This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Happy New Year!

Montanabw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year 2015)) to user talk pages.

Checking out the new pages feed, these crossed my eye and I thought of you: Carter County Museum, Heart of the North Rodeo. Lightbreather (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. Mutton busting. Sigh. Don't know whether to feel sorrier for the children or the sheep (not what you think...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Montanabw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year 2015)) to user talk pages.

Hi Montanabw, and Happy New Year!

I am about to start the research to fulfill my promise to rewrite Je_Tsongkhapa#Academic_views. That section currently contains no actual information on Tsongkhapa's academic views per se, just brief observations about his views by other scholars, most (or all) of which could be described as critical (especially when you consider that deviating from the Indian Buddhist tradition is commonly used as a critique among Tibetan philosophers, as odd as that seems to modern sensibilities).

In brief, I am proposing to summarize Tsongkhapa's substantial and influential body of philosophical work, along with some of the major lines of criticism and rejoinder that have arisen. This includes scholarly opinions abut the import and influence Tsongkhapa's oeuvre. I will draw from both modern and traditional secondary sources, many of which I listed in Talk:Je_Tsongkhapa#Criticism_section_low_quality.2C_not_NPOV. Most if not all of the current material will appear in the rewritten section, but in context of Tsongkhapa's actual views and the views of his critics (unlike the way that material appears now).

Before I start on this substantial project, however, I would like to get any feedback or advice that you, @Joshua Jonathan: or @VictoriaGrayson: might have on how to proceed to insure a smooth process. I can assure you that I have every intention of observing your concerns in Talk:Je_Tsongkhapa#General_tone_of_this_article. But if there is any question from you (or anyone) about exactly what that means or my ability to do that, I would like to discuss it privately, if that is possible.

Thanks. djlewis (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My own views will be consistent: WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH are dispositive. The Stanford piece appears, on the surface to be acceptable, and given tht this person died several hundred years ago, there should be a significant body of work about him. If it is hard to find reliable third party sources that are not critical, I'm afraid that you are going to have to use them anyway. As you know, I am not a Buddhist, so my approach is that of an interested layperson and I am looking for whether this material is neutral and accurate. To the extent a figure is controversial, then "teaching the controversy" is critical, and not just "both" sides, but "all" sides. (For example, an emphasis on NKT views would be inappropriate in absence of an assessment from the modern mainstream Gelug movement of the Dalai Lama). I have the article watchlisted, so further talk can occur there. Montanabw^(talk) 23:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

My first thought is also: be aware of OR. If you rewrite the secion on academic views, than it should be on academic views on Tsongkhapa, not his own ideas per se. An dmake sure to write in little pieces, so thers can follow your train of thought. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Thank you for all you have done to help me with the Boat Race articles. Tonight we hit a landmark, over 50% of the race articles are now Good or Featured Articles, which is a monumental achievement considering that none of the articles even existed eight months ago. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I have a question and i feel like you might be able to help me with an answer. Recently i was looking at the Template:Location map+ and noticed that someone had created another template that is essentially a reference of that template called: Template:BSA, Western Region, Area 4, Council locations. I feel like this might be criteria for speedy deletion T3, but im not sure. It essentially duplicates the existing functionality of Location map+, and also creates a hard-coded map that is referenced on Western Region (Boy Scouts of America). A non-experienced editor may not know how to edit this template if any of those locations were to move. I feel like the correct fix for this would be to properly reference the template on Western Region (Boy Scouts of America) and then delete Template:BSA, Western Region, Area 4, Council locations. The markers on template in question are also implemented in an odd way that Location map+ already supports.. (Ie html markup rather than the intended formatting).. Anyway Thanks for reading this! Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ping Andy (@Pigsonthewing:) to see if he can enlighten you or help you out. TfD if the place, but the methodology is not 100% clear to me - I do favor consolidating templates where logical and possible, so I think you are on the right track... Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be the standard way of using ((Location map+)); looking at its source code, it would clutter any article that used it directly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It's all kind of gibberish to me, can you help this user figure things out? Montanabw^(talk) 09:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a proposal at the IdeaLab that may interest you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate, thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In my sandbox, I have been working on a piece about Minnie Evans. User:SusunW/sandbox#Minnie Evans (Potawatomi name: Ke-waht-no-quah) I don't really know what to call the article, as there is another Minnie Evans, so I added her Pot name to differentiate. I'm a bit confused by how the photo thing works and I asked the Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Minnie Evans but after asking me for more information, they never responded. So I do not know what to do about that. It seems to me that he indicated the photo I found could not be used, but possibly the one he found could be, but I was unclear about it. Anyway, before I go live with the piece on Minnie, I'd like some other eyes on it. She was a pivotal figure in some pretty tense times for the Prairie Potawatomi, so I've tried to make it balanced, but want someone to check for POV.

Also, I deleted the stuff in the Indian termination policy section on Arthur V. Watkins, did an overview of all the political figures involved. Then I rewrote the article on Watkins. Most of what was in his bio was a direct copy paste without citation to a website link from his old high school. I would've thought it had been deleted, but I reworked the entire page, added a section of personal life, the Weber Basin Project, the Refugee Act of 1953, the McCarthy hearings and reworked the Indian policy part to make it more neutral. I did mention the struggle he had separating his religious beliefs from policy, but I sincerely tried to balance those with other influences. Would appreciate your feedback on both pieces when you get a chance. Thanks! SusunW (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll go peek and reply on the talk pages as needed. Glad to see all the work you are doing! Yay! Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I LOVE the info box on Minnie Evans :-) Now, how does one combine that box with a politician's?? I am working on Belvin now, he was an Oklahoma state representative, senator, and longest serving Choctaw chief. I had to copy the format on the politician from FDR. hehe SusunW (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW:You pretty much have to pick one or the other, I think. That or go to ((infobox person)) to see if you can mix and match the parameters, I've never tried it. But User:Pigsonthewing (aka Andy) might be able to do it, if anyone can. Montanabw^(talk) 04:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree @(talk) that it has to be one or the other. I tried to combine the boxes in my sandbox, and it doesn't work. User:SusunW/sandbox#Harry J. W. Belvin. I've managed to put the Choctaw seal in the first box, but not the only picture I can find in the second. *sigh* SusunW (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I'm working on making it possible to embed one within the other (See Wikipedia:Infobox modules), but there's a technical sticking point. Bear with me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks! I've got both boxes loaded on the article, but it'd be great if it could happen with just one :-) SusunW (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I did it right, but it is 1) on her page and 2) here. File:Minnie Wishkeno Kakaque circa 1915.jpg The photo you had selected was not of Minnie and I did not think I could justify using it. The one with Nettie Wapp in it, I did not think I could use, as I do not know if she is deceased. SusunW (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll go check it all out. Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And one more thing, sorry, I just don't know how to do all this image stuff, can I use an organization's logo? The Choctaw Youth Movement logo http://www.okchoctaws.org/OCTAlogocropLined.JPG would be used for that page, which is now part of the article on Belvin, but I am going to break it out into its own page. Thanks. SusunW (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Logos can be used as fair use, if you jump through all the hoops. See Wikipedia:Logos for the details. Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: way too complicated. I'm just gonna leave it off. I have no earthly idea if the logo began being used when they formed the group in the 1960s or if it is a recent development and I am not wasting research time to search archival records on a trademark for a logo. Too boring. ;) SusunW (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel Prasangika37s latest edits over the past few days is violating several wikipedia policies. What should be done? Pinging @Joshua Jonathan: as well.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: @VictoriaGrayson:The catchall is WP:ANI. WP:3RR is another. However, you need diffs, so collect them first. See also WP:MEAT. Also, be careful that it doesn't bounce back at you... Montanabw^(talk) 23:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

When it was the first time we had collaborated on a same page? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, I've been here eight+ years, and that means I can't keep the players straight even with a program any more. I ran the interaction tool, and other than the various drama pages and some recent edits on some Buddhism articles, I think our paths crossed on horse worship and cattle (which has a sacred cow section). So probably eastern religion stuff. Maybe we worked together to deal with that person who was trying to claim that drinking cow urine was a legitimate religious ritual? =:-O (Oh, the things we do for the wiki...) Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was horse worship. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as you weren't the guy who kept adding the [{Brony]] article to the see also links, all is well! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 19:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I am ready to go live with the Belvin article. It has been fairly difficult to write this piece, as one of the most prolific sources regarding his tenure as chief is a Choctaw-Chickasaw anthropologist, Valerie Lambert. As we are all aware, the 1960s and 1970s was a time of anti-establishment movements and as Belvin was "establishment," so there were lots of reasons to oppose him. In trying to maintain a neutral POV because Lambert is pretty far on the anti side, I have brought in primary source materials, to balance the article, I hope. But I'd appreciate eyes on the article. Harry J. W. Belvin

@Montanabw:, For a photo, I can find virtually nothing. This one: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~treetop/Choctaw/Chief_Harry_Belvin_small1.jpg is even the one used on the Choctaw Nation page. It is so tiny, that by the time they blew it up on the Choctaw Nation page, it is distorted. The only other photo I find at all is this one: http://larchwood.tumblr.com/post/68457221598/native-american-heritage-day-2013-so-black-friday And not knowing if the other two people are still living, seems inappropriate. Is there a way to resize the teeny photo?

And one last thing, I put it as start class, but there is way more detail on him than I was even able to find on Minnie Evans, so maybe it is B class, but I don't know? As always, you ROCK and I am thankful for your help!

@Pigsonthewing:, if you figured out that merging of the boxes, it would clean up the article. I know diddly squat about programming. I am a researcher and writer and know virtually nothing about the mechanics involved. Thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I've been a bit busy off-wiki, but if you want to just take it live, go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: Still working on that, but waiting for help from others, so now ETA, sorry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw:,@Pigsonthewing: Not to worry for either of you. I took it live, without a photo and with 2 boxes, figuring it can always be added/fixed. I have no idea what to do about the photo, nor the boxes, so when, if, you can help, that would be lovely. :) SusunW (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The annual RM: Talk:Mustang_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_12_January_2015 Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, and another annual and eternal discussion: Talk:Mustang#Capitalisation_of_Mustang. Montanabw^(talk) 06:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Who calls me a stalker? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarified! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 07:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Montanabw. I am coming to your talk page as I note you signed the The Autie Pact back in 2012. I am a non-neurotypical who lives with Autism in the form of Asperger Syndrome. If you know much about those of us on the Spectrum as well as Wikipedia editors on the Spectrum, you probably understand that editing and communication can be difficult enough for neurotypicals, excruciatingly difficult at times for editors like me with Autism. I am here on your talk page not because I am asking you to intervene, I am not canvassing for support. I am here because you signed the Autie Pact that is meant to be a way to move toward bridging the gap between neurotypical editors and editors with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s). Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit. I have been open there about being a person with Asperger's. When that information was brought forth, the reactions have been -- shall we say -- less than complimentary to those expressing their views about editors with Autism. This discussion and the comments from long-time and not-so-long-time editors is, in my opinion, an example of how far we still have to go in Wikipedia toward understanding that we are made up of editors with different editing styles and different ways of seeing the world. Of course, the difference in editors with Autism is more obvious and can be, at times, more maddening to neurotypicals. That said, with the rate of autism being somewhere between 1:55 - 1:110 and Wikipedia being a magnet for those with ASDs, I think it's fair to say that awareness is extremely important. Also important to remember is that discrimination against editors because they have ASDs is just not appropriate nor does it echo WP:AGF. If you are interested in seeing the thread at AN/I I am referring to, the link is here [1]. I have no expectation that you will look at it, my purpose here is really just awareness that Wikipedia still has a long way to go in the way of interactions and understanding between autism-spectrum editors and neurotypical editors. And, as the title of this section says, your advice would be welcome. Thanks for your time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Winkelvi, I'll take a look at the thread, but no commitments one way or the other; I'll reply further there or at your talk if I think I have anything helpful to add. While there are people who have discriminatory attitudes, remember there are also people who are just jerks to everyone and use any weakness they see. I also see a few cases, unfortunately, where we have a collision of people who are both on the A-spectrum, but one (or both) may not realize or acknowledge it. Yet they share the problems with communication issues, but each is sticking to their guns and creating a situation where an irresistible force meets an immovable object. Those are often difficult to resolve. I invite anyone else who watches my page to weigh in (nicely) on this discussion if they want to. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You've made a some really good points above. Yes, I imagine there are editors who don't realize or acknowledge they are on the Spectrum. As well, there are people who are just jerks and do pick on those they feel have weaknesses. I know I've run into too many of those during my time in Wikipedia (one is actually too many, more than one is an epidemic, in my opinion). I forget that people can just be jerks because it's the internet and they can. And I forget it because that kind of thinking and behavior toward others is foreign to my nature, therefore, I don't expect or look for it in others. As far as those who are on the Spectrum but don't admit it to others, I can understand where they're coming from because that was me not too long ago. And yes, there are going to be plenty of editors here who don't even realize they are on the Spectrum. A good thing for me to try to keep in mind when dealing with specific behaviors. All in all, this whole experience has been an eye-opener for me as well as a great learning moment. I have always been the kind of person who desires to improve myself and never stop learning how to be and do better - with anything and everything. Thanks for your kind and wise words. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The biggest thing I see with a few people, A-spectrum or not, is a tendency to have the best of intentions, but get locked into a position on an issue or article and then dig in and get real stubborn about it. Usually, when this occurs, both combatants get dug in, and even where one person is clearly correct and the other is clearly incorrect, it becomes quite difficult to even figure out what the original dispute was about - or why anyone should care. Sometimes the helpful thing is to look at your own contributions and see if you can unhook a bit. Whenever you are answering every single person with walls of text (that no one else is going to read, by the way), that's a good sign that you need to unhook enough to not dig yourself in deeper. In such cases, I try my best to just jettison all the "but he/she said" discussion and try to get back to one or two simple points about the article (or whatever) Go back to "I think we need to make edit X to the article." Refocus on issues. Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Thanks, -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Montanabw. I'm glad Winkelvi canvassed you, because you are one of my favorite editors on Wikipedia. Since you're interested in the opinions of others (per your comment above), I was wondering if you would be so kind as to share your view on the following comments made to Winkelvi by myself and Cullen328, and more importantly, the respective bizarre reaction by Winkelvi to both messages.[2][3] Note, I am asking for a response and assessment from Montanabw, not Winkelvi. IMO, his response is indicative of the underlying problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Viri, here's what I see: Winkelvi and everyone around him seems to be getting hooked by behavioral issues and so far from the original dispute that it's almost impossible for someone like myself, coming in late, to even figure out what the original problem was (it appears to be a content dispute on a biography) My view is that maybe the thing to do is just close all the various drama board stuff and go back the the article where the dispute is and try to resolve the content issues by telling everyone to start over from scratch. Then, if poor behavior reasserts itself, you have a little better picture of what's going on. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I just hope Winkelvi realizes how lucky he is to have you as a mentor. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This picture is of very good quality, high resolution and could easily be a featured picture. File:An Exercise in Haute Ecole- the Passage to the Left along a Wall, after Vanderbank - Google Art Project.jpg The only thing is that it is not used. To nominate it as a FP we would need an article or two where it can be used. Do you have any suggestions? Adam Cuerden might want to nominate it. But if the picture is to be nominated for featured picture, it is necessary to be used. Hafspajen (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

It's an awkward one - it's a nice painting, but it, frankly loses me on the deeper meaning. I don't quite get the context. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The horse is walking upp against the wall, Haute Ecole dessage, I think it's called. No horse likes doing that. Hafspajen (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The concept is advanced dressage. @Hafspajen:, @Adam Cuerden:, the proper training of a horse means the horse is a willing partner in what is asked, though this ideal is not achieved as often as it should be. The painting shows the horse on a loose rein with its ears forward, so the artist is trying to convey that the horse is relaxed and happy. Technically, the title doesn't quite match what the horse is apparently supposed to be doing, though because it's a painting, the wall may be a fanciful element added to suggest an ideal (think - modern day photoshopped supermodels that look like Barbie dolls). The concept illustrated is apparently a horse trotting in place, (hence the wall) except that what the title is calling "passage" is actually a gait called the piaffe, though in a correct piaffe, the horse moves a tiny bit forward with each step. I'd have to know a bit more about the history of that particular painting and artist to give you more context... However, the piaffe and passage are part of the grand prix level of dressage, haute ecole is stuff even more advanced than this. Here's an example of a real horse doing this stuff: [4] (when the horse starts going backwards, he's not supposed to, and is losing cadence, but other than that, it's not too bad) the passage is the floaty trot thing where the horse is going forward, but sort of hesitating between each stride. At the very end, the guy has the horse to a full pass (the trotting sideways thing). Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is what it is about, yes. Just explained so much better. Hafspajen (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

So, I started a piece in my sandbox on Vestana Cadue, because she was one of the leaders who fought tribal termination. BUT, there was only sketchy information about her tribe, Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas, which meant that I felt compelled to expand that article before finishing the piece on Cadue. But, the fascinating history of the Kickapoo goes from the Kansas Tribe, to Mexico to Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma and more recently to the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas. I have fleshed out the Kansas piece and am working on the Oklahoma piece.

In a nutshell, fleeing allotment in Kansas, Kickapoo went to Mexico. The Mexican War of Independence, the Texas Revolution and the Civil War resulted in capture of some of the Mexican Kickapoo who were sent to Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. There was a lot of cross-border traffic between Texas and Mexico and in 1977 the Texas Kickapoo were officially recognized.

Bottom line, the Mexican group is the largest group. Wiki Mexican Kickapoo redirects to Texas. I think that is inappropriate. It is a US centric view. Yes, I get the federal recognition thing, but 1) the Mexican group is the largest group of Kickapoo; 2) they have managed to maintain their traditional language and customs; 3) Texas and Oklahoma both stem from them.

How does one fix this? Or I guess un-re-direct it? SusunW (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd un-redirect and do up an small article. Overall, the Native American articles are a total dis organized quagmire. I'd check the history to see if there is anyone who has edited recently and if there does seem to be anyone who cares, maybe post at talk what you'd like to do, give it a week and if no one says anything, then proceed until apprehended. Also, maybe be sure that Kickapoo people includes links to all the other articles with brief explanation. Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Gracias, mi amiga. I am discovering that. When I go to a page to update it with the termination data, I find the last info was 17th or 18th century, which seems too big a jump to make, thus, I end up completing history before I input what I went there to do. My OCD issues. LOL

Now to figure out how to un-redirect. jeje Guess I will start with Oklahoma and work my way back to Mexico :) SusunW (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Go to the Mexico page, hit the edit link, and just delete the redirect and replace it with content. Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You filing it?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have now filed an SPI here naming LilyW, JosephYon, ZuluPapa5 and Arthur chos. Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

OkayVictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Concise as always. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Didn't mean to put that clarification tag back in. I was taking out some promotional claim about the Morgan being the original stock horse or something equally silly. Intothatdarkness 16:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

After working with you I got hooked so I have been editing more. My later collaborations have been 'interesting'... SPAs and COIs and SOCKS oh my!...

Anyway, I recently encountered a user who seemed to not understand diffs or how to use a talk page among other things. They were copy/pasting large chunks of unformatted text so I wrote a brief introduction for them. I made a generic version of the post with the thought of providing it as a template to be used in similar situations.

It still needs some friendly introductory text but would you please take a look at it? I would like to know if you think such a thing would be appropriate/useful; if the brief descriptions of RS, OR, NPOV should a) be included Right now I am tending towards not to keep it simple but the chance to short circuit common policy misunderstandings also seems useful. b) represent the policies well enough to head off typical new user misunderstandings and does not perpetuate my missunderstandings; if there is anything that needs to be added or deleted. The final text should take no more than two minuted for and English-3 reader to read.

Thank you for your time and input. JBH (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Boy, I'd love to lend a hand, but I have gotten myself tangled up in some other article dramas and am trying to still write content! But maybe pop over to the Teahouse and see if the regulars there have any interest. They might be quite interested. Montanabw^(talk) 02:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will ask over there. Happy editing. JBH (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am a bit perturbed at the way the capitalisation argument ended. As for my personal position, I am not American, but transatlantic from your point of view (South African in fact) so my personal interest in the politics of the matter is somewhat dilute; this said however, though I can see some landowners having legitimate gripes about mustangs on "their" land, the idea of wiping out the lot strikes me as obscene in various ways. My opposition to the capitalisation had nothing to do with that topic at all, as I hope I made clear.

Now, I am just a bit puzzled about one thing in this matter: you are far more closely involved than I am, and you did say that not all mustangs are a members of a breed, but that some indeed are members (in one sense or another, a point with which I had no quarrel). So my completely serious and well-intentioned question is: since that fact and its ramifications are a topic distinct from the topic of mustangs in general, why do you not start a separate article titled say, Mustang (breeds). You perhaps thought I was mocking in the RfC, but I was perfectly serious. That would enable you in good faith to do all sorts of things that would not be appropriate in the existing (general) article. You would be able to include sections dealing with the history of their breeding projects and objectives, the humanitarian and scientific significance of feral horses in various contexts, the relevance to protection legislation, the politics (just beware of laying yourself open to accusations of POV etc). And just BTW, I think that would be a far more influential step than arguing about capitalisation ever could have been.

This of course is far outside my direct field of concern or expertise, so you might very well tell me to go play in the traffic, and no hard feelings, but I would hate to think of your legitimate objectives getting scrapped for neglect of a perfectly valid course of action.

Just my private two cents between you and me.

Cheers, Jon

JonRichfield (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• @JonRichfield: We already have articles on some of the sub-strains (the overall Mustang is a landrace breed, but each band has slightly different history, so it's a real gray area where "breed" ends and strain or landrace begins.) Some of these sub-strains (or whatever they are) could be discussed in more depth at Colonial Spanish Horse. The place for info on the various small groups of free-roaming horses is in the Mustang article itself, if ever the goddamm drama over crap like capitalization and disambiguation would ever calm down long enough for a deep breath. Every time these dramas arise, I fight to protect the integrity of the article, I usually win, but by the end, I am so sick of the topic that I don't even want to look at the article again, must less improve it. If you have a sincere interest, perhaps you'd like to skim the research links I am accumulating here, and see how very, very complex the Mustang question is. And yes, the issue is real. The tip of the iceberg are mentioned in these articles: [9], [10], [11]. I'm not even starting in on the stuff where some of the extreme advocates on the pro-wild horse side have a fringe theory that horses never became extinct in the Americas, but that's another crowd that goes plowing through that article from time to time. Montanabw^(talk) 02:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Phew!... ... some of the extreme advocates on the pro-wild horse side have a fringe theory that horses never became extinct in the Americas... Eyes glaze over... Let's not go there...

I genuinely am interested, but real life is pretty importunate lately. But I did a bit of quick scouting to check on the links etc, and was blown away by the sheer variety of points of view and their legal (and legalistic) implications. I must direct my daughter-in-law's attention to this (she's American; they live in Washington state) and she is studying invasive species such as pigs. Questions such as the distinction between introduced and re-introduced animals for one thing, should interest her. Nothing is simple in biology. The very range of concepts of "species" could make some theological controversies look like primary school debates, and yet it deals with strictly practical issues. Well, if it should happen that I can in fact help in some small ways, let me know, but till then all the best! JonRichfield (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@JonRichfield: Montanabw^(talk) 03:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Yes, now you know why that article has yet to be taken to GA. Every time I think about it, I find yet another study and right at that time I have some damn drama hit over there and my head explodes. One could fix a few superficial refs and probably pass GAN with a reviewer unfamiliar with the topic, but I'd know that the article is still B-class at best! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been poking about wiki and discovered that some of the horses, neglected back when, now have articles. There are still a great many missing. But Lecomte, son of the amazing Boston and brother to the also amazing Lexington, is still not here. So I think I'd like to begin with him. Although it's so hard to choose. Stellabystarlight (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

And before I forget, the articles you showed me cleared up a lot of puzzlement about wiki. It's still fun, it ain't what I thought it was. I think I'll create another name, one without gender. Stellabystarlight (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stellabystarlight:, if you are going to change your username (and frankly, I've probably avoided a lot of trouble by having a gender-neutral username, so if you are getting targeted, that may be a good idea), be careful to discontinue your old one to avoid "sockpuppet" complaints. (I do think you have a cool username, though) @28bytes: is a real good admin who can help walk you through this process in a way that will not run you afoul of anyone. As for Lecomte (horse), yeah Ping me if you get started and both Tigerboy and I would be glad to lend a hand. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Aha and OK. I'll ask @28bytes: to help me. Obviously, I know how to sign up again, but discontinuing my user name - nope, haven't a clue. What I do have is the interest to get horses on wiki, and I can write. I'm too writerly for wiki, but I'm counting on you and Tigerboy to tone that down. Be back with new name as soon as poss.Stellabystarlight (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stellabystarlight:: Per 28's question to you at his talk, peek at [[Wikipedia:Clean start[[ before answering, you may also want to discuss the plusses and minuses of each approach with him at his talk. I'm answering here instead of at your talk because I've gotten the impression that harassment from other users over unrelated issues has been a problem for you, but you want to continue your editing in horse-related areas without the baggage. Yes? Montanabw^(talk) 23:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Morning! If this is true [12] I don't really want to play here. I'll continue updating races because of the horses, but otherwise who needs it? Other than occasionally running across someone like you. See you at the races. Stellabystarlight (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Stellabystarlight: Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC): Wiki has its weaknesses as you well know, but IMHO this article has some tabloid exaggeration. That said, in any ArbCom decision, I've repeatedly seen some of the wrong people get sanctioned and some of the bullies get off scott-free. It's not sexism so much as simple raw idiocy of putting people in charge of more than they can handle. Actually, I've been lurking on the periphery of Gamergate, and the reality is that many people were sanctioned. There was also at least one editor who was male pretending to be female there. As far as editing wikipedia goes, I've (so far) had the same attitude towards being here that I've had in many other areas of my life (including horse activities): If the good people leave, we are just ceding the field to the trolls. So, even when I'm stressed to the max by this place (and over the last two weeks, I've been stressed), I try to just dig in and hang on. It does get tiring sometimes, though. But there are bright corners like WP:WikiProject Women writers, created by User:Rosiestep, who I've met IRL and she's a super cool person! So chin up and remember that everything's better with friends! (p.s., feel free to look, edit and comment at my newest article, Kenneth and Sarah Ramsey - and I have three degrees of separation, I have a friend in my RL work life who once met them through their cell phone tower investments! LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 01:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi M. There is something about holding the shift key while trying to hit the curly brackets twice and only ending up with one curly one and one straight one that happens to me all the time. I only mention it so you know tha Stella won't have gotten your ping. S probably has your page on their watchlist so it shouldn't be a problem. On another topic there sure have been a lot of edit to jackalope recently, so many in fact that I can't tell if all of them are useful or not. Oh well the prairie dust will settle eventually. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MD, yeah, happens to me a lot! As for Jackalope, I am watching the fun there! Looks to me like overall it's an improvement! Montanabw^(talk) 03:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

My WP:SPECULATION (hee) is that is has something to do with using the pinkie finger (weak old thing that it is) on my left hand on the shift key :-) I saw a thread recently stating that the ping only works if the thread is signed at the same time so your updates here might not work - or they might since I know naught about wikiprogramming. MarnetteD|Talk 03:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh amd I forgot to say thanks for filling me in about the Jackalope edits. MarnetteD|Talk 03:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• [13] (closed)

— Ched :  ?  13:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just curious as to yours (and stalkers). I just watched Let It Ride again. That movie makes me pine for the track.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Easier for me to accumulate the 10 worst! But I suppose for me, I have a soft spot for corny old Disney flicks like Miracle of the White Stallions and The Horse in the Gray Flannel Suit. I'm also hoping the upcoming documentary about Snowman_(horse) will be fun. Buck (film) is worth watching. I haven't seen 50 to 1 yet. I did like War Horse (film) even though it took three shouting men in a field in the daytime to get the mare to foal Our Hero Horse (and given that the "newborn" foal was the size of a weanling, I suppose it was necessary) and other Spielberg-doesn't-trust-the-audience-unless-he-beats-us-over-the-head-with-emotion overkill. Dreamer (2005 film) was so sappy as to be embarrassing, Secretariat (film) was fun for nostalgia but a bit disappointing due to the total miscasting of John Malkovich, Seabiscuit (film) not too bad though the book (as usual) was much better. OK, I've rambled on and on - you asked! I can give you the list of equestrian fails for anything that has a whinny in the soundtrack, but am remarkably tolerant of Mr. Ed. Go figure! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 08:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

EdheadTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Montana. If you wish have a look to the User:Montanabw/Old_horse_sandbox , I understand nothing about the strange formatting in english ;) I was looking for a general Equine welfare article and it seems you don't have, but you have a lot of article about painful things like soring and gingering (just impossible to translate!) and others Horse protection act, etc. Is a general Equine welfare article possible? I've looked for sources, this definitely scientific source, another scientific source, and this one looks proper too. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: I think we have it, look at horse management, horse grooming, etc... is that the direction you are going? Can you link to the French wiki articles you think are "parallel" to this? Montanabw^(talk)

Yes : this one ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: and all my talk page stalkers (Especially anyone who speaks French): User:Montanabw/Horse welfare sandbox up and running. All hands on deck for a translation and then review of sources. Probably won't be quite as extensive, but WOW! Tsaag! What a great article! Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How Efficiency! A crazy idea : try to obtain the first Article labeled simultaneously in fr and en about horses! Scientific books about horse welfare are a bit difficult to understand for me, it would be far more productive than I focus on sources in French, while you're working here on sources in English, right? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 11:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Mostly just do a skim to see if we got the meaning you intended correct. The issues in the USA are far different from those in Europe, so the final article will have a different tone and approach, but yes, you are right. BTW, I've also used this technique for some German language articles including Hermesvilla, German Riding Pony and Carl Raswan. (Note the translation notation we put on the talk pages to show that this is what we did...) Montanabw^(talk) 16:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok ! In the fr-article I tried to privilege the scientific sources - not always available. Feel free to replace some sources from french press with scientific ones in english :)--Tsaag Valren (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like many of your sources were in English, and I do have university access. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 16:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note, you can edit war anywhere on any namespace, and anything not covered by the WP:3RR exemptions could (as very distinct from will) lead to sanctions. The only thing a user must not remove from their talk page are active block notices - otherwise we generally AGF that they have read and understood the message. If said message was important and ignoring it causes further problems down the line, well more fool them. Now, I'm off out, and with a bit of luck I'll stop by in Faversham so I can buy some good book sources from a shop there. In the meantime, why not give Shergar a bit of a tidy up? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What there is is too damn much drahmahz all around. Have you notice that Mid-January through about mid-March is serious silly season on-wiki? I swear it's cabin fever or something. But it seems like this time of year is more drama, more hurt fweewings, more "I'm going to go to ANI/RfC/ArbCom" or whatever. And this year has been particularly noisome that way. As for the four-legged ones, I think Spokane (horse) may be my next project. Montanabw^(talk) 01:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't exactly see you staying out of the drama though. rational has moved on to editing C. S. Lewis while I still see people talking about her and bringing up things that happened months ago. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't start it, but I usually will finish it, my friend. There is a difference between someone grumpy or who snaps when baited and a true bully. And I really dislike true bullies. "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, what many Wikipedians in the trenches seem to fail to realise (such as those lining up to tear Andy Mabbett a new one) is that casual visitors come across template discussions such as TfD, conclude that is typical of Wikipedia behaviour, and full screaming full speed in the opposite direction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. However, so long as no one ever hits the "talk" or "edit" buttons, they can go on about their daily lives in blissful ignorance. For the rest of us, it's a quagmire... Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Finding the film trailer in "External links" of Jackalope was a "make-my-day" experience. I'm still laughing. The clip reminds me of next-door-neighbors (adolescents) who used to dress up in odd clothes and make monster movies in their back yard with a hand-held film camera. Finetooth (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And I didn't even add that one! You know, I think it's official: You are having too damn much fun with that article! (But that's a good thing!) Montanabw^(talk) 01:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to add my kudos to Montanabw's Finetooth. As someone who was taken on many trips (from Denver to Casper and back) as a young 'un (that would be long before I-25 skipped the town altogether) to visit my grandmother I always looked forward to drive through Douglas to see the huge Jackalope in the center of the street. That one was replaced long ago but I do appreciate your work improving the article. Cheers to you both MarnetteD|Talk 02:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD. The goal (knock on wood) is to get this up to FA by April 1. I have not yet found RSs for the specific claims about named European horned rabbits, and some of the sources like Sudftw.com are not RS and will have to be vaporized. I've got a couple of used books coming through the mail that might or might not provide an RS for some of these claims. Deleting the claims is a last resort. If you can find a way to save the European horned-rabbit claims (like Hanghuhn) or the claims in the Legend section or the stuff about the Huichol, please do. Montanabw: Perhaps I shouldn't be filling up your talk page with this and should move further discussion to the Jackalope talk page? Finetooth (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Finetooth: I don't mind the chat here, I think it's entertaining all my talk page stalkers! Though FA by April 1 is possible (for TFA I presume?) it can be a challenge; but if you get it to GA in the next month, we could at least get it into the DYK queue for Apr 1 for almost certain! What fun that can be. Also, TheRamblingMan owes me a GA review given that I've done several of his Boat Race articles... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Finetooth: the article has needed semi-protection several times over the years. I don't know if you've seen it but the current protection ends on April 1st :-) It is just a coincidence but it does tickle my funnybone more than a little. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OH NOOOO! Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that the article was semi-protected through April 1 and assumed that the two of you had brought that about with April Fool's in mind. GA is a more modest goal, and TheRamblingMan is an excellent reviewer. Before I would consider nominating the article for anything, I'd have to eliminate the non-RSs one way or another. That sometimes annoys editors who've added them in the first place and who may be unfamiliar with WP:V and WP:RS. Perhaps I (we) should add something about people getting upset at the suggestion that jackalopes are not a biological species. Or does the papilloma explanation suffice as a comfort for true believers? Finetooth (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Given that the true believers all seem to be anon drive-by IPs, I'm not too worried. I favor the virus theory, myself. But the "fearsome critter" designation really must stay! Montanabw^(talk) 19:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately that is a well known trick! Hence the mention in the section of "If you can not revert the move for technical reasons then you may request a technical move." to negate it -- PBS (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Montana, you said you have some special access to sources, have you for this book and this one and this one ? i don't understand why it is so expensive... Many thanks ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

YIKES! Those are expensive; they must be selling them as college textbooks, those always seem to have much higher prices. I can sometimes get books via interlibrary loan (if I can't get what I need from google books), but as I can only keep them for two weeks to a month, I tend to only make an order when I am ready to focus on a topic. Often, one can find the underlying research studies on PubMed - and those I can access free via my University connection. Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The second and third are indeed college textbooks. The first is only available used - which means basically "what the market will bear". It's in a genre that's useful and helpful for years past publication, and was probably a small print run. Combine those two facts with it probably being desirable to more people... that drives the price up. Still not as bad as this or this. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Sewell biography seems to be available through Alibris for €0.96 plus postage – probably a mistake, but perhaps worth a try. Tip: use bookfinder to find books! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Good tip! Tsagg, better jump on that deal before I do! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Hey, y'all, the best source(s) for the cheapest possible copy of any given book are:

BookFinder.com

AddAll.com

On those sites you can find any book, and at the very cheapest prices. They are clearinghouses, and include Alibris plus all other used books sites. Usually BookFinder is all you need, but AddAll is a good back-up if you need it. Hope that helps. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no 0€96 when I search on the link above... the second lowest prize (Amazon.uk, 30€) redirect me on Amazon France and it's 45€ --Tsaag Valren (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

BookFinder reveals Dark Horse as low as $17 [14], Equitation Science as low as $30 (same as Amazon there), and Equine Welfare as low as $39.77 (again same as Amazon on that one). I see Justlettersandnumbers has already linked to a UK Bookfinder search for Dark Horse (but that price is for UK residents, would be more outside the UK; would have to search with one's location and currency for the total price elsewhere). Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ! But Bookfinder is only available in Canada and US :/ --Tsaag Valren (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

JLAN's link to Aliibris showed shipping to Italy, though... maybe ask him at his talk page if there is a workaround from outside North America...

Hi Tsaag Valren, BookFinder.com is available in every country in the world. Select your country from the drop-down menu at the BookFinder.com link, and then select your local currency, and input the title Dark Horse: A Life of Anna Sewell into the title field (don't input the author -- it's best to use as few parameters as possible to get the greatest number of results). Then click to get the links to check the cheapest value for where you live. The prices include shipping costs. Several versions of the title will come up (in this case, about four) -- look at all of the search versions until you find the one with the cheapest copy at the top. Hope that helps! Softlavender (talk)

@Tsaag Valren I just did that [15], and the current cheapest price + shipping to Italy is Amazon UK: The converted book price is €24.78 and the shipping cost to Italy is €5.54, making a total of €30.32. Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Just bought, thanks to you all! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So I wrote an article on the Concho Indian School here User:SusunW/Concho Indian Boarding School and I told it to move it to Concho Indian Boarding School, but it went here Wikipedia:Concho Indian Boarding School? How do I fix that? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. I just want to write and research, this programming stuff is bamfoozling! SusunW (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And I just spent like the last 30 minutes trying to figure out how to revert it and I cannot. I have a student coming. It will have to wait. But I need to learn how to do it, because Viola is on a page like this one was. SusunW (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. What you did was move it to "Wikipedia" instead of "(Article)" in the pull-down menu. I just moved it again and will tag the old title for deletion. All is well now! Eventually a bot will come along and delete the "Wikipedia" version that is now empty. Montanabw^(talk) 01:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Still may as well be piglatin to me, but I'll see if I can figure it out. Thanks for your help. SusunW (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: Here's the process:

1. At your draft, click the Move tab
2. On the page that appears, at the "To New Title:" pull down menu, but sure it says "(Article)"
3. Make sure your article title in the box you fill out is EXACTLY what you want it to be (i.e. no prefixes or suffixes)
4. Then move.

Holller if anything goes wrong again, I'll try to help! (To screw up is wiki) Montanabw^(talk) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You ROCK! Thanks. There is a note at the bottom of the Concho page that says Wiki Commons has info, but when I click on it, it says nothing is there? I found this http://www.whitebison.org/wellbriety-journey/ConchoIndianSchool.htm so maybe there was an image that has been removed? SusunW (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

(watching) I commented it out, looks like there was nothing before. If it gets content, simply remove the comment symbols. Another possibility is that images come under a different name on commons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Gerda Arendt: I tried searching under all the various names the school had but drew a blank in commons. What I found weird was the link above said it came from Wikipedia. But, I cannot find any "free use" photos so far. There were some fabulous ones in the Chilocco journal http://digitalprairie.ok.gov/cdm/ref/collection/culture/id/2311 but clearly they are all copyrighted. SusunW (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, they might NOT be under copyright any more. There's a gray area for stuff published between 1923 and January 1, 1964 and the copyright was not renewed is in the public domain. (Se chart) apparently there is an index you can search, described here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you here [16] and ... sorry! ... but a "Mustang" is a car. NE Ent 03:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit! Or, no, I meant, Horseshit! (but I'm saying that in a friendly way...) I means, seriously - what is that little logo they put on the front of every car? Yes! It's horse! And, well, yes, horses do shit, but cars belch more methane and CO2 than horses but ... oh well, never mind, now back to jackalopes... I wonder if jackalopes poop - no evidence one way or the other, I suppose it would be OR to contribute further to the mythos on-wiki... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 07:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

A pony, right? NE Ent 11:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ponies? It would have been a shame for this to be flushed out with the trash, though the mere requirement for such a site to exist gives me the heebie-geebies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Mustang a car (and a plane ...)? Because there was a horse first. I seriously think we should reflect what "primary" means. We recently had a composer moved because a singer made a career using his good name. I found it shameful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves regarding WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seem to bring out the worst in people, even me (eg: Durham). Still, I managed to get Rainbow (band) to what should be the right place after quite a bit of silliness. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

And I encourage all my responsible stalkers to watchlist for vandal patrol at Horse worship because of those damn Bronies [17]. ...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 07:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Montanabw/Pony prize is in order here. That or equine trout slap equivalent: User:Montanabw/High horse award. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Gettin' off a' yer high horse, pardner!

Congratulations! In recognition of [insert offense here] and in lieu of trouting, you are hereby declared to be in need of "getting off of your high horse." Enjoy the ride! [signature]

On 5 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jim Dolan (sculptor), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that sculptor Jim Dolan portrayed Albert Einstein throwing a Frisbee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Dolan (sculptor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

On 6 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader), which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Minnie Evans, chair of the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, prevented termination of her tribe and won reparations for her people from the Indian Claims Commission? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Other for being "recognized" as a tulku - which hundreds of people are - is this person, Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme, notable? Chris Fynn (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@CFynn: fastest way to find out is to either PROD tag it or send it to AfD. Ah, and I see that has been done. I am suspecting non-notable based on evidence to date. A rebuttable presumption, however. Montanabw^(talk) 21:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

BW, just moved an article Bleu Horses into the mainspace. If you would like to take it on for a DYK for your wikicup stuff please do. I don't really want to mess with it much more. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Will take a peek. I don't know if nominating a DYK scores points, but I might be able to get a 5x expansion of it... hooray for getting those photos, though! I've driven by there several times and not stopped to get them, many thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 02:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

check out Montana Historian issue 6 (2014-15) for article always an Artist Jim Dolan --Mike Cline (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. New magazine to me. Fun to know! Thanks for the tip! Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to Issue 6 online: [18] --Mike Cline (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah. The three links all claimed to go from system to, shall I say, subsystems or components: but in fact all three linked redundantly to the same 'parent system', so they were at best misleading (and 2 of the links were in fact overlinks). It would be better to have redlinks for these missing 'components', so a future anatomist-editor can see what needs doing and create articles as required. If a back-link to the parent article is wanted, it should be a "main" or "further" link, not three Easter Eggs that look like different links to (non-existent) subsidiary articles. I shan't comment further, but such is my reasoning. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Will discuss further at article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 17:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, and sorry for being awkward. I was hunting for an image of a proximal phalanx (tell you why if you're curious) and found myself going around in circles between the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll bite! Why were you hunting? (Do I want to know?) Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Found a big heavy old bone on the bed of the Thames at low tide. Used to finding pipe-bowls, pottery, sheep bones; but horse, that was unusual. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. Poor side of town at the time? Poor Dobbin may have found his way into the stewpot at the pub, I fear...! Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Adore Rowlandson. What marvellous sketches. He's often very funny, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Posting links to images on the topic. There are more finished versions somewhere, but can't find them. Montanabw^(talk) 21:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

MartinTheK has left a message for you on my talk. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have been directed to attempt a discussion with you on the Appaloosa:talk page before taking this matter to resolution. I have done that. If we can settle this ourselves well and good.MartinTheK (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

To Appaloosa talk then. But first, read the existing discussion at the talk page, where the issue has ALREADY been addressed, AND read the article, which also discusses the history of the leopard complex gene. Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Gelug school being the newest school is relevant to Shugden. The whole point of Shugden is to violently protect the teachings of Tsongkhapa versus others.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's relevant that the Shugdens are claiming to be part of the Gelug school; I don't see the relevance that it's the newest. It is, after all, the lineage of the Dalai Lama. Open to more discussion, though. Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Its an academic fact that Shugden is specifically opposed to the oldest school of Tibetan Buddhism, the Nyingma. There are a ton of sources that state that. You can see the article. So all the age stuff is relevant.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I think that we may need to expand that in the article text, then. After we fix the body of the article, then we can properly clarify the lede. At present the article states that the NKT and such oppose the Nyingma, but it doesn't explain why or what relevance. The lead can only reflect and summarize the article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

An example to follow is File:20090316 Large Internal-External Upright Form.JPG using the Non-free use rationale template, and ((Non-free 3D art|image has rationale=yes)). Most of the reasons given in this rationale would apply. Though I do not know if you can justify two images. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 01:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On 12 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kenneth and Sarah Ramsey, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Kenneth and Sarah Ramsey win horse races with Kittens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kenneth and Sarah Ramsey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure... but since I've never ever even THOUGHT of buying an Appaloosa (much less trying to buy one in 2000 - in 2000 I had two ponies - a purebred Al Khamsa Arabian stallion and a non-papered Arab cross with a something that did paso gaits ... and I most emphatically did not try to get any horses then)... we must be being confused with some other people. And the fact that I give my name on my user page seems to have escaped people... whatever. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Link removed per: WP:EMAILPOST - sorry, we're not allowed to let that kind of stuff sit around. You can email me if you want context. — Ched :  ?  00:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it appears WP:ROPE is a beautiful thing. And ditto here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

On 14 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bleu Horses, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Bleu Horses near Three Forks, Montana, are 8 feet (2.4 m) tall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bleu Horses. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In regards to listing Easy Goer's progeny stakes info in the Easy Goer article: Let me get this straight, let me see if I understand you and your logic? So it is NOT 'excessive information' if it is in a 'chart'? But it IS 'excessive info' if it is NOT in a 'chart', and in a paragraph? So let's go check ALL of the other Thoroughbred articles and see if all of their progeny info is both in a 'chart' and 'not excessive.' 72.69.195.22 (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically yes. A "wall of text" is virtually unreadable, particularly when interrupted with many parentheticals. And yes, there is probably a crapload of wall of text unreadable paragraphs like this in the TB articles. Example: Danehill_Dancer#Stud_career - I mean, holy shit, who is going to read that? In contrast, Sunday_Silence#Major_winners is a chart, information is available at a glance, and frankly, if it got unwieldy, it could even be collapsed so that it only appeared if you clicked on it. (example here:Road_to_the_Kentucky_Derby#2013_season) And besides, the Easy Goer/SUnday Silence rivalry can't be overlooked, even in wiki articles! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The OP seems to not have notified you about Pattern of abusive behavior from Montanabw. I am not involved with the thread, just saw your name and that you were not notified. JBH (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

FINISHED! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm still very very hacked that *I* got abused so much on my talk page .. but I guess it's just par for the course that those sorts of things don't get much condemnation. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps I should add your talk page to my watchlist? If you'd like an angry (borderline satanic and overtly abusive, one of the worst ever admins) to keep a watch, do let me know. I have the qualifications.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• • I was notified, but the user posted at the top of my talk page and because I was too irritated to go to the bother of moving it to the bottom of the page, I just hit "save" after cutting it... Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • And TRM, feel free to add my talk page (and Ealdgyth's) to your watchlist. I like admins with your qualifications to keep watch! Montanabw^(talk) 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Path of least drama

So take the content part of [19] and create Talk:Lipizzan/FAQ "Aren't these horses from Lipica, Slovenia?" So the next time a POV-pushing nationalist -- or merely well-meaning (but incorrect) newbie -- shows up, you can just revert with "please see FAQ." Less work in the long run. NE Ent 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• An FAQ might be a good idea. Would also be a good way to trim down the endless trivia additions of every time a white horse is mentioned in a video game... Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I heard Lexus is thinking about naming a new car line after the Lipizzaners. (Unfortunately not from a RS, so we shouldn't publish that yet.) NE Ent 23:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've emailed you a link to a Wall Street Journal article about the EU dispute (WSJ is paywalled but it just happens to be my daily newspaper IRL). Says all the horses descend from six in Lipica in 1580 -- does that jibe with the rest of the sources? NE Ent 23:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It's missing some nuance. There were six classic foundation stallions brought to Lipica, yes, but they were of different breeds and came from all over the world, plus there are a couple other stallion lines not used at Lipica that are part of the modern breed. There are also a lot more mare lines, 35 if you ignore the drahmahz in horse-land, 14 if the drahmahz matter a lot. So, while the Habsburgs used Lipica as their primary stud, the infrastructure has been a part of four different nations since the end or WWI, so claiming "national" origins for the breed is not really doable. And, it's horribly complicated because horses move around from farm to farm, stallions sometimes were moved around to cover mares, and national boundaries move around. We've actually been trying to get this all straight since about 2008 or so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipizzan#Foundation_horses Montanabw^(talk) 23:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

So ... the "truth" but not the "whole truth" as far as the horses. Thanks for the clarification. NE Ent 00:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Unlike plants, horse roots are a bit nomadic... last week, someone accused me of hating Kyrgyzstan because they didn't have good sources for their claims that the Appaloosa came from there. We also have periodic drahmahz over the Azerbaijani and Karabakh horse breeds.... sigh... it never ends. Horse people are crazy. (I probably have to include myself in that). Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear User Montanabw. Can you please cite for me here the Wikipedia MOS section that prohibits See also entries when the internal link already appears in the body of an article? I'll wait till you do before considering anything further at the Working animal page.

I used to believe what you stated in your edit summary was Wikipedia MOS, and years ago made some of the same type edits you did. Then, over time, I found I increasingly used See also sections as expeditious ways of getting around the encyclopedia, either when I was fuzzy on what I was after or when rapidly pursing an interesting spoor in leaps.

In the 1st instance I might, for (a hypothetical) example, be stuck on the exact term I was after. The word "Outfitter" might come to mind, or appear at a page I was reading, but it might have an over-short lede bereft of useful internal links, with similarly bony article sections following. Maybe I'd data mine a useful link, maybe I'd pull my chin, and "packhorse" would come up. No, that's still not it. But (continuing hypothetically, but very much in keeping with actual experiences here) that page ends up with a long and opaque lede that seems to have anything in it but a ready link to "pack animal", which now I'm hot to find as the right term still won't come to me but I'm sure I'll find it there. More clicking and chin-pulling...and eventually I end up at the broader "Working animal" page I'd been seeking all along.

I run into the same phenomena reading, editing, and writing articles on World War II, a subject with literally thousands of weapons, engagements, and fighting units each. I have found it exceptionally expeditious - and the mirror image of where I started out and you are on See alsos - to be able to click a link, scan the first sentence or two, then immediately click on the See also heading to see if what I'm really after, say whether the US XV Corps (which has no See also section) fought in a given battle, or a gun was used in a certain tank, and so on. When I see what I'm after linked in the See also section at a page I arrive at I feel I'm at least warm, and return to the TOC and either start reading or skimming from there, or the top of the article lede. Rather than linking me away from a page, such See also links draw me into one. Thus the request for the link to the MOS standard for your revert, both to correctly inform me and avoid any needless edit war. Thank you. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

See WP:ALSO - where it states "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User Ealdgyth. When I added a See also link to the Working animal page I didn't recognize how well-written and comprehensively linked it is. I had added a link to it at a new page just spun off from a larger one that needed fleshing out, and was hasty in adding a Pack animal link when I saw one missing. As you must well know, the above "general rule" is widely unobserved. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wikiuser100: I agree with what Ealdgyth said. I sympathize with your thinking that it is helpful to have a few selected duplicated see also links, and I was very irritated at that particular guideline when I was new to wikipedia, for many of the same reasons you raise, but that's a battle with the MOS guardians that I haven't the energy or motivation to fight. They also do have a point that see also lists can grow to be so long as to be totally unwieldy too. But if you want to raise it at the MOS talk pages, I think you have an interesting argument. Montanabw^(talk) 23:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User Montanabw, for your thoughtful response. No, I haven't the energy for that battle, either. And indeed do far more winnowing of See also sections than adding to. I just know how I've come to use them, both when I'm fuzzy and when moving fast and focused. That's as far as I can go at this point. Heck, I find the MOS so hard to search I basically just go straight to Google and run best guess or cut & paste text string searches there, with much better results (linking me to appropriate MOS pages) than putting any variants of them in the MOS search field directly. Appreciate Ealdgyth's help. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a specific idea in mind, but I know we're intelligent, confident women capable of giving a compelling presentation. If you have thoughts on this, let me know. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

First I need to have the funding to attend... ! Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

galloping support
Thank you for your tireless support and teamwork and for your wonderful sandbox rules for a better world! - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (13 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 27th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda, you also are a Precious Wikipedian! Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how well pings are working these days but thought I'd let you know I mentioned you here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. Victoria (tk) 18:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I put back what I edited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeguada_Militar_de_Jerez_de_la_Frontera I'm from Jerez and I live 5 min away from there. La Barca de la Florida is a different town, around 10km away from Jerez. This is a link to street view where you can see the Depósito de Sementales (look at the address): https://goo.gl/maps/YXaNz

Aspiratas (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Aspiratas:, that looks like it works. The Spanish version of the article at the time it was created was pretty poor, looks like it has been improved. Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How to pick up more women...

Hi Montana, Victuallers and I have developed a proposal (expanded considerably since the last time you may have seen it) for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women... -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. Examples include the Edit-a-thon blitz during WikiWomen's History Month and the "new articles" work underway by WikiProject Women Writers. The Wikimania talk proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you'd be interested in the talk if you were attending it (it does not commit you to attending Wikimania). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am lurking on Montanabw's page. Totally interested. (Also totally interested in going to DF but thinking I am stuck in southern Mexico until Spring.) I am sure by now you have figured out I do mostly women. I am not by any means fluent in Spanish, but manage with multiple back translations and friends here in Mexico to produce some articles on Spanish subjects as well as mostly minority women from the US. My "bent" is mostly toward activists, which usually puts me into the feminist realm as well. SusunW (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: so good to hear from you and thank you for your positive reception to the proposal. If you feel like addressing it, please let me know if the title is off-putting vs. attention-grabbing. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Left you a message on the Women's page. Won't let me sign up. *sigh* I don't find it off-putting nor offensive. The problem is anything you say that is "politically correct," is not going to cause people to pay much attention. It's a hey you statement and I think it does it's job. There will be those who will find it offensive, but my argument would be that it did its job, because they paid attention. :) SusunW (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope it works! Good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw and SusunW! I have also proposed a proposal here, I'm not sure if it will be accepted or not but I want members of our Women Writers Project and those who are interested to sign up as my proposal is also indirectly related to picking up more Womens from developing countries. My proposal's main aim to "provide free of data charges access to Wikipedia" which will increase the traffic and ultimately more Womens. I would be glad if you both and other members could sign up. Thanks! Jim Carter 07:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, my interest was to write a bit about the dance move of the same name. But as it always happens with me, I got myself sidetracked during an attempt to find the place where to start. At the first glance, making a separate article seemed pretty straightforward to me. But since you are an expert (and currently active), I'd rather leave it to you. -M.Altenmann >t 06:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are right that Lead (leg) must be kept separate. -M.Altenmann >t 07:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I like collaboration on these articles! Montanabw^(talk) 06:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dagom Rinpoche article looks like it should be nominated for deletion.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm out with a temporary medical starting tomorrow, So you may need to get someone else to lend you a hand. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

	For Fun and Beauty
	For a Blustering March - Spring is on its way. Hafspajen (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Ah but Hafspajen, I'm in Montana, we won't think spring until at least April! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 04:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Oh, well... :-( Hafspajen (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. I get where you're coming from here. I agree there are lots of non-programming types who catch on quick. But I think there are also lots of people who don't and abandon the idea that they could actually contribute something because it just seems too difficult. I coordinate edit-a-thons here in Chicago sometimes, and I come across this reaction often enough from newer editors (and do what I can to show them that it's not as hard as it seems). I really don't know if Flow is useful for people or not-- a lot of folks seem to have made up their minds about it already. With The Co-op and mentoring, I made a decision to allow Flow to get tested out there to give it a fair shot, though editors aren't required to use it. And, if editors don't use it because it sucks and doesn't facilitate mentorship, I don't care how much work has been put into it. Their opinion about it is all that matters to me. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

True that the existing interface isn't simple, but the solution is making what we have more understandable by things like guidelines and help pages that are super easy to find (our help section isn't very good) and content guideline explanations that have been updated more recently than 2003... people can read help pages, the problem is that the WP ones aren't kept up and tend to be difficult to read. Montanabw^(talk) 04:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing that's a big deal, folks, just getting a cataract removed on Thursday Feb 26 and I may have some vision problems for a few days until I get my "new" eye adjusted. But that means that starting tomorrow (Thursday) I'll need all my friendly talk page stalkers to keep an eye on the horsey and Montana articles. Wild horses can't drag me away from wikipedia (in fact they seem to keep dragging me further in...) but not being able to see on my laptop screen does present a challenge. Also, though everyone tells me this is one of the safest, more routine surgeries out there, it's still my eye and that's a little freaky! Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

All positive energies flowing your way. My mom, who's 80, had this done and has better vision now than she did in her 50s. Been 10 years and she still doesn't need glasses. Wishing you a speedy recovery. SusunW (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

All is well. Yes. Thank you. 24 hours postop my left eye is 20-30 or maybe a bit better. Unfortunately my right eye is so used to running the show that I now have double vision pretty bad, but I can read. Driving, however, is still not advised until my brain rewires itself to use both of my eyes- on the same subject in the same location! LOL! My eyes are still getting tired pretty easy, though, so no four-hour wiki marathons for a few more days...Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yay! You'll be amazed at how fast that "rewiring" happens, I'm thinking. The body is an amazing thing. Glad it went well. SusunW (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the good news, - better than what we hear about an editor gone, others on strike, blocks that will achieve nothing positive but this, - I dream of the day that blocks and bans are no longer needed among people who respect each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks folks, eye surgery puts the phrase "better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick" into perspective! Montanabw^(talk) 08:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• I'm very glad things went well. — Ched :  ?  08:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ Gerda Arendt: totally agree with you here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Good luck with your recovery and stay sharp! Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Been there, done that, twice. So know kinda what you're going through but obviously, everyone's experience is unique. Hope you're better soon. Take care. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Just once for me so far. The operated eye felt foreign for a while but has returned to excellent working order. Everyone I know who has had this surgery has had a good outcome. You'll become an expert with eyedrops after a couple of weeks. Using the bridge of the nose as an eyedropper rest for a horizontal approach was something I learned from a helpful nurse. Finetooth (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. @Rosiestep:, I'm probably going to have the other eye done also, but they apparently want both eyes cooperating with each other before they schedule the other eye. @Finetooth: thanks for the eyedrop advice...! Yes, the right eye was in charge for so long, it's reluctant to offer control to the left eye. And then I'm seeing a bit of distortion now due to the underlying retina issues (detachment in 2007 started all this lovely stuff...) but I may or may not have to do anything about that (hoping not...) Montanabw^(talk) 21:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
1,142		Congress of Vienna (talk)						Add sources
164		Crossbreed (talk)						Add sources
382		Stocking (talk)						Add sources
171		Purebred (talk)						Add sources
170		Horse hoof (talk)						Add sources
18		Bridger Bowl Ski Area (talk)						Add sources
20		Pat Day (talk)						Cleanup
64		Foot rot (talk)						Cleanup
214		Littlest Pet Shop (talk)						Cleanup
351		Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (talk)						Expand
433		Tunnel (talk)						Expand
615		Shovel Knight (talk)						Expand
102		Horse slaughter (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
923		Hybrid (biology) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
14		St. Simon (horse) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
28		Synthetic racetrack surfaces for horse racing (talk)						Merge
291		White Shepherd (talk)						Merge
171		Cats and humans (talk)						Merge
13		Tevis Cup (talk)						Wikify
37		Montana Rail Link (talk)						Wikify
321		Holstein Friesian cattle (talk)						Wikify
2		Australian Roohound (talk)						Orphan
4		Early–Hasley feud (talk)						Orphan
3		Anak Agung Bagus Suteja (talk)						Orphan
28		Lena Kristin Ellingsen (talk)						Stub
4		Alsab (talk)						Stub
5		Dale Romans (talk)						Stub
1		Annihilate 'Em (talk)						Stub
7		Emma-Jayne Wilson (talk)						Stub
3		Patrick B. Byrne (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped you a line, would appreciate a response. Worm^TT(talk) 15:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Have not seen an email from you ... but will ping from my end. Montanabw^(talk) 03:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(you had to know I'd work some sort of "PC" in there). Regarding this: Like. Well done. ^5. WTG. Montanabw FTW. I award you one "attaboy" .. um, atta person ... ugh ... atta Homo erectus? — Ched :  ?  14:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC) (was that over the top? - I can never quite tell)

The discussion is archived here. Serendi^podous 09:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

youtu.be/Aw_OdlneV7I has a nice short clip of a 22 y.o. Finnhorse gelding at work. The English in the subtitles is simply embarrassing but gets the point across. His name means hard-working! --Pitke (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Montanabw! I've been rethinking the necessity for a separate Children's novels about horses category. I thought it was weird to have children's books in the Novels about horses category when they weren't in the main Novels about animals category, but it's seeming more OK to me now. I'll just put the children's horse books in the general children's animal category and have the separate category deleted. By the way, I notice you put Brighty of the Grand Canyon in the Novels about horses category – you know Brighty is a donkey? It doesn't bother me (they are equus, after all) but I thought I'd mention it in case you didn't know. Nice book – I read it last year. Robina Fox (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew Brighty was a donkey, but I don't think we have a novels about donkeys cat, so we? Montanabw^(talk) 03:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Since a study on genetic findings on Finnhorse ancestry has been published, I'll be, sooner or later, updating Finnhorse. --Pitke (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Awesome! Cool! Montanabw^(talk) 15:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for always making me smile, helping me over the frustrations of editing and your tireless support. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Susun! What a wonderful gift! Montanabw^(talk) 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have time, could you take a look at Sweet_Briar_College#Riding and see if the text has encyclopedic merit to your knowledge? And copyedit if needed? The POV advocates have been out on this article because of the college's sudden pending closure. I trimmed the section somewhat just now. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Will peek. Montanabw^(talk) 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: What the heck is the Affiliated National Riding Commission (ANRC), and why does it have the same acronym as the American National Riding Commission (ANRC)? Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Good question, probably two ex-BFFs got in a fight over a rule about tail braiding or something. Horse people are prone to dramafests and hissy fits of not getting along with anyone - it's why I navigate WP so well.. (LOL)! Montanabw^(talk) 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Good, now I don't feel so bad for never having gotten on a horse except for one summer when I was 10 in summer camp. Oh yeah and maybe a trail ride 15 years ago. Anyway, thanks; looks much better now. FYI: I'm the editor who spelled out "Affiliated National Riding Commission" (it was only the acronym before); I may have gotten it wrong and it may be the other but that was my best guess looking at Google and such vis-a-vis the college. Softlavender (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Horses are wonderful; they put up with people too crazy for people to put up with! Unfortunately, some of the latter make it rather difficult for me to do much with Equine assisted therapy- a therapy that is truly a cool thing! Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Betting is illegal in Dubai, so there are no official odds, but the British bookmakers do take bets on the races there and those are the odds I quoted. I have now added the result from the Racing Post site to the Prince Bishop (horse) article. I'll leae it here as well [20]. Tigerboy1966  08:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

And the additional hilarious part is that I also placed a bet in the USA at our local simulcast place, Chrome went off at 4/5, Prince Bishop at 14-1; would that have been an exacta to write home about... dang! But find a chart? Sheesh! Montanabw^(talk) 16:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have had a go at the Dubai World Cup colours on the Talk page. Would be glad of some help, particularly with the US colours, many of which have (missing) emblems or letters in a circle etc. Let me know which ones are wrong (I have photos of Cigar showing the AP initials, so need to work on that), and if possible provide links with photos/illustrations of how they should look. Many thanks. (JockeyColours (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC))

Let me know which you are the most concerned about; I'm not quite sharp enough on all the major US stables to spot trouble at a glance... Montanabw^(talk) 00:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I'm sorry for things ended up at the DRN, I thought we would be able to reach a compromise but eventually it seemed like a lost cause and I felt I had no option but to close it. What I neglected to mention in my opening statements was that this was the first case I had ever moderated, and perhaps it showed. Regardless, I hope it works out all right for everybody and you'll be able to reach some sort of common ground. Kharkiv07^Talk 04:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You actually did a FANTASTIC job @Kharkiv07: and you just had the bad fortune of hitting a horse article ... you really should have tackled the one that followed, you know, on Islam and Antisemitism. That one would have been a snap! (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wild, wild horses...North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh, that one could go with the Brighty of the Grand Canyon thread above. Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Didn't see that...this was just an April 1 thang. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

But the point is that you were having fun, right?!?! Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No fun allowed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

JACKASS! Montanabw^(talk) 03:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Best to say nothing and just rise above it. These things have an amazing way of sorting themselves out and what goes around comes around as the editor is discovering. I've seen it dozens of times before on Wikipedia, people usually get their comeuppance in the end. There is a certain gratifying irony here though. Giano (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh, which drama? I'm tracking about five right now (Email me if you don't want to say which one here). Montanabw^(talk) 18:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"Silly season" for only a month now? You've been taking a winter sleep? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, two months, but prior to February it was only the normal wiki-dysfunction. It always kicks up a notch leading up to the Spring Equinox, I don't rule out that cabin fever gets on-wiki, or maybe seasonal affective disorder, but I've noticed the every February and March it seems crazier than the rest of the year. for further research... Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's april, and yes, dust is settling down... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Though in Montana if we don't get more precipitation, dust WILL be our next worry!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 07:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

	Happy Easter
	Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

rrRRAWRRR. Me see post to honorable Bishonen. Must admit that haz much lust in heart for true original 'Zilla. Was sad to see from article Zilla (Toho) this: It can travel long distances over land and sea, burrow underground and reproduce via parthenogenesis, and is able to lay over 200 eggs, Guess we no have gender. But good news, honorable family is multi-gender. See Little twins. Also: There large harem in family too. Hope you will be most welcomed into family. Me like educate little Montanabw user. rrRRAWRRR — ChedZILLA 04:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Me try fix User:Bishonen ping .. think must sign again for to work. — ChedZILLA 04:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Montzilla is incubating... is name suitable? Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashamed as I am to admit it, I haven't mastered the PING thing, so the response is on my talkpage. Tigerboy1966  13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

See Userbox:Haf's decoration service. It includes a tag for Category:Talkpages decorated by Hafspajen. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

	A very nice Easter Prometheus
	To you. Hafspajen (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so does this mean I am suffering because I brought technology to mere mortals, or...? :-D Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, fire.... truth, fighting for a good cause ... symbolic fire... and such. Hafspajen (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah... Hafspajen (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am a relative newbie to Wikipedia contributions, so this is just a question: You reverted a tiny edit of mine on Pow wow relabeling the link to Indigenous peoples of the Americas (just labelled "Native people" before my edit) and explained this by there being "No need for that to be inside the piped link." Surely my edit made it clearer that the link was to a more narrowly scoped article than "Native people" (in the world?), with no loss of flow in the text? I cannot understand why you reverted my edit, and remain curious. Hfossa (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You made that edit back in January, took me a while to spot it. Basically, the link was already going to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas article, what you did was move the word "America's" from outside the link to inside the link, which I reverted because it seemed to make a "sea of blue" - there is room for reasonable people to disagree on style, but as the people involved usually refer to themselves in the generic as "Natives" or "Native people" (you can all but hear that capital letter, too) but not "American Natives" (that sounds really odd...) so it works better, IMHO to keep "America" as a modifier outside the link. Hope that helps. Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, CFynn, and Ogress: Please see this nomination for deletion.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind I use geolocation as a method of uncovering IP socks. Do you have on wiki info to the Geolocation you are inferring to? If you don't please drop that aspect, if you do please make sure it is very very clear where it was because without that information it's a reasonable assumption that you may have outed RO. If there is proof of that and you have good reasons then probably best to start an SPI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I transplanted a complaint to ANI on behalf of RO [[21]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SheriWysong edited while being logged out and then complained about being "outed" I guess we have us a sockpuppet! Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Will answer at the ANI, stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There is currently another user adding tags to multiple articles. See, for instance, Warburg Haus, Hamburg and [22]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Have to say you are on your own for those at the moment, as you can see above, I've got my own dramafest happening... (sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have time, could you take a gander at this new article, Paul D. Cronin, and do whatever needs a-doing? Thanks. :-) Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, on this article, several non-independent sources are being used for a fair number of citations. If you have time to consider this, could you decide whether the person's self-generated resumes [23] and [24] are adequate to source Awards and Positions held? I personally never use self-generated citations, but maybe it's OK there.(?) Danke, Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Such sources are iffy, but we aren't at GA or FA yet, so at worst they are WP:SELFPUB. I'm a little busy with assorted drahmahz right now, but I'll try to take a look. Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed. LOL. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. I commented on your nomination for a May 2 TFA. If you have the time I was wondering if I could trouble you to comment on my TFA nomination for May 1. See here. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A recent edit reminded me of an old discussion on Talk:Caspar David Friedrich. One or two other users, among them Rhode Island Red, have removed my short references to HA Schult and Gotthard Graubner (see [25]) from the Caspar David Friedrich page, simply because they were of the opinion that these are minor artists not worth mentioning in the featured Caspar David Friedrich article, although the work of these important German artists is clearly inspired by Friedrich, as several independent sources say. To my mind, linking is an important feature of Wikipedia, binding the project together into an interconnected whole, as connections to related subjects of other articles are always useful, and these were just two additional links that were well sourced. What is your opinion concerning this case? Wikiwiserick (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw. This is a courtesy notice about a new ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Montanabw. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oh great, another one. And of course my time is limited right at the moment, naturally. Perfect timing. And they didn't notify me, either. Thank you, though, Diannaa, for your professionalism and courtesy. Montanabw^(talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to see you dealing with all this wild, wacky stuff. Might be good to let it go for a while. I know you are busy with a million things, but I wanted to let you know that Longchamp Racecourse is still a very short article. I can also see potential for another article, perhaps titled Longchamp Racecourse in art that would discuss all of the paintings depicting this subject. Be well. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice to RO posted by Chillum today, in response to an email request[26] (see bottom); she removed it along with a random request for comment.[27] Why? EChastain (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a new user. RO is almost certainly a sockpuppet of someone, only question who. They admit to a previous account. It's also probably someone who tangled with me in the past, because they got very hostile very fast when I commented (negatively) at their FAC, then they asked me to not post at their talk page rather quickly when I commented on a discussion there. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the account she disclosed to arbcom is the account you're looking for. She's said variously she used a previous account for a few "weeks" or a couple of "months". It's not enough time to develop whatever agenda she has. She pinged Victoriaearle 18 times on 2 April. That's not rational!

Dr. Blofeld told me how great her last 500 edits were.[28] Look at her first 1000 or so edits, from 1 September to mid December. Then suddenly she starts massively editing a few articles, something like 1200 edits to Irataba alone. Very strange. Perhaps ‎Maunus is now finding out what a mess the sourcing on Irataba is. He should go through the whole article to verify sourcing word for word. I've watched her just change the citation but retain the same wording. EChastain (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This user also went after User:Eric Corbett quite viciously. The mass edits to an article makes it extremely difficult to follow the edit history. If it's a sock of an account that I have concerns about, copyvio and close paraphrasing is a serious worry. Also just plain making up stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There were a whole constellation of odd accounts working in that mess at that time. RO was just one of them. And I found Blofeld's defense unconvincing at best. Intothatdarkness 13:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that her behaviour at times was problematic. All I'm saying is that I did see some decent content from RO, regardless of her down side. You disagree, I know, but from my perspective RO was more productive and useful as an editor than a lot of the trolls who hang out at the board on here who contribute nothing to wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are free to defend yourself and present evidence of wrongdoing; however, I strongly suggest that you back away from the RO/SW/LW issues. There is no need to repeat your point of view. Provide your evidence, and allow the community to come to a consensus. — Ched :  ?  23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the suggestion, Ched. I think I've provided all I can. I do hope that User:SheriWysong (signing her edits as User:LynnWysong) will likewise cease baiting me. But I guess DFTT applies to those. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: Do you think she should also withdraw from the Irataba FAC? I was looking forward to seeing her give it a fair and a decent review after Maunus has finished. RO doesn't own the article of course, and it now also has major input from Maunus as well as myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, Montana has said she intends to restart her review, and given the number of changes since her first review that would be very valuable. It would have been better to leave the peer review open, then take time for more rewriting before FAC2. I appreciate the work people have put into it, but it isn't ready. I'm making my way through it carefully to leave a comment, but I find in places that I'm having to read the sources to make sense of it, and it is reaching the stage where there is just too much to comment on. Also, I think full use has not been made of the primary sources. They are really very interesting, and I think more could be done to bring them alive for the reader. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

With due respect, I have contributed to 30 featured articles SV, I think I know when an article is ready for FAC or approaching a level which can drag an article over the line. Wehwalt, SchroCat and RHM22 are three of our most prolific FA editors and have all supported, Wehwalt and RHM before Montanabw even came along. It has been very well researched, especially now Maunus has found specialist books to contribute. Yes, it would have been good to have had this before the FAC but it was approaching FA standard before Maunus began on it which he even acknowledged. And it's not as if I rushed anything. The PR was kept open over twice as long as normal and had more than double the normal turnout for a PR. Also looking at Bernard Williams for instance, that wouldn't stand a chance of passing FAC currently. In fact I think it should be taken to FAR based on the sourcing. Now that's a case where full use has not been made of the primary sources which exist today... I made a considerable effort to find as much on Irataba as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dr. Blofeld, I disagree. As you know, FAC standards have risen. The article went straight from GAN to FAC1, from there straight to peer review, the peer review was closed before people had finishing commenting, then it went straight to FAC2. At each point people were rewriting during a review process, rather than slowly reading the sources to gain a deeper understanding. Some of the problems identified during the peer review remain. Also, the article needs a copy edit, but parts of it are difficult to copy edit because they're not clear enough. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I know how this looks from my end. I think you're right now that it needs another copyedit after Maunus's addition which we can look into once he's done. Constructive criticism is appreciated, I think what's important here is promoting an article, not who contributed to it. Perhaps you could take a look at Castell Coch anyway and tell us if that's ready or not anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I knew almost nothing about this when I began the reading, but now that I'm doing it, I'm finding it fascinating. Our article doesn't fully bring that out, parts of it are hard to understand, and parts of it are still disjointed. For example, we mention Oatman's last meeting with Irataba toward the end, but we don't say anything about earlier encounters (assuming there were any, and the article implies that there were). So at first mention it's not clear why Oatman is there.

Another example is the connection between the Rose-Baley attack and Irataba making peace with the Maricopa. The article talks about Irataba being away during the attack, then quotes him talking about peace with the Maricopa. Is the link simply that the Rose-Baley issue made Irataba realize the Mohave and Maricopa had to stick together? But the final sentence suggests it had no direct connection to Rose-Baley; rather, Irataba was simply tired of the dispute. Or was he tired of all fighting? (I think it was this.) It needs to be explained. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to ping Maunus. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Yavapai killed seven members of the family, but spared the lives of 14-year-old Olive Oatman and her 7-year-old sister, Mary Ann. After a year with the Yavapai, the girls were sold to the Mohave, and adopted into the Oach clan where she lived with a Mohave warrior called Tokwatha (Musk Melon). Mary Ann died two years later, and Olive remained with the Mohave until February 22, 1856, when Tokwatha brought her to Fort Yuma carpenter Henry Grinnell, releasing her in return for two horses and some blankets and beads.2" earlier on.. As for fascinating, exactly, that's what got me hooked regardless of RO's disputes with various people. I'd hope people would respect me for that here. I see what you mean about a little disjointed in parts, but that's largely because of the lack of real biographical coverage of him, it's sketchy at best. We've tried to fill in some background info without making it seem warbling or irrelevant. I can take another look at it and try to improve the flow in some areas once he's done if you're willing to give it a fair look.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me that SV has decided that the article will not gain her support. I have worked on the article to the point that it is well within what I think can be expected of a FA. I am not going to jump through hoops to get it through the review which has ofcourse by now evolved into a major dramafest and all round clusterfuck. I have done what I am going to do with the article and will not participate further in the review. RO did really quality work, they were extremely positive and open to constructive criticism and help and had fewer ownership issues than most editors I have ever collaborated with. The article is excellent. That is what matters. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Dr. Blofeld, you've quoted the earlier Oatman section without saying why. Note that it doesn't mention Irataba, the subject of the article. But later in the article, we describe Oatman meeting Irataba years later in New York. We quote her: "It was a singular coincidence, that after the lapse of 8 years the wild savage and the released captive should again meet ..." So when did they first meet, and is anything known about it? The relevance to Irataba should be made clear at first mention. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oatman knew Irataba, but we don't know anything about their first meeting or anything they did together before their meeting in NY. As far as I can see Oatman's captivity's relevance to Irataba is 1. That her captivity and release gave the Mohave a taste of the importance of being on good terms with whites. 2. That she described Mohave society after her release and influenced public views and discourses about the Mohave. 3. that her discovery as a captive among the Mohave by the Whipple expedition, created a tension among the Mohave who saw how the whites reacted to seeing one of theirs living with the Mohave. 4. the brief meeting in NY where Oatman seems to step out of character and show affection for those whom in her account she described as her savage captors. There may be a point to mentioning at the first mention of Oatman, that she was noticed by the expedition. I will add that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The issue throughout the article is the flow. It's not always clear what something means, or why it's being mentioned. The paragraph after Oatman is confusing: "On February 23, 1854, Irataba, Cairook, and other Mohave people encountered an expedition ... Whipple and his men counted six hundred Mohave gathered near their camp, trading corn, beans, squash, and wheat for beads and calico.[25] By the end of their commerce, the party had purchased six bushels of corn and two hundred pounds of flour...." Which party? The next sentence about the game is also a bit confusing. The other example I mentioned above was:

Irataba was away at Fort Yuma during the attack on the settlers [Rose-Baley], and when he heard of it, he scolded the other Mohave. Jo Nelson (Mohave: Chooksa homar), a Mohave warrior who participated in the events reported that he told the warriors, "I hear you fought, though I told you not to. And you will have war again: I know it. You used to fight the Maricopa. I want to go [to Phoenix] to see the Maricopa and tell them: 'The Mohave will not come any more to attack you'."[54] Irataba, weary of the constant conflicts, subsequently organized a peace expedition to the Maricopa, settling the ancient disputes between the two peoples.

It's not clear what the connection is between Rose-Baley and making peace with the Maricopa. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, you've also viewed the books that RO had to write this. I believe Montana's concern further up was that RO might be a sock of somebody with a history of plagiarism. Can you state that you've checked and believe the issue has now been fully eradicated? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point SV, I thought previously I'd mentioned Irataba buying her. Perhaps it wasn't in the source, Maunus can you answer that one? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oatman's account looks interesting. For example, she discusses the Mohave women trying to stop the men from going to war. It would be good to include that perspective. The women are almost absent from the article. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• To all of you, I strongly suggest looking at the sources for the Oatman article itself: a) she was not purchased by Irataba, she lived with a different family b) It was the military who demanded in no uncertain terms that she be returned - or else c) She may not have gone back to white culture wholly voluntarily - there was some evidence that she may have actually married d) Her "account" was written by someone else who allegedly interviewed her, the style is typical of a "captive narrative" and not necessarily her own thoughts, and thus e) Being friendly to Irataba may have been because she was actually treated well by the Mohave and had positive feelings toward them, no matter what she said to ease her way through white culture. (see, in comparison, the sad fate of Cynthia Ann Parker, the mother of Quanah Parker). Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld. Sorry for the delay, but I am currently traveling, and won't be back home until the 23rd abouts. Even if I was home though, I wouldn't be much help. Back in the 08-09 era, I did work with a few folks on FLC, and GA things, but have long been away from that area do the the politics involved. I'm not saying there's anything wrong, just that I found too many "personalities" creeping into what passed and failed, rather the prose and resources. (for my tastes). Anymore - I just do copy-editing things or looking for refs, and often do so logged out. In the end, my tl;dr comment is to say that I don't know, because I'm not currently up-to-date on the standards and procedures of FA reviews. Sorry I can't be more help. (User:Ched not at home) 99.108.47.214 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Montanabw/Duck box, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/Duck box and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Montanabw/Duck box during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, see above thread for one reason why we need to !keep it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I was one of the first to have suspicions, but from an editor and administrative perspective, I kind of felt to compelled to nominate and let the community decide, just as I would do for any similar page for any other users. Stuff like that is typically best kept off-wiki. I have tons of notes for various editors but they are offwiki. Yahoo Notepad is pretty good for that, if you have a Yahoo account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Sometimes there is an honesty and openness to keeping such things on-wiki as well. I have a Yahoo account, but I don't particularly like it. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is handy, and before becoming an admin, I had notes about spam users and such, it went unnoticed. When I read the policy fully, I just deleted it. It, like your page, was borderline (imho). Again, I don't think you are intentionally trying to do wrong here, but if someone points something out to me, and I think it may be a problem, I'm a bit duty bound to treat it the same as I would any similar page by any user. The problem is that when these pages have the wrong conclusion, they can also intimidate or run off users. I haven't commented on the merits of the information, nor even fully investigated these particular links due to time constraints. If they were less than a month old, I wouldn't have used MFD and ignored it, assuming it was for an upcoming investigation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • • Well, I think you said it best when you said the community needs to decide. It WAS for an upcoming investigation, just never quite ripe, but I think it is correct that at this point I have to let this process (which now also includes an ANI and an SPI filed by one user on herself) unfold. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • I'm actually finding it a very helpful demonstration of the passive-aggressive tag-teaming which is often conducted by Wikipedia's unsung bullies. It's easy to point out people who cuss, but much harder to find good examples of the ones who will hound people away with superficial policy links and apparently sincere claims. But since the community doesn't seem to be very concerned about this sort of conduct, it may end up deleted just the same. Intothatdarkness 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My only real frustration is that not enough people of good faith who are here to write an encyclopedia dig in and stand up to the bullies, and then what happens is the few who are left get fatigued and snap after all the WP:BAITing that goes on, resulting in either the wrong side being blocked or a universal "Pox on all your houses" block on everyone. In every case where bullies are outmatched (usually takes a 3-1 ratio for small cases, 2-1 on bigger ones) they usually either give up or get themselves blocked. That said, you can't tilt at every windmill out there and the people who like drama aren't creating content, so they have more time on their hands. Same as it ever was. Wiki can be too much like the real world, sometimes. Montanabw^(talk) 16:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and to an extent I suppose I'm guilty of that (hence your edit summary). I guess I view this as more of a pastime, and on the whole my faith in the ability of the system to take corrective action is very low...especially when it comes to the more stealthy bullies. Some of the comments elsewhere on this page are indicative of that in my view. Intothatdarkness 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi MontanaBW, Nice work at the Providence DRN case. Although there was no final resolution you did help the group to clarify their issues. That is often the best we can do as entrenched disputes can take a life of their own. At present DRN is quite calm but there are times when as many as 10 cases are waiting for a moderator. Therefore I hope you are not feeling discouraged and that you will check back from time to time to help again. Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 17:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Hey Montanabw, just a quick barnstar to say thanks for the reviews of Boat Race articles you've conducted over the past year. As of this morning, I completed my (initial) goal of ensuing that every Boat Race had, not only its own article, but one that was either of GA or FA status: we now have 158 GAs and 3 FAs that we can all be proud of! It doesn't stop here, for me at least, I'm going to keep up with improving the quality of the GAs and look for more FA opportunities. Plus, there's the small matter of 70 Women's Boat Race articles to get up and running! But thanks again, I couldn't have done it without your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks! Now, shall the next project be to do the same for the Kentucky Derby? Only 141 of those! Montanabw^(talk) 16:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help with that!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd tel you that the first Japanese classic of the season (the Oka Sho) was won by a filly called Let's Go Donki. Brightened up my weekend no end. If she follows up in the Yushun Himba I'll do an article. Thanks for updating Shared Belief: the result came through around bedtime in the UK but the details were not clear. Tigerboy1966  14:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not really interested in making all the pages and watching them, sorry. I just noticed that they weren't there and i thought i would just put them up so someone would help out. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the reply and thanks for the edits you did! Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations on getting Bazy Tankersley to FA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What was this[29] for? DexDor ^(talk) 05:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No clue. I probably tried to answer something else and hit the wrong button! Sorry! Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For mousing around until an answer was found for a previously miscaptioned image and it was posted at Talk:Horse theft. / BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montana. Another Believer is the nominator. I was able to help a little early on because I had worked on Lola Baldwin, the first officer in the Women's Protective Division of the Portland Police. I have nothing new to add, but if you think I can still help in some way, just ping me. Finetooth (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Finetooth, I have a number of comments at the GA, if you want to help, that's fine. Or not. Figured you'd want to know it was under review! BTW, good luck with the GAn for Jackalope! Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Chrome's up for TFA today: California Chrome. Has already been vandalized. Creatively, I must admit! I do really and truly have to judge a horse show all day Saturday starting at 8am MST and probably running 10 hours. I will need friends to watchlist. My last edit is a "clean" one to go back to if nothing else seems suitable. I'll discuss all legit questions AFTER TFA day is over! Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Watching now ;) - Jedi instead of Colt was all that happened so far, before I looked. - The cabal of the outcasts is proud! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fun? You call this fun?? I call this work! Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) I think the intention was to not frighten people reading the header in their watchlist - at least that's what I understood ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not fun is it, especially as there's usually somebody you'll need to revert! Few people really seem to care, in fact it was only Gerda yesterday who took the time to thank me/us for Tower House. Most people just take it for granted I think.. Makes you wonder at times what it's all for! Congratulations anyway Montana, good to see this finally on the main page!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What it is for? Perhaps for the 23k+ readers yesterday (and I predict a four-digit number for today and the next two days)? - See also, about where the readers come into play - or rather not yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

California Chrome was already on my watchlist. I'm judging at a ferret show next weekend as it happens, which has earned me the soubriquet of "weasel diddler" on Wikipediocracy. But we can't take these things too seriously, or even seriously at all. Eric Corbett 10:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should take articles and readers seriously, but TFA not at all, - and perhaps that is what our friend meant in the header. We write for the readers over the years, - the extra ones on TFA day are a nice bonus, from which THEY hopefully will get something. I like the horse in connection with the Head of Christ, a ballet (don't listen, Eric), and the women with the scandals of her life in 18 volumes ;) - I bet the latter will get more hits than the other 2 and the house ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with ballets Gerda, it's musicals/operas I can't stand. Eric Corbett 10:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, - my memory was wrong, happens a lot ;) - I remember this (and the work behind it with pleasure, - did you see the new image?) and compare to See also above (which pleased me less) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Judging at a ferret show sounds like a euphemism for something unsavory though I'd never call anyone a weasel diddler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I promise you, it's not. I really am judging at a ferret show next weekend. Eric Corbett 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

for your album (with an article that received an infobox from Tim riley) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Montana, on bringing California Chrome to today's featured article! I hope you enjoyed the Derby today. Bede735 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Skyerise (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone! Was a good day - I also had money on American Pharaoh this year, so I'm feeling rather chuffed at the moment! I very much appreciate everyone helping to keep an eye on the article! Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, MBW. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive participation -- and willingness to compromise -- in the recent Template:Medal talk page discussions. The new medal icons not only look better graphically, as noted in the discussion, they also provide additional space for additional text and help to greatly reduce line-wrapping within the medal tables. Alakzi implemented the new icons earlier today, and as you can see from the Nicole Haislett article, they look pretty darn good.

I look forward to working with you again in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad that one got resolved! Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I am unable to find a free image, but at the same time, if I do a Google image search for "Sybil Plumlee" I only see four images of her and each appears only once. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. @Another Believer: The two most likely to be suitable are the one here. The color one is captioned as owned by the family and they provided it to the newspaper, so presumably they consider it flattering. I think it's worth a try. If anyone gives you heat for it, blame me! Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the American Pharoah page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is better placed on the article's talk page but I wanted to make sure you see it, plus, it doesn't need to be a public issue. Making the edit about the Manhattan Handicap/Manhattan Stakes had nothing to do with adding the sponsor into the title. I agree how ridiculous the sponsorship titles are, remember in the past they had a number of races with the tag "Breeders' Cup" during the racing year at various tracks? Well sometimes they had at the same tracks identically or nearly identically named stakes with the BC tag and a "Budweiser" BC tag. For real. Anyhow the reason I made the edit was to fix the link, the article's title on Wikipedia is the Manhattan "Handicap" you will see the article is the correct one to link to as the winner last year was the Ramsey's Real Solution. The race until last year was run as a handicap, what conditions it will be run under this year who knows, I did not look further when I did a little research at the NYRA website. The only reason I included the sponsor was because I wanted to maintain uniformity, so I cut and pasted from the list of stakes wins in the infobox. If we make the edit Manhattan Stakes, will that be acceptable? I think it will put us on the same page. Thanks for your consideration. Freddiem (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can live with that. No worries... I just hate having to change the article names all the time as sponsors change... Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I see the edit you made, would you rather I go ahead and make the text Manhattan Stakes and make the link to Manhattan Handicap? I think that's a better compromise and better reflects the actuality. If you just want me to leave it as it is that's okay. Freddiem (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I generally think that the race title usually is best to match the wikipedia title. But either is fine with me. Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree but like you say the names are always changing so with the article title it's best to keep the traditional name. On the race's page at the NYRA site it even says "Manhattan Handicap" at the bottom to introduce its history. But the name will remain "Stakes" for this year at least. Well I'll go ahead and make the edit, then try to go to sleep. Thanks for your forbearance. P.S., I was looking at your user page and see we have a few things in common, and was wondering if I could just BS with you a little sometime. Freddiem (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Any time, the pub here is open! Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool, we'll have a couple pints. Thanks, take care. Freddiem (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I put a bit of new sand in your sandbox. BTW, one of the clerks at ArtbCom, just a week or two ago, told me in a personal note on my talk page that, and I quote, "Humor is dangerous.....". Which just proves...not everybody laffs (but who cares!) . Buster Seven Talk 17:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, so long as it wasn't a cat turd, we're all good here! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The GA nomination of the article Jackalope you participated in as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jackalope for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Jackalope (estimated annual readership: 262,282.09) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Mr. Guye (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please do add Jackalope to your GA list and claim shotgun credits. I wouldn't have looked twice at Jackalope except for you. I had no idea that article would become so interesting, that the jackalope has global appeal, that scholars have published articles about it, or that the Wyoming Legislature would debate the status of jackalopes for years and years. Good luck with the wikicup. Finetooth (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

They are now airing on C-span. Freddiem (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montana,

I recently noticed a comment of yours in which you mentioned HathiTrust. So that I'll be kept occupied while I'm reading books on English history, I'm currently planning to improve the article on the First Triumvirate, which, as I just noticed the other day, is in a terrible condition. I've found the website to be a valuable tool in my research. Thanks for mentioning it! Regards, --Biblioworm 01:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think RO is ItsLassieTime. My thoughts are based on having tried to add to that SPI and finding that the evidence is very poor for that sock. Of the 108, or whatever, socks that editor is supposed to have, many (or most) of the "confirmed" ones have no edits or very few, that provide any useful behavioural information. So there's no good evidence to use for RO. If she's a sock, then it's someone else. EChastain (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, @EChastain: Actually, when I put together the LTA page I found quite a bit of predictable behavior, much of which I noted there. For one thing, ILT is in a time warp and most accounts just cannot stay away from children's stories and popular culture topics from the 1950s and 1960s. As you know, we did catch SeeSpot Run as an ILT sock, so I feel that creating the LTA page is worthwhile. I am only going to play the SPI card where I think we have a possible account that a) writes really poor articles with copyvio and sourcing issues that will require cleanup; b) attacks other editors who try to correct or collaborate; and c) refuses - for the most part - to work with others beyond the most superficial of "I agree with person foo" type of behavior designed to split editors and distract them from the issues of poor article quality that is the real problem with this user. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, RO can sink or swim based on current behavior, which has been pretty atrocious. While RO has some LassieTime characteristics (an obsession against Victoriaearle and a fascination with Indians and the Old West, for example) and IMHO the SPI was an appropriate thing to file and check even if it didn't pan out; I also agree that RO also has some traits that don't match up, including a penchant for baiting User:Eric Corbett and some backing from a group of people who aren't precisely supporters, but who seem to have sympathy based on some sort of inside information the rest of us are not privy to. Who knows, maybe RO is Mattisse or someone like that. Beats me and at this point I don't really need to know. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EChastain Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But ILT is still a problem and probably has figured out how to IP hop to evade scrutiny. If ILT is around elsewhere (most likely is, and with multiple accounts), it's all a big "catch me if you can" game to that individual and important not to let sock-hunting drive us nuts. When I put together the LTA page, one thing that struck me was how the ILT sockmaster would go so far as to have one sock account "talk" to another sock account and create different personas for each editor - yet they couldn't stay away from certain topics (SeeSpot got caught in part due to the blend of working on Old West topics and popping over to edit The Three Bears). In most cases, it is probably best to focus on the behavior of the current account on its own merits - or lack thereof - and only go the SPI route where it appears there could be multiple accounts, either tag-teaming or causing similar problems across multiple articles. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not knocking attempts to identify ItsLassieTime socks. And agree with you about focusing on behaviour of the present account. After all, her current block is a result of her behaviour since her first edit August 31, with her second edit, a complex one, made some 16 minutes later.[30] By 13 September, she was already suspected of being a sock.[31] On 23 November, her user page was deleted per her request on an editor's talk page.[32] All this deleting she does is very effective. EChastain (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's one reason I created the Duck box; to grab the diffs before they escape! That said, deleted pages is probably a reason to take screen snapshots if they are particularly egregious. I just hate the damn drama boards any more, though. They are haunted by too many trolls who aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have restored earlier version of the UTP of SeeSpot Run. CU could not confirm if it is Itslassietime. You can use a different category such as "Sockpuppets of..." OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • CU is going to be stale, it was behaviorial evidence that got SeeSpot this time, and that is legit for the page in question. Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Hafs, and off to the snarkives she goes...finally, a pink (or purple_ pony mascot!

Hello Old Friend. I would like to say thank you very much for your edits at the current ANI. I have thought several times over the past few weeks I should stop being so damn biligerent and apologise to you and hold out the olive branch. I am doing that now. We make a good editing team and I apologise for my part in spoiling that.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone can get a bit testy and snarky, dug-in and tendentious at times. (even me!) You and I have spatted on stuff, but you've never gotten nasty about it and have been good at focusing on content most of the time. I can't say the same for a lot of other editors! Montanabw^(talk) 21:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - big handshake, hugs....glad to be talking again.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I had created Horses in the United States nearly 3 days ago, would you like to help with it? It can be a good DYK. I've always found it there were 20 million horses in 1910s-1920s, now there are nearly 10 million in the country. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Did I see something somewhere about someone's possible RfA? I've been off for a few days -- vacation and work thing -- so I would have been on my iphone, and the wikipedia app is pretty poor IMO, so I may be talking jibberish here, in which case, ignore. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been contemplating a RfA, yes. That said, I also know that in nine years of editing, I've made some enemies and they will emerge if I file. I'm trying to decide if it's worth the drama. I've asked around in some places and am getting a lot of "I'll support you, but beware of the trolls" comments. I don't know what the support-to-oppose ratio needs to be for a successful RfA, but man have I pissed off a few people and I have to think long and hard about how much time I want to put into dealing with them again. Luckily the worst over the years are now all blocked, but... Montanabw^(talk) 17:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Tell me about it Montanabw! Thanks for your support over at ANI. Those "medics" are ..... perhaps best not said in public. Would you like me to have a look at the potential RfA for a quick, very inexperienced, independent look. You have not canvassed me, I am stalking your web page, so that should not be a problem.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

DOH! I completely misread the acronym RfA! I apologise for bringing such stupidity to your page!

Ok; sanity check survives for the moment. I'll support you if you decide to go for it, but, yup, there will be drama from the trolls and lurkers who want to put in their $0.02. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh man alive, you'd have to be loco to run RFA as I'm sure Eric Corbett will tell you! They'll give you the biggest grilling you've ever received on wiki and make you question yourself. I wouldn't, but it's your call I guess!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Corbett weighted in at Drmies page on this topic! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That's probably where I saw it... Drmies page. Now the loop is closed. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Basically, if I do so, it will probably be a few months out, given RL business and an awareness that I will have to have a lot of mental space free to handle it. The question isn't so much the trolls as the supporters - I know that it isn't wise to answer fire with fire at an RfA, so supporters have to also be willing to keep an eye on the process. The theoretical question is if a longtime content editor can still pass an RfA with baggage, or if no one should try for a RfA with more than about two years' experience ... Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec but still fits) The last RfAs all went well, - try it, nothing to loose. Disclosing gender might help ;) - You don't have to "deal" with pissed-off people, let them speak, just don't answer. - Another admin around the DYK queues would be lovely. Did you know that I had a GA today, nominated for DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Congrats, Gerda! And also congrats on your recent FA noted at the Signpost! And yes, WP:IGNORE is probably the best approach with trolls. We've lost a lot of good admins and many more have become inactive in various ways. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you know that it was Dreadstar who wrote me once "IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE" - wish he could have done it better himself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Dreadstar was a very good admin and I miss him. He pretty much just lost his cool that one time, but I guess that GamerGate situation was enough to drive anyone around the bend. Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

GA found a DYK reviewer already! - Perhaps ask the successful new admins, Opabinia regalis and Ritchie, for advice? - Also, if it fails doesn't mean you fail, - you can just keep writing FAs such as CC, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, with my luck, people will find the 10,000,000,000 mirrors of that page that now exist and claim I'm some sort of serial copyvio creator! Just had to slap a ((backwardscopy)) on Noseband because someone "compiled" a magazine article based on work people did here on WP. That's going to be an ever-greater problem. Even I just got fooled recently by a wikibook on Google books being a RS! But still, perhaps good training for a political career! Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you look at Bad Elk v. United States and Plummer v. State? A question has come up on RS and OR/SYN by an editor who apparently doesn't understand Lexis/Westlaw. I could be wrong on it too, so if you have time, I would appreciate it (especially if I'm wrong). GregJackP Boomer! 21:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I was looking at illustrating the movement of a horse clearing an obstacle, and created this:

as a possible way of decomposing a jump - do you think it could be leveraged for the article? MLauba ^(Talk) 14:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@MLauba: Hmmm. I'm intrigued. Do you know where the images were taken? I like it as an example of a horse jumping an obstacle for an article like jumping (horse) but not sure about the competition-specific articles. The competition doesn't look like a sanctioned show jumping one, and it isn't a show jumping course, looks like maybe a novice level eventing course or maybe a local show's hunter course (rider without jacket is either cross-country in eventing or a VERY local show where the jacket rule has been waived due to heat...). The rider and horse aren't too bad - won't win the Maclay for equitation, but nothing cringeworthy or dangerous, rider a wee bit ahead of the horse at takeoff, but not too bad. I think it's usable. Montanabw^(talk) 18:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This was shot at Payerne in June last year, if memory serves an B/R100 (no idea if the notation is the same in the US, but in short, 1m obstacles, run by aspiring or promising novices or dedicated amateurs). Jackets indeed get waived at the official discretion. The event also runs regional and national-level courses but they took place on the next day (when I wasn't there - I only go when my wife or her horse are jumping). Anyway, yes, sanctioned in Switzerland, and unless I'm mistaken, this particular run was limited to probably around 200 ranking points. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. @MLauba: So was it considered hunter, jumper or eventing? In the USA, the natural grass course would mean it wasn't a show jumping competition, but I don't know how the lower ranks work in Europe...? Montanabw^(talk) 16:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for the lack of clarity. It was a jumping competition - both grass and sand courses are accepted at these levels. Not sure where the cutoff is, but I imagine anything that doesn't qualify as a CSI competition follows the same rules. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I had no one really I knew to ask but you, so apologies for any grievances hearing from me will cause. I noticed you have contributed to a lot of GAs and I was wondering how to submit an article for review. Any additional pointers from your personal experience would help me more than anything as I still have a long way to go before I even consider a review. By what I have read, it is a challenging process that I think you could help me be more prepared for. I understand if you have more important things to attend to, so, again, apologies if I wasted your time.

Also, though I know this means little to you, I saw you were considering to become an admin. I would support that ambition, I'm suprised more people are not doing the same. Anyways, hope everything else goes well for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of helpful info, I will evaluate it to get a better understanding. This was a big help, hopefully, in due time, I will be able to submit an article for review. Thanks for taking the time to message me, I'll let you get back to your work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick:, another thing to consider is putting an article up for Peer review. A good way to get eyes on it and some opinions. Also a good way to gauge how your own temperament can handle the gauntlet. Sometimes you can get a bad reviewer or find that the critiques of your article don't seem fair, It's important to be calm and not get too upset. About 3/4 of the time, the reviewer is actually right, painful as that is, and the other 1/4 of the time they are a troll, but both cases are a no-win if you lose your cool. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I will make sure I do that. I will admit that on one occasion one user (not you, I actually think your actions were not as bad as I first thought) almost made me upset enough to say things I would have regretted saying. I will try to listen to reviewers though, they most likely know a lot more than me about a proper article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This is off topic from the heading, but I didn't want to fill your talk page. Anyways, I'm sorry for what Lynn did, I have been trying to explain why it was inappropriate. I want to believe Lynn can be helped and can work with you so I will keep trying to discuss these matters without irritating him/her. I just hope he/she really isn't a sock because lately, while talking with Flyer22, three socks have been found. It's really alarming, I never knew it was as big as an issue as it is. It's why I now thank you for your efforts to stop socks, it's reassuring. Peace :) TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. I've been down this road before. No worries. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, Lynn is lucky he/she is messing with a user with so much composure. I know you will handle it accordingly, I just don't like how Lynn has been interacting with you. I don't know why Lynn is so argumentative with you, after a little perspective I've seen you are only trying to help others. Though I don't want it to happen, if Lynn keeps this up I know some form of action will probably be initiated. It's a shame too, he/she can sometimes be a helpful user when Lynn really tries.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't deal with her anymore or I think I might literally lose my mind. Caution, her edits on her sandbox removed links "off-wiki", and they all relate to you some way. It's a little disturbing, so I thought you would like a heads-up.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that worried. I've run into stuff like this before. If you want to see uber-mega-wiki-drama, check out the alternative medicine articles like acupuncture... that's the wild west over there =:-O ! Montanabw^(talk) 18:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Woo, you weren't kidding they need to sort out that mess pronto. I'm glad you aren't worried, I just don't want Lynn to start going after the articles you work on again with unconstructive editing. Though we don't work on the same aspects, I still know how annoying that can be. After the long thread of discussion with her, I'm more and more afraid she might actually be a sock or at the very least a troll.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am and always have been open to constructive edits and solid suggestions for improvements to any article, and my track record for collaboration is actually excellent with most users who are here to build the encyclopedia. (Note Jackalope below, just for fun!) If things go amiss, there are third parties who can step in. I miss User:Dreadstar, he was generally a very good admin. As he liked to say, "ANI is thataway." Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt about that, I just think we started out on the wrong foot. I will keep an eye on Lynn so I know all is fine and warn you if anything is going down. By the way, who is Dreadstar? I realize he/she was an admin, but is there a bigger story behind it?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No need. I'm not on a witchhunt, and if something "goes down" there is an affirmative obligation to inform me of the same. Dreadstar is a very long-term user and was a top admin, one of the first who ever helped me in an editing dispute, years ago. I could always rely on him for a level head and scrupulous neutrality - he was very good at peeling regular editors (like me) off the ceiling when they were getting upset and calling us on our own stuff if we needed it. I don't precisely know what happened other than I think he was trying to deal with that horrible Gamergate mess and something or someone there apparently got under his skin and he apparently said or did something that they attacked him about ... that was a nasty bunch of trolls! Good to remember that WP:BAITing can get to even very good people. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so did he choose to retire? I can't believe how cruel some people here can be, it must have been terrible if it made an admin leave.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

When he was also accused of abusing his admin tools for protecting an article in an edit war (yes, correct, he should not have been the one to do it because he was involved), he blocked himself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Many people have thrown up their hands, including many admins; it's one reason I've thought about an RfA; we need more admins here, too many of the best have quit, often in the wake of conversations like this one: WP:CHEESE. There's a whole page of "Missed Users" here on wiki. Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said before, I support the idea of RfA, and look forward to the day it comes. I don't care if a troll or anyone else objects to the possibility of you becoming an admin because the fact is, wiki would be a better place if you were one.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Horses in the United States at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 08:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

On May 19 2015, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2015 Preakness Stakes, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

ThaddeusB (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Hey, everything's progressing well. You done good justice for Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing (United States). Now, time for that FL! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Should this article be deleted?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 13:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

yes? I believe it should, as evidenced by the lack of apparent notability. Blue Lotus Assembly is also on that list as it has zero cites/ There's no real information but "Celtic Buddhism"'s own pages suggests there are like nine practitioners. There is one cite for them that is valid about Irish new religious movements, so if not, we're going to have trouble writing about them. Ogress _smash! 20:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Another bunch of plastic shamans? Go for it! Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion @Ogress, Joshua Jonathan, and CFynn:.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 01:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

About articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding this, I understand that WP:BLP applies to content about living people regardless of topic, but Category:Living people is, as far as I know, just for articles about people. In other words, BLP applies everywhere; Category:Living people is not a list of articles to which BLP applies. If I'm wrong about that, could you point me to where that's addressed? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You are probably right, I was just concerned that the BLP tagging not be removed from the article. No worries. Thanks for stopping by to discuss. Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Understandable. Just so I'm clear, though, since BLP applies to the article regardless, you would have no problem if I removed the category, right? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.

Incidentally, a Wikipedia:Biographies of living horses guideline could be a good page to roll out next April :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL! You have a point. Yeah, I won't revert if you toss the category, I just was being a bit overcautious. Montanabw^(talk) 02:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I used to be Ling.Nut. It seems I'm back here again. Later • Arch♦Reader 07:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for catching my errors in the copy edit of longeing - I certainly didn't mean to introduce new errors! I'm still not super familiar with a lot of Wikipedia protocols. What is my next step here - is there an easy way to re-submit my edit, with those errors amended? I fixed more than I messed up, and would hate to have to manually re-enter those edits. Any help you can give will be very appreciated. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

In advance of FAC, a peer review is underway for Wikipedia:Peer review/Montana Vigilantes/archive1 All help appreciated. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw - you obviously know your horses so I'll tread carefully here! You moved Chris Green (horse racing) to Chris Green (jockey) but what do we do about someone who had two equine careers? He was as much a trainer as a jockey (and he was so rarely called a jockey in his time - he was a rider - as he was jumps rather than flat). Is there a better moniker for disambiguation? [As a totally irrelevant and coincidental aside, currently listening to Jimmy Wales on 'Desert Island Discs' on UK 'Radio 4'] Colin aka Henri Merton 10:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Henrimerton:: The most elegant solution is to add a middle initial or middle name and do away with the disambiguation altogether. I thought about the Chris Green situation, and in modern terms, "rider" of a horse in flat or jumps is usually a "jockey" - "rider" being far more generic. I won't kick if you want to move it back, though. It's just that "horse racing" is kind of awk too. But I guess disambiguation is awk overall as a concept. So, I guess if you can figure out his middle name, that would be my solution to the problem. (See, e.g. Mike Smith vs Mike E. Smith). Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw:: Definitely no middle name! I can accept 'Jockey' as that is accepted nowadays if not in his time, but I was wondering about 'Jockey/Trainer' for disambiguation - can you use back-slashes? A lot of the names of that age were 'up top' for half their careers but were known to another constituency as trainers for the other half of their career. Same as player/coach these days (I don't recognise half of the UK football (soccer!) managers as previous players). There are a bunch of Wikipedia jockeys that this applies to and more (eg Old Ben Land and Young Ben Land) that I might well write about. Colin aka Henri Merton 11:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Meh. I'd agree that a lot of people were jockeys when young and trainers as they got older (case in point: Art Sherman) I'd say it's what they are best known for. Perhaps (horseman) would cover both? Montanabw^(talk) 13:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Always a tricky one this. We have Paul Nicholls (horse racing), although he's much more notable as a trainer, and Charlie Swan (horse trainer), although he achieved far more in his riding career than he has done since. "Horseman" is a reasonable compromise but not a word you really hear used for trainers or jockeys! Middle names and initials are covered by this in the naming convention page - "Adding given names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." --Bcp67 (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Horseman (even though it's not a 'real' word) does cover all the bases so I've moved it back to that. Chris was definitely best known for both careers in the press, whereas Old Ben Land was known primarily as a trainer, his son primarily as a rider. I'll blame his parents for not giving him a middle name and him for not using it! Colin aka Henri Merton 19:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Montanabw. A fellow editor has mentioned you in a thread about someone else at the main drama board. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox -- Diannaa (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble with someone on the Dalai Lama talk page. It's kind of confusing because he asked me for permission to expand the page and I was like sure if appropriate? Why are you asking? and now he's enraged and personal attacks and I tried to chill him a few times by saying "I'm discussing scholarship with you, not fighting" but he keeps saying really wiki-wrong stuff that displays a huge bias, but when I comment on it, he gets furious and goes on the personal. There's literally no one else commenting there, either.

I was trying to discuss scholarship issues, like 'hey, as I understand it blah blah lineage origins blah blah tulkus originated from blah blah", but he is not comfortable "discussing". He literally was like "Oh you are citing the Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism? Is it because the editor studied Jogye Buddhism like you did?" like wtf bro

IDK if you might weigh in? I'm getting kind of pissed and that's no way to edit. Ogress _smash! 17:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I read "diagonally" through the threads, but I can't follow them that way. Anyway, where's VictoriaGrayson? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I mean I don't think diagonally either is basically the issue but I was suspicious I was being trolled by someone - why were people asking me for permission? - but they are Definitely Being Mean. I'm okay with "you are incorrect in your science", but the position-pushing and emotional attacks... I'm not having a great week and I'm definitely losing my temper, and it's hard to have a serious conversation about the origin of the tulku system and the Mongols when your conversation partner keeps getting their hackles up when you try to explain that saying that "real tulkus will be eventually reified by the power of the people" is really unencyclopedic for an editor to say. Basically it's the 'Moving on' section.

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 2nd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Our inaugural competition, which ran from October 2014 to April 2015, was such a resounding success that we'd like to do it again. Currently, there are over 500 GANs ready to be reviewed; competitors in the previous GA Cup reviewed about 570 GAs, so we can again make a huge impact in helping editors improve articles in Wikipedia and decrease the traditionally long queue at GAN. The 2nd GA Cup will begin on July 1, 2015. As last time, five rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on November 28, 2015), but this may change based on participant numbers. The judges learned a lot during the 1st GA Cup which exposed weaknesses in its system. Using both the feedback from last year's participants and the weaknesses discovered, we've revised the scoring system to make it more fair. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We also are introducing three new judges: 3family6, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. So in total, there will be six judges. We hope this will allow the competition to run more smoothly. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on July 15, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Dom497, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo, and TheQ Editor.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:2DABS: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." — Wyliepedia 00:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, CAWylie but neither is arguably primary. So why are you bothering me here and not at the dab talk? Montanabw^(talk) 03:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article American Pharoah you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for having my back. Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The article American Pharoah 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 needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:American Pharoah for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I nominated for deletion this terrible article Buddhist Brâhmans, you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist Brâhmans to weigh in, as I understand it. What a truly terrible idea for an article. It's wrong on so many levels I don't know how to start: brahman isn't a discrete category, we're talking thousands of years and many different cultures, it's unclear that the individuals cited as "brahmans" were so or that they meant what brahman does now; it's literally a glorified list of anyone who has had the word "brahman" attached to them who is affiliated with Buddhism. Ogress _smash! 19:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello there Montanabw -- I've just posted an opinion to the navigation template essay talk page which might interest you. I've not canvassing -- God forbid! -- but simply wanted to draw your attention to it. You seem like a patient & constructive good egg. All best! Lockley (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Mustang article is going off full protection and the crazy is probably going to spill over from the talk page to the main article. Would appreciate eyes. Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep a lookout on it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Montanabw, I couldn't talk Lynn out of continuing to build diffs for an AN/I. Looks like more drama before you can continue any actual work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. Many people build lists of diffs, I have done so myself. That's her right. Sometimes you look at the list and you develop a clearer understanding of the pattern that has you worried. In my case, my duck box helped me see the pattern I needed to create Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime but also showed the fruitlessness of continuing to hunt old socks who have clearly figured out how to use proxy IP addresses and other techniques to evade detection. It is better to simply focus on current behavior and to try and build content for the encyclopedia. If a user learns to follow the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, there is no need for a sock hunt, and if they cannot, few people are able to evade detection. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look at all edits before reverting whole thing with twinkle. Also, I did not write the part about the slowest time, that you reverted and attributed to me. Freddiem (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

a) I did (look at all edits), but b) I didn't blame you. I don't know why the linking city and state thing is so popular, but those MOS gurus I have consulted say that it's unneeded overlinking. It's also not that big of a deal to me. Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I made some follow up edits which I hope are acceptable. Here on Wikipedia one sees so much variations in style, one really never knows what to do. You go to the MOS and it says the first rule is to use common sense. And I have encountered a few editors where they so slavishly follow the MOS it overrides the use of common sense. Not blaming you in anyway, I'm just giving a point of view. Hope we can stay cool. Hey, I was wondering, do you know about the Monte vs. Duke Dog controversy? Freddiem (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm cool. Had not heard of the Monte vs. Duke Dog. But then, I only get interested in football when a real horse is involved... and also we Montanans tend to have a real selective memory when the Griz get their butts kicked - unless it's by a bobcat, which is a fairly rare occurrence! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your expansive, creative and helpful use of links... :-). For the story on Monte vs. Duke Dog see the Duke Dog article. I thought the two parts of the competition were supposed to be equally weighted, so I figured DD had it wrapped up based on the head to head. I was so upset at the time I would have given back the football title in exchange for DD reigning supreme, and I believe I wasn't the only JMU alum thinking that way. Of course I was assuming that the football title wasn't going to be the only one, ten years later and unlike Montana we have not even gotten back to the title game, so I better hold on to the title and the memories for a good while to come. Freddiem (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Montana only has about a million people, but once you damp down the Griz-Cat (or Cat-Griz) rivalry, we do unify against all comers! Never miss with Montana! Montanabw^(talk) 03:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying is...the fix WAS in! On another note I'm watching Rachel Maddow right now and LMAO! Freddiem (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The article Ahmed Zayat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ahmed Zayat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ahmed Zayat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dr. Blofeld -- Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for your response on the review and I'll then pass it...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

More than just a Good Article, it's a Nice Article™! Refreshing after so much negative press, and helpful, I'd like to think, in lifting the media's overall tone. Thanks for mucking the stalls. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, if he shoots himself in the foot, NPOV says we have to mention that too, but neutral tone really is a great thing, the story just tells itself! Montanabw^(talk) 03:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

On 6 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Horses in the United States, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there are about 9.2 million horses in the United States and 4.6 million Americans are involved in the horse business? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Horses in the United States. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 07:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Impressive numbers and article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's start a list! The last time there was a Triple Crown winner... Montanabw^(talk) 00:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• John Travolta was skinny: Grease (film). ...
• Barry Manilow released "Copacabana" ...
• Ashton Kutcher, Kobe Bryant and Usher (singer) were born ...

More... Montanabw^(talk) 00:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Jimmy Carter was president, ABBA was in full swing, more... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Muppet Show had just finished its second season. Jeepers, I still miss Jim Henson. Montanabw, I think Travolta was able to pronounce peoples names and wasn't quite so grabby back then. :-D MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• No one had ever heard of Pee-wee Herman. Softlavender (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Nor were any of the Kardashians (the kids) yet born! Montanabw^(talk) 01:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Robert Kardashian was just another lawyer, and O.J. Simpson was still an active football player... and still married to his first wife. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Because soap operas weren't real-life they were make-believe, as in Genie Francis who joined General Hospital in 1978, wasn't really Laura Spencer. SusunW (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Madonna was a two-bit dancer who had dropped out of college, moved to NYC, and was working at Dunkin Donuts. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • She was so strapped for cash that she couldn't even afford a last name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)