User talk:Montanabw

WikiStress level

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Make articles, not wikidrama

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Traffic count!

Sandbox invite

"[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

You 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!  :-)

Before you post on my talk page (humor)

Come here and I'll point the spout at YOU!

Don't call names, you qualling rude-growing bugbear!

You have been noticed using opprobrious epithets. It's payback time from the Shakespeare Insult Generator! To activate the Insultspout and receive fresh insults, click here. Note that all insults generated by the Spout are guaranteed literary and cultured, unlike the nasty things you said, you bootless tardy-gaited joithead.

Happy Montanabw's Day!

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. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Take Charge, Lady...

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

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

Horse racing stubs

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

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

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

Million Award

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reckless is GA

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paynter (horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saratoga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

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

Talkback

Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at DKqwerty's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DKqwerty (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

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

Hi Keithbob, well, trot over to the infobox was at Arbcom. My position there is pretty clear and it probably shows you why I am a bit frustrated with "teh" wiki. Facepalm Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks...

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

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

Emergy- caTCH 22

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

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

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

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

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

Reversion of edits to Rocky Mountain Horse

Hello. I was notified that you undid my edit to the Rocky Mountain Horse article, and I was a little puzzled as to your reasoning. You claimed that the "edits exceed scope", which is not a Wiki term I am familiar with. Allow me to explain my edit: Firstly, the previous version of the article did not explicitly state the effects of the silver dapple gene on the breed's color, rather stating that "chocolate" was the result of the gene, completely ignoring the effects on the mane and tail. Ergo, I reworded the statement to clarify. Secondly, the "link to candy bar article" which you claim is not needed was actually a link to this article describing the color "chocolate". I felt that, since there was an actual Wiki article about the color, it would be more beneficial to link to it instead of having the word "chocolate" in quotes littered about. Ironically, the word "flaxen" was linked to the article for flax in the previous version, which I had edited to link to flax (color) which is more accurate (but which you also reverted). In the future, you would do well to actually examine edits and pay attention to links before you willy-nilly undo someone's work. Zargabaath 17:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The original phrasing did, in fact, reference silver dapple: "Chocolate is the result of the relatively rare silver dapple gene." I do see the need to rephrase that a bit and just did so; however, I stand by my reverting of your edit, as your wording was not particularly copperplate, either: We don't link to ordinary color articles like black, brown, etc. Point acknowledged on flaxen, an odd color word, so a link is appropriate there, and I agree with you on that, also rephrased the overuse of "rare" and "chocolate." "Scope" was shorthand for "scope of cited source," where it appeared that you went a bit beyond what the citation allowed us to say. Where we link coat colors, it is usually to articles about the color in horses, where the genetics and variations are also described. Putting "chocolate" in quotes is deliberate, to signal the reader that we are using particularly unusual jargon that is not standard in the horse world. Also, silver dapple is neither more or less a "mutation" than is black itself, so phrasing was a bit awkward. So, in the future, YOU would do well to not trot over here and snark at me, but rather to take the issue to the talk page of the article in question and per WP:BRD discuss. Some of your points are well-taken, but getting into a snit because you were reverted is not going to get you anywhere, getting reverted is life on wikipedia, and it is not "willy-nilly". Montanabw^(talk) 18:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC how to?

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

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

Pryor Mountains GA drive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note to WPEQ stalkers

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

Question about edit revert

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

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

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

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

Bad try

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

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

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

A friendly request for comment

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

Triple Crown

It is my pleasure to award Montanabw with this Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown for all their work on good and featured content here on the English Wikipedia. All hail the Emperor! Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)