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 vain common-kissing vassal!

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 tottering toad-spotted flax-wench.

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)

Just curious

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

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

I'll check with him. I didn't write the article about me, but I do edit it from time to time. Gary D Robson (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting Back in

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

@Stellabystarlight: I'd be glad to help you along. Can you point me to anything already up that got tag-bombed and I can look at it? (I'll look at Silky Sullivan too) Also, is there a horse not yet having an article you'd like to start one for? (We could work on it in a sandbox for a bit before taking it live) I think it's a great idea to do more articles on horses of the past, particularly if you ahve the sources right on your bookshelf. The trick is to write in a dry, rather boring, "just the facts" encyclopedic style - yet not put people to sleep! The master of this stuff is probably @Tigerboy1966: who can whip up a basic article faster than -- hmmm -- Secretariat? (Wait, Secretariat can't edit wikipedia, he can't even use a computer and he's dead, but never mind... work with me here! LOL) Also @Ealdgyth: has done a lot of articles that went GA and FA on famous historic Quarter Horse sires, and she has a lot of book sources. (See, e.g. Go Man Go, Barbara L, etc...) My advice on writing articles that will pass muster is to 1) avoid overuse of adjectives, particularly flowery ones ("greatest", "magnificent" etc...), 2) Footnote every. freaking. thing., (sure there is WP:POPE but no one actually believes it...) and 3) as far as books go, they are perfectly fine so long as you demonstrate a track record of accuracy. Montanabw^(talk) 15:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with articles on US horses pre-1990 is that the google news search was changed. You can't do an archive search anymore, and the date range search DOES NOT WORK! Looking at articles like Roman Brother or Hasty Road which I did some expansion work on a while back, I honestly don't know how I'd do them now. Maybe things will change, I'd love to do some work on Fort Marcy (horse) for instance. TIP, the best way to get a bit of colour into a factual article is to use sourced quotations. There is a difference between "Neddy produced an explosive turn of speed" and "Neddy produced what the Daily Planet's Jim Journo described as "an explosive turn of speed"". Tigerboy1966  17:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

(talk page stalker) Hi Tigerboy1966 and Stellabystarlight. You can still search the Google news archives. Go to http://news.google.com/newspapers. Here's an example of a search on "Silky Sullivan", and here's one on "Fort Marcy". Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for that. I did try this page before with little success, but it seems fine now. Tigerboy1966  17:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Please, please keep the race updates going. It is a very important and much appreciated task. Good luck with the book: would be honoured if you used any of the WP articles I've contributed to. Tigerboy1966  19:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Bach Magnificat un-redux

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

@Yngvadottir: and @Gerda Arendt:: In my humble opinion, if Francis is doing something that requires admin tools to fix, then he is probably doing it against consensus. He seems to be forum-shopping (deliberately or otherwise) by posting things at multiple articles so no one has the faintest clue what precisely he is doing, and then claiming there is no objection to his proposals, and in the process the multiple threads cloud the picture considerably. My advice is just. say. no. -- and watchlist all articles involved. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm looks like @Drmies: was also involved, so I shall ping him to this discussion as well. Gerda is the Bach expert (though she may be modest and deny it), I'm the style, flow, structure wikignome. Who likes to sing Baroque music sometimes. Particularly at this time of year. Montanabw^(talk) 19:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, he made multiple article moves as well as merges of material, and consensus has now been firmly established against him. So I feel safe leaving the material moves for others to revert, but are there any article moves that non-admins can't revert because there is now an edited redirect in the way? There's no big haste, except that I'd like to get it all squared away to make it clear to him that he cannot violate consensus like this; and there is a pending DYK submission involving Gerda's newer article, so its title needs to be established. Yes, Drmies closed the merge discussion (and deleted a merged draft); I've pinged him at my talk. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeating: Move the present Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 over Magnificat (Bach) - as it was in the beginning, to keep it simple. No problem with that name as long as BWV 243a can co-exist. Collect all discussions on those two on Talk:Magnificat (Bach) and archive ;) - Discuss things like the enormous table. - I added so much to BWV 243a today that there can't be much duplication left, and it doesn't bother me anyway. Some things are actually even more different than I first thought. Looks as bit as if we had a female and a male version now, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ps: yes, the move over redirect requires admin tools, otherwise I had done it myself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

That was what I thought you might want. I have moved Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 (back) to Magnificat (Bach), and I have attempted to history merge the two talk pages. I will leave you folks to archive. I hope I didn't mess it up, it's awfully fiddly. You folks, check for redirects that are now pointing to the wrong place. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Like Gerda said, and if she needs you to fix anything further, I presume everyone has this thread on their watchlist so we can all converse here as needed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for graciously hosting this, and renaming and merging. My talk: Francis saying that he adjusted to the move today which was reverted, true. (As I said before, he moved things in before, which I don't mind being there if nobody else does.) - Revert the revert and take discussion from there? - No more for me today, please!! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

When something is this messed up, sometimes the best approach is to provide a permalink to the "right" version and then rebuild from there with any article improvemnts that have occurred since. When it is convenient, Gerda, perhaps post that URL here? Montanabw^(talk) 21:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Answered my talk: forward please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA-related discussions

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

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

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

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

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

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

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

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

Karma in Buddhism

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

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

Dalai Lama's Gelug school is weird

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

LOL, you know that's not how I roll, I must hold you to an equally demanding standard. My understanding is that the Mahayana tradition has four or six subdivisions, and I don't quite see that any of the mainstream versions are any more "weird" than any other...  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Dalai Lama's Gelug school is weird for many reasons:

a.Shugden

b.Tsongkhapa's weird Madhyamaka

c.weird views on karmamudra

d.as the newest tibetan school, it derives its lineages and teachings from the other tibetan schools. Yet it is sectarian.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Denominational differences, I see. NKT aside, do you mean weird as in "Mainstream protestants compared to Catholics" weird, "Southern Baptists to mainstream Protestants" weird, "Mormons as to mainstream Protestants" weird or...? I have sort of figured that NKT is "Scientologists compared to everyone" weird.

Maybe Gelugs are as weird as Mormons. Although the Gelugs became the majority school since the Gelugs took over the Tibetan government around the time of the Fifth Dalai Lama.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

The other 3 major schools Sakya, Nyingma and Kagyu.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

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

P

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

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

the lion shall lie down with the lamb...

Something strange is going on here. You have thanked me twice today. We are mortal horse enemies. We shouldn't be agreeing with each other. Oh great, I see where Hafs is spamming your talk page too. Hafs is like a fly bothering a horse.  :) Bgwhite (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: The enemy of my enemy is my friend? (Heeheeheeheeheeeee!) Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how to ping you about articles

Read your comment and have no idea how to "ping" you. I am a researcher and a writer, not a programmer and often find Wikipedia difficult to navigate. The two articles are written. I think? you can access them here Draft:Kansas Act of 1940 and Draft:Tillie Hardwick. Thank you for your help. Truly appreciate it. SusunW (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@SusunW: You "pinged" nicely! Here on Wiki, we tend to use "ping" colloquially as in "let me know - somehoe!" Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Woot! Thank you very, very much for your help and input. This program is unwieldy in its messaging abilities. I made 2 minor changes to the Kansas Act as well. Do I do anything to resubmit it? Also how does one put the banner on it, or does the "creator" once it has been reviewed do that? And yes, the Kansas piece was harder. Hard to find sources on a 70 year old piece of legislation. So predominantly had to base it on the 2 I found. But, it was hugely important to Native American law so I felt it needed its own article. Haven't yet read the changes to the Hardwick piece, but will do that next. SusunW (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Bless you. Thanks for fixing the footnotes on Hardwick. Finding citations is not difficult, putting them into an article is the worst. I finally figured out last night (after 6 months on here) how to use the little templates thingy, though I have no clue what half of the information is. Same questions on this one, do I do anything to resubmit it or put the banner on it? SusunW (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2014 (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…
12		Varnish roan (talk)						Add sources
278		Respiratory alkalosis (talk)						Add sources
2		Prime Defender (talk)						Add sources
2		Kalgoorlie Kid (talk)						Add sources
42		Show hunter (talk)						Add sources
44		Knabstrupper (talk)						Add sources
21		Competitive trail riding (talk)						Cleanup
34		Byerley Turk (talk)						Cleanup
15		Digital Forensics Framework (talk)						Cleanup
4		Bluegrass Cat (talk)						Expand
6		Narita Brian (talk)						Expand
1,260		Joan Collins (talk)						Expand
97		Horse slaughter (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
4		Ali Arshad Mir (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
221		Nez Perce people (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
126		Purebred (talk)						Merge
46		Citrus hybrids (talk)						Merge
33		Synthetic racetrack surfaces for horse racing (talk)						Merge
15		Pat Day (talk)						Wikify
480		Stocking (talk)						Wikify
14		Tevis Cup (talk)						Wikify
1		Iza Valentine (talk)						Orphan
3		Unicycle Football League (talk)						Orphan
2		Sacred Light (talk)						Orphan
1		La Fair (talk)						Stub
5		Kingman (horse) (talk)						Stub
24		Siberian jay (talk)						Stub
9		Bend-Or spots (talk)						Stub
3		Security Industry Registry (talk)						Stub
133		Choker (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) 02:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, best wishes for a happy holiday season ...

		Happy Holiday Cheer!
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Hafspajen (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yellowstone Art Museum

I have some images I took sometime back that I can load to commons for her to use.

But thank you VERY MUCH for the tip!

Sara goth (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Gina Gray

I wasn't actually planning to write an article, when a friend sent me this obituary today, but...she is fascinating. She was at Wounded Knee. She painted paintings owned by royalty. What can I say? Would you be so kind as to look this one over when you can? Is it possible to use the photograph in the obituary but crop out the words at the bottom? It seems to me that as it has accompanied numerous news articles they have released it to public domain, but I don't know that.

I promise, no new articles until after the New Year. :) Draft:Gina Gray Hope you and yours have a happy holiday, in whatever fashion you celebrate the dead of winter. (I am happy to live in the tropics at this time of year.) SusunW (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries! I'll answer further on your talk page and keep it watchlisted. Montanabw^(talk) 20:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You rock! Thank you again for all of your help. SusunW (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spotted White Reply

I missed your comment over on the OR Noticeboard (I did reply now that I saw it) and thought the discussion had been archived so I edited the Splashed White article with a note on the talk page. Since we are still discussing it please feel free to revert my edits. We can continue our discussion either at ORN or on the talk page at Splashed White whichever you prefer. Please ping me on my talk page, that will send me an email notice since I do not edit enough to notice something on my watch list. JBH (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (JBH == jbhunley) PS Merry Christmas!

I will discuss that further at the Splashed white article talk. Thanks for the ping and merry christmas to you. Montanabw^(talk) 00:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply at Splashed White Talk. Hope you enjoy the New Year! JBH (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Help! Anyone?

Can @Montanabw: or anyone who watches her talk page help me with an edit, okay a bunch of editing :-). I'm working on the termination policy and need some other editors to weigh in. Looks like anyone else who was working on this page stopped looking at in in 2011. If you could read through the Talk:Indian termination policy sections on Republican Administrations?, 14 Termination Laws, Number of tribes/bands terminated?, and Arthur V. Watkins and offer any insight or comment, it would be very much appreciated. SusunW (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who works on Congressional legislation ought to take a look at this. I think SusunW is looking for folks to collaborate with on this. Perhaps @Wehwalt: can take a look and recommend other users who can help! Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Gracias, mi amiga. Truly appreciate the input and assistance. SusunW (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so based on what you and @Maunus and Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·: said, I am going to try to make redlinks and break out the larger sections into articles which will only be briefly summarized on the main page. Think that will make it a whole lot easier. I'm gonna see if I did this right because am about to push the button and create Creating Klamath Termination Act would that be here? Klamath Termination Act and if it works, who puts the banner on it, etc.? And thanks for the tips on my user page as well. SusunW (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it worked excellently.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yay for Susun! Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yay! except that I have no idea how Maunus created the talk or bannered (is that a word?) the page or put that stuff at the bottom. BUT, I am learning how to use this beast :) SusunW (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Usually you can just copy and paste the stuff from one article to the next. Use the history to compare each of his edits and see what he did... Montanabw^(talk) 03:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I did I copypasted the source code for the banner from the article on indian termination policy and pasted into the empty talkpage. The code looks like this: {{NorthAmNative|class=start}}, this is what creates the wikiproject banner.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply to message

Yes, I know that the women are peers suo jure. In the category, the reference provided shows that women in the House of Lords wanted to be treated as suo jure peers. The point being that peers are always suo jure while peeresses are sometimes suo jure sometimes not. This is because a woman's title does not elevate her husband to a peer unless in special cases (usually if he is a titleholder in his own right) . Peer is more of a status than a title so it can refer to both men and women when referring to the suo jure titleholder.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, and that makes sense (God forbid what Wilfrid Blunt would have done with a peerage...!) I just was trying to figure out what was going on with the category changes there. Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Tough editor

Feel like helping with the COI at Aro gTér? I could use your help. I'm having trouble with a page with what I think is an obvious COI and stubborn editor... let's just say it needs degaussing of its hagiographical/highly biased writing. The Aro gTér people are a fringe cult; not exactly one but plastic shaman-y, and I think they are editing the page with bias. I'm so not interested in a knife fight right now but I see clear page ownership issues at minimum. You are tough and let's just say I'm not tough right now. Ogress _smash! 07:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a peek. NEver heard of them, so my neutrality should be intact. Montanabw^(talk) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

They are a very tiny cult. While the New Kadampa Tradition is notable, I don't see why Aro should have a Wikipedia page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cattle

No idea if it is another example of drive by tagging, but the article has been nominated for GA by other editor. Few dead links and few tagged with {{cn}}. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That article is definitely not ready, I'll take a peek. Stalkers: stampede over to cattle. Montanabw^(talk) 16:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Cows and pigeons

I don't know if you're up for it, but Passenger pigeon looks almost ready to go to GA as is, bar a bit of copyediting and addressing some tags. Is that something you think you could have a stab at? I remember Bill Bryson being quite scathing about their extinction. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one to edit, but I'd be glad to help wikignome for someone who is. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 17, 2015

You did a great job on the TFA paragraph. I trimmed just a bit and squeezed in one more thing, see what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that William Robinson Brown, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 17 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For providing very useful information about tagging and reviewing. Thank you! TheMagikCow (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Montanabw!

Happy New Year!

Montanabw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Hafspajen (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Carter County Museum, Heart of the North Rodeo

Checking out the new pages feed, these crossed my eye and I thought of you: Carter County Museum, Heart of the North Rodeo. Lightbreather (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes. Mutton busting. Sigh. Don't know whether to feel sorrier for the children or the sheep (not what you think...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Montanabw!

Happy New Year!

Montanabw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Je Tsongkhapa -- Academic Views section rewrite

Hi Montanabw, and Happy New Year!

I am about to start the research to fulfill my promise to rewrite Je_Tsongkhapa#Academic_views. That section currently contains no actual information on Tsongkhapa's academic views per se, just brief observations about his views by other scholars, most (or all) of which could be described as critical (especially when you consider that deviating from the Indian Buddhist tradition is commonly used as a critique among Tibetan philosophers, as odd as that seems to modern sensibilities).

In brief, I am proposing to summarize Tsongkhapa's substantial and influential body of philosophical work, along with some of the major lines of criticism and rejoinder that have arisen. This includes scholarly opinions abut the import and influence Tsongkhapa's oeuvre. I will draw from both modern and traditional secondary sources, many of which I listed in Talk:Je_Tsongkhapa#Criticism_section_low_quality.2C_not_NPOV. Most if not all of the current material will appear in the rewritten section, but in context of Tsongkhapa's actual views and the views of his critics (unlike the way that material appears now).

Before I start on this substantial project, however, I would like to get any feedback or advice that you, @Joshua Jonathan: or @VictoriaGrayson: might have on how to proceed to insure a smooth process. I can assure you that I have every intention of observing your concerns in Talk:Je_Tsongkhapa#General_tone_of_this_article. But if there is any question from you (or anyone) about exactly what that means or my ability to do that, I would like to discuss it privately, if that is possible.

Thanks. djlewis (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)