User talk:Montanabw

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

Animhorse.gif

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Montanabw.

Navy binoculars.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
7.4 This user has 7.4 centijimbos.
Question mark.svg This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Traffic count!

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
10 December 2014

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

—User:Drmies

"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!

Peace,
Rlevse
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)


New contest![edit]

Gaslighting?[edit]

"You are the master of projection and gaslighting". I'd never seen gaslighting before reading your post containing that sentence. Interesting how a colloquialism comes into academic usage. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo of Polson, MT[edit]

Photo was actually taken from the southeast looking northwest. Rcopeland17 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rcopeland17::Can you link which photo you are talking about? (Most of the lake ones were either shot off the docks by KwaTukNuk or else from the top of a hill on a back road on the west side of Polson... Montanabw(talk) 18:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Magnificat[edit]

Since you participated in previous discussion about merging the Bach Magnificat articles: After discussion at my user talk page, I have restored the pre-merger situation as best I am able. There may be talk pages left in the wrong place and so forth. I expect a new merger discussion to be started and to be closed by an uninvolved person, preferably another admin. It might be a good idea to inform a relevant wikiproject or two? Yngvadottir (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've found my name.[edit]

As you know, I really love horses. I've found the perfect name for me, the Oglala Sioux name of Tȟašúŋke Kȟokípȟapi or Young Man Afraid Of His Horses. I'll have to drop 'Young' off of it and according to my wife, I'll have to drop 'Man' too. Bgwhite (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: I think that this would mean your name would therefore have to become "Old Fart who craps his pants when he sees a horse"? LOL! Montanabw(talk) 17:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
That was a good one. Add mother-in-law to the end of it and it would be come my perfect name. Bgwhite (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
"Old fart who craps his pants when he sees his mother in law? No wait, we could just limit it to Old Fart -- that says it all, as there is the adage that when one reaches A Certain Age, you never trust a fart...! Montanabw(talk) 23:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Take Charge Lady[edit]

Article up and running. Haven't spent so long on a US horse article since Carry Back! Lede and background need some work. Tigerboy1966  20:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just curious[edit]

I notice you removed me from the authors section of the List of people from Montana page. Any particular reason? I'm not clear on the criteria for being included on that page, but I certainly feel like I meet them all. Did I violate a rule by adding myself to the page? Being a (very) part-time Wikipedian, I may not be up to speed on all of the rules and etiquette. Gary D Robson (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably because it was a redlink at the time, the list is basically an index to articles already on wikipedia. You have to pass WP:NOTABILITY to have a wikipedia article about yourself and per WP:COI, you can't write it yourself. Looks like you've got an article up now, maybe User:Mike Cline would be interested in working with you further, I think he maintains the list. Montanabw(talk) 18:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll check with him. I didn't write the article about me, but I do edit it from time to time. Gary D Robson (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft Award[edit]

Marywollstonecraft.jpg Mary Wollstonecraft Award
The Mary Wollstonecraft Award is awarded to contributors who have helped improve the coverage of women writers and their work on Wikipedia through content contributions, outreach, community changes and related actions. In particular, thank you for your efforts with the WikiProject Women writers start-up; your ideas and contributions are much appreciated. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, Rosie! Montanabw(talk) 23:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Getting Back in[edit]

I have an urge to write on wiki, and the nicest editor I am aware of is you. So to you I say I do wish I still knew how to create articles. I want wiki to include some of the best horses of the past who aren't given their due. Every year a promising 2-year-old comes along and up goes an article which then remains static if the promise goes awry. I'm guilty of that myself. Meanwhile some of the greats have no article at all. Once upon a time I busily wrote over 200 or so articles: horses, races, a few jockeys, a racetrack or two. It was simple. But now I have no idea how to work with wiki except simple editing. Of course, many of my articles are marked as too colorful, not very wiki, and would someone please do something about it. No one ever does - except Silky Sullivan. Silky was cut to shreds. I admit I know too much about Silky because I knew his owner (recently deceased) and had little in the way of citations. That's the problem with the older horses. No online citations. Those today can simply be cited right out of Bloodhorse or wherever. Easy peasy. And there's my whine for the evening as I go about making sure the races are kept up to date the best I can. Stellabystarlight (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


@Stellabystarlight: I'd be glad to help you along. Can you point me to anything already up that got tag-bombed and I can look at it? (I'll look at Silky Sullivan too) Also, is there a horse not yet having an article you'd like to start one for? (We could work on it in a sandbox for a bit before taking it live) I think it's a great idea to do more articles on horses of the past, particularly if you ahve the sources right on your bookshelf. The trick is to write in a dry, rather boring, "just the facts" encyclopedic style - yet not put people to sleep! The master of this stuff is probably @Tigerboy1966: who can whip up a basic article faster than -- hmmm -- Secretariat? (Wait, Secretariat can't edit wikipedia, he can't even use a computer and he's dead, but never mind... work with me here! LOL) Also @Ealdgyth: has done a lot of articles that went GA and FA on famous historic Quarter Horse sires, and she has a lot of book sources. (See, e.g. Go Man Go, Barbara L, etc...) My advice on writing articles that will pass muster is to 1) avoid overuse of adjectives, particularly flowery ones ("greatest", "magnificent" etc...), 2) Footnote every. freaking. thing., (sure there is WP:POPE but no one actually believes it...) and 3) as far as books go, they are perfectly fine so long as you demonstrate a track record of accuracy. Montanabw(talk) 15:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem with articles on US horses pre-1990 is that the google news search was changed. You can't do an archive search anymore, and the date range search DOES NOT WORK! Looking at articles like Roman Brother or Hasty Road which I did some expansion work on a while back, I honestly don't know how I'd do them now. Maybe things will change, I'd love to do some work on Fort Marcy (horse) for instance. TIP, the best way to get a bit of colour into a factual article is to use sourced quotations. There is a difference between "Neddy produced an explosive turn of speed" and "Neddy produced what the Daily Planet's Jim Journo described as "an explosive turn of speed"". Tigerboy1966  17:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Where you can find a link, Wayback is helpful. It's frustrating that Time, the New York Times, etc have put their articles behind a paywall, though it's "legal" to cite to the hardcopy without a URL (Ealdgyth verified this for me.) The bottom line is where you have books or a paid database subscription, use meticulous citations - have page numbers and full citations so those who might actually care (as opposed to trolls) can independently verify what you wrote (Inter-library loan is a beautiful thing). The main thing is that we can't have too much "color" in these articles, which sucks at times, but oh well, I guess after doing a few articles, we all probably could try to write for publication to let our creative side have free rein! Montanabw(talk) 17:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Tigerboy1966 and Stellabystarlight. You can still search the Google news archives. Go to http://news.google.com/newspapers. Here's an example of a search on "Silky Sullivan", and here's one on "Fort Marcy". Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks for that. I did try this page before with little success, but it seems fine now. Tigerboy1966  17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, wow. Thank you all. What I'd like to do is a history of American horse racing, or perhaps just the extremely interesting Nantura Stock Farm... but I have a feeling whatever I chose would work better as a book, colorful language and all. I've looked at the way things are going on wiki and with its desire to be dry and encyclopedic (no blame from me) and now with the loss of good citations (if there were any to begin with), I wonder if I belong here. I rather think I don't. I'm not a non-fiction writer in the first place, but even if I were, I simply can't keep to just the facts, ma'am. Although I thank Tigerboy1966 for the great stuff on Silky. And you, Montana, for offering to mess about in a sandbox with me. I hope I haven't wasted your time. But no, I'm not a wiki writer. I know that now. I am a wiki user though. And I'll continue updating races.Stellabystarlight (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Please, please keep the race updates going. It is a very important and much appreciated task. Good luck with the book: would be honoured if you used any of the WP articles I've contributed to. Tigerboy1966  19:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Stellabystarlight:, You can still use good old fashioned paper books. And actually, it would be very helpful to even just have stub articles on some of the horses where we have redlinks (early Derby/Preakness/Belmont winners in particular) What we are most restricted on with wiki is use of original research - i.e. our own knowledge. (So once you DO write the book, tell us all and we'll use it as a source!) This has periodically driven me completely crazy with some of the horse articles because so much common knowledge has not been written down - it's tougher than you think finding a RS for why you should tie a horse with a slipknot and not hard and fast. I even once had to "prove" that you can't post to the pace because some idiot claimed that you could! Try sourcing THAT! =:-O)! Montanabw(talk) 19:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Bach Magnificat un-redux[edit]

Hi: Gerda is understandably exhausted with the whole matter, but following the closure of Talk:Magnificat (Bach)#Merge discussion against the merge, I could really use a clear statement on whether I need to move any articles over existing redirects, and if so what to where. If I attempt to figure it out, I will probably botch it badly. I am leaving it up to you who know the subject (I won't say "know the score" - oops, I just did) to decide what to reverse from Francis Schonken's earlier moves of material between articles, but I have reverted his actions today at Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 since they appear to be reimplementation of the rejected merge, and have warned him about edit warring with Gerda. I'd appreciate if you could tell me - or find someone else who can - if there is something requiring admin tools to move, title-wise. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: and @Gerda Arendt:: In my humble opinion, if Francis is doing something that requires admin tools to fix, then he is probably doing it against consensus. He seems to be forum-shopping (deliberately or otherwise) by posting things at multiple articles so no one has the faintest clue what precisely he is doing, and then claiming there is no objection to his proposals, and in the process the multiple threads cloud the picture considerably. My advice is just. say. no. -- and watchlist all articles involved. Montanabw(talk) 19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm looks like @Drmies: was also involved, so I shall ping him to this discussion as well. Gerda is the Bach expert (though she may be modest and deny it), I'm the style, flow, structure wikignome. Who likes to sing Baroque music sometimes. Particularly at this time of year. Montanabw(talk) 19:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, he made multiple article moves as well as merges of material, and consensus has now been firmly established against him. So I feel safe leaving the material moves for others to revert, but are there any article moves that non-admins can't revert because there is now an edited redirect in the way? There's no big haste, except that I'd like to get it all squared away to make it clear to him that he cannot violate consensus like this; and there is a pending DYK submission involving Gerda's newer article, so its title needs to be established. Yes, Drmies closed the merge discussion (and deleted a merged draft); I've pinged him at my talk. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Repeating: Move the present Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 over Magnificat (Bach) - as it was in the beginning, to keep it simple. No problem with that name as long as BWV 243a can co-exist. Collect all discussions on those two on Talk:Magnificat (Bach) and archive ;) - Discuss things like the enormous table. - I added so much to BWV 243a today that there can't be much duplication left, and it doesn't bother me anyway. Some things are actually even more different than I first thought. Looks as bit as if we had a female and a male version now, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
ps: yes, the move over redirect requires admin tools, otherwise I had done it myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
That was what I thought you might want. I have moved Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 (back) to Magnificat (Bach), and I have attempted to history merge the two talk pages. I will leave you folks to archive. I hope I didn't mess it up, it's awfully fiddly. You folks, check for redirects that are now pointing to the wrong place. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Like Gerda said, and if she needs you to fix anything further, I presume everyone has this thread on their watchlist so we can all converse here as needed. Montanabw(talk) 21:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for graciously hosting this, and renaming and merging. My talk: Francis saying that he adjusted to the move today which was reverted, true. (As I said before, he moved things in before, which I don't mind being there if nobody else does.) - Revert the revert and take discussion from there? - No more for me today, please!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
When something is this messed up, sometimes the best approach is to provide a permalink to the "right" version and then rebuild from there with any article improvemnts that have occurred since. When it is convenient, Gerda, perhaps post that URL here? Montanabw(talk) 21:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Answered my talk: forward please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA-related discussions[edit]

Hi Montanabw, just to let you know about what I've said at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Wrapping this up, in case there was anything you wanted to say there. Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 12:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bencher. Yup time to wrap it up. Sheesh. What a can of worms a few simple ideas opened. Oh well. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...[edit]

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

  • We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
  • In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
  • The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course[edit]

Hi Montanabw. You participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windy Corner, which was closed as "no consensus". The AfD was taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 27#Windy Corner where opinions are split between "endorse" and "overturn". I have started an RfC at Talk:Windy Corner, Isle of Man#RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course. Cunard (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Karma in Buddhism[edit]

At pages like Karma in Buddhism some editors are inserting popular Buddhist teachers rather than academic books.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Figured it was something like that... impossible to tell from the phrasing. Montanabw(talk) 05:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Dalai Lama's Gelug school is weird[edit]

Dalai Lama's Gelug school is weird. Just accept it.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you know that's not how I roll, I must hold you to an equally demanding standard. My understanding is that the Mahayana tradition has four or six subdivisions, and I don't quite see that any of the mainstream versions are any more "weird" than any other...  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Dalai Lama's Gelug school is weird for many reasons:
a.Shugden
b.Tsongkhapa's weird Madhyamaka
c.weird views on karmamudra
d.as the newest tibetan school, it derives its lineages and teachings from the other tibetan schools. Yet it is sectarian.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Denominational differences, I see. NKT aside, do you mean weird as in "Mainstream protestants compared to Catholics" weird, "Southern Baptists to mainstream Protestants" weird, "Mormons as to mainstream Protestants" weird or...? I have sort of figured that NKT is "Scientologists compared to everyone" weird.
Maybe Gelugs are as weird as Mormons. Although the Gelugs became the majority school since the Gelugs took over the Tibetan government around the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, so who is "normal" or "mainstream" in your view? Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The other 3 major schools Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyu.VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I guess I don't see how things are any more different than, say, Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans. Particularly if the Dalai Lama heads the gelug tradition or is of that tradition... Many religious traditions derive one from the other, just look at how Chrstians argue over communion and particularly the Catholic eucharist. I guess I feel some concern with lumping the whole Gelug tradition in with the NKT people, as they seem to have taken very different paths, even if recent. Montanabw(talk) 05:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

P[edit]

I think Drmies talk has horse problems. Hafspajen (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

That was an odd discussion and I cannot fully discern precisely what ponies had to do with it... but thanks for the ping... Montanabw(talk) 23:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)