should include a couple more sentences about the rest of his political career. I have Grunwald's book, and I'll see what I can add. I'm actually trying not to rely on it too much... --Moni3 (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton Disston
''Why is this article not up for GA? Is that something you might be interested in? --Moni3 (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)''
 * I'm glad you find it interesting. I actually had pipe dreams about finding some pictures - maps perhaps - and expanding the article if possible, and trying for FA.  You seem to have some experience in that realm...  what do you think?  William I of Schenectady (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have a very good chance for an FA with that article. The only thing I would suggest would be to vary your sources a little bit since you rely a lot on Michael Grunwald. If you need any suggestions, I included Disston, of course, in an article I'm writing on Drainage and development of the Everglades - check out my sources (I hope this to become an FA along with some others I'm writing involving the Everglades. If you can't get the articles, I can do my best to email them. If you're looking for images, try the Florida Memory Project Photograph Collection and the Everglades Digital Library. Let me know if you want help and I can assist you through the FA process. --Moni3 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mackintosh star
The Aeneas Mackintosh article got promoted to FA today. It had a rather gentler ride at FAC than I'm used to or was expecting, but so what? Thank you for supporting it and for thoughtful advice. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was well-deserved. Rock on. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Manson
Hi. I asked that the GA nomination be withdrawn because this is the second time I've attempted to take it to GA only to be met with problems in doing so. The first time, in November, was done when the article was fairly stable and as soon as I nominated it, another editor and John Bonaccorsi embarked on what was close to being an edit war over relatively trivial wording issues. This time, with Bonaccorsi stating very clearly he was opposed to trimming or revising the article in any way, I realize that any attempts to edit it down will result in the same. It's a really good article, it's well researched, but it would fail on its own merit once I started cutting the bulk down because he would come along and object. It's not worth the headache to me to go through this again. It's also obvious to me that there is a bit of an ownership issue with it, not on my part. I've put lots of hours in on the article too, but I give up. I can't take the stress. Thanks for your attempt to help. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bummer, dude. I understand the stress. I tend to work on articles that have been completely neglected; I like an underdog. There is a clear issue of ownership with this article, I agree. You'd have to pursue it with administrators, though. My message was directed to you and John Bonaccorsi - there's no reason to split this article. Because you or he doesn't want to watch both or five or however many, is so silly it can't be a real reason. Sit on your decision if you want. I can direct you to the right committee if you want to discuss it with admins. --Moni3 (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Everglades
My mistake, sorry. That was a particularly difficult article to assess as I could see some content was already on the Everglades page and some was not. I could also see you had done a lot of work on the Everglades article yourself, but I missed the fact that you had added the ecology section only recently. To avoid such errors in future, might I suggest you leave a note alongside the hook next time to explain your procedure? That would also save time for the reviewer, thanks.

Anyhow, since it's a very comprehensive article, I have now rectified the situation by promoting it to the lead spot for the next update, and that's where it should appear unless someone decides to move it in the meantime. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I put another one up today, and I'll amend the hook to explain it, since I'll be adding the information from that article to the Everglades article tomorrow. I appreciate your flexibility.--Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

 * No problems. I suppose I'll take second place to Buddha... for now... Thanks, Gatoclass! --Moni3 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Mulholland Dr.
No problem - and thank you for all the hard work in turning that article around. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your thanks is appreciated, but writing that was much more for me than for anyone reading it. (And thank you again for the barstar!) --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I read it the other day and thought it was a lot of fun to read too. I remember when I saw that movie in college, I was so confused by the whole thing that afterwards I went to the concession stand and then snuck back into the theater for the next showing to try to figure it out.  I love that you wrote User:Moni3/Mulholland Drive with your theories too.  I tried once to get Scartol to write a section composed entirely of personal conjecture about what Emma Goldman would think of Wikipedia.  While reading the actual article, I was excited to see a link for cuckold, assuming the attached article could be one of those magical bits of Wikipedia madness.  I was surprised to see that either the definition at the start of cuckold is completely wrong or I always misunderstood the word.  It's not the woman, right?  The cuckold is the man... --JayHenry (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When I was watching the movie once a day I told my sister-in-law (she finds my obsessions funny) who told me about her experience seeing it in the theater. Apparently she had to pee really badly during the film, so she left and came back four or five minutes later. When she slid into her seat again, she asked my brother what had happened while she was gone. He replied, "No way could I tell you what's going on in this movie." Cuckold, according to Dan Savage is a man whose wife sleeps with other men. I'm very glad you like the article. I hope to read through Zelda again this week. --Moni3 (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Mary Meader again
Could you review Mary Meader again? Ther really isn't that much written about her, and I have improved the article somewhat since the last review. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, now I have 4 sources. I tried my library, but there was nothing on her. There is a few obituaries of her, but most are just mirrors of the NYT article. However, I am not okay with the bombardment, and I don't even have e-mail enabled (I prefer to keep discussions onwiki), but I don't see why you can't add to the article myself or give me the info on my talk page. I guess I'll give it another go, but like I said, there was very little. It would be wonderful if you could find that book somewhere... I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true, I could add to the article. But I'm a big believer in letting your passion inspire you to what you want to write. Mary Meader is not my passion. I think she's interesting, but the entire reward I find here at Wikipedia is going absolutely nuts on something I'm enthralled with. And I'm smack in the middle of writing and re-editing 5 articles about the Everglades. So - I can't do this for you, I'm afraid. Let me know if there's something I can. --Moni3 (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to try to add any more work to your already busy schedule, but would you mind if I nominate you for adminship? Browsing through User:SandyGeorgia's talk page and reviewing your edits myself, you seem to be a perfect candidate, even if you don't have thousands of edits in that stupid wikipedia namespace. We all want to poop on bots sometimes: one time the coren search bot tagged like 15 of my perfectly-fine articles on towns in Myanmar. User:Blofeld of SPECTRE and myself started an ANI discussion before that stupid bot stopped yelling at us. Not that you should be reading this incoherant rant... but I'd love to nominate you for adminship. However, if you want to stick to article editing that's fine with me too. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thought for sure. I'll tell you what I told User:Balloonman (who you should probably discuss this with - I figure he has his good reasons for not nominating me). I'm ok with your nominating me, although I'm not sure what it is I would do besides continue to write articles and review when I have time. If you read that thread, you saw that I really loathe politics, bureaucracy, and internet drama. I've read a few of those RfAs and they seem to be a lot of all three. Though I don't play devil's advocate because I don't believe it, I do say what I think if I think it's worth saying. That may make for a sticky nomination. I'm not as worried about me, though, than you. It might affect your reputation to nominate someone who would not be a strong candidate. I leave it up to you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, I have nominated you: see Requests for adminship/Moni3. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do I feel as if I have sent out invitations for people to come to my funeral, where I can watch them give solemn eulogies or pee in my coffin? Not sure what you've gotten me (or you) into. But ah, it's a new experience I haven't yet had. Let's see what it brings...--Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way you can become a legend is in your coffin. Yee-haw I say! --JayHenry (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." - Oscar Wilde. Actually, I'm ok with sitting in the corner and watching. --Moni3 (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Same fellow: "A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal." For most Wikipedians this is the biggest day of their WikiLife, where everything is supposed to be manicured and fake and done-up.  Like a wedding.  And here you are being all sincere about everything. --JayHenry (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought of a fool than open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain, I think, but Harper Lee said it in front of the Alabama legislature a couple years ago while getting an award. That, and "Thanks" was all she said. I have been known to watch Bridezilla shows gawping in astonishment. --Moni3 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if Editor is still with us tonight, but those of us who are dying to vote for you can't do so until your nomination is posted to the main page. Are you ready to take the plunge?  If so, would you mind if I posted it for our Editor friend?  I have to get up early tomorrow, but I'm staying awake just so that I can be among the first to vote. :)  You rock, and I really appreciate how you help me to be more truly me. :)  But don't let us rush you, either.  There may be some people who aren't so clear-sighted as I am, ;) and who may criticize you for not knowing enough policy, or not having done enough X, or whatever.  I wouldn't want to post your nomination unless you'd chosen it for yourself and you'd found your balance before walking out onto that tightrope across the great divide... :) Willow (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems the nomination is malformed. Not sure what to do with that, and I have to go to bed soon. --Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec - was just in the middle of saying that) Might not be the worst idea to wait for a co-nom or something. Although it shouldn't really work this way, some of the RFA regulars have a bad habit (in my opinion) of making a really speedy and superficial evaluation based on such trifling factors as the statement of the nominator (who seems to have headed off for the evening). And so having a co-nom who is a great and famous admin can help.  Probably nothing that can't be sorted out in the sober light of tomorrow. --JayHenry (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds good for us all; sweet dreams, everyone! If you'd like to be an admin, I'd be happy to nominate you tomorrow or whenever, as I guess you know. :) But as Jay says, it would probably be better for your RfA if your nominator were an admin and/or someone very highly respected at Wikipedia, of whom I think you know a good many. :)  I've no worries at all about how you'd fare, but still we'd all be merrier if we could deftly sidestep our difficulties.  Willow (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Reset indent: I've asked Balloonman (far and wee) to close the RfA, and I've thanked Editor for his consideration. I should have chosen a username that reminded me of an ee cummings poem every time I see it. --Moni3 (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey there Moni,
 * I was planning on nom'ing you myself, I just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I think you can be a great admin (although I am a little worried about the RfA process and you---some of your comments may not go over with some of the RfA crowd.)  The process can be brutal---and a person who is willing to call a spade a spade can (unfairly) face some criticism---see Risker's RfA.
 * Who nominates you can have a profound impact on RfA's. A respected admin/crat can carry a lot of weight.  A person who is known on the RfA page can carry even more.
 * I'm not sure how the nom was malformed, I didn't look at it closely. But the nom was never transcluded to the RfA page, that means it never went live.  When you want an RfA to start, you have to transclude it---eg post a link on the RFA mainpage.
 * I'm still willing to take a closer look at your total contributions if you are interested... I could also give you an honest assessment of what I think your chances are.  I definitely believe you SHOULD be an admin---but I'd have to look closer to see what your chances are of passing the process.Balloonman (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think (?) when Moni says malformed, she's referring to the !vote that was entered before it was transcluded. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's generally not a problem if it is removed before it is transcluded (which I did.) And some will give a little grace to nom's putting !votes before the transclusion, but I strongly recommend against it.  We had a candidate about a month ago with 5 noms and they all !voted before the transclusion and the RfA was criticized a a fait acompli. (sp) Balloonman (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA Chances
Hi Moni, I'm going to give you one of my more in depth reviews as to why/why not you might consider going for Admin.

For:
 * 1) You are a hell of an editor.  I once reviewed articles at FAC, but soon discovered that am I not detail oriented enough to hack it there. I've contributed to one FA (and honestly am surprised it passed.) 5 FA's and the GA's is incredible.
 * 2) You have the respect of Sandy---Sandy is one of the best---if she ever decided to run... Personally, I would be willing to nominate her for Crat if she ever wanted to... skip the admin step!
 * 3) People come to you for help and assistance on a regular basis---this is a major plus in my book.
 * 4) You are civil and highly trusted by people in the community---this is a major plus in my book.

Against:
 * 1) You don't really care if you become an admin or not.
 * 2) I know you use the term light heartedly, but this type of summary might hurt you.  Other creative edit summaries may or may not hurt you---I don't mind them, but sometimes the weirdest things can bite you.
 * 3) Your edit summary usage isn't at 100%.  Again, it is trivial, but this is something that people may knock you for in an RfA.
 * 4) You are very active with FA/GA issues, but don't participate in other "adminly" areas.  You've clearly shown that you know the MOS and policies/guidelines surrounding articles, but you lack experience in other areas (page protection, deletions, name changes, policy discussions, etc.)
 * 5) This edit and this edit while true, will hurt.  People don't like having their flaws pointed out to them... and some might see this as disrespecting the system.  Once you are part of the in crowd, you can criticize it, but...

The against reasons 1 and 4 are the most serious---and 5 could be. In short, I would have no problem noming you or supporting you for adminship. That being said, your RfA would be interesting. It would be one that could go down in flames quickly or it could sail through with 100+ supports! I honestly don't know---that is the reason why I haven't nom'ed you yet---I don't have any idea how your RfA would go---but I fear it would fail despite the fact that you are a great trusted editor. For you, I think you would really need a strong nom---somebody whose nom could help you overcome perceived weaknesses. Balloonman (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mention how many pages you have on your watchlist and possibly about protecting and moving pages as well as other areas. Also have a look at this, I nommed a person who is primarily a content person but as coordinator of WP birds has helped thru a lot of FA work. I think things have swung more toward contributors in the past few months, unlike about 6 months ago. I'd be happy to nom you too. (any bad conflicts we don't know about...?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My history of GAs and FAs should tell a story about what I find a priority. Not that they're well-written (though they do kick some ass), but the topics: Birmingham campaign, Everglades National Park, To Kill a Mockingbird, And the Band Played On, Barbara Gittings, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, and my most recently created to-be FA, Draining and development of the Everglades. There's a reason why I consistently choose subjects that represent the victim of politics, petty infighting, and the exploitation of that which does not have a voice. I was a teacher for nine years. Once, while I was working in the Gifted Department of a large school district, we were required to attend an interdepartmental meeting to discuss how we can better communicate between departments. When I raised my hand to give a suggestion, my supervisor, the director of the department, clapped her hand over my mouth and jerked my arm down. She tried to instill in me the necessity of understanding "how the game is played". That was a vivid introduction to one of the most pathetic victims of politics and petty infighting: public education. I'm no longer a teacher by my own choice, though I do this. It may have (I hope) as significant an impact.


 * There's no denying I'm an atypical candidate for RfA, and going through the process is not really something I look forward to. However, attaining adminship is not the goal. The goal is questioning "the system" as Balloonman puts it. I have no doubt I'll get loud and nasty opposition because I agree that people don't want their flaws pointed out to them. But before I clicked on Balloonman's links, I thought he was referring to reverts of content edits I had made, or remarks during an FAC or GA nomination. I thought, gee - I don't like my writing flaws and typos pointed out to me either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and it hasn't stopped me from pitching my articles up at Peer Review, and asking some of my harshest critics in the past to rip my articles apart. They make me a much better editor. The fact that there is a "system" that people do not want questioned is worrisome. This is why I left it up to the admins to decide if the process I would go through would be something worthwhile and productive. The lesson can only come when the student is ready.


 * Sandy, bless your heart. I know you're trying to protect me, and I marvel at the perception that I may be a fragile flower unable to withstand pressure or heat. Sitting on the sidelines and watching things happen, though entertaining, doesn't challenge the idea that I'm a doormat. I have to say, though, that editors pointing out things I have written - things I believe, or did at the time - I can only respond to honestly. (I think "So what?" is underused as a response to many accusations.) Whatever criticism I get from my convictions do not compare with the rough treatment I've had experience with in my real life. One cannot grow up in Reagan's America in the Deep South as a big ol' queermo and not understand what rough and unfair treatment is - from some very surprising people. That is, unfortunately, only a facet of what I have to compare any potential nomination experience with.


 * So, those are my thoughts on that. And here it is on my talk page for any future admin reviewers to see and link to. Hello, future reviewers! I have 248 pages on my watchlist today. I actually haven't worked much in anti-vandal work since I know there are editors who have better strengths in that than I. But, like all primates, I have the capacity to learn and use tools. I've requested assistance from admins maybe three times, in the page protection of Harper Lee's article, though I don't add to it because she would not like that. --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know how the "regulars" on RfA will react to you Moni, but should you accept a nomination, you'll have my support. You do excellent work on Wikipedia, and while some of your comments may be "creative" as Balloonman put it, I've never seen you be uncivil. <b style="color:#990066;">Aleta</b> <sup style="color:#0095B6;"> Sing 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you're trying to protect me, and I marvel at the perception that I may be a fragile flower unable to withstand pressure or heat. Not the situation at all; in fact, there's a bit of WIIFM (What's In It For Me) in this. I would love to see someone challenge the system, even if I worry what the outcome may say for all of us.  More importantly, I have hated seeing good editors mauled by trivialities at RfA; we've lost some participation at FAC because of RfAs gone awry, and I've seen editors permanently sour on Wiki after nasty RfAs.  Wouldn't want to lose you or see your enthusiasm dampened.  It is hard to know how others will react and how forceful the reaction may or may not be to issues like edit summaries and edit summary usage.  If the RfA crowd goes against you, they can focus on ... anything ... and then pile on.  If you're ready to give it a go, then you should do it, but the RfA should be well written (to anticipate and address issues up front; read Jbmurray's RfA where I anticipated his one oppose in my blurb) and you should choose your co-noms carefully.  You have many choices and many who think highly of you; Balloonman knows the ins and outs of RfA better than I do, since I only go near there when someone I really care about or really don't want to have the tools comes up.  I think (not sure?) that three co-noms are OK; choose carefully.  Willow, Cas, Balloon, me, Awadewit, Jay ... ???  Ask Balloon if it's OK to have three co-noms, or if two is better; if you're ready, I'm happy to co-nom, but I want to write your blurb carefully, I'll be out all afternoon, and I'm still feeling awful, so would rather write tomorrow.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Aleta and Sandy. I saw your comments when they were posted. I can't decide if it's an advantage or disadvantage to think over something so much before I comment on it. I've interrogated Aleta about something before (adding Intersex to the LGBT project? I can't quite remember), and I was rather ponderously slow in responding to a complicated GA nomination for White Mountain art recently. I did not know I could choose co-nominators. Knowing the potential of failure for the process, I'm not sure I would want to ask people to take on that burden. But I would welcome any comments from Sandy, WillowW, JayHenry, Casliber, Aleta, Balloonman, or anyone else (I don't know if Awadewit is aware of this, so I can't presume to include her in this list, though I would be honored if she lent her support.) Sandy, I would also like to know specifics of what you perceive as admins behaving poorly, practicing groupthink, or abusing power. If you want to email them to me, that's fine, or place them here. I don't intend to refer to specific examples unless pressed to do so, but I would like to know what I'm talking about in terms of how I could affect the system before I poke the bear. --Moni3 (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 2 is my preference, but 3 Noms is fine. Anything more than 3  becomes a case of WP:TLDR (Just saw that essay for the first time today!)  I would recommend myself (as I am well known on the RfA circuit and my support should go a long way), Sandy as she is well respected everywhere, and if there is somebody else you like feel free to ask them.Balloonman (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not worried about what you call the possible "burden": set that aside. The only stat I care about is whether I have ever Supported an RfA candidate who went south and became abusive: to my knowledge, I haven't.   I try to avoid discussing the cases of admin abuse that I'm familiar with until/unless I'm forced to by the actions of others; most people who have followed my talk page for any length of time already know about the issues and concerns, and for those who don't know, it's unlikely that delving into old history will help build a better article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand. I'll see if I can do some studying in the next few days. I read that arbcom case by stumbling upon it somehow, while it was going on. I'm not sure how I found it, but dang. --Moni3 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you go for it, you have my full support. ;) Nothing wrong with content admins. Cheers Raystorm   (¿Sí?)  21:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I might as well point out that I have pretty much the same five strikes against me... OK, I'm not quite as colourful in my edit summaries, though that hasn't stopped it becoming a (perhaps the) point of contention at RfA.  There are no doubt differences between you (Moni3) and me; people liking the MMM project helps.  And the dynamics of RfA (I've been observing a few more closely since I've been nominated) are unpredictable.  But I thought I'd mention that those five "strikes against," at least as Balloonman presents them, don't necessarily damn you.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I agree with the importance of the nomination (both who does it, and that it is well-phrased as well as honest) and the importance of writing good (and similarly honest) responses to the questions and comments. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Before I work on a nom
Before I work on a nom, I need to know "Why you want to be an admin?" Of the objections I have above, the only one that I can't work with is the perception that you don't care. I get the sense that you would like to be an admin, but I need to see it said. I also need to know why? I know a good answer for this, but I want to hear it from you. If you can convince me that you do care and that there is a point to the nom, then I will work on it. If you really don't care, then there is no need to go through the motions.Balloonman (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I would nominate, but you can find Wikipedians far more great and famous than myself for the task. The thing about RFA: it can be horribly unpredictable. A great deal of the RFA regulars seem to believe that familiarity with RFA is the most important thing in selecting a candidate. Users will ask a great deal of questions that have right or wrong answers. They are essentially traps. RFA regulars will know the purpose of the question, but someone who devotes their time elsewhere can get tripped up. Be very careful with optional questions, and consider carefully reading relevant policies or looking at past RFAs to see what sort of answers are expected. Sadly it gets worse. The very worst RFAs end up anchored to some other issue, and the participants will start supporting or opposing based upon this issue rather than the candidate. Someone will say, "not sure how this candidate feels about X" and then someone will come along, not having looked at the candidate at all, and say "Oppose. X is very important." And then everyone starts debating X instead of the candidate. The candidate (rightfully) gets very frustrated at this, but expressing that frustration generally makes things worse. It's best practice to mostly avoid challenging the opposes, if they arise, and to then only do so very obsequiously. I would say RFAs works 95 percent of the time, but every now and then just flies completely off the tracks. That's not to say don't go for it. I think the community will very likely make the right decision. But as Sandy notes the process can be unjustly dispiriting. --JayHenry (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why who nominates you can be important---especially for somebody who isn't a 'standard' candidate. People know that I won't nom a person unless I've fully vetted them.  They know that Sandy won't support anybody (let alone nom) unless she fully supports them.  The more you, as a candidate, deviate from the norm, the more you need a strong nom.  A strong candidate in the traditional sense, doesn't need as strong a nom.Balloonman (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Balloonman, you ask a very good and essential question. I don't actually know if I can answer it. What do content editors do as admins? What could I do as an admin that I'm not doing now? and I don't know the answer to that. (Can anyone reading this answer that?) There's a difference between not caring about the quality of Wikipedians and not caring about the personal identity of being an admin. I don't want this to have it - I would only want to do it if I'm needed, and I don't know that I am. I do care about the quality of articles and information on the site though, and the people who add to them. JayHenry, I know - I've been reading a few of these in the last several days..--Moni3 (talk) 01:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC).


 * I actually meant to add this to the section above, below Jbmurray's comments. Apologize for intruding upon the thread Balloonman.  You can refactor if you'd like.  Moni, our goat-footed friend is quite right about his reputation for vetting noms.  He is great and famous for a reason after all ;) --JayHenry (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can't answer that question yet, Moni, RfA could turn brutal on you, as the "regulars" tend to pick on the "why do you want the tools and how are you planning to use them" issue. It Drives Me Nuts, because IMO, we should be giving the tools to good, responsible, and trustworthy editors, and then let them go about figuring out how to use them, which they will do responsibly.  As an example, if I had the tools, I wouldn't have to keep bugging admin friends every time I have to sort out a malformed FAC or FAR nom.  Or, I could explain that because I watch all of the Tourette syndrome- coprolalia-related articles, I have a need to deal with plain vanilla repetitive vandal fighting of the worst kind, even if I don't know anything else about blocking policy or other tool usage.  You will be asked how/where you plan to use the tools, and if the "regulars" perceive that you don't have a concrete answer, they can get overfocused on that.  IMO, they lose sight of the notion that good editors will use the tools in good ways once they have them; the over-admin-coached mold at RfA now encourages editors to go out and experiment in the areas where they will need tools, so they can justify getting them, even if they haven't demonstrated they will use them responsbility or that they have the kind of character we should be seeking in admins.  But that's the way it is. As Cas said, though, look at Sabine sunbird's RfA.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The best argument is that you have a load of article pages on your watchlist (which gives a whole different way of looking at pages from the Recent Changes patrollers, as well as being familiar with some of WP's best content (i.e. FAs). FAs can be insanely annoying to unvandalise due to their length and detail, with hidden edits removing valuable material for months on end. Also, making a call when to semi-protect pages without taking up time at WP:RFPP, or helping out there. Most admin jobs I do is semi-protecting (though I have been blocking more this year). Also, Moving biology pages according to MOS happens quite alot too. These would be your two biggest uses for tools I think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is the argument that if you only the the tools once, that it is a net gain for the project. But, you have to want them.  If you don't see a need for the tools, then there is no reason to get them.  The attitude at RfA's is less stringent on the "need" for the tools than it was 6 months ago, but I'm not sure if it is worth your running for adminship right now.  Again, I am willing to nom you, if you want it, but unless you can formulate a rationale for doing so, I don't see it passing or even making a point.  A Moni who has a need for the tools is a very different candidate from a Moni who doesn't see the need.Balloonman (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True that. Incidentally Balloonman, who are 'good' nominators? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I like to think that *I* am one ;-) But to answer your question. I think a good nom is a respected admin (or somebody like Sandy who is respected.)  But beyond being a respected admin, I think a good nom is somebody who knows how to make one's weaknesses into strengths.  Somebody who can present you in a manner in a way that highlights your strengths while discounting your weaknesses.  And there is a certain amount of  reputation involved there as well.  If somebody with 10 FA's noms an article for FAC, the regulars there will be more receptive to it knowing that the person with 10 FA's knows the drill.  Similarly, the person who has an established track record with RfA's can go a long way towards greasing the wheels.  I KNOW that if I nom a candidate, that the candidate will receive less scrutiny than if you do... even if we used the exact same nom because I've developed a reputation in the RfA process.  People KNOW that I don't nom candidates without spending HOURS reviewing them first.  I reviewed my most recent candidate (Slp1) for about 6 hours because I wanted to check out her CSD noms.  The regulars at the RfA process know this about me.Balloonman (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahaaa. OK I get it. I am generally too busy in wikiprojects to nom but it was kinda fun with Sabine's Sunbird. I have just pondered on a few folks I know from editing as I feel that enhancing the schism between 'admins' and 'content contributors' is not a good direction for the project to go, so I have been looking at fellow editors of the latter category more often. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't like the direction RfA's were headed a few months ago, which is why I've been working to get a different calibre of candidates in there. I don't want the "anti-vandal" modus admin... I want the "template" expert admin, the FA writing admin, the copy-editor admin.  ONE of the problems (IMHO) with the RfA process is that it was becoming too insular.  Too much of the SWAM mentality (Same Worker As Me.)  I want to challenge the notions of what makes a good admin candidate, but to do so I have establish my credentials as a person who can recognize talent/qualifications wherever it may be.  To that end I think I'm succeeding.  The regulars in the RfA process know that if I support, it is only after reviewing the candidate carefully.  If I oppose, there is a valid reason to oppose.  They know I don't !vote unless I have done my homework first.  If you have any recommendations as to whom I should look at I would be happy to vet them when I get the chance.Balloonman (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(<outdent) I see my name mentioned up above, as an example of some nastiness at the RfA. Balloonman, if only you knew! I had anticipated much stronger opposition, and indeed gave myself only a 50/50 chance of success; the end result was considerably beyond my wildest dreams, and I think your nomination had something to do with it. I'll own up to having mapped out a response strategy in advance, which I think was very helpful and kept me relatively sane; feel free to email me if you'd like to know some of the details. I would concur that knowing what others are likely to perceive as your weaknesses is very important. Oh yes...and make sure your significant other is clued in. No matter how well or how poorly things go, it's really nice to have a hug and an in-person inquiry about how things are going. Best, Risker (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting 128 supports for you either... wow. Very impressive!  You have a lot of friends!Balloonman (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Balloonman, SandyGeorgia, JayHenry, Casliber, et al: First of all, I have to say I'm all warm and fuzzy from the amount of trust folks I respect put in me. I tend to be quiet and work on my articles and not make too much of a fuss, and therefore I'm always a bit surprised when I get recognized. I would like, if you will allow me, to bank your faith in me until I'm better prepared. So I guess I'll approach this as if I'm going to start building an FA. I have to go to the library and find resources. In this context, it means I need to be intimately familiar with Administration pages: the problems that come up and how people handle them, RfAs that are successful and huge failures, and dispute resolutions. I would like to be able to answer "What do you plan to do as an admin?" without asking folks how I should answer. I would like to become more involved in GA review, FAC review, and Peer Review so I will contribute to those more frequently, and review articles I'm not terribly attracted to. I have an article to write, Restoration of the Everglades, that I've been putting off this week, and I have all five of my Everglades articles to spank into FA shape before they're nominated. I have an FAC going on right now (that seems to have stalled...hmmm). I would like to be able to take some of the burden of FAC from Sandy, though I am quite clumsy with code, once I learn it I tend to be pretty good at it. So - let me know what I can do Sandy, seriously. I'm hoping with being a bit more active I'll raise my profile, and not make anyone reconsider their interest in my potential nomination. So give me some time to get some experience, and when you have no doubt that I could answer that question, ask me again. Once more, I very much appreciate this discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews, reviews, reviews: everything at FAC is stalled because no one is reviewing (spring fever?) and I can't close anything one way or the other.  If I archive them on lack of review, I get endlessly jumped on (and yes, being criticized is exhausting, even with a thick skin).  Moni, to prepare yourself, I suggest you start regularly following WP:AN and WP:ANI.  The good news is that will show you the kinds of issues occurring and suggest to you where you might want to get involved in learning admin tools.  The bad news is that, after reading there for a while, you may decide you want no part of it :-)  We'll be here when you decide; just say the word.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DittoBalloonman (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Thanks very much for the barnstar and your kind words. It is nice to know my efforts at PR have not gone unnoticed. I meant to mention in my last peer review of one of your Everglades articles that there is a state park named for Gifford Pinchot in Pennsylvania (he was its governor)(twice). Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep forgetting I have follow-up questions to your reviews. Now I can't remember any of them, but I'd have to look at the PR page... --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do a lot of PRs (as you moticed) so while I try to look through all of them every few days, dropping a line on my talk page usually works better / faster. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive
You know, SandyGeorgia's page is just full of updates from the coolest people. I confess that I followed your link to check out Dr Bunsen Honeydew (you were absolutely right), and spent the next half hour rooting around your gallery. You've got a marvellous gift there, and I thank you for sharing it. Risker (talk) 04:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweet! Thanks so much! I've been trying to get back to it since I haven't done much in the last few months, but I don't have any success at all where I live showing or selling. So I guess I'll just continue to Wiki until someone wants to throw cash at me for art. It wasn't until I was almost finished with the painting that my brother mentioned the resemblance to Dr. Honeydew... Now it's all I can see, dammit. No works for Beaker are planned.

"Plunder"
If that's a commonly used term for that period of Everglades history, yes it can be in the hed. But if it's only one author, better just to use it in the text and cite it there. Heds can't be POV (I've had some similar ones similarly edited myself ... in New Coke "Sabotage by Pepsi" has become "Strategic maneuvers by Pepsi". Which is better). Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * K. Let me think of what to replace it with. --Moni3 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I type it's in the next update, to be put on the Main Page in a few hours. Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sweet. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping
I have responded to your comments over at the Gilberto Gil FAC. Thanks a lot for the feedback&mdash;it's been stagnating. --Kakofonous (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. Mine has been, too. Good luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Beginning work on a review... Don't know exactly when I'll be done. --Kakofonous (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kakofonous (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)