User talk:Moni3/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Moni3. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Anne Lister

Hi Moni; ever heard of Anne Lister? In the UK, we've had two programmes about her life, both broadcast on 1 June on BBC2. I don't know if your TV stations in Fla will show them, but you may be able to view them via BBC iPlayer. One was a 90-minute drama starring Maxine Peake, titled "The Secret Diaries of Miss Anne Lister"; details and iPlayer link here. The other was a 60-min documentary "Revealing Anne Lister", presented by Sue Perkins, details and iPlayer link here. Note how the BBC recommend Wikipedia for further reading! --Redrose64 (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this section as a part of a mighty behomoth of an article. Yes, I've heard of her. She kept dirty diaries. I was intrigued when I read about her. Trollop. --Moni3 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Madonna LEAD

Hello Moni, how are you? I used the lead taht you suggested in the article, it looks so much better. Would you take a look? Thank you so much for your comment. One thing I did was, I did not use any number in the X Number of charts thig, I just kept it ambiguous, since most of Madonna's songs have been worldwide hits. Is it fine? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that lead is excellent. I agree with your suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas

Hey ya, Moni--I think you should take down the tag at the top of your talk page; it seems to me that you're pretty much back. I'm very gratified about that, let me tell you. I have an excellent way you can solidify your return, and that's to copyedit the above Maya Angelou article. It's been through one failed FAC, and it was suggested that I have it copyedited. I'd be very honored if you took a crack at it. Thanks very very much. Christine (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be back. I want to be able to walk out of here whenever I feel like it. This place drives me nuts sometimes and it likes to think it has me by the symbolic balls. And that template really...doesn't...convince it to leave me alone...Hey! I'm complicated!

That doesn't mean I won't look at the article, though. --Moni3 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh huh huh. You said balls. APK whisper in my ear 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cornholio. That must be the funniest 23 minutes of television in the history of broadcast media. Are you threatening me? Genius. --Moni3 (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I postponed listening to Jack Johnson for that? Yeesh. Gad, Moni, what you said reminds me of my family; no matter how hard I try, I can't escape 'em. Moving thousands of miles away didn't even help. Hmm, maybe that says something about this place, eh? As my siblings would say, Oh, shut the hell up, Christine! Thanks for looking at the article, I appreciate it, B&B notwithstanding. Christine (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Once More, with Feeling

Hello, I've reviewed Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) and have a couple of comments/queries at the review page. --Beloved Freak 23:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've passed it—well done! --Beloved Freak 17:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And there was much rejoicing! --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Moni, congratulations. What a marvelous thing to focus on a light, sweet, and full-of-light article, especially after recent experiences. I've never been a big fan of Buffy, but I read the article and truly enjoyed it. Most of the TV my husband and I currently watch is downloaded from the internet, and I think I'm going to suggest that we check it out. I suspect we'll like it, since we both respect Josh Whedon--he adores Firefly and I was sincerely disappointed in the cancellation of Dollhouse. (Did you know that Whedon's dad Tom Whedon was a writer on Sesame Street in its early days?) I'm so happy for you! Christine (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those times where I'm surprised everyone on Wikipedia who ever passed by my talk page can't read my mind like my life is as simple as a white plate. I wish I could say I concentrated on this article because it was light and fun, and there were fun parts of this episode, but my emotional spasticity in the past few months was summarized in this episode. All the songs and the storyline were a televised portrayal of the characters hurtling toward an inevitable implosion, kind of like my life was speeding along the tracks with me calling out to the conductor in vain to stop it.

At any rate, I'm very glad you enjoyed it. I'm notoriously late to the parties I carry on. I just started watching Buffy in March, and I think I saw this episode some time in May. All the time I spent on my wikibreak not editing? Buffy. Was good times. I haven't seen Angel, Firefly, or Dollhouse. Are Tara and Willow in these? Hm, well I guess I'll have to struggle through them somehow. --Moni3 (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that it was horribly presumptuous of me to just assume that's why you tackled this article, but that's me. I'm sure you could make all kinds of assumptions about my pet articles, and why I can go between Sesame Street articles and Maya Angelou. Wee--Elmo to childhood rape and back again! The discussion below makes me think of how I can solve my longstanding problems with images to go with The Wiggles. But alas, The Guys aren't as sexy as Buffy, this hot Anthony Field video notwithstanding, so I probably wouldn't get the assistance I require. No, sorry, T&W aren't in Firefly or Dollhouse, although Whedon uses Jewel Staite and Alan Tudyk, both major players in Firefly, in minor roles in Dollhouse. I have a feeling you'd like Dollhouse. Christine (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Childhood rape? What the Jesus? What article are you editing with that in it? --Moni3 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, silly. Well, I'm not actively editing it currently, but as you know, I'm slowly improving all Maya Angelou-themed articles. Christine (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I knew that, but somehow your comment translated in my head as that article led you to editing the article on child rape. In literature it's brutal. With statistics and psychology it opens another realm in the brain...one of those I might not be able to find my way back out of. --Moni3 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sweetie, please do not even go towards the child rape article. I don't think I can handle another Moni3-existential crisis. ;) Christine (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That, sadly, was nothing. --Moni3 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be on a break at the moment, but I just wanted to say what a great job you did with this article, specifically because I'd entertained the notion myself of punching it up—at some vague, undefined point in the future that would probably have never arrived. :-) You did a much better job than I would have. Do you intend to tackle any of the other episodes? One of the most lauded, "The Body", is particularly lacking (if you don't plan to, I'll stick that on my get-around-to-one-day list). One last thing, before you take OMwF to FAC (if that's your intention), it's worth considering whether, as a musical, it’s a better candidate than most other TV episode articles for the inclusion of a fair use video clip. Wikipedia is in a unique position to outstrip the dead tree encyclopaedias by adapting to improving web technology; it would be a shame if our best articles didn't begin to reflect that. I don't have a specific sequence in mind, but one that has commentary about how the music works with the visuals to convey a specific theme is your best bet. For an example of something like that, see what I threw together for American Beauty here. It shouldn't be too difficult to identify something similar for "Once More, with Feeling". All the best, Steve ^T • C 08:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, wow, thank you very much for taking the time to leave your message here. I would very much like to add a fair use image of Hinton Battle in costume, some music snippets, and if at all possible, a video. I'm embarrassingly ignorant of how to accomplish this, however. I have a list of what I might be able to justify in the way of fair use rationales on the talk page of the sandbox I used to write the article. You'll note in the actual sandbox I've moved on to another episode. I intend to take on "The Body" when I've posted that one. Suggestions are always welcome and helpful. I should start writing "The Body" by next week. --Moni3 (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Video clips are still remarkably hard to make (in that you have to rip content, trim it, transcode it, yadda yadda) but Steve and I figured out some effective methods for our film FAs, and Erik wrote up a pretty good page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Multimedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gah! You guys always make me learn things. That sucks! --Moni3 (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

On the plus side, once you've done it the first time it becomes a lot easier. It took me about a week to get the American Beauty clip right, but now we've written those instructions up it'll be easier the next time. Far harder, I think, will be crafting cast iron fair-use rationales. Looking at the potentials (ha) here, I think several of those images wouldn't get through FAC scrutiny, even with additional commentary, as their full import can be adequately described through words alone. But a good bet would be a headshot of Sweet if detail can be found about the production aspects of his prosthetic make-up, to add to the design requirement that he be a "slick" demon rather than an ugly one. For a music clip, you've wisely highlighted "Something to Sing About"; the "tuneful yet chaotic" nature, the quick changes in key and tempo, and the emotional impact are all aspects that could be difficult to fully grasp from reading the text alone. However, a video clip of "Walk Through the Fire" at the moment the fire engine passes is probably a non-starter. A difficult shot to set up, an emotional high point too, but easily described in text. For videos, maximising their utility is the way to go. You'll want sound to go along with the video, so select one that illustrates several aspects of the production, perhaps something representative of other scenes in the episode; that way, the clip will offer a broader insight than a text description of the scene alone will provide. You can also armour the clip by wrapping it in several rationales, especially ones that illustrate emotional intent. With that in mind, I suggest the bedroom sequence from "Under Your Spell". It highlights aspects of Amber Benson's voice that have been specifically commented upon: her range, the "heavenly and salacious" quality of it, etc. It also helps the reader better understand its reprise later in the episode, where its joyous nature is replaced by a sadder reading, as Tara realises she really has been under Willow's spell (some additional secondary commentary might be needed for that). You also have this as an example of the explicitness of the portrayal of their relationship (as noted, unusual on TV at the time), of Tara's "quieter strength coming out in front of Willow's showy demonstrations of powerful magic" and the comment about "Willow's diminished role [in the song] representing the series' silence about [her] descent into addiction and darkness through the rest of the season." The reason I suggested the bedroom portion of the song is because it highlights each of these aspects and more; its celebrated eroticism during the cunnilingus portion is something that could be key here. How can that be adequately described in words? It can't, so you have yourself a rationale. :-) Steve ^T • C 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a sound file of Tara's song would be appropriate. I could justify the sound, but I'm not enthusiastic about embedding a video of that scene. Oh! I was actually thinking of replacing the shot at the top of the article to the title card reading "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in red lettering in front of the full moon, which was done special for this episode, and perhaps the video could be the cast singing "Understand we go hand in hand / But we walk alone in fear / (Tell me) Where do we go from here?" as they hold hands then fling them away. I like that idea better. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Moni, could we have Steve and you in that clearing with dappled sunlight and deer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That train has left the station, and by station, I mean an attempt to take a ball to the head for the team so ~~Malleus'~~ Xi Xi's page wasn't ickified by a vandal's lurid assertions. However, if Steve looks like Alyson Hannigan or Amber Benson, this could be a possibility. Like a whole goddamn Disney backlot. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, the closest I get is repeated use of a James Marsters headshot as an forum/messageboard avatar when I was younger. :-) I can do a mean Darla impression though... Steve ^T • C 13:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha. Ew. Ok. Looking either like Spike or Darla, I'll take your help in media for the episode article. Copy edits, suggestions, anything. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In the zone

Can someone tell me how to make a BlackBerry go, in exchange for this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If you offered this in exchange, your chances will double. APK whisper in my ear 02:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Put this on him: sold! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha. You crazy kids. I don't ever know what you're talking about with your newfangled rock and roll and 90% naked men. --Moni3 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. And who are you calling a "kid"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

All the editors making connections between fruit juice and 90% naked men. --Moni3 (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with the 90% part; I have been known to confiscate and hide the other 10%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I bet you have a collection, some abnormally large 4th dimension closet in your house with thousands of pairs of briefs, boxers, thongs, and bananahammocks stapled to the walls. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea (but thongs are passe- now it's boy shorts-- they prevent the mosquitos from biting your ass in the hammock. Not that I've been bitten in years, and my hammock is in storage). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. I know your museum goes back decades. I bet you have a couple of Mormon undergarments in there too. SandyGeorgia's Incredible Museum of Men's Undergarments You Have To See it to Believe It! --Moni3 (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing is believing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Look what I found....

Talk:Lady Gaga/GA2... :)

I am not hugely familiar so any other ideas on comprehensiveness grounds? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Mrs. Moni and I had to start the "It's Ok to Love Lady Gaga and Still Be Over 30 and a Feminist (Not the Andrea Dworkin Kind)" Club. We have pretty cool meetings. Do you think Legolas needs assistance or do you need another set of eyes for the review? --Moni3 (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well one doesn't have to be strictly on one side or the other. It isn't looking too bad as a GA candidate article goes and Legolas is pretty quick to address concerns (I often copyedit as I go). Whatever takes your fancy really as either apporach would be helpful into giving it a good buff'n' boot polish. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not far from the mark ...

... but I am what I am. "You have good reasons to make your decision and you've been treated unfairly by admins who have no respect for content or human discourse. But you're also stubborn and I think you've got your feelings very hurt by this system." I'm not going to change to fit wikipedia, and if it can't accommodate me, then I'm sure it will do just fine without me. I think there are tipping points in history, and I think this is one for wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your history of being treated poorly by admins makes you see these issues with uncharacteristic rigidity, very black and white. There are not only two answers. I did not suggest you change. I suggested you accept the collateral damage that your autoreviewer rights will be taken away a lot when this system is implemented. A bit of a slap for you each time another admin learns he can't capriciously take away your rights when you disagree. Learning is hard, and if you decide to accept the autoreviewer rights, it won't be pretty on your talk page, but I didn't think you minded that so much. --Moni3 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

brainwash required

Thanks for the image Moni. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude-- talk about bad visuals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You know it's true. That shit makes me angry. Let's not mince words. --Moni3 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Or go to a day spa. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha. I'd never seen that. That was disturbing and hilarious on many levels. --Moni3 (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You're not suggesting that just a tube of ........ but no. No. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't speculate on the reasons for her behavior or what might change it. Simply, harassing other editors to intimidate them into quitting is pure fucking bullshit. --Moni3 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

With or without the tube, happy vaginas would not be socking on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

They'd be singing trite songs on YouTube instead? Some folks clearly have waaayyy too much time on their hands. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Trust you to open a whole new channel of perversion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Rights

Thank you for the rights update! I appreciate your trust in me! CTJF83 pride 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I thank you too. Does this mean I have to do more work? GroveGuy (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an award and I don't need thanks. The autoreviewer system is going to start soon. I'm just trying to make sure people who need this to maintain articles have it. Work as you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Plots in novels

Hi, Moni3, it seems we both think a recent plot outline is necessary for an article on a novel. At Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/GA2#GA_Review and Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets/GA1, I convinced 2 different reviewers that we needed a consistent approach to the plot summary, otherwise random editors would add too much and probably not too well written. --Philcha (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Heyyy, Philcha. Can you clarify why you've left me a message? Do you want me to weigh in on the discussions? I haven't worked on Harry Potter articles. Not sure what you're looking for. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Harry Potter articles are fine, thanks. I was about to say there's nothing specific at present, then I remembered Talk:Warcraft II/GA1, where the 1st, 2nd and 3rd reviewers (!) are all members of WP:VG. In VG games IMO the base for the reception, publication, etc. is the gameplay (section "Economy and war"), and the 1st reviewer grumbled "Bad, almost game-guide tone ..", but said no more than I showed a couple of cites.

Which is relevant to the hot issue, the position of the Storyline. IMO the reception and publication must immediately follow the gameplay, otherwise the reader loses the thread. That leaves only 2 places for the Storyline, as first or last. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd reviewers want it first, I want it last. Comment at the GA review or here at you Talk page, whichver you prefer. --Philcha (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock?

Should we fill out a sock report on EnochBethany for Brucejenner? CTJF83 pride 17:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never encountered Brucejenner, but if anyone is flaming on Talk:Homophobia, it's a troll. You can let him babble on and on and talk to take up space, until he actually tries to edit the article again. Otherwise, Holy Christ. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Moni, could you work on mincing words now and then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I think I've been quite patient and show quite a bit of forbearance on that talk page, even though I just got told, despite my crappy and feeble 17 FAs, my opinion and experiences are invalid because I'm a homo. It comes with digging chicks, I guess. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Such is life I guess...we are bound to be the bigger person I guess... CTJF83 pride 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's Brucejenner; block and ignore it and wait for the next account to surface in four days. Our Glorious Leaders have ruled that he can't be rangeblocked as his IP is too dynamic. – iride scent 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You've managed not to encounter Brucejenner before, Moni? Basically if the article has something to do with LBGT-anything, it's fair game for his infinitely large sock drawer. Apparently gays are repulsive and SSM is an oxymoron and a sin. A quick glance at the SPI archive on him could be useful - I'm sure you'll see him again. LadyofShalott 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Another reason for me to be all aglow today. --Moni3 (talk) 00:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone should have a word with User:FisherQueen because this was just cruel. APK whisper in my ear 03:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

100% unrelated, but I'm sometimes hesitant to post too many sections on talk pages, but what is the policy for moving someone's work form their user subpage, to an article page? User:Fpigulski/Mike Denklau, the user hasn't edited since March, I left a talk page query, but just in case they don't respond, I'd like to know. CTJF83 pride 02:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

At Talk:Clade/Archive 1 and Talk:Clade/Archive 2 there was Mats, a minor adacemic with a major POV. He was banned and indef blocked but that didn't stop him - I wondered if he had some control of the ISP. Since his posts were long and rambling, I realised I could revert him in much less time and effort. However in on of his posts he described an interesting citation, and I realised that Mats had a little of a point and that gave me some control him. I made him a deal - if he added good citations to one section of the page, that when real, but I'd revert any thing else he did. Unfortunately my buddy is too nice and gave Mat a way in/out/whatever so my system was broken and I walked away.

Brucejenner's posts were long and rambling, so we can revert him in much less time and effort. If I'm around, I'll help. --Philcha (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it's 1:00 A.M. and I'm awake...

Thanks folks. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. APK whisper in my ear 05:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It could be bunnies.

They're not cute like everybody supposes, you know. They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses. And...wait a minute...what's with all those carrots? What in the world do they need such good eyesight for anyway?

Bunnies. Bunnies... It must be bunnies...--Moni3 (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I paused Sarah McLachlin for that?! Yes, that's right; me, listening to the glorious Sarah, which breaks all the stereotypes people have of me. I even went to the Lilith Fair! My husband tells me that becoming a lesbian would be easy; all my interests are already there anyway. And speaking of bunnies: [3] Christine (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What, behind the rabbit? It is the rabbit! Hey M3, I don't suppose you feel like having a look at I. M. Pei at FAC, do ya? (The rest of you are welcome to have a look, too.) Run away!! Scartol • Tok 22:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I will look at it, Scartol. Give me a couple days. I'll get there before it goes anywhere. --Moni3 (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No rush. Thanks in advance. Scartol • Tok 19:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary

You know, sometimes I check your contributions just to laugh at your edit summaries. You really crack me up Tex (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As ever, I'm here to please, and engage in perlocutionary acts although for the most part, edit summaries and whatnot turn out locutionary, showing off my own specific brand of inane babbling. --Moni3 (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

So...many...big...words. Brain hurts. APK whisper in my ear 20:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it took me three readings of that damn article to try to figure out what its locutionary author was trying to say. Blah, blah, Gaia. Blah, blah moon. Menstrual life force linguistic word pretzel game. --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Body

I've had this article on my watchlist for years. I haven't watched the episode for about three years, and it never seemed to pack the same punch on repeated watches, but what you've written is a wonderful companion to the actual episode. As I was reading it I could feel the same emotion I felt when I watched the episode the first time around and remembering the death of one of my parents. Congrats :) Matthewedwards : Chat 21:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Internet communications suck and this cannot be expressed properly through this medium, but you really have no idea how much I appreciate your comment here. Thank you very, very much for taking the time to read the article and leave your message.

How cold and stark my reply is. Too bad. I hope you get some glimmer of meaning from it. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also wanted to stop by and say what an absolutely stunning job you did on the article, amazing work. "The Body" is probably my favourite episode of television ever. Also noticed you did the same type of vast improvements on the musical episode as well as "Hush", again, amazing work! Do you plan on doing any other Buffy episodes like this, possibly "Restless" (another absolute favourite)? I'll gladly try to help in the future if you plan on doing so. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Drovethrughosts, and thanks for taking the time to leave your message here. Really. I also added material to "Once More, With Feeling". I just got a book in which three chapters discuss the music in that episode, so I have to read that soon and add what's appropriate. I'm taking a bit of a break on episodes, though. I wanted to do "Family" but I don't know if there is enough thematic and critical reception source material to write that one. Maybe that's just as well. I like that one so much I don't want to have to write it and put it up for scrutiny. If source material is the only criteria for writing these, I might be able to do "Innocence", but I don't find that episode very compelling. "Restless" might have some information on it, so I might consider it. We'll see.

At any rate, thanks very much again for your words. They mean a lot. Let me know if you have any suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hemingway

Hi Moni3. Thanks for the comments over atErnest Hemingway. I don't know how to deal with this in terms of Wikipedia, because the biographers are unclear on the cause of his mental illness. From experience, I know I'm depressed when I finish an article here (and God knows I'm not Hemingway!) but that's totally irrelevant, except I appreciate his description of "blackass moods". I'm wary of using forensic diagnosis, because I don't really understand how reliable it is. Also thanks for pointing out he was a writer - people tend to forget that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Posthumous diagnosis a tricky road to navigate, but I don't think it will be difficult to word the article close to what the sources have to say about him. Just take lots of deep breaths and keep going back to the sources. --Moni3 (talk)

And pass the lithium! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll add something to the article from the sources. I like the Samuel Johnson article, and might add a section about health. First, am taking a break, and a lot of deep breaths. ... and the lithium - thanks for the laugh! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

When you look at a "finished" article, like Samuel Johnson, it all looks obvious and easy, but I can promise you that it wasn't. You have to keep plugging away. Can't remember who it was said that genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Edison – iride scent 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And in the case of Johnson, I've read just about everything written about TS for more than 15 years, and can assure all that no medical article I've ever encountered disputes his diagnosis, and plenty of credible medical researchers endorse it. That's the kind of medical consensus we should have before adding post-humous diagnoses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Hemingway is this: write an article with his name and it'll sell. I've been involved with Am. Lit for more decades than I care to admit - and I think I would have come across this information at some point. Perhaps another century or so, and the material will be available. In my view, it's not yet. But, maybe that editor can make his case. As for pending changes, I haven't a clue how a situation like this would be dealt with - but I guess I should figure it out in case this article lands on the front page sooner rather than later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss my edit there? Raul scheduled it for the mainpage on June 23. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

So much for a nice calm discussion about phrasing on the talk page. Can an FA go on the main page while there's an RfC on content? (I guess so...) --Moni3 (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

caps in quotes

I've changed this more than once:

... writing "(i)t is simply ...

That format is 'intended' for cases where a quoted phrase is incorporated into a sentence in which the case would be wrong; for example:

Sherwood said, "Everyone in the neighborhood feels the same way."
Sherwood attributed the same opinion to everyone in the neighborhood.
Sherwood attributed the same opinion to "[e]veryone in the neighborhood".

And conversely, for dialogue-style quotations where the beginning of a sentence is clipped:

Sherwood said, "If you ask me, it's an outrage."
Sherwood said, "[I]t's an outrage."

It's not necessary (but a comma is) where the quotation is explicitly presented as a quotation. Your sentence could be written as

... writing that "[i]t is simply ...

but this is rarely good style. —Tamfang (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those ridiculously small details I just don't feel like learning just now. I'm perfectly confident with your parentheses bracket capitalization quote changes. It keeps me from grabbing the gun and shooting the monitor. Although, $10 says someone at FAC complains about it. --Moni3 (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If I knew what FAC is I might take that bet, broke though I am. —Tamfang (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC=Featured Article Candidate. Or, better known as All The Things You Never Imagined Would Become Monumentally Offensive to All Readers You Giant Idiot Why Did You Ever Think of Nominating This Piece of Crap Article What Kind of Glutton for Punishment Are You Anyways? --Moni3 (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That acronym is too long for Wikispeak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I left out the swearing. What more do you want? --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Shorten it, add swearing, define the acronym. Have you seen TFLN today? Was it a full moon last night? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No full moon last night. Trust me, I would know. Hooooowl!!! APK whisper in my ear 01:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What were you doing

... in New Jersey? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking of you, as always, Sandy. --Moni3 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil is looking for a good video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Geo-stuff

Question: boring or exciting?

Since you seem to be back around more (and I suddenly freed up some time), I figured I'd ask you what it is that you find so boring about geology sections and (optionally) what could be done to improve them.

It would be really helpful, because as an "expert" (more or less), I lost some of my authority on what a non-geologist reader would want to see. Awickert (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Where would you like to have this discussion? About which article? --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have anything in mind in particular - I was thinking more in general. We could talk about something that you've written, if you'd like. I'm going to have family in town starting tomorrow though, so my WP activity will be touch-and-go.

Thanks - this should be really helpful! Awickert (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Neigh

I knew there was a reason I hated origami. APK whisper in my ear 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also disturbed by that image. Let's not try to determine what that says about me. --Moni3 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, this is why I like you. APK whisper in my ear 05:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it destroy the illusion of our respective identities if I told you how much I think about you when I post these random tidbits? An awful lot. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Missed that. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh. No worries. I saw the edits the guy made and I didn't pay close attention to them at the time to fix them. On to another day... --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

You've been really helpful, and I love the humor! Just wanted to thank you. Clearly I was starting to hyperventilate, but am now back into article writing mode. Haven't a clue why I chose Hemingway to work on other than the article was a mess and I happened to have a biography on my bookshelf. Never expected to see it on the main page (especially with experimental software on a dry run). Anyway, thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

With main page day comes the realization of just how stupid we really are for trying to improve articles. I spent half the day when To Kill a Mockingbird was on the main page floating on a tube down a river. I let other folks deal with the vandalism, which, apparently was prolific. The uber-vandal 4-chan collective idiot Grawp hit the article, somehow posting a composite image of Goatse.cx in it. Good times.

Anyway, I think you handled it well. It was kind of confusing with the new system, but overall not too terrible. Wait another day for day-late readers to catch up then start cleaning up Hemingway. Let me know if you need any more help. I don't quite know what I can do, but I'll see. --Moni3 (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Between you and Maria, the talkpage is pretty lively, which is a nice change. I'll wait for a little while to let the dust settle. If the biggest problem with the article (after 97,000 views) is the cats, I think the damage is minimal. Funny that, about not liking certain writers. I loathe (loathe!) Faulkner. Tried working on The Sound and the Fury but had to stop. I'm trying to work on Pound now - interesting guy in a weird sort of way. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad Romance

Do you think its time to steam roll this baby through Pr and then through FAC once? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That song is a tart, a tease. The video is toxically enticing. I am responsible for the majority of hits on YouTube for that video. You are a peddler of opium! Coming here and wafting this article under my nose, like a bottle of Thunderbird to someone who badly needs to get drunk. Have you no shame?

This doesn't mean I won't participate in the PR for it, though. --Moni3 (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel the same way watching this scene. APK whisper in my ear 15:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It was at that point I felt Lady Gaga's direct line to the Vatican was going to start flashing. Taking her cues from "Like a Prayer". Now, this is like reaching the top of a roller coaster and it just shooting right the fuck into awesomeness. Where the lights turn on and the fire and I'm just like that dude. --Moni3 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

I have responded to your comments on The Political Cesspool's FAC nomination, and have made changes accordingly. Feel free to take another look. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Will do. Give me a few hours and I'll return. --Moni3 (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Gay

Just a reminder, please don't forget to remove the pending changes protection from a page after you move it back to semi. Thanks. 山本一郎 (会話) 23:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I asked for help on the Talk:Reviewing page. I know I missed something but I don't know what it is. Is there a manual for admins about how to do this? I looked around and couldn't find it. I went to the IRC channel and no one answered me. --Moni3 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's on the same page where you add traditional page protection. It's the third selection box, below the page move selection box when you apply normal page protection, there's a selection box called "Pending Changes", where you can change the page's pending change protection status. Let me know if you still can't find it. 山本一郎 (会話) 23:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. That's the place where it would make me feel the most stupid. --Moni3 (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is more of a software design issue. Apparently when it comes to humans and computers, hard to understand software designs make people feel stupid, same cannot be said about bad structural design for a building, or a badly designed kitchen appliance. The approve/disapprove button needs work as well, another example of bad design in WP:PCP. 山本一郎 (会話) 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Well after much effort I decided to move the project to the sandbox as you suggested. I'm using the page's Sandbox, and there is project documentation in the Sandbox's talk page.

While I understand that you may not wish to involve yourself into this project, I would certainly appreciate your personal support in this undertaking. You seem to have encountered your share of hardships on Wikipedia, though I would still like it if, in the end, you helped at least to include lesbianism in the article. I strongly feel it's too centered towards male homosexuality and perhaps could use a woman's touch.

I would also appreciate your coaching throughout the project. You have attempted this before and I would be a fool not to want to learn from your experience. I would like it if you looked at the project I've outlined and comment on it.

I've also posted notices in several talk pages alerting other groups of the projects, perhaps I will be able to gather more positive contributors who would be willing to work in a structured manner.

Thanks for your help.

Pdorion (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Your very helpful feedback on the Confirmation bias article is much appreciated. And you made me chuckle, which doesn't often happen in the review process. ;) Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you adopt me Moni3?

Hi there, I'm VERY new to all this but came across you on the Adoption list and you seem cool. Would you mind considering me for adoption? I'm a phd student studying theatre and cultural studies and I have interests in gender and sexuality studies, street theatre and performance theory. I'm taking a crash course on wikipedia this week and could use all the help I can get. warm wishes CG 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiagrant (talk • contribs)

Heya. What are you looking to accomplish? What kind of advice can I give you? Are there any articles in particular you are hoping to write or improve? --Moni3 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the response. is there a easier chat function? or is a chat possible through something like msn? or do we just post back and forth on here? (CaliforniaGrant 21:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Californiagrant (talk • contribs)

Hahah! Easy communication on Wikipedia! Stop it. You're killing me! *cough* No, this is it.

Tip: at the end of your post, type four tildes ~~~~ and it will sign your posts for you when you hit "save page". Generally on talk pages, conversations are threaded. Responses to posts are indented. Start your next post with two colons and your reply will be indented, which can keep going until it knocks your browser out of whack, and then the discussion will return like a typewriter without the *bing*. At any rate, on to your vision. What would you like to do on Wikipedia? --Moni3 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record... Scartol • Tok 03:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Singin' revisited

Hi Moni, I saw the above thread and went, I want Moni to adopt me too! Actually, what I really want is a change of pace. Living in Idaho can be kinda tedious; I agree with the guy on Last Comic Standing last week who said that everyone in NYC thinks Idaho is in the midwest. What he missed, though, was that everyone in Idaho thinks that people who live on the east coast have these glamorous lives so I'd really like to move to Florida and not have to live in perpetual toddlerhood and watch Sesame Street (although I write about it on WP) and Yo Gabba Gabba and Blue's Clues everyday. I know what you mean about one's life driving you to think in run-on sentences. But you probably don't care about all that. The real reason I'm writing you, dear Moni, is to ask about Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas. Did you ever finish your copyedit? I'd really like to have the status of a Moni3-copyedit so I can resubmit it to FAC. Thanks for letting me share. Christine (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I dated a guy from Coeur d'Alene. They grow 'em big out there! APK whisper in my ear 05:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hee hee, I live just two hours south, in Moscow! Pronounce it correctly, please: Mos-ko--as in, There are no cows in Moscow. Christine (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Christine, you don't need any adoption and certainly not from me. Someone on the east coast may be living a glamorous life, but I'm living under a bunch of expansive live oak trees in 90% humidity and heat that can only be compared to the temperature of Balaam's ass. No country clubs or hobnobbing with Palm Beach celebrities for me. I kinda like it, though.

Anyways, thanks for the reminder. I actually tried to get back to it yesterday, but I got distracted. I'll do my absolute best to take care of it today. However, I have to wonder how you had the motivation to continue posting after you clicked that link. If I click that link I'll start laughing so freakin' hard I'll be done for the day. That was my motivation. Nothing else is very important after the beatboxing Trololo dog. APK, my imagination boggles. --Moni3 (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I only listened to it once! I hafta admit, the weather here in good ol' Moscow can be quite nice. Everyone was complaining yesterday about how hot it was, and it was in the mid 80s, with bright sunny Northwest skies. I probably live in the prettiest area of the country. When I'm not overwhelmed by my life, I like it here too. I'm feeling better about things today. I appreciate the offer to help me with the article, you rock as always. Christine (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

HGraphite / Buffy

Hey, just to let you know that user:HGraphite may be a sockpuppet with a history of dodgy GA nominations and reviews (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gabi Hernandez). Of course, that has no bearing on whether or not Buffy Summers is up to the standard or not, but just wanted to let you know.--Beloved Freak 11:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to do? I don't believe by looking at the sources that this article is ready for GA. It lacks comprehensiveness and external sourcing. That's the first thing I was going to address to the nominator, but if this is an issue with the user instead of the article, if you or some other folks want to handle it, I'm ok with whatever you guys want to do. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Looking at the history, it doesn't look like the editor has really made any meaningful changes to the article, so even if it turns out they're not a sock, they may not be in a position to address any concerns you have. I suppose you can review as normal and either fail it straight off (if that's what you would have done anyway) or put it on hold and wait to see how the SPI pans out. On the other hand, you may not want to take the time to do a review if no one's going to be using it. Of course any review would be useful to editors down the line, but it might feel like a bit of a waste of time if there's no one there willing to put the work in. If that's the case, I would leave it as under review for now, see what the SPI says and then just remove the nomination without a review if indeed they are a sock.--Beloved Freak 12:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but I was going to review it before I saw your name Moni and I've already started to find a lot of problems. I haven't visited this page in awhile, but it has gone significantly downhill since the last time I viewed. I know the editor who put a lot of work into that page and they rarely come to Wiki anymore and it shows. There were unnecessary non-free images added, poor language usage, and quite a bit of original research included. If this article was legitimately nominated then the person in question must not have a lot of experience with GA articles because of the amount of problems on it. I think the article needs quite a bit of work if it is going to be passed into GA status. The prose itself needs major fixing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know that said user has now been indef blocked as a sock.--Beloved Freak 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I'll open up the GAN for a few days to see if anyone else wants to take it on, but if no one responds in a few days I'll close it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Buffy Sources

Could you point out which sources need to be replaced? Would that be all of the ones that are cited for episodes, and the novels? HGraphite (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hug

Sorry to hear that the Buffy FAC has got you down. It feels like this damned place keeps devouring the people I most enjoy seeing on the Watchlist. Take a break if/when you need to, but please don't burn out. Have a donut. Scartol • Tok 02:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeay, Scartol! I hope you love donuts and comfort as much as we do, Moni. :) Willow (talk) 02:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry too that the FAC hasn't gone well. I just popped in to see how it was going and saw that you're withdrawing. I'm sorry that you're maybe not getting what you want from Wikipedia at the moment, but you did an amazing job with that article, and the other two Buffy ones. There is a lot of value in the work you do here, regardless of gold stars.--Beloved Freak 08:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Kids, kids. Don't be sad. My blood pressure resumed its normal "barely registers" level not long after I gave FAC the finger. Over the past two nights I worked on a difficult and technical drawing of something I love--faces and shadow--and it came out very nice and I didn't need anyone else to tell me it did or where it's horribly flawed and no Tyrannosaurus Rex screamed that it doesn't FOLLOW the RULES RAAAAAWWRRRRR!!!! making me want to invoke the harmful spirit of Punchmaster. It just kicks ass and it's the first time I've drawn for over two years I think. And I found Spaghatta Nadle last night. Spaghatta Nadle is my god now, and it will reign in heaven with Trololo dog.

I think it's probably worth it to have a discussion somewhere about nominator and reviewer burnout while I still care about FAC as a system. Here would be a fine place, but it can't turn into a Buck Up, Moni You're So Awesome session. That's not constructive for the system as a whole and it makes Moni think you all sleep on a bed of lies. Lies! --Moni3 (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we could forestall that discussion til August? Hugs, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can assure me I'll still care by then. --Moni3 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad Spaghatta Nadle has helped! That little plucky fellow is stress buster personified. On the matter of FAC, however, I don't know what to say. My last few have been great, but when I see other reviewers/nominators taking a beating, it makes me wonder. There's so much emphasis on creating cookie cutter articles that have been bludgeoned by various MOS guidelines and broad criteria that some have lost all sight of academic integrity. GAC is heading in the same direction, as THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CRITERIA OMG seems to be a defense against hurrr common sense editing. I think it's awesome that you're less arsed about getting a shiny gold star/ugly green thingie, but it's a shame that there are others (who obviously care too much) who have taken your place. Blargh. María (habla conmigo) 13:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I've felt the same way sometimes, and wondered why on earth I actually nominated article X when I'm really not that interested in getting feedback from people who know nothing about the topic. If you're happy with the article and are uninterested in getting it on the main page (or reaching some arbitrary personal goal) then there's no real "reason" to go to FAC. I don't know of any "cure" for nominator burnout other than to take a break from nominating. I'm going to leave this FAC up until tomorrow in case you change your mind, but no pressure. Karanacs (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If I must edit about topics that I care deeply about (and I must or I am not interested), then I must write the articles to please myself. Fully admitting all my personal flaws, my experiences at FAC recently make me think the process is no longer about improving articles but placing obstacles in the way of article writers to meet a set of arbitrary criteria that indeed defy common sense and the benchmark of brilliant writing. I have purchased the materials for the article in question, read everything I could on it, enjoyed writing it, and expended satisfactory effort in doing it, so my primary goals have been met. While I think it would be nice to draw some attention to the article and have it serve as an example of what others in the series could be like, I have to focus on what the primary goal is. To offer it to a review process that is unnecessarily pedantic and detracts from the quality of the article can only mean that the article is better off not being reviewed. Readers get a better article, I get to meet my primary goal, and Spaghatta Nadle and Trololo dog benevolently watch over the land of joy and happiness and infinite joyness. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I'm extremely sorry for upsetting you with my review, Moni. It wasn't my intention at all. :( Matthewedwards : Chat 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Settle down, cowpoke. Do not carry the burden of guilt. Some of your comments made sense and if I hadn't been harboring the Punchmaster, I probably could work on them. I might still after the FAC is archived. The purpose of the proposed discussion is somewhat to find out if other nominators are experiencing extreme emotional fatigue. If not, perhaps I should invest in (more) Valium salt licks to place around my various barns and stalls. Feel free to add to the discussion about the system and your experiences, but sleep like a tiny exhausted infant. --Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when did I say "You're So Awesome"? I just wanted to get rid of some of these donuts before they get all stale and moldy. Anyway, The Punchmaster is the most awesome thing I've seen in months. You're so awesome for introducing me to it. Scartol • Tok 15:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not, thank you, but I did not want my talk page turning into what happened the last time I had to take leave of the swarm of angry rabid bloodthirsty bear-bees that chased me away from Wikipedia so I could know some kind of peace and tranquility. You owe Moni $18.72 for introducing you to Punchmaster. Don't make me call Punchmaster to settle. --Moni3 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Concrete question: linking Kant to Hollywood is both fascinating and dangerous (who would believe Buffy is so ... deep?) I think the section about Kant should be attributed to the author of Buffy the vampire slayer and philosophy , but in the text it's attributed to Scott Stroud. Does the book have separate essays? Just wondering so I don't screw it up. If Stroud is the author, do you mind if I pull that attribution up a sentence of two and add the title of the book? If Stroud isn't the author, but South is, I'll fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

South is the editor of a collection of essays of which Stroud authored the link between Kant and Buffy. I, too, was surprised to see Kant and Buffy together. The depth of published discussion about Buffy is at once very funny and astonishing, particularly for a show that spits out such mindbenders as "That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, bingo!" I might take a collection for a tattoo so I can get that statement across the back of my neck for all to read and despair. --Moni3 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mind if I add the title of the book? For someone who knows nothing about Buffy, something about musicals and Kant and Hollywood, I'm finding this to be a little interesting. Sometimes those writers are actually up to something out there, and their work shouldn't be minimized. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't resist. Found the essay title and added it. Hope you don't mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Have to bail on the talkpage. It's not going anywhere and the other people in the my life want attention. I'm neutral in the sense that I don't know the show, and in the sense that I know what I want to read in a TV show article. Background is nice to have. I think without the songs the plot could have been trimmed a bit; but because it's a musical, simply don't see where you can trim. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate any efforts to improve the article. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Rock Award

I award this AMAZINGLY formed, and truly DIFFERENT malachite specimen from Katanga Copper Crescent, Katanga (Shaba), Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaïre) with malachite piled up 5 CENTIMETERS on the matrix, in an incredibly sculptural accumulation of small botryoidal forms, to Moni3 because she 'rocks!'. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Casliber, I appreciate this, but I am not sure why it's here. What um....what's the reason for this? --Moni3 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Think context (i.e. tribulation of some duration and reams of text) - and the time the award giver and receiver were reversed (thought you'd get the joke straightaway) ..but I also found a pic of a nice rock. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) Looks like I have to spell it out...Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

UBX Question

Hi, before I did an MfD, I want your wise opinion on whether you think these anti-gay marriage UBXs violate the content restrictions guidelines? CTJF83 chat 04:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Moni, but I'd say there's no possible way those violate anything. It's not like they're saying "this user believes the filthy fags will burn in hell"; it's perfectly possible to believe in gay rights, but that "marriage" as a concept is derived ultimately from biblical law and thus only possible in an heterosexual relationship. Since this is the legal position in about 90% of the western world, you'll be laughed out if you try to MFD them, especially given that these people are all left untouched. – iride scent 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok...there was this though, not sure how it was refactored. CTJF83 chat 17:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ctjf, my apologies for being sidetracked. Like categories and infoboxes, userboxes just don't register on my radar most of the time. I figure anyone who defines themselves with a userbox deserves to share the same level of indignation as someone else who becomes offended by such a definition as provided by a userbox. The ones on that list don't bother me a bit. I would not initiate an MfD for them or support one. Wikipedians everywhere are welcome to disagree with my gayass marriage, providing I don't have to marry them. --Moni3 (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (or Eve and Evette)!! Can I get a witness? APK whisper in my ear 18:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just ignore the UBXs...btw, APK, I liked your other, new pic better ;) CTJF83 chat 18:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive (film)

Your comment on edits to Mulholland Drive (film) causes me to question whether you've actually watched the movie. The description you reverted was, in fact, action, not interpretation. It's simply not important enough for me to continue, but I wanted to say that the "justification" you've put forth for reverting the description I provided is a strawman up the yin-yang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.124.242 (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Are you single? Send me your phone number. I'm into being degraded and talked down to lately. We could have a torrid affair.

I watched the film every day for about 45 days, sometimes not sleeping but 2 hours a night. So yes. I never watched it. I just got constipated one day and decided to go out and write an article on a film I'd never seen. --Moni3 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, and if I were, I wouldn't be interested, I like 'em older. Every day for 45 days, but never saw it? Now THAT does make sense :-)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.124.242 (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. We can trade Justin Beiber gossip, talk about Twilight, and you can make more assumptions about me and my experience with the topic and Wikipedia. Being forced to choose between Edward and Bella, I'd choose a gun. I picture you as a Jacob fan. His abs are so dreamy. --Moni3 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it was soo awesome when she went to have dinner at the vampires' house and they were cooking Italian food with plenty of garlic and that totally made sense.. And then the final fight scene in the movie took place in a dance studio, with mirrors everywhere and all the vampires totally showed up. I mean DUDE! Scartol • Tok 14:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Two things

First: Lol wut? Second: during your extensive studies about the Everglades, ever come across a fellow by the name of Guy Bradley? After having read about him in this month's Audubon magazine, I found his article yesterday -- a lonely one-line stub and orphan. I'd like to expand it further, but I don't know if any Everglades-related articles could link to him without it seeming out of place and crufty. He's certainly notable enough for the area. Any ideas? María (habla conmigo) 15:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I came here because you posted. FYI anyone else, I'm taking the weekend off. Anyways, yes I've read quite a bit about Bradley. I heard about him the first time when reading information about Marjory Stoneman Douglas, who wrote a short story about him that was printed in the Saturday Evening Post in the 1930s . "Plumes" was the name of it and you can find it in Nine Florida Stories. More info about Bradley (whose article I did not know existed) is in Michael Grunwald's book The Swamp, and Jack Davis' biography of Douglas An Everglades Providence, not to mention Douglas' Everglades: River of Grass. There are some less scholarly sources that relate the history of some of the nuttier characters who lived in the Everglades like rum-runners, crazy people who wanted to live out there, Seminoles, etc., and these compilations are like quirky anthologies of odd histories...kind of like when you go to St. Augustine bookstores and see the shelves of ghost stories, but Bradley is almost always included. Charlton Tebeau also wrote some histories of the tiny hamlets that sprung up around the coasts and in the Everglades. I can't recall if he covered Bradley, but I have a couple of his books and if you remind me next week, I'll check them. I included Bradley in Draining and development of the Everglades, in this section. Feel free to link him. I'm gonna go have a sunny weekend and come back next week to do more Wikipedia stuff. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Moni, thank you! You're a gem. We have some of these books in my department, so I have no idea how I've not heard about this dude until now. I'll be working on it. Have a lovely break and (hopefully not too sweltering/stormy) holiday! María (habla conmigo) 16:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello?

Moni, I know that you've been distracted by Buffy, but you never answered my question! Perhaps you missed it, so this is me being Who-like and yelling out, "I'm here! I'm here! I'm here!" No, I'm sure you just didn't see it. But what do you think? Do you think Singin' and Swingin is ready for another FAC? Do I dare risk people being mean to me like they've been to you? Maybe I'm naive, but I can't see why anyone would have issues with it, since it's one of my typically well-vetted articles. Let me know. I've been very motivated to edit for this project lately, having worked on two DYK-eligible articles in the last month. Christine (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed it, sorry. I don't think I'm a good judge of what's ready for FAC lately. You should ask Scartol, Malleus, or Maria. They would be able to tell you better than I. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BtVS

Afternoon, Moni, one question. the statement, "slowing the tempo as she challenges Sweet not to give her a song, but "something to sing about"." was challenged during the FAC- I'm almost certain this is supported by Attinello, et al., pp. 226–227, but the copy of that book is checked out and Google Books only wants to show p 227. Can you confirm I'm on the right track, because I've read through all the other books, and couldn't find it anywhere. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Attinello, pp. 226-227 references the musical structure of the song, but also states on p. 226 "Here Buffy faces Sweet's challenge and bluntly demands he give her 'something to sing about'." Buffy looks directly at Sweet when she sings "Give me something to sing about", and both Anya and Tara dance backup behind her when she sings these lines. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, from seeing page 227 I knew it had to be from there. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Arrgh. What a pain- I'm having no more luck than you did finding anything that discusses the 2008-2010 sing-alongs after they happened. Houston, Tuscon, San Diego, San Francisco... but they're all in expectation of the event- some that night- rather than after reports. You would think there would be a throw-away mention of them in reports on San Diego's comic con, but if there are, they are amazingly well hidden. Courcelles (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked Lexis Nexis, Factiva, the Los Angeles Times, Variety, TV Guide, TV.com, Amber Benson's blog (she does have a Twitter pic of the Houston event, but it's the audience)...I could not find sources to verify that the sing-alongs still take place and how frequent they are. --Moni3 (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, what's to be done- we can cite ones announced in no less than four cities within the last year, but can't find a single RS that proves they actually happened... even though they were noted from as far away as London. This was a fun research problem three days ago, now it's pissing me off. Courcelles (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is to be done. It can't be added unless a reliable source confirms it. These events did not occur. *rimshot* But seriously, no facts unless sources can be found. How notable are they if no one writes about them? --Moni3 (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get that... I just love how people think they're worth mentioning before they happen, but not after. Imagine being able to prove that the Florida Marlins were scheduled to play, had starting lineups, but nothing reporting if the game had happened or not. (Just venting a little- I've read enough articles now in the hope of a sentence throw-away line that I never want to hear "San Diego" and "comic" in the same paragraph ever again.) Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured Topic Everglades :)

Congratulations on your Featured Topic on the Everglades! Slowly developing, shaped by fire and flood, it's beautiful and rests on rock. :) Willow (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a moment of foolishness, motivated by I'm not sure what. The last vestiges of my wanting to receive some kind of legitimacy for the effort I put forth, maybe. I shall appreciate it for what it is. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

To Kill A Mockingbird at fifty

Dear Moni,

Sweetheart, the BBC celebrated the 50th anniversary tonight, [4][5]. An excellent, hour long documentary by Andrew Smith was followed by an uninterrupted broadcast of the film. I thought many viewers will now want to know more, and thanks to you, Wikipedia has the finest article on the Internet. So, the article might see an increase in interest. Unfortunately, Internet users who live outside the UK will probably not be able to see the documentary online. But having watched it with intense interest, I am convinced that your contribution here was very influential. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads up, Graham. TKaM is going through pending changes and this may be an interesting test for it. I'd like to see the documentary and I will try to access it. Thanks for the links, too. I appreciate your other remarks about the article, although they make it difficult for me to blend into the potted plants in the corner as I sometimes like to do. --Moni3 (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find it on a public torrent or Usenet, I can probably give you an invite to a private torrent site. Depending on how you feel about that kind of thing ;) Matthewedwards : Chat 23:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], video (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid31987679001?bctid=85737307001) unknown source, [22], (A Classic Turns 50, and Parties Are Planned By JULIE BOSMAN NY Times May 25, 2010),

What'd I Say

Hi Moni. "What'd I Say" is listed at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending as being a potential TFA for July 13; do you mind if I add it to WP:TFAR? Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Crap. No, go nuts. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, it's here if you want to comment or tweak the blurb. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Random tune for the disillusiioned

Chin up, dear. There are many here that think very highly of you. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Harvey can wear a red dress. I salute her for that. Neat song. Led me to this. Less dress wearing, rocking out nonetheless. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm old enough that I saw Indigo Girls a few times in the early 90s. And um, I look good in a red dress myself...Not as good as Polly, though, lady[23] Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw them also in 1992 and 1993. Antony sounds like Alison. Age... I bought that 45 rpm record when the song was on MTV. (Still have it.) --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you are talking - what a voice, and if you are keeping up she is stunning looking even now. Not that it matters, I never talk to my neighbour I'd rather not get involved[24]. I'm 86 bty, just one year younger than that nice Casliber. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I thought you were going to link to this topical one when I saw that. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh². Everyone knows this is the best part of the best album for the disillusioned. With Edinburgh Man close behind. – iride scent 22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd meet your "Edinburgh Man", and raise with "Friend"s from Kurious Oranj ", but you tube dont got it. This is fairly lonely instead Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Silence! The Smiths can emo like no one's business, and those are disillusioned songs, but none can match the mastery of Gilbert O'Sullivan. I'm calling a cab to drive me to the Golden Gate Bridge. --Moni3 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Gilbert O Sullivan? Jesus Moni get a grip. As regarded disillusioned, my holy grale is [25]. Try and out-depress that, I dare you. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sad. *cough* But a Bee Gees original, so here's $5 for including the Bee Gees. Now you're my favorite person. Ok, so Gilbert O'Sullivan was a novelty act, although a thoroughly depressing one. Having a sunny bright day? This might fix it. Big guns, old school. On the upside, I just downloaded The Raincoats and I shall now try to add Low to my collection. --Moni3 (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I Can See My Whole World Crashing Down surely warrants an honorable mention. Along with pretty much all the output of the (greatly underrated) TVPs. – iride scent 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My master plan has been foiled! I cannot download Low. Curse you, U.S. iTunes! I have been stopped at this definitely not depressing song (per the videoaaaahhhhhh *drool*), this weird thing, and now Low. If I turn out to be an American expatriate, it'll be iTunes' fault. --Moni3 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent - Oh nice - youre the 2nd person I've met who likes TVP. I give you [26]. Makes even a grumpy small town side of a mountain fuck like me smile. Moni, you seem sweet, but my mind is not made up yet about. Could go either way. Prepare. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sweet. I'm a complete whore. However, here's a good "small town side of a mountain fuck" song from back in the day. Catchy, dated, and classic. And quite frankly, a very weird video... Half Man Half Biscuit will grow on me perhaps. --Moni3 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you really set me off, you'll get my "why Amelia Fletcher and Dan Treacey are the true founders of modern music" rant. Getting both of their articles up to something marginally less embarrassing has sat on my to-do list for four years now. (Can't find Hopefulness to Hopelessness on Youtube, but it's well worth digging out if you can find it.) – iride scent 23:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You should consider working on their articles. I've never heard of them, sadly. The link up there is the first time I've heard of the Television Personalities. But hey, who's got Claude King on repeat? I like sharing! --Moni3 (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC) And the Television Personalities, at least the song you linked, sounds heavily influenced by ? and the Mysterians. --Moni3 (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Moni - I'll deal with you later. Iridescent: One of the most dissapointing aspects of this internet thing is the sorry state of the Fall article. Its so literal, did this, then that, fired this and then killed that guy...bla bla bla. Such rich material and, justed, wasted. Re Dan Tracy - have you read David Cavanagh's "My magpies eyes are waitting for the prize" - ony Tracy and oddly the bass player from Ride recover from his forsnisic claws with rep intact. Its a great book, perhalps the best survey of 80s/90s UK indie. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My first ever logged-on edit was on Amelia Fletcher's backing vocalist. (Christ, my early edit history makes me look weird.) I looked at getting Amelia's BLP (or at the very least Talulah Gosh) up to a respectable standard, but the sources just aren't there unless you're prepared to wade through thousands of back issues of Melody Maker. The TVPs are more problematic; Dan Treacy is a BLP nightmare (albums recorded in the infrequent breaks between prison sentences and rehab sessions), while another of the band is one of the most obnoxious people I've ever met. – iride scent 23:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"a complete whore" - Har, you are my kind of people. Good on ya; Viva Moni. [27] - I awlays think of the fat man (TFMWNCB) singing that. He was the supream troll, such finess, and we hardly knew him <shrugs>. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Talulah Gosh? Fold your arms, pesant. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't decide if this thread makes me feel old, more depressed and disillusioned than I already was, or aggravated that I'm tone deaf. Maybe a mixture of all three... Courcelles (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have something to share with the class, Courcelles? Share time is now. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and a gratuitous plug for The Aislers Set. Moni and Ceoil, you ought both to like them. – iride scent 00:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Its new to be and I love it. I get the impression Broken Social Scene have been listening. Just for the hell of it. The early 80s goth snare, bass and corus pedal are so funny, but still what a great haunting song. & Elizabeth Fraser is a fox (but not as hot as you Moni, im my imagination). Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw this out there just because the last five lines or so have been stuck in my head all day. Courcelles (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to reply to the Moon Wolf song, except it's interesting. I like the Aislers Set and Cocteau Twins as well. So, in the interest of randomness, here's a crazy Canadian chick singing a pretty song, and these guys. Both favorites. --Moni3 (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

O am I impressed by Jane Siberry. There is great emotion and colour in that voice - have some Emmy Lou Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Only the crazy are the most impressive. I like Vienna Tang now, thanks Courcelles. Never heard that before. Emmylou Harris gets into sacred territory. Red Dirt Girl, too. --Moni3 (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See thats why I like the internet, always a great tune around the corner. Speaking of hot, Lucinda Williams does it for me. Later Moni. Ceoil (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I own Blue by Lucinda Williams. I like themes. Let's go with Love is Blue, Blue Angel, another Blue, Blue Eyes, Blue Jean, and this lolwut? version of Blue Velvet. --Moni3 (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Ambulance Blues, Vampire Blues, Am I too blue (Lucindia), Pale Blue Eyes (Another Lou), lovely reprise, Cocteau Twins, Block Party. Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

aaah fuck. I go off and do chores on a wet sunday which might have been better spent inside and you fuckers sling up so many youtube thingumijigs I can't keep up!!!! I do rather like those Television Personalities chappies - never heard of them before. I must say though overall y'all'd get on more with my wife musically - she likes more cerebral/acoustic/indy/thoughtful music but would never read a wikipedia talk page in a pink fit. I most often listen to music with my id rather than superego, so mindless primitive chants such as this or any one of its numerous remixes, especially this rather good one by JG Thirlwell I just love...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Re;Image

If you want you can upload it, I copied it from another site ages ago and edit the sign routinely, so I'm not sure about the whole copyvio mess. Soxwon (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh then certainly it will be deleted in an instant. However, I did get a pretty good chortle from it. I should make one...I have enough pictures of my cat and dog around. Of course, although I took this picture I did not make it a lolcat. That kind of got away from me what with the internet and all. I wonder what copyright tribulations that might cause... --Moni3 (talk) 02:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I read some of the comments. ("kitteh sez ‘ju git yor hed daon in tehr an sniff reel gud wot u did. Dass wot mii haz 2 putz up wif wen u doan kleen mai bawx regulah!’ nao u noe y eye poopz een yor shooz!") What is this language they speak? Kids these days, with their new-fangled arcade games, power window locks, cellular telephones, and antibiotics. Get off my lawn! APK whisper in my ear 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, feel free to use this one as I it is entirely mine: (not sure when one could use it, but hey, you never know). Soxwon (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A set of Malleus-themed lolcats. Maybe that will bring some levity to the pantywad discussions. That's half worth thinking about.

I has a rage, purr.
I'm in ur Wikiz, questioning ur admin authoritiez.
Ceiling Malleus is watching you block editors unnecessarily.
My profanity, let me show you it.
Is not to block for arguing your point, kthanxbai.

This is relevant to my interests.... --Moni3 (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'm game and I have a cat to pose :D. Soxwon (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, my fluffy meme died in November. Set your cat to work. "Pout, baby, pout!" --Moni3 (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, can you remove the autoblock that seems to be on Malleus' account? Soxwon (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'll admit I'm an idiot and all, but I can't find Malleus on the Special:BlockList. Searched for his username four different ways. I see Rodhullemu's block, but not Rod's block of Malleus and not my unblock of him. What gives? --Moni3 (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Xeno mentioned it on my talkpage, guess he took care of it *shrugs*. Malleus just mentioned that he didn't think he could edit. Soxwon (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Moni in future you can preview the {{unblocked}} template on a blockee's userpage which has an autoblock finder linked within it. –xeno^talk 15:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice

An arbitrator has correctly noted that you are a party to a case listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case; you are invited to comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moni, in case you missed Ncmvocalist's note above, I'm leaving another note here. I normally like to wait until all those involved in an incident make a statement at RFAR before deciding whether to decline or accept a request (and arbitrators who have yet to comment might similarly be waiting). In this instance, I am actually going to decline the current request, but will say that I've left a note here for you in case you still wish to add a statement that might give more insight into what happened here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw it. What do you want me to say? --Moni3 (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to say anything, that is up to you. But at the moment people are arguing there in part over an action you took, and it helps the arbitrators to get a better idea of what was going on if you make a statement. It may be that you've said all that you want to say elsewhere, but it is easy for arbitrators and others to miss that, and we also like to hear from people themselves rather than rely on what others have to say (since what they say might misrepresent things). If you do respond to this, please remember that not everyone commenting at the request will be reading your talk page (though one editor has already pointed out your reply to me and commented on it negatively, which goes back to what I was saying about people misrepresenting what is happening here). Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Negatively? How can that be? Every day someone--particularly from ArbCom--does not comment on my talk page is another day I collect an invisible "Thank You for Shutting the Fuck Up Barnstar". Shutting the Fuck Up is something in which I excel beyond compare and I'm proud to say it. I read some of the comments at the AN thread about involved admins and cabals and it was much more pleasant to engage the Muzak generator in my head to play "Girl From Ipanema" and stare cross-eyed at the wall. Someone at AN said I should be worried, which was most puzzling. I assume s/he said it to warn me about my admin status, but the caution instead worries me that someone assumes I make decisions or my identity is based on admin status. What really worries me is that I have three high profile articles this week; two on the main page and one major anniversary. Not that I assume anyone spends any amount of time pondering what makes Moni tick, which is evident in the commentary about my motivations in this incident. These assertions that I'm part of an FA cabal or I'm too involved to make a lucid decision are quite cheap and lazy, but who needs to be told that?

Here's the reality: Malleus doesn't listen to me. He doesn't follow any example I set (during the times I do not engage Punchmaster) nor take into consideration the fact that I get a pile of shit when I unblock him. So what? I know that when I do it. It was a bad block. It takes no effort to perceive this to be some kind of symbiotic relationship, but the same amount of effort (none) is put into reading ongoing dialogue we have every time he gets into these scrapes. It's a cabal! Moni's too involved! are harrowing exhibits of ignorance and simplicity. And hey, thanks guys! for bracketing me in with people who love to play politics. You may also assert with the same confidence I hate it when men stare at my fake boobs and book-larnin' keeps gals like me from getting dates with wealthy eligible bachelors.

In the basic pedagogical tenets that I picked up in my illustrious career as an educator, the first step in dispensing any knowledge is ascertaining what your audience already knows then building from there. If one approach does not work, try another and do not attempt an unsuccessful approach again. Malleus does not respond to dictatorial declarations and arrogant warnings. Taking into account his block log, he does not respond to blocks either. So change the tactic. I surmise it may be more difficult to initiate a conversation, tamp down that "Grrrrr! You have negated my authority!" feeling, but ask him why he disagrees, allow the blue words to fall by the wayside and be forthcoming with an apology. I've seen him be reasonable, even with editors he has told to fuck off. It's my guess that most of the more dogmatic admins who insist Malleus retract statements and who try to impose civility over him are not interested in engaging in a dialogue because it will force them to question their beliefs. It is, however, a conversation that should be had.

If anyone cares,^{[dubious – discuss]} I did not know Rodhullandemu had been blocked when I unblocked Malleus. If those who are protesting my unblock because it did not follow bureaucratic process in asking the community's permission, that makes no sense. It was a bad block made in a heated moment, it had no value for protecting Wikipedia, and I overturned it. Half the admin community seems to hate Malleus and any process of asking them for their input would surely have brought in aspects of past behavior that were irrelevant.

No barnstar for me today...STFU fail. Curse you all. You are, however, more than welcome to engage me in conversation here on my talk page. It would go miles beyond the simple characterizations of my actions in a potential ArbCom case. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't listen to you Moni3, but it's certainly true that I don't follow your example. I've noticed with some quiet amusement that as the interminable discussions surrounding this episode have dragged on, Rod's initial blocking is being swept under the carpet, and attention is switching to you and Floquenbeam, who would not have needed to get involved had Rod simply conducted himself in the way that an administrator should. I think the half of the admin community who hate me do so because I have no regard for their "authority", and they feel that I don't treat them with the respect they think they deserve. My view, on the other hand, is that I treat everyone with the respect they deserve, not the respect they think they deserve. Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is rather that you don't listen to me or others who try to plead with you with reason and affection. I'm not terribly hurt by it; that would suggest that I think all my advice should be heeded--or that I'm in any position to be giving out advice. That's just foolish and self-centered. These recurring conflicts seem to me to be very rigid people demanding others be flexible. You are in many ways as rigid as the admins who come to your talk page demanding that you take their comments with due contrition and reverence. None of you are one-dimensional yet you treat each other that way. In my view, that's because it's simpler than calming down and finding the true motivation behind poorly constructed angry comments. What could I possibly do to change your behavior? That's not rhetorical. And is it my place to attempt to do so? Especially when I also lose my patience more frequently than I have in the past? I don't have any answers that seem good for me. I'd be more skeptical of anyone else who offers answers derived from neat and tidy conclusions. --Moni3 (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My analysis is perhaps a little different from yours. I think these conflagrations can be divided into two types. The most common used to be when some officer of the civility police objected me using a word such as "sycophantic", which I dismiss as a childish waste of time. Those seem to have become rarer over recent months, superseded by administrators like Rodhullemu and others making vague threats of future retribution for my saying something they object to, like raising an objection to the automatic resysopping of a returning former administrator in the most recent case. You and and obviously have very different upbringings and backgrounds, and I will very freely admit that I have a strong anti-authoritarian bias. Wikipedia isn't a social experiment as far as I'm concerned, so it's nobody's job to try and change me. Telling me to do something, or else, is the worst possible way of getting me to do anything, but I am always willing to listen to reasonable suggestions from equals. So the real question is this; how do you get administrators to behave like reasonable editors instead of unreasonable policemen? Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you recognize my own rebelliousness manifested in a different form? Moni does not like to be told what to do, how to think, or behave. Moni likes to please herself (not that way, guttertramp), which apparently now involves posting in third person. Otherwise, I understand the frustration of meeting the same behavior over and over. I see it with people new to Wikipedia who don't understand how to cite or write, and again with some of the puffed up popinjays that make the rounds wagging their fingers on your talk page, or, for some bizarre reason, seeking your approval for their behavior. My own recent bouts of impatience are expressions of this, so I really do understand. How many times must one go through the same motions before truncating it all and skipping right to the fuck you part? All I can suggest now is that there are editors who genuinely care for you, who see you go off like a shot and know it won't end well (and then catch a crap sandwich at ArbCom, thanks), who will say, "Hey Mal calm down and maybe rephrase it like this. I agree with your points, friend, but your delivery is killing any chance you may have of changing opinions." A discussion about civility and cool-down blocks (and in my opinion they are the same thing, which is confusing) needs to be had, but this community can't seem to keep from severely delineating people into opposite camps. Maybe there's simply so much information available that we have to make it easier on ourselves. --Moni3 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you Moni3, and for what it's worth I'm sorry you got caught up in this latest mess. I'm also sorry that the real culprit is very likely to get away scot free without any recognition of what he did wrong. I wholeheartedly agree that the issue of cool-down blocks and the civility policy needs to be debated, but first of all it needs to be accepted unequivocally that administrators are just as subject to blocks for allegedly uncivil behaviour as non-administrators. No ifs, no buts. Otherwise the system just looks corrupt, and those arguing to keep it will appear to be condoning that corruption. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moni3, I've been busy defending myself at the RFAR (I took a different tack than you, and am actually commenting there, a decision I now kind of regret), and realized I hadn't gotten around to saying "cheers" to the other criminal on a cross (the third person on a cross, of course, is Jesus). I think I'm safe in saying you don't much care what I'm saying there (perhaps, instead of being wise, you're being very wise and aren't even reading that page), but just in case, I should be clear that I'm just explaining my actions when I say "I wasn't involved in any decision to unblock Malleus, and can't be held responsible for any lack of symmetry", not criticizing the decision, which made perfect sense. I was going to clarify there, but I can't bring myself to edit that page anymore. Anyway, not much to say except "hi", "chin up", and "don't mind me". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think you have anything to defend yourself against Floquenbeam. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; if wikipedia now believes that administrators ought not to be blocked for behaviour that would have non-administrators blocked, then it's a sad day. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to leave a message here, Floquenbeam. In MoniSpeak, that means I'm not sure what to reply. Nothing seems wise. And I have some Wikiwork to be doing today, too... but my talk page is open to discuss the matter. --Moni3 (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No reply necessary, Moni3, I was mostly just commiserating. In a way, I'm apologizing to you, too; I'm fairly confident you disagreed with my block, and I'm very confident that you wouldn't be at ArbCom now if I hadn't done that. You don't deserve this. Not so much an apology that I did what I did, but an apology that you got caught up in the crossfire. Feel free to give me an earful if you wish (you're on the list of people who's opinion matters), or ignore the tempest and get back to wikiwork, whatever you prefer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, shit happens and it happens a lot on Wikipedia. Part of it is that we assume clarity of people's motives when it's nearly impossible to discern them with internet communications. You're right that I would not have blocked Rodhullandemu if only because I dislike blocking. I understand Rod's frustration too, but I got several of my invisible barnstars by not saying anything to him at the height of his disgust. I get very close to being so disillusioned or tired of not getting back what I feel I put in that I have myself been very close to retiring a few times. Iridiscent, per his talk page, is right that it won't really matter if I'm gone or if I stay. (Iri's point is that it won't matter if any of us go or stay, just to clarify he wasn't being specifically mean to me.) I'm not keeping up with the ArbCom discussion. I don't regret anything I did because I'm happy with my decision making process. If sanctions are suggested or carried out they will, in essence, be meaningless for me, which returns to my point about tailoring one's lesson to the audience. ArbCom is being employed to punish or censure when all that is really needed is for everyone involved to have a calm conversation about their differing perspectives and the conflicts that arise when their expectations clash. It is quite possible to have a lively conversation where everyone involved feels they have been understood, apologies go all around, and we come off as better editors for it. Instead we're infantalized with ineffective "shame on you!" statements. I'm afraid the better avenue is available but our collective familiarity with bureaucractic process kills the opportunity. Again. --Moni3 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to deflect the conversation here ... but... eligible bachelors Moni??? My jaw is dropping... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If I entertained you Ealdgyth, my job here is done. --Moni3 (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed

Hi Moni3, and thanks for helping me out with The Political Cesspool's FAC process; your feedback was very much helpful!

Say, I was wondering if you (or another uninvolved admin) could take a look at this AN thread: [28]. I was the one who started the thread (it's a proposed topic ban on a user who has engaged in POV-pushing and personal attacks against me and Oescp). However, due to my obvious conflict of interest as well as the fact that I am not an admin, I am not in a position to close the discussion. It's gotten a fair bit of feedback, and the rough consensus seems to be in favor of topic-banning the user, but only temporarily. Would you mind taking a look at the case? It's currently the oldest thread on AN and still unresolved, which means it needs some attention. If it's not your cup of tea, you could always refer it to another admin. I just came to you because you've been involved in AN discussions before and because you helped me out with my FA. Thanks, Stonemason89 (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the list of topics I've written about? In an argument where a neutral uninvolved admin is needed to assert a topic ban for someone accused of espousing white supremacist POV, an admin with a record of writing African American Civil Rights articles may not seem neutral. I feel for you though, Stonemason. I might back you up on the topic ban only because the guy writes his sentences in Lewis Carroll inspired deliberate obtusity. --Moni3 (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Cornholio FTW

God really does answer prayers. APK whisper in my ear 10:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ann Bannon, the removal of the non-free covers, and your response

Hi Moni. I don't know if we've encountered each other before, but tiny background; I do a considerable amount of work on the project in support of WP:NFCC policy. It tends to be a thankless area, with a lot of pushback against the work done in support of it. A number of editors have burned out from it, and given up. Quite often, I've encountered a sense of entitlement among editors seeking to use non-free content under terms of "fair use". I so wish it wasn't called "fair use" because that term suffers from such massive misunderstanding. Anyway, the removal of non-free content can frequently result in long, drawn out disputes that never seem to amicably resolve.

When I saw the content of today's featured article Ann Bannon, I had no small sense of dread of what would happen when I removed the four covers from the article. There's strong reasoning for the basis of the removal, but such reasoning usually doesn't matter; things devolve quickly. I strongly expected to be rapidly reverted by people interested in this article. That's why I posted a more thorough reasoning on the article's talk page. Even so, I still thought I would be reverted. What I didn't expect was the rationale discourse you placed on my talk page and also on the article's talk page.

I'd no idea who the prime contributors to the article were. I now see that you are the, or one of the, prime contributors. So often I see people abusing WP:3RR as if it's an entitlement to revert. So often I see people abusing WP:BRD, as if it entitles them to an immediate revert if they don't like something (as opposed to having a rational reason why reverting makes sense with respect to the encyclopedia's goals). That didn't happen in this case. With that in mind, I wanted to pass on my thanks to you for handling this issue in a calm, rational manner. Your actions brightened my day! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark this as the last day I'm ever calm and rational. Tomorrow begins my reign of terror and abuse! Babies will be eaten! Fire will destroy your will to live! And all your cats will pee on that one spot in the corner of the carpet!

Well, actually, I'm used to the endless checking of image permissions with OTRS and the various ways the individual editors on Wikipedia interpret fair use policy and gaaaaaaaaaaaa. As an artist, I respect copyrights and try my utmost (with often flawed understanding) of how to post images. I understand it's a thankless task. I hope this is resolved soon. --Moni3 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(to the first paragraph) Cowering in fear! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To remind you, because it serves me so well, you did comment on the article talk page that the content is, ahem, "poor quality", you are "shocked" it was featured, and that it lacked ("glaring") details about her personal life. Would you like to expound on this per my response question? --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There's many times that I look at biographical articles just to get a feel for the person behind what gets portrayed in a news article. The early life section is fine, then it's like her non-writing life went off a cliff and the article then focuses almost entirely on her books and later impact. Who was her husband? His job made them relocate frequently. Where? What was the job? The article mentions children. Who are they? When did she have them? The article mentions a bitter divorce, but there's no depth to that other than it was bitter. There's no mention of when she was divorced, just that she was. There's nothing about her later relationships following her divorce. It's like a great big vacuum exists about her life outside of writing the books. I found the article very empty, from a BLP standpoint. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Her husband was an engineer. That's in the article. Illinois to Philadelphia to Southern California to Northern California. That's in the article. She was divorced in the early 1980s. That's also in the article.

I must be drawn to unique subjects that defy easy categorization. No one wrote about Bannon while she was writing her novels. Her books were not reviewed by magazines. All pulp novels were ignored. She was so secretive that the Daughters of Bilitis thought she and Marijane Meaker (writing as Ann Aldrich) were the same person. Starting in 1980 there was a trickling of re-interest in her books. When they were republished in 1983 a spattering of articles in gay publications. With each article was included one more fact about her. Fiercely protective about her identity while she was still at Sacramento State, she kept rigid boundaries about what she told to interviewers. Part of why I'm fascinated with her is the way she must have had to compartmentalize her life so completely it's as if she were two separate identities. Some of this was imposed upon her by her family and upbringing; other aspects of it she got so used to that it became the way she operated. Since the release of the books by Cleis from 2001-2003, she has offered still a little more about the details of her life. She has not discussed her relationships following her divorce in any depth. She has many friends and no partner/spouse and seems to like it that way.

Where you find it empty as a BLP, I actually find it a good example of the BLP policy in action. Bannon does not publicly discuss her husband or children, and bound by the limits of verifiability, that information is not in the article. (And I'm curious to know how knowing more about her husband and children adds to any understanding about her.) Still, with all this missing, I believe that this article is the best available on her life anywhere. I agree that some components are missing, but nothing really I could add while WP:V and WP:BLP are in place and I have any self-respect. If there are any thoughts you have where some parts of the article could be strengthened within the limits of BLP and V, let me know. I'll go through my sources and see what I have about the details of her life. --Moni3 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we get so used to seeing some of today's celebrities - and celebrity authors - spill so much info on their private lives that it is easy to overlook the fact that 20/30/40 years ago private lives were a lot more private. I worked on Georgette Heyer - about a woman who wrote popular novels, that weren't reviewed by most publications, from the 20s through the 70s. It would have been impossible to write an article on her while she was alive; she never sat for an interview, and her married name was announced for the first time in her obituary. Her readers loved her books but had no idea who she was. The press hated her books and had no idea who she was. Now that she is dead and her son gave all her private papers to a biographer, we know a lot more about her. Ann Bannon is alive, and if she chose to follow the same path as Heyer, we have to respect that. Karanacs (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You know it's hard out here for a Wikipedian

You ain't knowin'. Yo, Moni, thanks for the encouragement on Dude (née Guy) Bradley, without which I wouldn't have used valuable "I'm bored, maybe I should eat ice cream" time to polish up his article. In fact, sans similar encouragement to start work on Benton MacKaye, which I've been putting off for two years, I had ice cream for lunch. I regret nothing! Still, Guy's is a simple little article, and I like it. Not sure if I can stretch it enough for FAC, or even if I want to try, but it makes me happy. María (habla conmigo) 18:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Any day one has ice cream for lunch and it results in a DYK and GA is a day that should be told to grandchildren. Don't even wait for yours, just go out and tell someone's grandchildren. --Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright of book covers

Hi Moni -- I see from your talk page that some paperback cover images have been removed from Ann Bannon as they're fair use. I've used the search page mentioned here a couple of times to prove that an old pulp image was out of copyright; if you have any images still at issue, let me know and I'd be happy to check for you. Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It took most of the day, a couple emails from the subject, another from a professor at the University of Indiana, the assistance of Moonriddengirl and Jamesofur, but the images have been fixed and re-added to the article. Thanks for the assistance, though. I mentioned you the last time I had lunch with Bannon. She was surprised to learn that other editors work on pulp. I even gave her your user name. Not sure if she followed up to see what you have written, though. --Moni3 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm very flattered that you should mention me. I don't know if she has looked at any of the articles I've worked on, of course, but they're mostly sf-related, so she may not be interested. Congrats on the main page for the article, by the way; I know from personal experience it can be a bit harrowing cleaning up the vandalism, but it's still neat. If you ever work on another pulp or early paperback-related article, drop me a note in case I have some sources that could help -- most of my books are either sf oriented or are dryly bibliographical, but I might have something. Oh, and I loved your STFU barnstar idea. I want one: but they only count if they're invisible, I think .... Mike Christie (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to get a STFU Barnstar if one continues to not STFU. Have you been contacted by ArbCom today or been involved in some way in ArbCom? If not, you got a star. Go look at it and rest easy.

It has been reported that HBO has optioned Bannon's books for a potential series. It's in development limbo, which means it could come out busting like The Wire or True Blood, or continue to be in "development" until monkeys fly out of my ass. If it actually comes to pass, I may have to start working on each of the Bannon book articles that I have sadly neglected. As a trashy kitsch hound, there's just something about lesbian pulp fiction that I find irresistible. How can someone not completely love this? Did you just not howl? I do every time I see that. A few of the artists, like Robert Maguire, the bitch-genius responsible for this, I'm also somewhat fascinated with. Someday, with all the time...and resources... --Moni3 (talk) 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The only image like that I have lying around here is a Pierre Louÿs book, repackaged by Berkley at some point probably in the fifties or sixties as Pagan Love Goddess, with an appropriate cover. I have that on a fridge magnet. There's an amusing sideline of Good Girl Art that shows up in repackaging perfectly harmless fiction under suggestive titles, with appropriate covers. Beacon Books did this with some sf titles at the end of the fifties; you can see it in this list -- the Beacon Books titles start at #36, though at least one of those really does have some sex in it. Here is an example of the kind of covers they used; if I recall correctly there was just about nothing titillating in the actual book. Mike Christie (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Odd John. That is a weird cover. Similarly, some of the lesbian pulps were originally hardbacks like Torchlight to Valhalla, which Bannon could have written if she were taking quaaludes while smoking pot. It's just that subdued compared to the spine-shaking intensity of Bannon's writing. Anyway, that vaguely foggy novel got a pulp treatment in this odd cover. There's never anyone cutting anyone's hair in that book so why the publisher decided that would be a good cover is a mystery. My guess is a recycled painting originally made for some other lurid voyeur fest. The best pulp art though is sadly derided when it is simply so good. And often hilarious. --Moni3 (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Song for Moni the Good

Not sure if this made it to the US. I spent my youth thinking about this person. I met her a few times in the mid 90s, but turned to jelly each time. Drat. Ceoil (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a rather nice ambient song...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd never heard that. A bit difficult to get into, but when it transitions it's a very nice song. Scandinavian names remind me of Eva Dahlgren. --Moni3 (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Imawoman2002.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Imawoman2002.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh. I deleted it. I'll figure it out later. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fun for TPS

Use this tool to copy and paste your favorite talk page comments to determine which famous authors Wikipedians write like. Does it work? Who cares? My STFU barnstar comment from above says it's as if Chuck Palahniuk possessed my fingers. ??!!!?!!

Your strawman argument is invalid, Carcharoth/Kurt Vonnegut. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean anything psychologically if you write like someone whose writing you hate? -Floq/Dan Brown. 14:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC) p.s. Holy Mother of God, it gets much, much worse. I tried a different sample of writing and got Stephenie Meyer. I don't like this game. How come I can't be Kurt Vonnegut? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means, except that Karanacs must write interminably long books about the minute details of living in Dublin. James Joyce. I'm going to skip over Karanacs' comments from now on... --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A recent blog post gives me David Foster Wallace. A few sentences I wrote last night at Ezra Pound gives me Kurt Vonnegut. It seems to too fast to analyze, but it quickly links to books at Amazon. Fun though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I had to go into the archives at SandyGeorgia's to find a substantial paragraph, but was well-rewarded to see the first comment posted here...is undeniably linked to ... wait for it... H. P. Lovecraft. --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

...who also wrote Gropecunt Lane (I always knew SandyGeorgia and Malleus were sockpuppets!)... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. Does that mean I've got to give back my bronze stars now? Malleus Fatuorum 15:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I inputted one of my talk page entries, and the response--Dan Brown, too--made me yell out loud: Gah! Mother Mary, am I gonna have to go to confession for that! Then I inputted some text I wrote for a project and I felt a little better: Mario Puzo. Christine (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted this quizy to FB just the other day! Great (and bored) minds think alike. A snippet from a newer article got me Joyce, as well, which made me AHAHAHA WTF. A long, sappy email from Mr. Maria turned out James Fenimore Cooper, who he didn't know of; when I said "You know, the guy who wrote The Last of the Mohicans? Daniel Day-Lewis running around and 'Magua will eat his heart and put his children under the knife' and all that stuff?" all I got was a blank stare, so oh well. Better he not know that he apparently writes like one of the worst American authors evah (according to Twain, of course). María (habla conmigo) 16:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm Stephen King. I'm not quite sure what to make of that. Perhaps that I am demented? Tex (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there some doubt in your mind? Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the back-end algorithm behind this website is the same technology that powers the Online Pregnancy Test. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you may well be right. It's a clever marketing idea though, just wish I'd thought of it first. Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"Congratulations, MastCell! You're "with child". Our remote testing system has detected that you're pregnant. The Miracle Of Life has begun! To see whether your baby is a boy or a girl, click the "View My Baby" button below. "

Well, I guess you know where to find it... --Moni3 (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It should show a pic of a myeloblast for MastCell...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Moni, your note at the top of this this top page shows you write like Doctorow-- Cory Doctorow, that is. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you hated to break that to me at all, although I have no idea who Cory is. He must write superlong sentences. --Moni3 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Science fiction, apparently. And you're right, I did enjoy breaking it to you.

On a similar note: I wrote about a judge's writing about Ulysses. We may assume that Joyce writes like Joyce; the judge’s writing is similar to P. G. Wodehouse, while mine is like H. P. Lovecraft, a practitioner of a branch of science fiction called weird fiction. (Isn’t that a given?) More proof of devolution, or at least the relative competence of writers and critics. Kablammo (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested...

...in seeing the discussion caused by Ann Bannon's TFA. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me a little of the furore when wife selling was featured on the main page. Some people just want to blank out what they either don't believe in or find distasteful. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that is ten kinds of awesome! Kind of makes you want to put on a cowboy hat, take everything else off, and ride a very soft horse (because ow) through the middle of town whooping and waving your hat for all to stare at in amazement. --Moni3 (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Buffy FA and The Signpost

Hi Moni

I'm just writing it up for next week now. I see there's a vid in your FA. To your knowledge, is this the first time a vid has been used in an FA? No NFCC issues raised at the nomination page, I see, except for one quibble about the size. This is an interesting development, perhaps? Tony (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, nope. July 2009 Ürümqi riots has a video, that even got used on the main page. Courcelles (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

American Beauty (film) has a vid, too. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Moni, I'm really happy for you, and I'ma let you finish, but Star Trek: First Contact was the first FA with a non-free video! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

David, I'm really happy for you and a let you finish, but Buffy the Vampire Slayer was the best fantasy/science fiction series of all time. OF ALL TIME! --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Imma let my stan card come up, but this, is the best piece of fantasy/fiction/macabre work of art!!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, Legolas. I very much think Gaga's "Bad Romance" music video puts her right up in the same categories as this, this, and holy shit I think Dali's list of paintings is missing the Ecumenical Council, one of his 2-story masterpieces. This also, this, of course, and well... this. I can't get behind Gaga surpassing these works, but I can certainly support her being in the same class with the power of the overall effect. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You trynna throw shade at me godministrater???

Bring it on! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you just reference Paris is Burning, Paris...DuPree, Paris....DuPree??? --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(→)Nooooooooo. This bitch is on Fiyahhhh! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to say Congrats for the FA. I know you stepped back from it, but you did 95% of the heavy lifting that the star signifies, so (clap clap clap). Oops, am I enabling an unhealthy fixation on shiny egoboo? Meh. Scartol • Tok 11:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Who Are You?

You interjected some comment concerning Malleus Fatuorum and myself yesterday evening on the User talk:Courcelles page. Who are you and what business is it of yours please? --Keith 07:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC) - sorry - I will answer myself, an admin, that presumably picked up on the matter at same time. Just that with some of the low level comments appearing on the Malleus Fatuorum talk from people who I have no idea of, it seemed strange another (seemingly) "unconnected" person making comments on the Courcelles page. sorry to have disturbed --Keith 08:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No one, really. I was not acting as an admin when I posted at Courcelles' talk page. I watch Malleus' page, and obviously Courcelles' as well. I've found since I've been on Wikipedia that it's easier for someone not involved in the dispute to get to the point quicker and if the disputers are willing, help get it resolved. I've been on both sides of the talk page comment myself: both receiving bombastic protests and going to someone else's and demanding an explanation. If you're interested in a resolution, it's easy to achieve. If not, enjoy yourself. --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

but for the last sentence, I woulndt comment. When you see there is little chance of a resolution, leave it alone (i.e. why bother), if not "argue" it out. To retort with a comment of 'which article is it about' is made, then you quickly realise its a waste of effort!. The article stands totally inaptly named --Keith 13:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it proved a point, when, at 2010-07-21T14:05:52 User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum was edited by Malleus_Fatuorum to remove a comment which is diametrically different from the edit on Courcelles at 23:32, 20 July 2010, and resisted attempts to restore it. How can one even try to acheive a resolution under such circumstance. --Keith 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Sure points proven, etc. That doesn't preclude you from going to Malleus' page and posting "Hey, I came on really strongly. I was upset because I don't understand what you did and why. If you explain it, I might be able to understand it and we can work together. I'm sorry for insulting you." I've seen much, much worse insults posted on Malleus' page from an editor who was joking with him about it within 48 hours. Your choice. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Ambition is the last refuge of failure"

Decided to give Mr. Bradley a go. Give it a look if you like, if not -- death by lolcat spam. María (habla conmigo) 14:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a copy edit and I'm watching the FAC. Let me know if I need to check any sources you don't have, or if there are any questions that just pop up out of nowhere.

I have a picture of the Flamingo Visitor's Center...I think. The rock image you have is closer to Homestead. You want me to see if I can find a pic of Flamingo? --Moni3 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Shyeah, that would be awesome. I was also looking for a decent rookery picture, but there were none to be found in the Commons of the Everglades area. I kind of like the stalking egret amongst the Cyprus, though. Much obliged, my dear. María (habla conmigo) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, girl. I am serious. Check this shit out. Florida Photographic Archives Call No. c024876 is Bradley's monument before Donna washed it out. It's under the Florida Department of Commerce so a {{Template:PD-FLGov}} is usable. At Call No. PR20328 you can see his portrait, PD, sporting what I assume is a bitchin' moustache. That site also has images of birds in the Everglades and some of them may be usable, but the harsh reality is widespread amateur photography in Florida occurred after the slaughter of birds. There may be no photographic evidence of the millions upon millions of sky-blackening birds that once lived in the Everglades. --Moni3 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See also Call No. c017446 Audobon tour of Cuthbert Lake. FL Dept of Commerce. --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, Moni, I didn't know those were free! *yoink* You're teh aw3sum. María (habla conmigo) 15:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just gotta find the right ones. Fl. Dept of Commerce collection, pre-1923, or some other ones that are PD. Found a couple rookery postcards that I don't think are usable, but these might fit the article nicely. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about being so slack. (The Body)

Except to see the doctor, I haven't actually left the house since Sunday. (Wonder if I just fulfilled the worst images people get of Wikipedians. Nah, no one deserves a week of feeling like this.) Courcelles (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well....Get better! What the hell? Then when you fix all the other things that need to be done around here, then you can get around to Buffy. No sooner, however. --Moni3 (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When you're up all night coughing, sneezing, and worse, Wikipedia is amazingly distracting. It's actually been conductive to article work, though most of that has gone into lists since the sources are online. Regarding the ratings, if Angel had more viewers that week (the 3.5 number), the Buffy must be third. If Angel's number was lower than 3.5, then Buffy was second for the week, and first for the night. (Rankings within the timeslot can't really be compared between slots, even an hour apart.) And if I'm being a total idiot-I normally am-I apologize in advance. Courcelles (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed the Angel thing right. I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at with the ratings and whatnot. First time I've seen that.

I use time when I'm sick to leave bizarre rambling cold medicine-induced messages on various Wikipedia forums. I suggest you drink half a bottle of the good Robitussin and start a topic about cake at WT:FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks right to me now. As to going on a Robitussin "acid trip", um... 18 FA's versus one- and I don't really deserve credit for that one. Combine the syrup with a good single malt and anything could happen, however. Courcelles (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the exact quote that I did a poor job or paraphrasing, "Joyce represents the “normal life” on the show, and all the Scooby family members look to her to provide them with the comfort of that normal life. After Joyce’s death, this illusion is removed and “normal” life becomes a problem or a trial. Only with Joyce gone, therefore, can the younger characters realize that normal life, with its bills, broken windows, and regular meals, is just as challenging as dealing with the supernatural." Courcelles (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I took another shot at that sentence. Can you state who says The dinner scene, rather than being part of the narrative, is an involution of the fourth season finale "Restless"? Whedon makes it seem as if inserting this scene was primarily about avoiding credits appearing over a vital emotional scene. So if a scholar says it connects back to Restless, that's his opinion and that should be made clearer. --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the sentence, it really didn't fit there at all, did it? It came out of Televised Morality: The Case of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (Though why on Earth we have an article about that book I don't know.) Courcelles (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed necessarily but maybe clarified? Well, I don't know what the source says. If it's an offhand comment, then maybe it should stay out, but if it's a significant point to an essay or chapter, maybe it warrants an explanation. "Restless" was the fourth season finale almost entirely represented by enigmatic dream-sequences. How does the 2-minute credit roll flashback in "The Body" tie into that? Is it more of an issue for "Restless"? --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to photocopy that page, so all I have is my one sentence of notes, "Dinner scene connects with 4.22; Restless. Not an act of narrative, but an act of involution. The text folds back on itself to occlude narrative patterns in order to invoke relationships that have no necessary causal pattern." I have to go down-town tomorrow, I'll try to run by the library and see how important the point was. Courcelles (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

MOBA

Hey Moni dear, here's a story you might like. This year, my husband and I joined Toastmasters together, because after fifteen years of marriage, we had nothing in common. (His reply whenever I say that is, "That's not true!" He knows that I tend towards exaggeration, the dear man.) It's been fun, and I highly recommend it to anyone. Toastmasters and Wikipedia pair well together, I've found. I'm two speeches away from earning my first educational award. Last night I gave a speech on MOBA, and it went over great. People laughed in all the right spots, and I totally nailed the thing. Hubby says it was the best speech he's heard me given. I'm seriously considering entering it in a speech contest, and since it'll be the "Humorous Speech contest," it will be appropriate. Of course, if I end up winning, I can say that I owe it all to you. Christine (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. If you have it printed, I'd like to read it. Which, of course, completely ruins the speech aspect of it. No delivery or timing when I read it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Should I email it? I'm rethinking entering the contest. It needs images, and powerpoint is frowned upon in Toastmasters contests. Too bad MOBA doesn't sell posters or prints. Christine (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have an update for you. I did indeed enter my MOBA speech in the contest, powerpoint slides and all, the first one in the Humorous Speech "tournament". (There are four levels in this competition: the local club, the area, the division, and the district. The top two winners from each level goes on to the next one. Toastmasters' spring speech contest, "the International Speech Contest", which is prestigious within the organization, happens in the spring.) Last night, I took first place with my MOBA speech at my club, so I'll be going on to the next level at the end of September. Not only did I win, I beat this 70-year old gentleman with thirty years of Toastmasters experience, and it was my very first contest! Like the athlete that I'm not, I'm visualizing me going all the way with this speech. As far as emailing you a copy, I want to wait until the process is over. It's a speech and it will change as I go, I'm sure. (Or perhaps I've just been lazy.) How cool is that! ;) Christine (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you rock on with your bad self. Like a champion. Good on you many times over. --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dalí

Had no real luck with online sources. I can't get to a libary until next weekend (and I dont edit mid week), but we have a good city libary with a strong modernist section, and we have a fairly decent 2nd hand art book store, where they know me well by now and at least point me in the right direction if they dont have the stock. Do you know anybody with JSTOR access? I'm seeing usefull things in that database but can't access - I usually ask my 'eternal students' friends, though I prefer not to be drawing too many favours. You might ping User:Modernist and User:Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy), both very strong on mid 20th C.‎ Just mention you have a good Dalí - he did produce a lot of rubbish and in geneal is not very highly regarded today, though some paintings have made it to the cannon. Mention V as a hook. Ceoil (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have JSTOR access and I checked it yesterday. Nothing of real value. If you saw titles you're interested in, I'll check them. Maybe I didn't check far enough. I can do that Monday. The library I use has a few books on Dali, which I checked out. I can also contact the museum to see if they have specific information on the piece from their archives and collections. If they can send it to me, great. If not, I dunno...I might be in for a field trip. I love that museum. Although, to be honest, it does take several walk-throughs to be able to take it all in. The majority of the information I've seen so far on Dali's masterpieces focuses on Christopher Columbus and The Hallucinogenic Toreador. From the first time I saw The Ecumenical Council when I was 17 I thought it far surpassed both those pieces combined, although they are indeed awe-inspiring to see in person.

Are you envisioning some end result, as in an assessment status for the article? --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The page is bugging me, I am normally able to source content on what whatever you like, and believe me the text from that Durer yesterday was pulled from hen's teeth. I want to the text to grow so as to include two of Vel's images. And I want a sunstantial article on a good Dalí that still shows the man as he was and doesn't flinch from the critisms. I suppose in that I have a POV, but that subtext will be subtle, and as I said earlier this is a fine work. Thats an interesting contradiction for me, so I suppose, to answear your question, I'm invested. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The museum is not far from me: about a 3-hour drive and I have JSTOR and other access to databases. I went right to books yesterday and neglected articles and other resources. If you have suggestions, I'll do my best to hunt down specific sources. As I'm mostly unused to researching for art, I'm not quite sure of everything I have access to. There is substantial information on Dali's influence by Spanish masters and other Renaissance painters, but I don't know how I can tie that in to this specific piece of art. Most of the source material attributes the Renaissance and Baroque influences to his entire masterwork movement: the large pieces he completed from 1950 to 1975. --Moni3 (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Velázquez is a household name in Spain, and it worth throwing in that most substantial Spanish artist utilised elements of Las Meninas at some stage. Its a traditiion - see right and [29] as the most obvious. A gallery of the source paintings at the foot would be very illuminating and pretty. Ceoil (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of my readings have been quite enlightening. I was very interested to read how, of all places, St. Petersburg, a sleepy beach community more concerned with towels, flip-flops, and surfboards, secured the museum in the first place. It's now one of the most visited museums in the state with an international reputation and the largest Dali collection in the world. I visited there as a teenager, not entirely knowing what to find. I may have been dragged there by my father, surly and twist-mouthed in protest. I left with a poster of The Ecumenical Council and some insights into European art. I've been back about half a dozen times, always with headache medicine in pocket. Dali's delight in painting with a single-hair brush kills my eyes.

Americans seem to see Dali as a Barnum-type showman, half obsessed with his own publicity, one quarter genius, and one quarter ready for the nuthouse. I read yesterday that Spaniards saw the most emblematic part of Dali--his moustache--as an obvious nod to Velazquez the Inspirer. Americans just see that moustache as Dali being Dali. Although there is an ocean between understanding classical art and modern American popular culture, Dali seemed to bridge that divide easily, and Americans ate it up, as did Dali, who found an audience who wished for nothing more to be confounded and entertained.

Ok. My essay on Dali is over.

Are you suggesting a gallery at the foot of The Ecumenical Council article or the Las Meninas article? --Moni3 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Ecumenical Council. There is already a good summary at the end of Las Meninas that we might cog. I'm amused by you surly and twist-mouthed in protest cmt, I only came to art in my mid 20s. I remember being in Munich in 1991 and 19 when friends wanted to visit some art museum, I forget which. But I fucking refused on the basis that they were being wanky about it. So I stood outside for an hour and a half smoking and looking mean amd moody - I hope. In a way I messed up but in a way I was right I'm still friends with thoes guys but when they talk about pics they are prenentious and dont know their arse from their elbow. Here is a nice tune. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm jealous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Of my money or my sexy bod? --Moni3 (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you *really* need to ask if I could be jealous of a checking acct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What, mine? Absolutely. You can get in line with the multitude who wish to have access to the $28.92 cents I have to offer. My house is, I admit, slightly better than Omondi's. It's my body too, though, isn't it? --Moni3 (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

$25 will get me a manicure. I'm promoting, goddamnit, since Ceoil ordered me too ... stop distracting me with talk of carnal issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Moni, I'm committed to helping Truthkeeper with Ezra Pound, an article very close to my heart, and one that if it passed FAC would be great justice. I know you are very focused and rapid with these things, but can you give me a week or two to pound Pound before I pound Dali. Ceoil (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. Whenever you get around to it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sound. Ceoil (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The Author's Farce

Thinking of running this at FAC again; fancy a read? Ottava suggested I ask you. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll fancy a read. Give me a few hours to get to it. I can't concentrate on anything right now. --Moni3 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded. Thanks for your help! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Everglades photo

Hi, I would like to use Your Everglades photo in an EFL textbook and would like to credit You by name. My e-mail is kdammers at yahoo. Kdammers (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, kdammers. Which image? I've released most of my images into the public domain, so no credit is necessary for most of them. And if you think you really *really* want credit, why not get all nutsy crazy and credit it to User:Moni3 on English Wikipedia? Score one for Wikipedia and I don't really need the credit anyway. --Moni3 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

this is the image: File:Everglades Sawgrass Prairie Moni3.JPG. I know You released the images to public domain, but I still want to give credit. Okeh, I'll use use suggestion. Kdammers (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Best of luck with your textbook. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

This user helped promote The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) to good article status.

Very well done. I hope you;ll take it to FAC soon. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)

Just a few things as I went through the article:

It's always seemed strange that a country that insists on mis-spelling "scepticism" as "skepticism" also insists on mispelling "practising" as "practicing", which looks really odd to me, but so be it.

"In addition to Buffy and Dawn, Joyce served as a parent figure to all of Buffy's friends, whose home lives were often tenuous, thus making her death more poignant to all of them." This sentence needs some work. The way it's written makes it look like Buffy, Dawn, and Joyce served as parent figures to Buffy's friends, which I'm sure isn't what's intended. I'm also not sure what "tenuous" means used to decsribe a home life. Unstable?

"Tara, who has gone through the ordeal before, is acceptance, soothing and helping the others to work through what they are experiencing." I don't understand what "Tanya ... is acceptance" is supposed to mean.

"The goddess Glory is much more powerful than Buffy, but Joyce's death leaves her feeling the most helpless." I'm not following this at all. What's the goddess Glory got to do with any of this? Who is the most helpless? The way it's written makes it seem that Joyce's death has made Glory feeling the most helpless, but that makes no sense.

"Giles also grieves for the loss of a friend and, in one unusual circumstance ("Band Candy"), a lover." "Band Candy" is an episode, so in what sense is it a circumstance?

Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, what can I say? Skepticism...

I took a shot at rewording the points above. If they are still confusing, let me know and I'll try again. The GA reviewer stated the sentence starts in the Criticism section are not varied enough. I'm not sure I agree with that, so I'd like your opinion on that issue specifically.

Thanks so much for the time and effort in the review. --Moni3 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'd agree with that reviewer's comments about the sentence starts, but looking at that section super critically, I might say that there's a slight preponderace of "writes ... write ... writing", so perhaps a little bit more variation there wouldn't hurt. But it looks fine to me as it is. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK NON for The Ecumenical Council (painting)

Hello! Your submission of The Ecumenical Council (painting) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NortyNort (Holla) 04:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For this wonderful article. It is one of my favourite episodes ever. I still watch it time and again. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Legolas. I can also watch this and quite a few other episodes over and over. No one is more surprised at this than me. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for copy editing "Bad Romance". — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Ecumenical Council (painting)

On August 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Ecumenical Council (painting), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure

[30] Just a typical day around here. I was about to say that I haven't been involved in any of those things but, unfortunately, it occurred to me that I was on the periphery of one of those battles, which continues to this day. Tragic, I know. Risker (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I like external validation. Here's a gift for you. Next time you come across someone who has puffed up their own article in very obvious ways, tell them not to be a jerkface unicorn. Srs, jerkface unicorn writes his own articles. Don't be that guy. --Moni3 (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Gah! Scary unicorn! I can quite assure you that I will never (NEVER!!!) write my own Wikipedia article: main reason being that I will never be notable enough for one. At least not if I can help it. Risker (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Body (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)/archive1

Perhaps fittingly, writing up an FAC is more nerve-wrecking than an FLC... or an RFA, for that matter. Courcelles 02:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Do others experience anxiety when creating a new FAC? I do. I just thought it was me.

Ok then. Here we go. --Moni3 (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I always get nervous when doing, well, anything more complicated than blocking a simple vandal or what not. Especally when the first person around finds something that I know I should have seen. This however, was the funniest thing I've seen this week. More of a lie than it could have been... but that's, in my opinion, why the kiss works so well in this episode. *truncate my boring ramblings*. Courcelles 06:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Odd that I keep writing about issues between Willow and Tara (including rewriting both their articles where this episode is mentioned). I'm unsure of what to do with a quote from Hannigan saying they had to redo a take when Whedon said they needed to kiss again, but not as if they were about to sleep together in 5 minutes...that made me feel funny. But all I think about when I consider this episode is Joyce's death and everyone's grief. I almost always zone out on this kiss. So when I added my bit of Barnum spin, I wasn't even thinking about that sex aspect of the episode. I was just blatantly bullshitting. Happy, as ever, to entertain. Glad it worked. --Moni3 (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, a little odd, all you're really missing in their saga is "Seeing Red". (Though the pace with which you can turn out complete GA+ quality rewrites amazes me. If I wanted to be a wee bit pointy, I'd wager I could take "Hush" or the two ladies and do little more than clean up the citations and get them passed as GA.) The quote, though, is a little too-production oriented to fit really well in Willow's article, which leaves the 6th and 7th paragraphs of the Production and Writing section of "The Body". Scratch that, it doesn't fit in either of those, either. If it goes in there, it has to be in the 5th paragraph, where you wrote about Whedon filming the scene, and a paragraph that wouldn't be hurt by another couple sentences, as the shortest of the three. That we zone out of the kiss is what is so amazing about it... I watched television in the 90's, every time sweeps rolled around, there would be women kissing women. (Perhaps it says something about their intentions/audience that it was close-to-never a man kissing another man.) Courcelles 13:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything is a trade-off. I may be able to write an article in a matter of days, but it's fueled by undeniable and undiluted insanity. I don't sleep sometimes and I can't think of anything else. I get very attached to the material and subsequently upset when people try to tinker with it, making fixes, some of which are warranted, but some of which are not. Enter Punchmaster. Willow and Tara could probably go to GA, but I'm too invested in their articles right now to be able to handle any criticism about the language. I was overcome with anxiety at the thought of posting them into mainspace. I need to spend some time away from them, go do something else, and return to read them again when I'm a bit more level. Maybe in a couple weeks or so. I welcome and work with my inner nutjob.

Otherwise, I'm ok with that quote staying out of any article. It's not very encyclopedic. I was just pleased to read it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Moni, as I stalk your talk page, I am so gratified to know that I'm not alone in my Wiki-obsession. I go through so much ridicule from friends and family about it. I tell them that I've been getting up at 4:30 every morning just to edit, and they look at me like I'm some weirdo, even my husband. But with my life, when else am I going to have the time? Or when all my books about Billie Holiday arrived. I'm also really protective of the articles I work on, especially the Sesame Street ones. I'm sure you can imagine my strong reaction to this loser. These are reasons why I will never ever become an administrator, not that I really want to anyway. I think that it's because we're writers, although I don't tend to get as crazy over some of the writing I get paid for. Christine (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

At least your insomnia/insanity produces something, Moni. Mine just leaves me sitting here, unable to consume enough coffee to actually do anything productive, and hoping no one asks me anything more complicated than, um, my name? Nah, too hard. I either work in a flurry (3 sets of boring tennis from two lines of prose to FLC) or get bogged down with nine-ten projects at once and can't get anywhere on any of them. Now, Christine, you are a weirdo ;) Or I'm so sleep deprived the idea of waking up to do something you don't have to do sounds crazy. Being an admin just turns your talk page/e-mail box into "Random problem dumping ground". And the occasional nasty e-mail. Being able to see deleted edits is maybe the only useful tool to a true writer, and it's not that hard to piggyback on someone else's mop on the few occasions you need that. (Oh, and about the articles, I was more confident on "Hush". I must admit I've never seen an assessed article on a fictional character I thought really deserved the star it was wearing, though I may have only read two) I'll shush now, try to handle the inanity of the office for 90 more minutes and then sleep for ten hours. Courcelles 19:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm so proud of being called a weirdo by you, Courcelles, that I went ahead and put it on my userpage, right under Scartol's more flattering quote! I'll take any attention, even when it's negative. What does that say about me? ;) Christine (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That was me tongue in cheek! You wern't supposed to take me literally! (Rather, it was my bafflement that anyone who actually can sleep would ŵake up early to edit here.) Psychoanalysis will have to wait until I have had some, though. Courcelles 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moni3

You gave me a very useful FAR last year on Jack Harkness. I'm going to take your comments on board when I give it another once-over (I'm so pressed for time). When I do put it up for FAC again, or before I do so even, could you perhaps review once more? Thanks so much!~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your time frame for this? I may be out of commission for a few weeks coming up. --Moni3 (talk) 12:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if I'm going to do it at all, it will be before the 25th when I go on holiday. If not then, then after the 9th Sep? Or an unspecified point in the future.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Any contribution I make may have to wait until September, unfortunately. I'll do my best when I can. --Moni3 (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how do you want the dates formatted? There's a script that will do this in 10 seconds, I just need to know which way to go. Courcelles 20:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Would have been handy earlier when I was using Notepad Find+Replace on Ianto Jones earlier. I think year-month-day looks nicest (200X-XX-XX).~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I once spent an entire evening doing this on an FLC. Now I just hit a button and watch it happen... if it is a persistent problem you encounter, add importScript('User:Plastikspork/date.js') to your monobook.js /vector.js file. I just did it for the old captain, though. Courcelles 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, that's really great! (I don't know how long that one reference has said 'DoctorWho' for, by the way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, your Tara Maclay article. Could I suggest when you discuss Tara's cultural impact you note how she is always the point of comparison later on when queer characters die? Ianto Jones is the incident that comes first to mind, but I think there are others.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 23:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really my article, but I'm happy to continue working on it. Do you know of sources that compare Tara's death with other character deaths? --Moni3 (talk) 23:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OH, I thought you were. Yeah, there's AfterElton and GayNZ stuff (used in the Ianto Jones article) at least which compare that treatment to Tara's. I think there are probably more in TV studies articles, out there, to be found.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 10:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Also I don't like the Willow article having most of its content under the heading "Evolution". And the subsections encourage wanton expansion.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have to address this later in more depth, but the major sources on Willow's character say she changes, so Evolution seemed quite appropriate. What would you suggest otherwise? "Description" doesn't quite do it justice. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd have "Development" as a separate area of discussion from "Conception and casting". Evolution not least of all sounds frightfully organic. I'd drop having the "College Years" etc. headings altogether, as it implies something of a character biography.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Frightfully organic, as in covered in manure? I'm ok with your changes. I appreciate the discussion. I'm sorry I won't be able to engage in depth for a while though. I'm nonetheless enthusiastic about discussing the article issues with folks who are interested in improving it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I Am Right and You Are Wrong (the article, not the logical proposition)

Thanks for your help with the delete. I realized too late that I could've marked it as a SPEEDY. Glad u got it taken care of. --SSBohio 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi there Moni3! I noticed that you had your name down saying you would accept adoptee(s). If you want to decline this request because you've got a lot on or just don't feel like it then feel free to. Although I'm not an immediately new user, or a really inexperienced one, I do think that becoming an adoptee would benefit me a lot because I want to get the most out of editing the encyclopaedia and since my knowledge of Wiki policy and software is not particularly substantial yet, I really think I could do with some help. I started editing about 2 months ago but that was only to make a specific article. Then at the end of July I began to fight vandalism a lot using wikiguard and twinkle in order to take part in the project. I also did a lot of marking for speedy deletion, grammar checking and adding improvement templates to articles. However those tasks didn't require much skill, though they did get me used to the wiki interface. I would like to continue to fight vandalism, and as I get more in touch with wiki policies to get involved in discussions such as AfD, and would like to learn how to actively participate more in wikiprojects which I'm interested in. In general, I just want to help the encyclopaedia as best I can both with content and with administrative work, in order to help the website in my own little way to becoming a reliable source of information and I enjoy writing and expanding my own knowledge. My interests include classical music and jazz, history, science, religion (especially Christianity since I'm a Christian), wine and I'm sure many other things which I can't think of now. I've written 2 new articles, one which I made when I first joined the project: Richard Shephard and another small stub Car Shoe - which I'm having a bit of trouble with since I can't get the references to work properly: I want to get it to work as at Nazi Party where the inline citation (notes) is linked with the references. I've also significantly expanded the article James Suckling. Any advice concerning any of them would be great. My current task was going to be to try and get the article Nazi Party to good article status because I think since it is such an important topic it really should be more than C-Class standard. Unfortunately although I think I have the personal knowledge and books to do this, I'm not sure if I'm experienced enough as a wiki editor to do so. The article is also very long indeed and I would really need some help - is the best place to go Wikiproject history and ask? Hope to hear from you soon. And once again: don't feel under any pressure to accept! Jay-Sebastos (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Content good. Pain now. Coherence later. Give two weeks. Fainting until then. Kthx. --Moni3 (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine if you're too busy. I will ask somebody else. Thanks anyway! Jay-Sebastos (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. It will take me about two weeks to get to a place where I can pay attention the way you deserve. If you want to wait, great. If not, best of luck. --Moni3 (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. I accept. I'm gonna be busy for the next two weeks anyway so it coincides well. Look forward to hearing from you soon. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Mulholland Drive

Herb even checks Dan's pulse, he is clearly dead... 174.117.190.4 (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dan's death is not observable. His pulse is checked, but the outcome isn't seen. When we were working on constructing this article, we agreed that the plot needs to be as simple as possible (which is difficult with one this obtuse) and only what could be observed in the action should be included. This is the right course to take. Interpreting the events in the plot needs to be left to the sources. --Moni3 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Judd School

Hi Moni! This article is a current featured article candidate; I see you have reviewed school articles at FAC before, so I was hoping (if you have the time), you might look at this one? Many thanks in advance, and kind regards, Tom (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lesbian Feminist Liberation

Do you know of any material relating to this group? I have some decades-old sources that talk about its split from Gay Activists Alliance and its involvement in some actions in the early 1970s, and I found a photo from this year of a woman carrying a sign reading "Lesbian Feminist Liberation" in a pride parade, but there's pretty much nothing that I can suss out between the 70s and now. Based on the sources I do have the group is notable but before attempting to put an article together I was hoping to fill in some blanks. Any interest in collaborating? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't be able to access any of my sources for a week or so. I'm kind of in an upheaval right now and I'm not sure when things may settle down. I may have to come back to this in a couple weeks. In the meantime, you should contact the Lesbian Herstory Archives to see if they have anything on record about this group. I've never heard of them, which means nothing. --Moni3 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope things settle down for you soon. The sources I have are sketchy for this group so it would probably be best to hold off until sourcing is a little more solid. I hope things will calm down for you soon. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Rosewood Massacre

Hi Moni3!

I am translating the Rosewood Massacre from English to Spanish, and I found this at the end of the second paragraph, section Racial tensions in Florida:

By 1940, 40,000 blacks had left Florida to find employment, but also to escape the oppression of segregation, violence, and disfranchisement.

I just wanted to confirm the year because the article have been talking about the first two decades, and then it seems that it "jumps" to 1940.

Is this information correct?

Just let me know, OK?

Thanks!

didakticos--didakticos (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. The year is accurate. I know it's outside the time period in question, but the source refers to a study done in 1940. Apparently no one was counting blacks leaving the region while they were leaving in the 1920s. --Moni3 (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha! Thanks for your reply!

didakticos--didakticos (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

When I have no specific person to ask for a question, I turn to you...I got this book from the library, and while searching for the publisher, the inside title page says "A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Department of Economics in the Graduate College of the State University of Iowa". Should I consider this a reliable source or no, since it looks to be just a thesis...but must've been approved by the University of Iowa. If it is a valid source, would the publisher be the U of Iowa? Thanks, CTJF83 chat 17:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've used a thesis before for the Zephaniah Kingsley article. They can be reliable sources depending on the subject. If it's a topic that's widely written about, like Abraham Lincoln, theses are not going to be as authoritative as books. But if there's not a huge repository of information anyway, as what I imagine is the history of Davenport, theses are very useful. Treat them as books. Cite to the page. I hope I answered your question. --Moni3 (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you as always..what should I use as the publisher...University of Iowa? CTJF83 chat 06:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) CTJF83 chat 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikiconference

Nice to meet you (finally!) Great talk. Hope you're getting settled in. (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oooh Dank! You beat me to it! :-) It was lovely to meet *both* of you! Always so pleasant to put a face to the names. Risker (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Likewise I enjoyed attending and meeting both of you. If any images come from the conference where people label me, I'll denounce these people as liars and homewreckers. I take awful, awful pictures.

Otherwise, I enjoyed the conversations I had. It was quite interesting. I was halfway motivated to turn the discussion we had into an essay, but real life got in the way. Still not sure what good it might do. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Great to meet you, as well! I'm now inspired to spend some more time working on wiki articles, maybe another featured article or two. Though, my time available for editing is still much more limited than it used to be. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your talk and the um, sobering, call-to-arms. It was pretty great to meet you as well, and I hope we can see you around next time too.--Pharos (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni, the woman who once fussed at me for interrupting her getting drunk time... sobering? What on Earth did she say? Courcelles 04:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC is going bonkers, and I hold you fully responsible for the increase in traffic. That means you are obligated to review articles after you stop playing with knives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why couldn't I meet you guys :( — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Were you not in NYC? At least in meeting me you weren't missing much. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why were you tipsy at that time?

I'm thinking more than "Bad Romance", Ke$ha's "TiK ToK" should be your anthem. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On the proposed merger of Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory

The actively interested editors of the pages on Autogynephilia, homosexual transsexual, and BBL theory have been discussing a merger. You are an editor that was deeply interested and involved in the past. straw Poll on the merger proposals. I am notifying you of this poll as a courtesy. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain

I posed questions about your recent image suppression, at Talk:Munchausen_by_Internet -- [31]. Geo Swan (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Very brief and informal explanation is that the BLP issues worry me and I'd rather be cautious than violate Kilrow's privacy. The FUR appears insufficient. It should be spelled out specifically in the rationale why an image is necessary when words cannot express what the image does. I've asked User:Elcobbola, who works on images in FAs, to weigh in on his talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Protecting EH

Thanks Moni for protecting Hemingway. With the pending changes gone, the protection gone, and kids back in school, the vandalism is annoying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

My eyes and fingers thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sheepishly Yeah, thanks for intervening, it's appreciated. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Surrealist films

Pardon me, but no, I am not basing my decisions on my own perception. Please, if you would, provide me with an encyclopedic definition of "surreal." Surrealism has a definition, so if we have a category called Surrealist films, the Surrealism article should be our guide for what is and is not a Surrealist film. And did you actually say that a source is not necessary?! Of course a source is necessary, since this is an encyclopedia we are building. And I do not believe that one off hand remark about a film being "surreal," whatever the hell that means, is enough of a reason to add said film to Surrealist film category. Surely, our standards for inclusion should be better than that. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gorl, Did ya

See your fav song snatch the wigs at this year's MTV VMA?? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw it. It just bolsters my knowledge that I have good taste. --Moni3 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground

I moved the info specific to that song from the bio to the song page. I am now in the process of finding references. No info was deleted.

Hold your horses, son.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Read the talk page. You're mucking up a fine article where you should be gloriously and furiously rewriting another. My issues aren't with anything being deleted. You're not paying attention to what you're doing. --Moni3 (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Son? You've kept that sex change very quiet Moni3. Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I like to keep my options open. --Moni3 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll delete what I can't find references for. In the meantime simmer. down.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't consider the information about Paris, Texas and Pasolini important? Major films, both include the song. Wim Wenders, major director. Made a feature about Johnson with much coverage of the song for PBS. That's going in. Sorry. I'll go to a "higher authority" if I must.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good lord. How about finishing the discussion before rushing to add things, there's no deadline, and this is how edit wars fester. Or how about I just lock the article for a few days? Courcelles 03:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Who would that "higher authority" be? Wikipedia's Director in Charge of Trivia? Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not interested in debating with anyone's internet friends. In the meantime, please enjoy this beautiful use of Blind Willie Johnson's music in the classic film, Paris, Texas--Atlantictire (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All kosher. Took out stuff that couldn't be referenced by a journal or major media outlet.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All kosher, eh? Can you tell me what http://www.users.bigpond.com/cosmic_voyager/Cosmos%20Episode%2010%20-%20The%20Edge%20of%20Forever.htm links to? And what it supports in the article? Can you tell me why two references to Ry Cooder are in the article with the same quote? Can you tell me how in God's name splitting the article into more sections makes it any more accessible and why solid coherent paragraphs were cut into smaller ones? Are you trying to dumb down the article for any particular reason?

Can someone who actually knows how to write an article either fix this thing now or buy me something to play with during my block for 3RR? --Moni3 (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I left that in there because I figured you had put it in and it was important to you.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

1. This isn't personal. 2. This is supposed to be fun. Splitting it into sections makes it easier to navigate. It's pretty standard practice on wikipedia. Group the music with the music. Group the film and tv related stuff with the film and tv related stuff.--Atlantictire (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Do you even know what you're doing at all? See, I can't change the article again or I get blocked because that's the way it works on Wikipedia. I tried to engage you on the article talk page, on your talk page, and now here, but no, you have to keep reverting instead of discussing. This is the version I keep reverting back to. It removed the uncited trivia. It removed the unnecessary sentence in the lead. It enjoined the unnecessarily split paragraphs. It removed that ridiculous dead link you copied over from Johnson's article. It removed the second reference and quote from Ry Cooder. It removed the unnecessarily added topic sentence that repeats the exact same thing about the Voyager Golden Record in the Legacy section. It kept the switch of Johnson's death in the Composition section (now the Background section, which...is...why have all these sections now? I don't get it. How on earth can an article this short be difficult to navigate?), and it kept the infobox for the song...which I hate...infoboxes, but that's a compromise. This could have been easily solved if you just discussed... Wikipedia becomes very unfun quickly when I have to contend with editors who insist they know what they're doing, refuse to communicate about what they're trying to accomplish, and cock it up like a champion. Would you please fix what you've done? --Moni3 (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious and I'm willing to communicate. See, it's like this. A full quarter of the information on the Blind Willie Johnson bio page was "trivia" about that song. It seemed more appropriate to put the info that was very specific to the song on the song's page. I deleted the duplicate info about Cooder. You can ax the Sagan Cosmos fact if you please, but I think it's notable and an effort should be made to find good sources.

You were correct to ask that the information be cited. Everything in there now I feel is highly notable:

Wim Wenders
Ry Cooder = #8 on Rolling Stone's list of the greatest guitarists of all time.
Pasolini
Jack White
a critic from the The Times
Kronos Quartet
PBS

Anyone who knows anything about music, film or culture will realize that these are all major cultural entities that only help to establish the historical import of the song. Have you not seen Paris, Texas or something? You should probably check it out. Have you never heard of Captain Beefheart? Ry Cooder was in that band. Common. You must at least know about Buena Vista Social Club. Again, Wenders.

PBS?--Atlantictire (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, again, these are the biggest issues that remain in the article:

This dead link http://www.users.bigpond.com/cosmic_voyager/Cosmos%20Episode%2010%20-%20The%20Edge%20of%20Forever.htm is being cited for Carl Sagan featured “Dark was the Night, Cold was the Ground” in his popular science show, Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, which aired in 1980. The link and the factoid need to be removed.

Considering how influential a show Cosmos was and that Sagan participated in choosing the music for the Voyager recording, I'd hardly call that a "factoid". It's a dirty job, so you get to do it.

The structure of the article is unnecessarily complex. The version I reverted to has two sections, very simple. There is no reason to split apart the well-written cohesive paragraph now in the Background section. It dumbs down the structure of the writing.

There is if it you're lumping biographical information in with information is that not specifically biographical. I don't get this "dumbs down" criticism. I added notable information. I think people sometimes forget this is an encyclopedia. You're not supposed to be verbose or use needlessly complex, tortile syntax.

This “Dark was the Night, Cold was the Ground” was on the soundtrack of Pier Paolo Pasolini's classic 1964 film, The Gospel According to St Matthew is cited to a source in Italian. Do you read Italian?

Yes. I'm a graduate student. I read Italian, French, Spanish, German and a little Danish because I love Kirkegaard.

What does the source say about what role this song played in the film?

We can really make up some rules. It's a Pasolini film. It was on the soundtrack. Do you think it would help the article to say something about how the music in the film is a corollary to Pasolini's discursive juxtapositions of the sublime and the profane? That seems to me like it might be talking about Pasolini and better suited to the Pasolini page.

If you don't read Italian, remove the citation and the sentence until you can find a source in English. To keep it from being trivia, please include mention of the importance of the song to the film. Similarly, what significance is the Kronos Quartet reference?

It's the Kronos Quartet. They're a major contemporary classical musical ensemble. It's a recent endorsement by an ensemble who have been important for over 30 years. That's about all I can help you with.

They covered Johnson's song, but how is that not trivia? Did it shoot the song to charted positions, radio play or some other prominence?

There's an extensive Kronos Quartet discography page. No mention of "charted positions". Just lots of great reviews.

This sentence Blind Willie Johnson's music and life were topics of Wim Wenders' 2003 documentary, "The Soul of a Man", produced for the PBS series "The Blues." is indeed now cited (needlessly) three times, but it does not mention the song, which is, you know, the topic of the article. It reads now better suited for Johnson's article. Was the song prominently featured? Is there something notable about Wenders' documentary in reference to this song? If not, why is it included?

Yes. Yes.

I know Jack White, Ry Cooder, and John Clarke are notable and cited; I added those. Various other copy edits to smooth the language you added need to be done. For that, I will not be blocked. I will do that when the other errors, structural, and sourcing issues are resolved.

We shall see.

This returns to the point I made on Johnson's talk page. I've seen editors do this: pull a chunk of text in a fever of righteousness and plop it into a related article, not paying any attention to the fact that the material may already be covered or the text may be inaccurate, uncited, or poorly written.

A fever of righteousness? Do you think it makes sense for the article on Johnson to be 1/4 about "Dark was the Night"? What makes you so certain of your superior writing skills? I'm kind of astonished that you typed that. Yeah I'm making typos. It's 2am. Sue me.

So not only now does the song article of lesser quality, but nothing better was done to Johnson's article, which is the one that really needs the help. You don't seem to be any better versed on Johnson's life and all that was accomplished is that I got to show off my bitch-on-fire side.

That I wish I had been able to work on the Johnson article. I plan on putting a synopsis of info from this page in it.

This started with you (apparently to me) placing a merge template on these articles without being willing to do any research or rewrites. If these articles were women, they would cover your car in keystrokes and turpentine for not even being decent enough to stay for the post-coital cigarette.

really reaching for the metaphors tonight

Johnson's article deserves someone who will take the time to read about his life and music and treat it with dignity.

yes

A day or so tinkering with merge templates doesn't cut it.

ok

In a sense, it's not personal because it's about the content and the quality of writing. In another sense, it is personal, because I cared enough about the song to read about Johnson and whatever I could find to write the article, and you...leaving before the cigarette. If you come away with anything from this, next time you decide to seduce a poor, trashy, forlorn wallflower of an article with your unsexy templates, consider first that you could, actually, rewrite it and give it some dignity.

^^oh my. and this last bit here would be an example of dignified writing? User:Atlantictire|Atlantictire]] (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

--Moni3 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think I'm hot shit in the writing department, and I make a lot of mistakes, but I pipe up and tell folks when I don't know what the hell I'm doing. It's not that difficult. When I work on an article now, I don't generally get involved unless I'm willing to read everything I can about it. This article is just a Start class, but there's no reason why the same treatment should not be given to this material as a featured article. I have in the past rewritten articles that are quite large and got them reviewed for FA or GA. Following their designation as such, other editors with a weaker grasp on sources and writing sometimes tinker around. After a while, with enough tinkering, the article degrades considerably. I'm not sure you can appreciate this until you write an article and get it reviewed and end up banging your head against a few editors who think they mean well. Even though I found everything I could on this song, I knew it probably wouldn't be more than a Start class article. I treat it as a featured article, though, because there's no reason not to have the highest standards for the smallest articles.

So since you won't, I guess you're ok with my removing the uncited mention of the song in Sagan's Cosmos. I will do that.
My wife has a PhD and does not read Italian. Not sure what being a grad student means about proficiency in languages. She never cracked Kierkegaard in her life. Chemists tend not to need to do that I guess.
I'm not making this stuff up if that's what you mean about We can really make up some rules. Pick an article at WP:FAC and read through some of the suggestions and reasons for not supporting. Trivia is the kudzu of Wikipedia. I'm not saying Pasolini isn't notable, but the case has not been made why the connection between this song and Pasolini should be included in this article. The mention of Paris, Texas is clearer. Cooder based the entire soundtrack on Johnson's slide guitar, then gave us that whopping quote about the song being "the most transcendent piece in American music". Similarly, I know who Kronos Quartet is. I read a few reviews of the album when I was researching information for this article. A few reviews called their version lackluster. No one really wrote anything of substance about how Kronos Quartet's version really made a difference. Take on a grand scale the song "Amazing Grace" (I wrote the article). It has been recorded more than 6,000 times. Should every mention of the song be included in the article? No. Just in case you didn't really know that. No, they should not. Some versions are because they charted or the Library of Congress features them in some way. Something about a version has been noted to stand out for something. Otherwise it's a free-floating factoid not tied to mean anything.
I think it makes sense for Johnson's article to mirror the volume of information that has been written about his life and music in whatever form that comes. In order to do that, someone needs to read a lot about his life and music to ascertain what emphasis was placed on this song or any other of his songs by authoritative sources. So far, no one has done it. His article is the product of a lot of gnomes stopping by for a day or so and tinkering here and there. As a result, the article is not cohesive, has ^{[citation needed]} tags, and lots of uncited information which may not be accurate. There are more than 8,000 editors on Wikipedia and I would guess that probably between 150 and 200 of them add more than a paragraph to articles. Otherwise, the majority of information is added sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase, and most folks just don't take the time (or care enough) to read source material about the topic and write. The majority of action in articles is triage: quickly cited information from the first source that'll do to stop or avoid an argument. Again, I don't think I'm that much of a hot shit in the writing department. I will say, however, that I do everything I can to read exhaustively on a topic and I obsess over improving the prose. Primarily because I care very much about the topics I choose to write about. I want other people to learn from what I care about.
Yes, it was quite late and I think I'm a hoot with the women and cigarettes. Actually, that was pretty funny.
In the heat of my astonishment, it occurred to me that you actually are not familiar with some helpful tips. Check the article history. You can see every edit ever added, including the first one.
This is called a Dashboard. You can use it to see who has edited any particular article the most and when they were most active.
It's usually not a good idea to break up another editor's comments as you've done here. Rereading it is now much more confusing as to who said what. So anyone reading this: I said the witty things. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Atlantictire, yes, Moni3 knows what she's doing. Do you? Your edits here are attracting attention of the wrong kind; I suggest you resolve your issues on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

At the suggestion of your internet friend, let's take this to the article's talk page. People who rhapsodize about their wikipedia and GA resumes are tedious. The GA music section is over-run by 17 years olds writing drivel about Ludacris for other 17 year olds to certify GA. I'm here because the culture of wikipedia is starting to make the site difficult to use for people who need it to be something other than a social networking venue.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that my experiences, or my pointing them out to you are tedious? I honor honesty above all else, so come right on out and say what you mean. SandyGeorgia, by the way, is the FA delegate. She will be the first to say what the weaknesses are in GA and I will back her up with my own experiences--it's a hit or miss process. Which is why FA is usually much more thorough. I quite agree with you about the social networking issues; I wonder why you stated that to me. As if I need to be told that social networking is not the main priority of Wikipedia. I write content, but telling you that makes me seem tedious. Your comment perplexes me.

It's ok, you know, just to work on this article together. Your edits messed some stuff up, but there are ways around it. It would be helpful to acknowledge that you did, in fact, cut text from Johnson's article, put it in the song article without really checking what you were adding. You reverted three times to a version with blatant mistakes without discussing. You told me to "back off" in your edit summaries. It's ok and quite liberating to say, "Yes, I made a big mistake here. Let's fix the article. I think the references to Wenders' documentary and the Pasolini film should be included so I will search to find what more notable information there is about the song in these films, and try to find a connection for the Kronos Quartet cover so it will be more tied in to the overall text of the article." We all screw up. Pretending that we don't is just worse. --Moni3 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. Also, I like this song.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Is it music sharing time? I'm going to take that at face value to mean that you like the Little Sparrow, which is quite understandable. If you're implying something in the title of the song, I know you're strong and smart enough to come out and say it. Since it's music sharing time, I like this song. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You should both be shot: you made me resort to Google translate and view the Bee Gees in one sitting. Social networking at its worst! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, please. I have Google Translate on for days when you get your angry Chavistas ranting about your abuses. It's quite entertaining to read the translations. And I did you a favor with the Bee Gees. You know I could have taken it up a few notches to ABBA. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this asking too much? Kablammo (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's that for, Kablammo? You and me? You know we have a love for the ages. No need to reinforce it with YouTube videos. Sandy and me, however. It's time for an asskicking. --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm hoping the two editors of the article can get into violent agreement with each other, fix up the page, and move on.

As for your cage match with SG, WMF could sell tix to it as a fundraiser. Kablammo (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already had my quota for the week; I'll go get my face kicked by the dentist now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

DWTN 2.O

Hey. I just wanted to check in with you and make sure you're ok with the edits. I say we put aside the snarkiness and talk to each other respectfully.

Wikipedia is important to me first and foremost as a resource for learning about art and culture. Specifically, for finding out how a work of art was created and what is has influenced... the genealogy of a song or style of music. DWTN's impact on music really cannot be overstated. It's the best blues song by the best blues guitarist. In researching this page I've learned about some pretty astonishing musical idioms that influenced it: Scared Harp, lining out, unison moaning. Curious folk who come to the DWTN page can now learn about incredible American musical traditions and wonderful, important films. Wikipedia is at its best when it does this. It literally changes lives.

Sorry for seeming to step on toes. Hope your day is going well.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the note and the offer to put aside the snarkiness. Despite my apparent smoothness with dispatching what I think is witty repartee, I find edit wars and disputes draining. I haven't been able to get to the library I thought I might this weekend, but I still plan on doing that over the next couple days. So I've stayed away from the article to be able to enjoy Wikipedia more in the meantime. I can take a look at it soon and yes, I agree that we should discuss improvements to the article like civilized beasts. --Moni3 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd much rather collaborate than fight with you. I really appreciate someone who channels their energy into subjects like Blind Willie Johnson, an artist who will probably be revered until people stop caring about music, rather than knock offs of knock offs of knock off pop stars. It saddens me how much diligence is squandered on disposable culture here. I will probably focus on fixing up the BWJ page now, although that could be a month-long endeavor. After that, I really think our dear friend Edward Abbe Niles is owed a page. He did a lot of good for jazz and blues, and he was that rare music critic who history has proven to be mostly right.

I have an idea for how to resolve the "Amazing Grace" disputes, although I'm not sure I want to jump into that fray. Basically don't focus on artists. Focus on idioms. Every major folk style of American music has its distinctive version of Amazing Grace. The shape note folk sing it in a pentatonic scale.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? (A Donner Party question)

Why are so many so keen to rewrite the history of the Donner Party? Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

A combination of campfire story remnants, and a general human fascination with unspeakable horrific tragedy. --Moni3 (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case though the alternative is arguably even worse than the charge of cannibalism. "Oh, there's a couple of sick Indians, I think I'll shoot them." Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Who can say about this particular edit? I gave up a long time ago trying to figure out what some folks are trying to accomplish or what the cognitive processes are that make some edits seem like a good idea. --Moni3 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on this question: it's because this tragedy is so horrible, people literally cannot put their minds around it, so they deal with it by ignoring it, coming up with an alternative explanation, or convincing themselves that it must have not happened. (There's a word for that, but I can't come up with it right now.) People tend to have the same reaction to other tragedies like child abuse and the Holocaust; I believe it's the origin of conspiracy theories. That editor obviously believed that it was more comfortable believing that the Donner Party ate strangers rather than each other to survive. Christine (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A favor

Moni, I know you are busy but if you don't mind could you take a look at The Autobiography of Malcolm X and give some peer review style comments? The article has undergone a major revision as a result of User:GabeMc and User:Malik Shabazz. I would love to help put it on the front page for Feb 21 (the anniversary of Malcolm X's assassination) and you are the first person I think of when it comes to detail oriented editing. Thanks for any help you can offer. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it tomorrow. ... Hey I was going to say I could take on the GA nomination, but is it stable enough to be nominated for GA right now? Looks like it's had a few recent edit wars. Ghostly ones. Boooooo. --Moni3 (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Should be stable enough. Most of the past edit warring was due to a disagreement over authorship which has been ironed out in the writing of the most recent change (check the talk page for much more info than you might require). Protonk (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ownership issues

The wording of the clauses added to WP:OWN concerning stewardship, with particular reference to featured articles, appears to have stabilised, and discussion seems to have finished. As you argued cogently for this kind of change, I'd be interested to hear your views on the new clauses, and whether you think they will serve the intended purpose of enabling primary editors to protect featured articles without accusations of ownership. I've had a lot of this, which is why I opened the FAC talkpage thread in the first place; it's clear you've had the same thing. While I might have preferred something a little stronger, I feel that the new clauses do provide some answer to that dreary assertion; "You don't OWN this article", and I feel mildly pleased with this outcome - assuming the clauses remain in place. How do you feel? Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Moni

Its time for me to say bye bye. I dont know whether I will be coming back. It was wonderful to know you and learned a lot from you regarding prose quality. Thanks. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, bummer, dude. Lady Gaga and Madonna and all their related articles are going to go to hell. That sucks. But best of luck to you. I hope you can make it back. --Moni3 (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mentor

I wonder if you might be available. User:Johnbod said you might have an opening. Buster7 (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone has been lying if they told you I am honorable or decent in any way. However, if you have an idea of what you would like to accomplish here, a topic or an article, I may be able to assist you. Let me know what you're trying to do. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do??? Hmmmmm! In a nutshell, I'd like to develope into a good, quality editor....just like you. Buster7 (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahah. Dude. Ok, no, I meant are you working on any specific article? Do you want to try to get one article or several of them to Good Article or Featured Article status? If you already know what you want to work on, I can help you a lot. If not, my first piece of advice is to know what you want to work on. Only work on a topic that you find extremely interesting. Something that will make it seem like a good idea to go check out 20 books from the library, read them, then spend weeks writing about what's in the books. If you'd rather stick a fork in your eye than do that, either it's what you're reading about or...something else. Let me know what you think. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The current article I am working on is Marc Herremans...in a kind of WikiGnome, "I found it, let me fix it" kind of way. I usually edit via the "random article" method. I give more time and attention to anything Belgian, Flemish, Dutch, Low Countries, etc. that I run across. I'll be travelling soon till the end of the month. During that time I will give serious consideration to your challenge as to my direction. Thanks for your time.Buster7 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Gnomes are good for copy edits when they run across misspellings or some egregious grammar or formatting problem. I would not recommend the gnome approach to adding content. If you want to add content, take the article on as a whole. Many articles are haphazardly written and not cohesive as a result of gnome content edits. Someone added a sentence here, someone else a sentence there. If there are sources, they may be dead links or some dude's blog, so not really the best. Find an article where you would have access to good info at your library or even using books at home. But most of all, it should be about something that you find interesting. Start off with a small article. Let me know what you want to do when you get back. --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Moni3! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC).

Emmett Till

I don't remember the exact date, but I'll provide the month and the year. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. A year was mainly what I was looking for. Thanks! And thanks for taking and loading the image. --Moni3 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for ignoring this excellent and moving article-- I have pretty much ignored everything else on Wiki lately. It it's OK with you, I will do a section-by-section light copyedit, so you can more easily accept, reject, or modify my changes. If not today, then tomorrow. Kablammo (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatevs. Go nuts. --Moni3 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Amazing Grace

Hi Moni. Please note this post regarding your reversion of my edits. Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update

Hi. :) John did not reply, but I sought opinion from Angusmclellan, who suggests that {{PD-US-no notice}} will probably apply. He does suggest I get feedback on that, so I'll check in a few other places and let you know if there is agreement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I now have lots of feedback...and its inconsistent. At last head count, two people agreed with Angus (at his talk page): Magog the Ogre and Peripitus. John Vanderberg does not. At his talk page, John says, "{{PD-US-no-notice}} does not apply unless the document was legally published before 1978 without notice; I doubt this was legally published - public display is not legal publishing." At my talk page, User:Physchim62 says "Absolutely agree with John on this one: no way is that telegram PD." John suggests you ask any living relative for a copyright release. Mike Christie suggests you might look to see if the telegram was published in a book or newspaper article prior to 1978. If it was published without notice, then {{PD-US-no notice}} may be uncontroversial. I'll let you know if any other opinions show up or if existing opinions shift. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

Hey Moni,

I think that I'm ready to have this article move to its next phase of development, the FAC. Before I do that, however, I think that it needs some additional eyes and some further copyediting. You said on The Facebook that you'd be willing to help out, so I'm taking you up on your offer. It'd be a wonderful opportunity to take a break from your normal editing and take part in some calm, no-drama, and little controversy. I mean, The Show has been quite controversial, but not here, where few people care about children's television. For me, the control freak who runs away from conflict screaming, that's not so bad. I did run into some controversy, though, when I tried to get rid of the infobox on Sesame Street; I'd like to hear your take on that. Anyway, I'd really appreciate your help. I'm gonna ask Scartol, and perhaps your friend Willow. Christine (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As a very quick driveby TPS comment, it probably ought to mention (at least in passing) the controversy it caused when it was exported abroad as an alleged Evil Tool Of American Cultural Imperialism. The BBC notoriously refused to screen it in Britain on the grounds of its supposed "authoritarian aims" (google "This sounds like indoctrination, and a dangerous extension of the use of television"), and I imagine at least some other countries have had similar disputes. – iridescent 14:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Iridescent, when I read this, I thought, "Wot? The infobox caused all that?" ;) But yes, I've heard of that particular controversy surrounding The Show. It's part of the whole "Television is a bad influence on children" argument, which is brought up in Sesame_Street#Critical_reception. That specific example isn't cited, and if it were, I think it would better fit in International co-productions of Sesame Street. Davis, Lesser, and Morrow all talk about it, so I suppose it would improve things. Perhaps this discussion better belongs over at Sesame Street, but there has been so much criticism of The Show through the years, I had to pick and chose. That one didn't seem as important to me as other criticism in the same category.

BTW, Davis tells this hilarious story about the German co-production. Its producers thought that Sesame Street was too tame, and during discussions about it in New York, these scantily-clad women (educational experts) were complaining about it to Gerald S. Lesser. At one point, one of them turned to Lesser and asked him, "Doktor Lesser, what do you think about focking?" He answered, "I'm all for it." ;) Christine (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, don't take my suggestion as any kind of "you must include this!" demand. Obviously, SS is a US production and the international element is tangential to the main history. I'm thinking more in terms that, if it passes FAC, it'll get a lot more hits than before, especially if it's TFA, from people coming to it direct (that is, not via the Sesame Street parent article), and you'll have a constant trickle of people from around the world adding variations on the "critical reception in various places" theme; if it's already mentioned in the text, than it saves people tacking ungainly extra paragraphs onto the end. (As regards the initial BBC hostility, I'm not sure if the "international co-productions" page is the right place; AFAIK the version rejected by the BBC, and later taken up by HTV in Wales and eventually spreading to the rest of the UK via them, was just a straight rebroadcast of the US version.) – iridescent 13:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Christine, I have a pretty detailed GA review I'm doing. Let me finish that--hopefully today or tomorrow--and I can read through Sesame Street again. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To Moni: Take your time, no hurries. Getting one of "my" articles, as you know, can be an emotionally-wrenching experience for me at times, so I'm in no hurry to put myself through it again. I just need to be in a place where the article's worth it for me. ;) To Iridescent: I understand what you're saying. Actually, it's already happened. People seem to have an ownership of The Show, probably because of the nostalgic childhood factor. People go, "I remember this from my childhood, so it must go in this article", which is so OR, doncha know. If it doesn't have a reliable source, it doesn't go in, but you already knew that. I know that the more people exposed to the SS articles, the more it will happen. None of the sources I have even mention the British version. I would imagine that The Show is shown on US military bases, or that it's a rebroadcast, as you say. Christine (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a BBC News article on the rise and fall of SS in Britain (specifically Britain, not UK; Northern Ireland has its own version). It's not particularly informative, but it does at least provide a Reliable Source for names and dates. – iridescent 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Moni, I know you're busy and I'm not in any particular hurry about this (I had forgotten that both you and Scartol had reviewed this article before, over a year ago), but would you mind also looking at the parent article, Sesame Street? I don't necessarily need a formal review of it currently, but I'd like your opinion on one thing. Do you think it's too long? Currently, it's 94 kilobytes. It's already been split off into a few new articles, but do you think that it needs more aplits, and if so, where should they be? I think that with its subject matter, with so much written about it (over 1,000 research studies since 2001 alone!), it's gonna be long anyway. I just need someone objective to tell me if it needs additional snipping. Thanks. Christine (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Begging a favour...

Could you check over Robert Burnell for prose and Brit spelling for me? Obviously, since I'm missing Malleus (BADLY!) I'm going to have to beg from other folks much more on prose copyediting. The poor guy's had two peer reviews, with Ruhr, Awa, and Dr PDA weighing in on the last one. I'm going to post this to Iri and Laser too, just to cover all my bases... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Even as I slack I still get backed up when I'm sick. I have to finish two GA reviews and take a peek at Sesame Street for Christine, but I'll do my best to get to the bishop as soon as I can. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no rush. I've got 400 some photographs to whip up into shape for proofs. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Guy Bradley

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page.

This user helped promote Guy Bradley to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In case you're bored

I've been checking out the copyvio cat: Harvey Milk Day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not that bored nor convinced the day needs its own article. Fairly disgusted with the plagiarism, though. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my Donner Party ‎mistake. When I had figured out “who shot john”, I see that you beat me to it. But I was working on it. Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Edit on. --Moni3 (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes and missed opportunities

This is a mistake. Another missed opportunity in the name of protecting something that does not seem to exist.

I don't know why I'm here anymore. I no longer wish to be. I don't know what I'm working for anymore. It does not seem to be what the rest of the project is working for. --Moni3 (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda with you on the thoughts above. Blanking the page was very much a missed opportunity for discussion. Your comments were very good, btw. Too bad they're gone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

An administrator, a bureaucrat and an arbitrator were on a train together, when all of a sudden the locomotive came to a sudden stop with smoke pouring from the engine. They all looked around to see what was happening.

The administrator shouted at the driver to do something, and although the driver pressed all the buttons and pulled all the levers the train didn't move, so the administrator slapped him in the face. But the train still didn't move.

The bureaucrat said "Give the driver an incentive". So he checked his pockets, pulled out his loose change, and offered it to the driver if only he could get the engine working. But the train still didn't move.

So, the arbitrator turned to the others, and said "Why are you two getting so upset? All we need to do is close our eyes, and we can all pretend the train is moving". – iridescent 23:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Tequila. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism discussion from Rlevse TALK moved to WP:VP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump#Plagiarism_vs._WP:SYN_and_WP:NOR