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.

Sandbox invite

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

"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)

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

Don't call names, you bawdy motley-minded foot-licker!

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 pribbling toad-spotted coxcomb.

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)

'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)

Memorizing

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

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

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

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

Your advice is welcome

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 ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This pic

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...

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

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

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

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

Test Kaffeeklatsch area for women-only

Interesting, but very long discussion. Collapsing so only those interested need to scroll through

Since WikiProject Women as proposed at the IdeaLab may take some time to realize, and based on a discussion on the proposal's talk page, I have started a test Kaffeeklatsch area for women (cis, lesbian, transgender) only. If interested, your participation would be most welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Well, the problem is that I already know one "participant" over there is a cis-male pretending to be female, and I'm also not happy to see that you removed all the opposition voting, I'm not sure I can support a "put the women on the short bus" approach. I must think this over carefully. Montanabw(talk) 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC) By "over there," do you mean the IdeaLab proposal page? If you're talking about who I think you are, he is an opposer of the WikiProject Women proposal anyway, so I'd be surprised if he tried to join. Yes, we are probably talking about the same person. I'm just waiting to see him show up, though. He trolled the CMDC case. There will be socks. Montanabw(talk) 03:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC) As for "you removed all the opposition voting," it was moved,[5][6] not removed, by WMF staff, not me. And the reason - IdeaLab practice - was explained.[7][8] Hmm. I see. Still, where did they go...? No links.. Montanabw(talk) 03:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Still, you are not required to join the Kaffeeklatsch, you're just invited. Lightbreather (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC) I want to see more women as content contributors and participants at AfD when stuff gets attacked; people who don't understand how to edit and create content going to the Facebook group to whine when their work is nominated for deletion isn't helping anyone. A herd of experienced content editors riding to the rescue to fix up articles and defend their notability IS helping. Yep, that's a great idea (sarcasm meters should be going off here). Women are of course so frail that we can't handle having males around because... err, no. Generally any discrimination is a bad idea. Limiting input only leads to echo chambers. Obviously, you're welcome to open up a page of your own space to only women - but this whole idea that women need to be protected from the (i'm not even sure what you want them protected from) input/words/whatever of men is just .. not a good idea. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Please read a bit about "safe space" before calling one discrimination or assuming it's about "protecting women from men". --Pitke (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC) I'm up for a bit of reading on "safe space," which I understand as primarily places of refuge (online and IRL) for survivors of real world violence, so I have a concern that such a space here is overkill for WP and an insult to real world women who have survived real world violence. I also know that people can pretend to be anyone they want online, and a "safe space" is no protection here. Now, I admit that sometimes Wikipedia can be a real challenging place, and I can probably count off on my fingers and toes a number of trolls and tendentious editors I'd personally love to strangle because they are jerks, but so far I have not personally had to deal with much sexism (other than a few minor things of the kiddie vandal sort). We have some specific problems with sexism on certain articles dealing with women's issues and such (and of course Gamergate, which, if people calling themselves supporters of women want to stand up for something, go over there and support brave real world women like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian), but there are male allies as well as female activists, and they are at their best working together. I will concur with Ealdgyth's comments to the extent that I am concerned that a "safe space" on-wiki is just a short bus for editors who won't put on their big girl boots and think they need special help. Ealdgyth and I do not always agree on everything, but we do seem to have a shared concern here. Montanabw(talk) 03:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC) All the above said, the fact that apparently there is an anti-woman, MRM crowd gathering on Reddit DOES make me sympathetic to the cause. Those little basement-swelling trolls are a huge annoyance. Unfortunately, now that CMDC has shown up there, I'm really not terribly interested; sometimes supporters are more of a problem than opponents. Montanabw(talk) 03:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Interesting conversation, lurking, watching. I concur with most everything said. It is impossible to determine sex/gender in an on-line setting. I am relatively new to Wiki, but have encountered very little sexism or even antagonism. Mayhaps because I work mostly on dead people and obscure areas of policy. (Well, marriage equality is not obscure, but I work only on the Mexican and tribal pages, as the others are heavily covered.) Safety is a space you create and basically the way humans do that is through networking. However, the problem always is, from a joining standpoint, is it to be one of whining, or one of action? Therein lies the ultimate problem, IMO. SusunW (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC) Heh, Susun! Welcome to the dark underbelly of wikipedia! There is definitely as much drama around here as you'd ever want to wade into! BEWARE! (Muahahahahaha!) Montanabw(talk) 05:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC) In the real world I work in human rights. Can't get more drama laden, thus I try to avoid it in all other aspects of my life, unless it is of course, in a theater. Someone always wants their fringe idea pushed and one must balance what is the correct maneuvering for the greatest amount of good without doing harm. On here, if it gets deep, I just move on. Pretty simple. This is not life or death. Feelings might get hurt, but real harm is not likely to occur. It is all about creating a safe space, where ever you are. ;) SusunW (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC) You provide a much -needed perspective! Wise Words Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC) This is why @Montanabw: This (especially this) is an example of why I have often felt unsafe on Wikipedia, and one reason why I'd like to have a refuge to go to when I want to talk with other women. NO guarantee that GGTF would be supportive, nor that WER would be supportive. They would almost certainly start up a long discussion about whether or not the things MS had said were personal attacks or harassment, and whether or not I was exaggerating or being too sensitive. Almost certainly a group of women would be supportive, and if it did start up a long discussion about whether or not the things MS had said were personal, and whether or not I was exaggerating or being too sensitive, the consensus would almost certainly be different. Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Heh. I think you dream if you think women will be "supportive"... I've worked in many all-female or mostly-female enviroments and ... they are just as nasty and viscous as any other place I've worked. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Well, I don't know where you've worked, but my experience with all-female and mostly-female environments has been very good. Where I've had the most problems is where it's all (except for me) or mostly male (like here on Wikipedia). In the latter, women jockey to be one of the guys or the cool girl, and such women don't hesitate for a moment to throw a sister under the bus. But let's assume you're right - What would be the harm in testing such a space, especially if it kept some women editors - whom Wikipedia needs - from throwing in the towel? Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I've worked in the horse industry which is heavily female, both at competition barns and plain riding stables. I've taught riding at mostly female barns. I've worked at all girl summer camps. I've worked in all female volunteer groups. None of them were any better than mixed groups as far as working enviroments. The single best place I've ever worked has been an online gaming company which was mixed half-and-half male-female. The harm with such a place is the signal it gives to men/others/other women ... that women need "protecting". What about men who feel threatened/abused? What are they supposed to do? And "whom Wikipedia needs" should really have a citation needed tag - I've not yet seen a convincing reason why we need to condescend to women in order to gain women. If it's because we need them to write on "female-centric" topics... the flip side of that statement is that you're implying that women are only interested in some subjects. I thought we left those days behind... To recap - I'm not adverse to a place where editors who feel threatened or abused can go to get help. I just don't like that some folks think it needs to be gendered. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) At these all-female places, were you ever subjected to comments like, "You're a woman. What do you know about [insert topic]?" Did any of your fellows threaten to rape you? As for the best place you worked being a gaming company 50-50 men and women. Wow! For simplicity's sake, assuming there were 100 people, did the other 49 women feel the same as you? (The news is full of reports these days about women in tech, and I haven't heard a lot about how wonderful it is to be there... Or that it's a 50-50 workforce.) But mostly, I'd like to nip in the bud the notion that having a women-only space is synonymous with saying that women need "protecting" in a way that implies they're weaker. It implies that the mostly-male, agonistic environment on Wikipedia is a "stronger," superior one. The fact that women tend to collaborate in a less agonistic way does not make that way "weaker" or inferior... just different. However, it's quashed by the editorial majority, which is mostly male and agonistic. If you think there needs to be an all-genders refuge for men and women, I think you should propose or start one. However, because it will have men, my prediction is that its tone will be identical to the tone in other Wikipedia forums, and that it will function identically to other Wikipedia forums. I predict that it will be mostly male and agonistic - but if it's not, and if my proposal and my test area fail, I will probably come and join it! Lightbreather (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Here's muy take: Based on the diffs you provided, the situation you endured with that gun control editor clearly was pretty scary, his behavior unacceptable, and the threat of violence should have been subject to an immediate block and a permanent ban, period, not endless discussion on a drama board. But as I analyze it, most of the content you noted was standard bullshit trolling that would have been directed at anyone who disagreed with that editor, regardless of gender, and I've seen similar vitriol directed at male editors. (Given that someone cannot simultaneously be a eunuch and a c--t, that was just a poisonous little troll spewing venom in all directions). A now-banned editor once compared WP to Lord of the Flies as a place full of young white boys who gleefully cheer that there are no grownups anywhere as they descend into barbarity. While not true for all of wikipedia, it's certainly true that there are some very scary corners of wikipedia where editors with a certain viewpoint should not tread by themselves, including the gun rights articles, the sexuality articles, and certain religious articles (Scientology was kind of a scary area to edit for awhile, for example). People have been outed and harassed off-wiki for their editing, and that is completely unacceptable. I do not discount that sexism exists on wikipedia, the "Gamergate" situation being exhibit A. I also know that the "Gamergate" trolls have created an off-wiki enemies list naming and attempting to out editors here they don't like, and that is spookier than anything that happens on-wiki. There are even worse sites out there that have "outed" a number of wikipedia editors. In my own experience, of the worst long-term-I-want-to-quit editing disputes I've personally had to deal with on-wiki, more involved editors who presented as female, one was a mass sockpuppet who assumed multiple identities, but I suspect was female based on the particular style of crazy. Those involving male editors have all - so far - been strictly content-driven and never devolved into a gender-based dispute. I've had one or two "inappropriate" comments come my way, but one or two in eight years ain't bad. Frankly the most sexist thing I've seen personally on-wiki was when CMDC accused me of being male and then went on to berate me for my "male" behavior. (Which involved telling people at GGTF to put on their big girl boots, essentially) LIke Ealdgyth, I've worked in some extremely hostile real world workplaces that are women-dominated. I've also worked in male-dominated careers with little harassment. That said, I do not discount the significant harassment and threats of physical violence some women endure in some male-dominated workplaces, but at least there are laws that can remedy those situations. Another editor I respect very much put it well, "some men might try to push you off a cliff, but some women make you want to throw yourself off the cliff!" Because there is no allowable method to verify that someone is who they say they are (such as the editor outed on wikipediocracy for being a man pretending to be a woman), I think it's impossible to actually create or maintain a "women only" space. For a woman-centered "safe space," I think Geek Feminism Wiki is the best place for that sort of thing (I view it as kind of a woman-centered wikipediocracy and I find a lot of what gets posted there to be very interesting.) At any rate, the only place that can be "safe" as you describe it is off-wiki I agree with Ealdgyth that there should be a place for people who feel abused or bullied on-wiki to go for help. Gay men, people in certain religions (or non-religions) and so on also have a lot of harassment issues on wikipedia, and I suspect that racism is also lurking - if anyone here is "out" about being a person of color when it comes to editing certain articles, I would not be surprised to see problems. (I've spotted anti-Semitism in several places from time to time, just as an example) The problem is that we keep trying it over and over with places like ANI, the teahouse the Wikiquette forums, etc, and most of these efforts become a trollfest of boomeranging walls of text. All the "welcome to the friendly spot" areas seem to draw the lunatic fringe sooner or later. OK, that's all tl;dr, but I hope it illuminates things. I'm also collapsing this discussion so it doesn't eat my talk page. Montanabw(talk) 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

Aro

@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?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

CHROME!

Horse of the year! HOORAY!

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

Which way this week?

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

Morgan 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

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

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

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

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

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

M/mustang

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: [11], [12], [13]. 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

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 !

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

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

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

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

Mustang note

• [14] (closed)

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

Edit warring on user talk pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stagbunny

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some books are really, really expensive :/

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

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

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

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

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

(talk page stalker)

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

BookFinder.com

AddAll.com

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

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

BookFinder reveals Dark Horse as low as $17 [15], Equitation Science as low as $30 (same as Amazon there), and Equine Welfare as low as $39.77 (again same as Amazon on that one). I see Justlettersandnumbers has already linked to a UK Bookfinder search for Dark Horse (but that price is for UK residents, would be more outside the UK; would have to search with one's location and currency for the total price elsewhere). Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Tsaag Valren I just did that [16], and the current cheapest price + shipping to Italy is Amazon UK: The converted book price is €24.78 and the shipping cost to Italy is €5.54, making a total of €30.32. Softlavender (talk) 01:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Technical moves

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

Notes

"Pleeeeeeease revert me, let me goooooo......"

Mentioned you here [17] and ... sorry! ... but a "Mustang" is a car. NE Ent 03:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And I encourage all my responsible stalkers to watchlist for vandal patrol at Horse worship because of those damn Bronies [18]. ...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 07:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Gettin' off a' yer high horse, pardner!

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

I may never figure it out :(

Add pixie dust, eye of newt and the poop of a magic unicorn and you'll have an answer!

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

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

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

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

@SusunW: Here's the process:

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Jim Dolan (sculptor)

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

DYK for Minnie Evans (Potawatomi leader)

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

Karma Thubten Trinlay Gyurme

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

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

Skeletal system links

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

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

Kindly provide any scientific evidence that you may have to support your assertion that my entry which you cut is not true. For instance, the DNA results mention in the BBC account matching these horses to purebred appaloosas. Besides that, please disclose whether or not you, your family, or any of your friends have a financial interest in claiming that the BBC history story upon which my recent entry was based is "nonsense".

Because if, as I suspect, you are talking through your hat I intend to holler like a shoat to the people running this thing. I will retain a copy of this message in case you care to accuse me of "harassing" you.

Should you not respond within 24 hours (i.e. 10 AM PST on 11- Feb- 2015) with either your scientific evidence or the restoration of my comments, I will take this matter to the next level.

Good Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinTheK (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindly provide any scientific evidence that you may have to support your assertion that my entry which you cut is not true. For instance, the DNA results mention in the BBC account matching these horses to purebred appaloosas. Besides that, please disclose whether or not you, your family, or any of your friends have a financial interest in claiming that the BBC history story upon which my recent entry was based is "nonsense".

Because if, as I suspect, you are talking through your hat I intend to holler like a shoat to the people running this thing. I will retain a copy of this message in case you care to accuse me of "harassing" you.

Should you not respond within 24 hours (i.e. 10 AM PST on 11- Feb- 2015) with either your scientific evidence or the restoration of my comments, I will take this matter to the next level.

Good DayMartinTheK (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)