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 gleeking flap-mouthed whey-face!

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 reeky rough-hewn scut.

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)

Cayuse horse

What's it ambiguous with? Per WP:NAMB, I cannot see the point of a hatnote since there is nothing on Cayuse that could be confused with "Cayuse horse". —Xezbeth (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The horse is actually WP:PRIMARY in terms of common use, that said, I prefer to give a nod to the lesser-known ethnic group. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

But the dab page is currently the primary topic. "Cayuse horse" does not refer to the ethnic group. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What about

A race, California Cup Distaff that according to this source[1] hasn't been raced since 2012....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@WilliamJE:, what I'm getting is that the California Cup Distaff (a turf race)apparently merged into the (California) Sunshine Millions Filly and Mare Turf Sprint and that there is a Cal Cup Derby and Oaks now too, but I think on dirt [2] horseracingnation. com/stakes/California_Cup_Distaff_H.

What horse topics need help?

You said there were plenty of horse subjects that need articles or rewriting. Well, I'll help if I know anything about them. Which ones need it the most? White Arabian mare (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@White Arabian mare: Take a look at Category:Stub-Class_equine_articles. We have 1,300 stubs. Anything there needs expansion and improvement! Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at Talk:Jenny (donkey).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See edit war at Brahma page

See edit war at Brahma pageVictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

See Moonsell on Tibetan Buddhism talk

See Moonsell on Tibetan Buddhism talk.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you remember Moonsell.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Montanabw. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I don't remember if I sent you an invite before, so if not, check this out. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 27 August 2015 (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)

WP:TPO

You just deleted my comment here. That's my comment and you shouldn't even been changing it. If you do it again I'll make a report at WP:ANI.Curb Chain (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Quit making threats, I didn't see it in the editing window, I may have brought up an earlier version, or else we had an editing conflict. WP:AGF. I restored the comment and closed the discussion. Please don't bother threatening me with ANI, you've done it a half-dozen times already and you seem to have forgotten that every time it's been a WP:BOOMERANG. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You restored it, but you shouldn't be archiving it.Curb Chain (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you did ask...!

Hi Montana, well, you did ask for it: I now have an at FAC ripe for reviewing! Should you have any thoughts or comments they will, of course, be most welcome. Sorry there is no horse angle on this one, but the next one in the series (now at PR) at least has a trip to a fixed horse race at Saratoga to look forward to! All the best – SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's have a beer to celebrate!

Thanks for reviewing United States v. Kagama, a newly promoted featured article. GregJackP Boomer! 16:59, 29 August 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)

Keen Ice and the Griz'...

pull the upset this afternoon. Freddiem (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Heh, the Griz winning is NEVER an upset! LOL! (but bummer for Pharoah, though Keen Ice is a good horse) Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Keen Ice is just about the best horse to be a millionaire with only two career wins. Hah! Just think, Kent took off him to ride his brother's horse. Gotta think going to Saratoga was all the Zayats' idea and not Bob's. Freddiem (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Judging by the way that Baffert was chewing his gum into mush, I think you are right. See our paragraph in the American Pharoah article about the Travers. Zayat is pouting a bit right now, hope he recovers, the Breeders' Cup beckons. Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, took a look at the article. Have to think they should have went straight to the Penna. Derby but hey today was much more entertaining. Gotta think Baffert will just want to train to the BC, if he does run hafta think they will just stay at home and go in the Goodwood, none of this flying back and forth across the country nonsense. Freddiem (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, I think he should just take a break and train up for the BC. California fans want to see him one more time, anyway, give him an easy race. Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Saw your edit summary when I went to thank you, I guess it is the Awesome Again now, duh, I'm showing my age. Freddiem (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm old enough to make that mistake, it's just that I hadn't been following the races at Santa Anita (other than the Santa Anita Derby) until I started editing Wikipedia! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not closely following the SoCal races...like today when Jerry Bailey was talking about Victor Espinoza not riding much at Saratoga over the years, when he remarked about himself..."I didn't race much at Del Mar during my career because I was busy riding in the 'important races' here at home." Unbelievable...LOL! N.B. I'm from the Mid-Atlantic my whole life but I was just wearing today for the first time in years my stain filled Del Mar T-shirt. Freddiem (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting how the east-west sectional rivalry in horse racing is alive and well. And so weird. Montanabw^(talk) 05:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Friesian horse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dermopathy

Saratoga Race Course (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jim Dandy

Smart Little Lena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Futurity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 August 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[3] 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)

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

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer. Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups. For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 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…
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)

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)

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

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)