User talk:Montanabw

WikiStress level

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

Make articles, not wikidrama

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

Traffic count!

Sandbox invite

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 villainous elf-skinned flap-dragon!

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 surly rude-growing fustilarian.

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)

Editing Horse colic

Hey Montana, I probably should post this in the talk page for Horse colic, but wanted your opinion on breaking it up into two articles since it is getting a little long and unwieldy. I was thinking about starting a new page for they types of colic. What do you think? I'm not sure if that would be OK as a stand-alone article. Open to suggestions. Thanks! Eventer (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

They eliminated the length limits on WP articles a few years ago. Right now, the question would be, into what? I can't really see a logical two-way split, more like a dozen, one for each type of colic, with this main article more of an overview or list. Let me take a peek at it and offer more comments there. I'm just so glad you're working on it! (You want to see long, check out my current FAC, California Chrome. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Auvergne horse

Thank you very much for your edits to my translation of Aubergne horse. I was really hoping that someone who knew about horses would review the article as I was struggling a lot with the terminology since I know nothing about horses. It appeared next on my list of geography articles requiring translation although I dont see how its a geography article. I still do not understand the reference to hocks being clos in French which I translated as closed but you say this is wrong. Also there were a few words that defied translation which I left in the article: noyé (about withers), cordés, avalėe, and en pupitre. Do you have any clue what they mean in English in relation to the horse? There are also a couple of places where I used the word "kidneys" but later realised its supposed to be "loins". There is also reference to the horse being of "postier" type - does it mean the "Breton Postier" or something else? I hesitated to put in the word Breton in case it was wrong. Of course I had no clue what mediolinear meant but assumed that it meant something.

Thanks also for reformatting the article which I think is a great improvement. If you had time to review and correct the contents it would be much appreciated. Samrong01 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, and I appreciate the work you did! On wikipedia, @Dana boomer: has worked on several of the French horse breed articles and may be able to offer advice, though she is pretty busy IRL right now. @Tsaag Valren: is French and has helped us port over some other horse articles. I personally do not speak French, so I am of little help. I suppose I could run complete sentences through Google translate and see if something useful could be gleaned from context... Montanabw^(talk) 02:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Nez de renard (fox nose) is a french espression fo a mealy nose, so it's the pangaré. Postier mean a horse for the "service des postes", in english, equivalent is the Mail coach. The postier Breton is the main horse breed used for this in France (with the mareyeur Boulonnais). So, it mean a carriage trotting horse semi-heavy. Noyé about the withers it mean there's a lot of muscles around the withers, so it look desappearing. In the fr-wiki we have a problem of copyvio with this article : the french association of Auvergne horse copied the fr. wiki article without mention of the licence (2013). We sent a mail and it as been cleaned, but some internet content in "cache" can remains. And the fr-article need an update. It has been written before the official recognizion (?) of the breed. Now there are new official sources. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

California Chrome

Not to be a major pain in the _____, but I think this edit is a little ... not nicely worded in the "California Chrome is curious about everything around him". When I read that, I picture Curious George, which I don't think is the intention. I don't have a phrasing that's necessarily better, but just wanted to let you know how I read it. Maybe something like "California Chrome is interested in the world around him" or CC "embodies curiosity in his daily life" or something along those lines. I don't know; just spouting some suggestions. Your call. All the best, Go Phightins! 03:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to park the comment at article talk, maybe someone else can come up with a solution. And who knows? If the horse had an opposible thumb, well, George WAS curious...  ;) Montanabw^(talk) 03:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Difference between "flaxen" and "silver dapple" genes ?

Hello Montana, I know you're a specialist about horse coat genetics... a, you help me for this case ? In french we have a prehistoric level of knowledge about horse coat color genetics (and an aberrant "official" classification of coat colors, where "noir pangaré" (litterally "black pangaré") correspond with the seal brown coat color ... so regularly, I have to clean and use scientific sources. Is there a difference between flaxen and silver dapple gene, or is it the same gene? We have a French page "crins lavés" matching flaxen, and a silver dapple page I translated from English. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: Totally different! The genetic mechanism behind flaxen is yet to be mapped (as far as I know), but flaxen occurs on chestnut horses only. The silver dapple gene is a dilution gene that only acts on a black coat. Montanabw^(talk) 00:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks ! Si I'clear the "crins lavés / flaxen" article ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. There's no english page about the flaxen gene. I think there's any sources to create it  : http://www.thehorse.com/articles/24245/flaxen-color-genetic-research-in-progress but it's a pay-for-read article :/ --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Tsaag! Actually, The Horse online is a free registration site, I think, but I subscribe to the magazine anyway, so that is a GREAT source, found one other article from 2010 there, stay tuned for Flaxen (horse) to go live! Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: flaxen gene is now live! Any improvements welcomed! Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

More horsey people

Maybe this person needs a welcome to or from WikiProject equines or something similar, to fill out their currently non-existent talk page? My welcome toolbox only seems to have cookies. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46#Pemoline --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey (hay?) thanks for the heads up, I'll trot on over and see what's happening. Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling all stalkers

Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll see you one horse, and raise you a bird

I will definitely take a pass relatively soon. Can you please take a look at blue nuthatch which I think will be my next FAC candidate? See if anything pops out at you as needing fixing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Heh, saw the headline and for a moment thought it read "raise THE bird" aka "flip the bird" aka the infamous USA middle finger salute! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. It needs a fair bit of work, especially the lead, but now I have some specifics to address.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Usually another set of eyes is a good inspiration. Hope I helped! Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Today's beating of a dead horse

Yet another editor who has never touched the article in question has a RM request at Talk:Mustang horse. Sheesh. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For unstinting untiring value-adding to article space In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hands

I still haven't done that documentation for {{convert}} and hands, but I'm working on it! Meanwhile I have been fiddling with how convert handles fractions, which required dealing with the anomalous use of fractions with hands, and that led me to notice the following:

• {{convert|12+1/2|hand|in cm}} → 12+1⁄2 hands (48.5 inches; 123 cm)
• {{convert|12.0+1/2|hand|in cm}} → 12.0+1⁄2 hands (48.5 inches; 123 cm)
• {{hands|12+1/2}} → 12 ¹⁄₂ hands (48.5 inches, 123 cm)
• {{hands|12.0+1/2}} → 12 ¹⁄₂ hands (48.5 inches, 123 cm)

I think you once told me that 12+1/2 means twelve-and-half hands (50 inches), so two of the above are incorrect. I suppose that detail doesn't really matter? I checked all usage of {{hands}} as at May 2014. There is only one like the above, and I'll leave it for you to decide if some tweak to the article should occur. Andalusian horse#Characteristics has:

• mares average {{hands|15 + 1/2}} → mares average 15 ¹⁄₂ hands (60.5 inches, 154 cm)

Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: I think you already are fine (we have been through this, yes)(grin) Which article needs the tweak? Technically, 12.2 is "twelve and a half" - half of a four inch hand. And people might ifnormally say (on Craigslist ads) a horse is 12-1/2 when they mean 12.2, but that's sloppy. A horse that is 48.5 inches (12.0-1/2) we would say "twelve hands and a half inch." We want 15 and fraction one-half to equal 60 - 1/2 inches, and though decimals are more precise, the measurement system is entirely imperial, so fractions are better. Horse people might go 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4, but nothing more precise than that - horse hooves grow that much in a month, shoes can alter height too. Seldom is anything more precise than 1/2 inch used. Also, noticed the convert/2 template when used on a range only does the measurements at the end not after each number: {{convert/2 |77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} gives Template:Convert/2, but what we want is 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2 1⁄2 hands; 30 1⁄2 in to 8.2 1⁄2 h; 34 1⁄2 in) Does that make sense?Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The text that possibly needs a tweak (changing "15+1/2" to "15.0+1/2") is at Andalusian horse#Characteristics.

I think you are saying that the examples I posted above are correct and need no change. Very happy to hear that.

{{convert/2}} is not-my-department (it's part of the old scheme which, since December 2013, has almost entirely been replaced with the new {{convert}}).

Here is your example using convert (new), and convert/2 (old), for comparison:

• {{convert|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} → 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2+1⁄2 to 8.2+1⁄2 hands; 30+1⁄2 to 34+1⁄2 in)
• {{convert/2|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} → Template:Convert/2

Far be it from me to explain beauty to a horse person, but in my eye, the output from convert is perfect! Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct! In all the tweaking of the tweaking, I somehow lost the "right" convert template for the "backwards" version. I'll fix my collection and make sure the

Talk:Brook trout/GA1

Montanabw, this GA review hasn't had any action since the end of May, and the article hasn't been edited since then either. A "hold" notice was placed on the nominator's page well over a month ago. It's probably time for it to be closed for inaction. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: Mike? Are you going to work on this one? Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Equus

Hello, would you be interested in working on Equus for GA? LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be glad to collaborate, I'm not a taxonomy expert, you may also want to ping @Justlettersandnumbers: as he is someone who works on a lot of the articles about non-horse equines. Maybe figure out who is active on the zebra articles and ping them too. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The hardest for me with be taxonomy/evolution. I've heard conflicting reports on whether zebras are monophyletic for example. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that Equus needs to be an overview, and the debates can go to the individual animal articles. Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess we could take some text from here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's invite them too... maybe post a message at talk of that article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I found this. I'm having trouble figuring out the when the dates for the divergences of horse, zebra and ass lineages. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not much help there. Maybe post at Evolution of the horse and perhaps the individual talk pages of some of the more active editors. We need someone who know palentology, I think. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I can handle it. Should I keep the list of all the extinct and extant species? I was think of instead having a cladogram. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: What's a cladogram? I'd say so long as there is a "one stop shop" for all of them in some form, I'm not picky on what form, but keep some single collection of everything, somehow. There is also a navbox you might want to look at, see Template:Equidae_extinct_nav, and Template:Equus, which probably should be merged and definitely need some work. Montanabw^(talk) 01:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For a cladogram, see quagga and look at the evolution subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Stalkers: FUN!

I need a good hook idea for DAP Racing - DAP stands for "Dumb-Ass Partners". This should be low-hanging fruit for the "quirky" DYK slot, but I'm drawing a blank and no ideas to date are giving me that SCOMN feeling! Help! Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mustangs, horses, and burros, oh my!

Well hello there! Mighty comfy digs you've built for yourself, I must say. =)

Would it be OK with you if I cut the entire "Capitalization of 'mustang'" conversation from the article's talk page and paste it here? I'd ping the one other editor who commented as well. — Jaydiem (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it in a sandbox so as not to bloat this page and annoy my stalkers fan club! Go here: User:Montanabw/Mustang sandbox. Montanabw^(talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I moved it, but I thought it would make more sense to make it a subpage of your talk page instead: User talk:Montanabw/Mustang. If you disagree, feel free to move it elsewhere. — Jaydiem (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Mustang

I understand that you just want the title to be left alone, but as someone who has not worked on horse articles (which is true for almost all of our readers), I have to say that Mustang horse is grating. It's not natural. Mustang (horse) makes much more sense. I get that there is a convention to use "(horse)" to disambiguate the names of particular individual horses, and that adding "horse" to the title is reasonable for many kinds because that's done in reliable sources, but does it make sense to force that convention onto cases where it's not natural? I mean, the disambiguator "horse" is itself ambiguous with "individual horse" and "horse kind"... why can't it be used for both? In the rare case where a given name might be used for a notable individual horse as well as a horse kind, we can use a more specific disambiguator for both. What's wrong with that? --В²C ☎ 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep it at the talk page, we've explained it endlessly there. But, as I stated there (now and last December) the consensus on this was reached years ago based first upon on the guidelines at WP:NATURAL. Natural disambiguation is actually preferred to parenthetical disambiguation: "... we use the alternative but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, mechanical fan and hand fan are preferable to fan (mechanical) and fan (implement)." Certainly we also might find "English people" a bit odd or grating, but if you remember your earliest days on wiki, and if they were at all like mine, parenthetical disambiguation is really really really weird-looking to the uninitiated! Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course we prefer natural titles, but how does that apply here? "English people" is natural - the phrase is commonly used in reliable sources. But "Mustang horse" is not natural - the phrase is not commonly used.

As weird looking as parenthetical disambiguation might be, we use it, including for disambiguating ambiguous names of individual horses. Why not use it for disambiguating ambiguous names of horse kinds when "horse-kind-name horse" is not natural? --В²C ☎ 18:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The best reason I can give you for that is because of project-wide consensus on articles about individual named humans. We don't title people articles "John Smith veterinarian" but rather John Smith (veterinarian)" Where possible, we might have "John A. Smith" and "John B. Smith", of course, even if no one ever calls them "John A" in real life. I really wish we could just drop this stick. Eight years ago when I started, the horse and pony articles were a mishmash of both types of titling. Over the years, we got them consistently titled. For one thing, many of the breeds are named Foo horse or (especially) Foo pony. To have some parenthetical dabs and others not would just make it even more confusing. Imagine the horror of "American Quarter (horse)". Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the use of Mustang by itself is something of a recent development. It's not uncommon in writing from the 1800s to see "mustang horse" or "mustang hoss" (depending on the writer). Mustang is, after all, an import word to the English language. And as a somewhat humorous/sarcastic policy comment aside, since when has things making sense or not being grating been any sort of requirement here? Intothatdarkness 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with Born2cycle Mlpearc (open channel) 19:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Intothatdarkness, when a title is grating, that means it's not natural, which is contrary to WP:CRITERIA. That it might have been common in the 1800s is not relevant to how we title articles today.

User:Montanabw, sorry, but your "best reason" is not very good. Yes, of course we use parenthetical disambiguation for individual humans. And it's a good idea to do so for individual horses. But that's not a good reason to not use it for horse kinds. In those cases, if natural disambiguation is, well, natural, then fine. Go au naturel! But if it's not natural, like "Mustang horse", then we should use parenthetic disambiguation, just like for any other ambiguous title that does not have a commonly used natural disambiguation. Just because we use parenthetic disambiguation for individual horses does not mean we should not use it for horse kinds, when appropriate. To not use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds because we use it for individual horses is simply a really bizarre and non-nonsensical rule. --В²C ☎ 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

All of that is, of course, your opinion as to what's grating and what isn't. It also falls into the great wiki-fallacy of wanting one magical standard to fit every situation and every eventuality. If consensus has gone against you, just let it go. That's usually the best route to take. Intothatdarkness 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And it won't be resolved on my talk page, either, most likely. Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, but I wanted to make sure I understood your position: you are simply supporting the convention to not use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds, no matter what, because we use parenthetic disambiguation for individual horses. Right?

User:Intothatdarkness, isn't "Mustang horse" obviously grating? Or at least obviously inconsistent with usage in reliable sources? And I'm not the one applying any magic standard here. The magic (and bizarre IMHO) standard being applied here is, "don't use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds because we use it for individual horses". --В²C ☎ 23:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No B2C, you do not - you are oversimplifying and misunderstanding. No, "Mustang horse" is NOT obviously grating, it sounds perfectly fine to me and not in the least inconsistent with use in reliable sources. *(Did you even read what ITD said above?). It is a perfectly natural form of disambiguation and completely logical. I think parenthetical disambiguation is very odd-looking, but sometimes unavoidable (as in John Smith (veterinarian) ), I view it as a last resort. Now, please drop the stick, there is no sense arguing about this any further. Parenthetical disambigution - a wikipedia invention as far as I know -is a very strange thing to be fighting for here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Typical wiki-junk, if you ask me. Right up there with the whole DashGate crap. Intothatdarkness 15:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw: Indeed. This "Mustang horse is unnatural" business is simply an opinion based on someone's highly personal familiarity with the prhase. There are people who insist that "Manx cat" sounds "wrong" and it should just be "Manx", despite the fact that "Manx" mas other meanings, like "Manx people". There are those who feel that "German shepherd dog" [or capitalize all those if you like] is awkward and who would not use that phrase (I'm one of them, in day-to-day English!), but it's not only common, it's the formal name of the breed in most English-language registries and kennel clubs. "Mustang horse" only seems odds if you have trouble conceiving of a need to disambiguate. If someone in a cowboy hat says "I just washed my mustang", do they mean their horse or their car (you can't see capital letters in spoken language)?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, my hope and dream (the impossible dream, most likely) is that the matter is settled for now. I really have other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh page edits

Thanks for your note. I think I'm OK on the references. In fact, one of my arguments against the edits another contributor was trying to make to this page yesterday and today is that he didn't format his references.

I'll look forward to the updates you make to the Walsh page. I forget whether I created it or was an early contributor to it, but it's starting to accrete a lot of new details, especially with the most recent news articles.

Billmckern (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of overdone for someone who has been in office less than a year; I think it's longer than Max Baucus, who was in office over 30 years. Montanabw^(talk) 01:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Untapable

Before you tell me that Untapable is overdue for an article, I thought I'd let you know that I'm on it. Looks like another good year for the ladies as Taghrooda has overtaken Treve and The Fugue as this year's BIG HORSE in Europe. (btw it was good to see my boy Wicked Strong winning yesterday as well) Tigerboy1966  12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If O'Brien thinks Australia could win the Classic he'll be there. Trust me the man is determined to beat the Americans on dirt. One horse you can definitely expect is Telescope in the Turf: his trainer Michael Stoute has won six BCs on turf and knows exactly what's required. Shame about Untapable at Monmouth, I didn't see many excuses, so it may be that the current group of US fillies just aren't that good. Tigerboy1966  20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SHe got caught wide and also had Social Inclusion acting up in the gate, plus Rosie is back early from a shoulder separation injury. Each alone not enough, but all together may have been. Still a disappointment, though. She's so dominant over other fillies. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh

Hi! I had a question about one of your edits that I posted about here - Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician) - if you'd like to comment on that. Thanks! (P.S. Cool userpage!) HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force. Happy editing, Lightbreather (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Pings

I have Ian's talk on my watchlist so I saw the message, but I haven't gotten that one or several of your other pings via the Notifications system, not quite sure why. (And not sure whether anyone else is being missed...). Unless we can work out what's going on with that, if I haven't responded to something within a couple of days, try pinging the "old-fashioned way" on my talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, go ahead and take another swipe at it. And did this ping @Nikkimaria:? Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually. That's very odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Rare Breeds Survival Trust

Hi, I saw that you reverted all of my changes to the RBST article. I would like you to reconsider the revert:

• the list is now incorrect
• it is less wikilinked
• many of the links are incorrect
• three types of poultry are now not listed

If you have an issue with the lack of wikilinks for ducks, geese and turkeys, why did you not just revert the top edit which added those lists? Then the text at the top will also be relevant as there will only be chickens listed in the article. Kat (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You did a poor quality edit, I wouldn't have reverted if you hadn't screwed something up. I don't have the time to go through and correct everything, just try again and be more careful. Basically: DON'T remove wikilinks - or at least replace them if you redo something, DON'T remove citations unless you replace them with newer and better ones (formatted in the same way as the others in the existing article) - I can't even remember this particular edit,but I suspect you did one of those two errors, which is usually what prompts me to do a total revert. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not make either of those mistakes. Based on what you have said above, the edit was not of poor quality and the revert "screwed up" the page as it removed citations and removed wikilinks. It would have been useful if you had looked at the diff before reverting. I'm sorry that you couldn't help me figure out your thinking or decipher the summary which said the opposite of what you did. Kat (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone screwed up, I reverted what had been screwed up, if a bot or other edit came in about the same time as mine, sometimes things get tangled up in edit conflicts. But next time, take it to the talk page of the article, not here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with photos

Hi Montanabw! Just want to apologize in advance, because I have no idea how to use this page- sorry!

I am an archival researcher, and am doing some research on the Montana State Hospital for a documentary movie. I am interested in the photos you've posted of the building here. Would you mind emailing me at susan.johnson@gmail.com so that I might follow up on this? I would be happy to use this Talk page, but it is so confusing!! Thanks so much, in advance- 71.161.192.107 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Susan Johnson

I'd feel a bit more comfortable if you could just click on the "Email this user" link to the left of the screen and send me an email with your questions. I'll get the email through the wikipedia system and then reply to you from there. The photos I uploaded to Wikimedia commons are free use with attribution (cc-3.0/GDFL license) so you can use them if you want. I think I uploaded all that I took that weren't total duds, though I did do some color adjustments on them...if you'd prefer the original (dark, gloomy) versions... Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response, Montanabw. Sigh... feeling like a moron... I really can't find the "email this user" link, even thought I am logged in now. Thanks for your patience. I would love to use one of your photos, however they're not high enough resolution. Do you happen to have the dark, gloomy originals? I'm happy to adjust color/exposure on them myself. The one I'm particularly interested in is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warm_Springs_State_Hospital_04.jpg, only because it has older cars in the photo.

Fyi, this is for a documentary on Robert "Evel" Knievel, who was from Butte, and apparently spent a day selling policies at the Montana State Hospital while he was a salesman for Combined Insurance. Was this hospital not sometimes known as "Deer Lodge" at the time? Thinking maybe you would know. I'm sorry I can't figure out how to email you– it's ridiculous. I guess, just let me know if you still have high resolution for that one shot, and maybe I'll figure it out :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subiej (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, "Deer Lodge" is the slang for the Montana State Prison, which is just outside of Deer Lodge, Montana, a town about 20-30 miles down the road from the state hospital. I'll go ahead and try to get you my original shot, though it was taken with a cheap camera and isn't all that great. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Re removal of infobox from Marias Massacre

BW, I think this needs much wider discussion if indeed you think the military conflict infobox is inappropriate for this article. There are several other massacre articles: Wounded Knee Massacre, Bear River Massacre, and Sand Creek massacre that employ this infobox. I am sure I could find others as well. I don't think unilaterally deciding it is unappropriate for the Marias Massacre article is the right move. If you feel strongly about this, I would suggest surfacing it at the Military History project to see if there is wider support for removing the infobox from massacre related articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough but it's not the military project's decision alone. Does Warsaw Ghetto Uprising have a "military conflict infobox? Seriously. Shooting innocent civilians is a "military conflict? Worldwide? Montanabw^(talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Warsaw article does have a conflict infobox, as does Washita River, which bears some strong similarities to the Marias River attack/massacre. Intothatdarkness 15:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. That is batshit crazy. Seriously, will Columbine High School massacre also get one? Shooting unarmed people is "military"? Help me out here. Why not use {{Infobox civilian attack}} (as was done for My Lai or something similar that doesn't glorify criminal behavior as "military?" Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't say I agree with some of the points. Sorry. I've worked from time to time trying to get the Marias article in better shape (even if I don't fully agree with Mike's citation format), and honestly don't care if there's a box there or not. I can see the utility, but didn't miss it when it wasn't there. I'm more interested in adding facts (like the scout intentionally misidentifying the village). Technically one might contend that a military box might be appropriate since a military unit was involved (not that I am advocating that, mind) and also take issue with the statement that the village was unarmed, but those are asides. The Warsaw article does need (IMO) a conflict box, since the Resistance groups were recognized by the Allies as armed combatants (Stalin's decision to encourage the rebellion and then stand by is one of the many crimes that can be tallied against him, IMO).Intothatdarkness 16:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess per Warsaw if a lot of people shot back, I can live with that. But if My Lai uses the civilian attack infobox, then I think the most obvious cases (Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Marias) should as well. Would I be jumped on if I swapped the boxes? Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree 100% with Marias being lumped into the same category as Sand Creek, honestly. But then again, I didn't mind that it didn't have an infobox originally. The whole Marias mess is a touch more complicated than Sand Creek (and there is also isn't any evidence I've seen of atrocities, which were the rule and not the exception at Sand Creek and My Lai). I wouldn't strongly object if you switched the boxes, but I also wouldn't support such a change as required in this instance. I would support it for Sand Creek, though. Intothatdarkness 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not complicated in the least. Heavy Runner was unarmed and peaceful, but press at the time made it out to be otherwise. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

He was peaceful (although let's be real...it's very unlikely he was unarmed), but not every element of the village was. There's also the issue of Cobell deliberately misidentifying the village (which was not a factor at My Lai). I'm not debating that Baker was a moron (he was), but he also was convinced (by Cobell) that he was attacking the camp of Mountain Chief (or at least the camps of Big Horn and Red Horn). No such confusion took place at My Lai. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Shooting a visibly unarmed man waving a paper should be viewed as problematic at the least. Blaming the scouts is not going to cut it. Pretty much like Wounded Knee being justified because one old man's gun went off when they tried to take it from him. Seriously, where's your Second Amendment street cred here?  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the accounts. Cobell (the scout who deliberately misidentified the village) later claimed he was the one who shot Heavy Runner (with the full intent of starting an engagement). I really think you're reaching here. Baker chose to believe Cobell instead of Kipp, which makes him an idiot. But that doesn't turn this into the sort of deliberate massacre you seem intent on finding. Intothatdarkness 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Which accounts? Most of the contemporary ones were loaded with "evil natives" propaganda. At least we agree that Baker was an idiot!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 15:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ebe's book (which is devoted to the Marias Massacre) discusses the Cobell story, as does Hutton's piece in "Phil Sheridan and his Army." I specifically cited Hutton's account in the article (even though Mike took out the page number when he changed the citation style). Kim Scott's biography of Doane also touches on this a bit. And the contemporary accounts are divided between "evil natives" and "drunken butchers"...don't forget that the Marias was used by both sides (by both sides I mean within the Anglo community) for their own ends. I'm not saying that this was some sort of valiant battle or anything, but I do firmly believe there is a marked difference between what happened on the Marias and what happened at My Lai or some of the other examples you gave on the article talk page. Intothatdarkness 15:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cannot locate Ebe on WorldCat - what is the title? In my view, it is not required that the noncombatants be wholly unarmed and unable to defend themselves for it to be a "civilian" attack. Contemporary analysis is pretty much universal that this was an attack on noncombatants: (for the short version). But, if we set this one aside due to the debate, tell me how you would view the same question for Sand Creek or Wounded Knee? Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry...typo on my part. It's Ege, and the book is "Tell Baker to Strike Them Hard." Hutton's book came out after Malone's survey history, and most of the more specialist literature on the Indian Wars (Utley, et. al.) has a similar interpretation to Hutton. I though I'd already mentioned Sand Creek above, but I'd support a massacre box there. Likely the same for Wounded Knee, although there are some differences between it and Sand Creek. Sand Creek and My Lai are very similar in far too many ways. The biggest difference is that Chivington and his militia didn't really care who they were attacking, and there is ample evidence of widespread atrocities committed by the unit. With Wounded Knee, I suspect that the majority of the Seventh Cavalry (along with most of the officers who'd been with the regiment since 1876) really didn't care who they were attacking, either. At the Marias, Baker thought (or allowed himself to be persuaded by Cobell) that he was attacking the correct village when in fact he was not. He'd also encountered at least one smaller camp prior to Heavy Runner's and took them prisoner rather than killing them. Intothatdarkness 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for DAP Racing

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

not DA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering

My brief foray into the gender gap project has been almost surreal. On the one hand, I really identify with and support what you said there:

See? You just proved my point: Women don't support other women, but instead, when a woman stands up for herself against bullies, other women turn on us and tell us how we are to blame! 

But I'm unsure of what your take is on my experience there. I have spent a good part of my editing time defending myself from male editors, and one female (who has also joined the gender gap project). Now, rather than showing any signs of understanding, I'm being lectured or ignored by men and women there. Do you have any sympathy for this sister? If not, I'll just beg your pardon and move along. Btw: I enjoyed the poem. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of feeling like it's a small alternative reality there. And when the porn guy joined to just bug you and be a troll, that was twilight zone. That said, it's happening all over the internet. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't feel like I'm going crazy - so much. Here is one of my favorite poems for you:

The Kookaburras, by Mary Oliver.

--Lightbreather (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the poem. And don't worry, you aren't going crazy, but the problem is usually more the character of various individuals than a male/female thing. It's big city and there are a lot of good people but also some real trolls and a few flat=out scary sorts. There are also a lot of decent people who just misunderstand one another and it escalates to more hostility. Montanabw^(talk) 06:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Corsican horse

Translation problem ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See Corsican horse history and this discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

GAN

Hello Montanabw. I have a question: Why did you review the most recent GAN in Sports & Recreation? Wouldn't it be better to review an article that has been languishing in the queue for months not hours? I'm sure there is a valid reason. Cheers NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's about a horse and it was an article that was flagged in the updates for WikiProject Horse racing. Nothing more complicated than that. If there are any other horse articles languishing in the queue - which I HAVEN'T been involved with - I'd be glad to review something older. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Xenia Field

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr.

Hi, Just letting you know that I’ve added a note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. I tried pinging you, but that doesn’t seem to work. Thanks  NQ  talk 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion or two

Hello M. I made a few fixes to your 3rr report to make the links work. I hope that is okay with you and I apologize if it isn't. If the IP doesn't get blocked and keeps making the same edit you might want to make a post on the talk page of the article in question about why the addition is inappropriate. That will help in any future situations. Also remember that you can file a RFPP if the IP persists. Now these are just suggestions and you do not have to act on them. I know I have seen another editor with this My Little Pony obsession but darned it I can remember who or when. Maybe the memory banks will come up with something. If so I will let you know. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is just a minor annoyance, but seriously, Bronies as a form of horse worship? i don't think so...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 02:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Pesky

My apologies for not spotting your response to my query about Pesky on Eric's talk page earlier. Please would you pass on my best wishes to her if/when you next meet up on Facebook or wherever. She has had a rough time lately. I'm sure I'm not the only one who misses her here but, more importantly, I think that she needs to know that people care. I do. . - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I'll let her know. Montanabw^(talk) 01:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please include me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

California Chrome

Thanks for the heads up. Read the latest product. It is better to focus on the horse. The Coburn's have obviously been filling in the blanks while the camera's are focused on them. They are precariously straddling the line between hyping their story and crossing over into the pool where untruths muddy the waters.

I suspect that much of it is already known to the media who are just waiting to film Coburn pass out with bourbon in hand. For instance, the Martin's never complained about their treatment at the Kentucky Derby. Don't know what was wrong with the Coburn's and why they generated such a story...except to keep focus on themselves. Churchill does have a long way to go in terms of physically challenged patrons and the use of volunteers but they have appeared to be trying to do the right thing. Then there is the issue of Coburn not wanting to sell his share of CC for six million for 51%. How could sell 51% when he owns 30%? I suspect that this is the major problem when citing interviews as sources followed by not checking the facts. It takes a lot of time and several different journalists to get at the truth after a poorly written article is based on skewed interviews. It seems to me that a lot of interesting things will come tumbling out in the future...if anyone will be interested at that time.

Loved your work and will try to follow your future projects.------greensodagal (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)