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 talkpage is decorated by Hafspajen

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

User page Talk page Good and Featured articles Barnstars The DYK Corral Toolbox Advice About Magic unicorns

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 mewling folly-fallen hedge-pig!

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 unmuzzled common-kissing death-token.

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)

Talk:Mein Herze schwimmt im Blut, BWV 199/GA1

Montanabw, just a reminder that you opened this nomination over two weeks ago, but have yet to return with your review. Please do so as soon as possible. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The review was opened on August 10, and it is now September 13. Reviews are supposed to start within a week, and we're closing in on five weeks. Please return to the review right away; if nothing is done within 48 hours of your next edit, it will regretfully be considered abandoned and returned to the reviewing pool. Thank you for your attention to this matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. If you feel up to it, I would love for you to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your help on the infobox, it was perfect! GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership

You are invited! → World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership ← Come and join us remotely!

World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Leadership Dates: 7 to 20 September 2015 The Virtual Edit-a-thon, hosted by Women in Red, will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in Leadership to participate. As it is a two-week event, inexperienced participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in leadership. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and find more details →here← --Ipigott (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, those four count; add them! --Rosiestep (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Harness racing

I grew up watching that particular form of horse racing. The Harness racing articles at Wikipedia are scant. I've done three, Catello Manzi- who I'm a cousin of but haven't met in 40 years, Dave Pallone, and just today Wally Hennessey. Harness racing related info is scant on the internet and I hate doing stub articles but I'm going to do a few more driver articles. Up next will probably be Bruce Nickells. Bruce just got inducted[1] into the Harness Horse racing HOF. He was trainer/driver of most of the horses my father owned and was partners with me Dad too- Brubil Farms. So I met Bruce and knew him well. He and Dad had a falling out in the late 1970's but all of that won't prevent me from doing a NPOV article. I have two photos of Bruce driving Fast Clip, the horse he and Dad owned that finished 2nd to Strike Out in the 1972 Little Brown Jug. One photo is a winner's circle photo(which I'm in), the other a racing photo. The racing photo I'm more likely to use....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be great for there to be more material on harness racing. Pitke has done some work on Coldblood trotters in Scandanavia, and I know Stellabystarlight may also have some ideas. Good luck and feel free to ping me or WP Horse racing if you have any troll attacks... Montanabw^(talk) 14:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll use this space to thank you for noticing what little I do here. I keep my hand in with the races: who won, who has the most of whatever, when a race changes its purse/location/distance. Long ago I wrote or considerably enlarged about 150 Thoroughbred horse racing articles. Most of them are still tagged with a variety of nicely designed sneers. Me, I'm happy they're still up for all the grand horses who have an article. But I never wrote about harness racing. All I know about is the glorious Dan Patch. But thank you for being so gracious. A rare treat here on ol' wiki. (If I ever write an article again, I'll get rid of this name and use something something gender neutral. I'm sure I'll have a better time.) Stellabystarlight (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Tomorrow

I know you'll have a great time at tomorrow's edit-a-thon. But don't forget to take your Bromo-Seltzer if it gives you a headache! JK (not). :) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rosie. I'm looking forward to it! Montanabw^(talk) 13:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Montana historic sites

Thanks for fixing up some of those articles with the giant blockquotes. Out of curiosity, do you have access to the original source of the placard text? I wasn't comfortable rewriting the text without access to the source itself, but I might be able to help if I had the source. (Even without it, I might rewrite some from the NRHP nominations, which I do have access to - I just wanted to temporarily do something about all the excessively copied and mis-assessed articles, since there were a lot of them and it will take a while to rewrite all of them.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheCatalyst31: The Jefferson County courthouse one is here: File:Jefferson County Courthouse, Montana 05.jpg and I shot it with my cell phone one day when I was over there (which is why the quality is so crappy). I can probably find the Kleffner Ranch one, but I also found a second source for that one, so less of a worry. When I shoot a photo of a NRHP property and it has a placard, I try to get a photo of that as well. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize you had pictures of those! I'll just use the nomination forms when I get to the others then. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Tennessee Walking Horse: What's a coupling?

Hi, Montanabw. I unlinked the article from Coupling, which as best I can tell has nothing to say about the meaning of "coupling" in the confirmation of a horse. You reverted this; I reverted it back. My edit comment is garbled so I'll elaborate here.

I don’t know what the meaning of "coupling" is in this article. (I did make an attempt to find out but came up empty.) If you know, please fix this passage with either a wlink or a brief definition, maybe in parentheses.

If you don't know either, then I suggest that it's best to leave the word unlinked rather than leaving it with a link to machine couplings. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 00:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh — you mentioned fixing the dab, but there is no dab fix. Or if there is, I am a greenhorn and could not find it. If you ment that I should edit the article to include the horsey definition of "coupling," well, I'd be glad to if not for my ignorance. :) — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 00:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Coupling in horse talk refers to the way the horse is put together--a Thoroughbred has 'loose' coupling, with a long lanky body, while a Haflinger has 'tight' coupling, with a short stout body. Tennessee Walkers tend to be fairly loose now, but they were totally different years ago, with a shorter build and more muscle. (Look at the pictures in the linked articles to see the difference.)  :) White Arabian mare (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
175		Paiute (talk)						Add sources
19		Jaripeo (talk)						Add sources
125		Feral organism (talk)						Add sources
108		National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (talk)						Add sources
51		Breed registry (talk)						Add sources
17		Nathan Meeker (talk)						Add sources
13		Burke Act (talk)						Cleanup
533		Mountain Meadows massacre (talk)						Cleanup
3		Fort Walla Walla–Fort Colville Military Road (talk)						Cleanup
13		French Trotter (talk)						Expand
233		Ute people (talk)						Expand
4,048		Hell on Wheels (TV series) (talk)						Expand
1		The Case of the Night-Stalking Bone Monster (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
20		Nubian wild ass (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
45		Benjamin (Animal Farm) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
19		Flight zone (talk)						Merge
51		Lameness (equine) (talk)						Merge
134		Declarative memory (talk)						Merge
56		William Shatner filmography (talk)						Wikify
96		Pinto horse (talk)						Wikify
26		Black Hawk War (1865–72) (talk)						Wikify
1		Giwan Chōho (talk)						Orphan
1		Timofey Kulyabin (talk)						Orphan
6		Nano gap (talk)						Orphan
3		Chief Ignacio (talk)						Stub
3		John F. Kennedy High School (Willingboro, New Jersey) (talk)						Stub
7		Corsican horse (talk)						Stub
5		Henson horse (talk)						Stub
6		Nivernais horse (talk)						Stub
6		Navarrin horse (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The other kind of race not involving horses running fast, or people angry over socio-economic matters

I think you'll be pleased by the progress so far in sourcing and distinguishing Race (biology). As you can see, it's really, really complex (and not all of the complexity is even in there yet). If I'm remembering it correctly so far: A "race" in this sense is also a "biological race" (except in mycology), and more specifically, a "physiological race" is also a "biological form", and (in mycology) a "biological race", and (if formatted differently) a "forma specialis" (but neither a "forma specialis" nor a "biological form" are a "forma" or "form" in either botany or zoology). Etc.. I couldn't make this stuff up. It's no wonder the attempt to establish a uniform nomenclature code fell apart. I sure hope they try again, and stick with it until it happens.

Anyway, I added further clarification that this doesn't mean "breed", and that usage in English is obsolete, while also noting that the cognate forms in some languages are sometimes used that way (i.e., beware mistranslation).

Peter coxhead is right that the article needs a section on how the usage has changed over time, and this would dovetail with my early idea to tie the Victorian-to-mid-century usage to what is being better and better covered at Race (human categorization)#Early taxonomic models. We probably need only touch on that, and direct the reader there for that material, hopefully also shunting any further trolling in that direction, where that page is watchlisted by people better prepared for it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: That sounds like excellent progress and a good example of teaching the controversy. If you want a hand on the historical side, that is more my thing than the science side, so feel free to ping me if needed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Spamming all the tired Wikipedians

Try this, there's nothing like it! Bishonen | talk 18:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC).

LOL! I don't go there voluntarily, that's for sure!  :-) Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI

Hiya - don't worry, this is not a rant. I was a little concerned at your last posting on ANI that Jytdog and I should stay off each others Talk pages. I have not been on his Talk page since he asked me not to, and I have no intention to. However, Jytdog has twice posted on mine since I asked. I wonder if there is a way that this could be made clearer, because your comment seems to imply I am posting to his talk page. This might be rather tricky now the thread has closed. This is a really minor point so if it can't be done, we can let it slide. All the best.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thought he had already banned you, so thought it best that he be likewise banned from bothering you. I probably didn't say that as well as I could have. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No probs - Let's trot on! ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

New horse userboxes available!

I requested two new horse-themed userboxes and User:Ahunt was kind enough to create them. Here they are:

This user loves Tennessee Walking Horses.

This user loves Arabian horses.

If you want them the codes are User:Ahunt/Tennessee Walking Horse and User:Ahunt/Arabian. Thought you might be intetested. ☺

White Arabian mare (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Cute! I tweaked the colors... gray, bleech... we may need to add more breeds! Montanabw^(talk) 01:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm surprised there are not more horsey ones. I got both of them, as well as one for Coonhounds and one for Great Pyrenees dogs...neither of them had userboxes either, although most of the popular dog breeds had a box. White Arabian mare (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

SOmetimes it's hard to find the obscure ones if people don't add them to the userbox lists. (Niote to self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Animals#Horses ) Montanabw^(talk) 01:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

An Award for Me

Thank you OODLES for the horsie! I seem to have made it my wiki thing to at least keep all race results up to date, as well as ferreting out missing information for years past. It satisfies the Virgo in me. Stellabystarlight (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You are doing very necessary work, keep it up! Hugs! Montanabw^(talk) 05:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Added section on pads to bareback sandbox

Hey, I wrote the section on bareback pads and added it to Talk:bareback in the sandbox area for you to review. Let me know if you think it needs anything else. 🏇 White Arabian mare (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey stalkers!

Move discussion may be of interest: Talk:Jumping_(horse)#Requested_move_10_September_2015. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sahifah of al-Ridha

Hey, it's a long time I'm waiting for a response from a volunteer to review Sahifah of al-Ridha which is nominated for GA in January!!! How can it be that the article is not listed here? Mhhossein (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Warlander Horse image

Hi there, hope you are well :o) Finally, I have got a FREE image of a registered Warlander Horse to replace the image that is presently on the Warlander page. Just to verify, the horse presently pictured is not a registered Warlander horse, nor can the studbook verify that it is even a Warlander. It certainly does not look anything like one. I have had a go at uploading the file myself to Wikipedia and Commons. It is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warlander_Horse.jpeg Don't know if it will work though, but I had a go. I have also emailed the release saying it is a FREE image to use on Wikipedia and have received a ticket number. Hope I have done it right. Can you please look out for this and help if I have stuffed up. Many thanks Karen - Secret Squirrel 101 Secret Squirrel 101 (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

RFA

Tis live Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Montanabw - good luck! ϢereSpielChequers 23:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, WSC! Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You'll want to remove outdated information from User:Montanabw/ANI sandbox. NE Ent 11:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User socked and was indeffed just a couple weeks ago, how far back do you recommend? Montanabw^(talk) 16:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oddly, I didn't see your RfA, because it was added while APerson's was running. The only reason I noticed it was because I happened to check the latest percentages on APerson's RfA. I totally missed seeing your RfA addition on my watch list. I wonder if adding an RfA while another is running decreases other people's notice that it is there? (That's what happened for me.) An interesting question. Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• • I don't know. I'm glad you stopped by though, and thanks for your kind words! Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought you could use a sandwich and fries and a beer. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Rosie! This week I don't know if I need a bottle in fronta me or a frontal lobotomy! Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I swear, RfAs are like horse races, no pun or personal reference intended. I can't keep my eyes off of them if I've "wagered" one way or another. I completely lose focus on all other aspects of my life or of Wikipedia. Care to make it interesting? Softlavender (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Oh it's been interesting! Did you see question #24? Montanabw^(talk) 06:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, as a matter of fact I had, and I had LOLed at it .... Always nice to know one is cared about. Softlavender (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Found the other IP mentioned there. Hope you liked my answers and that they were interesting! Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A chocolate cupcake for you!

White Arabian mare (Neigh) 16:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Thanks for the food! I'm needing the nutrition! This is a real marathon, isn't it? I can't say I wasn't warned by people like Drmies, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, and Ealdgyth that I was asking for a lot of stress! So far, though, I haven't really been terribly surprised. (a couple !votes I didn't expect in both directions, but on the balance the pleasant surprises and unpleasant surprises have balanced each other out) Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. There were 80+ support !votes last time I checked, a couple hours ago.😊White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Montanabw, I realize that I haven't been a strong supporter of you in your RfA but I just wanted to say that the process has its ups and downs and voting comes in waves. I swear on the third day of my RfA, when the Opposes started coming in, I was ready to withdraw. But I took the weekend off and when I came back to check on it on Sunday night, I had decided I wanted to see the process all the way through.

The Supports come in on the first day, the next day come the Opposes and it's the fence-sitters who vote towards the end of the 7 day period who can tilt your candidacy one way or the other. I'm not saying that your experience is anything like mine was, I just know what it's like to see your percentage of support fall from the 90s to the 70s and it's not a pleasant experience. I encourage you to take a brief break from the entire process, do something fun this weekend and keep your spirits up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz, I appreciate you coming by to offer kind words. Having survived the process yourself (I see I was a "fence sitter" as support #183 for yours, so sorry if I contributed to your stress!) I appreciate your analysis. It is a brutal process, I see why they don't have many RfAs any more and there's a shortage of admins; But I DID know it would be tough, though I was surprised to see someone going back nine years to review my earliest edits. Oh well, I guess they have a right to make their best case. I'm now having a glass of wine to celebrate the end of a long week—naturally as soon as I agreed to file the RfA, my RL work also expanded, but oh well, self-employment is a beautiful thing; it's not like anyone but me agreed to take on another bit of compensation... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful answer to my question. Do you - and you, Liz - think my support is comprehensible? I was tempted to mention the Shakespeare insult generator ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm notifying you of a discussion where I mention you over at User_talk:SSTflyer#Re:_Montanabw_AfD_hit_rate_and_RfA. Unlike many of the opposing editors at your RfA, I find your hit rate demonstrative of someone who is an independent thinker and won't be swayed by groupthink and conformity. Anyone can get a 90% hit rate or higher on AfD simply by waiting until the late portion of the discussion and adding a keep/delete based on the majority. Contrary to those who claim otherwise, this does not demonstrate admin acumen, but rather the opposite, a tendency to not rock the boat, blind obedience to authority, a lack of creative faculties, and a tendency to repress one's opinions with subservience to the opinions of one's superiors -- all qualities that lack critical thinking, foresight, and thoughtful analysis. In other words, high hit rates don't make better admins who are able to make informed decisions, it creates mindless drones who keep the people in line and block anyone who asks why or has an inkling of independent thought. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this new requirement threw me too. (well - new to me) When did being able to predict XfD stuff become an admin. requirement? — Ched :  ?  02:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not and it's never been. It took years to work the "consensus" out of the Abby Martin and Carnism delete discussions. And even though we've got two OK articles on those subjects today, according to the "hit rate", those who voted delete have better admin acumen. It's really easy to disprove this nonsense, and it's disturbing how many people cite the AfD as their reason for opposing. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Viri, you nailed it... I actually debated whether to spend more time at AfD once I realized it was something people cared about. I realized in about two seconds that doing a !vote at the last minute would be a really easy way to build up my stats. Felt that was a silly way to game the system and not worth the bother. Thank you all for your kind words, I appreciate them! Montanabw^(talk) 02:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• You're doing a good job showing some resilience to some of the assholes who we inevitably expected to turn up. Illegitimi non carborundum, as they say. Cassianto^Talk 19:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • When the dust settles, I'm going to do an analysis, but looks to me like the !oppose voters fall into three groups: 1) The people who have done research and raise legitimate questions about my past edits, but are uninvolved or peripherally for the most part, and though I wish they'd ask me a question I could respond to, I will take their comments seriously and think them over; 2) The hangers-on who just say "me too," who are not anything to really fret about one way or the other and may well be support !votes next time; and 3) the individuals you describe above (see the California Chrome thread below is a case in point) and if this RfA fails and I have to try again in a few months, well, I value folks like you who look at the situation objectively and comment where the !voter's comments may be a bit, um, slanted. Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I've questioned the baseless votes many times before, but I've quickly come to realise that no one really cares about the RfA process enough to change it. It is so ludicrously flawed that it allows complete morons to support with comments like: "Support - why not"; or "Support - just to annoy the opposing fraternity", and "Support - Because I like their signature". Sure, you and I clashed during an infobox thread somewhere, but I like you and what you do; always have done. It's just a shame some can't see past their scrawny little noses. Here's to the next day or so! Cassianto^Talk 19:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • • Cass, I think your comments have a lot of food for thought; indeed, you and I have disagreed - somewhere - maybe more than once - and yet we can see the good in the other and recognize that people are entitled to different views. When this RfA dust settles, I'd be interested in your views on our past interactions where you think I did go over the wall versus where I simply was blunt and stated my views strongly. There is a place for advocacy, but sometimes - as I noted in my original RfA statement - I have lost my temper. I've learned from those situations, but we are all human. Admins have to be able to make difficult decisions, and one reason I decided to run for RfA is because I think I am willing to do so and have the fortitude to deal with a lot of drama... particularly drama where I am not WP:INVOLVED. I also would value your thoughts on how I can better explain or demonstrate to others how much I do know the difference between when I am neutral and when I must recuse... there is no content editing that will not, eventually, have conflict arise. It's how everyone handles it that counts. Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you have gone over the wall, certainly not with me. Hey listen, it's very easy to boil over in certain situations, especially in the face of idiocy, absurdity and down right lunacy. We agree to differ on certain infoboxes, which I think is how we left it. We wouldn't be human if we didn't feel passionate about our craft. In fact, I'd be worried if people didn't give a shit about their writing. The best thing to do is to forgive and forget and to be the first one to offer the olive branch, and mean it. Unfortunatley some people on here only deserve the olive branch in certain parts of their anotomy; it's being able to differentiate between the two, that's the trick. Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

RfA

I just wanted to let you know that I found your responses to RfA questions substantive and specific, despite the seemingly over-critical perspective of some users. I supported your RfA. --JustBerry (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I have over nine years of history here, so I've made plenty of mistakes! Thank you so much for your support! Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hang in there

I just want to give you encouragement (and brats and beer). Hang in there kid. GregJackP Boomer! 15:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hang in there, Greg, the pack misses beer, sausage and justice without you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Regret RfA and raise of opposition

Hi Montanabw, I have recently voted in favour of you because of your large positive contributions to Wikipedia. Recently I went through your RfA process and saw there were raise of opposition because of your involvement in WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AfD and WP:ANI has caused poor record in assuming good faith, Use of Administrative tools are greater responsibility and serious decision-making tasks which request to have honest editor. Since you had a poor record in voting for WP:AfD, arguing with other editors in ANI and war editing has caused many other voters to have their opinion changed when the pieces of evidence popped up in the RfA process and all went to vote against you. This very regretful to hear what's happening. In an event if your RfA fails to have a majority you can apply for RfA in the future once you have learned the lesson from the voters who voted against you. But in the meantime there are 3 days more ahead to the deadline of voting, Hopefully, there will be a miracle to have your RfA passed. Wish you a good luck! ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 01:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Monarch, thank you for your kind words. Given that I have been here for nine years, I have had time to step on some toes. The problem is that I cannot explain the part that some of the people who oppose me have done. I made one bad mistake this year on one article. The rest is just the usual wikipedia drama over content editing. I can only hope that people ask me questions that allow me to clarify who I am and what I can accomplish. There are still several days for this RfA to run and I will see it out to the end. If it does fail I will be back in six months. Montanabw^(talk) 01:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly the RfA is a horrible and broken process, There are a lot of users judging an editor who made a mistake on one article and greatly accomplished on other articles. A lot of wonderful administrators also failed to pass their RfA has left Wikipedia because of this harsh process. Hope you can make this RfA successful in six months or probably a year. Also please note that we in a shortage of administrators right now, in 1400 administrators around 35-40 of them are very active in helping other editors to accomplish their tasks, while others are working on their own interest and they have no intention to help users like me and this makes us difficult to seek an administrator help. During your six months/one-year work on Wikipedia, you should never get in disputes with other editors this can cause great disadvantage, which will create a worse situation like this and become more complicated to elaborate on what you have done. For the current RfA, I believe it's likely to fail, because of a strong opposition is rising at the moment compared to support. But i would suggest you to wait till a day and see whether it's right time to withdraw before the deadline date. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 02:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to withdraw at all. If it fails, it fails, but I want to allow everyone who wants to comment to have a chance to do so. The problem is that when you edit content, conflict is inevitable because you WILL have differences of opinion on various issues. I have been working on being less sarcastic, because that's one thing that I recognize is more about me venting my frustration than being helpful, but I am a person who is an independent thinker and dedicated to quality control, so people are going to get into disputes with me. It IS, indeed "difficult to elaborate on what you have done", but so long as I continue to work on not being mean-spirited and keep my focus on content and on-wiki behavior only, I can ride out most hurricanes. Montanabw^(talk) 02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a bad idea of getting into a dispute. If you disagree with an editor on the article you have a right to complain him/her to ANI or ArbCom for involving edit war. Unless if you want him/her not to revert your edits that includes with reliable sources and you're encouraged to provide valid reason on why the edits should not be reverted, continuing with WP:DRAMA (edit wars and WP:OWN) will create advantage to your opponent, That would make it harder for you to become “independent thinker”, You have to be cooperative with other editors that would make you a good editor. I have seen your contributions, You seem to have done an impressive work, But you need to have self-control in allowing other editors to edit your articles as the Articles you have created do not have ownership (see WP:OWN), and the viewers will legally recognise you as the creator of the article. I understood your choice to keep RfA opened for further comments, that would also be a good choice to have more opinions from others. But I'm very disappointed to see you failing to win the trust of community , As you have made over 77K contributions any editors with that amount of edits have strong chance of winning the position of Administrator, But some of them are failing to win the trust of community, because of users are grilling them over disputes and vandalism (similar to your situation) I hope you win the next round . ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 03:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Monarch. Indeed. It was raised that I've been mentioned at ANI 96 times in some way... I mull over OWNership versus stewardship a lot. To me, it seems that when people demonstrate that they have a correct position and present strong evidence, I usually come around to their views... where there is no clear solution (controversial issues), then AGF is very important and the ability of each side to present their position fairly and accurately is needed. I've worked closely on 20 FACs and helped in smaller ways with several others. It's a lot of work to do it right. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for for voting "oppose" at the moment. But maybe I am wrong. Why did you make this comment (2nd paragraph at the bottom)? Do you consider this your mistake? My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion I think Montana should withdraw her nomination, she doesn't need to be an admin to show that she is valued. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have promised to stay here to the end, and, frankly, I don't think content creators are valued enough overall. One reason I filed is because I think more content creators need to be admins. I was heartened by all the good words said about content creation, but I hope that those words translate into actions when content disputes arise; many people work very hard to produce good content only to deal with WP:CHEESE issues. Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

In my view, I edit for fun and to help others with information they want, I don't know how much more value you want I mean isn't the community enough? If I were to even get a barn-star here I would be overjoyed call it being humble I guess. You are poured with compliments and barn-stars acknowledging how well of a job you do so wanting more puzzles me to say the least. What also bothers me a bit is what group falls under the WP:CHEESE category? Do you react the same when different editors make the same mistakes? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The mop is not a barnstar, it's a tough job. I feel that I have asked admins for their help - and received it - so often that it is my turn to return some of the same mop duty to the larger community. I have some specific areas where having the tools would be useful and where I could be of particular help (as I said at the beginning: RPP, BLP/revdel, DYK queues). I think that more content editors need to be admins because we are where the thorniest disputes occur - about what goes on the most public face of wikipedia. Have you ever been in a WP:CHEESE discussion? Most people who edit content eventually do; they are dreadful because it doesn't matter what you say, the variants keep coming. That's the stuff that runs content creators off wikipedia. No one "group" falls there, it's an issue of behavior. Great essay, I loved it the first time I saw it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I also have to say I wish I could do a better job of showing who I am at the RfA, I can only respond when asked a question. (Well, some candidates do respond to comments, but that just escalates the debate) And when I'm asked a question, I know that a tl;dr response won't get read. So it's hard to point people to the many, many times I've kept my cool on things where I have cared a great deal - such as in the face of a tough FAC. I wish support !voters would provide diffs as often as the oppose !votes do; a whole different picture would emerge. Montanabw^(talk) 06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for asking an inconvenient question, but this is like a litmus test. Three reactions by a candidate would be possible: (a) "sorry, that was my mistake" (then I would remove my "oppose" vote), (b) "yes, I was right about that [diffs]", and (c) no answer, meaning you either do not want to admit your mistake or believe that your comment was correct, but you can not support it with diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article you linked above, I am sorry that I called you a troll and implied that you had unfavorable political beliefs; my focus should have remained on the content only, not the motives or beliefs of the individual. Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I changed my vote. I do not care about the "troll", but it really surprised me that debating biological taxonomy and population biology has been interpreted as "white supremacist views", even though I did not talk about humans, but about fungi, wolfs and other things like that. An "animal supremacist"? Sorry, but I did not even argue that a certain population of wolfs would be "superior" compare to another. My very best wishes (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! That particular article had previous problems with editors conflating the issues surrounding humans with those involving the biological concept; the bottom line is that those issues would up being addressed and the article itself is getting redone by people who seem to be willing to do the tough work of researching the question thoroughly. My input there is not needed at this point, so I've unwatched the article (5,809 now...) Montanabw^(talk) 23:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Pass or Fail getting over 100 in support of something takes doing Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported an RFX, for this I congratulate you. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		For maintaining the clarity, intelligence and thoughtfulness of your comments even in the present environment of your RfA. Very refreshing and informative. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Cutifying California Chrome

Discussion closed by third party, hatting by Montanabw click to show

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Beyond the matter what's appropriate and not for an encyclopedia article (versus "Picture Magazine", or a coloring book), the idea of playing house with quote box background colors as decoration is a poor idea from even an artistic standpoint - not a good one. (But I don't suppose you'd understand why not, even if I explained it. Nor do I expect you'd have any interest to hear, especially from me, who you've castigated on your "enemies over on that side" arbitrary division line.) p.s. Did you know that you put a chilling effect on articles you've decided you WP:OWN? I suspect that is one reason multiple editors in your RfA have stated they avoid contact with you. Ditto. IHTS (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) You were politely asked to take your concerns to the talk page. You made three reverts instead. Now, you have a warning template on your talk page. If you are trying to get blocked, I would say keep it up, you're almost there. Harassing Montana by making pointy edits on articles she's worked on while commenting on her RFA is blockable enough, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC) I don't believe I was addressing you. (Nor would I. And please stay off my Talkpage.) IHTS (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC) IHTS, you are edit-warring over there and it is pretty clear that you are deliberately doing so in order to antagonize me while I have an RfA pending. I have about 200 people watching this talk page and I invite them all to go over there and review your behavior. I, clearly, am quite busy at the moment. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC) And that accusation based on suspicion is just a demo of your bad faith, Montana. (It is a change I have always wanted to make, and only had the balls to do so recently, when you are under some degree of behavioral self-discipline, due to your RfA. [See "chilling" comment above.]) IHTS (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Leave the California Chrome article alone. The colored quote boxes are there for a purpose and add to the article (and before you start yelling at me, I am an artist!). Also, Montanabw is under a lot of stress right now, and you appear to just be out to stir up trouble while she is occupied with other things. Please STOP.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare It's OK, White Arabian mare. He did revert the article 4 times in three hours, and was blocked for edit-warring, and I had nothing to do with it; others noticed. He had never edited the article before, and it is the #1 article on my contributions list for total edits (it ate my life in 2014 keeping it current and to FA). If he cares deeply about colored quoteboxes, he would be well advised to raise it as a policy matter at WP:ACCESS rather than solve it at a single article. Montanabw(talk) 21:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "He had never edited the article before". Huh? You don't do very good research, Montana, I edited the article with several edits, after you posted to Eric's Talk asking Talk page watchers for help. You even reverted me once, when I added Reference markup according to how Eric does it (to which you wrote "Ugh!" in your revert editsum). I made language & expression changes to the article, several edits to copyedit text, to simplify & clarify things, like the horse's injury and related text. I also made edits to the lede. And to image markup/captions. IHTS (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC) I never made objection based WP:ACCESS, I didn't know anything about that, it's Risker's valid point, it involves technicals; it is not in my interest or skillset to follow up on. My objections to the background colors are for the reasons I stated at article Talk. IHTS (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Everybody has had something to say and it would be useful for all to go and do something else for a while. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Horse sense!

I told Bella about my RfA

OK, time for fun! I asked Bella what she thought of how the RfA process goes. Her reply was loquacious but requires further interpretation. Ideas, anyone? Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"Bloodbath"? Maybe I'm hearing incorrectly; my Dr. Dolittle senses have been amiss lately -- must be something to do with Mercury being retrograde or something .... Hang in there, breathe deeply. Just think, you will never have to go through something like this again until you meet St. Peter at the pearly gates, or something like that .... I feel for ya ... I and others had a feeling all these ghosts and chimeras would come out of Pandora's box, but I had no idea it would be quite this way .... Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Bella isn't that concerned! Her ears are only in the "meh" position. (But have fun interpreting her facial expression anyway! When I was downloading camera photos that one just made me laugh out loud!) I figured it would draw out people who aren't happy with me. The situation noted below was probably the only thing that really threw me, though. The rest is just the usual. I'm noting the people I respect who put in a neutral or oppose vote and am thinking about how best to address their concerns. Not that many are reading the questions or my answers, I suspect. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh, you're right about Bella, but I must say her facial expression looks a little "WTF?" I hear ya about the IRL thing. I think the main problem with that was RO's linking the incorrect diff about it (someone else's initial but inaccurate oppose) for so long at the front of the very first Oppose !vote -- I don't think that did you any favors and no one saw your (clear and only) rebuttal of that on the Talk page, and RO didn't remove it till quite some time after it had been heavily redacted. This didn't all add up for me until just now -- there is so much going on all across the RfA and its Talk that it's hard to know which end is up. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No matter what else happens, I think that the 'crats need to assign a team to monitor these; the anarchy of comments being moved and such should be done by a few, specifically authorized people. It is an anarchy there. Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe she's thinking "Back off, opposing users, before you get a set of horse teeth marks on your butt". Mine always gets that expression when he's about to bite.🐴 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 20:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that red round thing by her mouth IS the butt of my other horse! (which is why all those bareback pad photos were cropped funny... keep Miss Bella's face out of them...) Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Humans are weird. I would get less grief I went through RFU" Bella, as lip read by ϢereSpielChequers 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I am editing Pain in fish at the moment and came across this reference to horses! In 2015, it was reported that some species (rat, mouse, rabbit, cat and horse) adopt a facial expression in response to a noxious stimulus that is consistent with the expression of humans. Very interesting!

References

DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Powers that be

(talk page stalker) Regarding this: No one moderates RfA. It is, in effect, an anarchy. If that oppose !vote really raises RL concerns, your best bet would be to email the functionaries mailing list, at functionaries-en to discuss the possibility of oversight. This includes ArbCom as well as other users who may be able to help you. Both outing and potentially libelous content qualify for oversight. If you can demonstrate that he has either revealed nonpublic personal information about you, or that he's actually trying to discredit you with falsehoods (i.e. lying), those would be the folks to contact. Regards, Swarm ♠ 05:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
71		Blinkers (horse tack) (talk)						Add sources
24		Indianapolis Public Schools (talk)						Add sources
2,126		Moon landing conspiracy theories (talk)						Add sources
39		Criollo horse (talk)						Add sources
134		Geospatial analysis (talk)						Add sources
200		Nuclear force (talk)						Add sources
25		11th Infantry Regiment (United States) (talk)						Cleanup
94		Battle of Washita River (talk)						Cleanup
92		Fancy mouse (talk)						Cleanup
380		Pine Ridge Indian Reservation (talk)						Expand
25		Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy (talk)						Expand
13		Comtois horse (talk)						Expand
294		Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
28		Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
22		Jerry Potts (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
55		Godolphin Stables (talk)						Merge
108		Eurasian nomads (talk)						Merge
16		Treatment of equine lameness (talk)						Merge
15		Piikani Nation (talk)						Wikify
4		Verrill Dana (talk)						Wikify
487		Māori culture (talk)						Wikify
2		NorthAmerican Sportpony (talk)						Orphan
6		Marsupial lawn (talk)						Orphan
3		Horse breeding in France (talk)						Orphan
7		Bidet horse (talk)						Stub
21		Weroance (talk)						Stub
5		Alysheba Stakes (talk)						Stub
2		Patricia O'Brien Cotter (talk)						Stub
12		Jane Leavy (talk)						Stub
5		Necotowance (talk)						Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is cool!

Never knew this was out there! I'm 283 on the top 1000 list. Thank you, talk page stalkers! Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Many of the missed have lower numbers, interest doesn't go with them, it seems, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Take that with an extreme pinch of salt; not only is it a year old, but a lot of the "watchers" are discarded socks or long-retired editors—the incident that gives SlimVirgin so many watchers and elevates her to the top of the list, for instance, took place when a lot of the current editors were in junior school. I still show 300+ watchers, despite the fact that when that list was generated I'd barely touched Wikipedia for four years. MZMcBride, would it be feasible to regenerate it using only watchers who've edited in the past 30 days, or is that going to breach some arcane policy in some way? ‑ iridescent 18:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Nemo basically added this feature to MediaWiki core. The info action now shows a separate watchers stat ("Number of page watchers who visited recent edits"). I'm not sure this data is exposed via the MySQL (err, MariaDB) replicated databases on Tool Labs, but regardless it's probably fairly easy to hack up a script to get and present the data. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Heh, by that measure I have 370 and Jimmy Wales only has 454. (Eric Corbett—of whom my disputing the claim that his was the most-watched talkpage on Wikipedia sparked this discussion—only gets a paltry 210 watchers. Rather pointedly pinging Dennis Brown.) ‑ iridescent 19:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My score perhaps reflects the fact that I've basically done fuck all here for the past few months. Eric Corbett 19:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless the general public have suddenly developed an interest in William Etty (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Wrestlers (Etty)/archive1 is open, if anyone wants to take a look. Just saying.) then I've basically done fuck all here for the past few years. I think my figure may be a bug, as I don't see why I should have so many people watching me. ‑ iridescent 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• My question is: "Should the number of talk page stalkers ever be relevant to any point or counter-point in an argument discussion?" — Ched :  ?  19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Theoretically, it could be; I believe (Dennis, correct me if I'm wrong) that Dennis was accusing MBW of intentionally discussing her RFA in a place where a lot of potential supporters would see it, thus effectively notifying them. (Even if this were true, it would be an extremely stupid move to use Eric Corbett's talkpage for this purpose, since a sizeable number of those watchers will be people who've had an argument with him in the past and would be inclined to oppose things he supported.) ‑ iridescent 19:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed. And just because I supported them. That "cult of Corbett" issue still needs to be dealt with as well, but I know it won't. Eric Corbett 20:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I believe I gave a specific example of another editor getting blocked for it (bad block, btw), but I'm not up for an argument. My point is that it either 1. Looked suspicious, or 2. Was bad judgement. I also believe I pointed to a comment from her nominator saying that thanking someone during an RfA was a bad idea. Saying my comment was tied to a single metric is demonstrably untrue. But draw whatever conclusions you like. I've never had nor have a grudge with anyone in the room, I have no axe to grind. I still maintain that thanking someone during the RfA is an incredibly bad idea, and it appears I'm not alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

phabricator:T59617#1664891 is blocking updates to the most-watched users (configuration) database report. I'm poking around to see what's needed to get the data re-exposed. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm just gonna put a small chart below since I want to compare...

User	Total watchers	Recent visitor watchers	Total revisions	Recent revisions
Ched	218	77	2,186	1
Dennis Brown	420	201	15,739	328
Eric Corbett	663	281	45,680	77
Gerda Arendt	243	128	11,605	125
iridescent	371	93	14,846	119
Jimbo Wales	3,281	657	122,149	1,183
Montanabw	295	144	9,249	231
MZMcBride	444	74	9,272	11

Note: these stats are for user talk pages, not user pages. I also created this table by hand, so while I think I didn't screw up the copying and pasting from the info action's output, I make no guarantees. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting chart. The only flaw with the "Number of page watchers" statistics is that it gives the number of page watchers from the beginning of time (who have not removed the page from their watchlist), and does not subtract the very large percentage of former watchers who have left Wikipedia (because when they leave they do not delete their watchlists). As anyone who monitors a lot of articles should know, articles and such with seemingly high numbers of watchers are often completely neglected, unwatched, and vandalized constantly. I see this happening more and more as the years ago by -- often I am seemingly the only person actually watching an article that supposedly has more than 30+ watchers. Frustrating, but the result of continued mass exodus of Wikipedians since 2007. A better and more useful statistic is probably the "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits", although how recent "recent" is is not explained and should be queried of the stat-tool creator. Softlavender (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Curious, as I'm seeing totally different numbers for "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits" (Ched 71, Dennis Brown 139, Eric Corbett 210, Gerda Arendt 114, Iridescent 370, Jimbo Wales 454, Montanabw 112, MZMcBride 84). I'm wondering if this is actually measuring something completely different and has been mislabeled, or if the software has gone nuts again. ‑ iridescent 08:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think MZMcBride may have screwed that column up, even by his/her own numbers quoted far above. Pinging him/her for a re-check of that column. Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC); ETA: However, Iridescent, we're looking at Talk pages here, not userpages, so your number is actually 94, and the rest of the column in the chart may be correct as well (MZ didn't hyperlink the names so I didn't check them all). -- Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Right, this is why I made a note that these stats covered user talk pages, not user pages. :-) For overall page watchers, the number will always be identical for the two pages, as you can't watch a subject-space page without also watching its associated talk page. But I believe the recent visitors watchers stat is tied to the specific page title, as are the revisions stats, of course. "User:Iridescent" is a redirect, which may explain why its stat is screwy. User:Newyorkbrad is probably a decent example, with 256 recent visitors watchers, while User talk:Newyorkbrad has 171 recent visitors watchers. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

MZMcBride, is this the same information one sees if you check Page Information? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "this" is referring to, exactly. The chart above was based on data from the info action (i.e., &action=info, which is where the "Page information" link in the left sidebar points to). --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just referring to the chart you supplied, that's all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm number 258 ;-) --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Two things: (well of course there is also "sorry your RfA failed") ... first, even after not being very active for a very long time I apparently still have a lot of watchers, and second, isn't this the centiJimbo metric? I forget. Hang in there, this too shall pass. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

With no modesty involved, I'd say my exalted position is only a matter of longevity. When was the last time you cleared out your watchlist? I scrubbed mine altogether once, when I was still relatively new. Since then, it's only grown. Many of those who watchlist me will be long since retired. Or dead. ;-) --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hence the "would it be feasible to regenerate it using only watchers who've edited in the past 30 days?" above… "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits" probably isn't the answer, on reflection, as that (if I understand Mediawiki's less-than-stellar documentation) lists people who've viewed the most recent version of the page, which isn't a particularly useful metric if the page has a lot of active conversations on it. ‑ iridescent 19:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no indication of how recent "recent" is -- no indication whatsoever that that means the "current" version of the page, if anything, I'd say that was very unlikely; it's far more likely to mean within a certain timeframe, but the timeframe is not listed. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, regarding no indication whatsoever that that means the "current" version of the page, you are aware that when I make an improbable sounding claim like that it's because I have a reason for making it? "It counts watchers that have visited that page since the last edit or that have visited the page at least $wgWatchersMaxAge before last edit", if you want chapter-and-verse from the Mediawiki documentation. On en-wiki, $wgWatchersMaxAge is currently set to 180 days; thus, the figure you're seeing is the number of people who've viewed the page in the last 180 days, plus the number of people who've viewed the most recent version if the most recent version is over 180 days old. ‑ iridescent 22:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I think your demeanor during your arduous Rfa has been exemplary so this is a barnstar that is well deserved. MONGO 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I'm leaving an early closing summary at the RfA. It is NOT a withdrawal, I'm just going to be real busy tomorrow.

I decided to go with a friendly tone and a little bit of cowboy humor. If it provokes any more !opposes, that will be sad, but perhaps it will move a couple of neutrals into the !support column too.

I can't express enough thanks to all of you on this thread for the hand-holding, thoughful insights and peeling me off the ceiling. We all knew this one was not real likely to succeed, but I'm hoping I did well enough to set up for a second round sometime next spring. Montanabw^(talk) 07:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine the stress you've been under during this RfC; I've found it tough just to watch. I stand by my support. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think not many editors enjoy the support you received, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; With 128 support !votes, I actually had more support !votes than did 9 of the 15 successful RfAs this year (6 had more). The percentage was the kicker, of course. I was also heartened to see there were 227 total votes, counting the neutral and oppose, which was a high level of participation. Only Liz had more participants !vote at hers, and she also had the top number of supports of this year's candidates. (see here). I was not terribly surprised by some of the folks who showed up to oppose me, and though a few were a disappointment, the neutrals and the more thoughtful of the !oppose !votes who raised food for thought are folks I may follow up with Montanabw^(talk) 19:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I also admire not just the quantity but the quality: both the people showing up and their reasoning. Just don't ever defend me again, and you will be fine next time. I grinned the most about the one who supported by me, - a nice new feeling, I must say ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope that I shall always be a champion of the underdog and the wrongly accused. I shall only defend you if I really think you need defense, and to determine that I promise I shall wait and count to 10 or 20 before I charge in and announce my presence! But if others oppose me simply because because I associate with you, that says more about them than about you! Hugs! Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting a horse ready

Hi Montanabw. I see you love horses. So do I. I'm writing to you about "saddling up". I don't know the proper term, but I know there's a procedure, and was wondering if you would maybe be interested in making a video of the procedure. I know Wikipedia is not a "how-to", but visitors would surely be interested in that. Some things are hard to describe with words. Do we have such videos? What do you think?

And I know I've admitted at some Wikipedia talkpage to, while a kid, feeding a caterpillar to a horse. Please don't hold that against me. I was just a kid. I really do love horses.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

But not caterpillars obviously! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. It was big and I fed it to him with an open palm and he ate it and he whinnied and showed his teeth and there were little bits of caterpillar all in his teeth. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I started Feedbag back in 2012 and you made a nice edit and edit summary. :) Thank you for that! :) Ka-ka-clip Ka-ka-clip Ka-ka-clip K-ka-k-klip-k-klip....clippity-clop....clop....clop...........clop. "Whinny". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The proper term is "tacking up"--you're very close!☺ There may already be some kind of video of that on Commons, so you may want to check there first. I know there are some pictures of tacking up, maybe they have a video too.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

ADD: Don't worry about feeding the caterpillar to the horse so long as it was a one-time thing. There's no telling what kind of bugs horses inadvertently eat when they're grazing anyway!White Arabian mare (Neigh) 23:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Thank you White Arabian mare. :) I think I once said it was a sibling who did it and not me out of worry that the horse got sick. And poor caterpillar, dreaming of being a butterfly and then suddenly, big, yellow horse teeth!

And thank you for pointing me to "tack". I posted here: Talk:Horse tack#Tacking up procedure.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We seem to have no videos of tacking a horse. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I thought there was one.😛 I posted a brief run-through of tacking up on Talk:Horse tack#Tacking up procedure.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Peace offering

We are done with this discussion now, peace is a nice thing

Olive Branch In the interests of putting old grudges aside and moving forward anew, I propose a peace treaty between our accounts. All I ask for is an apology and admission that you were wrong to follow me around and accuse me of socking. The only additional terms are that I promise I'll treat you with consideration and respect, and you promise you'll treat me with consideration and respect. What do you say? RO(talk) 00:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I appreciate that you are willing to make a peace offering. I do think that burying the hatchet would benefit the project as a whole. But after your absolutely abysmal behavior at my RfA, I am pretty gunshy about making any agreement with you. So as a counter-offer, I propose that we simply agree to a WP:TRUCE and agree we shall henceforth each commit to follow wikipedia policy to treat one another with consideration and respect consistent with WP:AGF, with no apologies on either side. I will not demand, but I will hope you can acknowledge that while I had edited logged-out more than I realized, I was not running clandestine anon IP accounts. I will acknowledge in turn that although you did have a prior account, it appears to be a RTV and I was incorrect that you were a sock of the two other active user accounts I associated with you. Can that work? Montanabw(talk) 03:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC) All I ask for is an apology and admission that you were wrong... a mere hours after your Rfa just failed -- seems to me that forming a branch, olive or otherwise, into a wikt:cudgel isn't very much of a peace offering ... Montanabw, I highly recommend my unpatented (CC By SA 3.0) Unilateral interaction ban. NE Ent 11:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC) You should know that there isn't one Wikipedia article that I've editing that MBW edited before me: ([2]). Translation, every interaction between us in article space has been initiated by MBW, not me. RO(talk) 18:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I have no idea who you are, but you are not portraying yourself in a very good light for a first impression. As others have suggested, this is not the time to go gravedancing. Please move on and let Montanabw lick her wounds in relative peace.DrChrissy (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) It would seem that the timing and phrasing of the "olive branch" proffer is very slightly discordant with the usual meaning of the term. Collect (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC) That was my impression as well, Collect; it's more like a loaded question. Kudos to Montanabw for her measured reply. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC) So it's okay to follow someone around for months and tell every one of your friends that they are a sock, but never file an actual SPI? Is that within policy, Diannaa? Has Montanabw ever apologized for accusing an innocent person of socking? Because I see no evidence that she has ever done that, despite having accused several innocent people; several of them stopped by the RfA to voice opposition. Did she ever apologize to User:LynnWysong? Can you please show me a diff of MBW apologizing to someone she had wrongly accused of socking? RO(talk) 16:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Gently encouraging people to practice the art of at least occasionally just ignoring people who say things you don't agree with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. I agree that this was an issue raised by several at the RfA, it is disappointing to see that the 100% right and you are 100% wrong attitude continues. I also fail to see what all this fuss is over an apology. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Why do you continue to keep inserting yourself into discussions that have nothing to do with you? Eric Corbett 16:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) The same can be said for everyone here Eric yourself included, why are you here? This should only be between Montana and RO. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Oh the irony in you're last comment Knowledgekid87. Why don't you bugger off? CassiantoTalk 17:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC) You haven't addressed the question either though. Why isn't this just between RO and Montana? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC) You posted this before Eric, me or anyone else. So maybe you could answer your own question. CassiantoTalk 17:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I posted in response to NE, the real reason why so many people commented is because each support's or opposes another editor's argument. Im saying it should end here as other than RO and Montana this conversation doesn't have to do with anyone else here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC) "Im [sic] saying it should end here..." well don't. As you point out "Why isn't this just between RO and Montana?" CassiantoTalk 17:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Cass, shortly after Montana replied on RO's post her comment was replied on by a third party. That is the reason why people are here so when someone says "This has nothing to do with you" the same would apply to everyone here. Im done here with this thread and admit I shouldn't have replied to the ones putting down RO's argument. This should have ended with NE as it is something RO and Montana need to work out for themselves. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Eric: [3] and request to be released from the ban is here. Perhaps that adds some perspective. — Ched :  ?  17:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I came here in a sincere effort to make peace with MBW, but she's chosen to deny me the one thing I wanted and deserved: an apology. I think it's telling that at the failed RfA the word "battle" occurs 38 times; "passion" occurs 27 times; "partisan" occurs 12 times; "bias" appears 8 times. The word "apology"; however, gets zero hits. "Mistake" occurs there 24 times, and MBW used it 8 times, and while "sorry" appears there 17 times, it was not once uttered by MBW, but instead came mostly from her opposition. I'm not a sock, and I've never socked, so it was wrong to persecute me as one for several months on end with no SPI. That much is self-evident, and policy supports my positon. I think people who refuse to apologize to those they've clearly wronged cannot be trusted with a position of power. It speaks to a very basic level of self-awareness and maturity that she's apparently lacking. More importantly this shows MBW's poor understanding of policy, which is just one of many reasons she is not suited for adminship. If MBW cannot bring herself to apologize to me for making untold numbers of unfounded accusations over the course of several months and at numerous inappropriate venues, there is nothing left for me to discuss with her. RO(talk) 17:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Who do you think you're trying to fool? You came here petulantly demanding an apology. Pathetic. Eric Corbett 18:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC) RO, I think you're trying the patience of the community with this vendetta. Drop it before you are made to drop it. DeCausa (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC) (ec) RO - demanding apologies is not really worthwhile, honestly. You either get one, but it's grudging and not sincere, or you don't get one and the situation worsens. Making a truce offer was good. Even asking for an apology once, not a big deal. Doubling down when the offer was counter-offered and still insisting on an apology when it's clear that any such apology would not be heart-felt, to my mind, is silly. If the apology isn't heart-felt and meant, it's not really an apology. Your milage may vary, but it's clear Montanabw doesn't feel like issuing an apology (for whatever reason), so continuing to double down and insist just makes you look like you didn't mean the peace offer. (Note I did not say you did not mean it, I said it makes you LOOK like you didn't mean it). I am offering this advice as a sincere offer to you so that you can see how others may look at this. At this point, your best bet is to walk away. Nothing is worth this much stress or upset. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC) I agree with your analysis, Ealdgyth, but I wouldn't have felt good unless I gave her another chance to make good. Now I've done my best to put this grudge to rest, and will leave it at that. RO(talk) 18:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Indeed, it makes it look very insincere, especially given the timing.DrChrissy (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC) As long as the usual list of MBW's friends feel the need to tag-team and pile it on every single time she gets into it with someone her issues with partisanship and AGF will never get fully resolved. I really wish you would have just left her and I to discuss it uninfluenced by all the outside noise. This might have had a very different outcome had half a dozen of her closest allies not jumped in to berate me further. She's an adult, she ought to be able to have unassisted discussions. This wasn't gravedancing, this was a sincere attempt at reconciliation. No wonder she has no good-faith anymore, her friends constantly reinforce that people should be viewed with suspicion and doubt. My peace offering was totally appropriate and sincere, and I'm deeply saddened that it failed. RO(talk) 19:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Note: User:Knowledgekid87 appears to have deleted a posting they made here. It is generally considered very bad form to edit another User's Talk page.DrChrissy (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC) RO, I suggest you look at your "peace offering " again. It reads like a list of demands on your part. I am saying this as dispassionately as possible. I have interacted with Montanabw in the past and we have had our bad times and our good times. I was not involved in her RfA but I was absolutely disgusted at the way she was treated there by some editors - I will certainly never make such an application having seen this. Do the compassionate (correct) thing - drop the stick and move on.DrChrissy (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your RfA

I'm sorry, I got sidetracked by urgent RL issues in the middle of closing your RfA and didn't get here as soon as I'd have liked. Thank you for running for admin. It's not a fun process, even for successful candidates and it takes courage to apply and open oneself to criticism. I'd encourage you to consider the opposes and try again at a suitable point in time. Good luck and thank you again. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and I will. It is my current intention to try again later. I learned a great deal from this experience and I also believe that my candidacy was an opportunity to showcase the RfA process in its current form. My heart was warmed by the depth of support I received, I was pleased to see the high level of participation, and I will indeed mull over the !oppose !votes that contained thoughtful, considered and clueful content in the weeks to come. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I learned a great deal from this experience ... To be blunt, this indicates (at least at the time of the post) there's more to learn. I've looked at one of the linked discussions and, if you'd like, I'm willing to critique for you so that in another six months or so (if you listen to me, of course) you'll be in a much better position to pass. NE Ent 00:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the bluntest is best delivered via email, as I now know I have many more watchers than when I began! (grin) But dealing with out of context diffs is number one on my "wanted to rip my hair out" list. You cannot fully advise me on your diff without the above, then the rest of what you noted, factoring in [4], [5],[6], [7], [8] and especially this. Really, the most difficult aspect of this RfA was dealing with about five individuals. Everything else was generally well-meant, or "me too" !votes based on the RfA content itself. Montanabw^(talk) 02:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

On wiki is best; whether you pass your next Rfa will depend entirely on you, other folks won't matter for the discussion. We can do it at User talk:NE Ent/Rfa review so "own talk" rules would apply (i.e. I can simply remove / acknowledge any off-topic third party comments). NE Ent 19:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: Are you an Admin?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ent !voted support for me, and I was pleased that he was one of the first 10 to do so. Montanabw^(talk) 01:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Montanabw. Just a few lines ||/--_=| late and little, to say I'm sorry to have missed your RfA. I don't go there much at all because it only ends up irritating and/or depressing me (and/or I piss someone off); that your bid failed is by me evidence of one seriously busted system. Anyway, you have my admiration and my thanks - and my sincere regret that I couldn't put them where and when it mattered. With bestest wishes, Plutonium27 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice job Montana. I look forward to your success in a few months! Gandydancer (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Would have voted but I completely missed the thing that rhymes with 'auto-da-fé' ... and I even got a shout-out from you for the American Pharoah and Ahmed Zayat collaboration, thanks for that! So strange to read things like "she's always supportive of women on AfD" like that is some kind of Wikipedia character defect. "Whatever you do, don't give her a mop!" So weird, that....

I hope you draw encouragement from the many, many editors who voted affirmatively and who, in my case, have learned far more from you about process in just a few months than in years of previous casual editing under another UserID. Your lessons still pay dividends; you really have made Wikipedia better all around. Sorry to see the way things went. Just hope I'm here to notice and participate in the next RfA. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your contributions to horse and equestrianism-related articles: this is clearly a topic in which you are very experienced, and to which you have made valuable contributions. I wish you the best of luck for the future. Rubbish computer 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry your RfA did not succeed. Best wishes.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Hawkeye!

Follow up thoughts

Mulling over the RfA post-mortem and one question for all stalkers (good-faith NPA discussion welcome). Did I do the right thing to not respond much at all to any of the !votes and comments, but instead wait until I was asked a question directly in the questions section (or, rarely, at talk)? It seemed that staying above the fray was the more measured response, particularly as one thing that I did clearly see in the comments is that I am a bit too quick to just call it like I see it and that doing a better job of counting 10 before posting is an area where I do need some work. But, now I'm wondering if my non-response allowed a couple of situations to escalate and the comments of people be viewed as credible when there was more going on than they presented? An admin has to shut down drama, but I don't know if my responding to the more over-the-top comments would have done that or just made it worse. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 07:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In general - you were wise to take the high road and avoid confrontation. It showed maturity, and the ability to remain detached and above the fray in some respects. Although each situation is different, and there are times that opposes deserve to have their views heard without hassle. There were obviously some there solely to disrupt the process, and tank your RfA - they have now outed their own intentions and motives for the next time though.

Let me sleep on this, and I will post something tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  08:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, I was pretty impressed with your demeanor during the RfA. My RFA was pretty rough, I barely passed at 81%. It's kind of a like a fist fight: even when you win, it hurts like hell for days. I had concerns, genuine ones. What kept me from opposing is the knowledge that you are an exceptional content creator and I don't think you would ever abuse the tools. Part of me is also selfish, knowing that admin are easier to find than really good writers of prose and once you get the bit, it will cut into your editing time, although I wouldn't oppose for that. Anyway, you are one tough customer, you endured more than I've seen thrown at anyone at RFA in a long time, and you handled it better than I could have. That alone is worthy of some respect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• As per Ched, I think you did very much the right thing by remaining largely detached from the votes. Sometimes however, it is not always easy to do; if someone comes out of the woodwork and tells blatant lies or deliberately takes things out of context as two admins did on my RfA just because I defeated them over some linguistic issues they were claiming ownership of, well you have to say something, although on my RfA yet another user told me qute rudely to shut uo and put up.. Fortunately the one admin got desysoped a couple of years later to everyone's relief, and the other, whose access to adminship was nothing more than hat collecting anyway, quietly slipped into the background and retired. On the other hand , some that oppsed me have become close friends and collaboratrs. What I think was not so good was commenting in other places while the RfA was ongoing and allowing yourself to be embroiled in the persistent harassment that someone was trying to stir up and they just would not drop the stick even when a very short block expired.

As an admin, if you are going to get involved in the war zone's front line like I and a handful of others do, you'll have to learn to either keep your cool or keep out of it. Believe me (and people like Drmies too, for example) when we say adminship is no bed of roses. These RfA talk page discussions are a brand new trend started by the Liz RfA. Not good. Sets back years of hard work - literally 100s of hours - to improve the climate there; we'll never get a better electoral system, so we have to make do the one we've got and potty train the participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I see Dennis made a comment while I was typing. Of course, he's perfectly right too - one of our greatest Wikipedia philosophers! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I will be watching here, and want to support you in your next RfA. Yes I saw that there were personal grudges but WP:OWN came up a lot by level headed editors. You should also look into this but I agree with the above that you not jumping into the drama was the right thing to do. Trust me here, it has come to bite me in the butt more than once. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you handled it well and allowed everyone to say what they wanted to say without shutting them down or trying to speak over them or around them. I think some of the Negative Nellies would have enjoyed a pitchforking frenzy but they weren't given an opportunity for that. You did well, Montana. And, yup, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. As for branches of the olive variety, they may be imperfect but on Wikipedia, they seem to be more rare than a unicorn with glitter. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did the right thing by not responding to the people who were probably posting negative, attack-type comments on purpose to draw you out. Some of them were just trying to antagonize you and/or your supporters, hoping to cause a fight to entertain themselves.White Arabian mare (Neigh) 14:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

I think you handled the RFA with grace and maturity that speaks volumes about your character. I personally would have lost my shit about half way through, and I generally pride myself on my patience and thick skin. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Staying clear of that shit (there's no other word to accurately describe it) is usually the wisest course. Many of those folks, IMO, were hoping you'd rise to the bait, either with obvious attack comments or the much more insidious "well meaning observations" which are only attacks wearing better perfume. Intothatdarkness 16:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to add my kudos to you for how you handled your RfA detractors and, in my opinion, some very brutal and nearly abusive treatment. I meant everything I said in support of you and you have now earned even more of my respect. It's in times like what you experienced there that a person's true "mettle" is tested and seen for what it is. And yours is/are made of brass ;-) Brava! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Im just curious here, given the feedback what areas do you intend to work on other than counting to 10 before jumping in? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87: How about you just worry about the areas you intend to work on in your Wiki-dealings and leave Montanabw alone, hmmm? You've said more than enough on this talk page in the last 24 hours. Time to back off. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's OK WV, I am aware that KK asked for his T-Ban be lifted just before he !voted at my RfA, and so he's very interested in this. KK, I am taking my time to think through what I have learned here and how to move forward; I'm giving this at least six months, so no rush. I may allow my actions to do most of the talking or I may post some analysis; I have not yet decided; it's been a long, stressful week (also had to work while all this was going on) and I am choosing not to make more than a few preliminary comments at this point. The "don't dive in headfirst"/WP:NAM decision was made at the time I filed the RfA, hence my request here for an initial assessment if not responding quickly and often not at all was the right one. Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, hope you recover editing some horse related articles will help. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Why one would want to be an admin on here is beyond my understanding. That was brutal and often not remotely civil. This is Wikipedia for goodness sake. Not real life. *Nothing* that happens on here is life and death and is truly not worth the bile that seems to erupt so often. The logs in the eyes of the accusers of ego had me shaking my head with amazement more times than not. That you were able to weather the storm, with patience and decorum speaks volumes. Why you would consider doing it again, is a complete puzzlement. But, you have both my admiration and support for whatever its worth. SusunW (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Im here because I voted oppose and want to know what Montana took away from it all, this is feedback from the other side that did see issues. I will leave it alone but will be watching Montana's edits from a-far hoping to offer support next time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW: This is advice that we all could benefit from in this community: [9] --Mike Cline (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You know, Mike, that should be posted at the beginning of every RfA! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Don't wonder and second-guess. You did quite well to make it to the very end of an arduous battle and stay above the fray, with chaos occurring all around you. To me, there was a sense of peace, maturity and self-assurance about you; kind of like you were the stage manager just observing a performance of Noises Off. When the curtain rang down, no matter the outcome, you were still going to be Montanabw. I was really surprised at the depth of destruction that was your RfA. Should you decide to repeat play this, I shall support you again, with even more respect in your abilities, All the best, as always. Fylbecatulous talk 18:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• These stats say a lot. I feel guilty you got caught in a mistake I made last February. All I can do is tell you how sorry I am, and that I think you did extremely well under pressure. The outing wasn't cool, in my view. At any rate, I'll be taking a break from here and maybe that will make a difference; maybe not. Best, Victoria (tk) 01:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Victoria, don't leave on account of me; there is NOTHING anyone here did that opened me up to trouble... I know of a couple people who have since said they didn't vote for me pretty much because they were concerned that doing so would attract their "enemies." If you want my opinion, they should have !voted anyway. Ben Franklin said it best (I'm paraphrasing a bit) "We must now hang together, for if we do not we will most assuredly hang separtely."
    • It's not on your account - I've been pulling myself out slowly over the past few months, and that's mostly because of RL issues. If this place were completely stress free, I'd probably be more inclined to stay, but the reality is that it's not. I've never taken an extended break and think it's worth a try. All of that said, I do have to take responsibility for not doing due diligence and jumping to (erroneous) conclusions, which caused an unfortunate series of events. Victoria (tk) 16:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, I voted against your RFA at this time. I just wanted to add a few comments to explain where to go from here as I will say that I am open to reevaluating my position as the months go ahead. I admire your content creation and I think content creation is essential to any administrator candidate's portfolio. I would likely not support anyone who didn't have some quality content work. If it were not for some concerns about your interaction with other users, I would have been inclined to support your candidacy in large part by the strength of your contributions. But I am unlikely to support another RfA for at least a year (6 months is too short). I would like to see you make amends with Rjensen, Rationalobserver, and a few other users who you got into some battles with. Whether they accept it or not is immaterial, but I think the attempt will go a long way (including for me). I got the sense from some of your statements that you felt above some of the opposition and that some of the complaints or concerns were not worth your time. I would also suggest two things (something I wish more admin aspirants would embrace or offer in their RfAs)--(1) ask three administrators to be your mentoring circle for 6 months if your next RfA is approved who will both guide your learning the bits and double check when there's a controversial decision, and/or (2) say that you will put yourself up for recall after the first year and every two years after that. More administrators need to put themselves up for recall or reconfirmation. I would disagree with the "lifetime appointment". I think every admin should be up for recall on that kind of schedule. We are not perfect. Wikipedia is a great place to find a fight even if you're not looking for one. I will keep my mind open if there is another RfA, but I will be unlikely to support unless you address some of the concerns of the opposition. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be glad to. Best of luck. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this statement, going forward at some point (not now if you don't want to) you should address the people who opposed your RfA. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Racking Horse

When I put the word 'pad' in the Racking Horse article, I was just using the term I've always heard. Where I live, the term 'pad' is used to refer to the whole thing that's put on the foot to enhance the action; plastic stacks, shoe, everything. (People in the south are too lazy to say 'performance package' every 5 minutes...they don't say "Bubba shod the horse with performance packages", they say, "Bubba shod the horse with pads".) So, I grew up thinking everybody used it that way. I guess it's sort of a slang term.😕 White Arabian mare (Neigh) 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The phrasing "shod with pads" is pretty common elsewhere too... that works. Just not "pads" to describe the whole setup ... we don't want to use slang on top of technical language or else we will attract the attention of those who are concerned about overuse of WP:JARGON. Actually had to fight and win a battle once with folks who wanted us to keep saying that a stallion was a boy horse ... rather than linking the article... sigh (ripping hair out). Montanabw^(talk) 01:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Boy horse? Better make that unneutered boy horse. ;) About the gait too, the 'show walk' is breed-specific; it's a kind of fast lateral walk really close to the Tennessee Walker's flat walk. (Funny story: I was once at a horse show with both racking and western classes. The announcer got scrambled during a Quarter Horse western pleasure class and told them to show walk. One of the trainers who had students showing leaned over the arena fence and yelled, "Just don't tell 'em to rack on!") White Arabian mare (Neigh) 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

That's a good LOL! I was judging a little schooling show here last summer and this one gal "bought a class" (meaning, she sponsored the ribbons and trophy knowing she'd probably be the only entrant) because she had a 5-gaited Saddlebred that needed show experience before she took him out of state to do his thing (not a lot of 5-Gaited Saddlebreds in Montana any more, used to be a reasonable number back in the day), so the show announcer (who also remembers those old days of the big all-breed shows) and I had a great time getting to call all the gaits and telling everyone there that they were supposed to yell and cheer at the appropriate times! Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

[10]? — Ched :  ?  02:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

We have a lot of small shows like that. At the same show as the 'rack on' fiasco, there was only one entrant in men's open racking, and the judge and announcer messed with him (they knew him pretty well) for a couple of minutes by telling him he got second place before they finally gave him the blue ribbon. 😃 It's a small town. White Arabian mare (Neigh) 13:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)White Arabian mare

Concluding the RfA postgame show

I think this clip sums it up. And I'm the gopher! [11].

Whenever I get frustrated by "the judges", I watch Surya Bonaly do her "illegal one-legged black flip" at the 1998 Nagano Olympics [3:45 minute mark]. Here's hoping Surya makes you feel just a little bit better, too ... What becomes a legend most? [12]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vesuvius Dogg (talk • contribs)

I remember that! Oh dear, we've dated ourselves! Thank You! Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Next group topic for discussion

OK, looking over the various comments made at my RfA brings me to my next topic: One of the fears among those who !voted oppose was a fear that I would be someone who would abuse the tools by using them where I was involved or against people that I allegedly didn't like. I already said I would not abuse the tools multiple times at the RfA, I addressed that my understanding of WP:INVOLVED is very clear, but how does one prove a negative? General thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I've looked over a lot of past RfAs and it is common for candidates to make well-intentioned statements that crumble under the pressure of actually doing admin work. I remember one RfA where under question 1, the candidate said they didn't expect to be handing out blocks, they'd be working on mundane admin backlogs, and now, years later, they are regularly blocking accounts. The work they intended to do is different from the work that needs to get done. So, rightly or wrongly, many editors take a candidate's stated intentions with a grain of salt. You don't know how you will use the tools until you are in a stressful situation and you have to decide, "Do I act? Do I instead bring the editor to another admin's attention? Do I bring this situation to ANI and hear what other editors think? Or is this really no big deal at all and requires no action?"

While I'm not speaking from much experience as an admin, I think I understand the concerns of some of those who opposed and say that there is the perception that you will act first, ask questions later. The boldness that can make a great editor needs to be tempered by humility and good judgment in admins because it is SO very easy to make a mistake! I don't think you need to prove a negative but you do need to demonstrate that your potential admin actions will be considered, thoughtful and cautious as well as decisive. Those are my general thoughts, for what they are worth. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks, Liz. There's the need to promptly address BLP violations before irreparable damage is done parallel to a need to count 10 before blocking a situation where you must study and understand the background (I had a good question about that at my RfA, if I recall; wonder if anyone besides the poster read my answer). I'm all for good judgment; it's desperately needed and one reason I wanted to file. There is a line between boldness and recklessness; likewise there is a line between consideration and hand-wringing. In the world of content editing where you have a lot of need to address problems fairly promptly (vandalism like this, problem articles that are copy-pasted, etc.) sometimes people get upset at you. People have gotten upset at me. I'm looking at ways to demonstrate that a person can wear two hats; the editing of content, which sometimes can become a "contact sport" of sorts, and the more adjudicatory role of the admin, where there is neutrality. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• When you are editing, you address the jury.
• When you are admin., you are the judge - with a judicial review board looking over your every move.
• or something like that. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Proving a negative is extremely hard. How does one prove they are not working? No boss to call. No income to verify. Very difficult. But it can be done. Document every interaction that wherein you are *involved* and review them. It will be enlightening for both you and whomever else wants to review them. PITA? Yes, but the means may justify the ends. In our case, figuring out a way to document got us residency. How bad do you want it? ;) SusunW (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 08:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Racking Horse again!

I did a good bit of work on Racking Horse today that (I hope) improved it a lot. I found 5 or 6 additional sources, including one on the double-registering of pintos as Spotted Saddle horses. (Some of the inline citations are appearing multiple times on References, not sure why but it's a wonder I got them to appear at all, so I'm happy for now, although I'll have to play with that some later to correct it.) I also added some stuff about two foundation sires, whose bloodlines are still being used. And some about temperament, and the mechanics of the gait, and other uses (endurance!).😀 I had fun, and hopefully the article is a lot better. (I sourced and cited everything; found a helpful site that's about riding and training gaited horses--it's not particularly well-written but it's got a lot of good info packed in there.) It still needs a picture though...I'm on the verge of calling the association and asking if they have a picture in the public domain or fair usage we can use! White Arabian mare (Neigh) 19:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 September

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

• On the Take Charge Brandi page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sinatra

I'm currently going through the article sourcing it. So please don't go through it adding citation tags where I know they're needed. Oh, and please drop the infobox disputes. Restore it for the time being if you must for the sake of the peace, but please back off. We'll revisit the infobox issue when it's largely written but I have a great amount to do on it and I don't need this distraction.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)