User talk:Montanabw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiStress level
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

Navy binoculars.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
7.6 This user has 7.6 centijimbos.
Question mark.svg This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Sandbox invite[edit]

Anyone may play in my sandboxes, in the archive list to the right, IF you promise to behave. This means:

  • No kicking sand
  • No hitting other people over the head with toys
  • No pooping, even if you are a cat and neatly cover it up!
  • It's my sandbox, so I can throw you out if you misbehave!  :-)
Typical talk page discussion thread

"[The] readers will not be privy to the massive undercurrents of dross that underpins WP. They require well written, well sourced, encyclopaedic material that can inform, enlighten and satisfy their interest."

—User:Leaky caldron to User:ThatPeskyCommoner

"We live a time when criticism, especially here on Wikipedia, is considered to be a personal attack, which is at the root of this nonsense. Yet without criticism we can't improve."

—The user formerly known as Malleus Fatuorum
The Signpost
28 January 2015

"Montana, you know I respect you greatly--you write FAs that have fewer adjectives than that outburst."


"Every edit, especially bold ones, is disruptive. Disruptive just means changing the status quo and because Wikipedia is in a constant state of evolution, it is in a constant state of disruption ..."

—User: Liz

Before you post on my talk page (humor)[edit]

Happy Montanabw's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Montanabw has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Montanabw's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Montanabw!

01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww, gee! That was really super nice! Thank you! Montanabw(talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Mini pumpkins.jpg

'tis the season

Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Precious translates to the PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Je Tsongkhapa -- Academic Views section rewrite[edit]

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)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter[edit]


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)

Instead of a cheque...[edit]

Barnstar-goldrun7.png 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)

Template deletion question[edit]

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)

New sections[edit]

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 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)

IdeaLab proposal[edit]

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)


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)

Prasangika37s latest edits over the past few days[edit]

I feel Prasangika37s latest edits over the past few days is violating several wikipedia policies. What should be done? Pinging @Joshua Jonathan: as well.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice is welcome[edit]

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)

Belvin is FINALLY, maybe? ready ...[edit]

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: 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: 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)

This pic[edit]

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)

Hey talk page stalkers...[edit]

The annual RM: Talk:Mustang_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_12_January_2015 Montanabw(talk) 06:55, 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)

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 8, 2015[edit]

Hi Montana. This one was Dana's nom. She's still enjoying her break (I hope), so you might want to look at it. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Will check it out, thanks. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. When it's condensed down, "breed" gets repeated a lot ... I wasn't sure what else to say. Reword it if you want to. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Took a whack at it, feel free to keep playing with it, I've got it watchlisted now. Montanabw(talk) 03:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks for the help. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


@Montanabw: Your assistance as a neutral voice at "Talk:Aro gTér" was very helpful, I could use it again. I know you are busy but that page... it's infuriating. Ogress smash! 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

On it. I'm pretty much fed up with that nonsense over there. I will be posting it as an AfD shortly. Stalkers alert: Truly neutral assessment needed here. Montanabw(talk) 03:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't you vote yourself at Afd?VictoriaGraysonTalk 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Horse of the year! HOORAY!

Great show! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Which way this week?[edit]

It's normal to include separate links; see the intros to Ekalaka, Montana; Forsyth, Montana; Warm Springs, Montana; and Havre, Montana. Occasional exceptions exist (example), but they're weird and indeed exceptional. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: That's not a reason. Where is the policy or guideline on this? I see people go through and add these, then remove these, it makes absolutely no sense to me. Montanabw(talk) 17:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Long ago great horses[edit]

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 [9] 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)

Looking for input...anyone?[edit]

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)

ARO SPI[edit]

You filing it?VictoriaGraysonTalk 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)
OkayVictoriaGraysonTalk 22:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Concise as always. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Morgan edit[edit]

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)

Bleu Horses[edit]

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)


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: [10], [11], [12]. 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)

Request for input[edit]

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)

About Old horse sandbox and Equine welfare ![edit]

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)

Favorite horse movies[edit]

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 porkMakin'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 porkMakin'Bacon 19:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustang note[edit]

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

Edit warring on user talk pages[edit]

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)


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)