Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:37, 25 October 2011

Archives

1 (Bannon, Rawlings, Bethune) 2 (Bannon, Mockingbird, Miss Julie's LGBT Newsletter) 3 (Mockingbird, Birmingham campaign) 4 (Everglades NP, Birmingham, Mockingbird) 5 (Mulholland Dr., Douglas, Everglades) 6 (Everglades) 7 (Everglades, Jeff, Stonewall) 8 (Admin, Milk) 9 (Milk) 10 (Miscellanea: Nov 08 - Jan 09) 11 (Milk, MOBA) 12 (Rosewood) 13 (May-June 09) 14 (July-September 09) 15 (October 09-January 10) 16 (February-May 10) 17 (June-November 10) 18 (November 10-September 11)

Amazing Grace for TFA?

Hi Moni, I was wondering if you would mind if Amazing Grace ran as Today's Featured Article. It is fantastically written and on a very important subject, so I think it would be good to give it wider exposure. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lovely. Well, it's already at TFA, so kinda late asking. Enjoy that "wider exposure" on a topic that everyone and their brother thinks they know The Sum of All Human Knowledge! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's at TFAR, not TFA. If at TFAR it can be bumped. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't really want to deal with Amazing Grace on the main page. After the Bible, this song is probably the most widely used proselytizing tool for Christianity, so it doesn't need any more exposure. With possibly tens of thousands of readers on an article that nearly everyone in the English speaking world has some exposure to, every third reader is going to be tweaking and fixing the article, removing that thing they don't think is important, adding an uncited tidbit here, an unnotable version of the song there. I don't have the time to watch it while the article is on the main page. This means days of arguments that I really don't want to have. I really wish you hadn't done this. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• As noted above, it was suggested but not set in stone. I will withdraw the nomination. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi Moni, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I work with the fundraising team at the Wikimedia Foundation. For the 2011 Fundraiser, we're working to diversify the voices of the people who appear in the personal appeals for donations. In 2010, Jimmy carried most of the weight, but he doesn't represent the broad array of Wikipedians who dedicate themselves to make the projects so important. You were also recommended by Figureskatingfan, who said she loved the way you communicate and write. I wonder if you would be inclined to participate? Please let me know by emailing me: mroth@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 16:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering what your selection criteria are Matthew. Will all of us "foul-mouthed uncivil louts" be invited to take part? Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moni, yes using the interview for fundraising is a correct reading of the request. Thank you for your consideration and I'll be in touch if something else comes up. Best, Matthew (WMF) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

See, you make me laugh every time I read your writing. I would imagine it will be nothing if not an entertaining interview. After the interview, if you believe it was worthless, we can leave it in the dustbin. If you'd like to participate, please email me :) Matthew (WMF) 22:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

wqa

Hello, Moni3. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No matter what anyone might say, you made me laugh so hard I almost dropped my dinner. Thanks for the overboldness and the kind attention to Dickenson. BusterD (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a foul-mouthed uncivil lout. Begone before you are tainted by my very existence.

Also, taint. --Moni3 (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dearest Moni, I love you so much I fall at your feet. I'm this close to proposing marriage, which is saying much. Of course, I'm such a megalomaniac that I was sure that Matthew's request above had something to do with it, and then I was certain that you were going to be mad at me, and the thought of it horrified me. But then reason took over, and I realized that I was being silly (I hope). Christine (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Somebody needs a lift. Sounds like it might be time to start advanced planning for April :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 01:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Christine, I appreciate that you think I write well, and I'm interested to know your opinion of how I communicate. Lately, the general opinion is that I appeal to the lowest common denominator. Not that I care much about the general opinion... I'm not angry at you at all. I can't imagine how I might be unless you just went nuts and started slapping templates all over a bunch of articles I wrote then declined to discuss why, in your esteemed opinion, the articles deserved it. At any rate, just thought I should respond to that. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord. Moni, only my opinion of you matters; that guy is a loser. And what general opinion? He's just one person. You have many admirers here, so don't let the erroneous and foolish opinion of one jerk get you down. Common denominator, my big ass. Anyone who writes about the Stonewall Riots and Amazing Grace and Ray Charles and the Everglades should not be described in that way. I suppose it could be said about me, who writes about children's performers. (DYK that Sesame Street is now FA?) Christine (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Put me in that "Admirer" group. I can't remember what article it was where I met her (her?), but I remember I liked her wisdom, passion, and spunk. Seeing that s/he watched over the "Amazing Grace" article, I have watched it for some years now myself. IMO, her edits have always been right on target and she has used a lot more civility and patience than I would have been able to manage. (Moni3, I mean every word of that but I am trying to butter you up too. Would you be willing to take a look at an article I am working on and offer your opinion?--thanks) Gandydancer (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well well well, so the WQA monkeys have caught up with ya have they? I say drink a Flirtini and tell em to shove it up theirs Moni. — Legolas 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You've got mail!

A beer for you!

I drink when I edit. ;) Thanks for participating :) SarahStierch (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoosexuality

What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. 120.203.215.11 (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No tickee, no shirtee. --Moni3 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Intersex grammar

Moni, is this correct? I, who am ignorant of these matters, am relying on Oxford Dictionaries' definition of the term as a mass noun, and am now puzzling over whether it is an adjective or singular noun... Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Until someone can point to an authoritative site to address grammar for intersex people, I'd stick with Oxford. --Moni3 (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Because the secondary characters do not meet the standards for maintaining seperate articles. You should save that for the Buffy wiki. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:14 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Guy Fawkes Night

Does PoD's response (note the comment in the history) to my reply to you explain why there is little point doing anything but small steps? I would appreciate it if you would express an opinion on the sources I have presented. -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I've seen your sandboxes, so I know you can build them. I don't understand why you can't put together information you think would be appropriate in the Guy Fawkes Night article. I don't understand what you really want. Permission to add anything you think is pertinent to the topic? You have that now, but Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort and there seems to be some valid opinions opposing the addition of stuff in that diff POD provided. Those sources were subpar for the most part. Only one or two of them are acceptable, but even if they were used the information would have to be expanded. It seems to me like you're coming to the bank and asking for a business loan while refusing to show the loan officer your business plan, or name of business, or anything, really, but still demanding money for nothing in return. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. And I say that with the utmost simplicity. Are you just trying to add a sentence about New Zealand?

I had a run-in with another user who is now indefinitely blocked. The editor had poor reasons to oppose sourcing for an article I wrote, but enthusiasm and insanity in her favor. To build my case (for lack of a better term), I prepared this collection of sources I had read but felt did not belong in the article. That's pretty basic in my opinion, and something you should be able to put together in short order if you're at the stage of pages upon pages of arguments that have turned sour with accusations of ownership and incivility at play.

Instead of spending time on arguing, why don't you put this information together so the editors with an interest in the discussions can view what you are trying to accomplish? Until that's done, this is mostly arguing for arguing's sake. --Moni3 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The diff that POD supplied was simply a copy by me of a version of a section from the the article about a year ago before PoD had deleted it for the first time. It seems to me at that time that the simplest way to develop the article further. You really should read the archive to understand what is happening and not take PoD comments too seriously as he has he uses very possible means (including those that are in breach of behaviour policies and guidelines) to enforce his opinions on others.

The reason for including the old text at the time was precisely as you have indicated. The section had been in the article. Not all of it should have been kept but neither should all of it have been deleted. However that is water under the bridge. More to the point is how to get from what is an article missing a lot of information about what Bonfire Night is. I do not just want information about NZ in the article I want more contemporary information about GB, and the other commonwealth countries. There is at the moment a huge amount about the US two centuries ago, but for example, do you, know why Guy Fawkes Night is no longer celebrated in Australia? The history of Bonfire Night in Australia is more recent and at least as relevant to the article as the history Guy Fawkes night 200 years ago in the US.

Because of FUD the only way to overcome PoD's objections is to keep the discussion focused and get him to explain why information from reliable sources is invalid and see if most people agree with him.

The reason I provided links and did not want to place the text on the page was because I knew that PoD would resort to an attack such as "Even though you're once again treading the path that led to your RFC, at which you were strongly recommended to recognise when your arguments were becoming repetitive, you still have not demonstrated why celebrations in other countries are worth mentioning when the best sources available on this topic deem them trivial." It is of course nothing to do with justifying inclusion of sources it is just another personal attack, because when I say him for which best source(s) deem "celebrations in other countries" trivial? he does not answer. Below when asked again he says "You're either being deliberately obtuse or incredibly stupid. I'm not going to explain this again".

So I am asking to you to explain you opinion on those sources one from a widely respected NZ news newspaper (the closest they have to the NYT) and a government source. Once the sources are agreed upon then we can look at where to place any information derived from them into the article. Then we can agree on the text to go into the article. But without that there will be no inclusion of any recent information and I think that more than half the population of capital of NZ turn out on November 5 to celebrate Guy Fawkes Night is something that Wikipeida should include in its article.

I have many other thinks I am doing on WP at the moment, of immediate interest is helping to fix 120 bot generated articles, so this is not exactly top of my list of things to do. -- PBS (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you just trying to add information about New Zealand in the article? Again, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish. With the amount of text in your comment there dedicated to PoD, it seems you're trying to oppose PoD. What would you actually want to see in the article? --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Generally I think barnstars are a bit tacky so I won't bother, I'll just thank you publicly for the enormous private help you've given me today on sources for the Guy Fawkes Night article. Hopefully the material I've added from those sources will calm things down a little. Parrot of Doom 22:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have just got to say that the use of "ditties" in an FA made me lol. I had this album in my misspent youth. None of it ever made any sense to me although it did introduce me to Chuck Berry, master guitarist, performing "My Ding-a-Ling". I never got much value from it until I got a bit older then slowed down the record player. Shit was so cash. Lolled so hard. --Moni3 (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the first album I had was by the Barron Knights, which contained this amazing song :) My first record was 666, The Number of the Beast, by Iron Maiden. Shame I didn't have a record player :(

As for ditties, I generally enjoy inserting words that the yanks object to. Witness the inclusion in Dick Turpin of him shooting another man's cock. Boy, that created a bit of a stink. Parrot of Doom 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Boobies?

Someone told me you were talking about naked boobies, so I had to go look. I get your point about reader interest, but others may query, "I guess what I'm asking is what does a reader get from this article that they wouldn't get elsewhere?" Here's what they look like after stomping blueberries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)