User talk:Monnicat

License tagging for Image:WilsonCaldwell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:WilsonCaldwell.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Image removed @ Rorschach inkblot test
I am curious your reasoning for removing the image on Rorschach inkblot test based on it "not [being] appropriate to display on a public site". I have reverted your edit by my understanding of Wikipedia is not censored as I see nothing wrong with the image and it is important on a page describing an ink blot to display what a typical ink blot looks like. Feel free to discuss this with me here, on my talk page, or through a new discussion topic on that page. — CobraWiki ( jabber 18:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ink blot
The issue has been brought formally through the OTRS system. I'm protecting the article until the ticket has been resolved. I must remind you that Wikipedia is not censored, and if you have copyright questions, you must bring them up through the Images for Deletion process. Furthermore, I should inform you that copyrighted images may sometimes be allowed on Wikipedia through the fair use doctrine. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  00:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits on Crisis pregnancy center are being effaced
I have reverted once and will do so again, but I do not want to get any further than that into a “revert war” (per the 3 revert rule). I support the changes you made and, based on past experience, believe that Photouploaded is pushing an agenda. Consequently, I will support any revisions you make or arguments you bring to Talk to support your recent changes.LCP 17:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning
Just letting you know that you (and the user with whom you were warring) both violated WP:3RR on two separate articles, Pregnancy options counseling and Crisis pregnancy center. Keep in mind that 3RR just means that you undid the work of another editor multiple times, and this doesn't mean you have to have made the same revert (it could be 3 separate reverts, and partial reverts count as well). But what isn't important is the technicalities, but that you have been engaged in edit warring with practically no talk page discussion. What you need to do is to stop making controversial edits to the article, and go to the talk page and state specifically the issues you have and make proposals to fix those issues, so that other users can comment and collaborate so you can both come to an agreement. Wikipedia is a community and we work together. Fighting over edits on a live article is disruptive and unprofessional. Please be the bigger of the two and stop the fighting and go to the talk page. If the disruption continues, the article could become locked from editing, or worse, you could be temporarily blocked from editing altogether. -Andrew c [talk] 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Read the manual. Only the first word of a header is supposed to be capitalized. I am so sick of correcting that mistake. Photouploaded (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
Look, edit-warring is stupid and typically results in nothing good. You are as guilty of it as I am. I have reverted the Pregnancy options counseling article to a recent, stable version that was edited by administrator Andrew c on November 5th. I would greatly appreciate it if you would join me in refraining from editing that article until we have come to an agreement at the Talk page. I am currently writing a response for the Talk page, it will be a while before it is finished. Photouploaded (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * YELLING IN ALL CAPS and ordering other editors (i.e. me) not to edit YOUR new version is totally inappropriate. Please stop edit-warring and trying to strongarm your idea of what this article should look like.  Join me on talk if you want to propose changes.  The version to which I am reverting was OKed by User:Andrew c, who is a very calm, respected Administrator.  If you can't see that as a good place to start, we're in trouble.  Photouploaded (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy option counciling
First of all, just because I edited the article in November, and I am also an admin, does not mean that that version of the article is any better than any other version. I am just one editor, and when it comes to content disputes, my opinion is simply just that, one of many. So please ignore Photouploaded's use of my name in an attempt to give one version of the article more credence than others. That said, I do not believe you understand exactly how wikipedia works, which is fine. But I'd like to explain how your last edit was problematic. You made a partial revert of disputed content, and then made a threat in your edit summary "DO NOT CHANGE WITHOUT DISCUSSING". When you want to add something to the article, and it is disputed by another editor, the burden lays on you to convince others of your changes, not the other way around. You can't try to bully controversial edits. You can't make a bold change, and then threaten, with all caps, for others not to change it without discussion. What needs to happen is that YOU need to discuss your proposed changes BEFORE putting them in the article. This way, all editors can work together towards a version which EVERYONE can agree upon. Thereby creating a strong, consensus version which is stronger than the opinion of any one editor. Therefore, I ask you strongly to STOP edit warring, and instead simply take things to the talk page. For more info, I find WP:BRD to be a good read.-Andrew c [talk] 21:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that I don't particularly like the previous version, it's pretty bad actually, but I figured it's better to have a version that had been around for a while and that doesn't have POV from either editor in question. Photouploaded (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you, Monnica, for your thoughtful and constructive contributions in pregnancy & adoption-related topics. I realize that Wikipedia is a notoriously leftist and hostile environment, but there are some here who appreciate you. I completely sympathize with your frustration, as expressed in this comment. NCdave (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, I've asked a question & made some comments here which you might have some thoughts on. Or drop me an email, please.  NCdave (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Stereotype text
Hello... your text is good, but too general for the article you placed it in. I would suggest adding it to Stereotype instead, and then linking (perhaps a "See also"?) from Stereotypes of black people. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  23:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review
Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xenotalk 14:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, we would appreciate if you could briefly take the time to place yourself below one of the suggested statements here. If none of these statements represents your current position, please compose your own or simply sign "Not applicable" under "Other quick clarifications". Likewise sign as N/A if you do not want to participate further in this debate. If you choose not to respond then you will likely not be counted with respect to further consensus-determining efforts. –xenotalk 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Monica. There seem to be so many rules about appropraite behaviour here on wikipedia that I'm not even sure any more if I'm allowed to thank you for adding your support in the debate about the display of the Rorschach inkblot images. But thank you anyway! Please feel to add a comment on the rather dauntng article talk page if you wish (although unfortunately it is not always a very pleasant experience). I wonder do you know of any other editors, with a background like yours in mental health or psychology, who would also be willing to offer their opinion? I find it hard to imagine that there ANY mental health professionals in the wider community who would argue that display of the inkblot images is a good thing. But currently there are only two or three of us editors on that side of the argument in that article and we seem to be facing an impossibly challenging uphill struggle . Whatever, thanks for a very clear comment in the Rorschach test/2009 consensus review. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)