Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 17 October 2009

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 2009)

Münchausen by Internet

I believe this articles bests suits under the medicine project as it talks about an specific syndrome. It would be great if it would follow WP:MEDMOS in its sections and WP:MEDRS in its sources (altough referencing is already quite good). This would be specially important to become a GA.--Garrondo (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you suggest in the way of article layout in light of the fact that what is cited is just about what there is on the topic? I don't have access to two medical journal articles that I might be able to add info about. One of them I believe is a more clinical look at the Kaycee Nicole hoax. I'm not sure what the other one is. There is a book chapter by Feldman on it, but I did not find anything in the book chapter that was not previously covered in the journal articles already cited. The article at GAN right now, but under Internet culture. --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be psychology project, rather than medicine project, of course. I don't think anyone's proposed a major biological basis for the factitious disorders yet, although there are very likely biological risk factors we don't know about yet.

Here's the list of stuff I found on EBSCO and Medline on Munchausen by Internet. Some is probably duplicate to what you already have, some looked novel -- I didn't cross-check. The ones that are not available full-text you can probably get from interlibrary loan at an academic library. Let me know if you have trouble -- If full-text is available, I can get that easily. I don't mind asking for a few ILL things myself, but I don't want to take undue advantage of the reference librarians for projects not really related to my official existence.

Also check here: www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/psycyber.html Mirafra (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Munchausen's syndrome by Google.Citation Only Available (eng; includes abstract) By Griffiths EJ, Kampa R, Pearce C, Sakellariou A, Solan MC, Annals Of The Royal College Of Surgeons Of England , ISSN: 1478-7083, 2009 Mar; Vol. 91 (2), pp. 159-60; PMID: 19317939 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

The article addresses a woman who complained of persistent ankle dislocation, with a history of multiple hospital visits in Australia and the UK, who presented to doctors with an X-ray copy she printed from the internet. The article alerts physicians to the possibility that factitious disorder patients may be getting information from the internet that they use to exaggerate their claims.

Delusional parasitosis facilitated by web-based dissemination.Citation Only Available Vila-Rodriguez, Fidel; Macewan, Bill G.; American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 165(12), Dec, 2008. pp. 1612. Database: PsycINFO

This is a letter discussing a 57-y.o. male with a past of drug abuse and schizophrenia who was convinced he had parasitosis, and a family of a 2-year-old who launched an unprecedented publicity and lobbying campaign to find the name of a condition that clinical perceptions acknowledge to be delusional parasitosis. The 57-y.o. presented himself as having the same condition as the 2-year-old after reading about it on the internet. The letter writers' point is that the internet can mislead patients, and when people go online or participate in support groups with others who confirm their diagnostic fears, such communities can perpetuate false perceptions and they become delusional when a community supports their concerns.

{Münchausen syndrome with forgery on biologic results. A case report}Citation Only Available Pseudoleucémie par falsification d'examens biologiques: genèse d'un syndrome de Münchausen. (fre; includes abstract) By Thabuy F, Marzac C, Renaud MC, Fardet L, Tiev K, Tolédano C, Texier PL, Cabane J, Kettaneh A, La Revue De Médecine Interne / Fondée ... Par La Société Nationale Francaise De Médecine Interne , ISSN: 0248-8663, 2008 Nov; Vol. 29 (11), pp. 924-8; PMID: 18387714 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

In French.

A simulated case of chronic myeloid leukemia: the growing risk of Munchausen's syndrome by internet.Citation Only Available (eng) By Caocci G, Pisu S, La Nasa G, Leukemia & Lymphoma , ISSN: 1029-2403, 2008 Sep; Vol. 49 (9), pp. 1826-8; PMID: 18608864 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

Legal issues surrounding the exposure of 'Munchausen by Internet.'Citation Only Available Feldman, Marc D.; Peychers, M. E.; Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, Vol 48(5), Sep-Oct, 2007. pp. 451-452. Database: PsycINFO Full Text from ProQuest

Legal issues surrounding the exposure of "Munchausen by Internet".Citation Only Available (eng) By Feldman MD, Peychers ME, Psychosomatics , ISSN: 0033-3182, 2007 Sep-Oct; Vol. 48 (5), pp. 451-2; PMID: 17878508 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text Full Text from ProQuest

Factitious Ovarian Cancer: Feigning via Resources on the Internet.Citation Only Available Levenson, James L.; Chafe, Weldon; Flanagan, Phelicia; Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation Liaison Psychiatry, Vol 48(1), Jan-Feb, 2007. pp. 71-73. Database: PsycINFO Full Text from ProQuest

Article discusses a woman who presented to doctors with ovarian cancer after researching on the internet. Does not discuss manifestation of presenting a medical crisis over the internet.

Forensic web watch--medicolegal aspects of paediatric pathology.Citation Only Available (eng; includes abstract) By Liggett A, Swift B, Journal Of Clinical Forensic Medicine , ISSN: 1353-1131, 2003 Sep; Vol. 10 (3), pp. 201-4; PMID: 15275022 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

Article discusses internet coverage of child abuse cases in the area of pediatric forensic pathology. It mentions Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

Munchausen's syndrome by proxy web-mediated in a child with factitious hyperglycemia.Citation Only Available (eng) By Vanelli M, The Journal Of Pediatrics , ISSN: 0022-3476, 2002 Dec; Vol. 141 (6), pp. 839; PMID: 12461506 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

Letter written about a parent who used the internet to research hyperglycemia and subsequently masked his daughter's blood glucose by fabricating a blood sugar diary.

Gaining vicarious self-esteem through associations with medical doctors: A self-enhancement explanation for factitious illness behavior.Citation Only Available Waxmonsky, Jeanette Audrey; Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, Vol 63(5-B), Nov, 2002. pp. 2612. Database: PsycINFO Full Text from ProQuest

Dissertation on Factitious disorder. May offer insights on motivation, but not directly related to internet communications.

{Munchausen syndrome mimicking Meniere's disease}Citation Only Available Syndrome de Munchausen mimant une maladie de Menière. (fre; includes abstract) By Kos MI, Guyot JP, Annales D'oto-Laryngologie Et De Chirurgie Cervico Faciale: Bulletin De La Société D'oto-Laryngologie Des Hôpitaux De Paris , ISSN: 0003-438X, 2002; Vol. 119 (3), pp. 159-63; PMID: 12218870 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

In French.

Munchausen by Internet: detecting factitious illness and crisis on the Internet.Full Text Available (eng; includes abstract) By Feldman MD, Southern Medical Journal , ISSN: 0038-4348, 2000 Jul; Vol. 93 (7), pp. 669-72; PMID: 10923952 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Patient pretenders weave tangled "Web" of deceit.Citation Only Available (eng) By Stephenson J, JAMA: The Journal Of The American Medical Association , ISSN: 0098-7484, 1998 Oct 21; Vol. 280 (15), pp. 1297; PMID: 9794296 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

Responses to unsolicited patient e-mail requests for medical advice on the World Wide Web.Citation Only Available (eng; includes abstract) By Eysenbach G, Diepgen TL, JAMA: The Journal Of The American Medical Association , ISSN: 0098-7484, 1998 Oct 21; Vol. 280 (15), pp. 1333-5; PMID: 9794313 Database: MEDLINE with Full Text

Article discusses medical responses to potential patient emails asking about a condition they may have learned about online. Factitious disorder is not mentioned or alluded to in the article.

Thanks, Mirafra! I'll try to get hold of these over the next few weeks. --Moni3 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Amanda Baggs ] ], a potential case of Munchausen by Internet, with, standard Munchausen (ie, her complex and strategic use of doctors, her selective presentation of her own medical records on her website ]. Autism diagnoses start in 2000, 20 years old, she claimed DID (multiple personality) in 1994 to ___, then Schizophrenia in about 1996 to ___, then Autism in about 1998 and especially 2000.--CommunityCenter station2 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• May also be a case of Selective Autism, analogous to Selective Mutism ]. Starting in about 2000, but especially in 2007 with her YouTube video. Above report shows CNN's statement that her youtube video popularity (about 500,000 hits in 2007) was their primary reason to do a story on her ..... they call her a "YouTube sensation", etc.--CommunityCenter station2 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of this case. I reliable source and an expert in the field must state she is an example of Munchausen by Internet before it can be added to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tipping the Velvet

I'm done with my review of this article for GA. It's now on hold for any changes to be made.

Also, the quote i suggested as being too much detail is just the sort of thing i once thought should be the Lesbian article (I knew i'd read something of the sort, but didn't have sources myself).YobMod 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on some fixes right now. I have some questions as well. Sometimes I need to be persuaded to make changes. Other times I just like a discussion about the topic...Thanks for the review. --Moni3 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tutor needed

Looking for a humor tutor - know anyone? :) Awadewit (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As someone who has used it for good and evil from the moment words sprang from my mouth, I will be happy to impart any insight I have, and to discuss the nature of it as an inherent talent such as perfect pitch, or an acquired skill from observation. Through humor, we have returned to nature or nurture. We are born (I have woken from deep sleep laughing), and more than a few times I have laughed so hard I have felt the cold, clammy hand of death upon my shoulder, beckoning me home. --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, can only intone about the three theories of humor. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pshaw. I have chortled at some of your posts, although I don't know if you had intended that to happen. Maybe your audience is broken, not your funnybone. People who take themselves too seriously and take another heaping helping of offense when you do not also take yourself seriously are more chilling to one's life outlook sometimes than a polar bath...with bears. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh what a mental image...

The Homeowner's Association? Okay, I laughed. Risker (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. score! --Moni3 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee and all that, but could both of you please refrain from bandying about the idea that Sandy and I have a secret FAC promotion orgy-fest? Mr. Karanacs won't like that idea much... although if you can somehow convince Orlando Bloom to become an editor and try to promote an article to FAC hubby's opinion might not matter so much ;) Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who needs Orlando Bloom when you have this eye-candy? – iridescent 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea that link was there. Wikipedians needs to get out more. Srsly. Into the sun. Vitamin D and all. Karan, I have not bandied that idea. It was thrown out there, and I merely predicted that someone will pick it up and run. Don't pass the ball to whoever will do it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Iridescent, that is the whitest, most homogeneous group of people I've seen this side of a Pearl Jam concert. MastCell  22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What's frightening is that these are the people who thought "hey, I look pretty good in this photo, I think I'll share it". One daren't speculate about what the others look like. – iridescent 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Some of us look pretty darn tasty! → ROUX ₪ 00:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. When one finds oneself looking at Shankbone and thinking "well, at least this one looks relatively normal", something is seriously wrong somewhere. – iridescent 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

History of The Show Revisited

Hi there, Moni,

I've finally been able to address all comments on History of Sesame Street, including your image review. Could you please go over there and see if it's adequate enough to be resubmitted for GAN? Or, if you'd like, if you think it qualifies, you could just pass the darn thing. I'd really like to move on, so that we can get it peer reviewed. --Christine (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In general

You have so much more patience than I do. I bow before your sereneness. Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Our views are skewed. I do, in fact, have a very short memory. I get frustrated (really) then completely forget why. Call it patience if you will. I have banged my phone on my desk on five different occasions today. I would characterize my day as being remarkably pissy. I suppose though, much like a marriage, that we as a group can share the burden of pissy days. --Moni3 (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone has more patience than I do, so I'm not so easily impressed. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What, o what will I do to impress Malleus!?! Maybe the blue streak I swear out loud so I don't post it here. Does cussing like a whole boat of sailors impress you? --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You do impress me Moni3, just not with your patience. You have a dogged determination and a sense of humour that I greatly admire. There. Feel better now? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw. Now I'm embarrassed. I take slights and insults much better than compliments. But I appreciate it nonetheless. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to pile on the embarrassment by also complementing you on your sense of integrity. Despite us living completely different lives on different continents, I do feel that you and I are in similar in many ways. Sorry to finish off with an insult. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Not at all an insult. There are a rare few editors, like yourself, that I admire and whose opinion I respect. When considering RfB processes, I ask myself if I admire the candidate enough to vote in support. The folks I admire enough to support probably would not run in the first place, so I should examine that reasoning some. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My view on RfA/B was really formed years ago, while I was studying for my psychology degree. I came across an account of a North American Indian tribe (I'm not certain what the PC decsription would be nowadays) who selected as their chief the warrior who least wanted the job. I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who asks for power, but I know that's an unfashionable view. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Tipping

Erm, yeah, I meant to get around to that. Hrm. Are you going to put it up for PR? If not, I can look it over within the next few days and leave comments on the talk page. I'll try to think of something to say other than "squee!" María (habla conmigo) 12:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You made me lol. It's rare that I do that when reading someone else's comments. Love the squee. Won't be putting it up for PR, but if you have any suggestions about anything, please let me know. Thanks! squee...hahaah--Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I try. Done and done. I also just noticed that my last edit to the talk page was more than two years ago, while passive aggressively teaching you how to correctly format references! Ah, those were the days... María (habla conmigo) 15:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Weren't they? Shall I count myself a bit more accustomed to how to do some things? I'm a slow learner, but I get it eventually... Thanks so much for your review. I'll address your comments throughout the day. If I have questions and whatnot, I'll ask as usual. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Stowe (Away) and The Addams Family

(I figure it's not healthy for us to banter on a missing friend's talk page.) I'm happy to help with peer reviewing and copyedits as always, but school's got me crazy busy and my dog keeps chewing up everything in our house and I just started a new reconstruction, so I can't help out with research or actual writing, alas. Keep me posted, tho! (Yeah, that Stowe page is embarrassing.) Scartol • Tok 13:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Map help

Hi Moni, Kmusser is a professional cartographer and very helpful with rivers - my guess is he can make something similar. If worse comes to worse, ask me and I can make something worse (or you can do the colored pencil map and scan it). Ruhrfisch _><>° 17:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the triplicate - I kept trying to save it and getting the Wikimedia grey screen error message. Guess all three tries were ultimately (too) successful. Eeek. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>° 20:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I've done it too. No sweat. I'll see if Kmusser is about and can assist. I would rather not place a color-pencil drawing in the article. It just doesn't look professional to address geography with crayon-like materials. One of the books I used for the article actually does use crayons in maps, and it's jarring to see it, as if a 5th grader put the visuals together. --Moni3 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Piracetam protection

Unless I'm missing something, you protected piracetam, a day later, due to 2 edits over a minute by 1 IP address, which were reverted within 2 hours. Does that really warrant protection? I know standards have loosened since I was an admin, but that still seems like no reason to semiprotect. --Gwern (contribs) 13:52 8 October 2009 (GMT)

A user asked for protection for vandalism here. I looked at the edits within the past week and it does seem that a few vandals have been inserting disruptive edits. It's a medication, and some of those edits altered language about the drug's efficacy. Admittedly, I am not a student of this drug and I do not know which is accurate. Was it necessary? In the grand scheme of things, of course not. Misplaced Pages itself is not necessary. Will it stem some disruptive edits for a week so you and the other folks who watch this article can take care of the cite tags and other issues? Yes. Here's your grand opportunity. --Moni3 (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A few vandalisms over a week is enough? I guess standards really have fallen. As for this opportunity - well, I can't say I didn't add any citations I came across because I was worried about vandals... --Gwern (contribs) 17:07 8 October 2009 (GMT)

Why is your primary concern here that the article is protected from disruptive edits when the article has fact tags and remains at start class? Why is the concern here the standards of protection for an article to keep its integrity instead of the content that goes in it? Why would you comment on the state of standards for protection when you seem to exhibit low ones for what readers actually access? I do not understand your focus. --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned because admin tools are very serious and reflect issues far more general than just one article; the process is more important to safeguard than the products because a flaw in the former may contaminate all of the latter, but not vice versa. While I am far less concerned than I would be if you had, say, deleted the page, your casual use is still worth following up on.

As for the fact tags, I do not care; I care about incorrect facts, and I recognized none on my various reads & edits. And as for the start class assessment: it is the product of an arbitrary process assigning ratings only loosely connected to any objective utility or quality. When I consider how I had to fight and scrape to get articles that I researched from the ground up, like Medici Bank or Fujiwara no Teika, classified anywhere near their actual quality level, I have little confidence in the process (especially since I warned the GAers, from the very first day it was proposed, that policy/standard creep would turn them into FA-lite, yet they were unable to avoid it). An FA is strong statistical evidence of being a quality article, but not being an FA (or being start class) says little either way...

In the future, I suggest you use your tools with more discretion; a few quickly reverted & not particularly malicious edits over a week or more does not justify protection or intervention of any kind. --Gwern (contribs) 21:19 8 October 2009 (GMT)

I value integrity of content over all else. The article was semi-protected for a week. You are still able to edit it. Anons and new users are not. After a week, anons and new users may edit as they wish. I will always defer to protecting the integrity of content. I do not believe the semi-protection was unwarranted or overzealous, and I do not understand why you are this motivated to pursue the matter and lecture me when you do not seem to care about improving the article. In fact, this approach is quite baffling. You know how to add to it and clearly have the interest in the article to comment on my talk page, but you neglect improving it in favor of allowing access to anonymous users who have recently shown interest in compromising the prose and formatting. I simply do not understand that logic.

If you continue to believe that my energies are misdirected and they harmed the article in some way, I would prefer you expend your efforts on improving its content than attempting to persuade me to change my approach. There is no requirement to pursue article review processes. You can create an FA-level article and leave it at start class if you so desire, but the allowing fact tags to remain...I do not know how to respond to that. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Moni, thanks for removing that comment on my talk page. Some people have no class.--Parkwells (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. When I tell someone they suck, I say exactly why with charts and references. --Moni3 (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tipping the Velvet

Moni, you have clearly worked hard on this article. We can disagree on whether FA "brilliant writing" includes so much passive voice construction, but any two people will find different ways to approach articles, which is what Misplaced Pages is based on. It seemed more like a literary review than encyclopedia article to me, which is what prompted some of the changes. But, it's all yours to revert in total. I will work elsewhere.--Parkwells (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I appreciate your response. --Moni3 (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

History of Sesame Street

I hafta say, your response to Parkwells is classic Moni3: "I'm not going to tell you you suck." It gives me the confidence that if it's okay for you to say that to him, it's okay for me to say it to you! I mean, shoot, what the heck has Sesame Street ever done to you! Are you too busy pursuing your homosexual agenda to spend some time on this little article about this little children's TV show? 40 years, I tell you! Or is it me, is this little housewife from Idaho not important enough for you to pay any attention to?

No smiley-face emoticon, Moni, since I'm sure that your humor is subtle enough to get the joke. I suspect that you may even appreciate it. If not, I apologize. But I am wondering why no response to my note above. No pressure! Thanks. --Christine (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I like my own little world so much that I have to be yanked out of it quite often. Ok...on to read it again. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What a good egg you are. I appreciate it, and intend on working on your comments and Awadewit's comments in the morning. --Christine (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here or there

Please chose either here or at my talk page. I do not think it would be appropriate to continue to argue at Risker's talk page when your concern is over me. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I said what I wanted to say. --Moni3 (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

I would like to say congrats for the recent GA review for St. Johns River. Can you also review my article, United Arab Emirates? The review page is right here. Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to review an article right now as large and comprehensive as what should be for UAE. And I really quite honestly hope you did not review St. Johns River in trade for another review. I hope you passed the article on its own merits. --Moni3 (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean for it to soubd like a trade. I just wanted to know if you were able to review it. Secret Saturdays (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Palmetto Leaves

On October 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Palmetto Leaves, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 09:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you

seen this? Hey Moni, just stopping by to say hi and realized you were working on that article. ceranthor 14:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few videos of varying quality on YouTube. Some are awesome and some are perplexing. Here's Elvis and Ann-Margret in an interesting rendition. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty nice... :) ceranthor 14:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ergh. I think it's funny. Not as funny as Wiki's article on Viva Las Vegas starring Ann-Margret as a swim "instructress". That's hilarious. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As a swimmer, I've seen many swim 'instructresses' (coaches, really) and none have been too attractive, in all honesty. But that's okay. ceranthor 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you wrote at the monitoring page

I swear when I went there, I only intended to post the diff to the problematic commentary. Things just spiraled out of control very quickly. Are there any particular points in which you felt like I stepped out of line? UnitAnode 21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not on step out of line patrol, but my general advice is to treat Mattisse and everyone on her talk page the way you want to be treated, even if you get treated like shit. You have nothing to gain, and I mean absolutely nothing as none of us do, by getting angry and defensive. All you can do is let facts speak for themselves. When things go completely crazy go outside and look at a tree. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "Go for a walk" is always good advice for dispute resolution. :) My main question, though, was whether you thought I had let my temper get the best of me at any point. I've tried to maintain my cool, and feel like I've done so, but often we're not the best judges of our own behavior. UnitAnode 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm serious about the patrol. I don't come here to judge other editors' behavior. You have a conscience and you should explore if your actions bothered you. I get wrought up in fiery righteousness in the spirit of Jonathan Edwards sometimes and it takes me a few days to settle down. I, however, never strike my posts and very rarely refactor them because I always ask myself if what I am about to post needs to be said and what harm it may bring. I have a pretty low edit count because the reply to my own question is usually "no" and "a lot". Just follow the simple rule of treating others the way you want to be treated even if it sucks and it's nearly physically painful not to respond in a shitty manner in retribution. Trees. --Moni3 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll trust my conscience then. I've not felt that I "lost it" at any point. I may also cut-and-paste your posts here onto my talkpage at some point. Truly words to live your life (both on-wiki and off) by. UnitAnode 22:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it spiraled out of control. I never should have allowed myself to be sucked into that vortex. I won't make that mistake again! :) Best, UnitAnode 02:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I really want to thank you ...

... for that pdf you sent me yesterday. I think that after all these years I'm finally beginning to understand what The Green Child is really all about.

It's a far more important work than I could ever do justice to, but I'll keep plugging away at it, trying to do what I can. If I ever pluck up the courage to think about another novel article I think I'll stick to Victorian potboilers like Guy Fawkes. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you think that no one yet has stepped up to write the article and it ain't gonna write itself, better that someone who loves the book write it than it remain average or worse. If you need more assistance, I'll see what I can do to get some more of those sources. I may not have access to them all, but I'll do what I can. And I still am unable to wrap my mind around the fact that I wrote the article for To Kill a Mockingbird. --Moni3 (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's totally understandable Moni. I get weird little vibes when I realize that I am basically writing the ecclesiastical history of medieval England here on Misplaced Pages. Some of the folks I'm writing articles on haven't had scholarly monographs published on them ever, and their articles here may be definitive. Certainly, Urse is! And I've never told you that your work is quite outstanding itself, not just the Florida stuff, but the other things you get sucked into writing, like Mockingbird! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, Ealdgyth. Truly. There are very few people I admire on Misplaced Pages and you are among them. Some articles I do get sucked into, but TKAM wasn't one of them. I enjoyed writing it wholeheartedly. I'd be happy to write it again just to have it plagiarized by thousands of 9th graders everywhere. You stay fabulous. No homo and all. --Moni3 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking again at your Mockingbird article I begin now to understand why the novel articles appear (to me) to be written so differently. Different things are important about different books. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm in awe of both of you, I'd never ever dream of touching a novel article. I'm scared enough of Hemming's Cartulary! If there is something on Moni's list that you really want Malleus, let me know. I think early next week is my next trip to the University here. Things are finally calming down around the home-ranch, well as calm as they get with teenagers learning to drive, baby horses needing halter-broke and a house we're still trying to finish up building! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It is very awe-inspiring to realize that regular people like us can fall in love/otherwise become obsessed with a topic and have a real influence in the way the world perceives it. It's a huge ego boost that comes with an equally huge responsibility. I think most serious content writers here can point to one or two articles that they worked on and say "I sweated blood over that article and I'm really proud of the result." And it's really, really cool when other content editors recognize that effort (I still remember a kind comment Malleus made about one of my first FA attempts). So thank you to each of you for giving loving treatment to really important topics (as well as some lesser-known and otherwise fun ones) :) Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You say "awe-inspiring", I say absolutely scary. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed frightening, particularly when it appears over a million people a year read an article I wrote. I am glad that there is at least a strong minority who recognize and push for quality. I would have left this place years ago if others did not force me to improve and have excellence as an ideal. --Moni3 (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Manos HAnds of Fate

Hi Moni. Are you still wanting to do work on this? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I rewrote some of it, but then I realized that the sources all sucked and I'd have to replace them all for FA. I don't think it's impossible, but I am unable to read what is necessary for FA quality and devote the time necessary for it now, unfortunately. Apologies. --Moni3 (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

Out of curiosity, why don't we have a page about lgbt history in the united states? CTJF83 chat 06:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's this and then this. I've always been more surprised that there is no article on the Social impact of AIDS. It's a horrible topic that would be dreadfully depressing... right up my alley, I know. --Moni3 (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should make a history page? Something similar to the two of those put together. CTJF83 chat 16:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You are being discussed on AN/I

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protection_of_my_user_space_page_to_control_discussion_and_prevent_me_from_posting_there. I have lost edits through your action, and your unethical protection of my user space page is a conflict of interest, as you are involved in the conflict personally. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting clarification from ArbCom and trying to collect diffs to do it before I post. Give me a few minutes. --Moni3 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about the RFARB/Clarification-thing

Since I'm a named party in the request you filed, should I go ahead and at least post something there? I'm thinking that with how volatile Philcha and Carter have been toward me, that perhaps no comment at all in that forum would be best, but I'm not sure if I'm required to post something as a named party. UA 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not required to do anything. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I was just wondering if it was kind of "expected" that I would make a comment, you know what I mean? UA 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mary McLeod Bethune article

Hello,

You appear to be a major editor of the Mary McLeod Bethune article. I corrected her Spingarn Medal year but, as the article is so long, I couldn't find a place to enter the source. Here it is: http://www.naacp.org/events/spingarn/past/index.htm

Perhaps you can have better luck at placing it in the Article than I did. Thanks. -- Michael David (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That was one of the first articles I started working on, and it's got marks of newbie all over it. I wish I could expand it, but there are sadly so few book references on Bethune that I have so far been unsuccessful. If you have the sources to improve it, you are welcome to do it. I will assist as I can. Thanks for fixing the error, and I cited the Springarn medal. --Moni3 (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Something sparkly for you

Who could not feel good wearing one of these?per , something sparkly for you I hereby dub you Princess Moni; now wave your magic wand and bring about wiki-peace and harmony :) Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this wiki-peace and harmony relative, to say, Sarajevo in 1994, or something more like Compton in 1989? I appreciate the gesture. I shall wear it on my head, like an apple to William Tell. --Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice thought, but that one's not sparkly enough! I suggest the Crown Jewels of Ireland, that is, if you can find them and don't mind worrying about the fate of their last known caretaker. Eubulides (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Question for TPS who have experience watching ArbCom

As the initiator of this request for clarification, I am unsure if I should continue to post rebuttals to points that others have disagreed about. Specifically, if I should clarify why I included something. Will I be asked by ArbCom members to explain myself? Will the process degrade into bickering over single points? I already find myself disagreeing with quite a few statements about editors' personalities, motivations, and characterizations, but since they have nothing to do with the structure of the mentoring method, I figure I'm going to leave well enough alone with that at least.

But I do have concerns that my suggestions are met with some opposition in greater numbers than my single voice. I have what I think are good reasons for proposing what I did, but do not know the process well enough to see if I should detail my reasoning now, or if there will be another opportunity to do so if ArbCom decides to look at the case again. Any help or insight would be appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm been traveling (extended my trip by a day), so I haven't really followed closely so can't perhaps comment coherently, but there is a problem that we seem to lose many of the good and sensible Arbs to burnout, forcing Jimbo to dig deeper into lower Support percentages to fill ArbCom.

The mentorship has been more successful at silencing those on the plague list (IMO) than at changing the behaviors. But then how can the behaviors change when others aren't allowed to report them or discuss them (recall that initially the Monitoring page stated it was only for mentors, and only recently did they change that-- and I at least never reported the incidents I observed, and watched in stunned silence as nothing was done, but none of the mentors signed on to follow her around, and there was no admin on board willing to block when there was a violation). How far to press is unclear, as it's still a mystery how a "report" from mentors which included no one not of Mattisse's choosing, and when incidents couldn't be reported, will be helpful. Have you considered that your recommendation that incidents can only be reported on the Monitoring page might result in continued status quo, and that reporting incidents to the broader community at the Arb enforcement noticeboard or just AN/I might be a better choice, unless ArbCom puts more neutral mentors on the committee?

Also, I share your concern about the number of (wild) inaccuracies that stood on the page the last time I read it, but addressing them may just muddy the focus, which is that the mentorship as structured isn't working. (And I'm referring to inaccuracies beyond "editors' personalities, motivations, and characterizations"-- although there's plenty of that as well-- to plain vanilla diffable or diffed facts). In the past, my opinion from watching ArbCom was that all evidence was encouraged to be brought forward: there seems to be a new set of rules in play here, intended more to protect one editor than those affected by the very behaviors ArbCom noted in the original case. Also this case may be unique in another important sense: I'm not aware of any other case where so many arbs had to recuse as they themselves had encountered issues with Mattisse, so some arbs may have been silenced on-Wiki as well!

I'm aware that Tony and you have tried to make some inroads to evaluating arb candidates in the future, but my concern is that things cycle, and that what is needed to balance ArbCom varies from year to year. Last year, we needed more with broader content experience: this year, we may need to add some backbone to ArbCom. Considering the serious shortage of good editors now to keep up with vandal fighting and POV pushing and article watching and admin duties, should we be expending so much time on "reports" and bureaucracy for one editor? Perhaps next year's ArbCom can benefit from an editor who has the qualities of TFM: a finely tuned BS detector, puts up with no nonsense, and can deliver an effective message in two sentences or less. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR version; "Arbcom now has too many dicks and needs more balls". – iridescent 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe I once commented elsewhere that what Arbcom teaches us is that the best Misplaced Pages survival strategy is to piss off each and every one of its members, then they all have to "recuse". Wimps. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In order to say anything even remotely truthful or insightful about this situation, one would have to be willing to put up with various forms of emotional blackmail. It's not worth it. ArbCom can't solve this problem. I think that enough people have bought into the existing dynamic that it is basically futile to challenge it. Anyone raising concerns about Mattisse is very effectively painted into a corner as the Bad Guy Persecutor. Once upon a time, Misplaced Pages was not a form of therapy. Empathy can't be "mentored" on Misplaced Pages. If an editor treats people meanly and then doesn't understand why people react negatively, then Misplaced Pages mentors can't fix that problem. Of course, they don't have to actively enable it, either... MastCell  07:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, I found the opposes on Vassyanna's arb election page enlightening-- we now have yet another Arb who should be recusing from this case, having crossed the line of neutrality rather dramatically. I hoped, after an ArbCom, that FAC, FAR, GAN, GAR and DYK and hard-working editors would be able to go about their business without attacks and disruption. But ArbCom accepted a faulty Plan, and has now moved into enabling, failing to take action, to do something, anything to correct the deficiencies in the Plan they accepted, with one arb now threatening those who railed against a Plan that couldn't help the very person it was intended to help. The Plan never served Mattisse, but worse, never served those plagued, or content review processes well, failed to even provide a forum for complaints, and included self-selected "mentors", none of whom signed on to follow her around and notice when her Plan was breached, or to block her when she breached the Plan. And all of these shortcomings were apparent to thinking observers (Moni) when ArbCom accepted the Plan, so no wonder the behaviors haven't changed. The mentorship might have worked if Malleus or Moni had stayed on the Mentoring committee. Does the time of hard-working productive editors have any value? Trip down memory lane; asking for reports, from a self-selected group of mentors, when there was no place to lodge complaints, at a time when Wiki editors are so overburdened with just the basics and inordinate amounts of time are being spent trying to get one editor to cease the Arb-noted behaviors. I want to have time to keep up with the articles I care about, and for Mattisse to stop disrupting content review processes and taking so much time from some of Wiki's most helpful editors, who are needed in more important ways (like content review). Clearly, ArbCom has some arbs have different priorities than those of us working in the trenches. What will be next in the bag of tricks to enable disruption and let a bad situation become worse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have considered staying as one of the mentors if I'd had the ability to issue those short blocks mentioned in the plan that have yet to materialise. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I've read one reasonable arb response, and two unhelpful arb responses, it appears that you made the right decision; we will never know, perhaps, if things would have worked out better if a neutral admin had been assigned to the mentoring committee, and if a venue for complaints had been provided from the beginning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm away for the weekend and not able to spend enough time responding in any detail, but I want to read through everything and think on it by Sunday. Thanks for the input to everyone. --Moni3 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing same: today is FAC, and tomorrow out all day, and by Monday, I'll decide if Wiki is hopeless, or if I'm not going to sit around any longer and be a target, regardless of threats. I stood down in previous efforts, hoping Arb would solve this; they haven't. I'm also hoping Geometry guy, who said he couldn't weigh in until Sunday, will bring some reason to the discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone help me understand if Vassayana's threats of sanctions for "rancid" attacks against Mattisse and her mentors (made completely without diffs) is standard operating procedure. UA 18:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)