User talk:Montanabw/Archive 8

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.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Unreasonable criticism

Moved to WT:EQUINE

Your criticism at WP:CFD, "this editor has proposed some things that are causing problems elsewhere for WikiProject Equine", does not appear to make sense. Making a proposal does not "cause problems". Maybe you mean that implementation of everything I've proposed, exactly as I've proposed it, could cause problems? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've opened the discussion at WikiProject Equine, go there. You are creating ENORMOUS problems, and you MUST stop moving things around and renaming things until you understand the broader issues. Whether you are right or wrong, your actions are potentially affecting 400 horse articles (at a minimum) and will be a mess to fix, either way. So please revert all your changes and wait until a consensus is reached! Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish's talk page. I note your objection, and have no problem stopping for discussion. I already said (at the project and at RM) that I wasn't going to do any more, just that one sub-sub-category for English breeds, as a demo. WP:DONTPANIC. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 23:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You moved multiple articles without discussion at WPEQ, you changed categories and are making a mess. Stop until consensus is reached. I will be offline until toorrow and will deal with more then. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback on naming (and an aside on landrace vs. breed)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish#Hee Haw's talk page. Well, the aside is actually first, but the action item I propose is planning an RfC to get broader support for Poitou donkey over Poitou (donkey). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

YOu want to add parenthetical disambiguation to all animal articles, then where does it end? London (England)?? Seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's called Wiki-reality. It trumps all other reality. Intothat darkness 14:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Questions ...

Hi Montanabw, I've been reading through a "bio" which contains some horse related stuff. Since I don't know Jack about horses, I had a few questions - but they don't relate directly to the article, so I thought I'd ask here. (If you're busy - I'll go pester Pesky, since you two are the only ones I know that are really knowledgeable on the subject).

Can I assume that in general "breed" and "pedigree" relate to horses the same way they do in dogs?
If they do, I noticed that Crabbet Arabian Stud is an article, but Maynesboro Stud is not. Is there a threshold for these types of articles in the WPEQ(?) .. (horse project)? Again I'm assuming that both Crabbet and Maynesboro are both pedigrees of the "Arabian" breed. Yes? No? Sort of?
I noticed that some horse names are preceeded by an asterisk: ex: *Astraled, and *Abu Zeyd. Why is that?

I'm sure I'll have more questions .. and do have some related to the particular article I'll post on the talk page once I'm done. Thanks. — Ched : ? 01:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

#2 - A stud is a breeding farm for horses - at least in this context. Maynesboro just hasn't been written yet... #3 An * in front means that the horse was imported into a country - usually the United States. It's used in both Arabian and Thoroughbred pedigrees although the Thoroughbreds have discontinued the practice (and I think the Arabians have also?). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and breed and pedigree are pretty much the same as in dogs. The only difference is there is no national body (at least in the US) who recognizes breed registries for horses like the American Kennel Club does for dogs. (Not sure on UK either for dogs or for horses, honestly.). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth, Ched, she mostly answered your questions. I'm going to redirect Maynesboro to W.R. Brown for now, as the two are pretty much joined at hip. Crabbet got its own article in part due to its enormous influence, but also because more than one person is associated with it. Maynesboro is very significant and worth its own article, but also was Brown's main effort; possibly his brother Herbert was also a shareholder, but can't find much on the business end. Keep the inquiries coming! Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year !

Hello Montana, I wish you an happy new year (from the other side of this planet, heh !) Good luck for all your Wikipedian projects, and the others ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Tsaag! Though technically, it's only the other side of the Northern Hemisphere, you aren't in the antipodes! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You'r welcome ! But when you have never travelled much far away than the neighbor land of your, USA it's the antipodes ! The neighbor land of mine (Belgium) have the same size as the neighboring states of Montana I guess :D --Tsaag Valren (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Montana is about the same land size as Germany; but we have only about 1 million people in the entire state! My county alone is about 1/3 of the size of Belgium! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hah, i've see in The horse whisperer for the numbre of people ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My parent's barn was "scouted" as a possible location for that movie, though, obviously, it wasn't used (lest I'd be boasting about it). The outdoor scenes were mostly filmed about an hour's drive (or so, depending on how many back roads you had to take) from the town where I spent most of my youth. Redford personally bought that flatbed pickup used in the movie off of some people on the street because it had the right "look." I think they hired half the state during the filming, it was a good year! Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Really ? This idea come from (?) because I've see The horse whisperer last month on TV. So I was writing a review article about it for a journal. Can I add your commentary about it ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Send me email, I can give you better material off-wiki. In the meantime, here are some good article links that may also help you out: Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Heeehhh... I was searching how to send an email ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See left side of page, "toolbox" link, "E-mail this user" Click and go from there! Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Extra-special Special Barnstar of thanks

		The Special Barnstar
		Extra-special thanks today, for helping your loving, cuddly, affectionate WolfCub to progress from chewing on That Roan Question to a TFA :D Pesky (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Pesky. Seems the article survived with relatively few problems. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ever since I came back here, I've been comfortably aware that you're there "watching my back" (OK, giggling insanely at my antics ;P); I'm also often aware that I fail to show you the appreciation I feel for you often enough! So ... here's a nice little treat for you to take home and love. Or bury bits to save for later. Pesky (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hee Hee! Yum! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Something you might like to contribute to

BW, have been working on a draft of Timeline of Montana Territorial History for a few days now. Lots to do, but you might like to contribute to if you see key events that I am missing. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, I'll take a peek, but one initial thought is if we want to have any pre-territorial history there as well, i.e. first gold strike -- basically, would pre-territiorial history be another timeline or short enough to incorporate into this one? Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(TPS)I'd think it would be short enough to include here, honestly. The strikes in Idaho and what would become Montana came in a pretty compressed time period. Intothat darkness 18:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We pretty much have the explorations of the Verendrye brothers, Lewis and Clark, DeSmet's missions, Hellgate Treaty and the Gold strike. Those are the high points. Probably could add a few more things, but doesn't seem to bloat it out. What think you, Mike? Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections. Title might be Timeline of Montana pre-territorial and territorial history each separated into a major section. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How about Timeline of Montana pre-statehood history? Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New article!!!

Per our conversation of a couple of months ago, I have now created Limbs of the horse... :) It's pretty basic right now, but fully sourced, which is better than can be said about the majority of our equine anatomy articles. My thought is to play around with it for a week or so pretty much as is, then start merging in the relevant little stubs on lower leg issues that can be found populating Category:Horse stubs. Also planning to put it up for DYK, but could use some help picking out a hook that's not just interesting to horse geeks... Dana boomer (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How about including something about the odd-toed ungulates and having this:

"DYK that ... the limbs of the horse have more in common with the limbs of the tapir and rhinoceros than with the limbs of the cow?" Pesky (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Like the hook. Wish we had a better title than "limbs" it's so archaic. Even "legs." Dunno. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a bit about odd- vs. even-toed ungulates to the article. I don't think I'm going to nom for DYK though - the time frame's running out and I'm not really in the mood to fill out the paperwork. If someone else wants to, I have no objection to the article actually appearing in DYK, but just don't feel like doing it myself. Also, if there is additional information that anyone thinks should be present, please speak up - this isn't really my field of expertise, so I'm working a bit blind. I think I'll leave it for another couple of days that then start tossing up merge tags on my first round of potential stub merges.

On another note, Montana, thank you so much for taking over the Kerry Bog Pony GAN. The experience with Mathew left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I just couldn't get the enthusiasm to actually answer the new reviewer's questions. If there are any of your articles that you'd like me to take a look at, please just let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help, particularly as it was sort of me that caused the mess - by disagreeing with the first reviewer, who hates me. (Feeling bad for Dana about that). I wonder if you can resolve the redlinks, there has to be anatomy articles about this stuff, isn't there? That's the only thing that jumps out at me. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely I'll be able to chip in much for a short while, at least - we're on Met Office amber-alert weather warnings for blizzards (tomorrow) so Real Life is taking priority! Gotta make sure the ponies have some effective blizzard-shelter around their feeding area to stop their hay feeder being buried in drifts, lol! Their woolly coats do fine for insulation, but piling snow is a right royal PITA if the wind direction means it will all blow into the otherwise-nicely sheltered spot. Pesky (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

We just had something similar (though with less moisture) in Montana, with well below zero (F, not C) temperatures. However, at least I had horse shelters already in place. My sympathies to you for needing to deal with unexpected winds and such. One of my ongoing frustrations out here are all the people who leave their horses in open fields without even a tree or a big rock for shelter! (They fail to understand that our famed Mustangs roam over thousands of acres and find shelter easily in trees, by cliffs, big rockpiles, or undercut stream banks; not so easy in an open, flat 20 acre farm field that has no terrain variation) Interesting terminology, here in the states, AMBER Alert means something entirely different! Montanabw^(talk) 16:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Blizzard-barrier all in place now :D Our ponies have plenty of shelter in the woodland end of our land, and reasonable shelter for most conditions (partly wooded, plenty of hedge-type barriers nearby) near the gate where the hay feeder is, but we're expecting some unusual (!) conditions, with winds in the other direction from usual, so I just needed to make sure that we had wind-and-snow breaks to put any drifts where they won't be a problem rather than where they will be! The idea is that they won't feel they have to move away from the hay to get into shelter, but can munch happily away all day and night while still feeling protected. Spoiled rotten, basically. Pesky (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Food and fun both? I think that it is a pretty good gig to be one of your ponies! Montanabw^(talk) 17:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They were fascinated, watching me work this afternoon, bless 'em. Entertainment while you eat, kinda thing. They enjoy their lives; humans are a source of entertainment to them mostly, as they need very little in the way of human input most of the time. (Our land is so much like their natural environment that they're quite happy doing their own thing, mostly.) By the way, talking of amber alerts, part of the UK has just gone onto red alert ... not our bit, yet, but the area may move overnight. Glad our house is so well insulated! Pesky (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you (again) for your calm input. You are right both of us behaved VERY poorly. I was trying to calm things down and even offered a couple of olive branches, even offering to take images for ALH. As I told ALH I don't have a real problem with the last image posted, so I pretty much consider the issue closed.

Thanks for you time mom : )

Sara goth (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Sara. Montanabw^(talk) 19:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Jackalow GA review

I think I've got all the NYT citations consistent now, and I've made a few copyedits. The thing that stood out for me was the muddled lead, so I've reorganised the material in there to tell a clearer story. Hopefully the article now meets the GA criteria. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Will pop over now. Thanks for your hard work! Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 22:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP Boomer! 22:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted the links to Justice Scalia's remarks on my talkpage. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Got 'em, thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nyland

After the help I gave you in the past I would have hoped you wouldn't revert me without discussion first. All of Nyland's works are self-published as I've just discovered, and we simply don't use self-published works as sources. I've gone into more detail on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't paying attention to who posted, so nothing personal. Will go over there. Montanabw^(talk) 15:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

White horse

I was a bit surprised that you restored the image given that there are free ones available, which I should have added yesterday when I removed the non-free one. So I have fixed that right now. I suspect we could both do with trouting here but I'm Canadian, so I'm far too polite for that. Also I live in the Arctic, so instead I would like to share this charr which should cook up nicely for supper. Cheeers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Seemed a bit abrupt. Appears to be my weekend of getting smacked by fish. However, trout and char are both quite tasty! Montanabw^(talk) 15:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My application for WP Online Ambassador

I just applied to be a WP Online Ambassador. Online Ambassadors help out newcomers or students learn Wikipedia's key processes, policies, guidelines, and norms, and guide new users to the appropriate resources. They help answer questions on the wiki, by email, or on IRC. I'd like to help out there, but I need endorsements. If you'd like to endorse me, please visit my application page. Thanks. • Jesse V.^(talk) 00:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Awww, thanks. :) • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Straight Dance

Hey! I just finished the Straight dance article. Will you check it out? I'm thinking I'll do Northern Traditional next, but I'm not sure when that'll be! Deflagro (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thinking you may want to title it "Traditional" with subsections for each type -- maybe having summary of straight dance and "main" link if that's the official "Southern" version. Once the article gets longer, they can be spun off, but people looking for the dance will just search for "Traditional." Montanabw^(talk) 19:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying have all Southern styles in one article or all Traditional in one article? Straight is the only Southern one I know of. Southern Traditional is just another name for Straight, but Straight is the more common term. I have redirects set up in case someone does search for Southern Traditional or Southern Straight. I was gonna have Northern Traditional a separate article because it is a completely separate dance style. The only thing similar is the name! Deflagro (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Traditional. Of course, where I live, "northern" traditional is just called "traditional" at the pow wows. I guess I don't really object to a "northern traditional" title, come to think of it, but the two articles should cross-link to each other, for sure. Maybe do a dab for just "traditional dance??" Dunno. Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Yeah, I've always heard it called Traditional but with Northern Traditional as the full name. Hmm. Powwows.com has it listed as Northern Trad. Maybe have the article as Northern Trad and the Lede saying "sometimes simply called Traditional??" I guess also once I've actually written it I can post in the WikiProject and get consensus before it goes live. Deflagro (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your approach will work fine, especially with some dabs and redirects. Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Baise horse

I'm curious—at what point does a stub become a start-class article? Miniapolis 02:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

More than two paragraphs, adding a section heading and some refs helps, though. It's kind of a fine line and if you really want to up it to start class, I won't kick, but do change the assessment on the talk page, too, in that case. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:STUB, "there are some subjects about which very little can be written...it is impossible to state whether an article is a stub based solely on its length, and any decision on the article has to come down to an editor's best judgement (the user essay on the Croughton-London rule may be of use when trying to judge whether an article is a stub)". I created the article because it was on the project's breed-request list; please feel free to expand it. Miniapolis 03:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me, I tossed the stub tag, it's enough for start-class. However, a thought: look at Riwoche horse] for ideas on how the article might be further expanded. Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Boy, I'm impressed with that article's sourcing (especially since there seem to be so few English-language sources for the Baise—or other Chinese breeds). Gives me something to shoot for, anyway. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 03:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Creative googling is my friend; finding one article, which gives me search terms (such as the researcher's last name) that I might not have otherwise thought of, which lead to more stuff... Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cowboy article citation question

Hi, After seeing how busy you are, I almost hate to pester you (almost!) I’m curious who Malone, J. is and what he wrote that the Cowboy Wiki so heavily cites. It’s unusual to have merely a name and no other information in a citation. Txhoney (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Malone is the author of An Album of the American Cowboy, which is referenced below. The page numbers are where in the book the information is found. It is a standard citation style. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, look past the footnotes to the sources cited section, where the full cite appears. There are also two "Malone" surnamed authors used there, I think, the other being a writer on Montana history. The J. Malone work is a short one, but has a remarkable amount of information crammed into it. Wish I could also use some of the illustrations and photos, but they appear to all be under the copyright and I haven't found any in the public domain yet. Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

List of horse breeds

Hi, I've started messing with this in my sand box because the current list annoys me! Pointless endeavour or workable idea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Catxx/sandbox --Catxx (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound too harsh because I admire your interest in improving wikipedia. But I fear the chart format will be a huge challenge as we have over 350 breed articles. Not opposed to ideas for improvement, but I don't think the chart is the way to go, as it will be endless, with 350+ entries The "type" category is useless (not all horses neatly fit into one category, and a category such as "light" is meaningless) A nation of origin category is extremely problematic, and at WPEQ we are not fond of it -- for example, we have had edit wars at Lipizzan due to the fact that foundation bloodlines come from about five different modern nations (two of which have sued each other in the EU over the issue). The International Museum of the Horse doesn't even use nations, they only break down breeds by continent. Also, to properly source every parameter on the chart will be daunting, for one thing, our horse breed infobox is supposed to contain this material in each breed article, and we don't have that info for all breeds yet. Plus, as you see in the current list (what are the things you find annoying about it, by the way?) we have an extensive section of "not a breed, but a classification that people confuse with breeds" stuff ("warmblood", "stock horse", etc.) that is pretty critical. There is also the need to separate the horses and ponies, I think. So, I guess I wish there was a super nice way to say "probably pointless endeavor in current format, but open to ideas for improvement" because I'm pleased to see people taking an interest in WikiProject Equine stuff and don't want to be discouraging, but... Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Horse breeds

Ok, thank you --Vvven (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia in French and German wikipedia these are the horse breeds from Germany .. that are not yet passed to the English wikipedia is another issue--Vvven (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. The problem is that one wiki can't be a source for another wiki, and in fact some of the other breed wikis have a LOT of inaccuracies sub-strains of breeds being given articles as separate breeds, for example). But it's a place to look... I suspect the "Classic" German pony is the same as the German Riding Pony, though... Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Here you have sources taht are differents: [1] German Riding Pony and [2] the German Classic Pony--Vvven (talk) 23:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And in Swedish, it's http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tysk_shetlandsponny "The German Shetland pony is a very small breed of ponnytyp developed in Germany , using imported American Shetland ponies . The German Shetland are supposed to look like small, noble thoroughbred horses in miniature and is often considered as miniature horses instead of ponies." The Swedish article led me to http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.classic-pony.com/rasse.php&usg=ALkJrhga0NzAwgx7F_FGvVsDXms_Gz2oMg] where it is clear what we have is a German variant of Shetland pony. Hence, probably something to add to Shetland pony, but not a whole new article. Interesting... Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that did not know But that too is a dubious reference, I'll let you put the german classic pony like you think best --Vvven (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, but the Swedish article at least had sources I could check! ;-) Go see what I did at the template, just added a bit to the Shetland article. Always possible to do more, but this should be a start. Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

but keep all other breeds that I think are credible--Vvven (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

At the template talk page, it would be helpful to link to the de.wiki articles about them. Wiki isn't a "source" but it can sometimes lead to a source if there are footnotes or (as in the Swedish article) interwiki links to articles that do. The Italian navbox has no redlinks, but the French one has a zillion. I'm a fan of not having redlinks, but that's just me. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and while you are at it, maybe be sure you have all the German breeds that are in en.wiki -- de.wiki might have missed some! Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Lands reserved for indigenous peoples

I closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 19#Category:Lands reserved for indigenous peoples as "keep but clarify", so I'm dropping a line to a few of the participants to ask your help to do that. See also Category talk:Lands reserved for indigenous peoples. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done some adjustments on the "Forward Enlist" horse and rider image

It's much more blue and green, and may be a bit of an overcorrect. But I'm not an upload expert. If I want to upload a copy of the image, is there an easy form which allows me to upload without entering all the copyright info all over again? I'll watch here for response. BusterD (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out myself. My work is by no means expert; the image should actually be rotated a bit CCW to match its original orientation then cleaned professionally. My work is merely a series of autocorrects and a tiny level shift brighter. Big difference though. The poster is my favorite of those presented so far, but I still don't think we have a FA-level winner yet. BusterD (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll peek, thanks for the ping. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

W. R. Brown

I looked at the article and made one change in one of the new references. There was an odd semi-colon, and I removed it in a way that maintains consistency in the article. Other than that, I liked the new content and my support stands. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Giants, your help is much appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Critism of horses in sport

Hello! I often use Wikipedia for my work and found it challenging to share my information with you. Under "Critism of horses in sport" (Equestrianism)I have done an enlargement and wanted to know why it was cancelled. Thank you for your support and information --Angelika NHE1 (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page of the article. I honestly don't even remember the edit, I have 3000 articles on my watchlist You probably inserted poorly sourced material that failed WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That's 99% of the non-vandalism reverts I do. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will look and read! All the best --Angelika NHE1 (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gypsy Vanner Article

Thank you so much for the advice on citations. I spent hours poring over the different options. I will take a look at the pages you suggested and contact you if I have questions. I would very much like to bring the Vanner article to the highest standard the subject is capable of. SFGMary (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

TWH

It looks like the Brown article is going fairly well at FAC, so do you have the time to start on another article? Tennessee Walking Horse, as you and I have both pointed out over the years, could use some serious TLC. I was thinking that if I took the first four sections (breed characteristics through uses) and you took the showing and soring sections, it might be a good division of labor? Let me know what you think. After that, I think Paints, and Quarter Horses if we can get Ealdgyth on board. I'm going to keep plugging away at the little breeds too. Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You know I love digging up the dirt! First question should be if we want to spin off soring into its own article with a shorter summary in the TWH one. Not sure. We do have separate articles on some other bad stuff like gingering, docking (animal), etc.... Maybe thoughts here and not there? Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Is it practiced in other breeds besides the TWH? If so, a separate article is probably a good idea. If not, and it's contained within the TWH breed, it can probably stay combined. Even with a soring section approximately as big as it is now, the article most likely wont be over 40kb when we're finished, which is well within size recommendations. It's only at 22kb right now, but the history section is probably going to be expanded some, and refs will add extra bulk. Dana boomer (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The TWH is definitely the 10,000 lb gorilla in the soring world. There are vague references to other breeds being sored, and a lot of the other gaited breeds like to advertise about how wonderful they are because they don't, but I don't know if the other breed thing is a red herring, was a thing of the past or not... I can dig. I guess what we can do in the meantime is work on it within the article and if there later appears grounds to do a spinoff, we can then. I may do a little research on the Horse Protection Act of 1970 and see what I can find (hmmm want an easy DYK 5x expansion, that article is a stub?), as that's kind of unique. Montanabw^(talk) 21:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that working on it within the article, but being open to the possibility of a spin-off if stuff comes up on other breeds, is probably the best idea. It would be good to expand the HPA 1970 article as a complement to this one - I've got a couple other things I'm working on at the moment for DYK (bunny articles for Easter!), but I'll add it to my list, unless you get there first. I've started work on the TWH article and finished my initial rewrite/sourcing of the characteristics section. I'm sure it will continue to expand, but it's a start! I'll probably work on the history section later this afternoon/evening, depending on what comes up in RL today. Dana boomer (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Groovy. Damn that RL stuff, it SOOOO gets in the way of important things like writing articles for wiki! ;-)

Source on other breeds having soring occur: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/tenn_walking_horses/facts/what_is_soring.html However, I'd like to see verification from another source, as HSUS can get a little hysterical at times. Montanabw^(talk) 20:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, this APHIS/USDA source and this EQUUS article (both possibly already used as sources in the TWH article?) mention Racking horses and "other gaited breeds". However, the majority of the interest appears to be in Walkers, so let's keep to our plan of working on the info in the TWH article, and if it starts getting too big/we start finding a bunch of info on other breeds, we can easily split it out. At this point, I've finished my initial run-through of "my" sections. Everything is referenced, and though I'm sure stuff will change/we'll find more to add, they're a start. Do you want to start working on "your" sections, and then once you've tossed some/most of your stuff in, we can look at balance/what needs to be added or deleted/etc.? Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. On a quick note, any thoughts on the tone and direction you'd like to see in these sections? They seem rather heavy on the action devices and light on show events. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

I think it's going to depend on what the sources say. There is definitely some duplication and unnecessary how-to type stuff in the action devices section ("Horses wearing pads should not be turned out.", duplicate on legal weight of chains, etc). I think that a good bit of the info in this section is needed - the study at Auburn, for example. Have there been any other studies on chains/pads, possibly more recent, or just in general to back up the Auburn findings? I don't think the weighting is bad at the moment, and if the end sections gets too bulky based on the source material we find, I would be more likely to suggest cutting weight by putting the soring stuff into its own article and summarizing it in the TWH article. This is all dependent upon what the article looks like after it's sourced, however. I hope this makes sense - I've been working in our maple syrup woods all day and I'm so tired I can barely remember my own name, much less construct grammatical, focused sentences. I'm not going to be on much the next few days; I'd suggest just going ahead on the sourcing and then we'll see if my opinion is the same when I can focus on this again. Dana boomer (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, will do. Montanabw^(talk) 00:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Gypsy Vanner Horse

I think I have everything down that I wished to communicate about the history although it maybe needs polishing, organizing a bit better, and condensing? There are two sources (books) I'm searching for to add as citations, one on Drums. That's why there's the lack of a citation there. Enjoy and thanks for the help. SFGMary (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

Did you know that Precious for you, 18 February 2012, was my 27th PumpkinSky Prize? - I put "Letting go of the past" on top of my talk, still not giving up my hope for reformation in the future, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Love it, Gerda, and thanks! (And agreed!) Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

And again: Brown, your first solo FA promoted! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Whew! And thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for William Robinson Brown

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on William Robinson Brown. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Horses for courses

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations are in order! You brought the biography William Robinson Brown to Featured Article quality. This effort raised the rail for others and increased the overall quality of the encyclopedia. The wiki thanks you! — Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, and excellent equestrian punning as well! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ponying up

Thanks for the pony! The only issue is that I may not have enough carrots to satisfy him. We'll have to see about that. Anyway, I'm happy that the article got the star, and that the sports and recreation category has another addition. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have sugar and carrots at the Pony prize page. Feel free to steal some! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Question on Gypsy Horse Article

Where did the goose rumped item come from? I have it marked but have not erased it. It's not in the breed standard cited (Australian Gypsy Horse Society). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGMary (talk • contribs) 04:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I did it, it means the same thing as a too-sloping rear end, I was getting concerned that you had too many direct quotations in that section so was playing with the language. However, if it changed the nuance you intended, go ahead and revert, no problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's ok. I got a bit overwhelmed by the various various breed standards. Might benefit to tightening it up and systematizing a bit but I don't feel I can dive into that again right off.

SFGMary (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

X-Rays in Commons?

Hi Doc, RexxS sent me. I'm trying to figure out "teh rulz" on getting veterinary radiographs onto Commons. Specifically, I'd like to use one of the ones I've linked below in Tennessee Walking Horse, which all have a label on them saying "USDA" which I think indicates they are probably PD-US-Gov:

and/or

http://atwork.avma.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/xray-USDA.gif
http://atwork.avma.org/2011/11/09/progress-on-soring-and-kudos-to-usda/ (tagged "Courtesy of USDA")

Any help appreciated, and thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 22:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think these would be fine as they are US governmental works and thus in the public domain. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daavena (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Move to talk

Moral Quandary

I have a confession to make--I am now in charge of the Gypsy Horse Association website. I can put anything within reason on there concerning the history of the breed. WRT the Wikipedia article, this give me a bit of leeway, and I'm almost afraid of it. I'm going to expand the history quite a bit on the website, which could bring some of this unverified and unverifiable history into Wikipedia. I think it would be legitimate to state on the GHA website that the information is the best information that's known and that it's what is commonly accepted about the history within the Gypsy community. Does being on both ends, the webmaster of the registry website and doing the Wikipedia article, put me into some kind of moral jeopardy with Wikipedia? Should I be disqualified from working on the article because of that? I have tried to be very even handed in handling all things, and I really don't have any prejudices with respect to the breed history (I mean the pre-Coal Horse history) that I know of. SFGMary (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. This WILL run you flat into WP:COI, however, if you put up the links at talk and let me figure out how to add the material, I nave no COI. COI isn't a flat-out ban, but it does put what you do up to significant scrutiny. Nonetheless, I think if we run what you do past me and a couple other people at WikiProject equine, we have a longstanding reputation for being pretty objective. This may mean that we say "no" sometimes ... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 18:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sticking my oar in where it may not be wanted, but I've always thought that Wikipedia's definition of COI is completely nonsensical. Basically what it boils down to is that you ought not to write on any subject you have professional knowledge of, give or take. So you're right Montanabw, but ultimately it's going to come down to sourcing, obviously. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a catch-22 and bait for trolls that way. I once got slapped by someone who thought I had a COI just for being a member on a committee in the Arabian Horse Association. Extremely irritating. They only want experts to edit articles but if you're an expert, you have a COI. But George, let's not scare off Mary! She's been doing excellent work! Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise that Mary was a relative newbie. I'll keep my mouth shut. I think the Great Infobox War may have got to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hence the little text box at the top of this page, LOL: "[The] readers will not be privy to the massive undercurrents of dross that underpins WP. They require well written, well sourced, encyclopaedic material that can inform, enlighten and satisfy their interest."—User:Leaky caldron to User:ThatPeskyCommoner" Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is Mary of the Moral Quandry. I've put up a very rough draft of anecdotal info on the Gypsy Horse's pedigree. Not on the official website yet. Here's the nub of it. Please forgive typos--i was also experimenting with moving the site away from a tables-based design.

http://www.gypsyhorseassociation.org/exp.html

The only real basis i have for this is discussions on Facebook, the horrible video of Old Henry Connors, and the Allbreeds's pedigree. This seems to be the commonly accepted family tree of a bunch of Gypsy Horses.

I'm going to add some photos that are reportedly of some of the horses in the pedigree. There's a bit of anecdotal information known about them. I may also contact my Facebook sources and see if they'd go on record as being quoted. Anyway see what you think. SFGMary (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can get all this onto a registry web site, it will probably pass WP:RS. Facebook won't. Try to get the video onto YouTube, at the very least. If you put up photos, try to add where they were first published (if PUBLISHED prior to 1923, they are public domain, otherwise they are "fair use" if the horses are now deceased). Montanabw^(talk) 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh I can get them up. The offers and board won't object. Just need to polish things a bit. Also, the video has been up on youtube for years. The problem is, it's VERY hard to understand. Accents are thick, there was external noise, etc. You can catch a name here and there ("Ballymartin," "Sham") but that's the best. I believe people have interpreted this or received the information from Henry Connors or someone else at another point. Here is the video:

Ooops tried to give you the link to the youtube video and wasn't allowed. Said the site was blocked? Will that be an issue in the article? If you'd like to see it, go to youtube and search "Henry Connors Old Interview"). Its official title is "Interview with Old Henry Connors".

Maybe you can have better luck deciphering it than anyone else has had.

Mary SFGMary (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We have a lot of Brits on WP, maybe someone can figure it out. I found it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h721_4h0-iM

New! St. Peter's Mission Church and Cemetery

A new Montana-themed article went up today: St. Peter's Mission Church and Cemetery. Whew! I have some additions yet to make, once a magazine gets here next week, but it's pretty much done. AND: Yes, please! I would very much like some RAW images to fiddle with! Send me another email, because I accidentally deleted yours. Then I'll respond via email, and we can exchange ~~viruses~~ images. (The problem with using a laptop is that if you download email to it, you should also download it to your main computer before deleting it. Fool of a Took!) - Tim1965 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

A unicorn related cartoon for you!

	A unicorn related cartoon for you!
	Because I heard you like unicorns! :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I like whacking vandals who insert stuff about unicorns into horse articles! GRRR! And thanks! LOL! A friend gave me this last Xmas! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Many thanks for your efforts to combat the total BS attempts at intimidation on my talk page. :) Dreadstar ☥ 04:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 16:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping

[3]. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph split/unsplit caught up in the revert, missed that. Not a problem. Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so could you discuss the reasons for the revert on talk then? There's an ongoing discussion related to that issue, you must have missed it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I favor the use of infoboxes in general, and I think the nonsense about no infoboxes in music articles is really silly. That's all. I restored the infobox material, the paragraph split got caught in the revert by accident Montanabw^(talk) 16:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

New Forest pony

Okey so how fat do you want the things?©Geni 07:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's helpful if they have shed out and their bones don't show, how's that sound? That and not referring to a flaxen chestnut as a "gray" when replacing it with two nondescript horses in an unflattering photo taken at a worse angle. Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Check the pic at full res. "Grey" is an accurate description of the photo. So basicaly you want a pic of the things in summer time. Ok. ©Geni 17:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The weather is irrelevant. It's the quality of the horse that counts. The photo you uploaded was of two very poor-quality animals, in unkempt winter coats, standing in a way that makes their legs look crooked, and their butts are bony. The other animal isn't set up perfectly, but it is healthy-looking, in good flesh and summer coat. A far more representative example of the breed. Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that the breed is only representative of itself in summer? ok.©Geni 06:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Geni, a significant part of free roaming in New Forest is that the ponies tend to look like sorry little piles of fuzz and bone come early spring. However the article is short and I'm kind of with Mont-etc here, current images shouldn't be replaced with ones with overall lower quality just for that. We don't have, for instance, any under-saddle or driving images yet. (Commons is rather dry for the time being, although this doesn't look too bad -- could we have it?) --Pitke (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC) ADDENDUM: If the article gets room for a "spring situation" pic I'll vouch for the caption mentioning if the ponies get fed in the winter or if it's an all-out worthy pony lives to see another summer survival thing. --Pitke (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Monty, how come this lil' wisp of an article is FA? ^.^; --Pitke (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Geni, I realize that you are promoting your own photo here, but it's clear that you don't "get it" about what is a good lead image for a horse breed article, which is an image of a good quality animal that represents the ideal of the breed - or as close as we can get with what's uploaded to commons - not a couple of horses that look like they ought to be canned. Montanabw^(talk)

Pitke, it's an FA Because Pesky took it to FA and the FA gods approved it. It's even been on the main page. (We have shorter FAs than this, Suffolk Punch for example) And she may have something to say about the stereotypes of ponies coming out of winter looking like they starved! ;-) BTW, if you wanna try to get Finnhorse through the FA gauntlet, let me know, I'm game to try, but we may want to run it past the WPEQ team first to see if anything is going to get shredded in the process. (Personally, I've deliberately chosen NOT to take Arabian to FA because of the risk of hitting a wall of trolls there...) Did you see the tweaks I made on the colors template, by the way? Montanabw^(talk) 15:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

POV categories

As you have replied in relation to whether animal cruelty is a POV tag in itself, the debate on the category is at [[4]]. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death

Hello! After seeing your comments on Talk:Chandra Levy#Requested move, I would like to let you know that there is a discussion going on at WP:VPP#Notability of deaths and dead people who become notable after death that I think you may be interested in. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Montana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Butte, Montana notable people

Hi. I'm not sure why it is an issue that I am adding Rep. Amanda Curtis to the Notable People section of the Butte, Montana article. I provided a link, and there are also many other sources to prove her at least worthy of being a notable person. Why must one, or at least in this case, Rep. Curtis, have a Wikipedia article written about them to be added to that list of notable people? I will let you know I have already created an article for her and it is waiting to be reviewed. I will also let you know that there are hundreds of thousands of other articles on Wikipedia, many regarding politics, education, etc. from your home state of Montana that have Notable people sections of their articles that have individuals listed with a source but no Wikipedia article written about them. I would really appreciate an answer. Thanks for your time. - DONALDderosa (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like, I'll review the article and see if we can get it up there. Everyone in a "notable people" section should be someone who can pass the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY, which, as a rule, is easily doable for a state legislator. Many Montana legislators have articles here in WP. The point is that we need articles. Montanabw^(talk) 18:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would love if you could review the article. Let me know what I can do to help. - DONALDderosa (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, feel free to disregard

Hey, Montanabw, I've been vaguely following the whole "Suicide of x" thing. I don't think it has anything to do with anti-whatever bias, and I'm not really sure why you think it is. But that's as may be: it's your prerogative to think what you want, and discrimination has certainly taken weirder guises. Let me just throw this article out there, though: Shooting of Trayvon Martin also follows this naming scheme, and I don't think Trayvon was gay (obviously not female). Granted, he was black, so it's still not totally impossible that it's prejudicial, but I really don't think it's that universal. Anyway, happy editing! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the vehemence with which any human being is deemed "not notable" is really offensive to me. If they have sufficient notability- for whatever reason - for a WP article, then the first article should be about them by their own name, a "sensationalistic death of" title would only be for a follow up, as was seen for JFK or someone like that. Seems like the bullies get named articles (the Columbine shooters, for example), but not the bullied. Trayvon Martin fits that as well. Sad. (for anyone else stalking this discussion,see Talk:Suicide_of_Kelly_Yeomans#Requested_move_2_.(second_request)) Montanabw^(talk) 21:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, but I can see it from another angle, too. Like it or not, if these people are notable, they're notable for their deaths, not their lives. It's sad to say, but it is true. An article about them would necessarily almost exclusively focus on their death, and I could see an argument being made that, if the article is named after them and is about them, it should be about their lives, not deaths. But there aren't any sources that discuss their lives, so we can't write anything about it. So we end up focusing on their deaths almost exclusively, and I could see people getting angry and feeling cheated about that, that the article that is purportedly about them as a person is really just about their death. Naming these articles "Suicide/death/shooting/whatever of x" can seem heartless, but it's also more intellectually honest about our interest, as an encyclopedia, about them. It's sad (and it's a sad world indeed that this is true), but the reliable sources' interest in these people is not them as people, it's them as a casualty, and we are bound as an encyclopedia to follow those sources. Just my unstudied opinion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see it as worse than "heartless" - it is simply not objective, particularly when we already have WP:NOTABILITY to determine if someone gets an article at all, or not. "Them as a casualty" is even more offensive! I see it as a variant on WP:BLP; we don't title the article on Lawnchair Larry, famous mostly for only one thing (WP:BIO1E seems to be a very subjective standard) something descriptive like Near-darwin-award-winning act of Larry Walters, we just title it Larry Walters. If we are talking about human beings as individuals, then we need to dignify their core biography with their name, and just their name. If we are merely looking at people who died in unusual ways, we have lists for that, such as List of horse accidents, for example. If a person, individually, meets the notability standard, then give them a little dignity! I mean, some people would argue that Jesus Christ is only notable for his death too - he wrote no books, earned no fortune, starred in no movies... and other people started the religion named after him... (OK, I'm exaggerating to make a point here). Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The counter-argument to that is that these people aren't notable; their deaths are, and that the two are not one and the same. The difference between Lawnchair Larry and these people is that Larry's article is still focused on him. Look at the subjects of the sentences: they're mostly Larry. But compare that to Trayvon Martin's article: in Trayvon's article, few of the sentences have Trayvon as a subject (in fact, there seem to be many more about Zimmerman than Trayvon, and many that are about neither). Look at Killing of Travis Alexander (who was a straight white male). Certainly more of the article is about him than Trayvon's, but there are still as many or more sentences discussing Jodi Arrias, again with several about neither. The point is that these articles don't talk about the victims' lives much. They're not about the victims, they're about the crime/suicide/event. Lawnchair Larry's article still ends up being about him; these don't end up being about the victims. Our naming scheme reflects that. It's heartless and perhaps cruel, but it's a heartless and cruel world, and that world is what the sources we rely on so much describe, and so it's what we are forced to reflect.

If there were enough sources covering their life to write a sizable article, then what you're saying is true; they should get their own article, named after themselves, just like anyone else. But I would imagine there just aren't enough sources to do that. And I would argue that it's not a good idea for us to coatrack an article that's named after them as a person to discuss their deaths, the perpetrators if any (they also never seem to have their own article), and other subjects not directly related to their lives. Without sources to fully flesh out their lives, I don't see how it's any kinder to name the article after just the person and then go on to barely talk about them at all.

Note that I haven't looked at any of the other articles save the ones I've linked here; that's why I'm not planning on commenting in the second RfC and instead discussing things here. if any of those articles have a solid section about the life of the victim that could stand alone, then your argument has a lot of merit, and those sections could (and perhaps should) be spun off into their own articles. But my impression is that such is not the case, and merely renaming the article without changing what the article actually talks about is no kindness. Again, just my opinion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the overall theme is titling of an article mostly concerning a single victim of a single wrongdoer (or perhaps group of bullying wrongdoers). I think that, for example, someone's parent would feel pretty bad to hear these discussions. It's a dignity issue, not an "event" issue. And frankly, Killing of Travis Alexander? I would raise a notability issue on that one, local news at best, where is the larger societal issue? Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know Travis Alexander; I wasn't defending it as an article per se, just as an example of why the naming scheme is what it is. As for the theme, I think it's just a result of circumstance: it's cases like these, where a member of a minority gets killed or driven to suicide by a member outside that minority, that draw attention and get championed as "what a shock and example of the societal issues!" that lead to this type of article. The crimes get covered by the media and the societal discussion to the exclusion of the victim, who become sort of faceless figureheads to the cause du jour. Yes, that's horrible and inhuman, but that's the thing of it: it's not that I disagree with you, it's that the problem doesn't lie in naming schemes or indeed in Wikipedia itself. The problem is this: we cannot write an article about the lives of these people, because there are no sources, because the sources are too busy talking about their deaths. The way I see it, and given the lack of sources that talk about their life, we have five options, all unpalatable: we do it the way we have now, with an article about the event. We have the article about the event, covering little to nothing of the person's life, but titled with their name, which still does little to treat them as a human being but now adds a relatively misleading title. We have a separate article that is either a near duplicate of the content of the "event" article or a permanent microstub, which is pretty unmanageable in the former (since edits to one would have to be reflected in the other) and still insensitive for the latter, since their life is still not covered. We have no article at all, which falls prey to NOTCENSORED. Or we throw verifiability out the window, which is obviously unworkable. The problem is that it's our sources that don't treat these victims as human; our treatment of them is simply a reflection of the sources' treatment of them, for better or worse (one of the Wikipedia model's greatest flaws). I don't think using an inaccurate page title offsets enough of that to be worth it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the policy is also very inconsistent. You make a case for notability, but to me, no one would search for "suicide of Foo", they will search for "Foo," or perhaps the tragedy. An article may be unbalanced because it focuses on their death, but that doesn't mean that the article's title is "misleading" -- I mean, many people are famous mostly for one thing, and there may be few sources on that person's life other than about the one thing, but they still get a bio with their own name in many cases. (I keep harping on Lawnchair Larry for this). It seems that to eliminate the "death of" titles as the primary article title is not only respectful, but also simpler and eliminates any number of edit war. What would be wrong with a policy that if an article passes WP:NOTABILITY at all, then if it's mostly about an individual person, then it is titled with the name of that person? Then, any ADDITIONAL articles about something unique about their life, such as the means of their death, if enough to warrant a spinoff without content forking, then the additional article gets the "death of" title. Why is this so difficult? Montanabw^(talk) 16:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But that's the thing: that's what our policy is now. The problem is that an article that's mostly about these individual people doesn't pass WP:NOTABILITY. It's only after all of the other content describing the murderers/other perpretrators/societal change/new laws/etc. etc. that the article does pass notability, and at that point, the article isn't mostly about these individual people any more. One way or another, an interesting case study would be Matthew Shepard. Shepard's case was similar to many of the ones we've been describing. I look at the article and I would say that, unlike these other articles I've looked at and like Lawnchair Larry, the overall subject of the article is still Shepard. More than half the article seems to be discussing him (aided in large part by the depictions in media section), though there's a substantial minority discussing the social changes brought about by his death. But it's a lot closer to your argument, and I can see it from your perspective too, though. But that's kind of the point in my mind: if an article is discussing a person for less than half of the article, then the article isn't really about them and shouldn't use their name as a title. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Another example to look at is AMBER Alert and Amber Hagerman. As an individual, the BIO1E rule would apply, would it not? Was she "notable" at age 9 had she not been a murder victim? But because her death led to a significant public policy change, is that why we don't have an article titled "murder of..."? Kelly Yeomans' death led to a raised consciousness about peer bullying, which is probably why there is an article on her, as opposed to her inclusion on a list of victims, as seen with the article on Columbine. I really think there is a serious issue of insensitivity here, and the calloused comments at the move discussion are quite missing the point. Montanabw^(talk) 17:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point well-made. But I would recommend against reading too much into a supposed double-standard for suicides and other types of deaths, as you did on the parallel talk page post; it's clear from the Travis/Trayvon examples that these naming schemes aren't exclusive to articles on suicide, so it's more likely just a case of different editors with different interpretations of naming policy creating similarly-themed articles. I think it weakens your argument to assert double-standards and bias where none likely exists. I also think you're overestimating the importance of an article's title, but reasonable people can differ about that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the double standard is probably there, it's just so often subconscious and I admit that people DO get defensive when it's pointed out. (no one wants to be called racist/sexist/homophobic, and often the bias is subtle, subconscious and/or unexamined) I will agree that it probably isn't helping the argument to raise it, but it IS there, sad to say. But even if I had the time and energy to dig through all of WP to gather stats, it would not likely change any attitudes. I have to think about how far I want to push this issue right now (so many other fish to fry...) and how to get a good cross section of people of goodwill to think it through. Few are like yourself, willing to think through an argument. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, even just looking at the autocomplete from typing "murder of" into the search box shows quite a few non-suicide articles following the pattern, so I'm still not sure that the bias is there (or at least, that this naming scheme is an artifact of bias). It might be there, though. In any event, I've run out of words (at long last); ending on a "respectfully agree to disagree" is still a win in my book, and it's always good to get another person's take on a topic (even a topic as depressing as this :P). I still don't think I agree with it, but I can see where you're coming from, and yours is not at all an unreasonable view to have. Cheers! :)Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Table sucks

Yes, it sucks, too much white space, too much code. I can add images to the current table if you want.

I don't know who you are anon IP, but I am adding images now. I will not be hurt if formatting is improved by cutting down the white space if you know what you are doing. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

-;) PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You just edited while logged out... but I'll be done finding images in a sec, then you can fix the code to your heart's content and find more images too! (I'm trying to be sure all are actually taken in Montana and have proper licensing, but you can do so too) Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's making way too much white space. PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

May have to call in RexxS, he's the Table God of Wiki. PumpkinSky talk 22:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the middle column is way too wide, ping anyone who knows how to shrink it down, go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:MariaTheresaSidesaddle.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

File:MariaTheresaSidesaddle.jpg

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dutchman

I got into trouble with some editors over this since for some reason the opera is listed in Wikpedia as 'The Flying Dutchman', not as 'Der fliegende Holländer' and editors offered stout resistance against changing the opera article title. But I am quite happy with your edit - let's see if it evokes any reactions!--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I was in on that move discussion too. I'd argue that here, we are simply keeping things consistent as far as order goes, and that the biography doesn't have to march in lockstep with the "more popular" English title of the article about the opera. Montanabw^(talk) 18:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.--Smerus (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

AMBER alert/Amber Hagerman

I proposed a merger of two articles. Join in discussion at Talk:Amber Hagerman. --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I will oppose that merge, though primarily because of my deep concern about the dehumanization of such victims on wikipedia articles. I agree that particular article is rather a stub, though. Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pie-eyed

Wow, the amount of discussion and vitriol on that article is mind-bending, especially considering almost nothing is known about the people. My mom had nothing to add about their identity, and I posted on the talk page what a knowledgeable friend who works for his tribe says on the matter, just because I was curious to know what *is* known about these people. Answer: practically nothing. Cheerio, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I hear you. But the "white Indians" thing just won't go away, will it? And of course, there is NOTHING to do with racism there, nothing at all! :-P Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I enjoyed the reference to the slant-eye monster. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Re: Montana State Fish

BW, why do you insist on linking to the Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewis) (previously Salmo) instead of just Cutthroat Trout. The State fish is not the Westslope, but the Cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarkii) of which Two subspecies make up the Montana population--the Westslope (Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi) and the Yellowstone (Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri). If the state code is the binding source, then it is clear from that source that the Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi subspecies is not the state fish. That fact is reiterated in the first and second sentence here: [5] --Mike Cline (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Because the statute - and the other state web site source - says blackspotted (westslope) cutthroat - see the MCA citation. Statute trumps the fishing guides: 1-1-507. State fish. The blackspotted cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki, is the official Montana state fish. Montanabw^(talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the word "Westslope" in 1-1-507 and the Montana Field Guide (not a fishing site) site certainly doesn't say the Westslope subspecies is the state fish. "The Westslope cutthroat trout is one of two subspecies of native cutthroat found in the state. Together, they have been designated Montana's state fish." What is relevant here is thatSalmo clarki not Salmo clarki lewisi is the state fish of which there are two subspecies in the state. Please don't read into the statute something that isn't there.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that the blackspotted cutthroat IS the westslope cutthroat, the same fish? And the Yellowstone cutthroat is a different subspecies, far more plentiful? (If not, someone needs to also correct the wikipedia article, which says the blackspotted is the westslope, BTW) see this. OK, I could be incorrect on this, but the salmo clarki to clarki shift also has me a bit flummoxed... is there some sort of taxonomy central that shows all this? Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The shift from genus Salmo to genus Oncorhynchus occured in 1988 [6]. Since the MCA 1-1-507 was enacted in 1977 it is correct in referring to the Cutthroat as Salmo clarki. Interestingly enough the common name Black-spotted Cutthroat Trout has never been officially recognized by fish biologists but is derived from the late 19th century use of the common name Black-spotted trout for what was to become known as the Cutthroat. It cannot be found in any of the many global fish databases. In Trout and Salmon of North America, Robert Behnke, (2002) states: "Before 1884, Cutthroat were most commonly referred to in the literature as black-spotted trout, speckled trout or Rocky Mountain trout. The term black-spotted trout continued to be used by fish culturists into the early 1900s." Behnke is one of the most renown authorities on trout and salmon in the world.[7] --Mike Cline (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I fixed the links back to cutthroat, but I am curious that the salmo article says they are Pacific drainage fishes... but the Yellowstone and the Westslope are both cutthroats, so... never mind that, I guess. I suppose someone should suggest they tweak the statute to modern nomenclature, but the legislature just left town, so I guess that sleeping dog shall lie for at least another two years (Mike has a project for the 2015 session, though...) Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.--MONGO 02:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Konik Grammar Fix

Hi,

as I am not a native English speaker, I'd like to ask if the recent grammar fix on the Konik article went as planned:

As it is phenotypically resembles the extinct Tarpan

Sounds a bit strange, but I might be wrong. -- DFoidl (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, the "is" should have been removed, making it "As it phenotypically resembles...". Now fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of ways to fix it, present tense, as above, or "phenotypically resembled" - past tense, either way works. ~~I think I fixed it one way and Dana the other.~~ Ah, I missed the "is" in the fix. Thanks Dana, It's all good Montanabw^(talk) 14:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bazy Tankersley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drew Pearson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

kind of a horsey subject for you....

I was looking through Scholefield & Howay's British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present to try to locate a passage I know is somewhere in Howay's writings about the struggle for domination of the steamboat trade on the lower Fraser in the days of the colony re the Steamboats of the Lower Fraser River and Harrison Lake article and its attendant CfD (which was spurious and will fail; see my comments there as to why) and came across a passage/topic which may interest you - Expressman though the title of a needed article should maybe be Expressmen; that should certainly be the name of any category attached to this subject. Private post/freight is what the term refers to, and in BC were an amazing class of individual. Anyways if the names Billy Ballou and Wells Fargo & Co. resonate with you, horse-drawn freight and stages, here is the start of the "Expressmen" chapter in Howay & Scholefield. Can't remember if I or another editor started the Gold Express article; oh that didn't get started; there might be a section already in Cariboo Gold Rush or Cariboo Road I think. I'm going back to my looking for steamboat politics, but have a read; there's other sources for this near-vanished service; now known as a courier service I think; but these guys were much more than couriers.Skookum1 (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating topic. If you decide to create the article, I'd be glad to give it a look-over and at least minor assistance. People don't know too much about the "wild west" in Canada. Montanabw^(talk) 15:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As with the Steamboats article, which originally I'd planned on starting myself, on that topic my time is spent building a page for that on my own website, where I don't have to hear quibbles about wording and citations from people who don't know the subject matter; I'm only going to keep an eye on it, and fix it up when I've got time.....the narrative I would have written is off the rails with the way it is now; an earnest effort but scattered and without the proper political and economic context.....the AfD'ing editor was way out of line IMO, however.....it's such a notable topic in BC history it's ridiculous to have it called "fringe" and non-notable by someone who clearly doesn't know BC history...the Expressmen item I may start; some of the figures mentioned such as Stephen Tingley and Frank Barnard already have articles, both of which have yet lots that could augment them; my energies here get taken up defending things that should never have been assaulted by the un-knowing and heedless who'd do better learning about the subjects and making the articles better, or realizing that the names are just fine, it's content that needs work. So I wind up in talk pages and on procedural matters and much of my time for writing is taken up by nonsense, which is why I want to write untrammeled by the constraints of this place......Expressmen and the Gold Escort I meant to write over four years ago.....Gold Commissioner is underwritten for example, though I did at least start it...(they were one-man regional governments embodying all the powers of the Crown). There's also a period in BC history where horse-racing was the number-one sport above all others, and major races with huge purses were held in Cariboo and Okanagan towns, also in my hometown of Lillooet; famous breeding ranches etc.....just in that one department there's lots to be written.....problem is finding people who take the time to read the sources and look for more, rather than just adding citation templates and moving on to the next template placement.....or taking up time with needless AfDs etc....Tingley's quite the character, so was Frank Barnard; modern BC histories write about groups, generally by race, in reality it was a history of striking individuals such as those two, and in some ways still is; it's very different from other Canadian provinces. One book you can find online in Mark Sweeten Wade's The Thompson Country which is linked on that page in web-book format (very cool, actually); the companion piece The Cariboo Road is not on line like the other one, but is a great read.....much of it is replicated in Robin Skeltons This Is Cariboo!, which is a bit easier to order online while the Cariboo Road one is out of print for many years and kinda rare (and therefore generally expensive when it does turn up). I'll let you know if I start the Expressmen article or the Gold Escort one....William Ballou figures also in California history, I t hink he may be written up in Bancroft, who is one line thanks to the University of California's archival website, but Bancroft is extremely prolific, I've never had a chance to read all of him....Skookum1 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

need photo from Billings.....

don't know where in Montana you are; this is a Good Article in WP Hotels classification, short though it is, even though it doesn't have a photo.....if yo'ure nowhere near Billing but know someone there hint hint.......there are no featured articles in WP Hotels, very surprisingly none of the great Canadian railway hotels are, and many are start class or have advert, even unreferenced tags......weird, given their significance in our national history/iconography. I guess people are too busy doing CfDs and templates fiddling to care....Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd post at the talk on Billings, Montana. I'm not close enough to just pop over there and take one on a day trip, though I do get there on occasion. I think a couple editors there are actually in Billings. I'll also check commons for pics. Montanabw^(talk) 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Follow up -- found one of the Northern at commons and added it to article; actually are a couple other shots of it in some skyline images too. I've sort of got other projects on my front burner right now, but good tip about an area that is sorely neglected. I helped work on Hotel Baxter a while back. Montanabw^(talk) 15:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent....would be nice to see one of the pre-fire building built in 1904, too....maybe the civic museum or historical association might have one.....is there an online archive of photos for Montana like there is for many other places?Skookum1 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think free of copyright for commons purposes; there are a lot of photos of Montana on commons, though. Just have to dig. Montanabw^(talk) 18:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW see the latest edit/edition on my userpage, I added links to some sandboxes I made a while back with resource materials of various kinds.Skookum1 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Oxbow (horse)

This is the kind of article I'd give serious consideration to taking straight to FAC. The problem with GAN is that you get pumped up to finish something and then you have to wait two months for a reviewer, so the energy dissipates. Your choice though of course. Eric Corbett 00:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

My main concern is that an FAC reviewer might want "the rest of the story..." the horse is yet to run in a couple big summer races and the Breeder's Cup in November, then the Eclipse Awards. GA should be easy, but FAC may not be "ripe" yet... partly because there will be more to add, it's "stable" (pun intended) enough for GA, but notsure if FA will agree. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There will be more to add until the horse dies, just as there will be more to add about Obama until he dies, so I don't see the difference. I don't think the article is actually stable enough yet for either FAC or GAN as we speak, but I'm sure it soon will be. What's to lose by going straight for FAC? Eric Corbett 00:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

IF GAR takes forever, it should be fine by the time a reviewer shows up 1) I've never done a run straight to FA, so that's scary. 2) I've recently pissed off Nikkimaria in the infobox wars, and she haunts FAC. You know I run with the QAI crowd and everyone is entitled to my opinion (LOL)... 3) I like the GA gauntlet as a peer review that counts for something more than a peer review and gives me a pretty prize. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had a lot of dealings with Nikki and she's just not the type to hold a grudge. She'll evaluate your article based on its merits, not on what side of the infobox wars you're on (which, I might point out, is a really stupid war to get dragged into... you're smarter than that!) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I used to think Nikki was OK, but the way she's recently stalking one user that I really respect and reverting her across multiple articles is more the problem than the content at issue. It's not so much the collapsing infoboxes, it's the collapsing of just a couple lines of text to be WP:POINT-y. I stand up for my friends and if they're in a dogfight, I try to be supportive. At least, for a while. Sometimes there is no end to the drahmahz, though. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In fact I've got an FAC up now with that once controversial partially collapsed infobox if any of you horsey types are also interested in cars, which hasn't raised a murmur (about the infobox I mean). Eric Corbett 01:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I can take a look. I know relatively little about cars beyond the need to change the oil and rotate the tires. (And I pay the nice man to do that) so that should make me a good reviewer! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 15:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just about as good as me with horses then. Eric Corbett 15:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been through the whole article now and I hope I've lived up to your billing as the reviewer from Hell. Can't see you having too many problems with this at GAN if that's the route you decide to take. Eric Corbett 23:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, you were a pussycat. LOL! But if a troll shows up at GAN or FAC, I'll be calling on you! Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Tennessee Walking Horse

Passed GA. Excellent work there MTBW and Dana! PumpkinSky talk 23:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Norma Ashby

On 15 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Norma Ashby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Montana television hall of fame inductee Norma Ashby was kissed by Robert Goulet during an interview, and once featured a rancher on her local KRTV show who gutted a rattlesnake on live television? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Norma Ashby. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Oxbow (horse)

I saw some talk-page traffic suggesting you might appreciate a review of this article before you go to GAN with it? I'll happily do that if you like, just leave me a note. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I had a couple non-horsey people look at it and help us clean up stuff that got to jargon-y, if you want to pop over and provide further thoughts, be my guest! Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm 50/50 horsey, non-horsey these days. I'm also going to fix up your table which isn't really that sortable (did you try sorting by race length for instance!) and do some WP:ACCESS stuff which, while unfashionable, shouldn't degrade the look of it too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I think that the tables are usually just chronological in the WP Horse racing articles, though I suppose it doesn't matter if chronological is the default... I'm no good at table syntax. Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's not the order, it's the fact you have it sortable, but most of the columns don't sort correctly. I'll fix that, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Might be worth adding "Head" (as a winning margin) to North American Thoroughbred horse racing terminology and then linking it (for the non-horsey crew). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I fiddled with some of the refs (at the least tried to make them consistent, just in case you're considering FAC), and left some questions/comments on the talk page. Hope it's not too inconvenient. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll go peek. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oxbow (horse)

You could take a shot with Oxbow (horse) at a direct FA promotion. I don't know horeses well enough to help you decide.
Not interested in Paynter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Croton Aqueduct

I put some of my ruminations on the subject on User talk:Bishonen as well. Since you seem to be among those more convinced that Curb Chain was doing something fishy, perhaps you should file SPI while those IP edits haven't gone stale. The same kind of activity has continued from that IP range even after that Aqueduct incident. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The IP edits I was concerned about are stale, but if you have new ones, shoot me diffs and I'll look. That said, I am pretty busy the next couple days, so may not be prompt in addressing this issue. Montanabw^(talk) 16:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hehe. Nobody wants to hold the baby! You have mail. Bishonen | talk 16:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

Can't the ankle-biter do it?? Montanabw^(talk) 17:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

FGS don't encourage the creature. She's out of control already. See her embarrass me on Meta?[8] Bishonen | talk 15:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC).

I don't want to beat this issue to death anymore than it's already been discussed here, but I did note that when a very similar issue was recently raised here that the first person that chimed in was, surprise, surprise, Curb Chain! Maybe there's something to all this after all...I dunno. Edit warring over spaces in Wikipedia articles seems like the definition is pointless to me. If someone files an SPI on all this, I'll promise to look at it & help out with added commentary if I can. Guy1890 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, there's a lot of "there" there. The problem is, I don't have the energy for a lot of drahmahz right now, so my take is slap on a block, start establishing a record and we shall see what shakes out from there. Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand being at your limit with Wikipedia drama. I also agree that neither a topic ban or a (likely short) block will solve the long-term issues that are in play with CC, but I guess it's better than nothing. If anything, the next time someone has a problem with CC (and they'll likely be a next time for sure IMHO), more can be done then. Happy trails... Guy1890 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

IF CC is the returned user I think CC is, even a short block may result in vanishing and reappearing six months later under a new name, and possibly even good behavior for another six months with a new identity. Ya never know. Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

IP, CheckUsers will not publicly tie a registered account to an IP...except for special cases; see Wikipedia:CheckUser#IP information disclosure. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got my popcorn out, will keep an eye on the show. Montanabw^(talk) 01:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dzhigit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

cowboys and Indians

Please see User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Cree_categories_.28again.29.Skookum1 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Messara

i just wanted to refer the village somehow in the page of the horse! because it's where the horses are ;) any way, need a better idea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marouloharakas (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Mention the geographic location with a direct link, that should work, just don't pipe it into the horse breed name. Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

name of that racehorse I couldn't remember

Secretariat (horse) I'm guessing is the link; or Secretariat II, I'm not sure. His line was among the stock of one of the small ranches in the upper Bridge River Valley, not sure which one (there were only a few, I'm guessing the Gun Creek Ranch as the others were flooded out by the creation of Carpenter Lake and it was the late '70s I was told this and when the line was there; mixed with Cayoosh pony to make quarterhorses so I was told.....sorry it's only hearsay can't get you a cite, there's not much written about that area in that era.Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Bakewell

I'll defer if you really think this content is valuable in the article(s), but duplicated near-verbatim in three different places? It does seem somewhat excessive, and at best a cut-down single paragraph would seem more appropriate... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to some streamlining, but as it is important history to the topic, a mere wikilink to the biography seems insufficient. If you want to take a whack at a concise history and better writing, I'd not kick about that. Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd need a week of background reading first - I just ran across this on the train trying to find some link targets :-). The ODNB entry suggests he is a major figure but perhaps not as pivotal as often suggested; are there others equally talked about in the literature, or is he the agricultural Stephenson (as it were?) Andrew Gray (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Better you than me! Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Jodhpurs refimprove template

Is there a reason it's at the bottom of the page? I've never seen that before....was tempted to move it to where it's supposed to be, but only stopped by for a read....these are part of dress uniform for the RMCP, by the way....Skookum1 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Also the RNWMP, their predecessor, though some pics that show here are RCMP....Skookum1 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've got no real love for the article, so if you want to go in and do cleanup, I'm all for it. Add what you'd like. Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I only looked it up because of how someone's quads looked (young bb'er from where I'd been living, whose upper lag looks like he's wearing jodhpurs, big wide flanges...)...and I'm in no mood to go through all those pics finding one that's public domain or fair use, it was just an observation and in fact, other than in dressage, probably the most common use of jodhpurs in the modern era; except for horsey types at cocktail parties dressed Princess Anne-style with ponytail and boots and.... ;-).Skookum1 (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The whole concept was based upon the pre-lycra era need for flared hips to allow the rider's leg to move, combined with the narrower calf that allowed for tall boots. At least, the European version. The history of the east India concept that gave them their name, I don't know a lot about. Kind of interesting, but in the "I have other fish to fry" category for now. Montanabw^(talk) 15:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. I'm starting to think sushi is easy than frying, though ;).Skookum1 (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Domestication of the horse...

Is really YOUR baby... why am I carrying all the water here??? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I reverted on Friday but am usually offline most of the weekend, I'll go over and deal with it. Again. May not be back online til Monday, though, so thanks for holding down the fort. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "I owe you one." (grins) On the good news front, I got the rest of the garden planted, finally. Just in time for an afternoon shower. This explains why I'm extra cranky today... my back hurts from planting... (well, I do have a few row spaces empty left for some more succession planted green beans, but that's it.) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL! True dat! Give me a heads up if you need a GA or FA review, then. Or support in an edit war. Or something. Yay for gardens! We're having a lot of rain here, too. Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

(passes the hat back to you). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(Got hat). I think we may have an editor who won't drop the stick, if this is still a "drahmahz" in a week, pop over and help make it go away. FYI, Horse Protection Act of 1970 is at FAC if you want to be a reviewer, I don't think you've worked on it at all. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Oxbow and Paynter

Once I get an article to GA I tend to say "my work here is done", so I have no experience on FA status. The Oxbow article is pretty astonishing, given its recent origins. As I mentioned before, the stability thing is my only worry: it could end up as fantastically detailed account of the horse's early career followed by "uuuh and he ran in a bunch of other races too", but I don't think you'll let that happen. I've put a couple of news stories into the Paynter sandbox. There could be DYK potential in the fact that he was originally named MC's Dream and that he won the Vox Populi award. Boringly, I have to report that after much study of the photographic evidence, Paynter is definitely a bay. Tigerboy1966 11:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Bays are my personal favorites, actually! Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Would be honoured to be added as co-nominator on Oxbow FA. So far it seems to be going well: like GA but ten times more nit-picky. Tigerboy1966 11:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Paynter (horse)

On 30 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paynter (horse), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the race horse Paynter (pictured) survived a near-fatal case of colitis, laminitis and abdominal surgery, then won the first race of his 2013 comeback by 4+1⁄2 lengths? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Paynter (horse). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A tough creature, great example of resilience, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

878 hits, I'm happy. (Way better than my DYK for Hindgut fermentation, gee, wonder why? LOL!) Go Paynter (and I hear Orb (horse) is now checking out that hyperbaric chamber following his disappointing last two races...) Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your reversal of my edit to Secretariat

You reverted my addition of: [Category:American Champion Thoroughbred broodmare sires] to Secretariat's article as per below.

(cur | prev) 17:08, 24 June 2013‎ Montanabw (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36,588 bytes) (-60)‎ . . (Undid revision 561282543 by Trevor Darkman (talk) That one is actually quite significant)

I was sure I read that A. P. Indy helped make Secretariat a Champion broodmare sire. But, I guess I was wrong and from checking your User page, I know an esteemed editor such as you would have checked your facts first before making such a revert and would never go so far as to insult anyone or "dramatize" an edit by asserting in the Edit summary "That one is actually quite significant". Given that, would you please remove Secretariat's name from the Leading broodmare sire in North America list and insert the proper horse in his place. Also, Secretariat's Infox should have the Leading broodmare sire in North America (1992) removed as well. Thank you. Trevor Darkman (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Spare me the snark. You - or someone - removed a different category that I was trying to restore. With 3000 articles on my watchlist, sometimes a drive-by edit gets the revert key hit. I would normally apologize, but given that you've chosen to be a snarky, sarcastic jackass at my talk page, I really don't feel like it. Montanabw^(talk) 16:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude but... Snarky, sarcastic comment, ending in "thank you", where have we heard that before? Hint: it begins with "H" (or "H.H." in his more recent incarnation). Tigerboy1966 11:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Any time TB, and thanks for the history. Worth an SPI or just a simple with all due respect reply? :-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

My experience with this individual is that once he is rumbled he goes away and sulks for a few months. I have considered going to SPI but as he's annoying rather that disruptive (and does have a lot to offer) I have held back. Tigerboy1966 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Color me confused... should I be on the lookout for something? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, and avoid any further innuendo: I think that Trevor Darkman (talk) is almost certainly the same person as Hialeah Harry (talk). I think it is highly likely that both of these users are alternative identities of the indefinitely blocked Handicapper. There, I've said it. Tigerboy1966 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I always thought that was what happened. I've turned a blind eye too I guess (kind of how I do with Cuddy's "Gooreen" collection photos- i.e. random stuff from internet that really should be deleted). Oh well. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've posted in the right place; I helped bust that enormous sock drawer headed by ItsLassieTime. I understand the need to not go looking for "drahmahz" if not needed if the alleged individual is mostly doing good work, but it also helps to know there is a pattern and a history, just in case things get weird. I'm also generally not afraid of "drahmahz" (dear Ealdgyth would suggest to the point that sometimes I go looking for it, heh, heh, heh...) and I'm pretty fierce in defense of my wiki-friends, so let me know if there's trouble in the future. Montanabw^(talk) 00:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL! And here I thought WP horse racing had far less "drahmahz" than WikiProject Equine! How little did I know! LOLs! Montanabw^(talk) 15:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK update

Could you please have a look at the request for clarification at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis des Balbes de Berton de Crillon, duc de Mahon? Prioryman (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Did. Done. OK now? Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lipizzan

If anyone cares, the drahmahz iz here

Your recent editing history at Lipizzan shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Shokatz (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly is your problem but there is no conflict with the "overlinking" in the Lipizzan article. It's a standard feature linking countries in the infobox. Furthermore you have broken the WP:3RR rule. Shokatz (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Templating regulars. How classy. Intothat darkness 18:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Especially when I'm right per WP:OVERLINK. Want to watchlist the page? Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I would, but I'm going off-wiki for a few days so I don't think I'd be much help. Overlinking is really silly, though, and happens far too often. Just because a word is there doesn't mean it has to be linked anywhere. Personally I consider it something of a Darwin test. If you're not smart enough to type the word into the handy "search" box, maybe you're just not meant to know something... ;-) Intothat darkness 18:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You have reverted me once on the pretense of reverting someone else, to which you responded after I restored the links that "there need to be no links up there anyway". And now you claim it is against WP:OVERLINK which is simply not true. It is a standard procedure to link the countries given in the infobox. There is nothing at WP:OVERLINK nor at Wikipedia:Overlink crisis to confirm your claims. And nice way to substantiate your "arguments" by claiming it is actually me who is "edit-warring all over the place". And yes, you did broke the WP:3RR rule which can be seen from these edits: [9], [10], [11], [12] which all fall within 24hr period. And if they wouldn't it shows clearly that you are edit-warring. I have tried to reason with you in my edit descriptions and here on your talk page but you seem to think you own that page for some reason. Sadly this means I will report you now. Shokatz (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The first time was my attempt to swap out a changed photo and I made an error. Had you not violated WP:AGF and felt the need to throw a fit over four wikilinks, this would not have escalated. Now drop the stick and don't waste my time. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Shokatz, get off my talk page and stay off. Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've declined to block as there was technically no violation and the page has been protected. This might be a good dispute to bring to WP:3O as a way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Even the article talk page is fine. See you all later. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 20:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You're a cool cat

Been meaning to say this for months and months, but never knew a non-dorky way to do it. Have read things you said at times and liked your straightforwardness and humor. Sure there will be plenty of things we disagree on and not looking for a Wiki-ally, but just honestly thought you deserved an attagirl.

TCO (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you! I appreciate the kind words! And people can agree on some things and disagree on others and still be wiki-pals! Montanabw^(talk) 15:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Re

Don't get me wrong. I'm not denying the value of content creators. I have great respect for all of the content creating work Eric Corbett did (I never supported or opposed the block) and, back when I was presenting what I called the Golden Editor Award, I gave one to Eric. My problem is not that people create content. My problem is that some of them tend to treat those who create less content as if they are inferior. Many content creators seem to think they should never be questioned and they lash out at any admin who ever takes action against them or one of their friends. That kind of stuff is bound to create a division among community members. I'm not denying that the admins are imperfect, but I'm tired of seeing them dehumanized. AutomaticStrikeout ? 16:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't really think Eric Corbett thinks that way or treats people as inferior. I think he's just very good at calling people on their crap, though he is occasionally a little too quick to fire off bad language. Myself, I've had to weather so many very stupid and tendentious edit wars by people who either had a POV agenda to push, or didn't understand the content and couldn't be bothered to learn about the topic, yet wasted hours of my time, then when I stood MY ground, they bullied and baited me until I became a wee bit snarky, then their widdew fweewings were hurt and they ran crying to ANI... I am actually surprised at myself for my own restraint; I never told anyone to (as was said by the offending party) "keep your fucking "snark" to yourself asshole" in so many words. But God knows I've been ever so tempted so many times. And a month block for him? Ridiculous. If we really have a policy out there that says that saying "asshole" is blockable, then maybe 24 hours tops, to allow a cool down. It's a freaking speeding ticket on the wiki-highway of life. Montanabw^(talk) 16:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There are elitist content creators, but not all of them are. There are elitists is all parts of wiki and they get a disproportionate amount of attention. PumpkinSky talk 16:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that. You and Corbett are two content creators who are often unjustly accused of crap you didn't do and of having intentions you don't have. One trip up in response to baiting and there is a horde out there ready to scream "off with his head!" It's the stupidest part of "teh wiki." Caring about quality is not elitism (if it is, well, sign me up and invite most of my TPSers!) The "elitists" are, in my view, the divas and drama queens who are incapable of forgiving or forgetting, contribute little content or content support, yet hold everyone else to a standard they refuse to accept for themselves. Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

If only lots more would see the light about me and Eric. PumpkinSky talk 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Lots do, it's just that the bullies are quicker to call in their allies, and the people who aren't bullies are often afraid to draw attention to themselves. There's also the Dunning-Kruger effect. Being a lightening rod is kind of painful and everyone else is ever so grateful. Montanabw^(talk) 17:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So my wiki destiny is to be a martyr for the greater good? PumpkinSky talk 17:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't get TOO melodramatic; In the case of you and Eric Corbett, it's more of a John and Yoko crucifixion than that of the deity. (grins) Montanabw^(talk) 17:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just don't

this is not necessary and not appropriate behavior towards your fellow editors. This kind of taunting is uncalled for and the wording of it even more so. Please refrain from it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

However, she is correct. PumpkinSky talk 17:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And OOoooooooo! I'm sooooooo scared, too! Montanabw^(talk) 17:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you 6 years old ? This is not about scaring you... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue who you are, but I presumed that I was speaking to someone about at that developmental stage, yes. If you really want to actually threaten me because I said "ASSHOLE" on the talk page of Eric Corbett/aka Malleus, where we know such things are never said, then we really have a problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no clue who you are either but yes we have a problem and it's uncivil community members. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And yet, you see nothing wrong with turning up on a complete stranger's talkpage, issuing threats because they used a word of which you didn't approve? Interesting definition of "uncivil" you have there, Mr DJ. – iridescent 17:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

DJ--I highly suggest you drop the stick and walk away. No good will come of pursuing this. PumpkinSky talk 17:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no stick, it is a pillar that I want people to remember seeing. I have said what needed to be said. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

NPA means no PERSONAL attacks, not "no venting a little steam." Our REAL problem on wiki is not when a baited and fed up content editor calls someone an asshole (OK, so he did it several times, but still...), it's the tendentious and snarky sorts who bait good editors over WP:CHEESE issues until they blow their cork. THAT, DJ, my newest friend, is the problem. I made reference to the word "asshole" on the talk page of an individual for whom salty language is a known pattern. I further said the word in broad general terms and referenced no individual. Plus, if you knew the context, there was a joke involved: I rarely use truly bad language on wiki, so my saying the word "asshole" in that particular context on that particular page was intended in primary part to be smartass humor. As I just passed my 50,000th edit on "teh wiki" and have an absolutely clean block record, I suppose I'm feeling a bit sassy. I'm also pissed at losing my favorite copyeditor when I'm in the middle of an FAC over something this petty and stupid. Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we all please settle down? We've already lost enough good editors today. I don't think DJ was trying to threaten anyone, but rather to issue a polite request. I understand Montanabw's frustration at Eric's departure, but let's please not make the situation worse. AutomaticStrikeout ? 18:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not just Eric, but Boing resigned bits and left, Drmies turned in his bits, and Dennis has gone on break. And it'll get worse. PumpkinSky talk 18:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And I didn't consider DJ's comments to be "polite," I viewed them as a vague threat that I was about to get treated the same way Eric Corbett/Malleus was just treated. I think a protest is in order. If everyone on wiki who is irritated at the way this place violates the spirit of true civility while enforcing a double standard on those who trip over the letter of it would insert the word "asshole" into an edit summary on their own talk page, it would be interesting to see if anyone was left to edit the encyclopedia once all the blocks were handed down. I'll try this and see what happens... Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree it's silly, though I always did prefer "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"[13] over the more pedestrian asshole. That said some of the comments on the Visual Editor forum were a little mean-spirited to the newbies. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And that is the reason I added the Shakespeare insult generator to my editnotice! (Send me a message here to see it in action!) BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! ;-)

ANI

Aha, no problems, thanks for clarifying. Personally I would have been happy for the discussion to continue as people (clearly) had more to add, but that's by the by. Giant Snowman 09:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hobby horse

Hi Montanbw,
I noticed that you reverted my change on the hobby horse disambiguation page, with the comment "Don't delete others, not a zero-sum list", and then added my definition at the bottom. However, I did that change because I suspect that the line about "hobby horse" being a legislative term is a serious case of misunderstanding.
I had never heard that definition before, so I did some research, and eventually found the origin to it. It comes from a piece on the urban legend site Snopes.com, about "The One Percent Solution", dated February 2012, where the editor writes: Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to votes in the first place. The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and now refers to as the "Debt Free America Act").
I think that most people who know that "hobby horse" is a synonym to "pet issue", realise that this is what the writer of that text meant, and that "hobby horse" isn't some special legislative term. But I suspect that Mwalimu59 didn't know this, which is why he added that line on the hobby horse disambiguation page on 29 November 2012. Unfortunately, OlEnglish had removed the line "Someone's favorite topic, to which he constantly reverts" (i.e. a variant of what I wrote) from the page on 9 November 2011, otherwise Mwalimu59 could have realised his mistake.
Do you agree, or have you ever heard of "hobby horse" being a term for proposing a legislative bill that have no chance of being passed, but doing it to make a point or appease voters?
Best regards, Thomas Blomberg (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC) if

I hadn't heard the term for certain, but if you can source it to one more source besides Snopes, I see no reason it can't stay. That said, the term may be broader than just politics too, so the other user might be correct as well. Montanabw^(talk) 16:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me: Snoopes is not talking about any specific political term, but uses "hobby horse" in the normal way, as a synonym to "pet issue". Besides the claim from Mwalimu59, I can find no foundation anywhere for any political/legislative usage of the term that is different from that meaning. Which is why I think that line should be removed from the disambiguation page. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me one way or the other. Proceed as you see fit. Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For all of your work getting the HPA1970 article to featured status, after I nominated it and then dropped off the face of the earth (or at least the wiki)! Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks, Dana. Hugs to you for all your great work too! Montanabw^(talk) 16:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oxbow

Well done on that. If you think I could help in future nominations, feel free to ping me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

just an aside, speaking of oxbows, here's a classic one.Skookum1 (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

And though you have to zoom out on this one, and it's partly a major river estuary, at high water (spring freshet) it shows clearly as partly oxbow in origin. The island with the causeway is actually a hill made out of dredging from the lake in the SE corner, though based on the original oxbow island; undiked this is all part of the tidal reaches of the Fraser, which end at Mission (Hatzic Lake, the other one, is about 4 miles east of Mission, this is 7 miles west).Skookum1 (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Noogies, Skookum! MY article was about a horse (no suprise there, I suspect...)

Montanabw, just wanted to thank you for the pony on my talk page. It was nice to read an article that is different than most of what comes at FAC, and a pleasure to review it. We haven't had something on an individual horse there in a while, and I hope this can serve as an example for others in the future. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Giants. I enjoy letting people finally get the pony they always dreamed of having! (LOL) I'm hoping we can put this up as TFA for the Breeder's Cup, perhaps (it's in early November). The horse will probably be running in that race, be fun to generate some interest. Do you think that could be a good idea? Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

infoboxes

I just became aware of the request for an Arbcom case on infoboxes.

A lot is swirling through my head, including the challenges of defining the boundaries of the scope, but your contribution seems to me to be spot on. While I do think there are issues beyond those you listed, the fact (as I understand it) that some are convinced that a Wikiproject has reached a consensus about the inclusion of infoboxes, while others do not feel that a Wikiproject has the authority to override community consensus set more generally is a key aspect of this dispute. However, that sounds like a content dispute requiring an RfC, not a behavioral problem requiring an ArbCom case, so it will be interesting to see whether the case is accepted. There may be enough bad behavior to justify a case, but any such case needs to put a temporary clamp on behavior (topics band 1RR, etc) as a stop-gap while a real content discussion is hammered-out. That sounds like a lot to bite off, we'll see.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 00:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think some of the users need some more general adult supervision; good policies and guidelines can help with that; at the moment fuzzy rules are making for anarchy. Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Be careful...

Of overriding wikiproject's ability to control issue within their project. That's what allows the horse project to continue to use hands as a measurement as well as what allows us to capitalize horse breeds. Just pointing that out. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You are correct on that and it's a valid point. My involvement over there is more raising the question of balance between the two over use of infoboxes, which at the classical music projects is totally out of control and people are being unbelievably nasty with the cover -your-ears-and-go-nanananananana. Also some of those folks have been engaging in some serious meanness and non-AGF to Gerda, who is one of the nicest people I know on wikipedia (her and Dana would be a tough call as far as who is the nicer and kinder-hearted person). I think your views of the need for some wikiproject control is also valid, though; I believe that the taxonomy projects also would have this need. The ideal solution, of course would be to have guidelines with flexibility (as for hands, nautical miles, and other alternative measurements that are terms of art within a given discipline, for example) Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no desire to paint a big target on my back. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Well, I pretty much said my bit on that one. I'm still over 70% article edits as opposed to the drahmahz boards, so I'm pleased about that. Montanabw^(talk) 22:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pony

Thank you for the pony. I will feed him on apples and stroke him and call him George. Tigerboy1966 21:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget other equine nutrition! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Poor George. — Ched : ? 23:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pack train redirects to Packhorse

Other than observing that the North America section is all about USian and "in USian", to me the topic of pack trains seems like a different topic; but then we never did get around to freightmen and expressmen I guess.... anyways this is such a cool pic, it can go on the Camborne, British Columbia page I guess, thought I'd share it with you.

If you go to the full size version and zoom in you'll be able to read the lettering as to what's being packed and to where, and by what company.Skookum1 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another article that needs more work. Feel free to pop that photo on the talk page of the article (and your comments as well). Someone may get to it eventually. You're correct, just so sad we at WPEQ have so few, well, horses to pull the wagons... Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

some cayoosh ponies and mules seem to be needed.Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW that must have been fast film/lens......go to the full size image and zoom in, the guy next to the packtrain is cracking a bullwhip, its tip is in front of the lead horse's head.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ye Gods...I shouldn't look at articles linked here. That thing's in sorry shape. And yeah, pack train really is a different topic. I don't have anything on Canadian stuff, but I've got some information about the U.S. Army's use of pack animals (mules) on the Frontier. Intothat darkness 21:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Horse's eye edit

Hello,

I'm confused as to why you reverted my edit to the horse page, specifically the section about the eye. What did you mean by "Nuance of 'design' intentional"?

Regards,

Lexoka (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The article there is discussing the unique structure of the horse eye, not why horses have eyes, which is how your well-intentioned edit made it read. Montanabw^(talk) 16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the above, and in response to this (just a few more more tedious personal remarks): I am not prepared to take advice on manners from you; nor indeed to pay the slightest attention to this or any other personal remark you may choose to make about me. Nor do I require any comment from you on the quality or otherwise of my contributions to the project. If you write ungrammatical nonsense such as "The horse ... is designed to help the horse as a prey animal", you should expect it to be described as such. That such nonsense should creep into an article by mistake is regrettable but understandable. That you should revert the efforts to remedy it of a well-intentioned editor on the pretence that the gibberish was the result of an intentional "nuance" is just pathetic. You might like to ask yourself whether it might also appear to others to be more than a little dishonest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see you're back in full form, JLAN. Mean-spirited, rude, arrogant and nasty as ever. Looking forward to the good times cranking up again at Wikiproject equine. Montanabw^(talk) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, done

"I'll keep an eye out for you," said the actress to the bishop, as she increased his CentiJimbos. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"Alle beetjes helpen", zei de mug en hij pieste in zee. LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Messara

There is no proof of the text that I removed in the Messara article, I will change it differently and hope you be satisfied this time.

Nope, the source says what the source says. You don't like it, find a different source. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything being verified in DYK

WP:DYK does say that the article itself needs to be verified, but Orlady told me that only the hook needs to be verified. I assumed that what was on the main DYK page has consensus. If you and Orlady are right, that statement should be removed. I want clarification on why something untrue would be on the main page. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is "untrue." You simply do not understand the source material. That article clearly passes DYK. Orlady is an experienced DYK expert, listen to her. Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't just statistics. You must think it is untrue because you said yourself that everything being verified is not needed. So did Orlady. That is a key issue. SL93 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Not having a cite at every sentence is not the same as material being "untrue;" see WP:POPE. It may mean the article sources need improvement, it doesn't mean they are wrong. There is a difference. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

There were issues that Tigerboy volunteered to fix which were not in any references. I will pass the article when the quote that I mentioned is cited. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have found where the quote is cited, but please don't lecture me on doing in-depth reviews right after I was lectured for not doing in-depth reviews. SL93 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry someone blasted you for the opposite problem. The problem is you went too far the other way; it wasn't an "in-depth" review, that was an inquisition where you failed to see sourced material that was right in front of you. I don't know who you are mad at, but poor Tigerboy didn't need to be on the receiving end of it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, please don't lecture me on a rule that has been on the main page for years. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a unique way of interpreting the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, that's all I have to say. You declared things not to be sourced when the source clearly verified the information. I think you are having an issue with someone, but it's not me or Tigerboy. Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I admit that I made some mistakes, but that doesn't change the fact that there were things that were not referenced which were later fixed (Did you ignore the multiple times that I said that?). I don't have a problem with either you or Tigerboy (I would say it). However, I do have a problem with a written rule saying the article itself needs to be completely verified. Ignoring Lethal Force because I approved it (which you seem to have missed), the only remaining issue is that rule. SL93 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I only came onto the article today and initially only commented on the places where you challenged the sources themselves (as in the maiden race, where the source stated - in the title of the race - that it was a maiden race). As for the rest, you can discuss that with others. I prefer to avoid the "dramahz" of that stuff. But good luck with all that. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Those were the same editors who were mad at me because apparently as a promoter, I am supposed to do a second review on top of the reviewer. It wasn't my own reviews that were complained about - this is only the third problematic one in the past two years. SL93 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I do feel for you there. DYK is becoming a real dramafest over there; I know a lot of really good content editors who have stopped bothering with DYK because of all the nonsense. I mostly do it when I have an article I think might someday go GA or FA and hence, eligible for a Four award - note I have over 150 articles created, but only about 30 DYKs, and some of those I was co-creator or co-nominator. It's a pain in the ass and then they wonder why people are leaving wiki in droves. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Saburbek photo

Where you can find there photoshop? It is real photo without photoshop) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebenok777 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Sky way too blue and perfectly free of all background on the left side. Plus, Commons is probably going to kick it for no OTRS anyway, "permission to use on Wikipedia" won't pass muster over there. (Reality is that the image will be deleted in a few weeks once a reviewer looks at it). Lovely image, but the copyright is dicey. Montanabw^(talk) 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bozeman Chronicle

So, I got a one-month e-subscription to the Bozeman Chronicle that expires August 24, 2013. I'm basically done using it for what I wanted, so if you or anyone else you know would like to use it to do research (it comes with access to all their archives) on Bozeman- or Gallatin Valley-related articles, lemme know. The clock is ticking! - Tim1965 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think User:MIke Cline is from Bozeman, but maybe ping him too. Also, User:PumpkinSky sometimes does Montana articles. I will keep you in mind if I dabble in that. Possibly you might want to see if you can enhance Hotel Baxter any, I KNOW that the place was in sort of sleazy skid row status in the early 70s and was rehabbed in the 80s. I can't find a lot of good material on the whole historical rehab of the building though, perhaps there is some stuff you can find on that... Montanabw^(talk) 04:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Already left a message for PumpkinSky, I'll do so for Mike Cline too. FYI, all my Bozeman, MSU, MOR, and Eastern Montana photos are up on Flickr (and a bunch even have descriptions). I'm bleary from it, but there you are! YAY! I hope your horse won at State Fair. (I always bet the trifecta, and never win. E-keno, I win at. ha ha!) - Tim1965 (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bet 8 of 10 races, two wins and a place. Not bad for unknown horses at the fair meet. I think we came out a whopping dollar ahead, maybe. Also ran over to a simulcast place to see Paynter (horse) come in second at Del Mar Racetrack - and enjoy the air conditioning! (Was upper 90s today, but only 8% humidity, so a little shade made it all survivable). Another dime for the coffers. I'm rolling in it, oh yeah! No interior pics of 4 seasons, though... got caught up in other stuff. Good to see racing back in Great Falls, though. Montanabw^(talk) 04:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Akhal Teke Horse

Dear Montanabw: Who are you and where did you study Akhal Teke horses? And why did you believe that the Turkoman was extinct? Do you read Farsi? Can you go on the Iranian websites of Turkoman horse breeders? Maybe you can see the Turkoman horses with your own eyes in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBCgVwFNPD4 and I'm happy to connect you with Iranian breeder of the Turkoman horse. ----ulruppelt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulruppelt (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure there are probably descendants of the ancient Turkoman horse that exist today in Iran, (and they may even be called "Turkoman" horses. However, I have also heard people say that Akhal-Teke itself IS the exact same animal as the Turkoman horse. So basically, unless you have a DNA study somewhere, it's all conjecture. This situation is pretty similar to what we have run into at Sorraia, Neapolitan horse and Andalusian horse where people make grand claims of purity and antiquity, but the reality is that the ancient ancestors are more complicated than the modern breed promoters find convenient. Wikipedia presents Neutral and verifiable information from reliable sources. You fail to provide sufficient neutral third party sources that are not breed industry propaganda to verify your claims, and particularly if they only exist in Farsi, we have a problem verifying that they are not simply the propaganda of people who try to make money. Wikipedia also is not an advertising forum, nor can it present Original research. So, for that matter, who you are is also irrelevant. It's what can be provided by solid sources that counts. So please take your concerns to the talk page of the article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply and ... greetings and...

Greetings Montanabw. Thanks for your explanation. Without knowing anything at all about the issue, I did suspect something of the sort. I've often found that such vehemence reveals, or at least hints at, vested interests other than those of improving Wikipedia. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. I appreciate your common sense and goodwill on the matter. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 15:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sergeant Reckless work

I am now done with my major work on this article. I really enjoyed it and hope you do too. PumpkinSky talk 01:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can do a B-Class for MilHist if y'all like. Intothat darkness 15:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please do! It's a terrific article! Montanabw^(talk) 16:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Done! B-class in MilHist is based more on format than anything else, and this easily passes. There are some style things that could likely stand some adjusting here and there, but that's normal. I may also see if I can verify the statement that she's the only animal who was awarded rank. I think the USMC's bulldog mascots have all had rank, and there may have been some cases from Vietnam and today of military working dogs having rank as well. Intothat darkness 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably the only horse, for sure, possibly the first animal. Be sure to differentiate between a "real" rank versus an "honorary" one and maybe check about battlefield promotions and such, eh? I think the unique thing here is how they viewed her as, for all practical purposes, human! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 16:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I stuck some info on the article talk page. I know the Marines do formal promotions for Chesty (the bulldog) much like they did with Reckless. I don't think the Army goes that far, but you never know. I know Comanche was considered an honorary colonel of the regiment or some such, but you couldn't pay me to go near that page...:-) Intothat darkness 16:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Have PSky check into all that, he has access to the source material and I don't. According the the Leighton "biography" of Comanche, I don't recall a formal investiture of rank being held. LOL on not going near that Comanche article; it's right up there with Secretariat and Phar Lap for "drahmahz" potential. Montanabw^(talk) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Back in Comanche's day it likely wouldn't have been formal. Things just didn't work that way back then. The Marines started with their bulldog tradition around World War I if memory serves, and have been enlisting and promoting them ever since. And I only go near Comanche to fend off the relentless "Morgan bloodline" claims. Crap like that makes me stick to OR. Much more satisfying. Intothat darkness 16:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

ITD--can you prep this article for GA? Arsten said it's worthy and MTBW and I will probably go for it. PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we can nominate it as is, we may catch some stuff while awaiting a reviewer... I think the backlog is at about 400 articles right now... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a whack through some of the prose today. From the history it looks like Dermies is mucking around there as well (well...one edit worth of mucking, anyhow). Intothat darkness 13:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have nom'd it at GA.

Improvements welcome. PumpkinSky talk 21:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We both took a whack at it today. Her more than me, as I was just going for style and not adding much content. Intothat darkness 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Just had fun adding trivia and doing a little cleanup. Feel free to tweak any of it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

She's the lead in DYK prep 1, YEA!!!!PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	But I like to abuse the homophones , but at least now everyone can see why I ~~want~~ need help getting the article to FA Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Merv- proof of pure blood Akhal Teke

if you give me your email address I can send you his VNIIK /MAAK passport - -----ulruppelt

Not needed, if you have a link to an advertising page with his breeder (the Facebook page didn't load and isn't a reliable source for WP anyway), that will do. Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a link to his breeder - only the passport send to me by his owner ----ulruppelt

Owner fine, do they advertise? (I don't really need to see his papers). I was looking to see if the horse is on anyone's web site, didn't find him, but saw other horses of a similar build. And also ran across this little tidbit: [14] I always find breed politics to be entertaining. (And all breeds seem to have them, both the Andalusian and Lipizzan factions have escalated theirs to lawsuits in the EU courts, in fact... sigh) Probably the stuff raised there is why I kind of was amazed to see a photo of a Teke with a decent neck ... In the USA we have a bad habit in many breeds of breeding to trends and not necessarily what's best for the betterment of the breed (The Arabian people recently seem to have forgotten the importance of hind leg conformation below the croup, for example... especially the Egyptian breeders. And don't even get me started on the faction in Quarter Horses that is DELIBERATELY breeding for HYPP because of the musculature that is typical in those lines ... OM F---king G-d, what idiots they are. ... sigh) Montanabw^(talk) 17:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

List of Puerto Ricans

First of all let me congratulate you on the hits received on "Sergeant Reckless" and your good-faith edits.

The "List of Puerto Ricans" was created years ago, but we noticed that many additions were being made of non-notable people who wanted to self-promote themselves. We then created a committee to manage the list and to verify every entry and removed those who did not meet the established notability criteria.

After verifying every name on the list we created the "addition rule". The names that you see in the list without the references are those whom the committee verified before the creation and posting of the "addition rule". This has helped us, the managers of the list, to control the inclusion of those who do meet the established standards.

The rules are simple and we expect them to be followed. I know that your intentions are well founded that you, as an understanding editor, will understand what we are doing.

Take care and countinue doing a great job in Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, we have similar problems with the Montana list (for some reason, garage bands are popular, don't ask me why). However, though you do have your rule, it would be far more effective if you did in fact have every entry sourced, too bad you didn't when you verified the old list. It looked to me like no one was verifying, and so long as it wasn't a redlink, all was well... but I sourced the one I added now, so no problem. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sergeant Reckless

On 2 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sergeant Reckless, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that a Korean war horse named Sergeant Reckless (pictured) was awarded two Purple Hearts and promoted to Staff Sergeant of the United States Marine Corps in 1959? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sergeant Reckless. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This got over 10,000 hits!PumpkinSky talk 13:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yay Reckless! (Think it was the bit about the poker chips? LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw that it would hit the stats when I saw it, great,--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

People were viewing it... recklessly! - Tim1965 (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New Montana article!

There's now one for somewhat-recently departed MSU president Geoffrey Gamble. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Burnham FAC

Many thanks for your offer to take a look at the Frederick Russell Burnham FAC.

I would be very pleased to get your comments. The Burnham article is a former FA that went through a FAR initiated by Nikkimaria last year. Pumpkin Sky and I recently made substantial updates to address many issues raised in the FAR. We got it raised to GA a few weeks ago, made more updates based on comments from the reviewers, and now the article is under review in the FAC. Nikkimaria is the only one to comment on it so far and she immediately opposed the article, so it would be really helpful to hear you thoughts. Ctatkinson (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get to work on the issues you raised. 23:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Help to remove Copyright Issue

Hello Montanabw,

Thank you for taking the time to be a Wikipedia copyright expert! We need your help in resolving an issue. An article was flagged on a Wikipedia page and we are not sure why and how to deal with this.

Here is the published article: http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=Artamp;Culture&article=1025

and here is the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malek_Jandali

We would appreciate your help and expertise in getting the page back.

Thank you!

Wikileekpediamonitor (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, not sure why you are asking for my help (though I have fixed some copyright issue in the past) and I'm not sure the concern. WP is pretty simple, don't copy things word for word, be careful not to paraphrase too closely, and don't rely solely on one source in an article. If you are closely affiliated with the topic, yo may have a Conflict of interest, which is discouraged on WP. I"m afraid I really don't have the time to be of much help to you, but perhaps you could ask at the talk page of WP:COPYVIO. Good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 15:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paynter (horse)

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Paynter (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 GA bot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paynter (horse)

The article Paynter (horse) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Paynter (horse) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paynter (horse)

The article Paynter (horse) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paynter (horse) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Eric Corbett -- Eric Corbett (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! I swear, I was going to work on the review this evening...even had the review page all opened and everything. Sorry :( Life has been insane, which is why it's easier for me to work on an article here and there rather than committing to a review. I'll try to grab the next one through - do you have anything in mind yet? Dana boomer (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks, Eric, and Dana, if you want a project, I think we are going to be putting up Sergeant Reckless for GA soon! PumpkinSky is lead editor on it, but I helped. Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Dorothy Bradley

I found that Bradley-Tietz cite, and added it to the Tietz article. It's not salacious, but it is there. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Tietz was a character. My whole undergrad was during his tenure as MSU prez. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Burnham changes

I modified the references sections you recommended: I moved the works Burnham authored to a new section, "bibliography", below "tributes"; I moved the archive materials to "external links"; I moved the non-Burnham authored materials into the "references section"; and I eliminated anything that was duplicated in the "references" section. I also merged all of the former "biography" materials into "references" and thereby eliminated a significant amount of duplication. I think this updated layout works better than what we had before. I also makes sense to me to keep all of the non-Burnham authored materials in one place, "references", so I did not create a new "further reading" section. Let me know if you think I should do this some other way.

I've also been working on a new lead as you rightly recommended. It's in my sandbox and I asked my co-author PumpkinSky for suggestions. If you have any thoughts I would be glad to incorporate your ideas. Feel free to leave me comments or just make any edits to the draft you think are appropriate. Since the text in my sandbox is still in draft, I did not invest time into fixing the references or links.

Many thanks for you excellent review comments. Ctatkinson (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help, Ctatkinson. I'm not going to have time to go over things in detail until early next week, so maybe ping me when you get the new lede in? Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

I saw your reply at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision and agree they seem to have missed a portion of the problem. This leads me to a question ... is there an age and education requirement to being an arbitrator? -- Moxy (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I think it's an elected position. Feel free to weigh in over there if you want to. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Arbs have to be "at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside", and submit documentation to the WMF to prove it. This is a non-negotiable condition imposed by the WMF, because the position involves handling sensitive personal data. The full conditions and details of the election process are at WP:ACE. The WMF has strongly hinted in the past that they'd veto any arbitrator who didn't also have admin status, but AFAIK this has never been put to the test (although Giano came close a few years ago). – iridescent 19:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. So legal age and get elected, then? ;) Montanabw^(talk) 19:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Just like public officials everywhere else.

Those are WMF requirements, though. There's no reason the community should not impose additional requirements. A Master's degree as a minimum shouldn't be too onerous, no? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Legal age, get elected, and be an administrator. What could possibly go wrong with administrators arbitrating the behaviour of other administrators? Eric Corbett 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's like they're being judged by a jury of their peers or something. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment reveals the weakness of your position. In what way, for instance, am I not a peer of Newyorkbrad? Eric Corbett 19:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, maybe not necessarily a Master's - though ability to learn from past mistakes is useful, and frankly those who self-identify as "disgruntled graduate student" may need additional scrutiny (though we'd have no scientific content in the place without them!) Perhaps make it like running for the US Congress, over 25 in the house or over 30 for the senate. Wait, bad example, that... Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

These parochial Americanisms fly right over my head - sorry! Eric's thoughtful comment sheds some further light on the matter, however. Obviously you (Montanabw) feel there should be some qualification requirement beyond the tiresomely and unreadably endless arbcom appointment process that's been used in recent years. (I mean, seriously, have you actually read every single question and every single answer, to every candidate? And then compared them against your benchmark of suitability for arbcom, whatever that may be? Every year? Do you see how excessive it is?)

So, what would you suggest? Given the nature of the position and what those holding it are supposed to do, would a few decades of experience as a lawyer be a suitable qualification? Or would a few decades of experience with computers be better? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I don't see why a Master's degree would be an excessive requirement. In the UK, approximately 50% of teenagers now go to university and therefore presumably expect to receive an undergraduate degree. Requiring a decent qualification in education beyond that point would only really suggest that we don't want arbcom to be picked from the lower 50% academically, perhaps.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, Moxy started this thread. But I agree that the endless process now is not getting what we want - at least, what I want, which is a panel of thoughtful, intelligent jurists who have the right blend of both justice and compassion with a good dose of common sense. I do think that several people on the current arbcom would fit that mold (the ones I voted for, mostly, though some have since disappointed me) but several others who I did not support and have, sadly, proved my doubts to be well-founded. I also don't know if the problem is the people or the process; does running for "re-election" make people scared and prone to support the status quo even when doing so is illogical? As for "teh wiki" overall, there IS an argument to be made that wikipedia is becoming a dysfunctional anarchy and there is a place to create something that resembles the rule of law as opposed to the consensus model. I guess my concern is that the popularity contest is resulting in a lot of people who seem to be unwilling to make the hard decisions and prefer to simply hand out indefinite bans, which will only result in more eternal drama. There's no sense of proportionality nor do the punishments fit the crime. It would be interesting if we did have a mix of RL backgrounds on Arbcom and that perhaps age, education level, area of RL employment/expertise and some anonymized general statements (verified by private email to wmf) as to RL education and profession would actually be useful. Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, I think we already do have, or have had, a mix of backgrounds on arbcom. (Brad is a lawyer, there are one or two other lawyers unless I misremember, Worm is a computer programmer and I guess one or two others might be something similar, there's probably an undergraduate or graduate student or two in there, Elen worked in local government, and so on. There's also a good spread between younger and older people, different countries representative of most of the editorship, and so on.)

How would we change this? The community could insist, in the criteria for arbcom membership, that if there was already an arbcom member who was a computer programmer by profession, whose term was not due to expire, then computer programmers would not be able to stand for election that year. Likewise with lawyers. Or it could be a higher threshold, like not wanting more than two lawyers and not wanting more than two programmers. Either way, though, it seems a bit daft?

I'm interpreting your statement of "would actually be useful" as meaning that people should be putting (or forced to put?) these pieces of information in their candidacy statements for arbcom. Seems a long way round, since quite a few do already and it seems to have little impact on the outcome.

Now, "does running for "re-election" make people scared and prone to support the status quo even when doing so is illogical?" That's a sensible question to ask, but really I look at some of the claims thrown around about how some guy imagined their personal attitude to Worm caused Worm to fail in his first arbcom election bid but succeed in his second. I'm sure we all like to think such things about our own importance, occasionally.

Equally, it's quite common for people unhappy with the outcome of a particular arbcom case to shout about how the arbcom voting will be bad news at subsequent elections for those arbs who voted the way that person did not like. But in reality, two years is a long time, many arbs don't choose to stand for a second term, and those that do are far more likely to endanger their chances through some other sort of faux pax, rather than their actions in their actual voting role as an elected official. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My own feeling is that the "ban them all, off with their heads" approach isn't solving problems. Basically, the question I have is why some of the best people (thinking about Elen, for example) seem to be the ones who get run off by the trolls... and why, though some individual arbs are excellent and thoughtful, at the end of the day, this particular bunch can't seem to come up with anything more creative or effective than 2nd grade elementary school approaches of a) detention or b) expulsion. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Elen made a bit of a goof and then failed, unfortunately, and by a very small margin, to get re-elected. The electorate being too dumb to re-elect the wise common sense lady from Yorkshire is not quite the same thing as "she was chased off by trolls".

Do also remember that arbcom has now been in existence for more than five years. Each year, a great many people say "this year's arbcom is the worst ever!" But you never see people saying "this year's arbcom is a huge improvement in the decisions it has made", do you?

Therefore, unless everyone who ever comments on arbcom is wrong, it follows that arbcom gets worse every year that it continues to exist. Eventually we will have an infinitely bad arbcom. In fact, every year's arbcom is the worst arbcom that has yet existed.

We get the lizards we vote for, remember? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Which does make me think the problem is more structural than personalities; this is one reason why I am so frustrated that ArbCom seems to think they can address structural problems by "indefinitely banning" individuals. The problem will not go away by throwing people under the bus. If ArbCom is getting worse every year, could it be because the structure of the system itself is the problem? Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

But what else can ArbCom do except indefinitely ban someone, which they seem all too keen to do anyway? My problem is in seeing the logic of treating adults like naughty children. And the customary empty promises to consider an appeal after six months/a year are risible. Eric Corbett 22:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, shit, hell and damn, Eric, how come you are always so f--king right? "treating adults like naughty children" is EXACTLY what's going on here! Trying to send everyone to their room without supper. And it works so well for children, too... sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. Adults persist in acting like naughty children, but the same response that we use with naughty children, does not have the same efficacy on adults who act in the same way. We need to find an appropriate response to such adults that is more effective. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got it arse over tit. In what universe is describing an unspecified editor as sycophantic childish behaviour worthy of a block? Until you can answer that question your position is completely without merit. Eric Corbett 23:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember blocking anyone. Are you OK, sweetie? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge, did you just call Eric "sweetie"? =:-D As for childish behavior, if I recall, (and for me it's been awhile) even as a child, being told I was being childish wasn't a lot of help. And being sent to my room or to sit in the corner just made me more furious at the injustice of the universe. I tend to be a fan of "natural consequences" also known as "let the punishment fit the crime"- But Mr. Corbett, did you actually get blocked ONLY for calling someone a syncophant, or did you embellish it with a few more salty adjectives? Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No "salty adjectives", I simply referred to an unspecified couple of editors as "sycophantic admin wannabees". Eric Corbett 10:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I did. Don't you think of him like that? If not, why not?

Cause "Sweet" is not the first word that comes to mind, LOL, but if it works for you, no problem! ;) (In my case, the first word is "grammarian..." but I'm kind of strange in my thought process...)

And yes, there is a problem that the whole idea of having to sit in the corner is just... too much. What right do you have to make me do so? I shall throw a tantrum! And so it goes on... until one day people either grow up naturally or really make an effort to act like adults. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Or quit "teh wiki". Which is sad and seems to affect the wrong people; the trolls never leave... Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just so. Although some of them do talk about leaving a lot. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

No! Not anyone we know? ;-) (SCOMN!) Montanabw^(talk) 06:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom should be abolished. They're long lost their compass, have no credibility, and are completely unpredictable. PumpkinSky talk 14:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Did the committee have credibility and a compass when you served on it? Did anyone say so at the time? (See my comment above about how every year's arbcom is supposedly "the worst arbcom ever".) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Was this aimed at me or at PSky? In my time, it still had some residual credibility but the compass was well-and-truly broken by that point. And yes, I (and others, both on and off the committee) did say so at the time, very noisily, as Newyorkbrad can no doubt testify. As I also said at the time (and since), it's easy to bitch about the Arbcom system but unless you can come up with something better, there's not a lot of point—devising a governance system that would allow broad participation, prevent cliques being able to dominate, where necessary make unpopular decisions relatively swiftly, handle the flood of other crap that comes Arbcom's way that most people are never aware of, while being drawn from the ever-shrinking pool of people who are willing to volunteer and aren't batshit crazy. – iridescent 20:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. A rather similar situation to Winston Churchill's view of the usefulness of democracy as a form of government. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I can't compare different years nor will I say a word of evaluation while a case is open. I see that as the conclusion of detailed evidence, I am accused of systematically adding infoboxes. Right, I did: most works by Kafka had one, I added several more, still not all. I need to be restricted, did you know? Best: to adding no infoboxes at all. Quote from a guide book on a city: "has to be experienced to be believed". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am fully aware of what comes AC's way, what they do, and what they put up with. So consider that for me to say what I did, it took a lot. And yes, I know people who were arbs before and have been arbs since or are now and told me it's way worse than it used to be. Wiki is totally dysfunctional. It needs rebuilt and we need to start at the top. As for the infobox case, a 12-year old with no wiki experience could have written a better decision. PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is consistent with my theory that every year's arbcom is worse than the year before. On a positive note, this does mean that we can be sure that this year's arbcom is a marked improvement on next year's arbcom. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Per Gerda, I am part of a "pro-infobox cabal" that "systematically" added infoboxes to about 350 horse breed articles a few years back. So indefinitely ban me now! (sheesh!) Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. There appears to be a vacancy in the coveted "enemy of the state" position these days... Intothat darkness 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Bring it! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I about to have to relinquish my position? Have I not been bad enough recently? Eric Corbett 22:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You're old news..."been there, done that," as it were. Or the convenient "enemy within" to be hoisted periodically to remind the good folk that evil still lurks within their doors. That and you keep coming back. It's more satisfying to drive the enemies of the state away with the traditional torches and assorted flogging materials. Intothat darkness 22:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I have more bottom than my detractors do. For those unfamiliar with 18th-century English, "bottom" was a term used to describe physical endurance, particularly in bare-knuckle fighters such as Ned Painter. Eric Corbett 22:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's also used in regard to horses, so I'm familiar with the term from my Frontier Army studies. But back to the point, I tend to think that closed societies need a persistent enemy (think "Fifth Columnists"). Since you serve as something of a lightning rod, you fill that role perfectly. Intothat darkness 13:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The time may come when no more content is added to "teh wiki" because the drama trolls ran off all the content editors. Montanabw^(talk) 17:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen you write in multiple places that Tony was the creator of Wikipedia:Four Award. I thought you'd be interested to know that the page history shows it was TomasBat who created it on 24 February 2009. Cheers. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I made a couple of comments. If he's the one maintaining it and the creator is long gone, then pretty much same diff. Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre issue

I hadn't posted my reasons yet re Dresden Triptych but have now. Given that the reasons are strong and valid, I'd like you to retract this comment in regards to bizarre issues and apologize. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, "When I get the energy I'll oppose for lots of reasons that I don't feel like spelling out here" is not a reason. If you have a reason, please provide me the link to the location of your reasoning. Until then, this just sounds likea WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation. And I don't know you at all, my comment wasn't directed at you (it was directed at the person who apepars to have a knee-jerk "oppose" vote without stating her reasons. Which is, in my humble opinion, kind of bizarre. I mean, why does anyone object to the honor of a TFA for an article they worked on (other than the day of vandal patrol, which is, I admit, a pain)? Montanabw^(talk) 19:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Akhal Teke photo leading the article

Hi montanabw: Thanks for your edits of my new information. Now regarding the photo that leads the article: I think it makes sense to have a photo of a World Champion there who exemplifies the breed in the eyes of a group of judges who are breed experts. This is what Dagat Geli is (and Ikon is not): The World Champion of Akhal Tekes 2010. It would be great if you could reverse the change or let me know what your point of view is. Thanks so much in advance, Ulruppelt (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)ulruppelt

Well, basically, the photo I think you want to use has two problems. The first is that the horse is so thin you can see its ribs. The second is that we prefer wikipedia articles to have horses in the lead image facing "into" the article, and that one has the horse facing the "wrong" way. And, actually, there is an argument that using a particularly famous individual may be a WP:NOADS gray area and lead to an editing dispute if there are other factions who think THEIR horse should have won, or should be the lead image. (We kind of prefer a "generic" representative for that reason) Also, the existing image is a lovely animal, in good flesh, facing the "correct" way and the background, apparently in Turkemenistan, gives the ethnic flavor of the breed. But we can discuss this more at the article's talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 15:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

ok - will take this to Article Talk page Ulruppelt (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)ulruppelt

I'm too old for this.....

Tired of the b.s. and endless sisyphean struggle with various forms of stupidity and obstinacy. Nice knowin' ya montanabw, but I've had it, I'm done, I've only got so many years left, don't want to spend them trying to talk common sense into those who have none. If I ever get back to the mountains I'll look you up. - Skookum1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.205.85.204 (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You'll be Missed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Take Charge, Lady...

Just heard the Travers on horseracingradio.net. Verrazano went down like a lead balloon, Palace Malice and Orb saved face, but the winner is Take Charge Indy's kid brother Will Take Charge (article to follow). Looks like the US three-year-olds are much of a muchness this year, but seeing five or six good colts battling it out over the course of a season is more fun than seeing a dominant champion wiping the floor with second-raters (I may be in a minority in this respect). Tigerboy1966 22:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It IS a lot of fun; they broadcast the race on NBC so I saw it on TV (for a change). It was fun to see Will Take Charge finally do so. (I think he's by Unbridled Song, but same dam??) He is a HUGE colt, clearly over 17 hands, and it will be interesting to see him continue to develop, I think that he was mostly getting in his own way for most of the season until now (though he beat Oxbow by a neck or so back last spring in the Rebel Stakes -- feel free to crib that material and the ref from the Oxbow article...) all that said, Palace Malice was bumped really bad at the start by the horse to his outside and probably would have been stronger had he not had such a terrible start. Orb's excuse was a new jockey, Joel Rosario broke his foot the day before. I was kind of pissed that the trainer passed over Rosie Napravnik as a replacement rider for some young guy who no one has heard of. (Sexism still alive and well, grrr...) It's wonderful to see a year of several really good colts, yes. Montanabw^(talk) 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Horse racing stubs

I'll try to. Thing is, I do a lot of auto-tagging without looking at the articles, and I'd rather err on the side of caution than mis-tag something. That said, I don't think I've checked on horse racing stubs yet; if I pull the articles from a stub category that makes a bit of difference with regard to tagging. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is when they aren't tagged at all, anywhere... I'm sympathetic, but it's way easier to assess them low and get them attention than to not assess and they never draw the eye of an interested editor. IMHO anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'll give it a thought tonight. Or whenever I get to the horse-racing stubs; I have a few others on my list to look at now. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Horse (estimated annual readership: 2,485,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Thoroughbred (estimated annual readership: 312,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display these userboxes:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Horse to Good Article status.

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Thoroughbred to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for missing you on the first pass, and thanks again on behalf of the many readers your work serves every year. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Reckless is GA

yea! Feel free to share credit for it. PumpkinSky talk 21:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paynter (horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saratoga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Hey Monatanbw, I happened to see your post on First Kite's talk page (he just blocked an IP I reported for disruptive editing) and I'm sorry to hear of your frustration and fatigue. While I encourage people (and myself) to take breaks (long ones if needed) I wanted to also encourage you to keep coming back as your contributions are highly valued. So thank you for all that you have done here on WP and please let me know if I can be of any help to you at any time. Cheers! — Keithbob • Talk • 17:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, well, trot over to the infobox was at Arbcom. My position there is pretty clear and it probably shows you why I am a bit frustrated with "teh" wiki.

Facepalm Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was active on that Arbcom during the evidence and workshop phases and expressed an opinion that the lynching of Pigs seemed unwarranted given the evidence presented and that the misbehavior didn't seem one sided to me. I then took a two week wikibreak and was unable to catch up to the discussions and proceedings. The PD talk page, as you well know, is a giant wall of text. The case seems on the verge of closing now and I can see how you would feel discouraged and drained given the final outcome there. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it was total crap. And now everyone is crying because the people on the other side had their poor widdew fweewings hurt because someone called them on their crap. Crocodile tears. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

for removing WP Equine from the two sculpture articles I recently created. Should the horse portals on the articles themselves be removed as well? --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The horses portal automatically installs on talk with the project tag. So if that tag is removed, WPEQ really has no real strong view if articles outside the project want to add the portal in the article mainspace, for us it's usually at talk. My view is that Category:Equestrian statues covers it well enough and directs those people interested in such things to the broader category. IMHO. Thanks for asking! Montanabw^(talk) 00:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Emergy- caTCH 22

Montanabw...thanks for weighing in on the emergy catch 22. I'm not sure how to proceed (first let me say that I am not versed in Wikipedia usage, so only tentatively understand how the talk pages work). In your response to me you suggested that I weigh-in on the Emergy talk page. I'd like to, but the page has been removed and replaced by a redirect to embodied energy. I think you also mentioned that I could demonstrate my lack of a conflict of interest by citing the published literature (or something along those lines) The emergy article I wrote was well documented and had many references to the scientific literature. There seemed to be a difference of opinion back in 2010 when I posted the article as one editor suspected COI while another weighed in saying it didn't look like conflict to him/her. At that time, Like currently, I did/do not know how to proceed following the acquisition.

You asked for peer reviewed articles. here's a partial list (last 5 years) of my peer reviewed articles on emergy: Campbell, E.T. and M. T. Brown. 2012. Environmental accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services for the US National Forest System. Environment, Development and Sustainability 15 (5):691-724. Brown, M.T. M. Raugei, and S. Ulgiati. 2012. On boundaries and ‘investments’ in Emergy synthesis and LCA: A case study on thermal vs. photovoltaic electricity. Ecological Indicators 15 (2012) 227–235 Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati. 2011. Understanding the global economic crisis: A biophysical perspective. Ecological Modelling 223 (2011) 4– 13. Brown, M.T., Ulgiati, S., 2010. Updated evaluation of exergy and emergy driving the geobiosphere: A review and refinement of the emergy baseline. Ecological Modeling, 221(20): 2501-2508. Brown, M.T., Protano, G., and Ulgiati, S., 2010. Assessing Geobiosphere Work of Generating Global Reserves of Coal, Crude Oil, and Natural Gas. Ecological Modeling, 222(3): 879–887. Brown, M.T., A. Martinez, and J. Uche. (2010). Emergy analysis applied to the estimation of the recovery of costs for water services under the European water framework directive. Ecological Modelling 221:2123-2132. Brown, M.T. and K.C.Reiss. 2010. Landscape Development Intensity and Pollutant Emergy/Empower Density Indices as Indicators of Ecosystem Health. in Jorgensen, et. al (eds) Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York.171-188p. Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati. 2010. Emergy Indices of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics. In Jorgensen, et. al (eds)Handbook of Ecological Indicators for Assessment of Ecosystem Health, 2nd ed. CRC Press, New York.333-352p. Aries, M. E. and M.T. Brown. 2009. Feasibility of using constructed treatment wetlands for municipal wastewater treatment in the Bogotá Savannah, Colombia. Ecological Engineering 35:1070-1078 Brown, M.T. M.J. Cohen, and S. Sweeney. 2009. Predicting National Sustainability: the convergence of energetic, economic and environmental realities. Ecological Modeling 220: 3424-3438 Ulgiati, S. and M.T. Brown. 2009. Emergy and Ecosystem Complexity. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. 14:1 (310-21) Brown, M.T. and M.J. Cohen. 2007. Emergy and network analysis. In Fath, B.D. and S.E. Jorgensen (eds.) Encyclopedia of Ecology. Elsevier. New York 18p. Brown, M.T. and S. Ulgiati, 2007. Emergy, transformity and net emergy yield. In. Capehart, B.L. (ed) Encyclopedia of Energy Engineering and Technology. Marceal Dekker, New York .NY Ferreyra, C. and M.T. Brown. 2007. Emergy Perspectives On The Argentine Economy During The Twentieth Century: A Tale Of Natural Resources, Exports And External Debt. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development. Vol 6:1,pp17-35 Brown, M.T., M.J. Cohen, E. Bardi and W.W. Ingwersen. 2006. Species diversity in the Florida Everglades, USA: A systems approach to calculating biodiversity. Aquatic Sciences. Vol 68 No. 3: 254-277.

BTW, I have written several encyclopedia articles (see Brown and Cohen 2007; Brown and Ulgiati, 2007; Brown and Ulgiati 2010; Brown and Reiss, 2010) and was not disqualified or accused of a conflict of interest, In fact was sought out as the expert in the field.

I contacted justletersandnumbers asking advice on how to proceed and received no reply. I have read the COI article, neutral point of view, etc. I believe that I have not violated wikipedia's COI. I would like to find out how to remove the re-direct and reinstate the page. Thanks for any help/advice you can provide. Mtbrown8 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you are interested (?), I've started a discussion of this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Emergy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC how to?

regarding Wolf attacks on humans thanks for tip. Was looking at instruction page on RFC and.... amid all the politics and jargon, instructions are missing. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to wiki. Try the talk page...ask for the link. Lots of folks there... Montanabw^(talk) 23:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Pryor Mountains GA drive?

So, I again stumbled over the awesome work that is Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range, Pryor Mountain Mustang and Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Would you have any interest in a GA push on these three articles, maybe with associated work on Mustang horse? Most of the heavy lifting is already done on the first three articles, and I don't think they'd take much work to get them to at least GA status...definite potential for FA in all three, as well.

Pinging in User:Tim1965 and User:Ealdgyth, if they're interested, as Tim is the main force on the PMWHR article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've hit the burnout period of my editing .. made it to the Wikicup finals and real life is kicking my butt. Maybe I'll have energy next month? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

How can this be dovetailed into wikicup competition? Ealdgyth is still in, but the rest of us have to wait until when for contributions to count? Can we start now and submit later? I'm up for at least the first three "easier" ones if Tim is up for the work on the Pryor ones (though, note they are very similar, I cribbed from Tim heavily for the second one...). Mustang will be a LOT of work on the research end, and much of it will probably be mine... :-P But I'm always good for more green plusses and gold stars, yes. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

We would have to wait until January if we were working towards Cup points. We can't work on articles in 2013 and submit for points in 2014 - each editor claiming points for an article has to have done significant work on the article in the year in which points are being claimed. And I don't really even think there is "significant" work needed for the first three articles to become at least GA. Mustang does need significant work, so we could definitely put that one off until next year, if we all want to use it for Cup points, and it has quite a few interwikis, so it would have a good set of bonus points. Dana boomer (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That works for me. Which one first? I suppose the refuge/Pryor Mustangs if Tim is game, and the Act if he's busy?? Montanabw^(talk) 00:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned the Cup mainly because it's the cause of my burnout - not that I was expecting to enter any of these articles in said. I'm just plain busy right now. Hopefully, after the 22nd, things will calm down (last art festival of the year). Ealdgyth - Talk 00:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And nothing like having a core article on the main page today, either ! (does a TFA give you more wikicup points?) How DO you manage to do this and have a life? Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

TFA doesn't give you more cup points...you get lots of points for FAC but they don't want to promote fighting over front-page spots. I'm going to start taking a run through the Pryor Mtn articles, doing c/e and leaving comments on the talk pages. I'll start with the Act until we hear from Tim. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

How about getting Montana to GA/FA now and the horse stuff in 2014? PumpkinSky talk 02:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Montana is proceeding, slowly; I think it took us a year to get Appaloosa to FA. Montana is a big article, Ealdgyth, how long did it take to get Middle Ages to FA? I know there's a lot more to do on the history section that is sort of my bit (we're at WWI there, I think) and it's getting SO well done that we might have to move that whole section to replace the History of Montana article and then summarize it in the main one. These other ones are small and can probably be done and nom'd in a couple weeks with serious effort. Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Goldarnit, I'm not even a horse person! :) I'm stuck on real life for the rest of September, and have a couple big WP projects I've dropped the ball on. I've never tried for a Cup, because I'm so despairing of DYK and the GA process as a whole (I don't even try for FA). I've never even had a Triple Crown yet, despite more than 300 DYKs and a few GAs here and there. I could help out on Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range and Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Pryor Mountain Mustang is a bit of an article fork (eep), and I'm so ignorant of things horsey that I doubt I could contribute more there. I also am a fan of doing more work on Montana (which I've not done, because I am a bad person). - Tim1965 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that I need to add the copy and paste note to the talk at the PMM article (if I didn't already). Would it make sense to get the PMWHR article GA first because the duplicate material can then cross to the PMM, avoiding duplication of effort, then cleaning up the Mustang-specific stuff? (wondering). Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, Montana and I can work on the PMM article and the law article until you have the time to work on the WHR article... To be honest, I think of both of these articles more as daughter articles than as forks - we can have a summary in the main WHR article and extra information in the daughter article, which will help us keep the range article focused on the range, rather than on subtopics (like the law and breed). Extensive information on the subtopics, while interesting and appropriate for those article, gets a bit off-track in the main article, and it's nice to be able to say: here's a nice little summary, if you want more details, go to xyz article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the Act article needs the most work, so perhaps we should start there? Montanabw^(talk) 18:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup, Act first is fine with me. The Range article is a little on the long side, so I really think there is some stuff that can be moved from there to the subarticles (or may already be copied over), such as specifics of the horses and act that don't really affect the range, without affecting the completeness of the range article. But we can look at that when we get to that article. Dana boomer (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that PMWHR needs to have anything removed at present, and definitely not without Tim's blessing. Given that the Act sort of dovetails with the creation of the range (would not exist without it in its current form), I'm beginning to agree that you are actually right that PMM and Act should go first... then the cleaned up stuff that needs to go into PMWHR can be copied over if needed, thus less to do... I guess it doesn't really matter which way we go. But it looks like *I* will be spending time at blm.gov (what fun... ;-P) Montanabw^(talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't own that PMWHR article! My sense is that it might be a bit long for GA status. For some reason, WP still has that "45k or less" attitude, as if it were publishing on paper or everyone was still using modems. The Act and the Mustang articles were originally part of the PMWHR article, so I agree that anything that can be moved out of the "main" article and into the Act and Mustang articles should be. Those can be "re-added" using a {{main}} tag, if need be. My big concern is that I have a tendency to turn an article into "this is what happened today" article at the end, because it's so easy to tap into news sources that are recent. I think the PMWHR article gets too "newsy" at points. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The Under 45K standard went the way of the dodo a long time ago unless you get a newbie reviewer or a troll. (See, e.g. horse). We'll clean up the (our?? LOL) Act and the PMM, then see what to do to totally screw up the PMWHR. (grin) But nothing stops you from diving in anywhere -- frankly, on a horse article, non-horse eyes are good to catch up if we start using jargon too much. Montanabw^(talk) 15:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The length max is generally considered to be 6,000-10,000 words, with articles on bigger topics (horse, agriculture, middle ages, etc) being longer. The range article is sitting just over 6,000 right now. The parts I'm thinking about trimming are things like the specific characteristics of the horses, issues with the law that don't specifically relate to the range, etc. As Tim says, the "main" article tags are going to be our friend in this case. Things like management of the horses (which relates directly to the range) should stay, how tall the horses are and what color they are...not so much, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. Where is the article length (K or words) counter place where we can crunch this stuff? I had WR Brown go through GA and FA with nary a peep about length, though, and Oxbow is longer than PMWHR. That said, I DO agree that the "main" tag is our friend and details about the horses like color and height probably can be moved out. Tim, if we get too crazy, just pull on the reins and say WHOA! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 01:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a script that runs and gives me word count. Created by Dr PDA, I think? It's on my vector/monobook page. Anyway, both of those articles are significantly shorter (especially by wordcount) than the range article: The range article is 6028 words/64.6 kb total, Oxbow is 3308 words/59 kb, and WR Brown is 3671 words/44.1 kb. The ratio is off on Oxbow because of the tables. That said, I'm not saying we need to trim the range article severely, just move/toss if already moved info that doesn't specifically relate. Dana boomer (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

WOrks for me. Montanabw^(talk) 03:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to WPEQ stalkers

Found this. Ongoing place to peek: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_horses Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about edit revert

I am not a frequent editor of articles and am not familiar with the culture of wikipedia editing in general (I'm not even sure this is the correct way to engage discussion). I was just wondering about an edit revert that you did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zebroid&diff=prev&oldid=571871433

Your comment was that the original text was an accurate statement. While that is true, was not my edit more accurate in that it didn't give the appearance of a preference for naming? I believe that my edit reads much better and is a much better organized and neutral statement. Thus both of the statements are accurate. Is there some other guideline I am not aware of that says original text should remain unless it is inaccurate?

I was probably on a mad vandal reversion spree, only 3000 articles on my watchlist, sometimes I'm a bit too quick on the draw. Your edit works well enough for me, though . Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A friendly request for comment

Hello! I'm requesting your comments at WP:EL/N#ELs to sites requiring registration as the other involved editor. Please note: I have opened this discussion in good-faith and it is not my intention to be disruptive towards your editing, nor to question your aptitude for and commitment to Wikipedia. I'm simply seeking clarification and guidance regarding the policy WP:ELNO#EL6/WP:ELREG. I look forward to your comments and hope that this will be a productive experience for both of us. Cheers!! DKqwerty 01:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Well deserved, see below, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for words on the most recent flare-up. A reminder to us all to make sure to prevent some editors from "owning" articles. -- kosboot (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

WHICH "most recent flare-up? There are so many! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 16:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well done! `Frze` ^{> talk} 20:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Re. Frze

Hi Montana, I noticed you were having problems with Frze and posted the summary of the problems that I had with him on The Bill. In the past I have noticed other petty arguments he has had with editors. He is one of those bothersome people who go around nit-picking at minor mistakes in articles that other editors have spent hours on writing major contributions to. As far as I can make out he doesn't understand English very well, as his native tongue is German, and this leads to greater angst when dealing with him. For further evidence you might like to go Acalamari talk where he is having a go at me on that admin site.The Dart (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support @ Acalamari talk. Good luck with the GA on Homer. Goodnight mate (an Aussie term of endearment). Thanks again.The Dart (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Message

Just saw your post - your pic of a kitten on FIPV. I am so sorry if that was your kitten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.146.36 (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

She was a very sweet kitten and we were quite sad to have her develop FIP and lose her that way; thanks for your kind words. Montanabw^(talk) 14:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Barbed Wire

"Reverted good faith edits by Eddaido (talk): Galleries discouraged, WP is not a scrapbook, commons where the image collections go". OK, you're welcome to find images up to your standards but you do owe readers the knowledge that what fenced the US West (and made vast fortunes) is/was not the only kind and far from it. I have not entered one abusive word on this page but there is a big red sign appeared - some one has a problem! Eddaido (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You meant well, but endless photo galleries belong on Commons. Don't lecture me about the west; I live here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Still that red sign (calling me names). You mean well too. The fortunes I refer to were for the men who made the barbed wire. Seeing its getting circular: "OK, you're welcome to find images up to your standards but you do owe readers the knowledge that what fenced the US West is/was not the only kind and far from it." Come on, you can do it, because you're worth it. (!) Eddaido (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"That red sign" you get when you post a message to me is HUMOR. It's the "Shakespeare Insult Generator" and it's meant to be funny. It's intended to slow down people who actually intend to be rude to me. As for the rest, read WP:GALLERIES: "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons." The article already has a bunch of images of barbed wire, and I can walk into a bar in any town in my state and find a barbed wire "collection" someone assembled nailed on the wall with a couple dozen examples. If you wanted to research the history of barbed wire and add a bunch more narrative, then some of your examples might be relevant then to expand as examples. Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Dude, thanks for sticking up for Burnham article, but don't sweat it. People who hold themselves in very high regard love to be confrontational sinces it give them a chance to affirm their self-importance and to tell us just how little we matter. Life is really all about them. I find that it's frequently better just to ignore them when possible.

If I can be of help to you with any articles, just let me know. I'm generally not the best person to ask for assistance in writing/editing since my dyslexia tends to slow me down quite a bit. But I am a strong researcher and I have access to vast collections of print and online resources, so I am happy to you help find facts and cites anytime you need assistance in this area. Ctatkinson (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and I will keep that in mind. Don't let the bastards grind you down! Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support for completing articles for the tribes in the lower 48. I was actually kind of proud of the fact that it was done, and you are the only person that noticed or cared at all. Moral of the story for me, don't waste so much time on Wikipedia. Anyway, happy editing to you! -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I think it's a HUGE accomplishment, Uyvsdi, and in an area where a lot of people are totally clueless. It is not wasted time, it's just unappreciated time, there's a difference (in a few hours I may need you to remind me of this, see above drama... sigh...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

peer review

Hi Montana:

Can you please review and fix "Fluorine". If it's too long, hit a section.-TCO 98.117.75.177 (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I could, but any reason why me? ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Because I like you. 71.127.137.171 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I like you too. Does that mean I can pawn off my articles for you to fix? GregJackP Boomer! 18:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Everyone's a comic today! LOL! (And I have not really gotten around to Fluorine yet...) Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

your changes

Hi Montanabw, yes nobody is talking about that is natural here but a lot of horse owner do so maybe not in USA but in Europe. Nerver mind.

I tried to find any placed to link the article as it was suggested Orphan|date=September 2013 on the main page.

Maybe you could help to do the on the English pages is more easy for you.

What does the low importance mean?. The influence from the research in training and keeping horses is not low. The German Riding association is just printing a new book with the influence of the research for horses and horse owners to handle the horses more easy. maybe have a look to "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale" also US mustang facilities are using f.e the results of the laterality research.

There are also studies suggesting that a foal will "inherit" or perhaps imprint^{[citation needed]} dominance behavior from its dam, and at ...

I would realy like to know the scientific studies of than. Even Prof Catherine Houpt who was the nearly first scientist, working with inprintind did not say that the foal imprint the dominance behavior. And further studies are showing that imprinting is not a good way to handle foals at all.

Studies.^{[citation needed]} of domesticated horses indicate that horses appear to benefit from a strong female presence in the herd.

I know studies that there is a benefit from old female with a lot of experience. And the Studies of Krueger/Heinze an d a new Study (in press) are showing that it is important to have old horses in a group for social learning in horse, but I would also really have the link to the scientific literature maybe you can find it.

Etron770 (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What we need for your suggestions are more links to the studies in question (even if in German, we have German speakers here) so we can look at them and see if they make any sense. (For example, the study you cited about "roundpenning" was a really poorly-designed study by people who don't understand the methods and purpose of round pen training, not that I agree with the natural horsemanship movement a lot of the time anyway, but the goal is not to "chase a horse around" with the intent to have a horse follow you around in the pasture...). Also, some of this material you are discussing is actually nothing new, it's been known for centuries. Some of these "studies" are just a bunch of bored grad students "proving" things that everyone already knows. I'm not opposed to adding good new research, but after running across stuff like this (feeding grain makes horses "hot," duh...but hey, the lead "researcher" was Ray Hunt's grandson...), I've gotten very cynical about some stuff that gets classed as "research." Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

.. harsh words ... but some points of your answer are illustrating that you are not familiar with the scientific world especially in biology. Your opinion is completely different to the opinion of the leading scientist in animal cognition research. But maybe they are wrong. That's always possible in science. If you really want to discuss the things in a scientific way we can start, but otherwise it will be lost time. That's the common procedure between horseman and scientists especially the opinion that the most of the research is known for centuries. Its your decision to stop her or to go into a serious discussionEtron770 (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Um no - you are winning NO points here by making any kind of assumption about what I do or do not know about science or biology. And if you are talking about Konstanze Krüger, it appears that [15], she clearly is studying this area, and is publishing, [16], but she is hardly "the leading scientist in animal cognition research." Much as I DO tip my hat to her and take a certain schadenfreude in seeing folks like Monty Roberts debunked, we all know they are hucksters anyway. You have to understand that "equitation science" is a very new field, much of what is happening in Europe has already been done in the USA. From reviewing various studies that get reported, half the time the researchers clearly don't know what they are doing when they set up certain tests, so their results are of questionable validity, or else they are setting up tests to "prove" the obvious. While it is true that many past studies (with which you and I BOTH disagree) that are"anti-horse" in their outcomes (to over-simplify) have suffered from equally poor design, my point here is that if you want to insert material into wikipedia, you need to provide a full cite to the study, be sure the material presented actually states what you claim it states, and not just drop in random material and state, "OK, you other people take my word for it and fix it up." The "roundpenning" study is actually a study of Roberts' "join up" method, which is somewhat different, and because it is poorly written, it fails to explain what was actually occurring. I actually have a thought for how this study could be inserted into the Robert's article, but needs a proper cite to the published paper. Montanabw^(talk)

I see that we are talking about different things:

but after running across stuff like this (feeding grain makes horses "hot," duh This is not a peer reviewed article it is a conference article. You can only see the talk but you can not her the discussion after the talk ;-) Those articles are not accepted for scientific reputation, therefore they are not the best source for a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etron770 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You have to understand that "equitation science... may be the Roundpen study was equitation science but the rest of the studies are equine science. Its a great difference. As I know, this study was only be done to have a peer reviewed tool for the next one
... the leading scientist in animal cognition research." who is talking about that?!? Maybe it was a problem of my English?
The "roundpenning" study is actually a study of Roberts' "join up" method yes it is - Did I wrote something different? As I know, the name Join up was not used because they did not want some letters of M Roberts advocates. '
', which is somewhat different, and because it is poorly written why ? even MR cited thee research on his homepage in his blog. Maybe you can go into details. Suhre it seems that this research was the first one after the phd theses and those are normally not better written than the next ones ...
'Calling me stupid that are your words I wrote that you are not familiar with the scientific world especially in biology. and your last answer about equitation science was showing this again.

So again if you want to start the discussion about the influence of the studies for riding, training, keeping and "equitaton science", we can try to talk in a more calm way...Etron770 (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your legitimate problem with English is probably the root of most of our misunderstandings, though clearly you just once again implied that I am stupid. I clearly understand the difference between "equine" and "equitation" - science and otherwise. I don't know what your problem is here, you made poor quality edits to an article, with an inadequate citation, and then told everyone else to just fix it. That was rather rude. I suggest that you put your proposed changes on the TALK pages of each article in question that you'd like to see changed, and then each can be discussed there by those who care (which will mostly be me, but maybe a few others will join the discussion). We can look at the material you want to cite, we can work on a way to word it, and then move forward. Montanabw^(talk) 15:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know where in the discussion I told you that you are stupid, if yes I do apologise for that even I do not know for what. I only wrote 'that you are not familiar with the scientific world' Sorry about that but it has nothing to do with stupid and with the citation of a conference proceeding you got me another hint for that. Ok no problem I as wrong, sorry.

' I suggest that you put your proposed changes on the TALK pages of each article in question that you'd like to see changed, and then each can be discussed there by those who care' That's a good point for non native speakers - Thanks, but do you think this will be productive after this discussion? I will tryEtron770 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, that now makes THREE times! ... "that you are not familiar with the scientific world" is precisely the insult. You know nothing about me, my level of education, understanding, or comprehension, and you appear to assume that just because I disagree with you, I therefore don't know what I'm talking about (when you are citing to a poorly-designed study, even if someone published it). I really don't care if you want to engage in productive discussion or not, as at this point I think you are an arrogant fool. Feel free to post your suggestions on the relevant pages, I certainly can't stop you. If you do so without the attitude that you have here, that you have superior knowledge or understanding to others who edit wikipedia, maybe things can be "productive." It's entirely up to you. Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

'arrogant fool' ... ' I certainly can't stop you.' you did congratulation Etron770 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No drama, just a remark.

You know it is not easy to change anything on the pages you have on your watchlist? Hafspajen (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. I have 3500+ articles on my watchlist, dozens changed daily (50-60 a day minimum) and I don't say boo to 80% of them. Look at the quality of the edits. Do it right, I don't fight with you, and half the time it may be done wrong, but I don't need the drama, either. Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Urgent plead of help

Monty oh Monty. My fellow Finns are, again, at their favourite pastime. MAKING ME FEEL SO ASHAMED I COULD JUST DIE AND COME BACK AS A VENGEFUL GHOST SO I COULD POSSESS THEM AND MAKE THEM SLAP THEIR ARSES LIKE THE DROOL-SPATTERING SIMIANS THEY ARE.

Just... just look at this excerpt and try to tell me you didn't laugh while shouting and shout while laughing as you trodded through the viscous futileness that is its vision of grammar. (I'm leaving every sic out on purpose. You'll thank me later.)

Arabian horse is all-around horse which can almost do any type of sport. Arabians can go in for harness but also dressage, jumping, eventing and western riding but these classes it usually is not top of the World. The breed asset has its versatile as same horse can go all these classes.
In endurance ride Arabian horse is unbeaten because its endurance, speed and stamina. All the Worls tophorses this class are all Arabain horses or Arabian partbreds.

Arabian horses also have own races which organised among other thing Poland, Great Britain, Russian and Sweden.
— Suomen arabianhevosyhdistys

SAHY is a member of WAHO and ECAHO. I shudder. Seeing how that one site's webmaster has, to date, flopped precisely zero fins during the two or three entire years my generous offer to proofread the entire English translation of their Finnhorse promotion site, for free, out of my good goodness, AFTER I MADE IT VERY CLEAR THEY WERE SELLING HOBBY HORSES of all things... I'm much too cynical about contacting SAHY myself to coax them to get someone, anyone (even me) to just wipe the most offending globs of shudder-worthy failure out of that piece of miserable, slobbering inadequacy they call their English-language site.

Please, Monty, my dear, please please arrange a band of black-clad troops from your most sardonic, most British* Wikipedian equestrian allies, and let them forge an e-mail in the fires of Mt Doom. For I am mortified.

* honorary British will do

--Pitke (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

- ARRRGGGGHHHH! I feel your pain! This is babelfish translation at its worst! Just tell them they can copy Arabian (horse) verbatim with GDFL license, and we'll be glad to mention that there are foo Arabians in Finland! Sheesh! (By the way, your command of English adjectives is impressive, even by the standards of the Shakespeare Insult Generator that I post on my talk edit page! LOL!) By the way, the Finnish Arabian article looks pretty light and in need of help. Feel free to translate from the en.wiki version, which is a solid GA with good sources and the backing of the full WPEQ team! (Ealdgyth and I both own Arabians, I think you knew that already...) Montanabw^(talk) 17:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bad try

Montanabw says: "...inserting a Fox News and American Enterprise Institute analyst as a neutral source."

Montanabw seems to have her own personal rule against conservatives and people who show up on national TV. She is in blatant violation of the NPOV rules. Actually the Barone Almanac is the standard neutral source on elections used by ALL journalists. Rjensen (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And Rjensen, who openly and publicly self-identifies, is also an admin on Conservapedia and is constantly trying to add a right-wing bias to neutral articles. As for Michael Barone (pundit), his statistics compilation may be accurate and RS, but his analysis is not. And Rj, given that MSU-Billings does not verify your current credentials, per Essjay controversy, and On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog you really need to update your user page. Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How could a historian possibly be a right-winger? Don't they know the truth? Drmies (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

SCOMN! Montanabw^(talk) 16:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a Conservapedia? I must check that out. I was checking back to see if my question for answered but i don't see it. I will re-enter . . . Tomorrow SFGMary (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Bottom of page, Mary, I've answered there. Montanabw^(talk) 03:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Please stop WP:WIKISTALKING me. Consider yourself warned. Abductive (reasoning) 02:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Err.. Montanabw was involved with the FAC for the article The Livestock Conservancy - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Livestock Breeds Conservancy/archive1 (organization has since changed names, thus the change of article name). They didn't stalk you, they already had the article watchlisted, I'm sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. Equus Survival Trust and The Livestock Conservancy are both on my watchlist, and Abductive, you were making the same edits to both, the removal of the word "endangered" in reation to endangered breeds (with extremely rude edit summaries on one and extremely rude comment at talk on the other). I gave you the courtesy of a ping on your talk page that I was taking a discussion to talk per WP:BRD. So, I suggest that you stop threatening me now. And stop edit-warring on those two articles, one of which is an FA. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for posting on Cnicholson12's talk page with advice on citations. I am the professor for the course, and appreciate your advice, which I will share with my class. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any additional advice or concerns. My courses are at: Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities Section 1 (Fall 2013) and Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, Human Capabilities, Section 2 (Fall 2013). Thanks!DStrassmann (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Horse of another color

I wonder how you would classify the markings on this fellow [17]. He's called Top Notch Tonto and is a Group 3 winner in Europe this year and a live outsider for the Group 1 Queen Elizabeth II Stakes on Saturday (so he's one big run away from an article). I haven't seen anythinng quite like those white splashes on a Tb. Tigerboy1966 22:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably some sort of sabino (high white above knees and hocks, body spot, chin white). Recent studies actually suggest that this form of "sabino" might be a variant of splash white, but absent testing, hard to say for sure. See Splashed white and Sabino horse. I'd say for now that "sabino" is the safest thing to call it because he has high white but isn't bald-faced, which is more typical of splash. Shoot me an email if you want me to send you some academic articles on this stuff, I've been chatting with Sponenberg again and when I shot him a photo of Oxbow showing the chin spot, he came around to my view that there is some sort of sabino thing going on there, particularly when you look at the jaggedy white and facial markings on Tizamazing. Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The way I'd phrase it in an article is something along the lines that the horse "is a chestnut with a wide blaze extending onto his chin, four high white stockings, and body-spotting—all characteristic of the sabino pattern." Montanabw^(talk) 15:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will definitely use it if the article is created. It's a shame he's a gelding so he won't be passing on the pattern. Tigerboy1966 19:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a spontaneous mutation, can you find photos of sire and dam? I bet I can tell you who gave it to him! Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

He put in a career best effort to finish second. Here's a picture of his sire [18]. Tigerboy1966 14:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, would love to see a photo of his dam (or even just color/markings description). Poppa doesn't look like the source of all that white, but I do know of a case of a chestnut mare with two bay parents and more white than either of them, the sire carried sabino, expressed only by a nose marking and a roaned-out body spot (sire of a mare I once owned, actually) and the dam was a bay with a blaze and some white on her legs. Montanabw^(talk) 16:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Follow up: Looks like your boy ran second in QEII, but his momma was a chestnut. Can't find a photo, though. He does have his own facebook page. LOL! (Have noticed a number of racehorses have also begun Tweeting, particularly some of the Breeders Cup entries... they are sometimes more articulate than their connections, LOL)

TNT is a gelding who seems to thrive on racing and is still improving, so I expect he'll be around for a while yet, and as a cheaply-bought, funny-looking creature, with a silly but cool name, from a small stable he has massive underdog hero potential. Tigerboy1966 20:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another funny looking horse: Kingston Hill, the top two-year-old in Britain this year [19]. Has a sort of Oxbowish flecked coat, but in this case there's no mystery, he's just greying-out in a slightly unusual way, just like his sire, Mastercraftsman [20]. Tigerboy1966 20:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that we understand genetics better, we know that you only get a gray if one parent is gray, and likewise this is true of a "true" roan. Mastercraftsman did grey out slowly, but you could see it on his face. If Kingston Hill is going gray, you're right that it's a weird pattern: so very uniform in some places. FYI, did I tell you that when I found that photo of the chin spot, Sponenberg finally agreed that Oxbow might be carrying some sort of sabino genetics? Of course, Oxbow has now been retired to stud... be interesting to see what he throws, I guess. Given that they just put down a Breeders' Cup contender, Pointsofthebench today due to a fracture during training, I suppose it's smart money not to risk him further. $20K a pop, won't take long to nicely supplement that $1M in purse money won. Montanabw^(talk) 01:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Anky van Grunsven

You appear to have missed this. I would invite you to re-consider you edit. Giant Snowman 20:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

How about you just verify the info instead of removing it? Or fix it? I don't have the time to deal with this. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

But you do have the time to edit against MOS and include unreferenced information about living people? What was wrong with my compromise? Giant Snowman 20:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I am frustrated by people who won't contribute content or fix anything themselves, but can waste my time asking to source the obvious. In this case, I didn't add or tag the original material, plus there was a clear source for the material in the links that already existed, all you would have had to do is go, "gee, someone has had a cite tag on here, but it appears to be accurate info so long as no one vandalized it wonder if the link to the BIOGRAPHY OF THE PERSON that's down in the EL will verify this?" When it's probably a WP:POPE issue, why not fix it yourself? Montanabw^(talk) 00:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Drawing for the Gypsy Horse Article

Montanabw, I have been in touch with the person who had the wonderful drawing of good and poor specimens of Gypsy Horses done, and he may be amenable to letting us use that drawing in the article. How exactly do I go about getting him to release that to us for use? He's kind of hard to get hold of since his business close and I'm hoping he'll cooperate. He's now on Facebook though. Let me see if I can attach the drawing--I think it would add a lot to the article.

Can't figure out how to attach it here. It's on this page though--it is the line drawing:

http://silverfeathergypsies.com/THE%20GYPSY%20HORSE/Gypsy_Horse_Conformation.html

Everyone uses this without attribution. I always give BFS&GH credit when I use it. We could either have the owner personally give permission or, I guess, Black Forest Shires & Gypsy Horses, which no longer exists.

SFGMary (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to ping User:Dana boomer on this and see if she has any advice. Normally, the copyright is held by the creator of the image (not the owner of the web site or owner of a printout) and unless specifically released under a free license by the creator, it is presumed to be under copyright for purposes of WP. SOOOO.... The simplest way from this end (though probably toughest for a non-techie person) is for the creator to create and account upload images they create to Commons (I wound up doing this in my tack room in order to illustrate several articles). Another method might be to watermark on/over/at the bottom of the image itself a proper CC-GDFL license of some sort or post something on the page under each image, the way the creative commons licensed images are on Flickr. So pinging Dana? Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 19:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. One, this can't be a lot of trouble for him to do. I was hoping there was a form i could fill out that he could then submit or something. Second, he's apparently told people that a friend did this for him. Never knew the name of the friend, who apparently turned over all rights to for its usage. It's the best depiction of Gypsy conformation I've seen to date. Haven't heard from him--he won't care if we use it though.i'll check back in a bit and set where we are on this end. SFGMary (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way for him (if indeed he holds the copyright) would probably be for you to upload it and have him send an e-mail to the WP:OTRS system saying that he holds the copyright and is releasing it under free licensing. There are samples of the wording needed at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and he should see the information regarding contacting the proper project (either the English Wikipedia or Commons, depending on where you upload it to) at the bottom of that page. If there is any chance that the "friend" still holds copyright, it would need to be the friend that wrote the e-mail releasing it. We need an OTRS e-mail specifically from the copyright holder - "he won't care if we use it" will definitely not fly. Also, I would strongly suggest not uploading the drawing until you have heard back from him, confirmed who owns copyright, and know he is ready to actually write the e-mail to the OTRS team. Dana boomer (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Dana said. Barring that, someone else who is artistic and less reticent to be involved could create their own completely original drawing and do similar labeling that can then be sourced to the Silver Gypsy or registry page. It's how we've done some of the diagrams we've used at places like curb bit, Horse anatomy, or English saddle.

Just heard from Jeff and, as I thought, he does not mind us using it at all. He had it done for his business Black Forest Shires & Gypsy Horses. He would probably come on to Wikipedia and sign this doohickey if it's not a great deal of effort. He's kind of hard to get hold of--i did it through Facebook. Shall i proced? Don't know anyone to do another drawing. SFGMary (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

By "proceed," i meant giving Jeff the wording and telling him where to send it. SFGMary (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can do the actual upload at Commons and do like Dana says about using the OTRS system. I know someone who is active at commons and can probably streamline the process. Ping me if needed. Montanabw^(talk) 14:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsupported accusations at WP:AE

At a recent AE request, you made a number of unsupported accusations about the conduct of another user, including the following: an egregious example of wikistalking, creepy obsession, vendetta, harassment and wikistalking of the worst sort, bullying etc. While I didn't say anything at the time as I didn't want the appeal to digress, for future reference, you should be aware that making unsupported accusations against any user in an AE request can result in sanctions. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Additionally troubling is that you did this after two recent documented instances, and there are numerous other examples of how you seem to have lost sight of community norms and appropriate ways of expressing yourself. Your attacks have affected content reviews at article talk pages, at DYK, at TFA/R, and at GAN at least; please heed the concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are both dead wrong. IR Wolfie has a grudge against me and anyone else who does not agree with everything he says. He is a master manipulator who knows how to make himself look like the victim. I now see he has managed to convince both of you to be proxies for his dirty work, though you may not even realize that you are being used. He has attempted to WP:OUT another user, he is vicious in attacking anyone who calls him on his manipulations, he is the inconsistent and self-appointed god of what is or is not "pseudoscience" by his definition, and far from "unsupported," I provided clear examples with diffs of my concern both times he went after me. As for the rest, Sandy, you asked me to stay off your user page quite some time back, and I am formally requesting that you grant me the same courtesy. Montanabw^(talk) 14:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And while I am at it Sandy, I have not affected one single DYK, TFA/R or GAN. I have, I think, possibly disagreed with your view of matters once or twice, that is hardly the same thing. Montanabw^(talk) 14:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have affected many DYKs, TFARs, and GANs, but only for the better. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark! Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

So I don't get accused of making "unsupported accusations", I will just say that I agree with Montanabw's assessment of how certain Editors patrol the borderlines of what they judge to be pseudoscience. Once they can attach the word "fringe" to any user, article or point of view, it is dismissed as inconsequential and they are free to completely disregard it. If any future arguments regarding this practice and specific individuals comes up at AN, AN/I or AC/DS, I'd be happy to provide diffs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with what Liz said. GregJackP Boomer! 19:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I don't think we've met (maybe we have, I can't recall), but if you look at my years of service to wikipedia, absolutely clean block record, and long list of GA and FA-class articles, I believe you will understand that these accusations are wholly unfounded and constitute not only an AGF violation on the part of Wolfie, but also a fine example of attempting to WP:BAIT another editor. Do not rush to judgement here, as I posted extensive diffs regarding the user to whome you were no doubt referring in the dramafest immediately preceding the current dramafest. I also am concerned that talk page venting (noting the famed recent block of Eric Corbett) is now also sanctionable. Wikipedia is losing its collective mind at the moment and this concerns me greatly. I would encourage you to be aware that there is almost always more to the story than may appear at first glance. The admins closing statement here confirms in its summary my comment about outing, and in the dramafest within, where I initially dod NOT directly name the user in question, he nonetheless initiated quite an attack on me, with cherry-picked diffs that I responded to with a more extensive set of examples. Far from unsupported, there was ample evidence presented. You may not agree with my analysis or the weight to be given this evidence, but I backed up every statement I made. And yes, I think Wolfie is kind of creepy because I think he is somehow obsessed with Olive. Montanabw^(talk) 14:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw, for the record I have no knowledge of, nor interest in, your past disagreements with SandyGeorgia. Nor am I taking sides in your dispute with IRWolfie. What I am attempting to do is alert you to the fact that unsubstantiated accusations made at AE can result in sanctions being imposed on the accuser. AE is not an AN/I-type free-for-all, administrators at AE have broad discretion to impose sanctions on any participant whose conduct is seen as disruptive or unhelpful, so for your own benefit, I'm suggesting that you try to avoid making such accusations in future. Gatoclass (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I am cognizant of your alert. However, my comments were far from unsubstantiated, but given the drama there appears to have closed, I have no clue if there is any wisdom to going over there and posting again at this point (particularly as the diffs above show it would just be a repeat of the previous edition). But, for future reference--and noting I was not the only user to comment about the issue -- should I have once again added all the diffs I provided in the last dramafest when the user in question went after me? And, by the way, did you notice what he said to other users on their talk pages? Seriously. I am pretty concerned about this situation. Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are asking me whether you should open an AE request alleging harassment by IRWolfie, I would discourage you from doing so. I note that in the previous request concerning Littleolive oil, evidence of alleged harassment by IRWolfie was dismissed by two uninvolved admins. I don't know anything about the "last dramafest" between you and IRWolfie, but if you have already taken evidence to a dispute resolution venue and that evidence has resulted in no action, then opening an AE request based on the same evidence would in all likelihood be seen as forum shopping. Regardless, accusations of harassment/wikihounding are in most cases difficult to substantiate to the satisfaction of uninvolved parties (while repeated charges of harassment might themselves be viewed as a form of harassment). So again, unless the evidence was very strong, you would be likely to be disappointed. Gatoclass (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've got a good idea. Since she has received your "message" and has responded, why don't you leave and quit harassing her? It's almost like you are trying to WP:BAIT her (perhaps at the request of others?-probably not). If so, I expect to see another response from you - if not, you'll let this drop. GregJackP Boomer! 03:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, sorry, I responded to a question from Montanabw, which I consider to be the civil thing to do, what would you expect me to do, ignore it? Other than that, I can assure you I have no desire to drag this discussion out one second longer than necessary - in evidence of which, I will respond no further to this post. Gatoclass (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I have only supported other people who have crossed his path and been subjected to his usual treatment. If no one can see the viciousness and harassment that that user engages in, they are blind. No, I'm NOT asking if I should go to AE, (Did you see me say that above? I didn't) I AM, however asking how to avoid folks in your position coming to my talk page, out of the blue, and accuse me of making "unfounded" accusations when I clearly had supported every. single. thing. I. Said. --> but in the immediately preceeding dramafest (of which I thought you were aware, but apparently not). One user says "oh please reprimand someone" without any evidence (on that page, anyway) and suddenly, here you are, with no idea of the background. So I wonder if I should have done the WP:IGNORE of his latest attack or if I should have provided the same set of diffs for the second time in a week. Also, I have NOT taken that user to any of the dramaboards (yet), because I know that he will just unleash more of his usual attacks, all his friends will rally around him claiming he is the innocent party, the crocodile tears will flow freely, nothing will happen (except a few more good content editors will probably get disgusted and leave) and, frankly, I am not in the mood for any of it. Life is too short. Just trying to figure out the catch-22: Stay above the fray, and you are considered guilty as charged. Dive into the fray and defend yourself, you are proving you are guilty. The accused cannot win, Only the bullies seem to prevail. Montanabw^(talk) 03:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, since no one else will probably mention it, IRWolfie is blocked for 3 months (self-requested), right after he lost it and made a number of personal attacks towards ChedZilla, warned here for this, right after Ched warned him to quit harassing Olive here. So there is no need for you to report him, nor for anyone to continue to talk to you about it. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You say you supported every charge you made against IRWolfie, in response I can only say that I didn't see a single diff supplied by you in either of the recent AE cases, so I'm not sure what "support" you are referring to; my point to you is that AE requires diffs in support of accusations, so hopefully you will comply in future. Otherwise, I can see this discussion appears to be taking a counterproductive turn, so if it's all the same to you, I think I will bow out at this point. My apologies if you found any of my previous comments objectionable - words do fail at times - hopefully you can accept my assurance that my comments were made with the best intentions both with regard to you and to the community as a whole. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Gato, in conclusion, if you really do sincerely want to look at this, I repeatedly kept saying that it wasn't about me and Wolfie, but that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. If you actually care about the entire tl;dr, then this is the detailed piece, be sure to un-collapse the collapsed section too . I had at least six linked examples throughout the piece (I think that was the count). I showed some respect for the process when others asked us to tone it down, and you have to take the trouble to read the give and take between my posts and those of the other party, and note that the other party was sometimes cherry -picking excerpts from various post, while I was doing my best to provide the full context. Looking at edit summaries in the history would also help. Montanabw^(talk) 08:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Waded Cruzado

I'd like your opinion of something. I built up the Waded Cruzado page so it was pretty big. Maybe too big, but... Well, someone has deleted 90 percent of the article—including massive section blanking. No explanation, and claiming all the changes are minor. The individual has made no contribution to Wikipedia other than this. I suspect the user is new. As the primary contributor to the page, I don't want to get into an edit war. I'm also biased in arguing that there was not reaso to delete 125,000 bytes of data from the article. So I'm seeking other people's opinions: I think a mass revert is in order. Would you mind looking at the page to see if that might be the correct way to go? - Tim1965 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(tps) Looks like someone beat you to reverting the massive blanking. I'd be curious to know why this person thinks the whole thing needs to be cut, and why just this article... Intothat darkness 15:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC) - Correction...they didn't restore quite a bit of the stuff that was cut. Intothat darkness 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last clean version (before everything was removed) and asked the user in question to take their thoughts to the talk page. I've also watchlisted the article, and will keep an eye on any discussion there. With regard to the length of the article, it is a bit on the long side and could probably use some trimming here and there, but it is not exceptionally over-sized and a wholesale hackjob is not the answer. We'll see what the user's reply is, if any. Dana boomer (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I just LOOOOOVE my talk page stalkers! Thanks, guys! As for length, hell, I did a FAC on a racehorse who went lame midway through his 3-year-old season that was almost as long as this article! LOL! I suspect that once you give it a couple weeks to "cool," you'll look at it with fresh eyes and decide what is needed or not. Cruzado is actually pretty remarkable, though perhaps the only actual question is if some of the content could be moved into the main article about MSU. I'll watchlist too. Whoever they are, they must be just someone who is disgruntled for some reason. Trolls abound around here... Montanabw^(talk) 16:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll temp watchlist as well just in case. Intothat darkness 16:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, thanks everyone!! I agree, it is somewhat long (and lord knows, Cruzado's going to be there a long time and the article is only going to get longer). I know some of this needs to be moved to the MSU page, but that page is already pretty lengthy in terms of a history. Oh dear, I feel a (page) splitting headache coming on! LOL - Tim1965 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Beholder

Hmmm, one new disambiguation page and suddenly at least 2448 link to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 21:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC) Fixed one template, problem solved.

Fixed what template? (Interested) Montanabw^(talk) 21:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:D&D topics was the culprit. Had one link to "Beholder" but is used in 2448 articles. But is was an easy fix. The Banner talk 21:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

2448 D&D articles? Ok, I'm just not going to say a word about living proof of Wikipedia's systemic bias toward video games problem ... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

D&D isn't a video game (puts on her geekette hat). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged! But still, WP:Primary? Nah... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 00:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Polson, Montana

Hi MBW, how are you? I noticed you reverted my photo removal with the edit summary "no reason for removal". Well that is not exactly true. My edit summary was: "remove misplaced and poor quality photo". Oh, I just noticed that it is a photo you uploaded, sorry if I insulted you with the poor quality comment. :-( What I meant was that landscape photos don't communicate much in the thumbnail size that is standard on WP. The other thing is that its placement violates MOS:IMAGE which says it should illustrate something in the section it is placed. Same with the other two photos that are in the Media and Reference sections. They are totally out of place and out of compliance also. How about if I created a gallery at the bottom of the article and placed all three photos there? Would that be an acceptable compromise? By the way I've been to Polson and its a beautiful town on a breathtaking lake. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Galleries are discouraged on wikipedia. What the article needs is more content - four images is not an outrageous number. The image in question shows the town from a different angle (looking sourth) than the other images. - and all but one of which I took, by the way, so I'm not particularly possessive of that particular one. There is no real reason to have it in or out, but the "compliance" issue is a red herring; MOS IMAGE is a guideline, not a rule. The article needs expansion, frankly. Feel free to add content. Montanabw^(talk) 03:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Funnily enough I did have a glance at Beholder earlier and found it all checks out. I'm not great at reviewing stuff though - I tend to lack the ability to be critical - I always think "yeah, that's good"!. But I'll have a go at this. Thanks. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, if Tigerboy is involved, you KNOW it's going to be good! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's true - never much wrong with his stuff, apart from missing letters caused by his laptop! I did take a look at Beholder but wasn't really sure about reviewing so decided to leave it to those with more experience and ability, sorry. --Bcp67 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, despite my reservation above, I've had a go at reviewing it! --Bcp67 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hooray! welcome to the deep end of the pool! Montanabw^(talk) 17:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

And it's made it to the front page!--Bcp67 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice job reviewing. Always good to have more helpers there. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hook promotions

I don't do them often. I may not have done one in 2013 yet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No Prob, Tony, want to review Mucho Macho Man? Montanabw^(talk) 02:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Katherine Ritvo

On 11 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katherine Ritvo, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kathy Ritvo, the first woman race horse trainer to win the Breeders' Cup Classic, is also the recipient of a heart transplant? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Katherine Ritvo. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Good race! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! It WAS a great race! Montanabw^(talk) 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Danube Delta horse

None of the old photo albums links are available and that is why I added that new album to this page (Danube Delta horse) which was actually created by me in 2008 I think. Unfortunately it has been reverted... Ntbizib

OK, I'll double check that and if so, will restore your version. Montanabw^(talk) 06:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I added two new links to some videos with these horses and I have an article from National Geographic that I'll try to add in the next few days Ntbizib 10:19, 11 November 2013

Remember to add edit summaries so it's clear what you are doing. Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mucho Macho Man

On 12 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mucho Macho Man, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Mucho Macho Man, winner of the 2013 Breeders' Cup Classic, was named after the Village People song "Macho Man"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mucho Macho Man. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl FAC

You are receiving this notice because you have commented or contributed to the article previously. Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is currently undergoing a Featured Article Candidate review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl/archive1. I would invite anyone interested in going by, looking at the article, and if inclined, adding your comments. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 19:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Good luck! I'm too involved to be a reviewer, but I'll watchlist and lend a hand if needed! Montanabw^(talk) 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Beholder (horse)

On 16 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beholder (horse), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Beholder was the first filly to win both the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Fillies and then the Breeders' Cup Distaff? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beholder (horse). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Go win ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Academic class (was re: Przewalski's horse on User talk:11D EXT2013)

The professor was User_talk:Extprof. See discussion on the Education Noticeboard. The professor posted an incomplete list of articles that his students had edited. I don't think he or his TAs ever went back to fix the citations or check the articles for plagiarism. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I wish there was a better training for INSTRUCTORS, these people who have so little understanding of WP and then just send their students in with unclear parameters frustrates me. I suspect that some of these people have contempt for WP and think that anything will improve it, and they are wrong (at least sometimes). I teach a college class, I wouldn't think of sending my students in to edit WP without a LOT of prep. Montanabw^(talk) 06:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals

Perhaps your comment would be better suited here: WP:ANI#User:Kevmin Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Put it both places. Tired of trolls. I've not always agreed with Kevmin, but he's a good editor and knows his stuff, in this case, he's in the right and doesn't need to be dragged over to ANI over crap like this. Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for taking your time. Jim1138 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for the support. Kev min § 07:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

pic for "getting off the high horse"

as you've noticed, I'm back, and also back in Canada...... I have to limit my participation but will be tackling things one at a time, like the Indian Reserves RM.....I will be revising my userpage re my return, am wondering if you have a suitable pic for "getting off my high horse" :-D.Skookum1 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL! How about one of these: Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah thanks I'll use the one on the right. The alternative was a pic of Mr Ed smoking a cigar, which is out there somewhere.Skookum1 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And might be subject to copyright. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Slaka

Many thanks for this - sorry for late reply , I havew been travelling for the past week. Looks like VV is safe (for the moment) but an article on Slaka can also be justified I think. I am very grateful anyway for your intervention. Best, --Smerus (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

oh well, so much for three days's good works....and common sense.

I never get why somebody takes incredible offense and gives such a destructive response to something so simple.....it appears my own high horse is not the problem. As so often before.Skookum1 (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, so much for good intentions. At least Indian reserve is back where it belongs..... but invoking the "no personal attacks" guideline on me immediately after a post in which he very pointedly made personal attacks on me is a case in point why the drama-cesspit of Wikipedia is just not worth my time anymore. Invoking protocols which say the exact opposite of what he is claiming they do is just "more of the same". I'll keep this short; and all I can say, too, is "WTF???". I'm tired of sophomoric bunk, tired of passive-aggressive crap, tired of trying to do something constructive only to be met by picayune defensiveness and knee-jerk personal invective. Fuck even Facebook is more productive than this place......Skookum1 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, your work on the Canadian reserves and First Nations articles has been invaluable and I hope you stay around to work on those. As for the rest, I think the two of you just got at cross-purposes in this particular case, you are both good people and both good editors with a lot of knowledge to offer. The problem was that you got into some really long explanations that appeared to confuse folks - even I got a little confused. Then some of the changes you made were kind of confusing too. And then Uyvsdi got to feeling like her work was being undone, and got upset at you. I know wiki is full of a lot of crap and drama (god knows, just look at my page!) But I think in this particular case, it was just two rather opinionated and strong-willed people who each were suspicious of each other and a bit too quick to take offense, though maybe you two are also rehashing some old dramas that I've not been a part of. IMHO, categories are not worth the drama. I respect both of you and hope you both stay on; but you might want to sort of avoid each other for a bit...god knows the wikiproject is huge and a lot of articles need help. That my two bits Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Vedontakal Vrop

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I've requested a deletion review of the outcome from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedontakal Vrop. The review request has been posted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 2. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Jeez! (if I may) - what is it about this article that bugs people so? Could it be my infobox? :-}--Smerus (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL! If you take a look at the user pages of the two most vehement advocates from the previous AfD, Smerus, you will see that we have folks with a consistent pattern, and per WP:CIVIL, and the "if you can't say something nice about someone..." standard (which I usually ignore, but shall try for this post) I shall say no more...as it's obvious anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Miranda donkey

You changed the caption under the picture of a young donkey that had a coat. I called it a foal with a coat; you changed it to describe it as a winter coat. Several points I wish to bring up. The author of the original picture listed as a description of the picture on Wiki Commons: "Young Miranda donkey before fully shedding coat". Also, the adult Miranda donkey doesn't have a winter coat. And, in in description of the animal, I had listed the fact that the donkey shedded the coat as it matured, with a reference to that fact. If you have evidence contrary, please put it on the talk page for the article. ThanxMwinog2777 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A "young" animal is not necessarily a foal. The animal in question was obviously not a foal, foals are less than one year old. I can remove the "winter" caption, but ANY animal will grow a long coat in cold weather. Montanabw^(talk) 16:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Buzzkill

Hey, Montanabw! I hate to be such a killjoy, but could you give some thought to the Shakespeare Insult Generator you have on your talk page and edit notice? A user, Hafspajen, raised a concern on my talk page about it; English isn't their first language, so they didn't pick up on the joke and took offense. And to be fair, I see where they're coming from; I'd imagine it's pretty easy to mistake if one doesn't pick up on the archaic language and random nature, due to being a non-native English speaker. Maybe it would be a good idea to remove it from the editnotice, at least? Anyway, this isn't an official request or anything by any means; do what you think is best, and we could certainly use more humor on Wikipedia. It's just that maybe this isn't the best of things for it. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You are a killjoy and also a poopy-head! Noogies! <- (that's a joke). I actually modified my notice to make it more obvious it was humor after Hafspajen complained to me; I don't think it's an English problem, I think it's a concreteness-of-interpretation problem, IMHO. But I actually do respect your thoughts (even as I call you a poopy head and give you noogies) and I'll think about it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The joke.. ? It's not a joke, it's a superior NPA template! Anyway, young horsey, feel free to use my sterling work anywhere you like, but you might give credit for it! I'm trying to become as famous as possible, preparatory to running for arbcom in 2014, you pribbling ill-nurtured measle! darwinbish ^BITE ☠ 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC).

I hoped for 2013 - you didn't answer my question ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Me or Darwinbish? (confused) Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Darwinbish, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my dear!

Hafspajen (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You of course. Bishy had turned down my marriage proposal, so I am not talking to **Her** any more!:) Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC) ^{That was actually a joke}

Which question? (And Darwinbish, see me edit notice now!) Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked Darwinbish and the candidates, but everybody is welcome to answer:

Please describe what happens in this diff.

(In case you need help, see here) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OTRS question

I picked up an OTRS ticket in which someone has written in to ask about some material formerly on Wikipedia (as recently as November) but no longer present. The article (or perhaps section) discusses The Big Open.

Following is an excerpt:

The Big Open is defined as the territory in eastern Montana, about 10 percent of Montana, some 2,229,000 acres, extending roughly from the Wild and Scenic Upper Missouri River corridor to the Terry Badlands Wilderness Study Area (three miles northwest of Terry, north of the Yellowstone River), and from the Milk River to the Yellowstone River.

I thought you might recall the article.--S Philbrick (Talk) 17:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Boy, I don't, though possibly Eastern Montana could have had something like that. That's the only article I can think of. We might have removed something like that from Montana as we were going through that article and sourcing everything in anticipation of a GA push. The definition of the Big Open is a bit off, though, as the Milk River is NORTH of the Missouri, LOL, though the Missouri-to-Yellowstone is more or less the broad outline of it (not sure there really is an actual definition

Thanks.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeguada Militar

Sorry but since November 2013 there is no more Yeguada Militar in Spain. You can see in many Spanish article's. Also the Spanish Wikipedia wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.180.234 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct, but we need something better than Spanish wikipedia, one wiki cannot be a source for another - and as many of us do not read Spanish, at least a URL to an article that we can run through a translator is helpful. So please provide one. Montanabw^(talk) 18:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Basque Wikipedia and links

Ok. I am sorry. I think thath now there are all rigt. Thanke you--Gorritxiki (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

TFA/R for Oxbow

Was just about to put my support behind the TFA date just as you removed it from TFA/R. Do let me know where you end up proposing it, and I'll support it there.--ColonelHenry (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was an idiot, I wasn't supposed to put it up so far in advance! Montanabw^(talk) 06:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A considered response

Hello. I've responded to your comments on my talkpage here and, as you'll see, elsewhere. I detect a possible way forward. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WPEQ talk page stalkers, please see here: Category talk:Horse breeding and studs. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Your edit to Pedigree

I quote the relevant page to explain why I used an anchor. (The link, BTW, goes to an example of an anchor.):

To ensure that a redirect will not break if a section title gets altered, or to create a redirect to a point on the page other than a section heading, create an explicit target anchor in the page, e.g., by using the template. The anchor text will not be visible (unless the {{{1}}} template is used), but it will serve as a permanent marker of that place on the page. Editors should generally not remove or alter such anchors without checking all incoming links and redirects.

As only a very occasional editor, I can't be watching to see that the section header in Pedigree doesn't get altered. Furthermore, I failed to understand your instruction to "fix it"; can you explain? --217.155.32.221 (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't your anchor I meant to remove, it was the junk done by the previous edit. I fixed it. Thanks for the ping.

Thanks for the fix. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Now I've seen what the problem is, I have indeed "fixed it", with an amendment to the original uploader's image and reference to support the change. The problem is that, as an unregistered contributor, I find I can't submit the image. The reference, though, is: Tompkins, Stephen. "4.3 Pedigree Charts". Heredity and Human Diversity. Cambridge University Press. p. 35. ISBN 9780521312295. Males are shown by square symbols and females by round. --217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Try uploading at commons. No reason not to create a username. You'll need an email address, but most folks just create a wiki-only email at gmail or somewhere like that. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

item on cayuse in BC

Was looking up material for Tatelkuz Lake to see what I could come up with for an article (not much, though the lodge looks nice); it's the site of one of the Kluskus First Nation's reserves so I was trying to determine whether to direct the link for that reserve to the lake, or to the band's page (I'd prefer to the lake, as that reserve is nowhere near the main cluster of reserves near the eponymous lake). Anyways came across this reference to the lake in Nothing Too Good For A Cowboy, one of the classics of "bush literature" in BC, partly describing the cayuse as that term was used in BC. Re that "other discussion" see the google or bing maps geotemplates on the band's page to see why the reserves in BC are not synonymous with the government as a placename (and note the government itself is in far-away Quesnel, not at Kluskus itself. It was my intention to put a geogroup template on the respective reservation categories so that all the locations of multi-location governments could readily be understood (by formatting the latlongs already in the extant article text which are bare-bones but needn't be; so the maps would display the colony/reservation/settlement names on the markers); but apparently being understood clearly is not "the point". In BC it very much is because there are so many bands like Kluskus, where particulate reserves are spread across a vast area....and intermingled, often enough, with those of other bands. And where band government offices are far from the home turf, often not even on IR at all.Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually re the respective lake article potential, I found this which has plenty; it's part of an important watershed, to do with the Nechako Diversion Project. A friend of mine has been up to this lake on a fishing trip and is a good photographer, it's beautiful rangeland around there, lots of pics of "Indian ponies". Wide open spaces, not my kind of country but definitely good for horses (as is most of the Interior Plateau, this area of it being the Nechako Plateau).Skookum1 (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ashland, Oregon

Hi there, I noticed you added a {{-}} to keep a picture from spilling into the next section. I've never seen it used but it worked. Is it like a page break? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's akin to the {{clear}} tag. I don't know why it works, but it does. Magic! (I learned that trick from User:Eric Corbett, FYI) Montanabw^(talk) 18:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Merry Christmas!

-Uyvsdi (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Wishing you Happy Holidays! and a prosperous and successful new year!! — Keithbob • Talk • 03:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

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 • 06:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Holiday greetings and thanks to all

Thank you everyone for your wonderful Christmas wishes and the same to each of you and to all my other talk page stalkers! Beautiful sunny day in Montana going out to you all! Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Montana, I wish you a merry Christmas and an happy new year (in french, we say joyeux Noël et bonne année !) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

horse stock re the Douglas Lake Ranch aka Douglas Lake Cattle Company

Not sure which will be the article title, there's not much of an article at this point I think. I went looking for information on Charles N. "Chunky" Woodward who owned it for a long time, rather famously, and was into horsebreeding, and found this bio and this one and this one also. There'll be more out there. Thought of you immediately when I saw the list of breeding stock. He was this guy's son and heir and I was also looking for citations on him, since that article is unreferenced; and should mention his son, but I only just found these cites, and darn wouldn't you know it none of them actually name his father, which is strange given he was L-G and all....Skookum1 (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds interesting! If you add material and run into any trouble, give me a shout and I'll lend a hand. Looks like it's largely ignored and a place to be bold. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I ran out of steam after starting his grandfather's article and fixing up his father's, the link words now if you'd care to expand/fix it up, I'm done for the night. The ranch is an expensive getaway now, but you can visit if you ever make it to the area (Douglas Lake is just east of Merritt, British Columbia); stunning area. You'll find lots of pics and other history about it by searching "Douglas Lake Ranch".Skookum1 (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I must confess it will be a ways down my to-do list, but I can at least watchlist it for now. Montanabw^(talk) 07:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Horse categories

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_22#Category:Horse_burials

Jc37, it would be much appreciated if you could ping WikiProject Equine (WPEQ) when you are recommending changes in the horse/equine categories. I don't see a problem with the recent one upmerging Horse burials to Category:Horses in culture and religion, but it's lots easier to weigh in at the time than to request a redetermination later... this has been kind of a problem lately -- I have many of the horse cats watchlisted, but not all, and often we pick up on this only after some change has been made. Some of the categories unquestionably would benefit from streamlining and cleanup, but knowing what's up allows WPEQ to weigh in - sometimes with suggestions that would be helpful. Better yet, do it before and you might get strong supporters in some cases. Montanabw^(talk) 05:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the note.

Just to clarify, I did not recommend "changes in the horse/equine categories". I merely closed the discussion per the consensus of the discussion. It would appear that the category was nominated by User:RevelationDirect. - jc37 07:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad, I'll go bug that editor, then! It would be gracious of you to ping WPEQ if you do see more of these, though. We've been plagued by "too helpy helpers" recently. Must be some cleanup drive or something. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 07:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I also missed that discussion until the post-close changes hit my watchlist. I've already told jc37 I'd like it re-opened as it was a narrow decision & I would have supported keep. Unfortunately CFD nominators rarely notify projects - WP:Archaeology should have had this one also. Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

That particular one is probably not one I'm going to go to the mat and fight over in either direction, but if you want to reopen it, ping me and I'll probably give a neutral comment. Seems like a lot of deletionist activity over there these days, or is it just my imagination? Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Varian

She was born in Santa Maria — according to a cited source, not cited by me. (See the infobox.) In any case, please put her in another property subcategory rather than Category:People from California — I was cleaning up that category, which was too unwieldy and uninformatively, largely with people who weren't really "from" California, for sure, whereas she is, but that parent category really should still be used for when a person really is from California but whose further geographic or other identity could not be ascertained. That's not what she is. --Nlu (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(In other words, if she is not to be identified as from Santa Maria — a point that I disagree with but I am not going to argue with you over — then please subcategorize her from the "from California" category to "from San Luis Obispo County" (where Arroyo Grande is).) --Nlu (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

It is YOUR JOB to put people into correct categories if you don't like the one I picked, and if there isn't an ACCURATE category for this person, then make one. She may have been born in the hospital in that community, that doesn't mean she lived there; it just means her parents went there for a few days when she as an infant. She lived and grew up in Halcyon, California and now lives just outside of Arroyo Grande, California. I believe both of these communities are in San Luis Obispo county, if you don't have a category for these smaller towns. This is an issue similar to Jon Tester of Big Sandy, Montana, who people kept putting into the "people from Havre" category, most likely because he was born in the hospital there because Big Sandy -where he lived his entire life (other than a brief stint in college) before being elected to the Senate - was a tiny town and its very small hospital undoubtably lacked a maternity ward. Same thing here; I doubt Halcyon in the 1940s had a hospital, let alone a maternity wing. Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, except that I don't think that would necessarily satisfy you. I am not able to guess what would satisfy you and what would not. --Nlu (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Excerpt that I just did the San Luis Obispo county cat because that was blatently obvious had you read the text. Seriously, you don't put in a category like "people born in hospital X", as it's obvious from reading the text that she may have been born there but there (I'm sure it's on her birth certificate, for example) is no other evidence she ever lived there; had you evidence beyond the statement "born in", things might be different. Montanabw^(talk) 03:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

NRODEO

Your comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Rodeo would be welcome to critique, support, or oppose my revised NRODEO proposal.
P.S. Love the "Before you post on my talk page (humor)" template. LOL Dolovis (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both for the heads up and the fan vote on my page notice! I've had a couple people take the Darwinbish insult spout literally :-P Montanabw^(talk) 18:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)