User talk:Moni3

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

---

The thing that makes you exceptional, if you are at all, is inevitably that which must also make you lonely.
—Lorraine Hansberry

A brownie for you!

Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

MassResistance

M3: [1] re [2] —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C08:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Moni3. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Stnwll (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stnwll, I got your email, but I have declined to respond for two reasons. I don't respond to emails from users I don't know because I don't have a generic email account for Wikipedia. Also, I've posted above that I'm on vacation (from Wikipedia as I'm too impoverished to go anywhere) but I'm checking my watchlist. Wikipedia isn't fun for me as it used to be so I'm taking time away from it hoping either to be ok with leaving it behind and knowing the articles I wrote will degrade, or getting re-energized to come back in the future at some point when my attitude toward other editors who are insistent that article quality should be diminished has improved.

Take, for instance, your email. I saw that the ages of Milk's partners and lovers were added, but I declined to fix that. I think it doesn't belong in the article and it's inconsistent with the sources and certainly the way the sources present the facts surrounding Milk's life. You bring it to my attention for what? Surely your computer is not broken. I left the issue open to discussion on the talk page hoping others watching the article, 173 as of today, would engage the editor who has no other interest in the accuracy of the topic than to add this tidbit into the article to prove a point. How many editors responded in the discussion? (Donut) Are the ages of Milk's lovers still in the article? (Yes)

Take also the removal of a sentence in the Stonewall riots article. The editor who did this, User:Pjefts, and I attempted to discuss this on the talk page as well. Count, please, how many times I asked Pjefts (on his/her talk page too) to explain what s/he wanted changed and how many replies I received. That would be, I think, 4-0. The sentence was removed without any kind of compromise, just removed because Pjefts, who wrote none of the article and has exhibited some lack of understanding as to how Wikipedia works, thought it best. Has anyone challenged Pjefts on that? (No)

You probably don't care about this, but the Roy Orbison article now has a POV template on it because some asshat is too lazy to go read the sources and has no idea what quality writing is.

I am consistently and perennially accused, quite harshly I should add, of owning articles. Most FA writers are, especially ones who edit controversial topics or articles that get a lot of hits. I've responded in the past with respectful reminders to re-read the WP:OWN page, but like whack-a-moles, other editors pop up to make the same accusation. I don't know how to respond anymore to this than "fuck off, dumbass" and when it's time for that it's time for me to go do something else. This is a system that promotes ownership because too many editors are too lazy to read the sources and must depend on the editors who have read them, but the same editors who are too lazy or stupid to read the sources wield the ownership policy to shield them from the responsibility to know what the fuck they're talking about. Such a system is clearly ineffective, inefficient, and only someone stupid or insane would continue to work in it.

In case I never come back, for posterity I have to say again that I don't have some magical gift for writing articles. I'm a regular schlub with little talent. I just read the sources. The primary issue preventing articles from being improved is that editors simply are too damn lazy to go out and read the best quality sources. Then they entrench themselves in ignorant fun by arguing, because some people just love to argue and the Internet is a homing beacon for nutjobs who reach orgasmic heights of pleasure from arguing with ignorance, force, and anonymity. So if you see problems in articles I've written, nothing prevents you from changing the articles to the way they should be. If you're not sure, go get the books or articles and read them. It's quite simple.

Maybe I'll be back, maybe I won't. If I'm not, I'll be happier doing whatever it is I do. Good luck to you and anyone else who stumbles upon this. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)