Loading AI tools
 | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
...all in a day's work!--Kukini hablame aqui 17:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Moni3, Just to let you know I left some comments at the peer review for the Ann Bannon article. I just put down some things that struck me while reading it, trying to remember what people have said when I've put articles into peer review. It's looking really good though and I think should be ready for Good Article submission soon. Also, I read somewhere else you said that you're a really huge fan of Bannon, so don't be discouraged by my mentioning POV, you've done a great job! I don't know if you've seen these links, but they may be of some help: User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, User:Jengod/Some common objections to featured status and how to avoid them. They're aimed at getting articles to Featured status, but are useful at all stages. It'd be great to see this article become featured at some point. I was just going to recommend you list it at biography peer review, but I see you have, so I apologise if I'm repeating anything from there. --BelovedFreak 20:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am indeed a huge fan of hers. Including all that criticism was an effort. I don't mind the POV nudges. I'd love to see this article featured. Thanks again. I'll do my research before trying to submit for GA status. --Moni3 22:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I don't think it should be too hard to move them to Commons (though to be fair I've never done it myself). I found these instructions. You need to register yourself at Commons (pretty easy) and use a tool to fill in the license info and image description and complete the move. I'm only interested in the two GNU Bannon pics you've got (I believe they are eligible for Commons with that license), so you won't have to undergo any more Fair Use crap trouble. ;-) I really appreciate you taking the effort to do it. :-) If you need any help whatsoever, or want me to translate all your articles to es: wiki (hehe) drop me a line. ;-) Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 08:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Do I read correctly? You actually email regularly with Ann Bannon? Wow!
- Thanks for the instructions! I hope the pics stay up and are relatively hassle-free. I'm not sure what other of my articles have significance in Spanish. I know that Marijane Meaker has had books translated into Spanish, at least as ME Kerr (and is linked by Bannon's article). I do trade occasional emails with Bannon. I'm humbled by it. Thanks again for the translation. --Moni3 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- Thank you SO much! :-) What a difference a few pictures make to an article! And this will benefit many other Wikipedias which do not allow Fair Use (especially when this article becomes a FA and everyone will covet it hee hee). Listen, could I bother you one last time to include another GNU pic that escaped my notice, this one? Pretty please? :-) I can try to translate the Meaker article too, after I finish with the Beebo Brinker saga hehe. You know, you could nominate the Bannon article for GA, possibly for FAC in the near future. You're really doing an amazing job Moni, it's a pleasure to take it to the Spanish wiki. :-) Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and load that one to WikiCommons as well. I'm not "finished" really with Marijane Meaker or the 5 books that Bannon wrote. There's so much involved in Meaker's children's books - and those are the ones that have been translated - and I can do much better on Bannon's books with the load of scholarly articles I read about them. I think Bannon's article alone will take some time for you to translate, so I hope that will give me time to improve all those articles.
- I don't know if Bannon's article will make it to GA or FA - one of the peer-reviewers pointed out the biggest problem with it, which I knew about since I started it, is that the most information about her life is written or provided by her. This causes a problem with verifiability. Still, I like the article itself and I think I'll nominate it, but if it stays a B rated article, I'm ok with it. Thanks for all your hard work. (I noticed in the Spanish version her birth year was given as 1952, though. Fortunately, all I can read to correct are numbers.) You're doing an amazing job yourself! --Moni3 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- Raystorm crawls under a rock after the HUGE mistake on Bannon's b-day* Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ha! Don't worry about it. I can't believe some of the weird crap I write when I go back and read it the next day. --Moni3 14:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- I finished the traslation! Yay! :-D I'm gonna nominate it for GAC, at the very least it should provide pointers on ways and angles to continue developing the article. Maybe you should just bite the bullet and go for it too, the PR seems kinda quiet lately, and it ought to give you more helpful feedback. ;-) Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sweet! Actually, driving down the street the other day I was thinking that of Bannon's personal life, she is the primary source. For a living person, this is probably the best source to use, since no one would really dispute her claims. For the notability and legacy of her work, though, I used multiple references, so this seems better to me, and I'm more comfortable considering nominating it for a GA. Super job on the translation. I think it looks awesome! Yay!!! --Moni3 12:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- Are you kidding me???? I should be the one giving you a barnstar for your superb work, not the other way round! Awwww!!! *Blushes* Thank you so very much, it's my very first barnstar..! :-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Aha! Way to go! ;-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- You deserve it. I just nominated the article for GA status. Writing that article was a lot of work and I loved every minute of it. Writing it was its own reward. And that was the first barnstar I've given. Yay! --Moni3 16:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- Aha! Way to go! ;-) Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me???? I should be the one giving you a barnstar for your superb work, not the other way round! Awwww!!! *Blushes* Thank you so very much, it's my very first barnstar..! :-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sweet! Actually, driving down the street the other day I was thinking that of Bannon's personal life, she is the primary source. For a living person, this is probably the best source to use, since no one would really dispute her claims. For the notability and legacy of her work, though, I used multiple references, so this seems better to me, and I'm more comfortable considering nominating it for a GA. Super job on the translation. I think it looks awesome! Yay!!! --Moni3 12:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- I finished the traslation! Yay! :-D I'm gonna nominate it for GAC, at the very least it should provide pointers on ways and angles to continue developing the article. Maybe you should just bite the bullet and go for it too, the PR seems kinda quiet lately, and it ought to give you more helpful feedback. ;-) Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you SO much! :-) What a difference a few pictures make to an article! And this will benefit many other Wikipedias which do not allow Fair Use (especially when this article becomes a FA and everyone will covet it hee hee). Listen, could I bother you one last time to include another GNU pic that escaped my notice, this one? Pretty please? :-) I can try to translate the Meaker article too, after I finish with the Beebo Brinker saga hehe. You know, you could nominate the Bannon article for GA, possibly for FAC in the near future. You're really doing an amazing job Moni, it's a pleasure to take it to the Spanish wiki. :-) Cheers! Raystorm (¿Sí?) 10:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've heard that Condoleezza Rice is a lesbian... I can source it just as well as Merv Griffin. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- My dad, who at one time was an agent for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, told me that the Secret Service told him Hilary Clinton, in 1995 at least, always traveled with a female companion who had no specific task during travels, and was understood to be her girlfriend. Rampant rumor! Let me think if I want to get the entire WP:Alabama angry at me before I post something about Condoleezza Rice. (I read another story about her and the Prime Minister of Canada getting all smoochy, too). --Moni3 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- Just wanted to let you know I'm grateful for all the work you're putting into this article. The subject deserves the full treatment you're giving it. --Dystopos 12:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome. Yay! It certainly does. I worked on To Kill a Mockingbird, linked it from that article, and when I checked it later, I was floored, just stunned that it wasn't fully expanded, it wasn't under any projects, and it wasn't a hot topic. It freaked me out. I'm still working on it. It's a huge issue, so it might take me a while. Thanks, though! --Moni3 12:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
Hi Moni3, I've just created an article for the film version of And the Band Played On. I've added a link to it in the film section of the book article, and I've removed the categories from that age that are specific to the film. The film section could maybe be shorter as a result, but I'll leave that up to you. I'll try and peer review the book article soon. --BelovedFreak 21:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sweet. That's helpful. I haven't seen the film version or the documentary either, so I couldn't add to that portion of the article. Thanks so much! --Moni3 22:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- OK I've reviewed it now. I'm not sure how helpful it will be. I'm not really that familiar with book articles & what they need, so I hope someone else reviews it too. Bear in mind I haven't read the book, but maybe that's a good thing because I came up with a couple of things the average uninformed reader might. Also, I mentioned "POV" a few times. I don't think it sounds too one sided or anything, but as we know, with topics like this, any slight hint of a POV will be challenged! Anyway, good luck with it, I hope you get it to GA. --BelovedFreak 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. I responded to this earlier and it doesn't show up. Wikipedia must have had a brain fart...Anyways, thanks for the peer review. I did what I could tonight. I can work on the other matters over the next several days. I very much appreciate your help. Thanks so much! --Moni3 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- OK I've reviewed it now. I'm not sure how helpful it will be. I'm not really that familiar with book articles & what they need, so I hope someone else reviews it too. Bear in mind I haven't read the book, but maybe that's a good thing because I came up with a couple of things the average uninformed reader might. Also, I mentioned "POV" a few times. I don't think it sounds too one sided or anything, but as we know, with topics like this, any slight hint of a POV will be challenged! Anyway, good luck with it, I hope you get it to GA. --BelovedFreak 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ann Bannon is now a GA in the Spanish wiki! *High fives Moni* ;-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 23:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- That is way cool! Yay! I continue to wait patiently for English Wikipedia, but I do not have high hopes. --Moni3 12:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 |
The LGBT Barnstar | |
| I award this pretty barnstar to Moni3 for her incredible work with Ann Bannon, which is now a GA, and which will probably become a FA in the near future. Well done Moni!!! :-D Raystorm (¿Sí?) 17:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC) |
Yay!! Thanks so much! w00t! --Moni3 19:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
I wanted to let you know, our disagreement about the one issue notwithstanding, you are doing good work on TKaM. Keep it up, as WP can always use good editors like you. I do hope I did not seem too contentious in our discussion on the matter. Also, I wanted to thank you for pointing out my oversight in not having the Birmingham campaign on my watchlist. That is an oversight that has now been rectified. Keep up the good work! K. Scott Bailey 03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comments very much. I began editing TKaM over a year ago when it was a veritable free-for-all, before it became a semi-protected page, before the rules of no original research, and I couldn't keep up with the daily changes it went through and had to stop trying to edit it. I know the page is watched by dozens of editors here, so I've been surprised that I've been quite alone in amending it. I haven't even made anyone angry by rewriting large parts of it. Yours was the first challenge to anything I was doing to it.
- Don't just yet mark fact tags in Birmingham campaign. I have a lot of work left to do for that one. Rather, a lot of work remains to be done. Hopefully not by me alone. Again, thanks for your comments. --Moni3 03:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- I call it like I see it, so it's easy to make good comments about good editors like you. As for the BC, the articles on my watch list are articles that I mainly try to protect from vandalism when I'm working on my own pet projects (currently Tom Dula, if you want to check it out). I can not STAND vandals, so I've made it a bit of a mission to thwart them at every turn on articles I care about for one reason or another. TKaM happens to be one of those articles, so I had my eye on it. I noticed all of your changes, and they all appeared to be solid changes, done in good faith. I just noticed that one part that seemed off a bit, and I felt that the article would be improved a bit by removing it. Again, I apologize if I seemed overly-contentious, as that was NOT my intent at all. Hope things go well for you at the BC article, and I'll try to assist you by protecting it from the vandals as I have the chance. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 03:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| Your ongoing work in improving To Kill a Mockingbird has been excellent. You are awarded the original barnstar because work like yours exemplifies the original purpose of this project, and you vividly illustrate what we should all be doing, as we attempt to better the project. Keep it up!K. Scott Bailey 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
- This barnstar was an easy call, based not only upon your good work on TKaM, but also on your general body of work as well. You're a good Wikipedian, that's for certain. Yours is the first barnstar I have awarded in my time on the project, so I don't give them lightly. Why would you be shocked at it? Perhaps I was far more contentious in the TKaM discussion than I intended to be... K. Scott Bailey 04:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ha. You weren't that contentious, any more than I got stubborn that someone was editing my work after months of being given free reign to do whatever I wanted, it seemed. No, I'm surprised not because it's coming from you, but because TKaM is for some inexplicable reason, a little forgotten. For it being as widely read as I know it is, I guess I'm more shocked that it was in the shape it was in and I was the only person doing anything to it. I'm no literary scholar by any means, but that is rather the beauty of Wikipedia: that nobodies like me can not only write knowledgeable material, but by it being so widely read that it can serve to shape the perception of a topic. It's quite daunting to realize that thousands of students are plagiarizing my edits for their English assignments. My passion; their grade.
- Thanks again. I don't take the reception of an original barnstar lightly. Especially for an article like TKaM. I'm going to do whatever I can to get it featured. --Moni3 04:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- No problem. I am currently reading TKaM to my students in middle school language arts, so I too have a passion for the book. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. K. Scott Bailey 04:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Daisyfaycover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Curvemag 1931 1087991.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
In pondering your posts about GA, I noticed three sections had been blanked from the article a few weeks ago and because of the editing sequence had never gotten restored. So... thanks for bringing up GA and... please have another look at the article! Cheers! Gwen Gale 12:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want some more engaging input than a discussion of fair-use rationales, try asking someone like Awadewit for comments. This could, for example, be framed in the context of a Peer review. Geometry guy 21:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I asked for a peer review of the article a couple months ago. One user replied, suggesting I find more sources, particularly a source of which I had already cited five times. Awadewit has reviewed another article of mine and gave very good suggestions. I believe TKaM is a good article, though. I think it deserves the GA status and will work toward getting it featured. Thank you for the suggestion. --Moni3 00:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- I was just about to post a new thread here regarding this very thing. I'm not certain how helpful the current reviewer is, in this case. First, there was the confusing request to "source" the plot summary. Then there was the odd request to prove that Harper Lee is notable. As I'm completely unfamiliar with the GA process, I was going to ask if we couldn't request a different reviewer. What are your thoughts on this? Though I've spent a decent amount of time on this article, I haven't put nearly the effort that you have, so whatever you want to do about it, is fine by me. K. Scott Bailey 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I brought this up at the GA Review talk page a couple days ago, which prompted I guess, a little bit more participation from some of the GA reviewers I recognize. For now, at least, I'm just going to wait and see what happens. If it passes, then good. It should, and I don't care how. It's a very good article. If we have to jump through a bunch of other weird hoops I might give the talk page another shout out. --Moni3 04:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- I should have known you'd already be on it. I feel like I should be doing more to help you out, but I'm thinking I'd probably just be "in the way." You're doing a great job at TKaM, and I'm sure it will be up for FA (and will pass) in no time. Keep it up! K. Scott Bailey 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do appreciate the support and the help. The article looks quite nice with the rearranging you've done. I look forward to preparing it for FA very soon. Thanks again. --Moni3 13:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- It's been a pleasure working alongside you a bit on this article. I'm actually getting a bit excited to see how the GA Review turns out. I'm just sure it will pass! K. Scott Bailey 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's been a pleasure here as well. I'm going to work on a few other articles and come back and try to tackle it for feature. Rock on! --Moni3 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- It's been a pleasure working alongside you a bit on this article. I'm actually getting a bit excited to see how the GA Review turns out. I'm just sure it will pass! K. Scott Bailey 00:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do appreciate the support and the help. The article looks quite nice with the rearranging you've done. I look forward to preparing it for FA very soon. Thanks again. --Moni3 13:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- I should have known you'd already be on it. I feel like I should be doing more to help you out, but I'm thinking I'd probably just be "in the way." You're doing a great job at TKaM, and I'm sure it will be up for FA (and will pass) in no time. Keep it up! K. Scott Bailey 04:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I brought this up at the GA Review talk page a couple days ago, which prompted I guess, a little bit more participation from some of the GA reviewers I recognize. For now, at least, I'm just going to wait and see what happens. If it passes, then good. It should, and I don't care how. It's a very good article. If we have to jump through a bunch of other weird hoops I might give the talk page another shout out. --Moni3 04:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
- I was just about to post a new thread here regarding this very thing. I'm not certain how helpful the current reviewer is, in this case. First, there was the confusing request to "source" the plot summary. Then there was the odd request to prove that Harper Lee is notable. As I'm completely unfamiliar with the GA process, I was going to ask if we couldn't request a different reviewer. What are your thoughts on this? Though I've spent a decent amount of time on this article, I haven't put nearly the effort that you have, so whatever you want to do about it, is fine by me. K. Scott Bailey 04:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
<----undent
- I like the rewording of the Capote sentence. It didn't flow well with "tentatively", but I can see what you were saying about the inaccuracy of the sentence, had you not reworked it. Cheers! K. Scott Bailey 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Daisyfaycover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
