Talk:Cowboy

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

unspecified infraction

I made an edit to this page today. However, it was rejected citing "copyright infringement." The rejector never provided any context why. I cited all of my sources and used two images that are already on Wiki file. When I asked for help, I have yet to hear any response. Is there anyone I can run my edit by so that I get an understanding of what, if anything, I did wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justbean (talk • contribs) 13:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Justbean, as we have discussed on your talk-page, your first version of the material was reverted as a copyright violation and has now been hidden in the page history. I thought your second version was almost OK from a copyright point of view, though a few phrases needed some attention; apparently White Arabian Filly did not. For what it's worth, I think that the material is appropriate here, and would like to see it restored to the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, thank you so much for taking a look and for all your help. It's a little embarrassing, and frustrating, that I keep getting it "wrong." I guess I look at the page and didn't think I was doing something so different than what others had done. For example:

The historic American cowboy of the late 19th century arose from the vaquero traditions of northern Mexico and became a figure of special significance and legend.[1]

Perhaps this is the user's own words, but it reads like he/she took an observation from the source and cited it. Also, I come across sources that can't be checked online (books)...i.e. the Malone book is repeatedly cited. So, I don't understand how my paraphrasing is such an infraction, while the user citing Malone is not. Beyond that, I came across examples where the source is not even accessible anymore (History.com)...

The largely undocumented contributions of women to the west were acknowledged in law; the western states led the United States in granting women the right to vote, beginning with Wyoming in 1869.[67]

Yet, that remains.

I'm really confused about the way all this works...why one user's paraphrasing of a fact works, while another one's doesn't. Or why the definition of "cowboy" from Answers.com is not only used on this page, but also carries the same weight as other sources. White Arabian Filly, I didn't receive an email from you or any specifics as to where I apparently went wrong. Can you please advise? ThanksJustbean (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't send you an email because I don't have a personal email. I reverted you because the second edit looked to me to be the same as the first. Copyvio is one of the most serious problems with Wikipedia and is something I would rather be safe than sorry about, after seeing editors get blocked for it. I don't know how the stuff above got into the article. I didn't write it. It was probably added under the radar and nobody noticed it was too close to the source, so they didn't revert. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In short, the existence of problems in this article does not justify adding to them. The first problem is that a lot of the "history" in your ethnicity content was either not accurate, or is overly detailed and as such would be more appropriate in articles such as charro or vaquero. Second, you cannot misquote sources (as you did with the 2003 National Geograpic source -- the 15 to 30 percent claim is not contained there). You also cannot closely paraphrase sources. Most of all, your citations must be to reliable sources -- for things such as ethnicity and other controversial points of history, you have to be particularly careful. For cowboys, the picture is muddier because there is an awful lot of junk research done on the American west. (and sad to say, a lot of really bad research comes out of Germany, where cowboy culture is over-romanticized even worse than it is in America). Where material is unsourced, citations should be sought. But where content is cited, the existing citations should not be removed and overwritten by weaker content, as you did with the etymology section. You had some interesting content in the ethnicity sections you added, but they were, for one thing, over-long for an article that is an overview, and in some cases is lengthy history best placed elsewhere. They also contained over-broad statements (like "according to the US census") inaccurate sections (and had unsourced and mis-sourced content. I'm not opposed to seeing more on ethnicity and some of your sources are neutral, but overall, you made mass changes that were of undue weight and not of particularly good quality. Some sections might do well in spin-off articles, too. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

To wit: 1) Your ethnicity sections both say that "15 to 30 percent" of all cowboys are of X ethnic group... and badly sourced. 2) The current content on homosexuality could be improved, it isn't very good. But it needs one or two good paragrapha, not eight. That is a separate article. 3) The content on black cowboys also runs 12 paragraphs, that's also undue weight, and particularly when you go clear back to the 1700s, which is before the "American cowboy" era... 3) The sections on Hispanic cowboys dates to the 1400s and some of this content should go into the vaquero article, and much of it is already in articles. Again, undue weight. 4) The content on Native American cowboys is particularly poor. The stats on population decline don't even belong in this article, and they are highly controversial, to boot (I've heard estimates of anywhere between 50% and 95%) a statement like "in line with this decrease, Native Americans are estimated to have accounted for less than 1% of all cowboys" is sheer uncited original research. The rest is totally irrelevant to an article on cowboys, it's native american history and needs to go into an appropriate article on the horse culture of the plains (though some of it is still of questionable accuracy...and this is just for starters. I would be glad to have a sub-page created here to review this content and determine what could be added. Montanabw^(talk) 00:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

reversion justification

Please do not alter the comments of other users on a talkpage. If you choose to utilize a point-by-point discussion, you can use talkpage quotation to do so. Montanabw^(talk) 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

User altered above talkpage conversation to answer points raised one by one, but in doing so confused the discussion. Only solution to preserve both is to just copy the intervening edit here, but hatting

Montanabw, below I broke up the two paragraphs you addressed to me in order to answer your points to the best of my ability. Hope I didn't create confusion by answering each of your points in this manner... In short, the existence of problems in this article does not justify adding to them. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) I greatly disagree. Not only do I not see the problems you pointed out, but I also fail to see how my edits are substantially different from the current edits on the page. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) The first problem is that a lot of the "history" in your ethnicity content was either not accurate, or is overly detailed and as such would be more appropriate in articles such as charro or vaquero. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) It seems like you are putting "history" in quotes to undermine/minimize it. It is history...just like the rest of the history on the page. Beyond that, please let me know what is inaccurate, and what is overly detailed. Because while you may think of it as being overly detailed, it is actually there for context (see below). Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Second, you cannot misquote sources (as you did with the 2003 National Geographic source -- the 15 to 30 percent claim is not contained there). Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Two things here: 1) This was not my source. It was already on the Page...and has been so since Sept. 1, 2005. I simply accepted the source that was on the Page and reworded the content for efficiency. So, I'm being chastised for something I did not do. 2) Regardless, the quote is accurate. Per the source –– "One out of every three cowboys in the late 1800s was the Mexican vaquero." 1/3 is 33%. That's not a misquote...that's just math. Furthermore, the previous edit, before mine, said, "...cowboys of Mexican descent also averaged about 15% of the total." So, there was a range. A range between 15-33%. "15-30" is within that range, but I am happy to say 33% if you like; however, I gave deference to the range. If someone wants to dig further, isn't that what the source is there for? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) You also cannot closely paraphrase sources. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) I did not paraphrase. I wrote in my own words. I am aware of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing rules, which I took a lot of time to not violate. Again, I asked three editors to review my edit when I submitted it and let me know of any red flags, so that I could take it down if there was a problem. Those editors were fine with my edits, with one even writing another editor on my behalf. In addition, I ran a copyviol tool, provided to me by another editor, when I submitted the edit. My edit was clean. I did not copyvio. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Most of all, your citations must be to reliable sources... Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) "Reliable" is subjective, and is prone to Wiki bias given that of the top 20 news sites used as references on Wikipedia, 18 were owned by large for-profit news corporations... There is no uniform standard as to what constitutes "reputable"....only an editor's opinion. For example, on the Tulsa race riot page, I think there should be, at the very least, the same about of objection given the sources used on the page. For example, the page cites: 2011 History Thesis, Oklahoma City University Tulsa Tribune Race Riot blog, 18 June 2014 GOOD Magazine 8-page lesson plan for high school Students, 2013, Zinn Education Project/Rethinking Schools Subliminal.org digitalprairie.com chroniclingamerica.loc.gov Public Radio Tulsa Yet, these sources still stand for a major historical event. Conversely, nothing has been pointed out as to why my sources are not "reputable," only that the editor, who reverted my edit, disagreed with them Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) -- for things such as ethnicity and other controversial points of history, you have to be particularly careful. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Why is it that including, what was excluded, "controversial" when it involves race/gender/etc.? What is so controversial about anything that I wrote? If anything, it should be controversial that cowboys and cowgirls of color, etc. are so glaringly omitted from the current page. Yet, adding their historical, and recorded presence, is controversial? The page is on American cowboys. I provided additional context to American cowboys...simply acknowledging the fact that they weren't all straight white men. And that is a fact. So, how is providing more context to the American cowboy experience controversial? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) For cowboys, the picture is muddier because there is an awful lot of junk research done on the American west. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) With all due respect, that is an opinion, and the same could be said of research sourced for ANY page on Wiki. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) (and sad to say, a lot of really bad research comes out of Germany, where cowboy culture is over-romanticized even worse than it is in America). Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) I am familiar with Germany's fixation on cowboys, yet none of my sources was German. The one source that's title is noted (in German) is not a German book, but this one which is published by Thames & Hudson...in New York. However, even if I did use a German source, just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean that it's inaccurate or not reputable.Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) Where material is unsourced, citations should be sought. But where content is cited, the existing citations should not be removed and overwritten by weaker content, as you did with the etymology section. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Four things here: 1) "Weaker content." That's subjective. This should not be about "weak" or "strong" content, but "accurate." And you've provided nothing to suggest that my source (i.e. in the etymology section) is inaccurate. Only that you reject it...because you do. 2) Furthermore, my edit followed the tradition of previous notes of the etymology. No one knows where "cowboy" really came from. For example, on the current page it says this: "It appears to be a direct English translation of vaquero..." "Originally, the term may have been intended literally—"a boy who tends cows." And in one of your own past edits of this section, you wrote, "This term appears to have developed after the creation of the Hacienda system... So, how is me saying ,"The term may also have been derived from slave job descriptions on Texas ranches e.g. a house boy who tended the house, a yard boy who tended the field, and a "cow boy" who tended the cattle" any different? Justbean (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC) 3) FYI...here's another source that further supports my edit 4) I cited everything. Am I expected to cite every sentence? If I do so, then I will be accused of plagiarizing...so this seems like a Catch-22. For example, this is on the page: "The English word cowboy has an origin from several earlier terms that referred to both age and to cattle or cattle-tending work." Where's its citation? Why is this allowed to stand without a citation, yet every sentence I wrote is scrutinized? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) You had some interesting content in the ethnicity sections you added, but they were, for one thing, over-long for an article that is an overview, and in some cases is lengthy history best placed elsewhere. I'm not opposed to seeing more on ethnicity and some of your sources are neutral, but overall, you made mass changes that were of undue weight and not of particularly good quality. Some sections might do well in spin-off articles, too. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) This is a matter of perspective. Please note the communication with Cullen328 in the tea room... "Another problem that I see is that you are trying to add significant new content that unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys. Black cowboys would end up appearing far more important than Mexican cowboys, for example. I think that a better solution is to create a new article on Black cowboys linked from the main Cowboy article, and to add a brief summary of the new content to that article." Cullen328Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC) "Cullen328 I don't see how it unbalances the coverage. The entire article was unbalanced to begin, given its default that cowboys are white. It's unclear why "cowboys" can't include all cowboys, or why black, Mexican, etc. should have their own pages. I thought the page is about American cowboys. If that's true, then, as of now...white cowboys are appearing far more important than all others...which is inaccurate, given that others accounted for 40-60 percent (per census) of all cowboys. It seems that including cowboys of color others shouldn't necessitate the need for them to be separate. That's akin to saying white cowboys are the "default"...and others are subcategories. So, while I see no harm in cowboys of color having a separate page...I also don't see why they have to be relegated on this page (as Cowgirls have their own sizable section), or re-directed to other pages. As for Mexican cowboys...I simply didn't do that edit. But, I also don't see why I need to do the edit on Mexican cowboys, et al. in order for the edit on Black cowboys to be accepted?" Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC) "The article had a section describing the regional ethnic variations among cowboys and I see no default assumption in the article before you began editing that cowboys were white. I am not arguing that anything be "relegated" and agree that you are working to add useful content. But all additions need to take into account the full article and often it is better to create more detailed sub articles rather than to allow the original article to evolve in a sprawling, disorganized fashion. As for cowgirls, I would support a separate article for them as well. In my opinion, Black cowboys and cowgirls are discrete topics covered in detail in many books that, in my view, deserve separate articles. This is a matter of editorial judgment to be decided by consensus, and I am expressing my opinion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC) "Cullen328 that's my point. You don't have to say cowboys are white...the default is that they just are. It's a given. Look at all the artwork on the page, or the section that talks about the Cowboy image. This is why it has to be explained that there were non-white cowboys. It's the same if/when reading a story. If a character is not white, it has to be pointed out...otherwise people assume/default that the character is white. But...back to the article, there are, in fact, other references in the Cowboy article where cowboys are mentioned as, or alluded to being, white: "American cowboys were drawn from multiple sources. By the late 1860s, following the American Civil War and the expansion of the cattle industry, former soldiers from both the Union and Confederacy came west, seeking work, as did large numbers of restless white men in general." "In the 19th century, most tribes in the area were dispossessed of their land and cattle and pushed south or west by white settlers and the United States government." "By the middle of the 19th century white ranchers were running large herds of cattle on the extensive open range of central and southern Florida." Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC) They also contained over-broad statements (like "according to the US census") inaccurate sections (and had unsourced and mis-sourced content. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) I disagree. I used the same verbiage the CIA uses, which is also found on demography pages such as the page for the Demography of the United States, where it states, "...according to the Census Bureau's estimation for 2012, 50.4% of American children under the age of 1 belonged to minority groups." I was stating demographics, so I used the source up front. How is that "over-broad," especially if it's accurate? Speaking of accuracy, what sections were inaccurate/mis-sourced? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) To wit: 1) Your ethnicity sections both say that "15 to 30 percent" of all cowboys are of X ethnic group... and badly sourced. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Three things: 1) I only had one ethnicity section, with three sub-sections in it. 2) Again, National Geographic (in the Mexican Cowboys section) was not my source. It was previously on the page, but if National Geographic is a bad source, then that's news to me. 3) Likewise, in the Black Cowboys section, I cited two books published by the University of Nebraska Press, which is an "academic publisher of scholarly and general-interest books," the English publisher of the last two Nobel laureates in literature, the publisher of the Definitive Journals of Lewis and Clark, the 12th largest publishing press in the US, and it specializes in scholarly works and historical works on the Great Plains. But somehow, when it comes to books on Black Cowboys, its reputation just flies out the window? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) 2) The current content on homosexuality could be improved, it isn't very good. But it needs one or two good paragrapha, not eight. That is a separate article. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Two things: 1) The homosexuality edit was there before I made my edit. I elaborated on it. It's eight paragraphs because I broke it up rather than force 2-3 big blocks, as I've often seen on pages. However, you had no issue with a section being 8+ paragraphs when you edited the Cowgirls section. In fact...you added four paragraphs to a section that already had four. So, why was it ok for a section you edited to be eight paragraphs (and is currently nine), but unacceptable for one I edited to be the same? Justbean (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC) 2) Furthermore, I've never seen any stipulation on wiki as to whether or not an editor has to "like" the content of an edit (i.e. "It isn't very good.") There are TONS of edits on Wiki that aren't very good. But an edit being good is subjective. Rather than focus on its "goodness," can we please focus on its accuracy? The info is accurate. It doesn't matter if anyone doesn't find it to be good because....it can be further added/edited by the community. Isn't that the point? For example, your own edit on Jan. 19, 2007 wasn't very good...nor was it "reasonably decent, tight, well-written, encyclopedic tone and properly sourced edits," as you demanded of me. In fact, for an entire new section you created, you only used one source...and only cited it once over eight paragraphs. Your source? The American Heritage Dictionary. Yet, you have the audacity to say that my sources are lacking, and to accuse me of "uncited original research" (below)? However, despite your infractions and lack of finesse at the time, your entire section was never reverted. And you've improved this page for the simple fact that you've edited it several hundred times, without scrutiny, over the last 10 years...so, now it's better. So, I don't understand why you're holding me to a different standard than you held yourself? Beyond that, shouldn't an edit's inclusion not come down to any editor's personal taste, but to "accuracy?" And if accuracy is the metric, then there is no reason as to why my edit should not be included. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) 3) The content on black cowboys also runs 12 paragraphs, that's also undue weight, and particularly when you go clear back to the 1700s, which is before the "American cowboy" era... Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Two things: 1) I don't understand why I'm not allowed to cite a year to establish context. For example, the current the vaquero section points to 1598, the current roundups section mentions the 16th Century, as do the Florida cowhunter, the Hawaiian Paniolo, and the "Other" sections. Since the page is already going back as far as 1598 in other sections, why can't my edit(s) do the same? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) 2) And here's the kicker...guess who wrote the roundups section? You did. Just like you wrote the "Other" section. So, you, yourself, referenced time periods "before the American cowboy" era to provide context to your own edit...but when I do it, for some unexplained reason, it's frowned upon. Justbean (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC) 4) The sections on Hispanic cowboys dates to the 1400s and some of this content should go into the vaquero article, and much of it is already in articles. Again, undue weight. Montanabw(talk) 00:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC) As for "undue weight," please refer to my communication with Cullen328 noted above. But also, please consider my communication with DESiegel below: As to whether the content should be spun out into a separate article, perhaps Black cowboys, I have not carefully considered the details, and have no firm opinion. Often that is a good way to handle specialized content on Wikipedia -- in many other cases it is not the best way. As I understand it, cowboys historically were of varied ethnic and racial backgrounds: Mexican, Black, and Anglo and some others. All of these should be mentioned in the main article Cowboys. However if content about any one of these is so extensive that it overwhelms the others, that might be a case of undue weight, and be best handled with a summery and a link to a separate, more detailed, article. But I am not saying that this is the best way to handle this specific case. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC) DES, I totally understand the importance of not having a sub-edit drown out the main edit. I mentioned this in in my TeaRoom comments a bit, but, to me the issue isn't whether Black Cowboys, Mexican Cowboys, etc. should get their own pages. The issue is that the Cowboy page is about American Cowboys...and there were black, Mexican, etc. cowboys. They shouldn't have to be separated out, especially when they accounted for 40-60% of actual cowboys. The issue isn't "including" them on their own page...it's that they were "left out" of this one. By leaving them out, and re-directing users to "specialized" pages...it does two things: it falsely perpetuates the inaccurate default image and understanding that [virtually all] cowboys were white it relegates black, Mexican, Native American cowboys into "other" subcategories that users must specifically search for which, by default, will not receive as many views as a broad major page So, the issue isn't inclusion, but exclusion. Justbean (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 5) The content on Native American cowboys is particularly poor. The stats on population decline don't even belong in this article, and they are highly controversial, to boot (I've heard estimates of anywhere between 50% and 95%) a statement like "in line with this decrease, Native Americans are estimated to have accounted for less than 1% of all cowboys" is sheer uncited original research. Montanabw(talk) 00:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Again with the "poor" and "controversial." I didn't say they were between 50%-95%....so that was irrelevant to bring up. Can we stick to my edit and not hypotheticals? And I didn't commit original research. I used multiple sources, Wiki's own numbers, and obvious math. If multiple sources say Mexican cowboys were between 15-30%, and other sources say that 15% were "Mexican, Native American and Chinese," the inference is that Mexican cowboys accounted for the majority. Native Americans have never made up even 1% of the population. So, by saying that the percentage of Native American cowboys was less than 1%...how is that inaccurate? No other outcome is even possible. Beyond that, this was in line with the decrease in overall population of Native Americans. I didn't say it was a causation, or even a correlation...but "in line with"...which simply means "comparable." Again, that is not inaccurate info that I just pulled from the sky. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC) The rest is totally irrelevant to an article on cowboys, it's native american history and needs to go into an appropriate article on the horse culture of the plains (though some of it is still of questionable accuracy...and this is just for starters. I would be glad to have a sub-page created here to review this content and determine what could be added. Montanabw(talk) 00:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC) This is not "irrelevant." For example, the stats on population decline go in line with context. This is where that Wiki Bias I mentioned could significantly impact what info is included/excluded on the page. Because people in the status quo never have to provide context about their existence/participation/relevance...because they are the default. This is not wordy, irrelevant Native American history to be sent away on some never-to-be-seen separate page, or some random sub-section on another Native American page. Rather, it's information that provides context about the presence/existence/participation of Native American cowboys. It's no different than the current page having this: (5) Regional traditions in the U.S. (5.1) California tradition (5.1.1) Buckaroos The California tradition and the Buckaroos provide more context to the Regional tradition in the U.S. I simply provided context without the bullet points. But it's literally the same logic. Furthermore, you did not extend me the same courtesy you've shown other editors or the deference you've shown for yourself. For example, you once restored an edit for this reason: "Inappropriate to delete without first offering editor an opportunity to locate a source." However, you didn't grant me that same courtesy. Rather, you reverted my entire edit...after no other editor (of three other editors whose approval I sought) had a single issue with it. Beyond that, you accused my writing of being "unencyclopedic" (which isn't even a word); however, with your own edit, you once reasoned that you wrote the way you did in order to "just rearrange things in hopes the narrative will flow a bit better." In addition, you've reverted "good faith" edits numerous times. Yet, from a person who willfully admits, "I sometimes do hit revert too hastily," you quickly reverted my edit, without any acknowledgment of the good faith effort I obviously poured into it. And, on top of that, you insult me by telling me "...you are someone who hasn't quite yet learned how to edit around here." Justbean (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Finally, I think I've answered all your questions, and in the process, showed how my edit is being treated differently. I'm not asking for anything more than you had when you started editing this page 10 years ago. Fairness, good faith, and an opportunity for the community to expand on it. Thx. Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus Request

I am requesting that the 22:57, 24 July 2017 version of this page, which I contributed, be restored in full.

I retract this request, and please disregard the content within this section. Issue is being resolved. Justbean (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that editor, Montanabw, is penalizing my contribution to this page by using WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics against me. I don't know if this Talk page is the best place for this, but sometimes context is required to expose subtleties, and started to go to to ANI, I found the process to be more like a cold checklist. So, I closed out my inquiry there and came here...to you.

The context for this request is somewhat lengthy, but important. So, if you don't have the time to consider the full breath of this request, or if you're unable to make an objective judgment about Montanabw as an editor –– for any reason –– I kindly ask that you refrain from weighing in. So, here goes...will break into 10 sections for ease:

1. On 08:39, 15 July 2017‎, I made an edit to this page adding a section on Black Cowboys. Due to a misunderstanding, my edit contained copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers correctly called me out on the infraction. He/She reverted my edit, but helped resolve my misunderstanding. I revised the edit and submitted a new version. However, White Arabian Filly thought my edit was WP:close following and, again, reverted it. I contested his/her finding, to which he/she said, "If your second edit was not a copyvio, which I'm perfectly willing to accept, then I would support adding it back." Justlettersandnumbers invited me to the Tea Room to help me gain more clarity.

2. In the Teahouse, Justlettersandnumbers voiced support for me: "I believe the editor's second attempt was very close to being perfectly OK." This was in line with the support he/she provided on the Talk page on my behalf as well: "For what it's worth, I think that the material is appropriate here, and would like to see it restored to the page."

3. However, also in the Teahouse, Cullen328 and DESiegel expressed that other editors might take exception to the length of my edit or cite undue weight –– but I received no red flags from them regarding copyvio. However, these new potential issues are things I disagreed with, inclusive of the edit alternatively being redirected from the Cowboy page to a new article. I went to lengths to explain my position and these three exchanges best sum it up:

a) "Another problem that I see is that you are trying to add significant new content that unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys. Black cowboys would end up appearing far more important than Mexican cowboys, for example. I think that a better solution is to create a new article on Black cowboys linked from the main Cowboy article, and to add a brief summary of the new content to that article." Cullen³²⁸Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cullen³²⁸ I don't see how it unbalances the coverage. The entire article was unbalanced to begin, given its default that cowboys are white. It's unclear why "cowboys" can't include all cowboys, or why black, Mexican, etc. should have their own pages. I thought the page is about American cowboys. If that's true, then, as of now...white cowboys are appearing far more important than all others...which is inaccurate, given that others accounted for 40-60 percent (per census) of all cowboys. It seems that including cowboys of color shouldn't necessitate the need for them to be separate. That's akin to saying white cowboys are the "default"...and others are subcategories. So, while I see no harm in cowboys of color having a separate page...I also don't see why they have to be relegated on this page (as Cowgirls have their own sizable section), or re-directed to other pages. As for Mexican cowboys...I simply didn't do that edit. But, I also don't see why I need to do the edit on Mexican cowboys, et al. in order for the edit on Black cowboys to be accepted?" Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"The article had a section describing the regional ethnic variations among cowboys and I see no default assumption in the article before you began editing that cowboys were white. I am not arguing that anything be "relegated" and agree that you are working to add useful content. But all additions need to take into account the full article and often it is better to create more detailed sub articles rather than to allow the original article to evolve in a sprawling, disorganized fashion. As for cowgirls, I would support a separate article for them as well. In my opinion, Black cowboys and cowgirls are discrete topics covered in detail in many books that, in my view, deserve separate articles. This is a matter of editorial judgment to be decided by consensus, and I am expressing my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Cullen³²⁸ that's my point. You don't have to say cowboys are white...the default is that they just are. It's a given. Look at all the artwork on the page, or the section that talks about the Cowboy image. This is why it has to be explained that there were non-white cowboys. It's the same if/when reading a story. If a character is not white, it has to be pointed out...otherwise people assume/default that the character is white. But...back to the article, there are, in fact, other references in the Cowboy article where cowboys are mentioned as, or alluded to being, white:

––"American cowboys were drawn from multiple sources. By the late 1860s, following the American Civil War and the expansion of the cattle industry, former soldiers from both the Union and Confederacy came west, seeking work, as did large numbers of restless white men in general."

––"In the 19th century, most tribes in the area were dispossessed of their land and cattle and pushed south or west by white settlers and the United States government."

––"By the middle of the 19th century white ranchers were running large herds of cattle on the extensive open range of central and southern Florida." ~Justbean (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

b) As to whether the content should be spun out into a separate article, perhaps Black cowboys, I have not carefully considered the details, and have no firm opinion. Often that is a good way to handle specialized content on Wikipedia -- in many other cases it is not the best way. As I understand it, cowboys historically were of varied ethnic and racial backgrounds: Mexican, Black, and Anglo and some others. All of these should be mentioned in the main article Cowboys. However if content about any one of these is so extensive that it overwhelms the others, that might be a case of undue weight, and be best handled with a summery and a link to a separate, more detailed, article. But I am not saying that this is the best way to handle this specific case. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DES, I totally understand the importance of not having a sub-edit drown out the main edit. I mentioned this in in my TeaRoom comments a bit, but, to me the issue isn't whether Black Cowboys, Mexican Cowboys, etc. should get their own pages. The issue is that the Cowboy page is about American Cowboys...and there were black, Mexican, etc. cowboys. They shouldn't have to be separated out, especially when they accounted for 40-60% of actual cowboys. The issue isn't "including" them on their own page...it's that they were "left out" of this one. By leaving them out, and re-directing users to "specialized" pages...it does two things:

1. it falsely perpetuates the inaccurate default image and understanding that [virtually all] cowboys were white
2. it relegates black, Mexican, Native American cowboys into "other" subcategories that users must specifically search for which, by default, will not receive as many views as a broad major page

So, the issue isn't inclusion, but exclusion.'' Justbean (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

c) Cullen³²⁸, again, I wasn't aware that I had to account for scope. Will take into consideration. However, I also didn't see my edit as being any bigger than the edit on Cowgirls. I honestly don't know when/how the cowgirl edit was added...But, if an edit is accurate, why should its size matter? In addition, no one has mentioned that the size of my edit is an issue. All I've heard is copyvio, although I have yet to receive any specifics. Justbean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

4. By this point, White Arabian Filly expressed support for inclusion of/an article on Black Cowboys, along with Justlettersandnumbers and DES: "I'm with DES and would support having a black cowboy article too." So, I went back to the drawing board to complete an edit that would address as many expressed potential issues as possible. I did several hours of research over four days. This resulted in me submitting the 19:00, 19 July 2017 version, using this copyvio tool to double-check the edit, and reaching out to Justlettersandnumbers, DES and White Arabian Filly with the following:

Hi all. I just wanted to thank you again and let you know that I took everyone's feedback to heart. I'm taking a chance and submitting a new edit. I tried really hard to cover everything, though I am not submitting in smaller chunks. This is one thing I decided to try, as the long edit provides context. The big do-over was really in making edits to the entirety of the Ethnicity section. Cullen³²⁸ pointed out that by only editing Black Cowboys, it "unbalances the coverage of the ethnic composition of American cowboys." While I think the balance of the ethnic composition is skewed toward white cowboys (as the "default"), and also find it an unfair burden to edit for ALL excluded minorities simply to include one, it was an issue that I wanted to take off the table. So, the new edit presents roughly ALL American cowboys...to the best of my current ability. The edits are meaty...meaty enough to be a springboard for each of their own pages (should someone else opt to write those), but lean enough to warrant their inclusion on a page about American cowboys. This was a big and sincere effort, so I really hope it sticks...and if one of you would be kind enough to look it over and give me a heads-up –– if you think I should take it down and retool my strategy –– that'd be awesome...Justbean (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

5. After I submitted my edit, I continued to make minor edits to it e.g. grammar, adding more sources, and (in particular) adding new images. Guanaco helped me understand Wiki's fair use policy on WikiCommons, and I uploaded 13 images that I scouted, adding most of them to the edit. Guanaco even sent me a kind note on July 20: "You just made your tenth edit; thank you, and please keep going!"

6. I continued to make small edits to the page over the next 3 days, ending with the 22:57, 24 July 2017 version. Everything seemed fine...until Montanabw reverted the entire edit, citing: "Remove a lot of changes that are not supported by appropriate source material." This was news to me, as no other editor had flagged anything that would warrant the reversion of the entire edit. So, for your consideration, here are the sources I used: In addition to these sources, I used eight sources that were already on the Page, along with one source from the Cross dressing ball page.

7.Here's where things got weird. When I expressed that my edit was clean, and that Montanabw's reversion felt like Wiki systemic bias and/or a Wiki racial bias, Montanabw accused me of personal attacks. I strongly refuted that, as I never said Montanabw was "guilty" of these things, nor did I call Montanabw any names...I merely expressed how it felt given that Montanabw noticeably removed everything about black, Mexican, Native American, Women and gay cowboys that I added (including some things that were not from my edit within those subjects). And then Montanabw said this: "...all I will say is that your problem had nothing to do with racial or gender bias, it had everything to do with copyright violations, undue weight, and poor use of source material." I refuted this, listed out all I had done to submit an edit –– that no one had any issue with for three days –– and noted how Montanabw's rational for the reversion had changed:

Initially Montanabw said my edit was reverted because it wasn't "supported by appropriate source material." When I challenged this, Montanabw then said, "Discussion is appropriate." Then, Montanabw disregarded my content altogether with this opinion: "There is a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there and a lot of bad sources." Yet, in the same breath, Montanabw implied that my sources weren't, in fact, the issue, but that, "This article is in need of careful development..." After that, Montanabw accused me of copyvio. And then, on the Talk page (above), Montanabw listed off a myriad of "other" things I supposedly violated.....including several of my edits not being "very good." While the target of Montanabw's accusations kept moving, the accusations were also illogical given that, if I was guilty of these things, at least a few of them would have been flagged by the copyviol tool I used (which was provided to me by other admin) when I submitted the edit, or by any of the three admins I asked to check it when I submitted it. Confused, I responded:

"So, which is it...is my source material flawed? Was my entire edit all "nonsense?" Or does it just warrant a discussion? OR...have I committed copyvio? You can't have it ALL ways....[You're] moving goalposts. You state I did one thing, then you message me saying I did something else. Furthermore, if I did something so bad, why not lay out what the problem is and tell me what I can do to correct it, so that the edit may be accepted? But you did not do that. You removed everything about black, Mexican, Native American, Women and gay cowboys that I added (including some things that were not from my edit within those subjects)...and then actually said "there's "a lot of nonsense about cowboys out there." So, you are telling me that you won't accept my edit UNLESS it clears your threshold of what you know/believe a cowboy to be. So, again...we all know that this is not about my presentation, but about content and perspective because that's what you said it was about." Justbean (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

8. Then things got weirder. After belittling me i.e. "...you are someone who hasn't quite yet learned how to edit around here," Montanabw seemingly Wikihounded me to the Stephen F. Austin page with an obvious intent revert my recent edit there. If that was not Montanabw's intent, then it's quite a coincidence that Montanabw, who has never been an editor on the Stephen F. Austin page, suddenly appear and take no issue with any other edit on the page...only mine. The edit had been uncontested for 10 days...until Montanabw suddenly showed up, reverted my entire edit, and chastised me for needing "better sourcing." After I noted that this reversion was petty, less than 10 minutes later, Montanabw restored one sentence, and two of my references, to the Page...which doesn't make any sense because if my edit needed "better sourcing" to begin with...and my sources were so bad enough to necessitate the reversion of the entire edit in the first place, then why restore any of the edit or the sources? Then, I noticed that another recent edit had been changed by Montanabw...the Bill Pickett. It was an edit so minor, you'd wonder why anyone would bother at all...it didn't add anything to the page, or make it more efficient. Rather, Montanabw's edit made the page more inefficient –– resulting in Pickett's wife being named twice] on the same eye level. So, if this edit didn't make the page "better," one must ask, why did Montanabw do it?

9.As if things couldn't get weirder, Montanabw came on this Cowboy Talk page and wrote two paragraphs accusing my edit of being guilty of all sorts of things that they blatantly were not. For example, I was accused of "misquoting sources." Montanabw criticized a percentage that I cited from a 2003 National Geographic source, saying, "...the 15 to 30 percent claim is not contained there." However, the literal quote from the source was this: ""One out of every three cowboys in the late 1800s was the Mexican vaquero." Hence, this was my response to Montanabw:

1/3 is 33%. That's not a misquote...that's just math. Furthermore, the previous edit, before mine, said, "...cowboys of Mexican descent also averaged about 15% of the total." So, there was a range. A range between 15-33%. "15-30" is within that range, but I am happy to say 33% if you like; however, I gave deference to the range. If someone wants to dig further, isn't that what the source is there for? Justbean (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

10. Finally, the weirdest thing of all happened because of all of Montanabw's accusations against me on this page (above). I know it's long, and if you've made it this far, then the last thing you likely want to do is read more. Well, because I simply responded to those accusations, I was led on a path where I discovered some hypocritical, and disturbing temperament issues, about Montanabw. As for the hypocritical things...the very things Montanabw was accusing me of doing, and being so disrespectful in those accusations...I found a paper trail of Montanabw doing those exact things...and I laid it all out in the reversion justification section above –– particularly in bullet points 2, 3 and the bottom of 5. As for temperamental issues...I learned of Montanabw's established history of WP:OWNERSHIP behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Given that Montanabw has been the primary contributor of the Cowboy page, for the last 10 years, I am concerned as to whether or not Montanabw feels ownership over the page and will accept any edits that conflict with his/her worldview. Ever since I presented Montanabw with my findings, I have yet to hear a response. This is why I decided to be proactive and fight for my contribution.

• Furthermore, there's one action that Montanabw did that leads me to believe his/her interaction with me has been personal. It goes back to the reversion, then restoration, of some of my contribution on the Stephen F. Austin page. This is someone who never edited that page before, but came to it, reverted my edit, and restored it within 10 minutes. However, what stands out here is that Montanabw allowed some aspect of the edit to remain. Yet, when it came to the Cowboy page, Montanabw reverted my entire edit...and after leaving no real explanation, at first, Montanabw's explanation became a salad-bowl of accusations...none of which ever added up to the initial accusation (which I'm still trying to decipher). In addition, my contribution on the Bill Pickett page was done in the same manner as my contribution on the Cowboy page...why does the Pickett edit mostly stand, but nothing on the cowboy edit remains? Especially given that the Cowboy edit is thoroughly researched, well presented, and done in good faith shown. Yet, it was shown such animus by Montanabw...not a single aspect of it was restored to the page. And because this Montanabw has a history of calling editors names like "Whiners," "Assholes" and "Pretentious, mall-minded little jackasses [who should] get a freaking life"...and because Montanabw has implied an annoyance with so-called "PC Wars," and accused editors of things like "romanticized silliness" this was not something, with my limited experience, that I thought I could handle without help. So...here I am.

So, to sum this all up, I am asking for consensus for a full restore of the 22:57, 24 July 2017 version of this page for three reasons:

1) I fear that, by trying to edit and re-submit, Montanabw may just revert me again for "some other" reason, at best, or troll my my future edits, at worst. I don't want the time and effort I spend on contributions to go down the drain, nor do I want to spend the kind of additional time and effort (as I've done so here) in trying to have my contributions treated fairly.

2) Montanabw has a well establish edit history, and the power to go with it, so getting into a back-and-forth seems futile.

3) I am fairly new at this, as my history of edits have mostly been minor, and not only am I trying to keep my budding history/record as a contributor in tact, but I am also trying to make sure that my passion to contribute is not discouraged.

I'm coming to the Wiki community because I believe in Wiki's Five Pillars and because I think my contribution adds something important and useful to Wiki. But, if this is just the way editing works on Wiki, and you all find I'm over-reacting...I'll take it in stride, and move on. In any event, I hope you all can help resolve this. Thx Justbean (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Article improvement

The above is a bit tl;dr, and most of the legitimate points I have previously addressed. But forward, I would agree on the following points:

1. We can and should improve existing source quality where we can, of course. I'd suggest adding additional footnotes to material if the sources are weak, or simply add appropriate tags to the iffy ones, so long as we are not tag-bombing. (FWIW, the Malone and Roeder book is a highly respected work on Montana History and is a solid RS. Some of it is online in Google books, should verification be needed).
2. We do need a short, focused, better quality section about homosexuality in the cowboy world, I agree that content is not well done. Justbean found some good sources, but it needs to be consolidated into ONE paragraph, at the most two. This could expand the "social world" section a bit, but WP:UNDUE would suggest we also balance by a bit more content on other aspects of cowboy life, the isolation, the strengths and weaknesses of the culture and so on. It is important to avoid stereotypes.
3. Same for black cowboys. There could be content added, at most a paragraph or two in the "ethnicity" section; short, tightly-written, focused only on the cowboy experience, and well-sourced. If someone wanted to create a whole separate article on the African-American cowboy, building off a summary here, that might be useful, but only so long as it is not a content fork for poorly-researched stereotyping.
4. The hispanic influence on the cowboy tradition is summarized adequately, as we already have vaquero and charro and similar articles that go into detail on the cultural underpinnings of the immense Spanish influence on the American cowboy tradition (always room for article improvement, of course). That said, the experience of the hispanic vaquero and cowboy in the post-Mexican revolution period could be discussed a little more, if focused tightly, as Mexican people in the United States were often marginalized in spite of their deep roots and considerable contributions.
5. There could also be some content added on Indian cowboys and Indian rodeo, again a paragraph or so, focusing specifically on Native people who became cowboys or ranchers, as the horse culture of Native people is a totally different topic. The whole issue of assimilation was mixed up in all this, so I suspect a paragraph in this article that points the reader to the more detailed discussions in other articles is the most useful approach.
6. The cowgirls section is already pretty extensive. It was once a separate article, but it was merged back into this one to avoid "ghettoizing" women and due to CFORK concerns ... I cannot recall where the discussion was, but there was a discussion about it. Women are "cowboys", it's a job, men and women work side by side on ranches. We also don't need an extensive discussion of women's roles in general. If there is a need for a separate article focused on women's experiences, it would be a broader article on women in the west generally. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So, no, restoring the whole set of edits as proposed above is not a good idea. But the concept of some expansion to the ethnicity section in particular is a good idea. Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw I greatly appreciate this response, clarity, and thoughtfulness. I wish I had received this from you when you initially reverted the edit, which would have been very helpful. My experience, over the last 12 hrs or so, is teaching me that it's unlikely I'll get a full restore, which is disappointing. But, I really think there's good information in the edit, and that it could be useful to Wiki users. So, if you're up for helping me, I'd like to work with you to get as much as I can in an acceptable edit...and perhaps start the pages of others you mentioned, i.e. Black Cowboys. It's not what I was hoping for, but as Tangentier, who started the Cowboy page said, it's "better than nothing" :) And...hopefully, the edit(s) will have a chance to evolve through the community. In any event, please let me know if you're willing/able to help me do this, and I'll move our correspondence off this page. Regards ~ Justbean (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not mean "completely restore everything I did." And I did say pretty much the same thing earlier. As I said above, the way to handle this is to create a subpage to propose and refine content. I suggest working on content here before creating new articles that may or may not be suitable. I can create a link here that allows that process to begin: Talk:Cowboy/Article improvement subpage. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw. I didn't know that sub-pages, within a talk page, could be created. Very helpful to know. Will add the content here and see how the shaping of it goes.

My confusion stemmed from the recorded reason you gave of your reversion...you cited a problem with my sources, which I worked hard to procure. I genuinely felt, I dug deep, and that they were reputable. So, that left me confused. And, after discrediting my sources, suddenly other issues were added on...including some things I didn't commit. And, I still don't understand why, if three editors were ok with the edit, your reversion trumped them all. If they were "wrong," it seemed like editing could be very disappointing. All in all...the lack of uniformity has been very confusing for me, and created a space to feel as if I was on the negatively end of differential treatment. So, I hope you understand where I was coming from.

Lastly...a quick question...there any reason that these sections (i.e. Mexican Cowboys) have to be two paragraphs, versus being of comparable length to the Cowgirls section? Or why my edit, in the cowgirl section, was rejected -- it was pretty minimal. Anyhow, these cowboys have been excluded, for much of American history. My hope is their presence/contributions is accurately recorded and won't be marginalized...like "Click here to see 'other' cowboys." It seems to diminish their presence/participation in cowboy history all over again. So...thx... ~ Justbean (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

...oh, and for what it's worth, I know "Consensus" doesn't mean "restore everything I did." However, I made that request because no one mentioned anything wrong with my edit prior to your reversion. So, I was asking for the restore in order for the edit to be accepted by the community, where it would then have a chance evolve –– much like your edits on this page have been allowed to do –– over time. Justbean (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw…just want you to know I'm still working on this edit. Will piecemeal it and connect with you, as I would greatly like your input. I'm serious when I say I'd like to work with you in getting an edit added. I've been very excited about this edit for a while, so I want you to know, I'm pushing myself to make a new edit better. Thx Justbean (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Justbean The work you were doing on the homosexuality section was probably the strongest in terms of having info on both sides, some useful sources (McMurty is actually a good source on some of this stuff) and on the right track. That paragraph in there now is definitely a place where improvement is needed. How about taking what you had done, thin it down to maybe two paragraphs tops, be sure to have complete sources we can verify online (use the citation templates too), and let's at least get that prepped for prime time. I'll build Talk:Cowboy/article improvement subpage and we can workshop it there. Doesn't need to be a treatise, per WP:UNDUE, but tightly-written and balanced. Montanabw^(talk) 17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw thanks for the reply, and for the guidance! Sorry about the delayed reply...was traveling. Give me a couple of days to work on it on the improvement page, and I'll shoot a message your way when I've given it a solid stab. Appreciate you being willing to develop this with me. Means a lot :) Justbean (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No worries. If you look at how I changed your content and what I flagged in hidden text there, you will get the general idea of what will work for this article. Basically, the biggest things are 1) Summarize, 2) Focus on cowboys as opposed to the western history in general (i.e. stuff on miners is a bit far afield, even if there are apparent similarities). and 3) Try to find URLs to journals, google books (even snippet view), Hathi Trust or other ways to verify content (I can probably find some of these works at libraries in my area, but most people could not)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cowboy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205102621/http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/earpaccount.html to http://www.law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/earpaccount.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsday.com/community/guide/lihistory/ny-hs328a%2C0%2C6827509.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cowboy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302085406/http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4363 to http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=4363
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080113093912/http://www.historynet.com/culture/womens_history/3026886.html?page=1&c=y to http://www.historynet.com/culture/womens_history/3026886.html?page=1&c=y

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

New redirect

I just redirected Cattle handler to this article. Is this accurate? Qzekrom (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. - Donald Albury 12:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

nobody cares