Moni3

APK lives in Dupont and Gomorrah 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why, thank you, APK. I need some columns. I shall keep them to...support stuff. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Moni, do you have a full copy of this paper? (PMID: 18954753) Graham,Graham Colm ^Talk 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm dipping my toes in searching for medical information. I'm using med databases for the first time. I probably do have access to it, but I just don't know right yet how to find it. Let me see if I can use the PMID number to access it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Omg. Yes I have access to this article. I used it already. It's cited. Doiii. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I saw the citation, that's why I asked. :-) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

HSV 2, is the more commonly sexually transmitted type, but both types are. Why do you specify HSV 1? I'll check the other, non-microbiological, stuff tomorrow, when I'm back at the hospital. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because of more frequent orogenital practices, they may also be at higher risk of HSV type 1 (Frenkl TL - Urol Clin North Am - 01-FEB-2008; 35(1): 33-46; vi) I also made a change to the BV info per your nudge. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let's move this discussion to the Talk Page. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can't believe it's another round of suicide cults! Let me know if you want another witness. BTW, have you considered an auto-archiver for your talk? -- Banjeboi 02:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I should probably get that reference to suicide cults, but I don't so help me from feeling hopelessly stupid. Clue, please. I archive my own talk usually, but I've been lazy. Getting it auto-archived would lead me to think I am far above my station, regardless that this is apparently my day. But I shall archive soon. Are you keeping track of the rewrite? --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Milk film drama - just simply must include Jones. I haven't been watching that hot chick action as I've been a bit stressed on some other articles and just do bits here and there. That talkpage had some trolling issues as well so I want to keep clear a bit unless needed. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Moni, have you seen http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/civil_rights/? Amazing. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why, yes. Yes, I did. I viewed that bad mofo around 12.30, 35 minutes after it had switched over, and an hour and a half after I plaintively pleaded on his facebook page to 1. restore the Everglades, 2. overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and 3. overturn DOMA. I don't particularly agree with that civil union bullshit, but it's a hell of a lot better than a constitutional amendment to crap on American citizens.

Strong language on:

Irony, since Bush was so very concerned with this sort of thing in his presidency, that he so effectively fucked this country in the ass with a sandpaper dick. With extra lemon juice to Mary Cheney.

Strong language off.

A coworker described taking an airplane out of Venezuela to be rid of Hugo Chavez. The relief she felt, she said, was indescribable. It's like gauze has been lifted from my brain, cobwebs sucked out, and I realized I shared a national depression with millions of others. People I thought I was isolated from. Good for all of us. --Moni3 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

:( When you get rid of Chavez, you miss the friends, too ... speaking of a national depression shared with millions of others, and people I'm isolated from :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's hard to gauge - or really pointless, I suppose - how my anger and those in Venezuela is comparable. Anger is anger. I just recognized mine as a soul dropped in deep water, drifting down through darkness and loneliness, realizing nothing I could do would help me get closer to the surface. In reality, millions of people were in the same dark sea, but we were unable to find each other, and in the rare instances we did, I wonder if we didn't drift apart, just knowing it would be for nothing. This is from eight years of living. I cannot imagine being born into generations of this kind of detachment. --Moni3 (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

:( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Was a conscious choice for me to stay away from Major Depressive Disorder when it as up for FA. My reasons may be obvious. --Moni3 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not I; I just don't like being forcibly separated from friends and never being able to find my way back; always some damn referendum or something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please note User_talk:Lee_Stanley#LGBT_Newsletter. Thanks -Lee Stanley (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Somewhere there's a don't deliver list for the LGBT newsletter. If I find it I'll holla. -- Banjeboi 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did it just go out? Clearly I didn't write it if it did. This note confuses me. --Moni3 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Lol. I wasn't aware if it did or they just wanted to give you a heads up if you send another. No worries. -- Banjeboi 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you have some time in the next couple of days, can you take a look at the article and comment at the FAC? I totally understand if you're busy but I believe your feedback would be invaluable in moving along what may be a stalled discussion. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, in the FA nomination of the raccoon you requested a source for the information ("image of a raccoon depicted in artifact found at Spiro Mounds, in Oklahoma") given for this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spiromoundsraccoon.gif Since I could not provide a source and there are already lots of other good images in the article, I removed the image. Another editor has re-inserted it into the article and I'm currently trying to remove it again. Your short input about the issue would be appreciated on the raccoon talk page. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Moni. The input you've offered on some of my previous Texas Revolution-era articles has been invaluable, so I hope you'll have time to offer a bit more. I'm about done with To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World, about probably the most famous letter in Texas history. I've never written an article on a written work before, and this is not your typical written work either, so I'm guessing as to whether I'm following a layout that makes sense. If you have free time, could you please read over this and let me know what improvements I should make before an FAC nom? I'm not in any real hurry, and I really appreciate your help! Karanacs (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on it. My 18-month-old nephew is a petri dish of things you didn't know you could get. He's some kind of vessel for bioterrorists. I have fallen victim to him. I'll get to it soon. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hope you feel better soon. Your nephew must go to daycare. My daughter was perfectly healthy the 9 months I stayed home with her; as soon as she went to school she brought home a new virus every week. Look on the bright side: your immune system is toughening up, so soon you'll only get sick when it's a really awful bug that makes your head want to explode. Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

My students now turn in everything electronically. That way I don't get 25 different strains of the flu. :) It was, um, so funny when people would sneeze on their papers and then hand them in to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for an excellent review! You've given me a bit to think about and I am excited about looking for some of what you've asked for :) Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Would you by any chance have a copy? There's a bit on p. 345 regarding the program Gay Power, Gay Politics that would really benefit the article's push to GA but unfortunately Google books snippet view cuts it off. If you have the book and feel the inclination would you be so kind as to transcribe a couple of relevant sentences? It begins "They suspected CBS..." Thanks bunches! Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've got it. It doesn't have an index, so it's a bit irritating. I'll check it out. What are you looking for in particular? --Moni3 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

According to Google Books it's on page 345 so even if you have a different edition it should be in that neighborhood. There's a bit that talks about how lesbians were reluctant to be interviewed for the program because they suspected that the producers had ulterior motives. The bit I'm looking for starts with a sentence that begins "They suspected CBS..." but I don't know how much there is because that's where G-books cuts it off. There's a mention of CBS on the next page as well. Anything in that page or two that you think looks relevant and that you're willing to type would be super. Best place for it would be the article's talk page. Thanks again; if there's ever anything I can help you try to track down let me know. Otto4711 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Moni. Hope you're well, and that the Florida winter is .. well, less Hoth-ish than the hideous frozen desolation we've got here in Wisconsin. Anyway, I wonder if you'd have time to do a copyedit/quick review of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. We're trying to prepare it for FAC, and I think it's close. Thanks in advance! Scartol • Tok 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Scartol and Karanacs, both of your articles are on my list to read and give opinion on. I know I can't ask you to adhere to my schedule, but I'm trying to finish a rewrite of what I knew would be a leviathan, and I simultaneously want to review your articles and cannot seem to stop writing mine. Must...gack! If I know me, however, I'll get out of of this zone of productivity soon and wallow in a brief period of burnout...perfect for reviewing. Soon, I promise. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No pressure from my hand - whenever you have time. Article writing is more important. Karanacs (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Moni3, thanks for your review. I'm in the middle of addressing Awedewit's comments, and it's been kinda slow. I will get to your feedback as time allows. I started to read them over, and they look very helpful. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Everglades Nat'l Park Mangrove.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Everglades Nat'l Park Mangrove.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Everglades Nat'l Park Mangrove.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, very belated congrats on Harvey Milk. I've been kinda nudging folks for a while in the direction of Bayard Rustin. he's not cool/sexy/pop culture-ish, I guess, so he doesn't get much attention. it's an article that you might be able to work some magic on... later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, interesting. Definitely an article that should be brought to FA. What were you considering my input to be? Research? Content? Copy editing? I have to say for my short two years I've been on Wiki...or three? I can't remember...that I go through spurts of a month or so of fantastic productivity, followed by periods of urrrrggggggghhhhh with light copy editing and article reviewing, followed by wtf is that? and furious article rewrites fueled by righteous indignation. I am coming off more than a month of rewriting a large article, just posted yesterday. I can feel my attention span dwindling, and I have more to add to what I just posted. If it's content you're after, you may have to wait. You may be right in store for copy editing and reviewing. Unsolicited advice I can handle almost always. --Moni3 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this enlightening account of the Urrrrggggggghhhhh Cycle. I decided just today that I was also in the (at that point, unnamed) urrrgggh phase of this particular process. My attention span is short. I tried to create an article just yesterday, and after two or three sentences, I gave up. I am useless for content creation. The only thing I am useful for (here "useful" is a highly debatable term) is peppering FAC and GAN and various talk pages with comments, sharing my "folksy wisdom" with the masses. With that in mind, I don't know how I would contribute. Can you enlist help from other friends? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ha. Folksy wisdom. Like Burl Ives. Just in peeking at his article, there appear to be multiple biographies. Whoever wants to tackle his article is going to have to read them. Serious to all God, I just finished reading 22 books (or large sections of books), numerous articles and various whatnot, and I can barely get through a sheet of paper right now. I have 4 more books to read. Timely, your question of enlisting assistance. Although this is clearly supposed to be a collaborative effort, this Wikipedia, I have found that unless one person pretty much takes the reins, the project may never get off the ground. Successful group efforts are rare indeed. You can solicit assistance at WT:LGBT, but my last request for assistance in a core article for that project was met with a lot of yawns. What's your time frame to do this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I like Burl Ives! I always thought he was pretty cool... No time frame at all... If any of those books are on Google books, then I can start verifying some facts. The problem with that is, I'd be afraid that whoever wrote the article might have missed something important. Reading—or at least seriously skimming, looking for omitted topics— is indeed highly desirable. I do not have access to any English-language books that are not on the Internet, though... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(undent) Oi! There's an awesome photo of Rustin singing with Josh White (as a member of "Josh White and his Carolinians") on page 140 of Wald, Elijah (2000). Josh White: Society Blues. Univ of Massachusetts Press. The rights apparently belong to White's family. Know anyone who has any credibility etc. who could write a letter to the Whites for GFDL license release (remembering to tell them that it is NOT ONLY for Wikipedia, and in essence, they are giving the photo away forever)...? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Oi again (see above)! He gave a speech at the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism titled "Democracy and Terrorism" (others included Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, Jack Kemp, Menachem Begin, George Will, etc.) that's recorded in Netanyahu, Benjamin & Yonatan, Mekhon (1981). International Terrorism: Challenge and Response. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0878558942. Why is this guy's article a rather weak B-class? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Know anyone with any credibility? Ling.Nut! I have written dozens of emails to people asking for permissions for images. I've spoken on the phone to just as many pleading my cause. I don't imagine Johnny Rotten asked his friends if they knew anyone who could play a decent guitar - he just played what he wanted to play. To some it sounded like shit, but to others it was awesome. Poop on credibility. Write a damn good letter, send it to White, and become the captain of your ship. I can find a draft of a letter I've sent if you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

...your comments on the discussion page of the water vapor article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.232.193 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

That depends on the intention of the editor who opened the discussion. I've never seen a format on Wikipedia such as on that talk page. So, going by what I guess was intended, and the operative word there is "guess", it seemed appropriate to me. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

on third reading i think i may be mistaken, confused by you comment on "FAB" image at the top, sorry 79.76.232.193 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, thank you, thank you - for your comment on the Larry Sanger article!!! — Ched (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heh. Yay. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

LOL. I was gonna put a diff of your edits in the last 2 days so everyone could of seen the difference but the stupid template didnt let me. When you have the time and motivation, feel free to check out Gay and Homosexuality Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think I'd rather shove a steel rod through my head than take on Homosexuality. But then, I put off rewriting Lesbian for nearly two years. As ever, I encourage anyone to take on these articles themselves. It just takes a really good library, time, effort, and you know...the insanity... --Moni3 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You forgot "…and the willingness to work in the certain knowledge that whatever you do will be overwritten within three days". – iridescent 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah. We draw pictures in the sand. Between waves, someone might read a well-written article and be moved. --Moni3 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As User:Antandrus at WP:WikiSpeak put it in a rare burst of poeticness "A sandcastle on the shore of the sea of time. Within play dramas on miniature stages, as the actors argue over the exact position of each grain of sand, unaware of the approaching tide." – iridescent 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if the producers of Days of Our Lives thought 1. their show opening is depressing and makes me think all life's actions are insignificant, and 2. they might color any future reference to time and sand, branding any such metaphors as soap opera-ish. --Moni3 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, your sand picture did move someone before the Days of Our Lives wave rolled in...and I've never seen Days of Our Lives anyway, so I'm allowed to ignore any soap-opera-ness! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've been quoted! Yay! This is for your edification. I don't think I've ever seen an episode of this show, but that little opening sequence there was enough to tell me it was time to leave the room. --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I thought amazon was a RS but ok, if u say u wont forget it... Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Please direct me to where it explicitly states that this article is on probation and that sanctions apply.
• Please also direct me to where is specifically states that I cannot contribute to an article that is up for review.
• Also, please read the changes that were made in the the exact context in which they were made.
• The edits were constructive, they elaborated upon existing content using legitimate verifiable references.
• Headings were changed in one instance to correct an inaccuracy, and in another to establish norms regarding the use of the word criticism in a heading.

Voxpopulis (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On the article's talk page is a box that says the article is part of WikiProject Scientology. In that box it says all articles in the project are on general sanctions and probation. On your talk page is a link from my warning to general sanctions that state what may happen to editors who violate article probation. I read your changes, and they appear to be part of a valid content dispute. However, your content dispute is separate from the reversion of Mattisse's reversion of your edits, and the tone of your edit summary. That is the unfortunate condition of article Probation. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for highlighting the issues here. I apologise for the inappropriate tone, that was a mistake, largely in response to what looks on the face of it to be an invalid reaction to edits that were in no way disruptive. If there is a dispute surrounding the edits made I will follow procedure and attempt to resolve them using due process: for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voxpopulis (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The talk page is the way to go, so good for you. Hopefully the article may improve with the cooperation of Mattisse, Jayen466, and you. I hope it gets to GA, and all the better when it's done cooperatively and civilly. --Moni3 (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I have started reviewing the edits by Voxpopulis (talk · contribs) and will continue to do so. Results so far here; I will add to that. However, I am concerned that this user name was registered only today, yet shows clear familiarity with WP. Jayen466 18:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Voxpopulis posting at the arbcom under the IP 143.117.78.169 makes it clear that this is a sock of Semitransgenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Jayen466 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
• [1] Jayen466 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't mind if I quoted you. If so, I'll remove upon request. — Ched (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I admire your efforts - I hate to admit it, but you're better than I was (although I did try) — Ched (talk) 01:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem with the quote. I'm glad you like it. What am I allegedly better than you at doing? --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me what you find objectionable here and also tell me why Jayen466 has not received warnings for these edits. If you have specific issues with my recent edits elaborate on the talk page. If you continue display editor bias I will have to raise this as a possible case of admin abuse. Thanks. Voxpopulis (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

From the first diff, it looks like you replaced cited information. This is, again, a content issue. The second diff is a link to the article history. Is there an edit in particular you wished me to see? --Moni3 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, it was just an arbitrary point concerning the fact that a series of undiscussed edits were made by Jayen, yet no warnings were issued; this seems at odds with the notifications I have been given. I just found it odd that I was warned by Matiesse, and then by you again, when this does not parrallel the treatment of other editors currently involved in the Scientology in Germany article. That sinmply led me to feel concerned about bias, but those feelings have since dissipated. Voxpopulis (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply