This is an archive of past discussions with User:Montanabw. 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.
Thank you for your response. Just organising image of registered Warlander horse for you now. It will have a copyright release on it for use on Wikipedia by owner and photographer so will be no rights reserved. How do I get it to you when I get it?
With regards to Atavism in Warlander horses, all I can tell you is I am the registrar of the Warlander Studbook (global) and there are no Warlander horses registered in the studbook that have any genetic issues or have Atavism, even in the third generation. The Warlander has a bigger genetic pool than all of its base breeds.
The International Warlander Registry and Society that is linked at the bottom of the page has been closed since 2012. This needs to be deleted completely and the new global studbook is called Warlander Studbook Society and its address is www.warlanderstudbooksociety.com.au
Hello, I am clearly clueless when it comes to this subject, but i would like to enrich the articles with some videos on this subject. Can you please guide me to some appropriate footage you would like to see on those articles? Best Matanya (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Matanya, it's kind of a quagmire to find videos that are both a) good and b) properly licensed for wikipedia. There's a lot of "my kid bouncing around the ring at pony club" stuff out there. What is usually an indicia of quality for a still sports photo also applies to videos - higher-levels of competition, winning competitors, etc. I suggest posting things you find at the various article talk pages rather then putting them immediately in the article. If no one says anything, then you are probably good to go. (i.e. the vaulting video was very helpful, the Percherons barrel racing... not so much...!) (my eyeballs are still burning...) That said, if you can find anything for cutting (sport), that would be fantastic. Even not-that-great cutting is still pretty impressive! Montanabw(talk)20:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If captioned "young cutting horse at training clinic" It would be fine. It's not competition, and the handler does some stuff that would be penalized in competition (guided the horse with reins, the horse has a braided tail, etc.) but yes, that would give people the idea. Montanabw(talk)02:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Montanabw -- I wanted to thank you for your continuing attention to Wikipedia:Navigation templates. I'm going to try hard to keep any further discussion good humored and focused on the issue at hand. In other words "common sense manners". We'll see what happens. all best! Lockley (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I love these cases where they have been opened and closed while I am blissfully asleep and unaware of the machinations occurring elsewhere on the globe. Carry on. Those who care about redlinks in navboxes can go peek over here. Meh. Montanabw(talk)18:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
If Talk:Race (biology) is a place you've been around for a while, does the behavior of this editor remind you of any of the editors who were banned, such as Captain Occam, Ferragho the Assassin or Mikemikev? I'm not very familiar with their styles.
@Beyond My Ken:, unfortunately, I am not very familiar with them, I think I may have tangled briefly with Occam or Mikemikev, but not enough to catch the style. That said, if you want to point me to some examples, I'll take a peek. If I see a pattern, I'll let you know. Montanabw(talk)21:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
No, that's the problem, I was only an observer from the ArbCom perspective and never really experienced their input directly, so it's hard to point you (or me, for that matter) to specific places. I just have the strong feeling that this fellow who popped up out of nowhere is an old hand at this sort of thing. If I could come up with something even semi-convincing, I'd file an SPI and hope for the best., but I know they'll just pooh-pooh anything based on an editor's gut feeling. BMK (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for being nosy but I just wanted to share my thoughts. I was also suspicious, so I took a gander at the archives of Talk:Race (human classification). From what I see, Captain TJ's writing style closely resembles the one by PlasticSpatula5 (e.g., [1], [2], [3]) who has been identified as a sock of Mikemikev. The responses of both users tend to be short and aggressive, using similar words like "Marxist POV" (e.g., [4], [5]). Spatula5 also has a history of reverting other editor's edits [6]. But beyond that I am really not sure. My two cents. danielkueh (talk, 23:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
And of the three editors I mentioned, Mikemikev was -- by far -- the most active sockmaster, so there's that. I've asked around a bit to see if one of the old hands in the dispute has anything to say about Cpt Verity. BMK (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted my removal of the hatnote from the Horse grooming article with the edit summary "IAR, this is one where people may well find themselves wanting to go back to the dab." Why do you believe that readers would want to go to the disambiguation page from this article? I would think that a "See also" section would better provide any functionality you are envisioning. The guidelines are clear on this point, and for good reason; no one is going to end up on this page by accident when looking for an article on another kind of grooming. What are your thoughts?
Basically I guess I am not a fan of the guidelines when it interferes with navigability, I like to - look! a squirrel! - jump around freely from one topic to another and favor hatnotes in both directions. But if a see also would work, that could do. Not a moral issue. Montanabw(talk)22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A user has made large changes to this article based on (to me) unclear criteria. I reverted it all so it can be discussed. Any input is welcome. Rmhermen (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It is possible that this IP 174.61.182.242 (talk·contribs) and Yuchitown (talk·contribs) are connected. At least there is overlap in the articles that they edit. Now this looks to be a WP:COMPETENCE pronlem in not logging in properly rather than anything else. M you would have picked up on this but I thought I would provide the links to make it easier to check on things. MarnetteD|Talk17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
RE; Equine Gastric Ulcer Syndrome", what I have prepared is virtually a total re-write since the majority of the current version is just too difficult to spot edit to my satisfaction. I hope this allowed according to Wikipedia protocol. (EquiDocG (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC))
Hi Mbw thanks so much for coming over to DRN. You're pretty sharp so you've probably already noticed this....... but I'll point this out anyway. The filing party BeeCeePhoto hasn't participated yet and Robco311 is not a listed party (although they could be added). That said, any discussion between any interested parties (even if BeeCeePhoto doesn't show) can be valuable in moving a dispute forward. So use your best judgement. DRN is very flexible and we are not stuck on procedures we just want to help people move towards resolution in any way we can. Thanks again for all your help! Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, Montanabw. It's ok. Tags aren't badges of shame or anything. If you were going to fix it, I think it might've made more sense to just do that instead of reverting me. An unreferenced article should generally be tagged as such. It feels a bit like you're shooting the messenger here. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Frankly, you also could go look at the old source and do precisely what I did to fix it - find the related page, run it through Google translate and {{sofixit}} I was working on something else and was going to get to it later, but with the tag-revert I had to drop other stuff to fix this, so yes, I'm grumpy. I like other people to help with content fixes and I get tired of doing all the work. Montanabw(talk)20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You will recall the long ant time-consuming discussion, which happened in the past about this concern.
Nikkimaria is doing it again, when I tried to improve the content of the infoboxes of the two pages Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner), which she originally split from other articles. See the (sterile) discussion which is starting again on the talk pages of these two pages. Please advise.
@Meneerke bloem: Nikki is kind of stubborn, once her mind is made up, it's hard to get her to budge. She's not evil, but once she digs in you won't "win" - you can only "prevail": Best to see if there is anything where you can compromise a little to show good faith, but other than that, just have about a 3:1 consensus in favor of your position and then impose it. She's not one for the drama boards as a rule. I kind of like her dedication when she's on my side of an issue, but when she's not it's not as much fun. Montanabw(talk)21:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikimedia blog post includes you
Hi Montana, a recent Wikimedia blog post included two of your articles. I'd love to get your feedback on the general concept, if you have the time! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The blog's readers primarily come from Facebook, so basically the general public. My aims here are to surface interesting content that doesn't get seen much (and that certainly worked, thanks in part to Game of Thrones), get Wikipedians some recognition for their achievements, and generally get editors more acquainted with the WMF. Speaking as a regular editor, there's a lot of bad blood between the community and WMF. Maybe doing things like this can build some bridges.
@Ed Erhart (WMF):: I liked the structure and the shoutout of the article itself, but I was a little unclear as to what or why the blog exists, where it is "marketed" and how people would even know it exists. The facebook "front end" seems unclear, more link individual stories than a link to a blog post, I think that it may be wise to post daiy updates rather than stuff several times a day on the facebook feed; I'd never know there was more than the headline article from the tone of the posts. Montanabw(talk)21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It's supposed to be the WMF's official blog, which is why you see announcements from Legal etc., along with featuring stories from around the movement. Speaking personally, I agree with your point on how people should know it exists. It's something we're working to address; I've been brought on board in part for more quality content, and there's an upcoming redesign that will include email subscriptions. What do you mean with your Facebook comments? The page is meant to link to blog posts and major stories from elsewhere, and unfortunately only a daily update really hurts the post views (and the Wikipedia page is already heavily throttled because the WMF doesn't pay for boosted posts). Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Zayat
I just wanted to leave you a note to apologise for if I seemed a bit off in my conduct here; I know I can sometimes seem a bit crusty and I think I wasn't too polite in a couple of the edit summaries. I hope you'll forgive me and look forward to continuing the discussion on the talk page. It's a fine article, incidentally, thanks! Hope you're well. Cheers, —Cliftonian(talk)06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Today I passed a review for my first GA article. It took some hard work, but was well worth it. Thanks for the information and personal experience you gave me at the beginning. I know we didn't get off to the best start, but I'm glad you put up with me long enough for me to gain a little more perspective. I hope everything goes well with you, and I'll be happy to support your eventual bid to be an admin. Peace.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
If you DO decide to stand for admin (and I advise against it) please get hold of me somehow so I can come in and comment. You're one of the few people not an admin that I know[1] would be good at it. ++Lar: t/c23:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
1 - this could just be because I no longer know anyone here.... or hardly, anyway.
Hi Lar, good to see you on-wiki! Yeah, all the good admins seem to be leaving in droves, a few of the dedicated - or nuts - stay, but ... yeah, I'm pretty much hearing the same thing from everyone, which is 1) I'd do a good job, but 2) Everyone I've pissed off in the last 9 years will show up to try and derail things, and 3) If by some miracle I got the mop, yes, I'd be nuts to want the job. I've posed the question on-wiki to a couple admins I respect and gotten lukewarm-to-moderate enthusiasm and I don't know if it's a sign of burnout or if they are trying to caution me that the job is no fun. My model is the much-missed User:Dana boomer, who sailed through her RfA with zero oppose votes, and wielded her mop with aplomb, but even she burned out on all the drama and she was the nicest person ever. So... thoughts? (anyone?) Montanabw(talk)03:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a big problem with en:wp and admin burnout is a symptom. Unlike when I first went dormant, I think WMF is aware, and is working to correct it. But how do you correct a culture, working from above, that prides itself on consensus driven actions and is organized bottom up? It's going to be a hard nut to crack. I'd actually advise waiting. Why burn yourself out now, trying to stop the tide, as the forces arrayed at your side dwindle? Perhaps better to have the dike break, and disaster occur, followed by radical change. But I don't know. You'd get my passionate support. The problem is that... that support may damage your chances more than it helps. I've done very little here for years, although I am glad I stil have my bit.++Lar: t/c15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd caution against it simply because it would hinder your work on equine and Native American articles (it may have other impacts, but those are the two which spring immediately to mind). I say that because agenda-warriors could easily use "abuse of the tools" as an excuse to haul you to drama boards regularly and argue against your actions. Since those seem to be two of your more effective editing areas, in essence losing you as a regular editor would be "a bad thing." Intothatdarkness15:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Heh, I'm hauled to the drama boards on a regular basis anyway! How dare I have a perspective based on research and knowledge, after all! The moon is made of WP:CHEESE you know! Montanabw(talk)16:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, just dropped you an email about RfA ... I need to do a bit more research but provisionally I'd be happy to put my name forward as nominator. I wanted to do this off-wiki as I'm sure if you've got skellies you'd rather not talk about them in full public view. PS: Admins get hauled off to ANI day in day out, it's part of the job. Just because somebody cries "abusive admin!", doesn't mean it's true (though equally it doesn't mean it's false) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.
Greetings from the Commons
Yo Monty, I saw you've uploaded quite a deal of photos from Flickr (hundreds?). Please help with categorizing them, now they're bulking up the category:Horses. You're far more knowledgeable than me about TB racing and such, and many photos seem to be related to it. --Pitke (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Will do; thought I had the upload set to do that automatically, but must have grabbed Flickr tags. Yes, if they look like horse racing, it will be Thoroughbreds, mostly USA and UK (may have found some from Asia... which will be obvious by script) Montanabw(talk)17:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Losing the kahako is discussed in the talk page. You said you were there for the equestrian portion of the article. I just never took it out.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I also took out the redundant "also spelled as Paʻu riders" because the spelling is the same and the marks also mean the same thing. It isn't a different spelling, just a western keyboard that cannot produce the okina. We need to now get the okina added to the article title because that is what the proper spelling using the correct orthography and MOS Hawaii shows extensive discussion on that.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a small point, on an (as yet) short discussion, but it's the nuance of looking for a reasonable middle-ground solution (which includes compromise for both the varied perspectives of editors and multiple needs of the article) which makes this posting for me an excellent exemplar of how the project can be bettered, one comment at a time. Were I a little less tired, I would search through your contributions and I trust find further such activities to predicate this message and barnstar on, but I'll let the one suffice for now. :) Snowlet's rap10:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Every week
... I see you type MEH into the edit summary as you delete your ARTICLES YOU MIGHT LIKE TO EDIT suggestions. Might I recommend you stop them? (It's hilarious, btw.) Ogresssmash!03:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This time I was "meh-ing" bracket bot, but as for suggest bot, I actually find the stuff they come up with to be rather entertaining sometimes! I also do sometimes pick up on new articles I didn't know existed. So, though I "meh" it, particularly in weeks where it is dull, it does amuse me enough to keep. Montanabw(talk)03:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Bear in mind that this is an image of an article that was published in 1904. There is no useful OCR. I don't think Refill works on things like that. Also, there's a learning curve. It's quicker for you to do it, since you already know how it works. DS (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Heh, and in the time we've spent discussing it, you could figure it out... or ask me to show you how ("give a man a fish...") Montanabw(talk)00:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven!
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC).
Been a bit since we have chatted, but I have been hip deep in creating articles about the women from the Primer Congreso Interamericano. Totally impressive bunch of women. At any rate, following your mentorship steps, I have been helping a newbie that seems to have promise. User: EmilyvstheGorn. She had her first DKY today. It was kind of brutal and now she has a file up for deletion. Can you keep any eye on her from time to time? We need to do a better job of encouraging promising newbies. Hope all is well with you. SusunW (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California Chrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Throwback. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Montanabw, in regards to the copyright on this page: The content in question was added with this 2007 edit [7] while the same content appeared here since at least 2006.[8]. This was called out in the CP report, as well as in an edit summary a few edits prior, which is admittedly non-ideal for communication, (though your revert explanation was also there). My bad on removing the image as well, though. It should be re-written of course, since it is fairly vital, but should be removed in the meantime as a copyvio, especially since the content remains in the live page code, thus is still Google-able. I hope this helps. CrowCaw17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see your point, but just the section, the rest of the article appears to be outside the copyvio, no matter how poorly written, I tweaked the couple of sentences that did look like a copy and paste and sourced them. Montanabw(talk)18:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
July 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
round hay bales present a particular danger to those who handle them, because they can weigh over {[convert|1000|lb}} and cannot be moved without special equipment. Nonetheless, because they are cylindrical in shape,
Hi, re this revert. My edit was to text that I had written; none of my sources use the term "bench" and it was my bad choice of wording in the first place. When editing yesterday, I wanted to remove the impression that the seat was a wooden bench without cushions or other padding - in fact the grooms' seats in railway horseboxes were pretty much the same as a normal seat in a passenger train of the period, the main difference was that there was only one row of seats facing one way, instead of two rows facing each other like this. I have a horsebox drawing scaled at 2+1⁄2 mm: 1 foot, and the seat measures 15 mm wide on the drawing, which is six feet on the real thing. It doesn't show armrests (folding or otherwise) which would indicate exactly how many people it was intended for; but a 6-ft seat would have been a tight squeeze for four normal-sized people, even with armrests folded up. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Rich Hall is full of bullshit (see image above for evidence of topography); he could be confusing Montana with Kansas, but more likely, as his bio says he lives in Livingston, Montana, he's trying to throw off the tourists. (like the legend why they named Greenland "Greenland" and Iceland "Iceland") Another case of "close the gate AFTER I get here! (sigh) ;-) Montanabw(talk)22:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! At TAFI, we do collaborative projects every week. I noticed that you made a contribution to Igloo, so I thought you might be interested in checking us out. Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
There is clearly one to keep an eye on with regard to that article. Just search its talk page for "Marxist". — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
See the editwarrior at Race (human classification) who keeps trying to insert "biological" in front of "social". Another likely suspect for future issues at the taxonomic article. If they don't get their way at the one article, they may try to get it at the other. The source research I did today for the human article (which frankly seemed more important to deal with, both as to topic impact and immediacy) can be used to short-circuit any attempt at such crap at the taxonomic article. Not sure the RM to "(taxonomy)" will proceed until after that stub is rewritten, but I'm running out of time to do anything with it today, may be too busy to do it this weekend, too. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, I see you have the account creator bit. I've recently been recruited to be the technical adviser for an edit-a-thon to be held at a local museum, probably in October. My impression is that most of the volunteers there are going to be newcomers who may not have accounts before that day. I've advised the organizers at the museum to try to encourage volunteers to register accounts in advance, but we're surely going to have some who don't do that. I understand that you can, as a person with the bit, waive the 6-registrations per 24-hour rule at Special:CreateAccount. How does that work? Is it waived by IP address or does it have to be done on an account-by-account basis? Would you be able to do it for us in advance or does it have to be done in real time on the date of the event? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't actually had to use it yet, but probably will need to at a shindig I'm working on next month. I'd suggest that you ask for the bit. I had @Keilana: do it for me. Perhaps if you ask her, she can get you set up. Yes, with the bit, you do the account setup other people via that page, they have to give you a user name and password (and I think an email) but once their account is set up, they can go into the prefs and change their password. Montanabw(talk)19:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I'll ping you, Keilana, when the time comes. I may need some "how to" help as well at that time. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey I tried to clarify that the Silver Shadows Shiek is a black horse on the Percheron page, you fairly removed my edit. I have a scan of the official pedigree document from Percheron Association. Seems a bit overboard to addthat as an image on the wiki page... any thoughts on how i can use that as a source/citation? The horse was also discussed in that year's issue of the official program of the international Percheron association.
Well, User:Snowman727, what we need is verification that he stayed black as an adult horse; lots of "official" registrations have horses listed by their foal color at birth and weren't updated when they grayed out. An "official program" describing the horse as an adult as black or gray would work, though. If the program was not copyrighted, you can scan and upload it to commons. If it is copyrighted, it might be acceptable as a "fair use" document here. See WP:IMAGE. Montanabw(talk)23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you! Yippee. Okay, the only downside to my first GA is sending it to DYK. But, I learned a lot from it. When Dr. B said 10K in chars I thought he was out of his head. Actresses, sure, but an obscure, though important, doctor with all Spanish sources? As crazy as it was to type those 20 pages for you, it helped, because I pulled a lot of little tidbits in and then Ian and Dr. B worked it over. I think I shall just enjoy for a few days that it is approved before I send it to the cabal. SusunW (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I really, really, really wanna put vaginoscope in the hook 3:). One other question and I am going to bed so will read it tomorrow. Is it now something other than "start" class? Those designations bamfoozle me. SusunW (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. ...... that Argentine doctor Maria Teresa Ferrari, first female university professor in Latin America invented a prize winning vaginoscope? Too controversial? "Not interesting enough"? SusunW (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
LOVE IT! Be sure you wikilink vaginoscope. (Trust me, if they have biker bars and porn stars at DYK, this should be a shoo-in. Ping me when you put forth the DYK and I'll watchlist Montanabw(talk)18:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Yay! I would have made it a double nomination since they hate those so much if I knew what to say about the apparatus to make it a 1500 character article and I may still do it. LOL SusunW (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I have, but usually recommend to create two hooks. Readers don't click twice, read one article and think they know it all. - I have work for you: need a GA review soon for my heart swims in blood, - should not be boring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shergar Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Handicap. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey, Montanbw, I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your offer over at Harej's talk page. You're right that the Amon Carter Museum of American Art has a substantial collection of Russells (and Remingtons) and, indeed, it was originally named the Amon Carter Museum of Western Art and from its founding in 1961 until 1967 only focused on art of the American West; it began expanding its collection to include 19th and 20th century American art in 1967 and was renamed to its current name in 2010. When's your event? Ours is October 10. Have you done one before? I've not and I'm feeling my way along on this one. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Reining in the idioms ...
I just found another idiom that I did not realize was horsey: to take something "in stride". To quote The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms: "This idiom alludes to a horse clearing an obstacle without checking its stride. [c. 1900]". [10] -- Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I saw where you answered my post on the Arabian horse talk page about the foal temperaments. Well, I found my source. It was in an October 1999 issue of Western Horseman, the old All-Breed Issue where they published reports from each major breed association. The statement about foal temperaments was in the Arabian article, which was described as being written by the IAHA director of marketing. (Of course that was before the IAHA merged with the Arabian Horse Registry of America.) I have the magazine in my house.
Feel free to check out my talk page anytime. I have several horse topics up there. White Arabian mare (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare White Arabian mare (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
How can I add a picture (preferably of a white Arabian mare) to my user page? I don't have one on my phone. Can I use one from Google or what? White Arabian mare (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
And, technically, almost all (like 99%+) "white" Arabians are actually gray! Just an FYI! See gray (horse). (Technically, there is an extremely small number of horses with W11 or one other dominant white allele, but that's a totally different issue.). Montanabw(talk)21:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to try it again. By the way I know about the 'white' horses but I decided white would sound better than 'gray Arabian mare'. As a kid I always called them that because I didn't know better. I explained my name on my talk page if anybody wants to read it.White Arabian mare (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
was looking at Lincoln Chaffee's Wikipedia article and after graduating from Brown he headed out to Montana, graduated from MSU-Bozeman, and then began to ply his trade as a farrier, at various harness racetracks. Really...:-) Freddiem (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for intruding, but it is interesting. Sarah Vowell is from my home town. This thread is strange like that. SusunW (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Rosie said you are collecting info on women for an edit-a-thon on Montana women. I ran across this article Montana female photographers awhile back and found it interesting. Haven't decided if there is enough there for bios or what--maybe women's employment options on the frontier. Only one of them seems to have her own bio on Wikipedia. SusunW (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@WilliamJE:, what I'm getting is that the California Cup Distaff (a turf race)apparently merged into the (California) Sunshine Millions Filly and Mare Turf Sprint and that there is a Cal Cup Derby and Oaks now too, but I think on dirt [12]horseracingnation. com/stakes/California_Cup_Distaff_H.
You said there were plenty of horse subjects that need articles or rewriting. Well, I'll help if I know anything about them. Which ones need it the most? White Arabian mare (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at Talk:Jenny (donkey). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Quit making threats, I didn't see it in the editing window, I may have brought up an earlier version, or else we had an editing conflict. WP:AGF. I restored the comment and closed the discussion. Please don't bother threatening me with ANI, you've done it a half-dozen times already and you seem to have forgotten that every time it's been a WP:BOOMERANG. Montanabw(talk)23:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Montana, well, you did ask for it: I now have an at FAC ripe for reviewing! Should you have any thoughts or comments they will, of course, be most welcome. Sorry there is no horse angle on this one, but the next one in the series (now at PR) at least has a trip to a fixed horse race at Saratoga to look forward to! All the best – SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think Keen Ice is just about the best horse to be a millionaire with only two career wins. Hah! Just think, Kent took off him to ride his brother's horse. Gotta think going to Saratoga was all the Zayats' idea and not Bob's. Freddiem (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the way that Baffert was chewing his gum into mush, I think you are right. See our paragraph in the American Pharoah article about the Travers. Zayat is pouting a bit right now, hope he recovers, the Breeders' Cup beckons. Montanabw(talk)01:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yup, took a look at the article. Have to think they should have went straight to the Penna. Derby but hey today was much more entertaining. Gotta think Baffert will just want to train to the BC, if he does run hafta think they will just stay at home and go in the Goodwood, none of this flying back and forth across the country nonsense. Freddiem (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, I think he should just take a break and train up for the BC. California fans want to see him one more time, anyway, give him an easy race. Montanabw(talk)03:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm old enough to make that mistake, it's just that I hadn't been following the races at Santa Anita (other than the Santa Anita Derby) until I started editing Wikipedia! LOL! Montanabw(talk)04:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Not closely following the SoCal races...like today when Jerry Bailey was talking about Victor Espinoza not riding much at Saratoga over the years, when he remarked about himself..."I didn't race much at Del Mar during my career because I was busy riding in the 'important races' here at home." Unbelievable...LOL! N.B. I'm from the Mid-Atlantic my whole life but I was just wearing today for the first time in years my stain filled Del Mar T-shirt. Freddiem (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
"The Smithsonian APA Center invites you to attend the 2nd annual Wikipedia APA an editathon for cultural presence, which will be held during the month of September 2015. We are thrilled to invite you to Wikipedia APA, an editing event for improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to Asian Pacific American ("APA") experiences. The second Wikipedia editathon dedicated to APA content, this project will occur as physical events during September 2015... as well as remotely, with participants taking part from all throughout the world."
Did you Know that 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? Not impressed? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! WiR will be hosting one of this world virtual edit-a-thon. The 3-day event will focus on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Asian Pacific American women and their works (books, paintings, and so on).
Thanks for fixing up some of those articles with the giant blockquotes. Out of curiosity, do you have access to the original source of the placard text? I wasn't comfortable rewriting the text without access to the source itself, but I might be able to help if I had the source. (Even without it, I might rewrite some from the NRHP nominations, which I do have access to - I just wanted to temporarily do something about all the excessively copied and mis-assessed articles, since there were a lot of them and it will take a while to rewrite all of them.) TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation13:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
@TheCatalyst31: The Jefferson County courthouse one is here: File:Jefferson County Courthouse, Montana 05.jpg and I shot it with my cell phone one day when I was over there (which is why the quality is so crappy). I can probably find the Kleffner Ranch one, but I also found a second source for that one, so less of a worry. When I shoot a photo of a NRHP property and it has a placard, I try to get a photo of that as well. Montanabw(talk)19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Montanabw. I unlinked the article from Coupling, which as best I can tell has nothing to say about the meaning of "coupling" in the confirmation of a horse. You reverted this; I reverted it back. My edit comment is garbled so I'll elaborate here.
I don’t know what the meaning of "coupling" is in this article. (I did make an attempt to find out but came up empty.) If you know, please fix this passage with either a wlink or a brief definition, maybe in parentheses.
If you don't know either, then I suggest that it's best to leave the word unlinked rather than leaving it with a link to machine couplings. — ℜob C.aliasALAROB00:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh — you mentioned fixing the dab, but there is no dab fix. Or if there is, I am a greenhorn and could not find it. If you ment that I should edit the article to include the horsey definition of "coupling," well, I'd be glad to if not for my ignorance. :) — ℜob C.aliasALAROB00:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Coupling in horse talk refers to the way the horse is put together--a Thoroughbred has 'loose' coupling, with a long lanky body, while a Haflinger has 'tight' coupling, with a short stout body. Tennessee Walkers tend to be fairly loose now, but they were totally different years ago, with a shorter build and more muscle. (Look at the pictures in the linked articles to see the difference.) :) White Arabian mare (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
The other kind of race not involving horses running fast, or people angry over socio-economic matters
I think you'll be pleased by the progress so far in sourcing and distinguishing Race (biology). As you can see, it's really, really complex (and not all of the complexity is even in there yet). If I'm remembering it correctly so far: A "race" in this sense is also a "biological race" (except in mycology), and more specifically, a "physiological race" is also a "biological form", and (in mycology) a "biological race", and (if formatted differently) a "forma specialis" (but neither a "forma specialis" nor a "biological form" are a "forma" or "form" in either botany or zoology). Etc.. I couldn't make this stuff up. It's no wonder the attempt to establish a uniform nomenclature code fell apart. I sure hope they try again, and stick with it until it happens.
Anyway, I added further clarification that this doesn't mean "breed", and that usage in English is obsolete, while also noting that the cognate forms in some languages are sometimes used that way (i.e., beware mistranslation).
Peter coxhead is right that the article needs a section on how the usage has changed over time, and this would dovetail with my early idea to tie the Victorian-to-mid-century usage to what is being better and better covered at Race (human categorization)#Early taxonomic models. We probably need only touch on that, and direct the reader there for that material, hopefully also shunting any further trolling in that direction, where that page is watchlisted by people better prepared for it. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: That sounds like excellent progress and a good example of teaching the controversy. If you want a hand on the historical side, that is more my thing than the science side, so feel free to ping me if needed. Montanabw(talk)18:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Your comment at ANI
Hiya - don't worry, this is not a rant. I was a little concerned at your last posting on ANI that Jytdog and I should stay off each others Talk pages. I have not been on his Talk page since he asked me not to, and I have no intention to. However, Jytdog has twice posted on mine since I asked. I wonder if there is a way that this could be made clearer, because your comment seems to imply I am posting to his talk page. This might be rather tricky now the thread has closed. This is a really minor point so if it can't be done, we can let it slide. All the best.DrChrissy(talk)20:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thought he had already banned you, so thought it best that he be likewise banned from bothering you. I probably didn't say that as well as I could have. Montanabw(talk)20:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you OODLES for the horsie! I seem to have made it my wiki thing to at least keep all race results up to date, as well as ferreting out missing information for years past. It satisfies the Virgo in me. Stellabystarlight (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, just a reminder that you opened this nomination over two weeks ago, but have yet to return with your review. Please do so as soon as possible. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The review was opened on August 10, and it is now September 13. Reviews are supposed to start within a week, and we're closing in on five weeks. Please return to the review right away; if nothing is done within 48 hours of your next edit, it will regretfully be considered abandoned and returned to the reviewing pool. Thank you for your attention to this matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Warlander Horse image
Hi there, hope you are well :o)
Finally, I have got a FREE image of a registered Warlander Horse to replace the image that is presently on the Warlander page. Just to verify, the horse presently pictured is not a registered Warlander horse, nor can the studbook verify that it is even a Warlander. It certainly does not look anything like one. I have had a go at uploading the file myself to Wikipedia and Commons. It is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warlander_Horse.jpeg
Don't know if it will work though, but I had a go. I have also emailed the release saying it is a FREE image to use on Wikipedia and have received a ticket number. Hope I have done it right. Can you please look out for this and help if I have stuffed up. Many thanks Karen - Secret Squirrel 101 Secret Squirrel 101 (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
RfA
I just wanted to let you know that I found your responses to RfA questions substantive and specific, despite the seemingly over-critical perspective of some users. I supported your RfA. --JustBerry (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015
The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
For maintaining the clarity, intelligence and thoughtfulness of your comments even in the present environment of your RfA. Very refreshing and informative. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, I didn't see your RfA, because it was added while APerson's was running. The only reason I noticed it was because I happened to check the latest percentages on APerson's RfA. I totally missed seeing your RfA addition on my watch list. I wonder if adding an RfA while another is running decreases other people's notice that it is there? (That's what happened for me.) An interesting question. Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I swear, RfAs are like horse races, no pun or personal reference intended. I can't keep my eyes off of them if I've "wagered" one way or another. I completely lose focus on all other aspects of my life or of Wikipedia. Care to make it interesting?Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the food! I'm needing the nutrition! This is a real marathon, isn't it? I can't say I wasn't warned by people like Drmies, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, and Ealdgyth that I was asking for a lot of stress! So far, though, I haven't really been terribly surprised. (a couple !votes I didn't expect in both directions, but on the balance the pleasant surprises and unpleasant surprises have balanced each other out) Montanabw(talk)18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, I realize that I haven't been a strong supporter of you in your RfA but I just wanted to say that the process has its ups and downs and voting comes in waves. I swear on the third day of my RfA, when the Opposes started coming in, I was ready to withdraw. But I took the weekend off and when I came back to check on it on Sunday night, I had decided I wanted to see the process all the way through.
The Supports come in on the first day, the next day come the Opposes and it's the fence-sitters who vote towards the end of the 7 day period who can tilt your candidacy one way or the other. I'm not saying that your experience is anything like mine was, I just know what it's like to see your percentage of support fall from the 90s to the 70s and it's not a pleasant experience. I encourage you to take a brief break from the entire process, do something fun this weekend and keep your spirits up. LizRead!Talk!22:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Liz, I appreciate you coming by to offer kind words. Having survived the process yourself (I see I was a "fence sitter" as support #183 for yours, so sorry if I contributed to your stress!) I appreciate your analysis. It is a brutal process, I see why they don't have many RfAs any more and there's a shortage of admins; But I DID know it would be tough, though I was surprised to see someone going back nine years to review my earliest edits. Oh well, I guess they have a right to make their best case. I'm now having a glass of wine to celebrate the end of a long week—naturally as soon as I agreed to file the RfA, my RL work also expanded, but oh well, self-employment is a beautiful thing; it's not like anyone but me agreed to take on another bit of compensation... LOL! Montanabw(talk)22:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for a thoughtful answer to my question. Do you - and you, Liz - think my support is comprehensible? I was tempted to mention the Shakespeare insult generator ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm notifying you of a discussion where I mention you over at User_talk:SSTflyer#Re:_Montanabw_AfD_hit_rate_and_RfA. Unlike many of the opposing editors at your RfA, I find your hit rate demonstrative of someone who is an independent thinker and won't be swayed by groupthink and conformity. Anyone can get a 90% hit rate or higher on AfD simply by waiting until the late portion of the discussion and adding a keep/delete based on the majority. Contrary to those who claim otherwise, this does not demonstrate admin acumen, but rather the opposite, a tendency to not rock the boat, blind obedience to authority, a lack of creative faculties, and a tendency to repress one's opinions with subservience to the opinions of one's superiors -- all qualities that lack critical thinking, foresight, and thoughtful analysis. In other words, high hit rates don't make better admins who are able to make informed decisions, it creates mindless drones who keep the people in line and block anyone who asks why or has an inkling of independent thought. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this new requirement threw me too. (well - new to me) When did being able to predict XfD stuff become an admin. requirement? — Ched : ? 02:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not and it's never been. It took years to work the "consensus" out of the Abby Martin and Carnism delete discussions. And even though we've got two OK articles on those subjects today, according to the "hit rate", those who voted delete have better admin acumen. It's really easy to disprove this nonsense, and it's disturbing how many people cite the AfD as their reason for opposing. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Viri, you nailed it... I actually debated whether to spend more time at AfD once I realized it was something people cared about. I realized in about two seconds that doing a !vote at the last minute would be a really easy way to build up my stats. Felt that was a silly way to game the system and not worth the bother. Thank you all for your kind words, I appreciate them! Montanabw(talk)02:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
When the dust settles, I'm going to do an analysis, but looks to me like the !oppose voters fall into three groups: 1) The people who have done research and raise legitimate questions about my past edits, but are uninvolved or peripherally for the most part, and though I wish they'd ask me a question I could respond to, I will take their comments seriously and think them over; 2) The hangers-on who just say "me too," who are not anything to really fret about one way or the other and may well be support !votes next time; and 3) the individuals you describe above (see the California Chrome thread below is a case in point) and if this RfA fails and I have to try again in a few months, well, I value folks like you who look at the situation objectively and comment where the !voter's comments may be a bit, um, slanted. Montanabw(talk)19:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I've questioned the baseless votes many times before, but I've quickly come to realise that no one really cares about the RfA process enough to change it. It is so ludicrously flawed that it allows complete morons to support with comments like: "Support - why not"; or "Support - just to annoy the opposing fraternity", and "Support - Because I like their signature". Sure, you and I clashed during an infobox thread somewhere, but I like you and what you do; always have done. It's just a shame some can't see past their scrawny little noses. Here's to the next day or so! CassiantoTalk19:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Cass, I think your comments have a lot of food for thought; indeed, you and I have disagreed - somewhere - maybe more than once - and yet we can see the good in the other and recognize that people are entitled to different views. When this RfA dust settles, I'd be interested in your views on our past interactions where you think I did go over the wall versus where I simply was blunt and stated my views strongly. There is a place for advocacy, but sometimes - as I noted in my original RfA statement - I have lost my temper. I've learned from those situations, but we are all human. Admins have to be able to make difficult decisions, and one reason I decided to run for RfA is because I think I am willing to do so and have the fortitude to deal with a lot of drama... particularly drama where I am not WP:INVOLVED. I also would value your thoughts on how I can better explain or demonstrate to others how much I do know the difference between when I am neutral and when I must recuse... there is no content editing that will not, eventually, have conflict arise. It's how everyone handles it that counts. Montanabw(talk)20:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you have gone over the wall, certainly not with me. Hey listen, it's very easy to boil over in certain situations, especially in the face of idiocy, absurdity and down right lunacy. We agree to differ on certain infoboxes, which I think is how we left it. We wouldn't be human if we didn't feel passionate about our craft. In fact, I'd be worried if people didn't give a shit about their writing. The best thing to do is to forgive and forget and to be the first one to offer the olive branch, and mean it. Unfortunatley some people on here only deserve the olive branch in certain parts of their anotomy; it's being able to differentiate between the two, that's the trick. CassiantoTalk20:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Beyond the matter what's appropriate and not for an encyclopedia article (versus "Picture Magazine", or a coloring book), the idea of playing house with quote box background colors as decoration is a poor idea from even an artistic standpoint - not a good one. (But I don't suppose you'd understand why not, even if I explained it. Nor do I expect you'd have any interest to hear, especially from me, who you've castigated on your "enemies over on that side" arbitrary division line.) p.s. Did you know that you put a chilling effect on articles you've decided you WP:OWN? I suspect that is one reason multiple editors in your RfA have stated they avoid contact with you. Ditto. IHTS (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
You were politely asked to take your concerns to the talk page. You made three reverts instead. Now, you have a warning template on your talk page. If you are trying to get blocked, I would say keep it up, you're almost there. Harassing Montana by making pointy edits on articles she's worked on while commenting on her RFA is blockable enough, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
IHTS, you are edit-warring over there and it is pretty clear that you are deliberately doing so in order to antagonize me while I have an RfA pending. I have about 200 people watching this talk page and I invite them all to go over there and review your behavior. I, clearly, am quite busy at the moment. Montanabw(talk)04:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
And that accusation based on suspicion is just a demo of your bad faith, Montana. (It is a change I have always wanted to make, and only had the balls to do so recently, when you are under some degree of behavioral self-discipline, due to your RfA. [See "chilling" comment above.]) IHTS (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Leave the California Chrome article alone. The colored quote boxes are there for a purpose and add to the article (and before you start yelling at me, I am an artist!). Also, Montanabw is under a lot of stress right now, and you appear to just be out to stir up trouble while she is occupied with other things. Please STOP.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
It's OK, White Arabian mare. He did revert the article 4 times in three hours, and was blocked for edit-warring, and I had nothing to do with it; others noticed. He had never edited the article before, and it is the #1 article on my contributions list for total edits (it ate my life in 2014 keeping it current and to FA). If he cares deeply about colored quoteboxes, he would be well advised to raise it as a policy matter at WP:ACCESS rather than solve it at a single article. Montanabw(talk)21:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
"He had never edited the article before". Huh? You don't do very good research, Montana, I edited the article with several edits, after you posted to Eric's Talk asking Talk page watchers for help. You even reverted me once, when I added Reference markup according to how Eric does it (to which you wrote "Ugh!" in your revert editsum). I made language & expression changes to the article, several edits to copyedit text, to simplify & clarify things, like the horse's injury and related text. I also made edits to the lede. And to image markup/captions. IHTS (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I never made objection based WP:ACCESS, I didn't know anything about that, it's Risker's valid point, it involves technicals; it is not in my interest or skillset to follow up on. My objections to the background colors are for the reasons I stated at article Talk. IHTS (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Powers that be
(talk page stalker) Regarding this: No one moderates RfA. It is, in effect, an anarchy. If that oppose !vote really raises RL concerns, your best bet would be to email the functionaries mailing list, at functionaries-en to discuss the possibility of oversight. This includes ArbCom as well as other users who may be able to help you. Both outing and potentially libelous content qualify for oversight. If you can demonstrate that he has either revealed nonpublic personal information about you, or that he's actually trying to discredit you with falsehoods (i.e. lying), those would be the folks to contact. Regards, Swarm♠05:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
I think your demeanor during your arduous Rfa has been exemplary so this is a barnstar that is well deserved. MONGO05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Montanabw, I have recently voted in favour of you because of your large positive contributions to Wikipedia. Recently I went through your RfA process and saw there were raise of opposition because of your involvement in WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AfD and WP:ANI has caused poor record in assuming good faith, Use of Administrative tools are greater responsibility and serious decision-making tasks which request to have honest editor. Since you had a poor record in voting for WP:AfD, arguing with other editors in ANI and war editing has caused many other voters to have their opinion changed when the pieces of evidence popped up in the RfA process and all went to vote against you. This very regretful to hear what's happening. In an event if your RfA fails to have a majority you can apply for RfA in the future once you have learned the lesson from the voters who voted against you. But in the meantime there are 3 days more ahead to the deadline of voting, Hopefully, there will be a miracle to have your RfA passed. Wish you a good luck! ♔ MONARCHTalk to me01:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Monarch, thank you for your kind words. Given that I have been here for nine years, I have had time to step on some toes. The problem is that I cannot explain the part that some of the people who oppose me have done. I made one bad mistake this year on one article. The rest is just the usual wikipedia drama over content editing. I can only hope that people ask me questions that allow me to clarify who I am and what I can accomplish. There are still several days for this RfA to run and I will see it out to the end. If it does fail I will be back in six months. Montanabw(talk)01:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sadly the RfA is a horrible and broken process, There are a lot of users judging an editor who made a mistake on one article and greatly accomplished on other articles. A lot of wonderful administrators also failed to pass their RfA has left Wikipedia because of this harsh process. Hope you can make this RfA successful in six months or probably a year. Also please note that we in a shortage of administrators right now, in 1400 administrators around 35-40 of them are very active in helping other editors to accomplish their tasks, while others are working on their own interest and they have no intention to help users like me and this makes us difficult to seek an administrator help. During your six months/one-year work on Wikipedia, you should never get in disputes with other editors this can cause great disadvantage, which will create a worse situation like this and become more complicated to elaborate on what you have done. For the current RfA, I believe it's likely to fail, because of a strong opposition is rising at the moment compared to support. But i would suggest you to wait till a day and see whether it's right time to withdraw before the deadline date. ♔ MONARCHTalk to me02:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am not going to withdraw at all. If it fails, it fails, but I want to allow everyone who wants to comment to have a chance to do so. The problem is that when you edit content, conflict is inevitable because you WILL have differences of opinion on various issues. I have been working on being less sarcastic, because that's one thing that I recognize is more about me venting my frustration than being helpful, but I am a person who is an independent thinker and dedicated to quality control, so people are going to get into disputes with me. It IS, indeed "difficult to elaborate on what you have done", but so long as I continue to work on not being mean-spirited and keep my focus on content and on-wiki behavior only, I can ride out most hurricanes. Montanabw(talk)02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
That's a bad idea of getting into a dispute. If you disagree with an editor on the article you have a right to complain him/her to ANI or ArbCom for involving edit war. Unless if you want him/her not to revert your edits that includes with reliable sources and you're encouraged to provide valid reason on why the edits should not be reverted, continuing with WP:DRAMA (edit wars and WP:OWN) will create advantage to your opponent, That would make it harder for you to become “independent thinker”, You have to be cooperative with other editors that would make you a good editor. I have seen your contributions, You seem to have done an impressive work, But you need to have self-control in allowing other editors to edit your articles as the Articles you have created do not have ownership (see WP:OWN), and the viewers will legally recognise you as the creator of the article. I understood your choice to keep RfA opened for further comments, that would also be a good choice to have more opinions from others. But I'm very disappointed to see you failing to win the trust of community , As you have made over 77K contributions any editors with that amount of edits have strong chance of winning the position of Administrator, But some of them are failing to win the trust of community, because of users are grilling them over disputes and vandalism (similar to your situation) I hope you win the next round . ♔ MONARCHTalk to me03:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Monarch. Indeed. It was raised that I've been mentioned at ANI 96 times in some way... I mull over OWNership versus stewardship a lot. To me, it seems that when people demonstrate that they have a correct position and present strong evidence, I usually come around to their views... where there is no clear solution (controversial issues), then AGF is very important and the ability of each side to present their position fairly and accurately is needed. I've worked closely on 20 FACs and helped in smaller ways with several others. It's a lot of work to do it right. Montanabw(talk)05:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have promised to stay here to the end, and, frankly, I don't think content creators are valued enough overall. One reason I filed is because I think more content creators need to be admins. I was heartened by all the good words said about content creation, but I hope that those words translate into actions when content disputes arise; many people work very hard to produce good content only to deal with WP:CHEESE issues. Montanabw(talk)05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
In my view, I edit for fun and to help others with information they want, I don't know how much more value you want I mean isn't the community enough? If I were to even get a barn-star here I would be overjoyed call it being humble I guess. You are poured with compliments and barn-stars acknowledging how well of a job you do so wanting more puzzles me to say the least. What also bothers me a bit is what group falls under the WP:CHEESE category? Do you react the same when different editors make the same mistakes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The mop is not a barnstar, it's a tough job. I feel that I have asked admins for their help - and received it - so often that it is my turn to return some of the same mop duty to the larger community. I have some specific areas where having the tools would be useful and where I could be of particular help (as I said at the beginning: RPP, BLP/revdel, DYK queues). I think that more content editors need to be admins because we are where the thorniest disputes occur - about what goes on the most public face of wikipedia. Have you ever been in a WP:CHEESE discussion? Most people who edit content eventually do; they are dreadful because it doesn't matter what you say, the variants keep coming. That's the stuff that runs content creators off wikipedia. No one "group" falls there, it's an issue of behavior. Great essay, I loved it the first time I saw it. Montanabw(talk)06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I also have to say I wish I could do a better job of showing who I am at the RfA, I can only respond when asked a question. (Well, some candidates do respond to comments, but that just escalates the debate) And when I'm asked a question, I know that a tl;dr response won't get read. So it's hard to point people to the many, many times I've kept my cool on things where I have cared a great deal - such as in the face of a tough FAC. I wish support !voters would provide diffs as often as the oppose !votes do; a whole different picture would emerge. Montanabw(talk)06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for asking an inconvenient question, but this is like a litmus test. Three reactions by a candidate would be possible: (a) "sorry, that was my mistake" (then I would remove my "oppose" vote), (b) "yes, I was right about that [diffs]", and (c) no answer, meaning you either do not want to admit your mistake or believe that your comment was correct, but you can not support it with diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If you are referring to the article you linked above, I am sorry that I called you a troll and implied that you had unfavorable political beliefs; my focus should have remained on the content only, not the motives or beliefs of the individual. Montanabw(talk)22:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I changed my vote. I do not care about the "troll", but it really surprised me that debating biological taxonomy and population biology has been interpreted as "white supremacist views", even though I did not talk about humans, but about fungi, wolfs and other things like that. An "animal supremacist"? Sorry, but I did not even argue that a certain population of wolfs would be "superior" compare to another. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! That particular article had previous problems with editors conflating the issues surrounding humans with those involving the biological concept; the bottom line is that those issues would up being addressed and the article itself is getting redone by people who seem to be willing to do the tough work of researching the question thoroughly. My input there is not needed at this point, so I've unwatched the article (5,809 now...) Montanabw(talk)23:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Montanabw. I see you love horses. So do I. I'm writing to you about "saddling up". I don't know the proper term, but I know there's a procedure, and was wondering if you would maybe be interested in making a video of the procedure. I know Wikipedia is not a "how-to", but visitors would surely be interested in that. Some things are hard to describe with words. Do we have such videos? What do you think?
And I know I've admitted at some Wikipedia talkpage to, while a kid, feeding a caterpillar to a horse. Please don't hold that against me. I was just a kid. I really do love horses.
Yes, unfortunately. It was big and I fed it to him with an open palm and he ate it and he whinnied and showed his teeth and there were little bits of caterpillar all in his teeth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The proper term is "tacking up"--you're very close!☺ There may already be some kind of video of that on Commons, so you may want to check there first. I know there are some pictures of tacking up, maybe they have a video too.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
ADD: Don't worry about feeding the caterpillar to the horse so long as it was a one-time thing. There's no telling what kind of bugs horses inadvertently eat when they're grazing anyway!White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Thank you White Arabian mare. :) I think I once said it was a sibling who did it and not me out of worry that the horse got sick. And poor caterpillar, dreaming of being a butterfly and then suddenly, big, yellow horse teeth!
Thank you for your contributions to horse and equestrianism-related articles: this is clearly a topic in which you are very experienced, and to which you have made valuable contributions. I wish you the best of luck for the future. Rubbishcomputer16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Peace offering
We are done with this discussion now, peace is a nice thing
Olive Branch
In the interests of putting old grudges aside and moving forward anew, I propose a peace treaty between our accounts. All I ask for is an apology and admission that you were wrong to follow me around and accuse me of socking. The only additional terms are that I promise I'll treat you with consideration and respect, and you promise you'll treat me with consideration and respect. What do you say? RO(talk)00:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that you are willing to make a peace offering. I do think that burying the hatchet would benefit the project as a whole. But after your absolutely abysmal behavior at my RfA, I am pretty gunshy about making any agreement with you. So as a counter-offer, I propose that we simply agree to a WP:TRUCE and agree we shall henceforth each commit to follow wikipedia policy to treat one another with consideration and respect consistent with WP:AGF, with no apologies on either side. I will not demand, but I will hope you can acknowledge that while I had edited logged-out more than I realized, I was not running clandestine anon IP accounts. I will acknowledge in turn that although you did have a prior account, it appears to be a RTV and I was incorrect that you were a sock of the two other active user accounts I associated with you. Can that work? Montanabw(talk)03:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
All I ask for is an apology and admission that you were wrong... a mere hours after your Rfa just failed -- seems to me that forming a branch, olive or otherwise, into a wikt:cudgel isn't very much of a peace offering ... Montanabw, I highly recommend my unpatented (CC By SA 3.0) Unilateral interaction ban. NE Ent11:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You should know that there isn't one Wikipedia article that I've editing that MBW edited before me: ([13]). Translation, every interaction between us in article space has been initiated by MBW, not me. RO(talk)18:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea who you are, but you are not portraying yourself in a very good light for a first impression. As others have suggested, this is not the time to go gravedancing. Please move on and let Montanabw lick her wounds in relative peace.DrChrissy(talk)18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
It would seem that the timing and phrasing of the "olive branch" proffer is very slightly discordant with the usual meaning of the term. Collect (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That was my impression as well, Collect; it's more like a loaded question. Kudos to Montanabw for her measured reply. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
So it's okay to follow someone around for months and tell every one of your friends that they are a sock, but never file an actual SPI? Is that within policy, Diannaa? Has Montanabw ever apologized for accusing an innocent person of socking? Because I see no evidence that she has ever done that, despite having accused several innocent people; several of them stopped by the RfA to voice opposition. Did she ever apologize to User:LynnWysong? Can you please show me a diff of MBW apologizing to someone she had wrongly accused of socking? RO(talk)16:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Gently encouraging people to practice the art of at least occasionally just ignoring people who say things you don't agree with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree that this was an issue raised by several at the RfA, it is disappointing to see that the 100% right and you are 100% wrong attitude continues. I also fail to see what all this fuss is over an apology. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I posted in response to NE, the real reason why so many people commented is because each support's or opposes another editor's argument. Im saying it should end here as other than RO and Montana this conversation doesn't have to do with anyone else here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Cass, shortly after Montana replied on RO's post her comment was replied on by a third party. That is the reason why people are here so when someone says "This has nothing to do with you" the same would apply to everyone here. Im done here with this thread and admit I shouldn't have replied to the ones putting down RO's argument. This should have ended with NE as it is something RO and Montana need to work out for themselves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I came here in a sincere effort to make peace with MBW, but she's chosen to deny me the one thing I wanted and deserved: an apology. I think it's telling that at the failed RfA the word "battle" occurs 38 times; "passion" occurs 27 times; "partisan" occurs 12 times; "bias" appears 8 times. The word "apology"; however, gets zero hits. "Mistake" occurs there 24 times, and MBW used it 8 times, and while "sorry" appears there 17 times, it was not once uttered by MBW, but instead came mostly from her opposition. I'm not a sock, and I've never socked, so it was wrong to persecute me as one for several months on end with no SPI. That much is self-evident, and policy supports my positon. I think people who refuse to apologize to those they've clearly wronged cannot be trusted with a position of power. It speaks to a very basic level of self-awareness and maturity that she's apparently lacking. More importantly this shows MBW's poor understanding of policy, which is just one of many reasons she is not suited for adminship. If MBW cannot bring herself to apologize to me for making untold numbers of unfounded accusations over the course of several months and at numerous inappropriate venues, there is nothing left for me to discuss with her. RO(talk)17:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
(ec) RO - demanding apologies is not really worthwhile, honestly. You either get one, but it's grudging and not sincere, or you don't get one and the situation worsens. Making a truce offer was good. Even asking for an apology once, not a big deal. Doubling down when the offer was counter-offered and still insisting on an apology when it's clear that any such apology would not be heart-felt, to my mind, is silly. If the apology isn't heart-felt and meant, it's not really an apology. Your milage may vary, but it's clear Montanabw doesn't feel like issuing an apology (for whatever reason), so continuing to double down and insist just makes you look like you didn't mean the peace offer. (Note I did not say you did not mean it, I said it makes you LOOK like you didn't mean it). I am offering this advice as a sincere offer to you so that you can see how others may look at this. At this point, your best bet is to walk away. Nothing is worth this much stress or upset. Ealdgyth - Talk18:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis, Ealdgyth, but I wouldn't have felt good unless I gave her another chance to make good. Now I've done my best to put this grudge to rest, and will leave it at that. RO(talk)18:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
As long as the usual list of MBW's friends feel the need to tag-team and pile it on every single time she gets into it with someone her issues with partisanship and AGF will never get fully resolved. I really wish you would have just left her and I to discuss it uninfluenced by all the outside noise. This might have had a very different outcome had half a dozen of her closest allies not jumped in to berate me further. She's an adult, she ought to be able to have unassisted discussions. This wasn't gravedancing, this was a sincere attempt at reconciliation. No wonder she has no good-faith anymore, her friends constantly reinforce that people should be viewed with suspicion and doubt. My peace offering was totally appropriate and sincere, and I'm deeply saddened that it failed. RO(talk)19:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
RO, I suggest you look at your "peace offering " again. It reads like a list of demands on your part. I am saying this as dispassionately as possible. I have interacted with Montanabw in the past and we have had our bad times and our good times. I was not involved in her RfA but I was absolutely disgusted at the way she was treated there by some editors - I will certainly never make such an application having seen this. Do the compassionate (correct) thing - drop the stick and move on.DrChrissy(talk)19:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI
I'm leaving an early closing summary at the RfA. It is NOT a withdrawal, I'm just going to be real busy tomorrow.
I decided to go with a friendly tone and a little bit of cowboy humor. If it provokes any more !opposes, that will be sad, but perhaps it will move a couple of neutrals into the !support column too.
I can't express enough thanks to all of you on this thread for the hand-holding, thoughful insights and peeling me off the ceiling. We all knew this one was not real likely to succeed, but I'm hoping I did well enough to set up for a second round sometime next spring. Montanabw(talk)07:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I can't imagine the stress you've been under during this RfC; I've found it tough just to watch. I stand by my support. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed; With 128 support !votes, I actually had more support !votes than did 9 of the 15 successful RfAs this year (6 had more). The percentage was the kicker, of course. I was also heartened to see there were 227 total votes, counting the neutral and oppose, which was a high level of participation. Only Liz had more participants !vote at hers, and she also had the top number of supports of this year's candidates. (see here). I was not terribly surprised by some of the folks who showed up to oppose me, and though a few were a disappointment, the neutrals and the more thoughtful of the !oppose !votes who raised food for thought are folks I may follow up with Montanabw(talk)19:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I also admire not just the quantity but the quality: both the people showing up and their reasoning. Just don't ever defend me again, and you will be fine next time. I grinned the most about the one who supported by me, - a nice new feeling, I must say ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I hope that I shall always be a champion of the underdog and the wrongly accused. I shall only defend you if I really think you need defense, and to determine that I promise I shall wait and count to 10 or 20 before I charge in and announce my presence! But if others oppose me simply because because I associate with you, that says more about them than about you! Hugs! Montanabw(talk)21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, time for fun! I asked Bella what she thought of how the RfA process goes. Her reply was loquacious but requires further interpretation. Ideas, anyone? Montanabw(talk)05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Bloodbath"? Maybe I'm hearing incorrectly; my Dr. Dolittle senses have been amiss lately -- must be something to do with Mercury being retrograde or something .... Hang in there, breathe deeply. Just think, you will never have to go through something like this again until you meet St. Peter at the pearly gates, or something like that .... I feel for ya ... I and others had a feeling all these ghosts and chimeras would come out of Pandora's box, but I had no idea it would be quite this way .... Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Bella isn't that concerned! Her ears are only in the "meh" position. (But have fun interpreting her facial expression anyway! When I was downloading camera photos that one just made me laugh out loud!) I figured it would draw out people who aren't happy with me. The situation noted below was probably the only thing that really threw me, though. The rest is just the usual. I'm noting the people I respect who put in a neutral or oppose vote and am thinking about how best to address their concerns. Not that many are reading the questions or my answers, I suspect. Montanabw(talk)05:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Heh heh, you're right about Bella, but I must say her facial expression looks a little "WTF?" I hear ya about the IRL thing. I think the main problem with that was RO's linking the incorrect diff about it (someone else's initial but inaccurate oppose) for so long at the front of the very first Oppose !vote -- I don't think that did you any favors and no one saw your (clear and only) rebuttal of that on the Talk page, and RO didn't remove it till quite some time after it had been heavily redacted. This didn't all add up for me until just now -- there is so much going on all across the RfA and its Talk that it's hard to know which end is up. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No matter what else happens, I think that the 'crats need to assign a team to monitor these; the anarchy of comments being moved and such should be done by a few, specifically authorized people. It is an anarchy there. Montanabw(talk)06:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe she's thinking "Back off, opposing users, before you get a set of horse teeth marks on your butt". Mine always gets that expression when he's about to bite.🐴 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that red round thing by her mouth IS the butt of my other horse! (which is why all those bareback pad photos were cropped funny... keep Miss Bella's face out of them...) Montanabw(talk)06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I am editing Pain in fish at the moment and came across this reference to horses! In 2015, it was reported that some species (rat, mouse, rabbit, cat and horse) adopt a facial expression in response to a noxious stimulus that is consistent with the expression of humans.[1] Very interesting!
References
^Chambers, C.T. and Mogil,J.S. (2015). "Ontogeny and phylogeny of facial expression of pain". Pain. 156 (5): 798–799. doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000133.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
When I put the word 'pad' in the Racking Horse article, I was just using the term I've always heard. Where I live, the term 'pad' is used to refer to the whole thing that's put on the foot to enhance the action; plastic stacks, shoe, everything. (People in the south are too lazy to say 'performance package' every 5 minutes...they don't say "Bubba shod the horse with performance packages", they say, "Bubba shod the horse with pads".) So, I grew up thinking everybody used it that way. I guess it's sort of a slang term.😕 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
The phrasing "shod with pads" is pretty common elsewhere too... that works. Just not "pads" to describe the whole setup ... we don't want to use slang on top of technical language or else we will attract the attention of those who are concerned about overuse of WP:JARGON. Actually had to fight and win a battle once with folks who wanted us to keep saying that a stallion was a boy horse ... rather than linking the article... sigh (ripping hair out). Montanabw(talk)01:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Boy horse? Better make that unneutered boy horse. ;) About the gait too, the 'show walk' is breed-specific; it's a kind of fast lateral walk really close to the Tennessee Walker's flat walk. (Funny story: I was once at a horse show with both racking and western classes. The announcer got scrambled during a Quarter Horse western pleasure class and told them to show walk. One of the trainers who had students showing leaned over the arena fence and yelled, "Just don't tell 'em to rack on!") White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
That's a good LOL! I was judging a little schooling show here last summer and this one gal "bought a class" (meaning, she sponsored the ribbons and trophy knowing she'd probably be the only entrant) because she had a 5-gaited Saddlebred that needed show experience before she took him out of state to do his thing (not a lot of 5-Gaited Saddlebreds in Montana any more, used to be a reasonable number back in the day), so the show announcer (who also remembers those old days of the big all-breed shows) and I had a great time getting to call all the gaits and telling everyone there that they were supposed to yell and cheer at the appropriate times! Montanabw(talk)02:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We have a lot of small shows like that. At the same show as the 'rack on' fiasco, there was only one entrant in men's open racking, and the judge and announcer messed with him (they knew him pretty well) for a couple of minutes by telling him he got second place before they finally gave him the blue ribbon. 😃 It's a small town. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 13:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Your RfA
I'm sorry, I got sidetracked by urgent RL issues in the middle of closing your RfA and didn't get here as soon as I'd have liked. Thank you for running for admin. It's not a fun process, even for successful candidates and it takes courage to apply and open oneself to criticism. I'd encourage you to consider the opposes and try again at a suitable point in time. Good luck and thank you again. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and I will. It is my current intention to try again later. I learned a great deal from this experience and I also believe that my candidacy was an opportunity to showcase the RfA process in its current form. My heart was warmed by the depth of support I received, I was pleased to see the high level of participation, and I will indeed mull over the !oppose !votes that contained thoughtful, considered and clueful content in the weeks to come. Montanabw(talk)19:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I learned a great deal from this experience ... To be blunt, this indicates (at least at the time of the post) there's more to learn. I've looked at one of the linked discussions and, if you'd like, I'm willing to critique for you so that in another six months or so (if you listen to me, of course) you'll be in a much better position to pass. NE Ent00:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the bluntest is best delivered via email, as I now know I have many more watchers than when I began! (grin) But dealing with out of context diffs is number one on my "wanted to rip my hair out" list. You cannot fully advise me on your diff without the above, then the rest of what you noted, factoring in [16], [17],[18], [19], [20] and especially this. Really, the most difficult aspect of this RfA was dealing with about five individuals. Everything else was generally well-meant, or "me too" !votes based on the RfA content itself. Montanabw(talk)02:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
On wiki is best; whether you pass your next Rfa will depend entirely on you, other folks won't matter for the discussion. We can do it at User talk:NE Ent/Rfa review so "own talk" rules would apply (i.e. I can simply remove / acknowledge any off-topic third party comments). NE Ent19:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Dear Montanabw. Just a few lines ||/--_=| late and little, to say I'm sorry to have missed your RfA. I don't go there much at all because it only ends up irritating and/or depressing me (and/or I piss someone off); that your bid failed is by me evidence of one seriously busted system. Anyway, you have my admiration and my thanks - and my sincere regret that I couldn't put them where and when it mattered. With bestest wishes, Plutonium27 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Would have voted but I completely missed the thing that rhymes with 'auto-da-fé' ... and I even got a shout-out from you for the American Pharoah and Ahmed Zayat collaboration, thanks for that! So strange to read things like "she's always supportive of women on AfD" like that is some kind of Wikipedia character defect. "Whatever you do, don't give her a mop!" So weird, that....
I hope you draw encouragement from the many, many editors who voted affirmatively and who, in my case, have learned far more from you about process in just a few months than in years of previous casual editing under another UserID. Your lessons still pay dividends; you really have made Wikipedia better all around. Sorry to see the way things went. Just hope I'm here to notice and participate in the next RfA. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Concluding the RfA postgame show
I think this clip sums it up. And I'm the gopher! [21].
Whenever I get frustrated by "the judges", I watch Surya Bonaly do her "illegal one-legged black flip" at the 1998 Nagano Olympics [3:45 minute mark]. Here's hoping Surya makes you feel just a little bit better, too ... What becomes a legend most? [22]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vesuvius Dogg (talk • contribs)
Take that with an extreme pinch of salt; not only is it a year old, but a lot of the "watchers" are discarded socks or long-retired editors—the incident that gives SlimVirgin so many watchers and elevates her to the top of the list, for instance, took place when a lot of the current editors were in junior school. I still show 300+ watchers, despite the fact that when that list was generated I'd barely touched Wikipedia for four years. MZMcBride, would it be feasible to regenerate it using only watchers who've edited in the past 30 days, or is that going to breach some arcane policy in some way? ‑ iridescent18:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Nemo basically added this feature to MediaWiki core. The info action now shows a separate watchers stat ("Number of page watchers who visited recent edits"). I'm not sure this data is exposed via the MySQL (err, MariaDB) replicated databases on Tool Labs, but regardless it's probably fairly easy to hack up a script to get and present the data. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
My question is: "Should the number of talk page stalkers ever be relevant to any point or counter-point in an argument discussion?" — Ched : ? 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Theoretically, it could be; I believe (Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong) that Dennis was accusing MBW of intentionally discussing her RFA in a place where a lot of potential supporters would see it, thus effectively notifying them. (Even if this were true, it would be an extremely stupid move to use Eric Corbett's talkpage for this purpose, since a sizeable number of those watchers will be people who've had an argument with him in the past and would be inclined to oppose things he supported.) ‑ iridescent19:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. And just because I supported them. That "cult of Corbett" issue still needs to be dealt with as well, but I know it won't. EricCorbett20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe I gave a specific example of another editor getting blocked for it (bad block, btw), but I'm not up for an argument. My point is that it either 1. Looked suspicious, or 2. Was bad judgement. I also believe I pointed to a comment from her nominator saying that thanking someone during an RfA was a bad idea. Saying my comment was tied to a single metric is demonstrably untrue. But draw whatever conclusions you like. I've never had nor have a grudge with anyone in the room, I have no axe to grind. I still maintain that thanking someone during the RfA is an incredibly bad idea, and it appears I'm not alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm just gonna put a small chart below since I want to compare...
User
Total watchers
Recent visitor watchers
Total revisions
Recent revisions
Ched
218
77
2,186
1
Dennis Brown
420
201
15,739
328
Eric Corbett
663
281
45,680
77
Gerda Arendt
243
128
11,605
125
iridescent
371
93
14,846
119
Jimbo Wales
3,281
657
122,149
1,183
Montanabw
295
144
9,249
231
MZMcBride
444
74
9,272
11
Note: these stats are for user talk pages, not user pages. I also created this table by hand, so while I think I didn't screw up the copying and pasting from the info action's output, I make no guarantees. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting chart. The only flaw with the "Number of page watchers" statistics is that it gives the number of page watchers from the beginning of time (who have not removed the page from their watchlist), and does not subtract the very large percentage of former watchers who have left Wikipedia (because when they leave they do not delete their watchlists). As anyone who monitors a lot of articles should know, articles and such with seemingly high numbers of watchers are often completely neglected, unwatched, and vandalized constantly. I see this happening more and more as the years ago by -- often I am seemingly the only person actually watching an article that supposedly has more than 30+ watchers. Frustrating, but the result of continued mass exodus of Wikipedians since 2007. A better and more useful statistic is probably the "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits", although how recent "recent" is is not explained and should be queried of the stat-tool creator. Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Curious, as I'm seeing totally different numbers for "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits" (Ched 71, Dennis Brown 139, Eric Corbett 210, Gerda Arendt 114, Iridescent 370, Jimbo Wales 454, Montanabw 112, MZMcBride 84). I'm wondering if this is actually measuring something completely different and has been mislabeled, or if the software has gone nuts again. ‑ iridescent08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think MZMcBride may have screwed that column up, even by his/her own numbers quoted far above. Pinging him/her for a re-check of that column. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC); ETA: However, Iridescent, we're looking at Talk pages here, not userpages, so your number is actually 94, and the rest of the column in the chart may be correct as well (MZ didn't hyperlink the names so I didn't check them all). -- Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Right, this is why I made a note that these stats covered user talk pages, not user pages. :-) For overall page watchers, the number will always be identical for the two pages, as you can't watch a subject-space page without also watching its associated talk page. But I believe the recent visitors watchers stat is tied to the specific page title, as are the revisions stats, of course. "User:Iridescent" is a redirect, which may explain why its stat is screwy. User:Newyorkbrad is probably a decent example, with 256 recent visitors watchers, while User talk:Newyorkbrad has 171 recent visitors watchers. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "this" is referring to, exactly. The chart above was based on data from the info action (i.e., &action=info, which is where the "Page information" link in the left sidebar points to). --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Two things: (well of course there is also "sorry your RfA failed") ... first, even after not being very active for a very long time I apparently still have a lot of watchers, and second, isn't this the centiJimbo metric? I forget. Hang in there, this too shall pass. ++Lar: t/c15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
With no modesty involved, I'd say my exalted position is only a matter of longevity. When was the last time you cleared out your watchlist? I scrubbed mine altogether once, when I was still relatively new. Since then, it's only grown. Many of those who watchlist me will be long since retired. Or dead. ;-) --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hence the "would it be feasible to regenerate it using only watchers who've edited in the past 30 days?" above… "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits" probably isn't the answer, on reflection, as that (if I understand Mediawiki's less-than-stellar documentation) lists people who've viewed the most recent version of the page, which isn't a particularly useful metric if the page has a lot of active conversations on it. ‑ iridescent19:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no indication of how recent "recent" is -- no indication whatsoever that that means the "current" version of the page, if anything, I'd say that was very unlikely; it's far more likely to mean within a certain timeframe, but the timeframe is not listed. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I grew up watching that particular form of horse racing. The Harness racing articles at Wikipedia are scant. I've done three, Catello Manzi- who I'm a cousin of but haven't met in 40 years, Dave Pallone, and just today Wally Hennessey. Harness racing related info is scant on the internet and I hate doing stub articles but I'm going to do a few more driver articles. Up next will probably be Bruce Nickells. Bruce just got inducted[23] into the Harness Horse racing HOF. He was trainer/driver of most of the horses my father owned and was partners with me Dad too- Brubil Farms. So I met Bruce and knew him well. He and Dad had a falling out in the late 1970's but all of that won't prevent me from doing a NPOV article. I have two photos of Bruce driving Fast Clip, the horse he and Dad owned that finished 2nd to Strike Out in the 1972 Little Brown Jug. One photo is a winner's circle photo(which I'm in), the other a racing photo. The racing photo I'm more likely to use....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?21:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll use this space to thank you for noticing what little I do here. I keep my hand in with the races: who won, who has the most of whatever, when a race changes its purse/location/distance. Long ago I wrote or considerably enlarged about 150 Thoroughbred horse racing articles. Most of them are still tagged with a variety of nicely designed sneers. Me, I'm happy they're still up for all the grand horses who have an article. But I never wrote about harness racing. All I know about is the glorious Dan Patch. But thank you for being so gracious. A rare treat here on ol' wiki. (If I ever write an article again, I'll get rid of this name and use something something gender neutral. I'm sure I'll have a better time.) Stellabystarlight (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Follow up thoughts
Mulling over the RfA post-mortem and one question for all stalkers (good-faith NPA discussion welcome). Did I do the right thing to not respond much at all to any of the !votes and comments, but instead wait until I was asked a question directly in the questions section (or, rarely, at talk)? It seemed that staying above the fray was the more measured response, particularly as one thing that I did clearly see in the comments is that I am a bit too quick to just call it like I see it and that doing a better job of counting 10 before posting is an area where I do need some work. But, now I'm wondering if my non-response allowed a couple of situations to escalate and the comments of people be viewed as credible when there was more going on than they presented? An admin has to shut down drama, but I don't know if my responding to the more over-the-top comments would have done that or just made it worse. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk)07:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
In general - you were wise to take the high road and avoid confrontation. It showed maturity, and the ability to remain detached and above the fray in some respects. Although each situation is different, and there are times that opposes deserve to have their views heard without hassle. There were obviously some there solely to disrupt the process, and tank your RfA - they have now outed their own intentions and motives for the next time though.
Actually, I was pretty impressed with your demeanor during the RfA. My RFA was pretty rough, I barely passed at 81%. It's kind of a like a fist fight: even when you win, it hurts like hell for days. I had concerns, genuine ones. What kept me from opposing is the knowledge that you are an exceptional content creator and I don't think you would ever abuse the tools. Part of me is also selfish, knowing that admin are easier to find than really good writers of prose and once you get the bit, it will cut into your editing time, although I wouldn't oppose for that. Anyway, you are one tough customer, you endured more than I've seen thrown at anyone at RFA in a long time, and you handled it better than I could have. That alone is worthy of some respect. Dennis Brown - 2¢08:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
As per Ched, I think you did very much the right thing by remaining largely detached from the votes. Sometimes however, it is not always easy to do; if someone comes out of the woodwork and tells blatant lies or deliberately takes things out of context as two admins did on my RfA just because I defeated them over some linguistic issues they were claiming ownership of, well you have to say something, although on my RfA yet another user told me qute rudely to shut uo and put up.. Fortunately the one admin got desysoped a couple of years later to everyone's relief, and the other, whose access to adminship was nothing more than hat collecting anyway, quietly slipped into the background and retired. On the other hand , some that oppsed me have become close friends and collaboratrs. What I think was not so good was commenting in other places while the RfA was ongoing and allowing yourself to be embroiled in the persistent harassment that someone was trying to stir up and they just would not drop the stick even when a very short block expired.
As an admin, if you are going to get involved in the war zone's front line like I and a handful of others do, you'll have to learn to either keep your cool or keep out of it. Believe me (and people like Drmies too, for example) when we say adminship is no bed of roses. These RfA talk page discussions are a brand new trend started by the Liz RfA. Not good. Sets back years of hard work - literally 100s of hours - to improve the climate there; we'll never get a better electoral system, so we have to make do the one we've got and potty train the participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I will be watching here, and want to support you in your next RfA. Yes I saw that there were personal grudges but WP:OWN came up a lot by level headed editors. You should also look into this but I agree with the above that you not jumping into the drama was the right thing to do. Trust me here, it has come to bite me in the butt more than once. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you handled it well and allowed everyone to say what they wanted to say without shutting them down or trying to speak over them or around them. I think some of the Negative Nellies would have enjoyed a pitchforking frenzy but they weren't given an opportunity for that. You did well, Montana. And, yup, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. As for branches of the olive variety, they may be imperfect but on Wikipedia, they seem to be more rare than a unicorn with glitter. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you did the right thing by not responding to the people who were probably posting negative, attack-type comments on purpose to draw you out. Some of them were just trying to antagonize you and/or your supporters, hoping to cause a fight to entertain themselves.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
I think you handled the RFA with grace and maturity that speaks volumes about your character. I personally would have lost my shit about half way through, and I generally pride myself on my patience and thick skin. --Laser brain(talk)16:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Staying clear of that shit (there's no other word to accurately describe it) is usually the wisest course. Many of those folks, IMO, were hoping you'd rise to the bait, either with obvious attack comments or the much more insidious "well meaning observations" which are only attacks wearing better perfume. Intothatdarkness16:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Allow me to add my kudos to you for how you handled your RfA detractors and, in my opinion, some very brutal and nearly abusive treatment. I meant everything I said in support of you and you have now earned even more of my respect. It's in times like what you experienced there that a person's true "mettle" is tested and seen for what it is. And yours is/are made of brass ;-) Brava! -- WV ● ✉✓16:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87: How about you just worry about the areas you intend to work on in your Wiki-dealings and leave Montanabw alone, hmmm? You've said more than enough on this talk page in the last 24 hours. Time to back off. -- WV ● ✉✓17:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It's OK WV, I am aware that KK asked for his T-Ban be lifted just before he !voted at my RfA, and so he's very interested in this. KK, I am taking my time to think through what I have learned here and how to move forward; I'm giving this at least six months, so no rush. I may allow my actions to do most of the talking or I may post some analysis; I have not yet decided; it's been a long, stressful week (also had to work while all this was going on) and I am choosing not to make more than a few preliminary comments at this point. The "don't dive in headfirst"/WP:NAM decision was made at the time I filed the RfA, hence my request here for an initial assessment if not responding quickly and often not at all was the right one. Montanabw(talk)18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Why one would want to be an admin on here is beyond my understanding. That was brutal and often not remotely civil. This is Wikipedia for goodness sake. Not real life. *Nothing* that happens on here is life and death and is truly not worth the bile that seems to erupt so often. The logs in the eyes of the accusers of ego had me shaking my head with amazement more times than not. That you were able to weather the storm, with patience and decorum speaks volumes. Why you would consider doing it again, is a complete puzzlement. But, you have both my admiration and support for whatever its worth. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Im here because I voted oppose and want to know what Montana took away from it all, this is feedback from the other side that did see issues. I will leave it alone but will be watching Montana's edits from a-far hoping to offer support next time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't wonder and second-guess. You did quite well to make it to the very end of an arduous battle and stay above the fray, with chaos occurring all around you. To me, there was a sense of peace, maturity and self-assurance about you; kind of like you were the stage manager just observing a performance of Noises Off. When the curtain rang down, no matter the outcome, you were still going to be Montanabw. I was really surprised at the depth of destruction that was your RfA. Should you decide to repeat play this, I shall support you again, with even more respect in your abilities, All the best, as always. Fylbecatuloustalk18:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
These stats say a lot. I feel guilty you got caught in a mistake I made last February. All I can do is tell you how sorry I am, and that I think you did extremely well under pressure. The outing wasn't cool, in my view. At any rate, I'll be taking a break from here and maybe that will make a difference; maybe not. Best, Victoria (tk) 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Victoria, don't leave on account of me; there is NOTHING anyone here did that opened me up to trouble... I know of a couple people who have since said they didn't vote for me pretty much because they were concerned that doing so would attract their "enemies." If you want my opinion, they should have !voted anyway. Ben Franklin said it best (I'm paraphrasing a bit) "We must now hang together, for if we do not we will most assuredly hang separtely."
It's not on your account - I've been pulling myself out slowly over the past few months, and that's mostly because of RL issues. If this place were completely stress free, I'd probably be more inclined to stay, but the reality is that it's not. I've never taken an extended break and think it's worth a try. All of that said, I do have to take responsibility for not doing due diligence and jumping to (erroneous) conclusions, which caused an unfortunate series of events. Victoria (tk) 16:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Montanabw, I voted against your RFA at this time. I just wanted to add a few comments to explain where to go from here as I will say that I am open to reevaluating my position as the months go ahead. I admire your content creation and I think content creation is essential to any administrator candidate's portfolio. I would likely not support anyone who didn't have some quality content work. If it were not for some concerns about your interaction with other users, I would have been inclined to support your candidacy in large part by the strength of your contributions. But I am unlikely to support another RfA for at least a year (6 months is too short). I would like to see you make amends with Rjensen, Rationalobserver, and a few other users who you got into some battles with. Whether they accept it or not is immaterial, but I think the attempt will go a long way (including for me). I got the sense from some of your statements that you felt above some of the opposition and that some of the complaints or concerns were not worth your time. I would also suggest two things (something I wish more admin aspirants would embrace or offer in their RfAs)--(1) ask three administrators to be your mentoring circle for 6 months if your next RfA is approved who will both guide your learning the bits and double check when there's a controversial decision, and/or (2) say that you will put yourself up for recall after the first year and every two years after that. More administrators need to put themselves up for recall or reconfirmation. I would disagree with the "lifetime appointment". I think every admin should be up for recall on that kind of schedule. We are not perfect. Wikipedia is a great place to find a fight even if you're not looking for one. I will keep my mind open if there is another RfA, but I will be unlikely to support unless you address some of the concerns of the opposition. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be glad to. Best of luck. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with this statement, going forward at some point (not now if you don't want to) you should address the people who opposed your RfA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Next group topic for discussion
OK, looking over the various comments made at my RfA brings me to my next topic: One of the fears among those who !voted oppose was a fear that I would be someone who would abuse the tools by using them where I was involved or against people that I allegedly didn't like. I already said I would not abuse the tools multiple times at the RfA, I addressed that my understanding of WP:INVOLVED is very clear, but how does one prove a negative? General thoughts? Montanabw(talk)21:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I've looked over a lot of past RfAs and it is common for candidates to make well-intentioned statements that crumble under the pressure of actually doing admin work. I remember one RfA where under question 1, the candidate said they didn't expect to be handing out blocks, they'd be working on mundane admin backlogs, and now, years later, they are regularly blocking accounts. The work they intended to do is different from the work that needs to get done. So, rightly or wrongly, many editors take a candidate's stated intentions with a grain of salt. You don't know how you will use the tools until you are in a stressful situation and you have to decide, "Do I act? Do I instead bring the editor to another admin's attention? Do I bring this situation to ANI and hear what other editors think? Or is this really no big deal at all and requires no action?"
While I'm not speaking from much experience as an admin, I think I understand the concerns of some of those who opposed and say that there is the perception that you will act first, ask questions later. The boldness that can make a great editor needs to be tempered by humility and good judgment in admins because it is SO very easy to make a mistake! I don't think you need to prove a negative but you do need to demonstrate that your potential admin actions will be considered, thoughtful and cautious as well as decisive. Those are my general thoughts, for what they are worth. LizRead!Talk!22:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Thanks, Liz. There's the need to promptly address BLP violations before irreparable damage is done parallel to a need to count 10 before blocking a situation where you must study and understand the background (I had a good question about that at my RfA, if I recall; wonder if anyone besides the poster read my answer). I'm all for good judgment; it's desperately needed and one reason I wanted to file. There is a line between boldness and recklessness; likewise there is a line between consideration and hand-wringing. In the world of content editing where you have a lot of need to address problems fairly promptly (vandalism like this, problem articles that are copy-pasted, etc.) sometimes people get upset at you. People have gotten upset at me. I'm looking at ways to demonstrate that a person can wear two hats; the editing of content, which sometimes can become a "contact sport" of sorts, and the more adjudicatory role of the admin, where there is neutrality. Montanabw(talk)22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
When you are editing, you address the jury.
When you are admin., you are the judge - with a judicial review board looking over your every move.
Proving a negative is extremely hard. How does one prove they are not working? No boss to call. No income to verify. Very difficult. But it can be done. Document every interaction that wherein you are *involved* and review them. It will be enlightening for both you and whomever else wants to review them. PITA? Yes, but the means may justify the ends. In our case, figuring out a way to document got us residency. How bad do you want it? ;) SusunW (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Racking Horse again!
I did a good bit of work on Racking Horse today that (I hope) improved it a lot. I found 5 or 6 additional sources, including one on the double-registering of pintos as Spotted Saddle horses. (Some of the inline citations are appearing multiple times on References, not sure why but it's a wonder I got them to appear at all, so I'm happy for now, although I'll have to play with that some later to correct it.) I also added some stuff about two foundation sires, whose bloodlines are still being used. And some about temperament, and the mechanics of the gait, and other uses (endurance!).😀 I had fun, and hopefully the article is a lot better. (I sourced and cited everything; found a helpful site that's about riding and training gaited horses--it's not particularly well-written but it's got a lot of good info packed in there.) It still needs a picture though...I'm on the verge of calling the association and asking if they have a picture in the public domain or fair usage we can use! White Arabian mare (Neigh) 19:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently going through the article sourcing it. So please don't go through it adding citation tags where I know they're needed. Oh, and please drop the infobox disputes. Restore it for the time being if you must for the sake of the peace, but please back off. We'll revisit the infobox issue when it's largely written but I have a great amount to do on it and I don't need this distraction.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up that the {{tq}} template makes life easier when copypasting a talk thread from one page to another and keeping it clear who said what. I was wrong-footed by this copypaste of yours, which I read as the IP announcing that they've moved something from their talk page, when it was actually your move. (I've refactored it with a {{tq}} template.) --McGeddon (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of "staking your edits" ([26]). I consider that a personal attack. I follow Dr. B's projects and help out where I can (diffs available upon request), and until he asks me to stop I'll continue to do so, so don't threaten me to stay away from any pages I've edited. RO(talk) 21:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Now you're accusing me of harassing you for editing Sinatra ([27])! You should know that serious accusations require serious proof. Please reconsider your aggressive and accusatory tone. RO(talk)21:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
RO, you ARE stalking my edits, as you had no prior edits to that article until Blofeld posted here. Your diffs themselves prove my point. I did not "threaten" you in the least, I graciously suggested, and I quote, " Frankly, RO, I'm trying to avoid articles where you have edited in the past unless they clearly fall within the purview of a project where I am already a member, and it might be a really good idea for you to do the same." Blofeld's project sounded interesting, I'm trying to do more than just edit horse articles, and your accusations are, as usual, false and a reflection of your own motives. Montanabw(talk)22:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm not stalking your edits, MBW, but I do check Dr. B's contribs almost daily. Did Sagaciousphil and SchroCat also stalk you to Sinatra, because they opposed your actions there before I did: ([28]); ([29])? And did Blofeld ask you for help, or is he annoyed by your presence there: ([30])? Anyways, let's drop it. There's no way we will ever agree, so this is a waste of energy. RO(talk)22:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I generally don't check most people's contribs "daily." That's a little "stalkerish" itself (unless they have asked me to, of course). Sagaciousphil and SchroCat had been working on the article in the past, so of course they would have had it watchlisted and they were not doing anything improper. Your suggestion that they were doing something wrong is rather ridiculous. After SPhil's 1RR, I did not restore the box a second time and the discussion went to talk, as it should. Now please allow me to make myself perfectly clear: I think the timing of your posts suggests that you are stalking, and if you are not, you are clearly baiting. As I stated above, I shall state again: I'm trying to avoid articles where you have edited in the past unless they clearly fall within the purview of a project where I am already a member, and it might be a really good idea for you to do the same.Montanabw(talk)22:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I check Dr. B's contribs to see what he's working on, because I like to help him with some of the tedious wikignoing stuff that I know GA and FA require. I do this to repay his guidance to me with those same processes. As far as "owning projects", keep in mind that you have 9 years of them and I have 13 months, so that really limits me while never limiting you. But as I said, I won't argue with you, because, much like the Kobiashi Maru, it's a nearly pointless scenario. RO(talk)22:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, you cannot resist getting in the WP:LASTWORD here, but how about repaying his guidance by not engaging with me on this topic any further? And also, please stop the psychological projection of twisting my words to reflect something they do not imply, I do not "own" any article or project, I am merely "involved." You do understand the difference, I hope. Montanabw(talk)22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to see any squabbles or edit warring between you two. Neither do I want to see pointy editing or tags slopped on the Sinatra article. But you're both very good editors when you put your mind to it and if either of you started contributing content to it constructively I wouldn't object, but it can't be both of you for obvious reasons unless you seriously put your differences aside. All I know is that I have four or five weeks max to really get Sinatra up to scratch if we're realistically going to get it up to FA for Dec 12. He gets 160,000 hits a month. And I have 13 books here at least to get through. I'm not going to be able to do that myself in the time frame. I'll happily share 5 or 6 books with whoever would genuinely be willing to go through the books and help. I had intended sharing them with We hope but she's departed.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Your RfA
Skilled eBronco Rider Award
Just noticed your RfA closed unsuccessfully. Sorry it didn't come through. That is WPs loss. But you made it till the buzzer, eh? Wasn't it fun? (hee hee) Meanwhile keep up the great work! Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 15:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The things you learn while working the misspellings patrol...
Here I learned that Jeannette Rankin of Montana was the first woman in Congress! In November 1914, Montana passed an amendment granting women unrestricted voting rights, and she was elected to Congress two years later. In January 1918 she opened congressional debate on a Constitutional amendment granting universal suffrage to women... I suppose you already know this, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. I never would have guessed that Montana was the state with the first... Wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Martha Washington was the first "real woman" to appear on US paper money. The first "real woman" to appear on US coinage was Queen Isabella. Useless info <g>. Collect (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
So, yes, my immediate reaction upon learning about her was Jeannette Rankin. Why aren't you more famous? Why don't I see a {{Good article}} symbol on her Wikipedia bio? Note that Eric Black linked to that – in both his 2015 and 2013 pieces about her – so presumably he thinks it's a "good article". I also note the lack of a {{dyktalk}} template on the talk page. She isn't even mentioned in "A Woman on the $10 or the $20 Bill?" editorials. It's nice to see in the Billings Gazette→ that Sen. Steve Daines is promoting her. But did you know... just after Roosevelt's Infamy Speech, standing alone in Congress... that's Courage.Did you know – in this day and age where we take C-SPAN for granted – the first ever live broadcast of a session of Congress... Did you know... that J. Edgar's FBI kept files on her in the McCarthy era. And she was still around to protest the Vietnam war. Heck yes, she should be on the $20. Our first man to hold elective office is on the $1. Regretfully it seems that Montana PBS' "Montana Mosaics" piece on her isn't online anymore... and, if American Experience hasn't done a piece on her yet, what's taking them so long? I did find another Representative Rankin when searching their site for the name. He has a (D) next to his name, while she has an (R). It seems like since the forties and early fifties, the parties have had a run through the Sneetches' Star-On and Star-Off machines. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing my edits. I apologize for separating the beginning of the definition from the end and reference. Was just trying to explain first the overall true breeding, then individual traits, although I know they are the flip side of the coin. Whenever I read something that I struggle to understand, (being a well-read sociologist, but just a science fan) and then *think* I figure out, I try to add any wording, links, etc. that I think might clarify for the next non-specialist who reads.
If you have time, was my blue eyes/brown eyes example way off? Overly simplistic?
It was way off; blue eyes are a recessive gene in humans, brown eyes dominant. But it's OK to keep plugging away, the best approach is to find a reliable source that explains it properly and use that (without close paraphrasing and without copying, of course!) to make any clarifications. (FWIW, my undergrad degrees were both in the social sciences, so I do sympathize with your position). Montanabw(talk)21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
"Temporary fix"
Even if Frank Sinatra becomes a FA, if the compromise is later undone then I for-see this blowing up into a huge issue possibly de-stabilizing the article. Is this a can to kick down the road, or can we start the discussion on user-space maybe? I am trying to avoid the tinderbox from igniting here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The infobox wars seem to be the Israeli-Palestinian conflict of wikipedia, the sides are quite dug in and bunkers are hardened. I just tried to kick the can down the road, as if I - a strong pro-infobox proponent - can live with the collapsed design for now, I think that once we have everything else ready for FAC, we will all be able to unite behind a stable version. IF the debate is infobox/no infobox, it will be nasty; if it's collapsed/uncollapsed, I think it is going to be more of a design question because the microformats and syntax issues that matter to some of the pro-infobox crowd are included. Montanabw(talk)23:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I just hope things go well, personally I don't think this is an issue that people should argue about. If both sides are happy and can gain a bit like what was done then no harm done right? =) I also know as I have said that editors get articles to FA in their own ways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you, but you've not hung out much at WikiProject Opera or WikiProject Classical Music, have you? ;-) =:-O. Montanabw(talk)03:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Droving
Hi MBW. Why change a proper link to a red one? (before I revert) and if you do not like See in See also please change it, its nothing to do with me but the strange red link you keep putting back is mine!! Why? Your reasoning please. Eddaido (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Knew there'd be some explanation. I still think the very concept of drovers and opera downright charming. Why is it you do not? Eddaido (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beholder (horse) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.
Hi Montanabw, I hope all is well these days! I have nominated an article I wrote, Schmerber v. California, for FA status. I understand that you are an attorney and one of the top content creators at Wikipedia -- would you be willing to take a look at the nomination for Schmerber? Here is a link to the nomination. Thanks in advance for your help! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 6 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Bridle, in french we call this a "licol ethologique"
Hello montana. I've a question for a categorization in WM Commons : what's the english name of this ? it's just under the category "bridle"; but it's not just a "bridle", I think ? Thank you ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow, juste a cheap rope halter ! Funny, because in France, this stuff was presented (2000's) as a new tool from the Americas, created by "western horsemanship" for horse welfare ! And a lot, a lot of... stupid people, imagine it's a good tool for "tether" (attacher ?) a horse, but it's juste very dangerous !
Oh! The irony! Nylon rope halters are a) cheap (at least, if not name-branded by some guru) and b) totally unbreakable so if a horse is tied with one (and an equally strong lead rope) then goes completely batshit, they can't escape -- may break their neck first... but at the time they were developed, mustangs were cheap too. It's a rather dark history, really. You may find this article interesting. Montanabw(talk)12:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The first halter (on the palomino) is a pretty standard US model, the lead rope is attached to the halter without metal hardware, which makes it stronger and more unbreakable (as you know, the snap is always a weak point). The second is not an American design, it looks like it is made of jute and would break easily if it didn't rot first. (and looks very uncomfortable). Montanabw(talk)12:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Young Lusitano horse with an "american halter", in France.
Okay ! So you don't have a special name for what we call an "american halter" (licol américain) in France ? Irony too ! (... must be like eat french fries not french at all ? :p) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Ick! Don't label that thing "American" - "Cowboy" maybe, but many cowboys don't use them either! Let me make one suggestion: Don't longe horses in these! My reasons: 1) Any halter with the longe line attached at the jaw provides no side leverage - if the horse turns his tail to you and bolts, you cannot turn their head around and they can just run off and rip the line out of your hands! (Trust me, I had the rope burn to prove that I learned that the hard way!) 2) Some horses find those big knots to be very irritating as the halter rubs loosely on their head and it makes them irritable and sometimes upset. 3) the halter isn't even designed (or maybe adjusted) properly - nothing under the throatlatch, it could easily slide off over the ears! 4) It is adjusted too loose; the noseband is on the cartilage of the nose and could cause damage if too much pressure was put on at the wrong angle. If one must longe a horse in one of these, it should be adjusted fairly snug so the throatlatch keeps it on, the noseband doesn't move around too much and so it doesn't fall off! Montanabw(talk)23:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
okay, I don't know this stuff at all, it's not a part of my habits. There's actually a "fashion" movement about working horses with this for more "natural horsemanship". But usually we longed with "caveçon".--Tsaag Valren (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It kinda sticks out like a peninsula on the map; the surrounding land is not in the city limits. Perhaps it was annexed for tax reasons or for streamlining of utilities services. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
And, sad to say, that one was photoshopped! (And the "silver buckskin" might have been too! - it looks like a gray to me!) I think the rest were legit. Montanabw(talk)14:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I remember someone mentioning horses. >;-) I'm pretty jazzed about what can be done over the longer term with Wikidata for breed-related details. I wasn't "getting" WD until the sessions at this conf. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with Black Allan
Some cute Icelandic horses
Thanks for fixing the pedigree template on Black Allan, I was afraid that if I removed the borders it wouldn't appear at all! And thanks for fixing the references as well. By the way, I created Morafic; you'll probably want to check it out. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 15:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Guerillero: I'm always good for 3O, GA/FAC reviews and will frequently need a DYK qpq, so feel free to ping me if you need a hand. (FWIW, I have some music background, and have done a wee bit of editing on a few music articles). Montanabw(talk)20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Robert Cowell: notable trainer?
Hey, Montana. Can you take a look at this: Robert Cowell? Does this satisfy the specific notability guideline for horse people? Because it surely does not satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG based on the two linked references. Does the equine project normally accept links to sports stats sites as "significant" coverage? Anyway, my interest in this is limited, but it popped up on my radar when another editor doing page patrol asked me if I thought my article was notable, to which my reaction was "huh?" Until two days ago, the page was a redirect I created to a 1948 Olympic athlete better known as "Bob Cowell". I am curious to hear your opinion on point in light of the recent addition of a specific notability guideline for horses and horse people to WP:NSPORTS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I saw it, I suggest you cross-post at WikiProjct horse racing so that the UK/Ire folks can look and comment. The criterion is "multiple Grade 1 or Group 1 race wins," and they can probably assess that in an instant. The article definitely needs more content. I'll copy this over there. Montanabw(talk)14:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, MBW. I'm kind of curious to see where this goes. I'll watch the WikiProject Horse racing talk page to see what happens. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, Eric, but it would simply be wrong to propose 5 people as potential subjects in an experiment and not tell them about it. I worded this as neutrally as I could, and people at WT:RFA have been informed, so if they want to discount what these people say for any reason, they can. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Not my circus. I do favor unbundling userrights and page mover in particular. I could use it in my regular editing. Like today. :-P Montanabw(talk)21:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
White line disease
We seem to have no article for white line disease--when I searched I got hoof wall separation disease and a bunch of other unrelated articles. Do we need one? If so, I'll create and write it (I googled and found several reliable sources; it seemed to be covered pretty broadly). I'm interested in it because my horse had it last year. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I searched for it multiple times, along with "seedy toe", the slangy term for it. I'll try to get some references and do it tomorrow. I know I got a lot of high-quality hits when I searched for it on Google (The Horse and Equus articles, plus others that are also reliable).
ADD: No mention of it at equine lameness. When mine had it he wasn't even lame...?
White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Midnight Sun (horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Allan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You say that organizations cannot have pages. We are fine with this. Please remove the United States Pony Club page. It is inaccurate and against our copyright. We only attempted to update outdated information. We have no "COI" in this matter. We are a non-profit organization. We seek no monetary gain from posting the correct information about our organization, only that the correct information is posted on sites such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USPC2015 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Montana! Thanks for tweaking the categories on the AAQHC. I'm actually at the Congress now, and hope to capture some pictures for the article but I won't be able to upload anything until I get back to Texas in 10 days. Anyway, there's a lot more that can be added so your collaboration is most welcome. Atsme📞📧01:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know that I went ahead and created the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration article. I know I'm going to have to keep a close eye because it'll probably be a vandalism target, but I thought I might as well do it because somebody else would if I didn't. Anyway, I put a whole section about the controversies stuff. Thought you might wanta check it out.. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
ADD: sorry if that seemed POV. It just seems screwy that the HSUS always releases a new Walking Horse abuse video perfectly in time to coincide with the beginning of the Celebration. 😝 I've watched both the attack and defense videos on YouTube too. I think the best way was how they showed Midnight Sun. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
No worries, I have handled far more controversial articles (see, e.g. Charreada, for example; I've also had several circuses with the various rodeo articles). It's a question of tone. The reality is that when you have the New York Times covering the problem, the 2006 debacle and people like Jackie McConnell out there, that does a lot of damage to the reputation of the breed. (nightline, this, etc...). My thinking is that it's best to "teach the controversy" and present the viewpoints of each side fairly. I think that readers are intelligent people and if we do a really good job with NPOV, they are able to draw conclusions. (Wull disclosure: I was on the team that got Horse Protection Act of 1970 to FA Montanabw(talk)02:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not the factual opposition and the actual stuff that goes on that I dislike; it's the people who've never seen a TWH in their lives and yet are all over the horse forums posting stuff they made up! I always remember a question on a forum where somebody asked what the big lick pads were made of. Somebody else answered and said they were made of rubber filled with sand and lead shavings, and weighed 15 pounds each. I've picked them up and I know that's not true! I just wish these people could see both sides of it, but people are always blind to what goes on in their own little world and quick to start attacking others. It's why most of the people posting "big lick torture" on Walking Horse videos are Quarter Horse people, and most of the people posting "four-beat lope! Dead tail!" on QH videos are TWH people.😣 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
I see three issues: 1) The genuine problems, which, like most human problems, the people closest to the situation won't police themselves because it impacts their livelihood (or they fear it will), 2) the ignorant, like the people who you describe on the forums, and then 3) the willfully dishonest or malicious who promote a mob hystria - like the PETA video about horse racing they put out about a year and a half-ago; they used an image of a horse being tubed - which we know to be a standard veterinary procedure - and used it as a lead image to make a case for abuse; they also mixed recordings that didn't match the images to imply a person was saying bad stuff about an injured animal and such. Montanabw(talk)21:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I remember seeing a video put up by a PETA member that was titled "Shocking!!!! Horse Abuse!!!" and consisted of reining horses spinning, a trainer hobble breaking a young horse, and a dressage horse cantering. I laughed through the whole thing. That was their idea of abuse. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Not that there isn't abuse in those fields. I've watched reining horses being trained; some folks are not kind in obtaining the precision required. The practice of rollkur was banned by national law in Switzerland. I've dealt with horses with injected tails. The problem is that PETA doesn't help the underlying causes they claim to support because at root I hold the view that they have a different agenda altogether; ever notice how they flock to high-interest areas more than high-abuse areas? Montanabw(talk)00:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed, and seen abuse in most horse sports I've seen. PETA's just a lot of nuts in my opinion. They claim to help animals and yet they want all pit bulls dead because one bit Ingrid Newkirk; they pass out propaganda in the form of "Your Mommy Kills Animals!" comic books to children in elementary school, and call fish "sea kittens". I'm surprised people can even take them seriously. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 01:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Well, I'll refrain from going further down the not-NPOV here in case I have to deal further with those sorts of issues in the future, but I guess my own view is probably middle-of-the-road; I usually recognize abuse - but also dishonesty - vis-a-vis animal issues when I see it - and I'll call it as I see it... ;-) Montanabw(talk)02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Note to myself - stop stalking Montanabw's talk page! What the hell is going on over there! I have never seen such short fuses over a page move, and that last deletion of the Talk Page edits was unbelievable - I sent the editor a warning to his talk page. Please feel free to contact me over similar disputes in the future.DrChrissy(talk)14:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
There's yet another new user editing the United States Pony Clubs page, and that's all their contrib history shows. They had put the lead-in to the rest of the article under a heading titled 'summary' so I reverted it. I think they did something else too, but it was minor and I didn't revert it. I sent them a talk page message explaining why we don't use double headers since the article title IS the header for the lead-in, and suggesting they look at other articles for examples or join WPEQ. I just thought I'd let you know... White Arabian mare (Neigh) 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Help improving content about museums in New Mexico
New Mexico museums need help in improving or adding their content. I see that there's a list Museums in New Mexico, which is a helpful start, and also a wiki Museum Project that offers guidelines for good article content, which is also helpful, and we have an opportunity in November, at our New Mexico Association of Museums meeting in Carlsbad, to get museums on board with this. I can create a worksheet/template based on the Museum Project guidelines, that will help museums get someone to write their article, but issues will arise with formatting and making info boxes and collections galleries, etc. In my ideal world there would be someone out there who could come to the conference and work with interested museums to help them get their acts together. Also, in my ideal world there would be someone interested in being a Wikipedian-in-Residence who could help us plow through that list of Museums in New Mexico, or one or more volunteers who would help us working remotely. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Mimi.roberts (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. That was an interesting last edit of yours on the Horse page. A quick check of other livestock shows the same situation at Sheep at least. Am I correct in thinking that the title in the taxbox should match as close as possible the title of the article?DrChrissy(talk)13:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There was a gigantic "drahmah" a few years back when someone wanted to name all the livestock articles "domestic foo" of various sorts. I think this was a remnant holdover. I'd maybe post at talk for changing any of the other articles, just in case it still matters to someone. I was bold on horse because I was on the team that brought it to GA. Montanabw(talk)01:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Montana PBS links
Hello Montanabw, thanks for helping out with checking those links for usability. I noticed that the one for Anaconda Copper Mine (Montana) still shows a 404 error. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find an active replacement and the info page for this particular video is very short. Anyway, just a fyi - maybe you have a better idea where to look for an active link. GermanJoe (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Montanabw, thankyou for your recent contributions at some longevity-related AfD's.
I am in agreement that instead of nominating countless supercentenarian articles for deletion, a more general discussion needs to take place about what standards need to be met for a subject to "qualify for notability". For example, should people in the following categories be considered notable: World's oldest people/women/men titleholders, oldest ever person from country X, Top 100 oldest ever people/woman/men ever, etc.
The main concern I have right now is that a WP:BATTLEGROUND appears to have developed around longevity-related articles. I think some users are trying to counteract the addition of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA to some articles by other users, but have almost ended up pushing too far, and seem to have a bias against them. Unfortunately, in several past AfD's, RfC's, and other discussions, these editors always contribute and this may, at times, lead to a false representation of the true consensus of the wider community, which I feel has damaged Wikipedia's articles on the subject of longevity.
Therefore, I'd like it if more editors can get involved in this project. May I ask how we can go about having a discussion about supercentenarian notability and WP:GNG? Thanks -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps specific guidelines could be developed at Wikipedia:Notability_(people); similarly to those of NACTOR, NPOLITICIAN, etc. The centenarian articles probably should mostly be listified, I wish that the AfD crowd would just merge stuff rather than have AfD drahmahz. Oh, wait, that would mean they'd have to create content, which is more work. Whoops. Montanabw(talk)17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Take Charge Brandi
Thanks for doing the wrap-up on her racing career. Given her pedigree and performance I suspect that we have not heard the last of her. Expect to see a Brandi's Kitten or a Tap It Brandi in a couple of years time. Tigerboy1966 10:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to thank you for restoring many of the Montana-related links that had been reverted. I was very discouraged to see so many hours of my work simply disappear. You make a positive difference here and I'm grateful!Guanaco55 (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem was that several went to 404 pages; some links expire. Always best to try and find permanent links when you can! Montanabw(talk)17:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Pedigree
I just created Merry Go Boy. I have a question about the pedigrees, though--on one like his where some horses are unknown, is it better to leave the formatting tags (mffm) or put a question mark where the name would go to show that the ancestor is unknown? White Arabian mare (Neigh) 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. 😊 I may end up writing one about Albert Dement; he keeps popping up and he was apparently the Hank Weiscamp of Walkers. Google turns up several good refs, books and stuff. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 18:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Just keep finding good source material, also continue to let me know if you need any help. You are really doing a lot of terrific work here and so far you have yet to make the same mistake twice! (LOL!) -- Seriously, I made as many or more errors when I was new to wiki and still am capable of massive screwups (Like the one yesterday where I rollbacked your edit and then had to rollback my mistake...)! Keep up your good work! Montanabw(talk)18:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope I am doing lots of good; maybe I am, because I just got given my first barnstar about an hour ago! 🎆 I am doing lots better with the pedigrees now (first time I screwed it up so bad that I had to blank the whole thing and start over) but I have the hang of them now. Is it OK to say "saddle seat" in discipline on the Walking Horse pages (noticed you changed one of them to show horse)? I don't know if that's really considered to be saddle seat by the USEF or whoever, but it looks like it. Anyway it's not a big deal. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
It's confusing... "Saddle seat" is not terminology used to describe pleasure or park classes, only equitation (I've seen "saddle type" and "hunter type" though, but only at open shows. Regional uses include saying "English" when saddle seat is meant, and "Hunter" for hunt seat...); Unless you have something real specific, like "Plantation-style" or "Five-gaited" or something, it's better to use the general discipline, and "show horse" is probably best. Montanabw(talk)22:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not just this article, but I am using it as an example. The formatting is off. External links is in small type and the section header is far off to the right. Some articles have the same problem with references sections. How do we fix these?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?12:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I did a fix, @WilliamJE: I don't know what all the problems are, but changing the formatting in the previous section that had columns seemed to fix part of the problems. Ping me as to others in the same situation or maybe put the whole list at WP:Horse Racing and also ping RexxS who is a formatting genius. Montanabw(talk)16:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that when you try to make 3 columns by floating 3 divs at 33% width each, there's a tiny column of 1% left over. The <br> that was trying to clear those floats is unfortunately an inline element so doesn't work in this case. If a <div>...</div> with style="clear:all;" is used instead, it normally behaves as you would expect because div is a block element.
Anyway, MontanaBW, your fix works well with most modern browsers and doesn't cause much problem for mobile browsers. It's also flexible if the number of items in the list changes, so I'd recommend it to anyone who has been having problems with multiple column lists. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I am OK with your bold move, but would you care to assist with the links redirected from the old title? (The others are probably not worth the trouble) [33]? Montanabw(talk)22:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I was going to do that too and somebody beat me! I loved watching him win today though, he is the best horse in my lifetime so far. I was born too late for Secretariat. 😉 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 00:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.
Reference errors on 31 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 Breeders' Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tailgate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Although you did not make the top 16 of Round 1, you did participate and you still deserve a barnstar. Thank you so much for being a part of the 2nd Annual GA Cup and we hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
YouTube external links?
Is it OK on the Walking Horse articles to provide an external link to a YouTube video of the horse (Midnight Sun and Strolling Jim specifically, there's actual footage of them on YouTube and may be some of Merry Go Boy too---not sure)? Without getting slammed for "spamming"? I mean, create an external links section, and put the link to the specific video there. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, will probably do so tomorrow. The videos are blurry, but then again I'm sort of surprised they even bothered to take them back then. I think there may be one for Wing Commander too. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 01:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare
Thank you for the ping, Anthonyhcole. I appreciate the invitation, and appreciate knowing I am a topic of discussion, but for now, I think I shall simply continue to lurk there. ;-) I am pleased to see, though, that the individual in question has openly confessed that deliberate use of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is her m.o. I shall bookmark that link and keep it for future reference. I do hope that those encouraging her to self-publish elsewhere are successful in their mentorship and advocacy, as clearly, a person should follow their heart. Montanabw(talk)17:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Essentially, there are extremely long and convoluted threads at Talk:Mustang (and a subpage, plus the archives), Talk:Free-roaming horse management in North America, Talk:Rocky Mountain Fur Company and Talk:Fur trade in Montana (current spat) and the user's talk page. All start with this user's penchant for OR and SYNTH and continue to devolve into personal attacks and other unpleasantness. It is very difficult to follow the threads because this user makes dozens of small edits where most editors would make only one or two, and this clouds the edit history considerably. If the user at the link you posted is the same user as the one with the same name on wikipedia, and I believe it is, the posts at the bottom of page one of the link you provided basically confirms what this user has said elsewhere, which is that she is using WP as a place to post her own research. Of course she is angry that I am willing to call her out on this. Montanabw(talk)18:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Her behaviour now seems quite different from RO's, on my superficial grasp of both. For a while you (and I) were wondering if they were the same person. Where do you stand on that, now? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I now am pretty sure she and RO are totally different people, but they both share a dislike of me and in both cases, their wrath erupted when I called them out on sloppy editing; and their reactions to me is what led me to suspect socking. I still think Wysong is a returned user, but I shall assume she intended a WP:CLEANSTART and drop that particular stick. I also initially thought she resembled ItsLassieTime (and we did catch one ILT sock in that "duck box" period, User:SeeSpot Run), but ILT's MO was copypasting stuff directly from a source, whereas SLW's MO is OR and SYNTH, so I don't think she's ILT, either. But there are three banned socks who have good reason to hate my guts, so I remain alert. Montanabw(talk)19:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It has been proposed, but I don't think it will solve anything, iBans seldom do; they merely prolong the inevitable. Though I have been making a point of avoiding RO, we edit in areas where there will be occasional overlap (American West, music) so all an iBan would do is create a game of "gotcha" which would create ANI drama and be nothing but a waste of everyone's time. I've edited something like 11,000 unique pages in nearly 80,000 edits, so the probability that RO could inadvertently hit a page I've edited is also pretty high. It is his/ her behavior that can be examined on a case by case basis, and I would suggest that his/her decision to create an off-wiki attack thread on a message board needs to be factored in. Montanabw(talk)17:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
RO is also capable of tag-teaming. I tend to consider both elements as classic examples of the "nice" behavior which is often tolerated (if not encouraged) here. Intothatdarkness18:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello Montanabw, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Cabal of the outcasts
The user box of that content was deleted, as it was created by an outcast. Please make your own using the {{User QAIbox}}. Do you remember image and wording of the former? I remember that it was green, said something like "counts themselves among the cabal of the outcasts", and showed a stone mason casting. I miss it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
New article
Even if it's outside your wheelhouse, I could use a pair of copyediting eyes on Louise de Broglie, Countess d'Haussonville, newly created by me on Englsh Wikipedia. (There's a French Wikipédia version, which provided some inspiration and a couple factoids, although I mostly re-sourced this to English language RS while expanding and rewriting it.) I can't figure out how to do the fr:Wikipedia linky thing, which I used to be able to do. Could you have a whack at it? Hoping to bring this to DYK. The sitter is fascinating and her portrait ridiculously famous. Thanks if you can help Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Do you care if I put an AfD on this article? The topic is already covered in rodeo, it's a POV PETA propaganda piece, and it was written by a sock. I've thought of trying to edit it but don't know where to start. It's a piece of crap. I normally don't like deleting articles but... White Arabian mare (Neigh) 17:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
While I agree with your reasoning; I'm concerned about drama... sometimes it's useful to give people their own little drama corner so they stay away from the main articles. Your call, but if drama erupts, stay cool... Montanabw(talk)19:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks like the consensus is keep. I removed the stuff that used Peta as a source (they're not exactly reliable) and am planning to do more tomorrow. May be a decent article of it can be balanced out. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead and take a look at the sources used in rodeo, bronc riding, bull riding, etc. I've vetted those sections (heck I wrote or rewrote much of them) and to the extent the questionable sources are there, it's for explaining all sides per WP:NPOV. The biggest challenge I think I've had was at Charreada, where I REALLY had to put my personal opinions aside... but got there. Good luck. Montanabw(talk)02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Equine podiatry
There appears to be somebody using the equine podiatry article to self-promote now. Al 21 of their edits (since they joined a year ago) are to it last night. I undid a little of what they had done, and sent them a message about self-promoting requesting that they use the talk page to propose changes. Gag. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 15:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Nothing new there, that article has always been a problem that way. Refer to WP:COI and if they give you trouble, there's a COI noticeboard, I think. Don't hassle them solo, best to have backup. Montanabw(talk)01:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. By the way, I wrote something about Caspian horses on your horse breeds snark page a while back: I'm thinking of creating something like myself! White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science
Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "physical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
I just created this so feel free to look it over. It's a stub right now, but I hope to add sections and more stuff later. Also you may get a laugh out of this. I'm going out riding in a couple of minutes, but I'll be back on later. 🐴 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 21:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I think they do have cutting, reining and some other working Western classes at the Morgan Grand National; I'll see if I can find a web class list later and add more. 😃 I'm thinking about moving those "glitter pony" things to a whole subpage. I bet there are tons of them out there. ADD: I created this one on Sunday; you might want to look it over too. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Cool work, WAM! I'm having one of those times when RL has hit the "insane busy" period, so if I'm not on a bunch, still feel free to post here and alert my friendly talk page stalkers that you welcome help and such! Montanabw(talk)21:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
In this article its box says it started in 1988 and that is up year the article has winners for but at the bottom it was categorized 'Recurring sporting events established in 1935'. Can you confirm this race started in 1988? I changed the categories to say 1988....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?16:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for not being more active on the project but the ArbCom fiasco has drained me of motivation and is one heckuva time sink. I've been reading the comments and edit summaries and as soon as this mess closes, I'll be able to focus where I should be focused. 😐 Atsme📞📧19:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Finally got a little time to do some work, and created Dry Doc to go with the Doc O'Lena, Poco Lena x Doc Bar magic. My declaration is that he was owned by my late brother-in-law, and just before he sold Dry to the King Ranch, we seriously considered his offer to sell us 1/2 interest but conceded when a much higher counter offer came to the table. I provided only factual info when I created the article. Do you think I need to make any other declarations? Atsme📞📧02:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll make a point of watchlisting the article and if I see any NPOV issues, I'll let you know. So long as you only cite to reputable third-party sources (stuff like the Quarter Horse Journal, etc...) and have no OR or SYNTH, I think that you are fine. That said, if you wanted, you could add the {{Connected contributor}} template to the talk page the way I did for a while here. I agreed to allow that tag on that article during a time when I was actively pushing a "political" agenda to get AHA to pull their head out of their butt and admit that cerebellar abiotrophy was real. Someone pissed off at me (nothing new there) tried to out me and a bunch of other nonsense because they were mad that I was publicly stating that there were genetic diseases in the breed (this about the same time AQHA was trying to ban HYPP horses and getting a test for HERDA), and putting that tag up settled the matter. I took it off once the issue was no longer an issue and I went back to being an ordinary dues-paying member. Montanabw(talk)02:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, M - I don't have a political agenda but I've been on WP long enough to know that it doesn't prevent being accused of it, so just to be on the safe side, (and in light of the prior COIN fiasco), I've added the tag. Also, I have several B&W photos of some of the legendary foundation horses such as Poco Bueno, Poco Lena, Poco Tivio, Poco Champ, Pretty Buck, Snipper W, Peter McCue, Traveler, Bar Bob, Little Joe and possibly a few others. I have some marked copies at my website [35] (which desperately needs an overhaul) but I haven't decided if I should share the clean copies of these rare photos with WP. My late husband is pictured showing some of the Poco horses in "Get of Sire" (Poco Bueno) and "Produce of Dam" (Sheilwin) photos , which is why I have them. Atsme📞📧13:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
If the photos were published prior to 1978 and copyright not renewed, they might be public domain anyway. (Otherwise I think copyright is life of photographer plus 75...) I'm tagging Ealdgyth again on this discussion because she will have useful insights. I know that the GLAM movement seeks to get historic images uploaded to Commons, and if you either took the photo or own the copyright, that would be real interesting. The problem is if these are show photos another photographer took and sold to you, usually copyright stays with the photographer (there's some complicated stuff about works for hire...) but anyway those are some cool photos! Montanabw(talk)14:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Work for hire only really comes in if you are an employee, not if you a show photographer. Show photographs are copyrighted by the photographer, and unless you acquired the copyright when you bought the photograph (which would have involved paperwork, not merely the purchase of the photo) you don't have the copyright. In most cases, you get rights to reproduce, but that isn't copyright. (We sell our horse photographs with unlimited reproduction rights, but copyright remains with us. We also get releases from the owners to use photos in other contexts - such as wikipedia.) The funny thing about unpublished show photos is that even if they were taken before 1978, they probably are still considered copyrighted by the photographer. If you didn't take the photo and you don't know if it ever got published ... it's better to assume it's copyrighted by the photographer. The only "safe" photos are those from before 1923, unfortunately. If you don't know the copyright status and it's from after 1923, assume it's copyrighted and go fair use. Ealdgyth - Talk15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
And this means that, as was done for, say, Khemosabi, you CAN use (usually one, occasionally two) photographs of the horse, but with a fair use rationale and only on en.wiki, you can't upload them to commons. Ealdgyth is right that, when in doubt, fair use is the way to handle it. If you solve the copyright question later, you can then port the image to commons, but if Fair Use, then it has to stay "local."
That said, and @Ealdgyth:, am I correct on this (?), "published" can include being used in a magazine ad or even a sales brochure (if you can prove it- scan into Google docs or something), provided that it's pre-1978 AND the magazine or sales brochure was either never copyighted or copyright was not renewed (and that can be proved). Is that your understanding as well? (looking around for the WP:COPYRIGHT detail and not finding it at the moment...) Montanabw(talk)21:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I would THINK so, but ... I wouldn't bet on it either. Copyright is just plain .. not much fun. It's easier for stuff past 1978, but our laws prior to that (remembering all the fun extensions the Mouse House (tm) has engineered) are a mess and it's almost impossible to research the status of an image that isn't clearly copyrighted. Books are easier, but photos/images very often were not renewed, but there isn't a good way to search whether they were renewed. It's like a mire of quicksand waiting to drag you under with your least little misstep. (And all those extensions just make it worse and worse...) Ealdgyth - Talk21:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I know what you mean about not fun! By "extensions," you are referring to... (I think I know what you are referring to... if it's a particular film conglomerate with a litigious streak, all made famous by a mouse...). Clarify? (And are there wikipedia articles on those cases?) Montanabw(talk)21:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we're talking Disney. I don't know if we have articles on those "cases" (they aren't cases, actually, they are extensions to the old copyright laws (pre-1978) that they keep pushing through making the "public domain date" stay at 1923 when by all rights it should have moved up towards about 1940 or so at least.) Back in the mid-90s when I started working on bloodline research, the public domain date was .. 1923. Everything before that was in the public domain. Fast forward to 2015 and the "magic date" is STILL 1923. Has a lot to do with the fact that Mickey Mouse was created in 1928 and ... well... we can't have the mouse's films in public domain, can we? Copyright Term Extension Act kinda explains it. Ealdgyth - Talk21:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, dammit, you just sent me down a research geekery rabbit hole for an hour! (see timestamps!) But, I found this cool site which even has a "calculator" - an interactive flow chart of sorts. I just added it to my toolbox. Now, to go find those WP policy pages I always wish I could find... Montanabw(talk)23:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
advice for improving articles to GA
Hey, Montanabw — I'm thinking of bringing Robert Durst and The Jinx (miniseries) to GA status over the next few months, as I'm the majority contributor to both articles (which are well-trafficked but very stable). I can't tell you how much I learned from our collaborative work and your helpful hand-holding, and I'm pretty confident that the process of conforming footnotes and cleaning up ledes will be pretty easy for me (my contributions to those articles predate meeting you but the sourcing is very sound). I did wonder about a couple things: is there a strong prejudice at GA against articles without images? It's particularly hard to find them for Robert Durst, unless I salt the article with generic milieu images which may not add great EV. I also have a potentially big sourcing problem for The Jinx, in that one section I and others find very useful (the cast in order of appearance) was in fact contributed by someone who watched the series intently and took chronological notes. While accurate, it isn't secondarily sourced; unless I construct some footnote acknowledging that it comes directly from the broadcast (does that count as WP:OR?) that section risks being dropped altogether, which would be a loss to Durstaholics. Anyway, I know this is not your bailiwick or particular area of interest but would appreciate your advice. GA is also very backed up right now; I obviously want to contribute reviews there as well to build up my karma. Is that a good plan to help speed the process? Thanks again for everything — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You will run into a little prejudice on articles without images, but it can - and is - frequently overcome; you just make a case for your efforts to find one and why you were unsuccessful. Doing reviews is a GREAT way to gain good karma (I also have a go-to list of reviewers), especially if you select articles written by editors who have prior GAs and themselves do GA reviews. As for the broadcast issue, if your source noted which episode each person appeared in, you could link to each episode, yes. You'd have trouble at FAC with that, but should be OK here. (Your source should publish the list somewhere at a third-party site...even imdb would do) At a cursory glance, they are both almost there with just a bit of cleanup and being sure you are following WP:BLP. I'd try to rearrange Jinx so the lists are lower down in the article, JMO. Montanabw(talk)03:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Dear , I reverted your revert of Grant's Farm, I understand that you did in good faith, but those two templates, {Infobox Zoo} and {Zoos} are different, and not the same, that's why I removed one Template and at the same time added the need for [[Category:Articles needing infobox zoo]].
You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk·contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Cow tipping
Sure. Why not? It's nothing I know anything about, which is one good reason to investigate. What's there already looks pretty impressive, especially the stuff involving quantitative measurements and test runs. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I just created the stub article Missoula Timberjacks. (My three favorite sports that have articles that I like working on- Golf, Baseball, and Horse racing) The reason I'm writing is because I know you do lots of work on Montana related articles. There is both a Montana Sports and Missoula templates but both of these I didn't add to the article because neither contained any defunct sports franchises. Should they? Please give me your opinion, and if you think they should be included, how we would modify the templates....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?15:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Fun! I honestly don't know about the templates, maybe post at the talk pages and see what folks have to say. As for Charley Pride, I can give you another obscure team, he went from the Timberjacks to the East Helena Smelterites: [36]. Montanabw(talk)19:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charley Pride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KMON. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I second the Happy Thanksgiving, Mbw! My son-in-law just got back from an elk hunt in Montana near the Canadian border. We had him on FaceTime, and he looked really cold. He said the ground was frozen (at which time his 5 yo started singing "Let It Go"), and sent us pictures of snow on the ground and all over the distant mountains. He now has a better understanding of what I meant when I asked if it was colder'n a well-digger's ass in Montana. 😁 Atsme📞📧01:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been a wee bit nippy this past week (nights dipping below zero fahrenheit). But the skiiers are happy, they prefer the slopes to the football games. But when it comes to football, this weather provides a strong home field advantage (Go Griz!) Montanabw(talk)06:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
And some pie! But seriously, I self-nominated for a Standard Triple Crown and belatedly realized I don't deserve GA credit for Ahmed Zayat, for which you obviously did the heavy lifting. I shouldn't list it on my User page either. I can and will bring another article to GA in the coming months, and get my little prize for it. Thank you for the help, encouragement, and inspiration you've offered me here on Wikipedia this year! Happy Thanksgiving Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, this looks like it's probably the full url that you marked as incomplete in the Abu Farwa article.[37] I added it to article, but you should probably check just to make sure. Cmr08 (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I have created two new articles, Tennessee Walking Horse National Museum and Calsonic Arena. Pretty short, feel free to expand. The museum thing is apparently unique and has been covered in a lot of Tennessee travel and culture books (many more than I cited-will add more later) and CA is the home not only of the TWHNC, but a lot of rodeos, 4-H shows, dog shows, etc. plus the Great American Mule and Donkey show! It was redlinked in several places.
Also, if you think we could use external links to videos to illustrate more of the articles like the one I found for the TWH article (I added it in the EL section), let me know. I watch a lot of YouTube and there is so much crap, but every once in a while there's a good video that actually teaches something. It's my idea that one good video could be externally linked in the EL section of the appropriate article to illustrate stuff that's hard to explain in words, like the gaits of the gaited breeds or dressage tests...etc, etc, especially since we don't have appropriately licensed videos to go in the bodies of most of them. Just some ideas!🐴 White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Thought you'd like to give it your blessings, . I am a member of that organization so in order to avoid potential COI accusations would you be so kind as to give it a look-see? Atsme📞📧15:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you!
Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in reigion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome.
MountainPleasure said they asked an admin about changing username (I assume through email) and were told it's not problematic. They also sent me a message saying the pic on the article looks like a Walker, which it does to me too, and I'm the one who found it on Commons. They are hoping to upload some pics soon, so watch for that... I found some Google book sources and parked them at the article talk as well. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
They need to change their user name per WP:COI... whoever they asked doesn't understand policy, they can't be named as if they represent the association or imply they are connected to it, it's against the rules. Montanabw(talk)23:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought just having a name that is the name of a state, animal breed or something didn't make a COI...I thought it was the "Widgets Inc" names that were a problem. They may or may not be connected to the MPHA, I don't know. Not everybody who has/likes/rides a particular breed of horse is involved with the association. When I rode purebred Quarter Horses (owned by somebody else), I never messed with the AQHA. I still have never been a member in any breed association. Even if they are a member, that still isn't actually working for the association to get paid. I don't know. I just don't think the association has a monopoly on the name.
@White Arabian Filly: Yay for a DYK!!! So much fun to see your stuff on the main page, it's a real thrill! As for the Mountain Pleasure one, the problem is that, if they ARE affiliated, then they have a clear COI problem; if they aren't, then they run the risk of others thinking they have a connection. If they were "Mountainhorselover" or something, that would be OK. But if they aren't getting in trouble with the COI cops, I'm not going to chase it; it's just my recommendation; the Gypsy horse article just had a COI blowup that resulted in a bunch of really hurt feelings. Montanabw(talk)00:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
why are not classified by countries. as in neighbor countries. this is better be classified as Template:Spanish horses, Template:Portuguese horses--Vvven (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Vvven: Partly because many of these breeds predate the modern nations of Spain and Portugal, some also have ancestry in both nations. Some are landrace breeds dating to antiquity. It makes the most sense to define them by region. Perhaps Justlettersandnumbers, who created the template, can explain further. Montanabw(talk)00:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Kingofaces template and the glyphosate article
May I suggest you leave such obvious attempts at chilling up on your page? It appears it may be needful to hold Kingofaces accountable for his actions, and It is easier to do so with the garbage in plain view. Thanks, and thanks for editing. I have long felt that the glyphosate article is the key to the problem, since it's where the money is concentrated. I suggest that the time has come to consider remaking the Roundup article, merged by Jytdog some years ago into glyphosate under dubious circumstances. I have now watch listed your page, something I should have done previously. Thanks again. Jusdafax06:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll reach a happy medium. I'll keep your message, and simply post links to the two messages in question, as I generally prefer not to leave up templated messages up after I have read them.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Domestic violence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Causation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'd say he wouldn't pass GNG - Lifetime Achievement awards aren't that impressive. My general feeling is AQHA Hall of Fame is a much safer benchmark for trainers and breeders. Ealdgyth - Talk19:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Question: do we gage notability for all sports figures based on their being in their respective League's Hall of Fame? Atsme📞📧19:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
For QHs and their breeders - it's a very safe judgement. Let me put it bluntly - I've never heard of this guy, and never heard of the one horse he's named as connected with. He got a couple of articles into the QHJ - well, lots of people can do that but that doesn't make you notable for wikipedia purposes. My trainer has some articles she writes published in several breed journals - but that doesn't make her notable. Just having a bunch of points doesn't mean that much - I'd love to know how many points Carol Rose has. The problem with horse showing in QHs is that there are a LOT of trainers. A good number of those manage to show multiple World Champions - but that doesn't make them notable by wikipedia standards. Ealdgyth - Talk19:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
In general, it's kind of a judgement call. WP:GNG is the base policy. There is a WP:NSPORTS page of guidelines for sporting figures that includes rodeo, equestrianism (meaning the International level, mostly) and horse racing. (Full disclosure: I wrote the horse racing one and updated the other two!) These guidelines help the non-aficionado determine what is most likely a "slam dunk" for notability. So, while Hall of Famers or Olympic medalists are almost always going to be notable, that doesn't necessarily mean others aren't; it depends on the level of outside, neutral, third-party coverage. I called in the troops because I think Brizendine is on the line: I found one article about him in the Quarter Horse Journal online, he did seem to accumulate quite a show record, and then there were a couple articles prior to his obituaries in some online sources that seem to be mostly promotional. It got prod-tagged because it basically read like a hagiographic memorial to the guy, but just because the article is poor quality doesn't mean he's not notable. But, for example, I know the Arabian horse world and I have a real good gut instinct about who is notable and who is "just a successful trainer" but not up to the WP:GNG standard. On the other hand, ALL of us have a real good gut feeling for when someone is just trying to use WP to promote their own business (like that gal who created Western dressage off her own web site and got all mad at us when we told her she couldn't copy and paste). I won't AfD Brisendine, but if someone else does, I think it would be an interesting and useful discussion and I won't fight to keep it in. Montanabw(talk)19:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Understood. We also should keep in mind that in some instances of notability for older equestrians, there was no widespread publicity on the internet, and most of the stock horse associations had not yet developed any formal recognition of accomplishments for equestrians. It wasn't all that long ago when people actually rode horses to work. 😊 Prior to the time many equine associations began to formally recognize outstanding individuals, (horses and/or exhibitors), recognition came in other ways. For example, an article written about a trainer, exhibitor or a horse in one of the 4 or 5 main horse magazines indicated notability, and was pretty much the only recognition available at the time. Other means of recognition was having a show halter or saddle named after a horse or rider in the Schneider's or McLelland's catalog, etc. I also believe that any equestrian (or rodeo competitor) who has earned a National or World title after a year's worth of qualifying competition should automatically pass GNG. Such titles are earned at an annual event so over the course of say 100 years, there will only be 100 champions in a particular discipline or division. Brizendine showed 7 horses to earn their World Champion titles but he didn't actually wear the title himself. What I think clinches it for him is the AQHA Pro Horsemen lifetime achievement award and the fact that he was a Team Wrangler, (educator) [42]. Oh, before I forget - I'm not suggesting OR, but I do believe that since we are dealing with some relatively young associations and categories of recognition, we may need to resort to WP:IAR from time to time. RS guidelines are malleable under circumstances such as what we're dealing with, and helps make it possible for us to document the most important aspects of equine history and the development of stock horse events as a sport (which makes me all the more appreciative of WikiProject Equine and its outstanding team members, particularly Montanabw and White Arabian Filly where our collaborations are concerned.) As for the Hall of Fame being a pre-requisite or starting point, I agree with the latter, but not the former. HoF inductees also come from the administrative side or financial donor side of the industry, so I would oppose basing equestrian GNG on it. I do agree with Montanabw in that it is a judgment call, and I'll add that it should be dependent upon what we're able to find in published sources, possibly even with some verifiable primary sources used as needed. If you think this discussion should take place at the the project page, I'm ok with moving it. Atsme📞📧22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There's another issue with articles on borderline notable people - they rarely get watched well and are attractive to vandals. I hope you're volunteering to keep it free of cruft/wrong information/vandalism for the rest of the time its on wikipedia. I've certainly got enough other articles on people/subjects I"m interested in to keep an eye on. Personally, I think your standard of notability is entirely too broad - but if you're up to watching over them and keeping whatever you want safe from vandals and idiots, more power to you. Ealdgyth - Talk22:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
My take is that articles that are probably mostly for promotional purposes need a lot more scrutiny than articles about deceased people. I also think that articles that come out right after someone dies do need a bit more scrutiny as well. I think Brizendine is a case that is precisely on the line -- won lots of bling, has been covered in magazines, but also hasn't done anything particularly innovative and he just passed away last month. Also, one reason I tossed the prod tag but won't file an AfD is because I can't be neutral here: I think that "World Conformation horse association" is just an in-club for people who own HYPP-positive horses that can no longer be registered with AQHA and I personally think that deliberately breeding HYPP horses is disgusting and unethical. (The Quarter Horse Journal article on his conditioning of halter horses was... enlightening... ) While I agree about the WP:RECENTISM concerns (run into this a lot with articles about jockeys from the 1800s). I do take issue with the "any national winner" theshold; most national breed championships have dozens if not hundreds of awards (for example, you can win "national champion" in walk-trot at the Arabian nationals, and they also give "national champion" to yearlings... :-P )
I am off to Google books to see if I can dig up more on Midnight Sun--(note to everybody: if you search for "Midnight Sun horse" all you get is a lot of romance novels with horses in them, but if you search "Midnight Sun Tennessee Walking Horse" you get good horsey books, which probably goes for other famous horses too), so I'll look for sources there if I can remember how to spell Brizendine's name...😉 White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I find good articles by searching the images... many are just commercial sites, but hover over the links and sometimes you are surprised. Also, for the old stuff HathiTrust (here: [43] can be a gold mine. Montanabw(talk)23:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, if all Olympic competitors are considered notable, what about their coaches/trainers who got them to the Olympics? Are they notable? What about the coaches/trainers whose students are medal winners? Also, keep in mind that the AQHJ has more than 45,000 paid subscribers. AQHA is the world's largest equine breed registry and membership organization with close to 2,500,000 registered QH, over 263,500 paid members (actually down from 10 years ago when it was over 353,000), and over 711,000 American Quarter Horse owners. The All-American Quarter Horse Congress alone had over 20,000 entries in 2014, probably more in 2015 but they haven't published those figures yet. Granted, horse shows are probably less exciting to watch than a hockey game - we seldom see a fist fight - but that doesn't mean they are any less challenging or competitive. A lot of the exhibitors who make it to the Congress probably have 6 figures invested in the horse, rig, show attire, tack, training, etc. just getting there. Cutting is even more expensive when you factor in training at $2,000+/mo. but competitors can earn big bucks today...like over $8 Million in lifetime earnings. [44]. Not a bad living/ I guess the point I'm trying to make is that showing horses is not a cake walk and is as much a sport as any other. Unfortunately, horse shows don't have much spectator appeal which is why they never really caught-on as a televised event like Monday Night Football. Atsme📞📧03:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess it just depends on how many sources are out there. In a lot of cases, like horses/people from the 50s or 60s, there's not going to be much or anything online, although there may be a lot of info in print sources. (Although, unfortunately, it can be hard to get the print magazines and stuff from back then.) Many of the horses that were huge 40 years ago are unknown now, unless they were lucky enough to sire a lot of good foals. Many of the geldings and mares are just forgotten. And as for the good trainers, they tend to get eclipsed by their horses and are only remembered as "he trained So-and-so". (And the people who come up with the loony stuff are all over the place.) One thing, though; we can write articles about the horses who meet notability and the people too. As for the association memberships and show attendance being down, we can't do anything about it. Too many kids now, IMHO, never see horses at all, much less see people riding them or showing, and the people who put good videos on YouTube and places tend to get stupid comments from the city slickers, which just discourages them and others. Horses are not "cool" to kids who get raised on Grand Theft Auto and that kind of stuff. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok - Montanabw and White Arabian Filly - I was doing a little copy-editing on a film article and noticed a section at the bottom of the page I had not seen before - Related Articles. I checked other films to see if that section was appropriate since we already have wikilinks, and discovered that it's in widespread use as exampled here: Elvis Presley filmography. I posted a question to the coordinator for Project Films and am now waiting for his response. What do you think about such a section for the horse articles? Atsme📞📧18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Depends on the article and the context. There is a place for list articles, clearly (i.e. List of rodeos). There is a fuzzy line between what is a "see also", "related articles" and a navbox. The bottom line is that when these sections get too long and unwieldy, or when they get cross-linked to each other, it's time for a navbox. Also, "laundry lists" of stuff are discouraged in a mainstream article. How about posting at Wikiproject Equine the specific ideas and we can play with those from there? Montanabw(talk)18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
what was I thinking? I posted the Elvis article to show you the Related Articles section, and never even noticed the one at the bottom of Cutting (sport). How did that happen? Is it automatic or was it manually included? Atsme📞📧06:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, what do you think about it? I really like it, but can't figure out how you did it!! Oh, and a little sidebar note - Palomino horses (PHBA) are a color breed as are paint horses (APHA), [45]. The palomino breed registry [46] is similar to the paint registry only they're more upfront about theirs being a color breed registry instead of claiming something else like what the APHA did. The fact that AQHA is ok with double registered horses (APHA and PHBA) speaks volumes to both being color breeds (when a paint results from two Quarter horse parents they're called crop-outs, and there was a time not that long ago when AQHA refused to recognize them). Also see the following tertiary source (published by the University of Oklahoma Press): [47] pg. 19, 2 column, 3rd para. Anyway, both paints and palominos are bred for color - you can't exhibit either in their respective registry approved classes if they don't pass the color test, which is what makes them a color breed. Both registries accept stock horse types, and recognize specific breed types, such as AQHA registered horses. I haven't read the paint horse or palomino articles yet - haven't had time - but they probably need to be updated for accuracy if they're not accurately portraying them as color breeds with a section on genetics, pigmentation, and color and coat patterns by genetic formula. I'd rather wait until after the holidays to start a discussion on it, if that's ok with you. So much to do, so little time to do it in. Atsme📞📧03:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
American Paint Horse is an older article but not horrible (I worked on it years ago, it's been pretty, um, stable... bad pun...). It would benefit from more footnoting and would be fun to get to GAN some day. Though they did originate as a place to land cropout Quarter horses, IMHO, Paints are a now a breed (with a color preference), not just a color breed, based primarily on their requirement for previously-registered stock and allowing non-patterned breeding stock to be registered -- though that said, now that AQHA dumped its white rule, there isn't much reason for APHA to be a separate "breed" (but I digress). The palomino, though, is genetically IMPOSSIBLE to breed "true" because the creme gene is an incomplete dominant, so any palomino registry is merely a "color breed" registry and whatever standards they claim to have, and they allow so many different breeds in, they really don't have much in the way of standards, "palomino" is only a color and not a real breed trait at all. (Full disclosure: I currently own a palomino half-Arab, and I do love the color, but it ain't a "breed" - LOL). It would make sense perhaps to do articles on the Palomino associations, though, and maybe even the color breeds council, because it is big business. I am open to discussion, always, but I have real issues with calling something a "breed" when it's just a color -- (do you remember way back in maybe the 70s or early 80s when someone tried to start a bay horse "registry"?). I mean, obviously they now make a lot of money, but one can't fly in the face of science. But trot over to color breed and feel free to start a discussion there if you'd like! ;-) Montanabw(talk)04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The coat color articles are in decent shape, mostly; we had a great editor who was getting a graduate degree in genetics who helped a ton, particularly with all the spotted color articles (and I worked on them quite a bit as well). They may need updating on stuff that's happened in the last couple of years, but the basics are mostly decent. Pinto horse was created before the big push on the spot genetics and it really is just an overview, in light of all the variants that exist now. (we also have dominant white, white (horse), frame overo, splash white, sabino horse, tobiano, leopard complex,, etc... see {{Equine coat colors}}. Montanabw(talk)04:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Just some food for thought - you can't have a paint unless they are colored like a paint. You aren't guaranteed a paint by crossing two paints, and the same applies to palominos. You can breed for the palomino color the same way you can breed for paint color. Look at the UC Davis article I included above for the formulas. The PHBA also has requirements for body type the same way APHA does. There are multiple reliable sources that verify both as color breeds. The APHA admits - While the colorful coat pattern is essential to the identity of the breed..... That equates into color breed. They also state....To be eligible for registry, a Paint's sire and dam must be registered with the American Paint Horse Association, the American Quarter Horse Association, or the Jockey Club (Thoroughbreds). The American Quarter horse is a breed - paints are a color. That's it in a nutshell - it's all about color. If they truly were a separate breed, they wouldn't be showing paints in AQHA classes. See the following April article: [48] and this one is good one, too [49]. (pssst...if I post them here, I won't lose them.) I think the biggest difference between the two color breed registries is that PHBA simply accepts a wider range of breeds in their registry but they still have conformation standards and bloodline requirements which qualifies them as a color breed registry: Palomino Horse Breeders of America (PHBA) was formed in 1941 to collect, record, preserve the purity of blood, and improve the breeding of Palomino horses. But let's don't worry about all that now. When the time comes, you'll either convince me or I'll convince you or we'll compromise, but right now I've got grandkids sitting on each arm of this rocker/recliner wanting my undivided attention, and if they don't moving back and forth, I'll be forced to take a Dramamine. 😳 Atsme📞📧05:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Heh, you've hit my geek spot; I can discuss equine genetic ENDLESSLY! But cross two palominos and it's at most a 50-50 probability of a palomino foal; the only way to guarantee a palomino is to breed a cremello to a chestnut. In contrast, tobiano is dominant and though the other spotting patterns are not necessarily that way (some of the dominant white alleles produce spots, not solid white though...), your chances of getting spots when you breed spots are pretty high. Montanabw(talk)07:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
My understanding of current AQHA rules is that parentage-verified cropouts have been OK'd since they admitted that they can be can be DNA tested to verify parentage (which I think is mandated anyway) and Paints whose parents weren't AQHA registered but can be traced in all lines of their pedigrees to AQHA ancestors (i.e. 100%) could be registered as Quarter Horses. But I would want to review the rules before taking that to the bank. In the case of the Paints, they at least have a really narrow set of criteria - basically spotted Quarter Horses. (TB lines being basically similar to the AQHA appendix rules...) and the "breeding stock Paint" thing does allow solid-colored horses to be registered, with some restrictions; but if given that even tobiano, which is dominant, can sometimes be very minimally expressed, you see where they go. If I were APHA, I'd mandate DNA color testing at least for the breeding stock-no-marking- horses as well as parentage testing, now that most of the alleles that make spots can be detected by testing; they'd have to do a group discount for a full assay of the zillion possibilities now out there (three splash alleles, 20 forms of dominant white, SB-1, Frame, Tobiano...) Montanabw(talk)07:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
My own view is that there is a really big difference between mere "color breeds" and pedigreed breeds where a color preference is one of several breed traits - like the always-Chestnut Haflinger or the almost-always-but-not-100% Friesian horse, and even the Appaloosa (as the leopard complex manifests with more than just spots). IMHO Paints are in one of those gray areas (though people who breed spots hate the gray gene- LOL!); though I mostly do agree with you that Paints are only marginally a "breed" as opposed to a color breed. (the Pinto association, though is a mere "color breed") Montanabw(talk)07:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Pinto-registered horses can be anything: Saddlebred, Morgan, Quarter Horse, Mini, basically if it's got spots they take it. Spotted Saddle Horses are more like a type of gaited horse with spots (most of the ones I've seen were basically TWHs or Racking Horses with white, which is sorta stupid because both the TWH and RH registries take pintos and always have) but it does vary by breed. Norwegian Fjords are always some form of dun, and Friesians are always supposed to be black, and they are real breeds dating back several hundred years at least, not colors. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it's accurate to say the American Paint Horse Association is considered a color breed registry as it is dependent on a horse's color even though bloodlines and conformation type are an integral part of their registration requirements. Perhaps one important indicator that may be overlooked is the degree of dependency color breeds have on other breed registries, the latter of which further establishes them as a color breed regardless of how many other registered breeds they accept. Please forgive the repetition. The name of the registry is rather self-evident. It wasn't that long ago when APHA accepted grade horses into their registry, based strictly on color and unknown bloodlines, but they have since limited their registry to APHA, Jockey Club and AQHA registered horses. I think it's more about growth and the associations bottomline than anything else. It's amazing how lenient they become when they start losing members. If they were indeed an individual breed (pure) they would not reject or restrict non-paint colors; again, a distinguishing factor. As I mentioned earlier, we have numerous RS sources (such as the International Encyclopedia of Horses) to meet WP:V requirements. Btw, Appaloosas are actually recognized as a distinctive breed of horse rather than as a color breed. see page 19 for paints and page 36 for Apps. I think it is extremely fortunate that WP has an equine project team and that I am able to collaborate with and be part of such a knowledgeable team of editors. Whatever the result, I know it will be the right one because we strive for accuracy so that readers will have verifiable accurately presented information, and can walk away knowing what they've read was factually correct and presented from a NPOV. 😊 Atsme📞📧19:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I kind of agree with you about Paints, but I don't feel that way about Appaloosas, as the color is integral to the breed in a way that it isn't for the Paints. And I really don't feel that way about the European breeds like the Haflinger or the Friesian (in theory either of those two breeds could decide to admit a weird color if one existed, which I don't think happens with Haflingers (all chestnuts) but does in the Friesian (where most are black, but the occasional recessive chestnut pops up occasionally...). But how to we clarify the difference or be consistent? I've had huge debates over at the landrace and other articles over the line between a feral breed, a landrace breed and a "standardized" breed -- given that all of them are human constructs (DNA can only verify parentage and hint at ancient ancestry -- none are like species where DNA says this is a donkey, not a horse). One could argue that breeds with an open stud book aren't breeds, but then, even Quarter Horses still allow TBs in... and almost all the warmbloods, for example. But while we have genuine rare breeds (like the Marsh tacky), we also have all sorts of stuff like the Moyle horse or the Camarillo White Horse or (worse yet) the Virginia Highlander where you basically have one guy's breeding program = a "breed" (My own informal rule is if they show up in a major breed encyclopedia, we take 'em...but I really have to hold my nose sometimes) Montanabw(talk)21:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand perfectly. You are absolutely correct in that it pretty much all boils down to WP:V, and I'll add WP:OR and WP:NPOV to the mix. It's understandable that APHA wants to be recognized as an independent "breed" but they haven't attained the same breed status as say Lippizans which were actually bred for type (as were Quarter horses) before color, the latter of which evolved. I'm not familiar with Friesians so I'll leave the tweaking and pruning to editors who are far more capable than I. I will however reluctantly admit that I am quite familiar with Apps but will step back and let WP:V make the final determinations. Speaking of Apps, Q: do you know why Native Americans chose to ride Appaloosas? A: So they'd be mad when they got to the fight. Cattle registries are actually more in line with being registries based on genetic purity, and more easily recognized/categorized using the F1, F2, F3, etc. designation or 1 copy, 2 copy, etc. Cow-folks have always been quite keen on genetics, such as with the Italian Piedmontese cattle which spawned the North American Piedmontese cattle, the latter of which has mandatory registration requirements based on the presence of the myostatin allele mutation. In general, cattle ranchers were shipping frozen semen and performing embryo transfers long before we started helping Texas A&M with some of their earlier research involving embryo transfers in horses. Gosh, retrospect makes me feel really old. Enough already. It's happy hour here. Atsme📞📧22:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Astme, the cattle articles are in desperate need of improvement, particularly the beef cattle ones. If you want to do some desperately needed work, there's an area for you! We can't even get cattle to GAN yet... I lurk on those articles, but I can't claim the level of expertise that I can for horses. Montanabw(talk)18:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Help please
Hi there Montana, I'd like a little feedback on an article I've been working on, Daniel Holtzclaw. If he was a serial rapist that had recently raped 13 women, you'd think that you would have heard his name, right? As a matter of fact he was convicted just this month and not only did the media ignore the affair, women's activist groups have ignored the whole thing as well. Can you guess why?
I'm slowly going through the article making improvements but there is more to do. Here's my question: Considering that just one rape of a white, middle class woman would generate coverage, do you think that the article should devote a few lines to each of the women? See this mag coverage for an example: [50] What do you think?
Also, the article title needs to change. I've worked on many similar articles and the article never uses the name of the rapist, though in this case we might need to use something that does include his name... Thoughts?
Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.
Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Montanabw as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk04:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been in correspondence with the programmers of that feature. Sooooo glad you figured out what was causing it. Anyway, we can control what articles shows up by adding the following:
Do we place that in the WP articles or at wikidata? And, what do we do when the wikidata summaries really suck? I like the rotation idea! Montanabw(talk)18:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.
After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.
We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.
The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.
I've been hearing from the elves that you've been a little worried about how Santa's list is looking for you. They say he's almost done with his second check and so far it looks like you've hardly been naughty at all! Thanks for the work you do and the help and nice words that you have shared with me. You have brought joy into my work here.
Thought you appreciate this column from Sports Illustrated, if you haven't already read it. That Pharoah received far more public votes than Serena Williams in the magazine's year-end poll might well be worth including in the article. Happy Holidays again -- Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return.
Dear Montanabw: I love your greeting card! Thanks! Here, I made you one of my own. Wishing you and yours a warm and wonderful holiday season! I value your contributions to Wikipedia, and look forward to seeing more of them in 2016. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
And all the best for Yuletide from me, too
Good Yule!
Wishing you twelve nights and days of warmth, happiness and conviviality this Midwinter. Yngvadottir (talk)
Montanabw, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Have been watching this discussion. Your latest comment hits a nerve with me since I just ran into a very similar mindset/situation. If interested, see this discussion on my talk page. I am as equally stunned in regard to the level of trust in combination with such a shocking thought process. Best, -- WV ● ✉✓22:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
It's interesting. To me, there there is a line between speaking bluntly and speaking with insults. Sometimes it is kind of a fuzzy line (when is it OK to call someone a "troll"? Probably best avoided, but I haven't always succeeded, and an expression of frustration over behavior people can choose to do or not do is at least understandable) but other times, it is really quite a bright line. To me, using insulting words to describe people based upon things they cannot change (race, gender, ability/disability, sexual orientation, and so on) is a bright line. I find it concerning that other people do not think it a topic worth discussing. Wiki makes me think twice. Many times I have deleted much before hitting "save", and I have not regretted what I didn't say. I've slipped a few times, but so far not with four-letter words. ;-P Montanabw(talk)22:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Montana and @Winkelvi, make that eye-to-eye-to-eye. My US$0.02: the bright line is only bright to the eye if the editor is keen on supporting "respectfulness", even when pushed, bullied, or wronged... even when it's easier said than done. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California Chrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newmarket. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Done Matanya (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hay may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
.jpg)
Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC).jpg)
.jpg)
I just want to give you encouragement (and brats and beer). Hang in there kid. GregJackP Boomer! 15:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
, As you have made over 77K contributions any editors with that amount of edits have strong chance of winning the position of Administrator, But some of them are failing to win the trust of community, because of users are grilling them over disputes and vandalism (similar to your situation) I hope you win the next round 
. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 03:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Beholder (horse) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SchroCat -- SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
. I am a member of that organization so in order to avoid potential COI accusations would you be so kind as to give it a look-see? Atsme📞📧 15:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
what was I thinking? I posted the Elvis article to show you the Related Articles section, and never even noticed the one at the bottom of Cutting (sport). How did that happen? Is it automatic or was it manually included? Atsme📞📧 06:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC).svg){kind=small}
Cattle registries are actually more in line with being registries based on genetic purity, and more easily recognized/categorized using the F1, F2, F3, etc. designation or 1 copy, 2 copy, etc. Cow-folks have always been quite keen on genetics, such as with the Italian Piedmontese cattle which spawned the North American Piedmontese cattle, the latter of which has mandatory registration requirements based on the presence of the myostatin allele mutation. In general, cattle ranchers were shipping frozen semen and performing embryo transfers long before we started helping Texas A&M with some of their earlier research involving embryo transfers in horses. Gosh, retrospect makes me feel really old. Enough already. It's happy hour here. Atsme📞📧 22:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
.png)
_(14586469407).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Happy Yuletide! 
-2.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
