User talk:Moni3/Archive 13

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 11

Archive 12

→

Nicolò Giraud

Please review the history of the Nicolò Giraud and look at the talk page. I would like someone to be neutral on the matter and also can look at the fairness in regards to the LGBT aspects. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if there's anything I can do. I'll reply back here or on the talk page after reading what there is. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pleae read. Not only does it introduce things that are blatant peacock terms into the lead and stating more than can be stated ("torrid" and making it seem like there is consensus, when only a minority of scholars think that there was a love affair or proof of such), it removes important information about Giraud. Sigh. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, he moved statements from the biography section (fact) into the relationship section (speculation). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. Ok, my thoughts on this. I read the talk page yesterday. I have criticized Haiduc before for not using highest quality sourcing for very contentious topics, namely in the Historical pederastic relationships article. I have criticized you for not being able to leave well enough alone, but not related to Haiduc. So, I don't know if I'm the best person to try to mediate here. I have a sinking suspicion if I tried, no one would like what I say and it would devolve into nonsense and mediation, or ArbCom or some other tar pit. I haven't read these sources, but the only thing to do to step in between would be to get them, and read them, and offer a 3rd opinion how they are being used. I have to look at this economically, as an issue of the worth of my time. I honestly don't know if I spent all the time reading this, writing my opinion and posting on the talk page, if it would make the situation worse. I would, of course, wish all articles to be as accurate as possible, but that often means that I have to be the one expending energy on ensuring that, and I have a limited amount when other things like ego and agenda are involved. Let me think on it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It needs an expert in MoS and the rest who also works with the LGBT project pages to look it over. You are the only one that I know of. If you think that my take is unfair, then I will listen. However, he is now rearranging stuff almost randomly. It is as if he is challenging everything in some sort of trolling campaign. I can send you quotes of any sources that you would like to see the original content of. This only started happening after I listed the page for GA. One of the GA requirements is to not have any edit warring. The damage he did makes it so that it would need to be corrected to be GA, but his persistence shows that he will edit war it. Either way, his actions would ensure the failure of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that GA thing is going to suck. I had to hold off on doing anything with Harvey Milk until it was finished with mediation plus two weeks for stability. I have to go to the library this weekend for another of my articles. I will see if it has any of the sources mentioned in the article, and try to figure out some kind of medium. --Moni3 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The content is normally kept to less than 10 pages per source, so I can easily transcribe or submit you images for any that you need. I own most of the sources listed and have access to all. Just leave a note for which ones you would like to see. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Email

Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Monitor! Are these technology-related nouns, or just random utterances? --Moni3 (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, I replied.

I've sent another, just a little note. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

For the last time, I will not go on your Samuel Johnson-Keats-Milton fantasy cruise. Those wigs are itchy and those brochures showing Grecian urns placed all through the ship to write odes about look tacky. I cannot imagine a Paradise Lost excursion would be appealing or fun in any way. You can email me when you find something more diverting. --Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed. : ( Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Cherry Springs State Park

	<font=3> Thanks again for your peer review - Cherry Springs State Park made featured article today! Dincher (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rock on, dude. You're an animal. --Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Eraserhead (again)

I'm going to start working on this. What was the general availability of the book sources? I have found and printed plenty of articles, but I want to look at Sheen at the very least, or any book you can tell me that has substantive content about Eraserhead. --Laser brain (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have access to anything here. You can search for David Lynch. I used 4 books for Mulholland Dr., but there are more that were published before that movie was released. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a tremendous body of work about this film. I've contacted a few film studies professors to ask their opinions on which sources to use. I'll ask DL as well. I'm not sure whether to consider the baby a character in the film... --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

White Night riots

Just wondering what is going on over at the talk page. It looks like you are already reviewing the article, but not on a subpage, and you didn't claim responsibility for it at GAN. So I went ahead and created the subpage and signed for it before I saw your section. Are you doing an official GA review, or just an unofficial peer one? It might be good to move the review to the subpage I created, and replace my sig with yours at GAN. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reviewing it for GA officially. I'm making suggestions to the editors who nominated it. Your comments are welcome. I wrote the article for Harvey Milk and I may add to the White Night riots article because I have many sources leftover from the Milk article. --Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks for clarifying. — Jake Wartenberg 17:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your evidence

You noted you've not participated in RFAR before and that you're not sure what you're supposed to be doing. I've not been heavily involved in any ArbCases before, but I've made comments in a few, followed a couple others, and even been named a time or two... maybe three. >_> I forget now. Anyway, I just wanted to note that, in my opinion, you've done well to present your evidence and elaborate upon it. لenna vecia 13:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okeydoke. As posted, I'm happy to clarify. --Moni3 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Keep it civil, guys" APK straight up now tell me 14:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No no no. I will accept payment, not give it out... Dang it! --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to plead your case at CfD. APK straight up now tell me 14:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Civility for deletion? I support that. لenna vecia 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

If you have the time I'd like your input on the Jackie Robinson article. You'd commented during its prior FA nomination. Since then I've substatnially re-worked the article, and re-nominated it for FA status. BillTunell (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very pleased to review it. Give me a couple days. On cursory look, it already appears to be more substantially cited than it was in the last FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this article. It looks like the FAC will fail over the issue of including non-free images in the article. But that's unrelated to your previous work and useful comments. I appreciate your help. BillTunell (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you always know these things…

…and I can see you online now – do you know what (if anything) our policy is on the reliability of theses (thesises?) as sources? Amazingly, there doesn't seem to actually be anything in WP:RS about them (Vauxhall Bridge, currently ref 25, if you want the specific instance – the site itself requires registration but it's also in Google's cache here) – iridescent 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? There's nothing on theses as reliable sources? Puzzling. I think the guideline is that unless there is just not a lot of information published, theses are to be avoided because they are generally considered not to be fact checked consistently from one professor to the next, or from one university to the next. I will defer to Ealdgyth and Awadewit on this, however.--Moni3 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Butting in. There have been many conversations about this at the Reliable sources noticeboard (the most recent here with links to past discussions) and (surprise) there is no solid answer. If it's a doctoral dissertation from Harvard and the claim it's supporting is non-contentious.. sure. If it's a Master's thesis from an accredited but obscure institution and the claim is incredible... well, better to find a better source. One good suggestion is to look at the sources used in the thesis. More often than not, they will also help support the claims being made in the paper. --Laser brain (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's (I think) a doctoral thesis (architectural qualifications confuse me; Chinese architectural qualifications certainly confuse me), but from the University of Hong Kong which is certainly a respectable institution. I'm only using it to add additional background such as exact dimensions to a section that's already mostly sourceable to unquestionable RS's, so shouldn't hopefully be an issue. Anyway, the most important line in that article ("A large crowd assembled on the bridge in September 1844 to watch Mister Barry, a clown from Astley's Amphitheatre, sail from Vauxhall Bridge to Westminster Bridge in a washtub towed by geese") is impeccably sourced. For that one, I've temporarily suspended my longstanding aversion to DYK; that deserves a moment on the main page. – iride scent 22:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Risker wonders if that amphitheatre had anything to do with this. Bad Risker. 02:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This makes sense. I checked out a University of Florida thesis once on the anthropology of Kingsley Plantation. This seems like a logical use to me since anthropology student go to Kingsley Plantation all the time, and there does not seem to be a lot of information floating around on slavery in northeast Florida. I think that would be an acceptable use. I might look askance were a UF thesis going to support general facts, information readily found in a lot of available sources, or going to support some nutjob claim that Jane Austen was channeling alien thought patterns. --Moni3 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, how did you get hold of my dissertation??? --Laser brain (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You did a dissertation on goose-propelled washtubs? – iride scent 23:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Clowns... *shudder*. Laser brain, are you going to contact DL? I am curious and full of questions. --Moni3 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to yes. I believe he's traveling right now so I'm waiting, because he won't correspond from the road generally. Anything you want me to ask him? --Laser brain (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a list of issues to discuss about Mulholland Dr. I signed up for his website some months ago in the hope of finding some contact info for him, but I was unable to. Tell him I said hey, and I have issues. --Moni3 (talk) 23:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent and ignore the weirdnesses...) Laser's advice is good. It's also good if you can find that someone's cited the thesis in other work too. (This happens with history thesis occasionally.) If another scholar is using it as a source, it generally helps prove the reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to see this discussion as I have wondered as well....re theses that is ...(goes off to find some cool theses to ref something, anything...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I never claimed I could SPELL! I leave that to Malleus... (runs. Very far away. Before she is killed.) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Chill, petal. Casliber is referring to the top of the thread where it was discussed the plural of thesis, which you spelled correctly. --Moni3 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X

Thank you for your note. It is my first time on the front page, and it's a bit of a rush. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Giano matter

Hello, Moni3. I don't think we have interacted much, if at all, before, but from what I remember, you seem to be a fine editor and a valued administrator. That's why I am very surprised to see you write that you changed the block duration of Giano II (talk · contribs), that you knew that this was wheel warring and that you did not care.

I am not particularly interested in what eventually happens with the Giano situation (although I am surprised at the amount of drama he always seems to attract), but I have much less ambiguous views towards wheel warring. That's why I am asking you to please undo your block reduction – which is unsupported by WP:ANI consensus – or I may refer this matter to arbitration. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe we have interacted, no. I am not a valued administrator. I try as little as possible to administrate. I hope I am, however, a valued article writer and content editor. I'm not an active harpie either, but I had to put that cape on as well. There are times that it is obvious that admins do not prioritize content when it is astonishingly clear to me that content is the only reason this project exists, and improving it is the only reason it will attract any legitimacy. I'm sure you know I did not reduce Giano's block to have anything to do with you, and if your disappointment in my actions is the result of what I did, then it is collateral damage that I regret. I hope in the future I will be able to persuade you that I am a level-headed editor who participates in admin actions only when roused to do so. Otherwise, I add content to articles. I would venture to say that if more folks who worry themselves about Giano did so, they'd find a lot less to complain about in his actions. I'm fired up now, so I apologize for my zeal and unintended incoherence. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I must inform you that I have requested arbitration of the matter at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Moni3. It is my hope that, as soon as this issue is resolved, we will have the opportunity to collaborate under more auspicious circumstances. Sandstein 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rock on, dude. Are you working on an article right now? --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Meat spoilage, actually - although it is an unappetizing topic, I had hoped I could use my holiday to work on it. Somehow, though I got sidetracked into the drama du jour... Sandstein 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck with that. I'm constructing two, have one at FAC, one at GAN, I'm about to nominate another for GA. Having gone through a ringer or two for a couple articles I've written, I hope one day there will be admins to back me up when I need assistance. There are times, such as this drama du jour, that I think the priorities of the project is so off base it seems it would be a monumental effort to right it. It would be. I waver between foolish enough to care and fleeing such disappointments by delving into more article work. Eventually, however, there will come a day when I need someone to stand up and speak for the material I have put together. I hope I'll be able to find just one person to do it. --Moni3 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This for me sums up very eloquently why it's so important not to turn a blind eye to situations like the one Giano finds himself in, no matter how many appear to believe that it's needless drama:

First they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I was not a socialist.
Then they came out for the unionist,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came out for me,
and there was no one to speak for me.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

Well done Moni3 for having the balls to reduce Giano's block. Whether it sticks or not what you did shows courage and integrity, something sadly lacking in many of your fellow administrators. The whole rotten mess stinks to high heaven of corruption. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally! I have balls. What do I do with them now? --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Juggle. Yomangani ^talk 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you're a girl, it's just a figure of speech. It used to be said of Margaret Thatcher that she had more balls than all of the men in her cabinet. ;-) Anyway, don't all females suffer from penis envy? *runs away to hide ...* :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going more for grandmotherly scolding than overcompensating by trampling on the working class and destroying the ozone layer with hair spray. --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure giano appreciates the help. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sure Giano has no idea who I am and would be just as quick to tell me to piss up a rope. --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I appreciate the help on his behalf. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Nice! I told Bishonen the last time that Giano was blocked not to do it and, well, of course that was ignored. At least you didn't attack Jimbo afterward, so, you are doing better than everyone else that ever unblocked Giano. :) Here's to that! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I went to Honeymoon Island State Park recently and took some pictures of mangroves for Wikipedia. When I waded out into the mud to get some closeup shots of those weird and wacky roots, I sank past my ankles into the mud. I was barely able to pull my feet out, much less the flip flops I was wearing. I pulled those mofos out of the mud with all my might. I wouldn't care much except they're Reefs, expensive, and the best flip flops I've ever owned — a hot and necessary commodity in this area. I pulled so hard on those damn things I busted the strap on one. Of all the expenses I've incurred, late fees, library books, Amazon purchases, etc., for the article writing I do, this seemed like the most egregious expense. I considered posting an invoice on Jimbo's talk page for lulz. --Moni3 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to start adding things to the WMF tab, I have quite a bit that I could add (mostly all of the stuff that I purchased for myself but used for Wiki articles, so, over 200 books). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got an overdue fee outstanding for a couple of library books I borrowed on Hans Christian Andersen for The Princess and the Pea. Would you add that to your invoice please? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, are you trying to see if I'm still reading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! The princess lives! :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Two bonus points for saying "circle jerk" on ANI. APK straight up now tell me 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? What's my score, not counting the corrupt French judge? --Moni3 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

69 (drumroll) Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal. APK straight up now tell me 04:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni, I greatly admired the way you stuck out your neck for Giano the last night. Its actions like that give back faith in this project. You rock, har! Ceoil (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, Ceoil, although I consider it more siding with content than with Giano. Guess I picked an auspicious day to pay attention to ANI. --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The culture wars, continued

Yo Moni, if your not thoroughly horrified by your recent venture into dramaland, I would be interested in your thoughts on rootology's WP:EQUALITY proposal and this perspective on it. Talk-page stalkers and FAC-mafia also quite welcome. Regards Skomorokh 04:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I have anything to say on the talk page, but I'll watch it. Thanks for letting me know. --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Candy-colored clowns

		The Music Barnstar
		For writing good stuff on good songs. Sluzzelin talk 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I originally wanted to thank you for offering simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense at WP:ANI. ... but good articles on songs are far more interesting to read and also much rarer than dramatic material at that board. Thank you for improving song articles. I've always enjoyed listening to "What'd I Say" and "In Dreams", and now I enjoyed reading them too. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

YAY! Thanks. If you're interested, here's what I'm pecking away at right now. Shh. Don't tell anyone. --Moni3 (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Hi Moni3, I'm hoping I can provide another distraction from the wikipolitical arena by asking your advice. It concerns Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology. The reassessment has matured from the initial drama and is now a productive discussion on how to improve the article to meet the good article criteria. Part of the book is a short story (Ali's Smile) with a very disjointed plot. The book is available online (probably in violation of copyright, but I have linked it in case you can't find it).

The issue is how detailed a plot summary should Wikipedia provide. The current plot summary does not go beyond the very limited information available in secondary sources. Since I know you have experience in providing NPOV plot summaries for very disjointed stories :-), I'm hoping you can contribute your expertise and advice. Many thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Geometry guy 21:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni3, if you do have time, please note that draft proposals for summaries, including the summary of that short story, are being discussed on the GAR talk page. Your input would be most welcome there. JN 466 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that GAR turned into a muddle when I didn't keep up with it, though I can see someone has worked diligently to keep it on track. I read the talk page plot summaries. I would prefer the in-depth versions on the talk page. Is my opinion being solicited on the issue of its quality in relation to the GA criteria? Has the issue regarding a criticism section been resolved? --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section issue has been discussed extensively, so further input is not needed (though you are welcome to add comment). The issue is whether it would be possible to expand substantially the plot summary of the short story to avoid original research by selection without engaging in original research by synthesis. This may inform whether the article meets the GA criteria, but it is also possible to discuss this without engaging directly in the GA question. Please respond in whatever way you find appropriate. Geometry guy 06:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As I'm presently working (desultorily) on The Green Child I'm intrigued by your distinction between "original research by selection" and "original research by synthesis". I may just have to take a look myself. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on the article would be welcome too, Malleus. Geometry guy 06:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Kitty!

The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

You don't have to be a lesbian to love pussy...it just makes it comical. hehe. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

2 things

Hi Moni3, there has been another drive-by tagging at Scientology in Germany: [1] No rationale has appeared on the talk page. Geometry guy advised me some time back that the article was now doing a reasonable job at staying neutral. What would you advise? I don't just want to revert the tag.

No. 2, I find your proposal on the Workshop talk page potentially promising. I would like to encourage you to post it on the Workshop page proper, where it may get a bit more visibility. Thanks, JN 466 17:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For the drive-by tagging, wait for 24 hours. If no other edits or comments are made, remove the tag and contact the editor who placed it, inviting him to share concerns on the talk page and encouraging him to communicate with you and others involved in the article instead of drive-by tagging. If he continues, I'm still watching the article and I'll back you up.

For the proposal, this is the first ArbCom I've been involved in, so I placed it where I did and don't know how it should be formed or where it should go and whatnot. Any tips you can give me there would be welcome. --Moni3 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds good. As for the workshop proposal, all the templates on the Workshop page were used up, so I've added some blank ones again: [2]. To add your proposal, scroll down to "Proposals by User:X" and replace "User:X" with your user name. Then add any proposed findings of fact, remedies and enforcement in the appropriate subsections. This is your section then; while other people can comment and discuss your proposals in your section, they cannot suggest findings of facts or remedies in your section. Hope this makes sense, if not, give us a shout. Best, JN 466 11:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okeydoke. I posted it. I'm sure it needs to be refactored and whatnot, but I hope it will spark a discussion and replace the only idea of a 60-day block. --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moni3, could you please have another look at Scientology in Germany? Wispanow (talk · contribs) has reinstated the NPOV tag; he may well have been the one who placed it earlier. No new posts to the talk page. In addition there is a chap who inserts {{main|History of Scientology}} into all sorts of articles, including Scientology in Germany. I don't understand that, since the history of Scientology in Germany is already covered in that article, and History of Scientology is nothing but a stub right now that readers won't appreciate being sent to.

As for my difficulty understanding what you mean by "antagonize" in the proposed remedy, please have a look at [3] and [4].

Mattisse hasn't edited in 3 days. I hope she'll be back eventually. :( JN 466 22:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I left a message on Whispanow's talk page. Both you and Cirt left a message on Alan Leifting's. I would keep that 24-hour rule. I'm interested to know how he responds. If he's simply mass tagging articles related to Scientology or any articles, for that matter, I would remove the tag as you and others who have worked on the article feel is appropriate. Since the last time I read the article, some background info has been added (or improved), so I don't know how much history Leifting thinks should be in the article.

As for "antagonize" I'm ok with another word, whatever. If you choose something, however, I think it should be the equivalent to "poking the bear", not just calling someone names. And I spent a few glorious days not paying attention to Wikipedia at all... once... I can imagine that she would be on a beach somewhere ignoring us as we well deserve to be. I must admit that I would never had stayed around in such a place that had grieved me the way she expresses this place has. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, she obviously also really enjoys it sometimes. But yes, a break can be great to gain perspective. By the way, now that you say "poking the bear", I do realise now how you had meant it. Sorry for being dense, and thanks for the help with the article. JN 466 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You've been quoted

[5] :P Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That statement keeps coming back to me like a bad penny. I hope of all the comments I've ever made on Wikipedia that you find warmth and wisdom in my analogy of working on tendentious articles and suicide. I feel like my work here is almost done now. --Moni3 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The only comment of mine anyone ever quotes is "without content, Wikipedia is just Facebook for ugly people". And they usually take that out of context. At least you've Influenced The Lives Of A Generation Of Editors. – iridescent 00:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've always found your comments well said and wise, Moni. And I certainly hope your work is not done as there is soooooo much yet to do. — Becksguy (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Lesbian

I promised long ago to look at lesbian, but somehow it just didn't happen. Are you still looking for a review? Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. A few editors have suggested that it should be taken to FAC, but since I overhauled it I haven't received a lot of scrutiny about it. I thought you might be interested in the Literature and European history sections, but if you're willing to give an overall review, I'd be glad to get it. --Moni3 (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it in pieces over the next few days. How about that? Awadewit (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's good. This was one I wrote in a compact amount of time, taking about a month. I'm trying to get some space from it to be able to assess it myself. I may place it at PR again; it had 1 after I rewrote it. I recognize there are areas that should be adjusted, but I'm interested to know how much of that is shared by readers. --Moni3 (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(Butting in) Wow, an article so... very... broad, with controversial aspects. You may end up getting the same treatment as Roman Catholic Church. Be warned. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure actually, in some ways I think the RCC was/is/would be a much harder call. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, I am worried that such a humong article, broad in topic and controversial, will get exactly the same treatment as RCC. Which is why I hope I can get much of the major controversy out of the way before taking it to FAC. --Moni3 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Random ghey moth fluttering

"I mean I've never known any personally, but isn't Danny Thomas one?" APK straight up now tell me 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not Lebanese Blanche...Lesbian!" The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"But you are Blanche, you are in that chair!" (Bette Davis). — Becks ROFLMAO 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

^ ^ ^ Proof that if you mention The Golden Girls, the gheys will come. Like moths to a flamer. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 07:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"uuuuUUUUHHHHuuuUUHHH!" (That sound Tim Allen used to make in Home Improvement). — Becks Still ROFLMAO 08:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Case

What I did

On May 20, User:Prodego blocked User:Giano II for three weeks for this comment, giving the reason that it was uncivil. I agree that it was.
The block was discussed on the ANI page, where I first learned of it. Through this conversation, it became apparent that:
1. Giano had participated in User:FlyingToaster's RfA where User:Xeno took exception to Giano's comments.
2. Xeno proceeded to edit an article Giano had been working on titled Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer. Xeno had no history with this article an no apparent cause to edit it or interest in the subject. Xeno's edits consisted of making brilliant writing—a vital component for featured articles—more plain [6], maligning the article for not having citations in the lead—which is not required per WP:LEAD, and "drive-by" fact tagging. [7]
Pursuant to the discussion on the ANI page, Giano's block was cleared by User:David D., who invited admins to overturn him if they wished. The 3-week block was re-instated by User:Sandstein.
I commented in this discussion [8] and [9]. I watched the discussion go on for a couple hours and went to bed.
When I woke up the next morning, the discussion had of course proceeded for many hours, yet nothing seemed to have been resolved. The discussion had been stalled as there were editors attesting that a majority consensus was needed to change Giano's block. Who would determine this majority I do not know. I generally tend to avoid ANI, and quite honestly, I had not visited the ANI page for some days, and I think I visited it only in between edits to see if there was anything being discussed I should be aware of.
With the admission that I was incredulous that Giano's commentary, in this incident, was provoked by Xeno, I immediately shortened Giano's block to 24 hours, and announced I had done so, with great righteous (and rare, for me) zeal on the ANI page. [10]
Sandstein contacted me via my talk page (above), and after learning that I would not overturn my own block, initiated an Arbitration Committee request in my name, which was switched to Giano II Wheel Warring. I have not taken the opportunity to address the ArbCom request.

What I defend

It is at the risk of being branded a part of any side, cabal, or association with Giano, who though a prolific editor is just as unpopular for provocative, rude, and often profane statements directed at other editors, I should clarify that I sided with content, not Giano.
I believe, again only in this incident, that Giano's unpopularity and tendency to respond predictably with language that would warrant a block, was taken into account beforehand. To what extent, I cannot say at this time. However, it is my belief that his unpopularity was a factor in Xeno's provocation, what I consider was an excessively long block of 3 weeks for a statement that I may just have easily said under similar circumstances, and the lack of consensus at the ANI discussion.
It was apparent to me that the nature of the discussion at ANI centered around protocol: what to do when a blocking admin has made a controversial action. Part of my astonishment was so little action being taken to reduce Giano's block when evidence was clear to me, and indeed, to Xeno himself as he eventually blocked himself for his own actions, that Giano had been wrongly provoked, and mainspace article content was compromised in order to act against an editor with a very long block log. I was further dismayed by the lack of willingness of many editors to see this evidence, due in part to Giano's long history of antagonism. The consensus, which so many editors had placed so much faith in, appeared to be a frail system that was easily manipulated by editors with a shared distaste for Giano's previous actions, who were willing to overlook the facts of this issue in isolation. It seemed a perfect analogy to a group of editors with an agenda attempting to use consensus to override integral policies of verifiability, reliable sources, weight, or BLP. I must admit that there are times I see editors with whom I have disagreed with in the past get blocked, and when that spark of Schadenfreude appears, I know I'm too involved to act as an admin, much less participate in discussions about that editor's actions.
I agree with the policy that blocks should not be punitive. With this in mind, the unfair provocation, the excessive length of the block, and Giano's pattern of colorful language, that no reasonable person can argue his behavior would change from this block.
I should state that had Xeno's actions been earnest, and he was honestly attempting to improve content, I would have let Giano's block stand without comment.

What I learned

The most embarrassing aspect of the discussion ensuing from my actions is that I did not revert Xeno's changes to Raine Spencer, Countess Spencer. The unnecessary fact tags stayed in the article for four hours while many editors, and me among them, argued over the appropriate action. I should have done this first among anything else, particularly in light of my "content first" defense.
This incident clarified a nebulous idea for me quickly: all administrative actions should be taken for the improvement and protection of content. I believe that this should be a major tenet of any administrator.
I am unclear regarding User:FT2's comment [11] that I "should understand that quality of working environment is a wiki pre-requisite and highly beneficial for quality content work by a large scale volunteer community, and not just perpetuate an 'admin vs content' worldview". I am not sure why this was pointed out to me when this was my primary motivation for decreasing Giano's block.
User:Carcharoth asked some questions [12] I feel I should respect by giving a reply: I did not initiate the re-opening of the discussion before I shortened Giano's block. I have spent some days thinking about why I did not do this. Part of it is explained above, that the arguments over protocol were stalled, and editors were participating in the discussion who had negative experiences with Giano in the past, allowing those experiences to influence their opinions on consensus for the 3-week block. I have had little to no experience communicating with Giano, so I consider myself uninvolved. In my righteousness I condemned the frailty of the system that allowed an unjust block of any editor to stay while admins and editors argued about it on the ANI page. Anyone who spends any time at ANI, and I must say this is one of the primary reasons I do not spend more time there, knows that discussions can go on for days without resolution, then when editors tire of it, the issue is abandoned until it arises again in some other ugly form.
However, in retrospect I feel I should have re-initiated the discussion before taking action. I do not regret shortening Giano's block, and if the conversation continued to spiral into redundancy and inaction, I may have eventually shortened the block anyway. But I take Carcharoth's point, that although the editors involved in the discussion, and by extension the system itself, may have been impotent, I should have respected the system by attempting once more to right what I saw was very wrong through conversation.

Final thoughts

In many cases drama ensues at ANI and ArbCom because many editors are not able to leave well enough alone. That the case ended at ArbCom I do not regret. Should anything productive come from this, I hope it initiates discussion regarding the role of consensus in blocks. It appears that clarification on the definition of wheel warring is in order as well. On a broader scale, I have noticed that there are tensions between content editors and gnome editors or admins who perform valued maintenance on Wikipedia. There should be none. This site exists only for its content, which I have stated here, should be improved and protected by every edit. Destruction of content in such a deliberate manner should be a blockable offense. It is, actually, but there are clear double standards for editors and admins, which is something else that should be addressed immediately. Although I think the purpose of a block is straightforward: to prevent editors from abusing the website, apparently it needs clarification for the use of blocks as punishment is common. --Moni3 (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting...

...reading above. i think we all learned something from this. While i have not written anything as detailed as above, one problem I now see in reviewing my actions was I missed a lot of discussion immediately after the block that had been deleted from Giano's talk page. This would have led to more discussion on my part. Instead, I had looked only at the AN/I thread, Prodego's talk and post blanking comments on Giano's talk page. Nevertheless, I am fairly sure I would have taken similar action, certainly reducing the block. For me too, the crux of the issue was xeno's role in blocking himself. I see you acknowledged that fact on his talk page. There is no doubt this was an exceptionally charged example and I guess that is why there was so little action to reduce the length of the initial block. I'll write more later but thanks for your clarifications above. David D. (Talk) 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a lot that went on here. What Giano did was, in my opinion, rather minor compared to what Xeno did. Saying some nasty words on someone's talk page isn't exactly civil, but it's a far cry from screwing around with actual articles as a wp:point to make someone else angry, which goes against the core of what I thought this project was about. Civility is a means to an end; there's no point in a "civil community" if the community goal is lost. So there's a block, a self-block and a double unblock, and I thought things were settled. The reblock without prior discussion was very wrong, but I think most admins know that if you take something to ANI first for discussion, you're only going to get consensus for the extreme cases, that is the ones that are not really controversial and therefore didn't need to go to ANI. Thus, if an admin has an axe to grind, it becomes important to block first and then explain. I am sad to see that this behaviour has been de facto endorsed. It creates monsters. Gimmetrow 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly i felt that the greater wrong was from xeno. But, recall I opened up the reblock route for Giano by specifically saying that an admin could reblock if they thought my unblock was sufficiently egregious. I really anticipated that all would go on to more productive things after the double unblock. That it continued was an eye opener to me and will constitute a different tactic on my part in a similar situation. David D. (Talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think another admin was justified to reblock just because you didn't oppose. There were others who opposed it, and the reblocking admin didn't even attempt to initiate discussion. The reblock seems to fit exactly the bolded line in the lead of WP:WHEEL. Gimmetrow 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Just saw Rosewood massacre made FA! Well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, you map making maestro! --Moni3 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		No matter how many articles we take to FA.. No matter how many stacks of books we seize from the libraries.. No matter how many hours of copyediting and reconstructing and image tweaking and responding to suggestions.. It never gets any easier. (If anything, we do more work because we are more driven to achieve maximum article quality!) So here's another barnstar for another superb Featured Article. Nice work. Scartol • Tok 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A fascinating scenario you have posited here. While the time I spend on microfilm is a bit shorter because I'm no longer trying to figure out how to scan, save, and email files to myself, the more time I spend in the library the more sources I discover I have missed. I spend less time worrying about my writing style and begging for copy edits, but now I'm writing longer articles in broader scope. How does it all factor out in the end, I wonder. However, thank you very much for the star, another spot on copy edit, and generally just being neat-o. --Moni3 (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll look forward to reading this, I've always enjoyed your work. :-) Risker (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of it when you're done. Thank you. You may need this when you are finished.--Moni3 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be a few weeks before I can really take on any more Wikipedia work. End of the year and all that. Remind me on the 15th? As for BGW, it has apparently changed quite a bit since I worked there. I don't remember our selling any books over $30 when I was an employee. Under new management, so far as I know. But yeah — small world. Scartol • Tok 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rosewood massacre FAC

Congrats on the FA! I never thought the peekaboo-who's-the-white-lover structure was intended to be deceptive; I merely thought it was very confusing. As for dividing the narrative into two perspectives, well, of course I see what you mean, but doing so shouldn't result in confusing the reader. Encyclopedias don't have to be boring, but they do have to be straightforward, nyet? They are taken first as an authoritative and objective source of info, and then secondarily as a source of... anything and everything else, including analysis that examines both perspectives... Ling.Nut (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If you prefer the section to be restructured, let me know and I'll see what I can do. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be yammering/babbling about it if I didn't think it should be restructured ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Music Barnstar
		There are simply not enough music articles on Wikipedia dedicated to legendary artists. I am proud to see that Ray Charles, one of the greatest singers of all time, has a nice article that is close to passing its GA review, in "What'd I Say (song)". Keep up the excellent work! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have responded to your comments. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, CC, which legendary music artist are you thinking of who doesn't have their own Wikipedia article? Wikipedia may have gaping gaps in coverage of pre-1900 politics and engineering, for example, but I've never seen "not enough coverage of recent popular culture" as a criticism of Wikipedia before. – iridescent 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to artists THEMSELVES, I was referring to articles about the artists. Sorry, my New York english may have caused some confusion. ^^' CarpetCrawler^{message me} 20:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was going to be funny an suggest that the prolific Nervous Norvus didn't have an article, but...well... --Moni3 (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a joke about Ron Dante and The Detergents not having an article, but they DO. Wikipedia really DOES have an article about everything under the sun. ^^' Leader of the Laundromat, indeed. *dodges tomatoes* CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What'd I Say (song)

The article has passed its GA review, congratulations! See the talkpage for details, as well as FA advice. Thank you, and great work! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the comments. Peer review is a good idea. I'm losing hope that I might find good reviews in 1959 or 1960 due to segregation and the naughtiness of the song. I hope that doesn't preclude it from becoming an FA. I suppose I should find a source to say it would not have been given a lot of critique at the time for these reasons. I appreciate your time. --Moni3 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could spend some time in the article discussing how the song faced heavy criticism from people of that time, due to the opinions of certain people of the timeframe, whether racial or sexual. That would certainly be an interesthing, but controversial thing, to cover. Just would have to adhere to a NPOV! :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 21:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Wispanow#Blocked

Hello. I have undone your block of that user as manifestly inappropriate. You are engaged in a content dispute with that user, as seen here. Consequently, you should have observed WP:BP, which says: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators."

Moreover, you have protected the page Scientology in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after reverting it to your preferred version, which violates WP:PREFER. Together, these actions amount to an abuse of your administrator privileges, because you appear to be using these privileges for the purpose of furthering your own position in a dispute. I would like to ask you to please stop doing that and remove the protection. If you think Wispanow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is acting disruptively, please refer the matter to an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okeydoke. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. For your information, with this edit immediately after you protected the page, you also acted contrary to WP:PREFER's instruction that "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes unrelated to the dispute or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." I would like to respectfully suggest that, if you are about to take administrative actions with which you have little experience, you would be well-advised to review the applicable policies first, or ask at WP:AN. Sandstein 17:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I contacted Geometry guy and Risker to assist mediating the article. Of course, I do not think my actions were a content dispute. I have made no content edits to the article. I think your assessment of my actions is inaccurate. But...oh well. --Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Sandstein, at least far enough that I think your undoing of Wispanow's edit before protection gives a strong appearance of involvement. Remember that removing cited material is not always inappropriate: here it was apparently done as a balance concern, and the fact that you undid it was, de facto, an expression of your own opinion. I think Sandstein's recent warning to Wispanow about the general sanctions on Scientology articles is appropriate. But I have re-protected the article as reverting had already started up again since unprotection. Mango juice^talk 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fascinating what jostling realities we all seem to have. I have no vested interest in that article. I have added no content, only restored what was removed without explanation after what I consider to be a very strong and stern warning against removing cited content in a sanctioned article. It was for that reason alone that Wispanow was blocked for 3 hours. I hope you see my attempts on the talk page to redirect the discussion to the unexplained mass tagging. I protected the mass tagged version to give Wispanow the benefit of the doubt and anticipated a discussion on why he thought the article was not neutral. I was forming an invitation to "shake hands and start over" when I got Sandstein's note here about the block removal. I think I was being more than fair. You can see what transpired following the unprotection. I think things could have gone a lot differently with this situation. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is, if you aren't willing to just slap protection on a page as is, you are too involved. Tags or no tags, discussion is forced because the editors can't edit war when the page is locked down. Anyway my point was more about the appearance of involvement, not actual involvement: appearances are almost as important as the truth in a situation like this. If one side feels like admins are siding against them, it can be very difficult for productive discussion to proceed. Mango juice^talk 04:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This inclination to lecture me on being too involved and whatever Sandstein's point was above yours is puzzling. What is it you think I was trying to do? Regarding the appearance of anything, I think by making these poorly informed and misguided accusations of my involvement, you can see what protecting the appearance of whatever was the top priority here did for the concept of edit warring in a sanctioned article, civility on the talk page, and giving the editors involved the opportunity to discuss their content disagreements in a civilized manner. How does it appear now? Is it what you were going for??? Balls to appearances.

Both you and Sandstein assume motivations of my actions that were not true, and that would have been debased had you looked at the history of the article since February, or even what I summarized on Risker's page yesterday. By continuing to support your assumptions and not give it up already or apologize for jumping to conclusions, we're still yammering on about it here. What's happening in the article? --Moni3 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moni3 (and everyone else). I'd planned to review this and comment earlier this evening (well, before it became this morning), and apologize for not having done so. Perhaps it is just me, or having read too much on the topic of Scientology lately, but I've just suddenly awakened with a start to realise that I'd fallen asleep reading the article. I'll try to get back here tomorrow night. Sorry! Risker (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Take your time, Risker. The article needs help. I don't. --Moni3 (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Trees company?

Speaking of trees ... I found this beauty in the AfD file - List of tree species common to Cuba and Florida. Normally I'd kinda chuckle and move on butt, and I have good one ... there may be something to an article on tress common to the broader geographical area as opposed to just the political area. Although we have List of trees of the Caribbean and similar articles for many countries. It sparked in me that you had sussed out some Florida swampland and traded in some shoes for a photoshoot so were far more atuned to these issues. Any ideas or is it fundamentally flawed? What say ye? -- Banjeboi 13:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I considered ignoring this because of the gratuitous opening pun there, but I feel sorry for the trees, so... Yeah, all right. I might have something on trees in South Florida and Cuba. User:Guettarda will have a lot more than I, and I think he'd be better. He's written FAs on tree species while I wrote them on the entire environment. I looked at the list and it's not coming to me right away what this needs. Should all these species be cited or just the rationale and an expansion of why plant species in Cuba and South Florida should be its own list? As a member of ARS, what would you put in there? --Moni3 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You know my feeble brain only has so many puns available so, y'know, some slack for a sistah? It's a toss-up based on if it fits into a bigger scheme of things or not. Political tree articles, trees in country X et al, are obviously a useful way of organizing but so could a broader regional approach as trees and most species don't adhere to polical whims and visa requests. So this could be a slam dunk keep as the subject is certainly useful, it could be a move to better title ____, it could be comment - with unsure remarks and could even be delete as a can of worms. -- Banjeboi 22:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattise ArbCom & panel

Hi, Moni3, thanks for creating User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom. My reaction on seeing it is that it's a bit like a form for handling specific issues, and we probably need to go back a little further to define objectives, e.g. what kinds of trouble we're trying to head off / bring under control, for which the ArbCom evidence and analysis may be the most useful source. You might find it useful to have a look at User_talk:Mattisse#Advice and User_talk:Mattisse#ArbCom - and others on Mattise's very busy Talk page, if you have the time :-) -Philcha (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the Arbitration Committee will be outlining these issues beforehand, though I see it's a split decision about that 15-day plan. I agree with the opposing arbitrators that something should be outlined in specific detail before the decision is finalized. Mattisse's page is watchlisted, so I'm reading what is going on there. Out of what I have assumed Mattisse has wished, I have not posted on her talk page since the end of the RfC. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you've criticised Mattisse's conduct but have also made many positive contributions, especially at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop^{[note 1]}, your contributions to developing a plan would carry a lot of weight, including your view of the kinds of trouble we're trying to head off / bring under control. I have not advertised User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom, as I think that's for you to decide. I'm prepared to host inital discussions if you would prefer that. --Philcha (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[Note 1] E.g. "editors need to focus on article content instead of the individual personalities", "I hope that my idea here not only makes Mattisse more accountable for what she says about other editors, but protects her from the ones whose articles have genuine problems, and who are attempting to waylay the work they should have done in the first place by trying to discount Mattisse in the eyes of others", "FAR and GAR is time for brass tacks on article content, not a marriage counseling session" (ROFL), "The stewards should direct all commentary toward content, weeding out the nuttiness that distracts us so easily like cheap shiny pencils to a 1st grader" (your sense of humour is looking like a real asset).

Well, the funniest situations are borne of the most frustrating, but I'm glad someone got a kick out of that. I'm expanding the sandbox page. I need help with it. I didn't know ArbCom was leaving it up to Mattisse or us to decide, so I'm trying to be as clear as possible. Feel free to advertise it to anyone involved in the ArbCom with the invitation to use the sandbox discussion page to tweak, or just edit the thing themselves. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "got a kick out of that", you may be up for a share of Geometry guy's Nobel Peace prize :-)

Thanks, I've advertised your sandbox page at User_talk:Mattisse#ArbCom - and am trying to get a discussion going at User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom. --Philcha (talk)

Thank you. Is it prudent to invite each user who has participated in the ArbCom to comment on the sandbox thing? --Moni3 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO no, as those who are pressing for severe sanctions will be tempted to cause confusion - even if you're paranoid, you may really have enemies (you never read that, and I never wrote it). --Philcha (talk)

BTW I usually cuss edit conflicts, but was glad to see you pitch in. I've pasted my partial list in for now, we can streamline it later. --Philcha (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to Stonewall Riots

I saw this edit to the article which is assume is incorrect, but I'm unsure as I don't have the book. If you have the source or just know the edit is incorrect, you may want to revert the edit. Mm40 (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton Disston

You're had the review tag up for a month yet I see nothing going on. Are you still reviewing it? Also check you make you're you're following through on any others as well. Wizardman 04:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the nominator to add more information to the article. I sent him some stuff to do it and suggested some other sources. I asked him to contact me when it is finished. I'll check back with the article again. I did forget it, actually. --Moni3 (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Your comments have a ring of truth about them. But they are outweighed by other concerns.

First, you and I have been on-wiki a long time. We both know that "Well-meaning yammering happens": people love to just insert observations, feelings, comments, opinions, comments about other peoples' comments, color commentary, analyses, comparisons of comments to old situations, anecdotes, pictures of lolcats, etc. into every conversation.. simply because they can. Their comments may be Mostly Harmless, but they clog up everything. We need a restricted number of voices. I'm very, very, very concerned that the yammering will drown out Mattisse's voice.... that's the bottom line in my remarks.
Where is the sense in a situation in which people are interacting with each other, and not with Mattisse?
As for other people having a stake: absolutely no one has a larger stake than Mattisse. No one's stake is even vaguely comparable, in fact. She is the one and only editor in danger of being blocked/banned. Everyone else has... positive or negative feelings, maybe, at stake... and that's all. They risk nothing.
SO OK it's good if a limited number of people add a limited amount of input.. slowly.. carefully.. deliberately.. well-thought out.. involving Matisse... we don't need a whole host of folks yammering.
We need Mattisse's voice to ring clear. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To keep this in one place:

I agree with your points, but it seems to me as if you are insisting all communication stop. This is the first ArbCom case I've participated in, and there are so many grey areas. I don't understand what is happening and what the process is. There seems to be no plan for contingencies, and I don't understand how any plan will be successful without them.
Speaking for myself, I really want this thing to go well. An ideal situation is one where Mattisse continues to give solid reviews in any article space she wishes, and the general dramatic tenor around FAC and other review forums decreases significantly. But the ArbCom proposal for Mattisse to come up with something in 15 days prompts more questions than answers. I am honestly a bit surprised at the lack of direction the Arbitration Committee is giving. Will they accept anything she puts forth? What will they do if she doesn't put anything forth? How will they enforce something that is put forth without any consequences? Why would they leave such details open to determine after their decision? Many of my reservations have more to do with this decision than with what is going on in these multiple forums. We're trying to clarify what has not been clarified.
I think slow deliberation is wise, but it does not appear that we're being given the option of being slow and deliberate. I have skimmed over other ArbCom cases, and this one seems to be going rather well, in that there are editors who have Wikipedia's and Mattisse's best interests to heart, even though many of us have expressed a clear frustration with the way things have gone in the past. I count these editors as a useful resource in helping devise a resolution. I'm back at not understanding what is happening and what we are supposed to do. --Moni3 (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the lack of direction is unhelpful. But work is being done.
If you 'n Philcha wanna talk, then talk, of course.. but please... to Mattisse, not to each other.. and not to anyone else in the crowd.. and do so only after thinking out what you wanna say. Seriously, is that rude to ask? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not rude, but I do not understand how you can set the rules about who talks to who when the Arbitration Committee is giving no direction. I don't think Mattisse is the best person to clarify what is supposed to happen. Ideally, someone from ArbCom should be assisting in this, or something should be said so we're not running around and into each other trying to figure out what has been undisclosed. I'm in a constant battle here over what to say, because I am hoping so much that this succeeds and it's countering my experience watching Mattisse's self-defeating behaviors. I feel that they must be accounted for in developing a proposal, and frankly, with such evidence given to them, that they put this all in her hands in the first place. --Moni3 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the situation in which I set the rules is the worst possible situation — except for the one in which there are no rules. :-) And the latter is clearly, very clearly where we were headed. It was chaos. Come on. Admit it... As to your other point, Mattisse is not hanging out there all alone. When I say that she needs to make the decisions, I do not mean that she will do it in a vacuum. I mean that since she is really the only tangible stakeholder, her fingerprints must be all over every aspect of the final decision(s). Her final position will incorporate others' input; her decisions are made in consultation with the community, or at least with that subset of the community made up of 1) ArbCom and 2) people she trusts. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot admit chaos. From my perspective, it was a group trying desperately to come to some kind of understanding about what might constitute a fair proposal, taking Mattisse's growth and Wikipedia's best interests at heart, in the absence of steps and clear direction. I know Mattisse is not hanging out alone. I am hoping that the other editors involved in this case will not be forgotten as well. I share SandyGeorgia's concerns that Mattisse's defenders who have not considered all the evidence may do more harm than good. I am eager for this case to be over, and I don't ever want to revisit it again. I am as interested in being a part of developing a proposal to facilitate Mattisse's reviews as I am ensuring that the cycle of distrust and hyperbole is broken. If a proposal is put forth that is clearly unsatisfactory, has no consequences, no provisions for the evidence presented in the case, and is illogical in providing opportunities for behavior changes when I could have participated and assisted, then I have only myself to blame when it fails. Again, I do not understand what it is we are supposed to be doing and I am trying to reconcile my confusion with a worst case scenario. --Moni3 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is to not worry too much about ArbCom's lack of direction (just yet, anyway ... it's still early in the 15 days). I clearly expressed that frustration and concerns about the final plan and how it will be implemented, and they haven't responded to my concern. NYB and other responsible Arbs are always watching, and are very fair. If they haven't responded, in my experience, it means they aren't concerned, and if they are concerned, they'll say something (at least that's my guess and take on the situation ... I could be wrong). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec, see sandy above) Let's ask Mattisse to choose the subset of those 11 folks whom she prefers to be involved in planning. Let's ping those folks and ask if they wanna participate in the discussion about the plan (as opposed to just being there to help Mattisse in the future when she asks for it... as is the case with Malleus, if I understand correctly). Actually, 11 folks is probably 4 or 5 or 6 too many... :-) Let's lay down clear.. mmm.. a clear... mmm.. what's the word? Set a tone without actually making too too many rules... guidelines for who can speak, and how, and when... Set an overriding goal for the communication. Involve Mattisse. Let's make everything orderly, calm, purposeful, directed. The whole thing should be a calm conversation among adults, a conversation in which everyone listens 4 times before speaking, in which people hold their tongues and choose their words... Ling.Nut (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I am recused, and there are a slew of cases in voting stages at present, as well as media discussion in the aftermath of the scientology case. It will be gotten around to, and I suspect that any proactive attempts to develop a plan will be welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to go now. Let's do as I mentioned above.. and Let's involve Mattisse. G'night. Ling.Nut (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

My usual modus operandi is to do what I feel like doing until someone asks me to do something else; to pay attention to something in particular. I already feel that my personal stake in seeing this succeed, while benevolent in nature, also highly increases the potential in my disappointment. If I am to continue participating in Wikipedia in the face of very many of its frustrations, I have to pick and choose what I care about with my longevity in mind. So, this is an inherently selfish decision I'm making to continue to participate in this ArbCom case. I can happily go back to doing whatever it is I do around here and wait to be called upon. I have volunteered to be a mentor/steward, and I don't know how much clearer I can make myself that I want this over and for Mattisse to succeed. I do not, however, want an opportunity to pass by when I could have had input into anything to make this more successful, and my lack of input leads to its failure. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering how busy the arbs are, if you're really becoming frustrated, it may help to go to WT:RFARB, explain the situation, and explicitly ask for more guidance from them. But I suspect a few more days to see how things shake out may be helpful; Mattisse does better under less pressure, and it's unclear to me if she is frustrated (??). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not frustrated. Still very confused. I shall find something sparkly to divert my attention until someone shouts at me. --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From this, it does sound like they're pretty backlogged right now, with the pending close of the date linking arb. (Stay off of youtube while you're looking for distraction!!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I laid out a plan of action above. The key points are: a limited number of participants, and a high degree of involvement from Mattisse. Moni, you are listed as a mentor, so you are automagically included in. I do not want a bunch of happy happy Wikibuddies involved. No. Nyet. Only mentors and Arbs. Now, that does not mean that absolutely everyone else is absolutely forbidden from saying absolutely anything else. The goal is not to form a little sanhedrin; the goal is to have a quiet, focused, directed discussion... It means that other folks should think 2 or 3 times before speaking, and then speak if it seems truly germane/useful/important. It means that the great cloud of happy happy Wikibuddies should be discouraged from even saying "peep." Ling.Nut (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Newington Green Unitarian Church

Hello. Iridescent suggested I ask you to have a look at my first substantial article, Newington Green Unitarian Church. You are clearly interested in LGBT issues. Mary Wollstonecraft (who was passionately attached to girls in her youth) and Abigail Adams moved in the same circles, thanks to Rev Richard Price, so the church is significant on both sides of the Atlantic. It appears to have made history in recent years by being the first religious establishment in Britain to ban all marriages until same-sex couples are equal under the law. I would welcome any more information or context you might be able to contribute. Any comments welcome. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive comments! I'll reply to the substantive comments there, but I wanted to mark my initial appreciation here. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ageism

Thanks for your copy editing of the essay... hope you liked it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this on Reuters

[13] "As exhibitions go, the New York Public Library's "1969: The Year of Gay Liberation" could hardly have chosen better timing. With debate raging over same-sex marriage across the United States, the library in midtown Manhattan opened the exhibit on Monday to mark the 40th anniversary of the so-called Stonewall riots that triggered the modern U.S. gay rights movement. Photos, documents, clippings from the gay media and other artifacts illustrate what was a shocking development at the time: homosexual men and women coming out of the closet to demonstrate for their civil rights, often at great risk. The free exhibit will run at the main branch all of June." - Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been sitting here, staring at this comment for 20 minutes, wondering what to reply. The article will probably be on the main page for June 28. I don't know if I'll be around that day. I need a break.

I'm hoping if I take some time away from Wikipedia soon that I'll be able to come back if this is on the main page to defend the article against what I know will be an onslaught of agenda-driven commentary.

I don't know what else to say. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to give you another job, I thought you might want to kick someone to go take pictures. It will be fun to see the article on the main page! - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Via Sandy

I'm here to collect on this, please. Thanks! Outriggr (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by this 2 day old account. Outriggr? Never heard of him...or, no wasn't he on Canada's dummest crimials, or a 20 year old episode of The Bill, or an insurance ad, or something. I forget. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Email headed your way. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		For your wonderful work on "What I'd Say". Now, if someone could bring Ray Charles to that standard... ceranthor 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC) {{{1}}}

Thank you. Per this recent activity... Someday, when I have all the time I need... --Moni3 (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

stoned

Do you read the Washington Blade? You might be able to use this story...or possibly Bitch Session. (side note: I wish this protest image was public domain.} {side note, part deux: APK loves that book.) APK lives in a very, very Mad World 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to read the Washington Blade regularly. Interesting story. Lilli Vincenz was the first full portrait American woman to be on the cover of The Ladder way back in 1964. If you go to DC Pride and see her, tell her I love that pic and I think she's foxy. The image you linked to was taken by Kay Lahusen I think (who also took Vincenz's picture for The Ladder). The NYPL owns it in their Barbara Gittings/Kay Lahusen Collection. I saw an image of dozens lit candles and flowers in front of the San Francisco Department of Public Heath taken in 1982 I think, that I wish was public domain. Thanks for the links. --Moni3 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

lookie lookie! APK is in the gay mafia 19:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. That just makes me feel like I should have improved Kameny's article months ago... --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's more on the flickr account, but I thought that image was nice because of the signs behind him. APK is in the gay mafia 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Information to shed (but should I shed it?)

You said here: "If anyone has any information to shed on this issue that is not apparent in that thread, please do." I think there might be at least one point that hasn't been made. The allegation isn't just copyvio; it's a longtime pattern of copyvio with prior warnings. If that's the case—i.e., if the problem was recognized long ago—I wonder why it wasn't dealt with promptly and definitively instead of being allowed to fester until now. If others were aware of copyvios and took no action to prevent further ones, then it seems almost as if there was tacit approval given. In the interim, ASE made countless valuable contributions until one day the world came crashing down on his head. I haven't made this point on the AN/I thread because I suspected it would be judged irrelevant or blame-shifting or something (and because I avoid AN pages like the Plague). I also doubt, at this point, that it would help ASE since he seems to have burned his bridges through denial and incivility. But if you think it would be helpful, either to ASE or to the project as a whole, I'll post something there. Rivertorch (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there has been a recent push, say within the past 2 months or so, to spread the word about copyvio and plagiarism on Wikipedia. I think plagiarism is one of those things like non-free images: policy against it has been applied haphazardly, at times coming to light only when articles are under review for GA or FA. In an attempt to make enforcement more stringent and consistent, ASE got caught in the wringer. I have not checked his contributions or read his talk page, but I'm about to do it. I think the last I heard he claims to have retired. I am still unsure of the facts in this case so I can't offer any conclusions or suggestions yet. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Moni3. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Larry Kramer

I just noticed what excellent work you did on this article. Thank you! -->David Shankbone 20:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Mary McLeod Bethune Stamp.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mary McLeod Bethune Stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Stamp 2008.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Stamp 2008.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination of Homosexual transsexual

Moni, repeated nominations of this article for GA status have been dragging on for a long time now. As you are very involved with both WP:LGBT and GA/FA writing and assessment, would you consider taking a look at it? If you prefer not to touch it once you've checked it out, that's fine, but could you at least take a look and see what you think? Thanks, Ladyof Shalott 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is a bad penny. I can't make heads or tails of it. The only thing to do about this is to read all the sources to see if they actually reflect what is in the article... Let me see if first I can get the sources to determine if I have the time to do this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Ladyof Shalott 14:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick question...

Hi there,

I've got a question that you might know the answer to since you're an admin. I'm asking you because I've seen you write stuff for Wikiproject:LGBT and you seem like a nice person who won't treat me like I'm stupid for not knowing :)

Basically, I've been doing a bit of anti-vandal work on recent changes and applied for Rollback rights. I was rejected (which is fine) because I didn't have enough edits. I checked my user contributions and was surprised to see that only a small number of the reversions I'd made were showing up. I use twinkle and sometimes I get the option to Rollback (with different options for AGF and Vandalism) and when I use these the reversion is added to my user contributions. On some articles I don't get the Rollback buttons and I can only click on the "Revert to this version" button, which then isn't logged.

The long and short of this is that only maybe half of the reversions I'm making are actually being "credited" to me. I don't want credit in as much as I'm looking for people to say "well done look at how many you've reverted" (quite the opposite) but it does mean that when I go back to apply for Rollback it still might not look like I've reverted enough.

Am I doing something wrong? Should I be reverting in a different way or is this just how the system works?

Many thanks for any help you can offer ɪntə svɛnsk 13:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to treat anyone stupid for not knowing when it appears no one really can know everything about this site at once, which is one of its best advantages. The short answer is that I use Twinkle only partway, to undo certain vandal edits quickly. Anything else about Twinkle I don't really know about and you may have to ask the folks at WP:Twinkle. The long answer, and the one I prefer, is that edit counts are not a good indicator of experience. I have 13,500 edits, which is kinda low for someone who has been here for 3 years and apparently extremely low for someone who writes featured articles. I suggest chucking Twinkle altogether, and concentrating for a period of time on adding content. Familiarize yourself with how to use reliable sources to paraphrase information and construct an article, citing it as much as you can. I promise you that should you ever be asked to justify 250 of your edits on Wikipedia, pointing to an article that is GA or FA speaks volumes over 1,000 Twinkle or Huggle edits. --Moni3 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the quick response! I'm not sure I'd be especially good at content editing. Though I guess I could check out FAs on the Swedish Wikipedia and see if there is anything appropriate that can be translated. Vandalism reversion was just something I thought I could do to try and contribute. I'm not too interested in "leveling-up" at Wikipedia :) My desire for Rollback was just to help the vandalism fighting. Anyway, thanks for the advice! ɪntə svɛnsk 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can post a message on my talk page that I can understand, you would do fine writing articles. It is not especially difficult. It just takes a lot of patience and persistence, best used when you really enjoy the topic you write about. I get much more irritated with vandalism reverting. However, there are many areas editors can be active on Wikipedia. Best of luck in whatever you do. --Moni3 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in here to say two things. First, if you have Twinkle, you pretty much have all the ability Rollback rights would give you anyway (except for if you have to be on another computer where you can't use Twinkle because you're stuck using IE or something). Second, I bet there are lots of things you could translate from Swedish Wikipedia to improve our content here, and your English looks fine (better than some on here who are apparently native speakers). Ladyof Shalott 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrator question

Hi Moni, wanted to get your input about something. I'm seriously considering going through an RfA. There are some issues I can foresee, though. I, like you, am a "content editor"; I only have a little over 6,000 edits, but thus far I have two FAs, 1 FL, 8 DYKs, and 4 GAs to my credit. My first edit was in Feb. 2007, but I didn't really become active as an editor until Sept.-Nov. 2007. I've never been into vandalism-fighting, although I have rollback rights, Twinkle, and Huggle. The vandalism I tend to fight, though, is stuff directed at my pet articles. So although I only have 6,000 edits after 2 1/2 years, those edits are mostly content-related (over 60% of my total edits have been in article space). I tend to write slowly, and the articles I choose to improve require a great deal of research. Anyway, after my latest project, Stanford Memorial Church passes its FAC (I'm waiting on Awadewit to come back from her vacation to review it for close paraphrasing), I'm seriously considering applying for admin status. What do you think about that? Do you think I'd have a chance, or will everyone just laugh at me for even considering the possibility? --Christine (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Will everyone laugh at you? No. Will a lot of people cry for you? Perhaps. RfA consistency is like watching dart night at the local bar on dollar beer night. Nothing will hit the same place twice and everything is unpredictable. I went through an RfA with 10 FAs, 12 GAs, and 5 DYKs and still it was a close call. I was hammered pretty hard on stuff I didn't know. I refused to read the applicable pages of projects I knew I wasn't going to be active in, and answered all questions to the best of my ability. The only page I did read and report on reliably was WP:Consensus, and I still am not sure what blew up there. That was naught but confusing. However, Dank, GrahamColm, and Laser brain went after me and passed with flying colors. It might have been their pleasantest experiences in their tenure on Wikipedia. Maybe I caught 25 editors during their grumpy phases. Anyhoo, Julian Colton recently remarked that doing admin stuff is pretty boring, which it is. It's boring with consequences that can be very embarrassing if you screw up, so be sure you know that going into the nomination. Best of luck, though, even if you decide not to go through with it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. I'm going back and forth about it. I think that administrator duties would just bore me to death. I also have a feeling that it really won't change what I already do. I just think about articles like Maya Angelou, which goes through spurts of nasty vandalism, and I'd really like to see it permanently protected. I'm somewhat protective of that article and other MA-related articles, because the vandalism there is horrible. I shudder to think of Dr. Angelou coming upon them and reading some of the worst of it. Anyway, I'll think about it some more. Perhaps I need a few more FAs on my belt. --Christine (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just butting in here, so forgive, but if you do decide to go for RfA don't make the mistake of saying what you just did above: "I just think about articles like Maya Angelou, which goes through spurts of nasty vandalism, and I'd really like to see it permanently protected. I'm somewhat protective of that article ...". That's the kind of thing that has the RfA vultures circling overhead before you've had a chance to blink. "So you'd protect—not semi-protect—those articles in which you have a personal stake?" Moni's quite right in her comparison to RfA as a drunken darts game though;, what I say to people is to think very carefully before they submit to it. It may go well, but equally you may wake up one morning to find 25 editors you've never heard of telling you what a shit you are. So long as you're sure you wouldn't be overly upset by that, then no problem. All they can say is no. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise butting in, think about if you really need the tools. You're not allowed to intervene in the articles you're involved in, so is it really necessary to have the tools? For myself, being mainly a content editor, I decided a while back that, no, I didn't need them to do what I like and want to do on Wikipedia. Very occasionally, it would be nice to be able to move an article over a redirect by myself, rather than having to yelp for help, but that's about all I can think of that I'd require the tools for. If your main reason to want the tools is to protect "your" articles, I'm not sure that's a good reason to risk the sharkpit of RfA. Look at what happened to Moni, it wasn't pretty. Think carefully about it, and also think about whether you'll still continue contributing content. A lot of admins get sucked out of content creation, and that's a shame. (Luckily, it doesn't seem to have happened to Moni!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If Malleus can butt in, I can too… As I've said once before in a similar context, even when you think you're prepared for the criticism you can get at RFA the sudden blast of venom can take even the most "prepared" editors by surprise and send them into a nasty tailspin from which not everyone recovers. Also, having your history picked over can lead to long-forgotten or overlooked problems coming to light (User:FlyingToaster is the most spectacular recent example, but there are any number of others). – iride scent 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks guys. How very generous of you to speak up. It's this discussion, and this, which has happened simultaneously, that has helped me make up my mind, at least for now. I swear, it's like a sign, and since I believe in Jesus, I'll take it. I'm not sure I won't to go through the trauma, and I know that having access to the tools won't make much of a difference in my wiki-life, at least for now. Let me explain about my statement above: I used that as an example of why I'd want the tools. There are scores of articles, especially BLPs, that need that kind of protection that aren't getting it. I do think that it would improve my ability to contribute to the project, but not that much at this time. So thanks for the help. --Christine (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Always try to remember that here on wikipedia we live in a wotld ruled by children, where adukts are merely tolerated, and often not even that. Comments like the one you linked to above are completely unacceptable for an RfA candidate to have made within three months of a nomination. Just the way it is, so a wise choice on your part at this time. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Caden

Currently lapsed. Only a matter of a moment to reinstate it if there's problematic behaviour though. Black Kite 18:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. You win. Both you and Moni and the rest of Moni's buddies can do whatever you want with the E.O. article by going against every policy imaginable. Fuck it! I give up trying to fix the biased left-wing bullshit. Furthermore I'm sick of the threats. Do what you want or get Moni to do what she wants. Block, ban or hang me. At least in the real world I AM FREE. Ned ^ac

Yes, fight the power. However, you have not made it clear what your objections are about the content. Forget me and everyone else. Wikipedia's not about you or me. It's about content. Unless you state what you see in the article to be not neutral, there is no way editors can come to an agreement to fix it. Surely you would not change an article based on my complaints without evidence? Would you not require me to point out what part of the article I find not neutral? This is not an unreasonable request.

I am also unaware of threats issued by anyone. --Moni3 (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fight the power you say? Is that sarcasm? Guess I wasted my time thinking that perhaps you would be willing to work with me but it's clear you're not interested. Also, spare me the wiki preachy type of talk. No offense to you personally but it's annoying. I much rather prefer when you keep it real and that's something I've always liked about you. Anyway, you very well know what my objections are concerning the content but yet you insist to pretend otherwise. As I told you before, there are POV/undue weight issues. You insist (like the rest of your colleagues from the homosexual wikiproject) that the article is neutral, yet you fail to point out how it's neutral. As you are aware, 90% of the editors working on that article are from your project and that is where all the POV pushing and biased editing is coming from. It's possible that some of them are unaware that their biased beliefs are interfering with their edits. The only way to fix that article would be to have an open RFC. Regardless, it's over on my part since the abuse/punishment I receive in return is not worth it. You guys win. Do what you want with E. O. Furthermore, you know all too well about the threats towards me. You watch my edits and pages closely. Black Kite hinted as such in the above post ("Only a matter of a moment to reinstate..") in regards to your question concerning my former topic ban (where you also posted on the E.O. Talk page). Other editors like your friend EB have also hinted the same threats on my talk page and on my mentor's (Becksguy) talk page. Black Kite also hinted another type of threat before on the hall of shame subpage he created for me. It's a subpage on my former topic ban that continues to be used against me as a weapon in order to control, punish and silence me. Some people want me gone and will stop at nothing. Don't deny it because when I had my email enabled, I was contacted by several editors who confirmed what I already knew to be true. I've also been contacted on another site. Out of respect to them (since they fear the same retaliation that I've received) I will not reveal any names. You claim Wikipedia is not about editors and only about content. You're sadly mistaken Moni. The wiki politics that take place on and off wiki are very real and I as the victim of those politics have paid a high price for being honest by trying to do the right thing: fixing problematic content. Ned ^ac 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Look, Caden. You have some issues. Maybe you have issues with the concept of homosexuality or Gay Pride or whatever your issues are. You must, must, MUST drop those issues when you edit articles. Absolutely drop them. I will not and can not edit articles that I have a personal stake in.

I do not think the article E. O. Green School shooting is faultless. You and that other guy...Mcmcuker or whatever his name was, made good, honest, loud, and annoying points when you directed the attention of the article's editors to the poor sourcing and lack of neutrality the article was in months ago. It's a much better article for your justified whinging. But you don't seem to be able to separate your distaste for the editors at WP:LGBT from evidence in the article. It was a simple request: point out what parts of the article you feel are not neutral. That you reply with this poor attempt to redirect the discussion that focuses on me or other editors makes me think that you are not able to do it and your real problem is with us instead of the article. All my attempts on the talk page were to get you to address issues in the article. All your responses have been about how you have been maligned by the Gay Cabal. We gays don't always agree, you know.

I'm really doing my best to concentrate here on the article content in light of your admission on the ANI page that you had been assaulted, and your subsequent topic ban on LGBT crime topics. So here, on my talk page and not at the E. O. Green School shooting talk page, I'll say this: do not confuse the outcome of that case with your past. Whatever happened to you I am sure was not provoked by you. I cannot edit the California Proposition 8 article because I got married in California and that would be a conflict of interest. The outcome of the Prop 8 decision and the status of my marriage is intertwined. If the details of the shooting of Larry King and the public reaction to it makes you furious, stay away from the article. If you can read it dispassionately and give evidence in sentences, sources, and edits that the article is lopsided, then point them out without further delay. Either way, I wish you Peace because your troubles are palpable in your posts. --Moni3 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

E.O. Green

With respect, Moni, I must call attention to your statement, "The discussion needs to focus on the content, not the actions or motivations of any editors. As such, both Caden (Ned), Hyperliner, Rivertorch, and anyone else involved in restoring or removing content needs to discuss what goes in the article instead of simply reverting." I am all too aware of the possibilities of an edit war over this article—it wouldn't be the first time—but your lumping me in with those other editors in your warning was uncalled for. Please consider:

I did not simply revert. I outlined my reasons for reverting on the talk page, as was appropriate.
I am not the only one who reverted, and you failed to mention the other editor who reverted when you named names.
Exploding Boy's initial revert was clearly appropriate. Vague, undocumented, and stale allegations of POV do not warrant editing against consensus.
Caden's revert was inappropriate not only because it defied consensus but because he knew well from longstanding experience with this article that it defied consensus. This strikes me as akin to vandalism, but I went ahead and explained my revert anyway.

To summarize, there was a consensus-defying edit, which was reverted. It was restored by an editor fresh off a topic ban who has edit warred repeatedly on this article in the past. I reverted, in turn, one time only, and promptly explained why. I have never engaged in edit warring in my time at WP, and I don't think my single revert today suggested I'm about to start now. I would be very grateful if you would modify your statement—either by removing my name or, if you feel an across-the-board warning to all involved editors is really necessary, by including all the relevant names. Rivertorch (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe the easiest thing to do would be to strikeout my name? Whatever works for you is fine with me. Rivertorch (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being a pest, but you did say you agree and it's still unchanged (currently fourth post from bottom of section). Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Moni, do you mind if I redact our interchange about Caden from the EO Green talk page. It really is not about the article. — Becksguy (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in a way I do. On the one hand you're right that that exact exchange has nothing to do with the article content. Caden removed it himself about an hour ago and it was replaced by Allstarecho. It makes him uncomfortable to be reminded of the topic ban, yet he continues to make comments on the talk page that do not address the content of the article but rather the editors involved, and make aggressive edits that in my view at least, show he has a vested emotional interest that King was sexually harassing McInerney. Where's the learning curve here? I've seen your exchanges with Caden, giving me the impression that you are somewhat of a mentor for him. He's got to take responsibility for his statements. He's not butting up against WP:LGBT editors. He's butting up against Wikipedia policies. So...remove it if you wish, but please keep my concerns here in the forefront of your mind. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

-125,576!!! making the dark red number go away

I don't have much to say, so I'll just leave you with this image. If only we could play "caption contest". APK (If You Wanna) 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Bless your pointy head. --Laser brain (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand all the words there, but the meaning of them strung together like that escapes me. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It apparently escapes me too. I looked it up in my dictionary of idioms and it means the exact opposite of what I thought. I haven't felt this embarrassed since I went to that Whitesnake concert. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do appreciate the surreal talk page moments. Make love to angry fish! What was the actual thought you intended to convey? --Moni3 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant to convey that we prefer your smart self to be editing and not.. not editing. --Laser brain (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate that sentiment. Thank you, specifically for attempting to convey it so colorfully. --Moni3 (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Heya howaya

Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Newsletter updated and will be sent out. I'm sure my challenging grasp of English will curl your lashes but felt the need to pimp out the DYK challenge was too compelling. At least I know me spell and write porr. -- Banjeboi 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

IRC

Sorry I missed you there today! Usually when I'm away from the puter, I just set my IRC status as "away". - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 04:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Moni3 has been inducted into the Hall of the Greats

The inscription is in the description :-) -->David Shankbone 13:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC) *You were nominated by Ladyof Shalott and I seconded.

Thank you, David and Aleta. A very nice recognition. I wonder what Ms. Nixon might think of it... --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yay! :) Ladyof Shalott 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers: I need help at Stonewall riots (admins would be very helpful)

I am unable to protect the article or block users who are vandalizing it because I wrote it. It has been gutted and I need to restore it. Anyone around reading, please put the article on watch and assist with a repeat vandal.

Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Watching.... — Becksguy (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too..Graham Colm ^Talk 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Stonewall riots

This is simply not borne out by a representative sample of material about Stonewall, which makes me question either the sources you used in the article or your interpretation of them.

The article, as it stands, systematically whitewashes the solidly documented participation of trans and gender non-conforming people in the Stonewall riots. It downplays them even in incidents were plainly by people in this group (like the Howdy Doody chorus line), referred to a trans woman (Sylvia Rivera) with her male name in brackets, and doesn't even refer to trans women of any kind, by any language, outside of direct quotes from people referring to them as "tranvestites". This is even before we get to the language issue itself.

As for the broader issue of terminology, I realise that "transvestites" was a commonly used term in this area, but the problem is that it does not carry the same meaning in 2009 as it did in 1969. The groups labelled "transvestites" by random bystanders here were basically entirely either drag queens or transsexuals, neither of which are included in the present definition of the word. There is a ton of modern sources on Stonewall which cover this issue, so either quote them directly or explain the terminology yourself - I don't care which.

As a final note, you claim that "the sources" don't support the anon's inclusion of trans women in the list of groups' concerns that Stonewall was about. Yet in your own text you cite a direct quote from a self-identified trans woman stating her desire to fight back against her oppression. There's a word for that - fail. Rebecca (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I started a thread on the talk page, and I can see it will clearly go very well. --Moni3 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bet you're glad this article was the page today, eh? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an idiot for thinking getting on the main page is something worth doing. That mindset is a year old and long gone. I should have left the article in the shitty state it was. --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The only time getting on the main page is good is if your objective in writing the article was to bring a forgotten topic to a wider audience. (Hellingly Hospital Railway's visit to the mainpage for the 50th anniversary of its closure was my one attempt at this.) Any time else, it's just an invite to everyone seeing it to argue. Someone (I think it might have been you, in fact) said that you know you're a regular on Wikipedia when your first reaction on seeing something you wrote go on the mainpage is "shit, not again".

If you want something to put any problems you're having in perspective, you're more than welcome to come spend a few minutes in the frontline of the finger-in-the-dyke^{(sic, I guess)} Götterdämmerung of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RECENT and WP:RS currently taking place here. – iride scent 20:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can remember, the only article I've ever tried to nominate at TfA was the Peterloo Massacre, and that was only as a mark of respect for those who were injured and died for something that we now take for granted. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent, I suggest waiting for a bit until only 2 million people a day hit Jackson's article, and suggesting to Realist2 that the FA Team tackle his article to put Humpty Dumpty back together if Realist2 takes on doing the legwork to ensure the sources are the best. And yes, I said that thing about oh, shit. --Moni3 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on getting this on the front page!! --Found5dollar (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently worked on the John Berry article and just read today's FA and realized he was referenced with the "Assistant Secretary of the Department of the Interior". Pretty cool! I included a link, too, now that he has an article. Congrats from me for the feature, too! Hekerui (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I know how annoying it is to see all your hard work challenged and questioned and lambasted and critiqued and ridiculed and etc. But think of it this way — the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who read it are getting a solid, thorough, and comprehensive account of what happened. And that's important. That's why we do it. That's why you deserve a donut. Take the day off tomorrow if you can. Scartol • Tok 17:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Digging out a quote I've been using a lot in the last few days in another context, but it warrants digging out once more: "You thought all the "know-alls" had said their piece on the FAC page - how wrong you were, they have been waiting just for you. Hundreds of them now spot the page they deliberately ignored on FAC - your baby is now being attacked by perverts and know-alls - they are edit-conflicting not only each other but the dozens of bots (busy changing things you did not know could be changed) - it is carnage - it is scary - it is Wikipedia! You have arrived you are now a "respected editor" and the next morning as if by magic the page is exactly the same as it was twenty-four hours before. Just as you left it.". As far as I'm concerned, that paragraph should be posted as a disclaimer at the top of FAC. – iride scent 20:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

57k views on the main page. Not bad. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

To all: thank you for your comments. It's a reflection of stress that I thought in a surreal moment that Michael Jackson was in fact a Wikipedian and an FA writer and four hours prior to his FA appearing on the main page on the 40th anniversary of the topic's occurrence, he was engaged in an edit war with someone who had not read any of the sources cited. That's what causes heart attacks. Although my distaste for my articles appearing on the main page has been festering for a few months, I have to economically weigh the stress involved vs. the rewards for my future articles, if there indeed be any. And there do not seem to be many rewards at all apart from your support. So I thank you all for that. --Moni3 (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

During my recent one week vacation, I decided you really deserve this one.

File:Barbara Gittings 1965.jpg

APK has given you the highly coveted Barbara Gittings Award for your contributions to LGBT articles and for being a kick-ass lesbyterian.

You make this Dupont queer want to learn more about LGBT history, especially activists such as Gittings, Kameny, Lahusen, Nichols, and others.

Moni3 makes this straight, conservative, white chick with an embarrassing past of homophobia want to learn more about LGBT history. I don't see how anyone can read the marvelous article about Stonewall without seeing the parallels to the Civil Rights movement. Please keep up the good work, and don't let the bastards keep you down. --Christine (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

APK, I think the padded room is an attractive diversion. It calls to me. I already have sun and beaches here. Thank you, Christine. I am glad you enjoyed reading the article.

Brief mentions in printed media: [14] [15]. --Moni3 (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of printed media and Stonewall, I thoroughly enjoyed this editorial. APK is your own Personal Jesus 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

White Night riots

Greetings, Moni3. Just wanted to congratulate you on your TFA, and to let you know that the article you advised me on, White Night riots has gotten to GA and is now being peer reviewed in preparation for FAC. Any input you could give would be fantastic. Again, thank you for the help you gave me, and congrats on your TFA! Firestorm ^Talk 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)