User talk:Montanabw

WikiStress level

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

Make articles, not wikidrama

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

Traffic count!

Sandbox invite

Anyone may play in my sandboxes, in the archive list to the right, IF you promise to behave. This means:

• No kicking sand
• No hitting other people over the head with toys
• No pooping, even if you are a cat and neatly cover it up!
• It's my sandbox, so I can throw you out if you misbehave!  :-)

"[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 gorbellied clapper-clawed dewberry!

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 loggerheaded rough-hewn apple-john.

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)

Riding and driving

While, intuitively, I agree that it inconceivable that horses were not ridden long before they were driven, as a person without any experience with horses, I'm stumped trying to explain exactly why ... I can only guess but not speak with any authority at all. So I'd be highly interested in your thoughts on the matter. (You might wish to respond on Talk:Domestication of the horse#riding/drawing.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the article; keep in mind that horses were domesticated on the steppes, not in the more settled areas, driving implies wheels, which implies roads. Riding is far more efficient. A book by David Anthony, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language - cited in the article and the studies underlying the book are also cited - goes into a lot of detail on this. I'll pop by there too. Montanabw^(talk) 20:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I've only just found your discussion with Dbachmann in Talk:Domestication of the horse#Article still a mess. Should have had a closer look at the rest of the talk page, I guess. :-) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, just read the article, as all the talk page stuff was resolved a couple years ago, then feel free to pop by here or initiate a new discussion there if you have more questions or comments. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article does not explain the matter, or I may have missed it. "Thus, on the one hand, logic suggests that horses were ridden long before they were driven." What does this refer to? Everything in the section is about how riding does not necessarily produce unambiguous archaeological evidence, and how bit wear is not conclusive evidence for riding, either. This does not address the crucial issue, namely why riding must precede driving.

Your argument as I understand it is that it is much easier to get a wild (or simply untamed) horse to accept you riding on it than train it as a draft animal. (Which sounds reasonable but is an insight that requires familiarity with horses, otherwise it's not all that obvious; I assume that is what you were referring to.) Is that the reason, in a nutshell? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Well this section is vague, but to me the most convincing evidence is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse#Botai_culture Botai culture and bit wear] combined with the evidence of dung and corrals. It defies logic that horses would be kept for over 1000 years prior to the chariot without someone hopping on - you don't need to understand horses, you only need to understand humans! LOL! Basically, the argument that horses were driven first hangs entirely upon the reality that buried chariots last far longer in graves than simple hackamores and saddlecloths and surcingles, which were made from natural materials that disintegrate quickly. Archaeologists, in an abundance of caution, could only verify the clearest existence of domestication - the chariot burials - for decades. But we have cave art of mounted horsemen (or women) that far predates the chariot, and it is highly unlikely that a "religious" work or "aspirational" art was ctreated without somebody trying it in real life. But if logic alone does not solve the problem, the evidence of bit wear found by Anthony far predates the chariot and when you add the other skeletal changes consistent with being ridden (vertebrae stuff) that Anthony describes in his works, particularly when you note that domestication did not occur so much in settled areas as it did amongst Equestrian nomads on the steppes, it all adds up. Montanabw^(talk) 02:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Lake & Alkali Lake Ranches

I just found out Douglas Lake bought up Alkali Lake.... by looking up a dead citation on Douglas Lake Cattle Company. Here, you should have a read. Also, been scanning my grandfather's Spanish-American War volume of photos, some real cool horsey pics, in 1200 dpi so I think too large to put on flickr and it'll take a while to save some down to 300 dpi and compressed, I'm still buzzing at it; but a few shots made me think of you and your equestrian passion. Email me, or wait until I find a gallery for them; I'm selling the book, y'see, but rescuing the images for family archiving purposes..and so maybe when I get back to Asia I can find out more about where Granddad got to and so on...Skookum1 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles A. Woodward, grandfather of a famous owner of the Douglas Lake, Chunky Woodward, was integral in the horsebreeding association in BC, whatever it's called; both those ranches have famous horse stock. but then so do various other BC ranches, including the Gang and the Richter.Skookum1 (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you can upload that high of resolution to commons, at least if you are ok releasing with a free license ... or if the life + 70 years applies to them, they are PD anyway... Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

He died in 1916...but I have issues with donating stuff into wikispace now because of all the deletion-minded bozos who pick licenses apart and play coy with the easy fixes....how much time gets wasted by donors, or images deleted because donors don't want to play the prevent-deletion game. When we're talking about over a hundred images, that's a lot of work; and that's just Granddad's.Skookum1 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, if he took the photos and he died in 1916, you probably just have to provide the obit to prove it. I suppose the OTRS experts could tell you what's needed. I'll ping my talk page stalkers here to see if anyone knows the answer. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is him.Skookum1 (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the photos have not been previously published, {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply; since according to his article he was in the US Army during the Spanish-American War, {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} is another possibility. Probably the latter is easier to prove, but might not apply to non-war images. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say which was which in some cases, i.e. things taken on orders in the course of his military duties, snaps around camp or of filipino individuals or family groups; ceremonials probably in the course of military duty; the horse shots tend to be casual portraits; but he might have been in his official capacity at all times, simply by dint of having his uniform on and being on duty?Skookum1 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

My main problem with donating any images now is the disrespect and obscurantism I get from certain license patrollers in Commons. "Not helpful" is the way I would summarize what I've seen, and how I've been talked to. And that's coming from me, he of the barbed tongue. Donors should be treated with appreciation, not cultivated disrespect and flippancy. Not naming names, but it's enough to have turned me off from donating any of my own, or any of my family's, for a long time now. I just wanted to share these with Montanabw.....but the rocky road of wiki-donation I find unpalatable and time-wasting...but then I'm a crotchety old man, and hard to please.Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, you could also upload here and tag them {{keeplocal}}, and not bother with Commons at all. But even then, yes, "not helpful" can at times be a good descriptor; things like what's going on here (and associated discussions at WP:PUF) present a significant deterrent. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:There may be kind and helpful admins at Commons who could take your back if the gurus of such things can agree in advance that the images are probably copacetic. I think I recall one of the rounds of trouble you had before, but wasn't that a batch that wouldn't qualify under PD+70? I'm pinging Wehwalt, as he is knowledgable about that era and about image stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 05:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Mucho Macho Man GA process

Looks to be moving through the process fairly smoothly. With articles like this I sometimes feel like I ran the second leg in a relay race and am now sitting panting by the side of the track whilst you take the baton across the line. Sorry if my Britticisms on dates held things up. Still chugging along with my start/C class articles and I have managed to do one on an American-trained two-year-old No Nay Never. Deep breath as we wait for the Eclipse Award results. Tigerboy1966  23:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Tigerboy, me laddie, I would not be able to do what I do without your ability to do what you do! I dislike starting articles from scratch and I positively loathe redoing articles that need a total rewrite! Having teammates and collaborators makes it all go ever so much better! Don't sweat the Britishisms, though changing "colour" and "honours" on all the US racing articles and infoboxes to "color" and "honors" (horses, jockeys, trainers...) would be something you could start on if you were ever really bored off your butt and needed something repetitive to do! (noogies!) LOL! Yes, the Eclipses should be interesting. 14 lengths... somebody's gotta start giving that boy some respect! Montanabw^(talk) 23:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Tigerboy1966: Well, Wise Dan mops up again, probably deservedly, given everything, but dang it, I'd like to see them run him at any distance other than a mile. What did you think of the Castellano win? $26 million nothing to sneeze at...but... Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mucho Macho Man

The article Mucho Macho Man you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mucho Macho Man for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh article edits

Thanks for restoring the links to Ballotpedia and other external links. I didn't realize those were "live" when I deleted them -- I thought they were a template for something that wasn't yet populated.

I also added the .pdf of the IG report as a reference in the body of the article -- you took it out as an external link, and I think it fits better as a reference for the topic in question.

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP)

Apologies for the awkward rewrite in the FIP article. My goal was to represent recent changes in the understanding of this disease. Great article, but it needs a few updates. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cytovet (talk • contribs) 18:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Just be careful not to delete wikilinks, existing references and such. These medial articles need to be improved, that's for sure, but not by tossing what's there only to replace it with unsourced or poorly-worded new material. Keep plugging away at it, though, you'll get better! Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

New Animal Welfare templates

Hi Montanabw. I'm working on new templates for animal welfare - I'd really appreciate you having a look at Template Talk:Animal welfare and leaving feedback. Come and join my gang  ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but a can of worms. I'll comment there. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Policy

You have policy backwards. Any contested unsourced claim can be removed instantly and cannot be reinserted without consensus and sourcing. So please dont keep editwarring to keep an obviously problematic unsourced claim in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, Maunus. No policy says that. Material may be "challenged and removed" - but you can't just remove anything your POV thinks is inaccurate - and there have been Native People in the in the Americas for well over 9,000 years, so claims of the Piegan to have lived in that region that long may be questionable (I think they arrived much later, the Crow were their sooner, but Montana does have some very ancient sites) but are not "obviously" wrong. If you let the tag sit for a few hours, I'll go find a source and put in the best numbers available, just for you. Really, you also could get off your ass and just fix it yourself, too, you know. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can remove anything that my POV says is inaccurate if it is not sourced. The claim that Piegans lived in MOntana 7000 years ago is not just questionable it is absurd since there were no Piegan or Blackfeet at that time. Yes there have been Bative people in the US for over 13,000 years in fact - but ascribing tribal affiliations to people more than a thousand years into the past is ridiculous and unscientific, doing so constitutes a poltical claim not a factual one. Regarding me getting off my ass I can only say that that is none of your goddamn business. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It was something to refine and fix, which I did. (And actually, 13,000 years is the most conservative figure, some speculation goes as far back as 50,000 years, though the oldest evidence is pretty sketchy) Frankly, I can make all the suggestions I want - if you have the energy to waste this much bandwidth arguing, edit-warring, quoting policy at an experienced editor, and being nasty in general, then yes, in fact you DO have the energy to get off your ass, do some research, and have quietly fixed it without creating a bunch of drama. I'm tired of people who complain and won't be part of the solution. We content editors do all the real work of wikipedia, and without us the whole project would not exist. It would be really nice to get a bit more help sometimes instead of a bunch of whiner playing "gotcha." Montanabw^(talk) 02:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

YOU were rude from the outset, both to me and to the IP - and you were editwarring against both of us. You could have made the encounter more pleasant by cutting out the sarcasm and passive aggresion from the outset and engaging in a meaningful discussion. And now you are whining both her and on the talkpage of the article. I quoted policy not because I didnt think you knew it but because you were obviously violating it. It is none of your business how I choose to spend my time. And I am just as much of a fucking content editor as you are so get of that high horse and save the martyr complex for someone who cares. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, the rule is WP:BRD. The IP deleted (B), I said no (R) with a simple explanation (edit summaries, are, by their nature, terse), then you barged in and reverted with a nasty edit summary that was a touch racist in it's "they couldn't possibly have been there" tone (no nuance possible in an edit summary I will acknowledge), so I restored and said tag, (that's 2RR, not "edit-warring") then you got obnoxious and left your lovely message above. (kind of a D) Then I went out of my way (to the neglect of other wikipedia tasks I hoped to accomplish yesterday) to find a source and straighten out the matter. Disagreeing with your approach is not edit-warring, and calling you on your mean, nasty, snarky and generally disrespectful tone is not "rude" - it's "back atcha, bucko." You still are mis-stating policy, the operative phrase is "challenge and remove" not "remove and attack people who disagree with you." Fankly, you can do anything you want work-wise, but likewise, I have a perfect right to be irritable at people who make more work for me and act like the cat, the dog, and all the other creatures in The Little Red Hen who want others to do all the work but they are perfectly willing to reap the benefits. And please, refrain from using four-letter obscenities on my talk page again. Though we all cuss a bit from time to time (yes, even me), I have no interest in seeing profanity here. Montanabw^(talk) 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record this was my "racist" edit summary " nope anything unsourced can be removed, and this is unlikely to be sourceable". The subsequent snark was all your initiative. And just so you know 2RR is in fact editwarring, and can even get you blocked. Maybe you should read up on policy. BRD is not policy and does not encourage or allow people to reinsert unsourced incorrect information into articles. And be assured that I will not use four letter words or words of any other length on your talkpage again, I will instead do my best to avoid you as the plague.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's fair, I read more into the IP and your edit summaries than you intended. ( I read into it the implication that native people had not been in the area prior to the current era, which is an attitude I've run across sometimes) So I apologize for that. But beyond that, no, you do not get blocked for 2RR, and you have been here long enough to know that, and I am glad to hear that you wish to avoid my talk page, it will be a far pleasanter place for it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Williams Lake Stampede and Sugarcane Reserve, 1941

One of my FB friends, who's also a noted local author Sage Birchwater, who could use an article some day (I mean he couldn't use the article, but wikipedia could), posted this 1941 video shot by the "Indian Nurse" and at a certain point onwards by a young Indian boy. The soundtrack isn't from the period, though the style of fiddling may be local....the US flag you'll see would have always shown up for any event drawing an international crowd; the Williams Lake Stampede is one of BC's larger rodeos and draws competitors from the Mountain States and beyond. This is all amazing footage....sending it to you because of the horseflesh in it. I think I made an article on Sugarcane, as Williams Lake Indian Reserve No. 1 is called (might be in Wikipedia as Williams Lake 1); the reference is to a sweet-tasting reed that grows on the marge of the eponymous lake. See Williams Lake, British Columbia for the mostly-white town west of the Reserve....I guess you know we have Boxing Day on Dec 26....Williams Lake (or Billy's Puddle as it's called) invented Wrestling Day, January 2.....Skookum1 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Move like this

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I liked your vote, - one link goes to "awesomely weird", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Beware on the 28th: a blue duck attacks the German Main page, right now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hooray for ducks! File:Duck duck goose Great Falls.JPG. Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What a blue! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi Montanabw,

You reverted my content without explanation, so I undid this revision. Was this a mistake or was this intentional, because if its intentional, then why did you remove legitimate content from an article? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I screwed up and hit the wrong link when comparing old and new versions. Completely my mistake, and I am sorry! Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Just making sure. It's a shame that the DYK nomination wasn't qualified. Darn, that would've been a good one. Oh well. Best and thanks for your feedback on the DYKN. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that sucked. I hate to have to fail a nom. But I couldn't crunch the numbers in any way to make it a 5x expansion. Maybe tune it up farther and try to get it to GA? Montanabw^(talk) 06:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'd love to go for GA. Any advice where to begin? Unfortunately, there is no 1910's baseball team article to use as an example, so what needs to happen in order for this to be a GA? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Gallery

• 
  White Horse in Pasture, 1806-1807, oil on canvas, Oskar Reinhart Foundation, Winterthur
• 
  Girl riding, all by Jacques-Laurent Agasse
• 
  The Wellesley Grey Arabian Led through the Desert
• 
  Edinburgh and London Royal Mail

Actually I am looking for dogs for the article Cultural depictions of dogs‎; but keep finding horses. Here you have them. Hafspajen (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly try searching for dogs by various breed names, might get something there. Montanabw^(talk) 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Kudos to your gentility!

		The Civility Barnstar
		I'm very happy to know that humility and knowledge are coexisting in you. You truely have a beautiful mind with a beautiful heart. Thanks for being the way you are. Seabuckthorn ♥ 08:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

"How's my driving?"

Have you seen those signs that employers put on commercial vehicles so they can get feedback on how a driver is doing? I recently had some interactions with the TFA coordinator that raised some concerns in my mind about whether he's exactly the right person for that job. I'm worried about his interpretation of policies like WP:OWN, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. In my interaction, some statements he made suggested that the TFA coordinate may overrule WP:CONSENSUS, using a "because I said so" sort of argument. But hopefully, my interaction is just an anomaly.

I'm not part of the mainpage community, I've never made a proposal at TFA-- in contrast, you userpage is full of stars and you seem familiar with things, so you're a good person to ask.

Has the current coordinator's tenure been well received by the main page community? Is my interaction with the coordinator an anomaly that comes just from fact that I made a very controversial proposal? Or is this just one datapoint in a larger pattern of behavior?

I hope the answer is that it's just an anomaly, but I hafta ask. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, poor grasshopper you have just stepped Through the Looking Glass of the Twilight Zone into the manure that is the land of TFA and all other Weird Science that accompanies it. The short answer to your question is that TFA is pretty much a tiny oligarchy answerable to very few, and that the current individual I think you are referencing is actually a vast improvement over the previous individual who held the position. So if you want to change the culture over there, be prepared for months on end of Sturm und Drang, and at the end, a few minor changes. Not that a few minor changes aren't useful (the previous "director" was IMHO problematic when he deigned to do his job at all) but I've decided that the best way to get an article to TFA is to have several other wikipedians supporting it and then apply lots of carrots. Sticks are useless. JMO, and good luck! Montanabw^(talk) 20:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Oh, and no, I don't think it's because your proposal is controversial in the outside world. Around here, "controversy" was putting up Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo for TFA on Dec 25, or Icelandic Phallological Museum for Valentine's Day. Now THAT stuff was controversial!  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think a change of TFA coordinator would necessarily be the controversial, so long as it's presented to a wide community and there's an election like the kind we'd have for other uniquely important positions like Arbcom, Board Members, etc.

The real question is whether there's a problematic patter of behavior. We could get lots of candidates who have greater civility and tact-- traits we would want in a TFA coordinator.

That said, the two encounters I've had aren't enough that I would want to actually present a change of TFA Coordinator to the community. Being rude and battlegroundy is a problem, but that's just a problem for WP:ANI, not elections.

I guess i should ask point blank-- does the current TFA coordinator respect consensus or not? If I learned that of an instances where the coordinator closed something against consensus, that would be something worth holding an election over. WP:CIVILITY shouldn't be flexible for a TFA coordinator, but we all have our bad days. But WP:CONSENSUS doesn't bend.--HectorMoffet (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I say, I think the problem is more the institutional structure than the individual. Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my friend, "not controversial." Oh dear, oh dear... you are new to this area... (sad grin) au contraire. The previous attempt at a coup d' etat against the director created a huge shitstorm. Basically, the answer is no - the two people coordinating most TFAs now do not have to follow consensus. There is no election, and those who back the current system (this actually does not include the two coordinators, who tend to stay out of that drama) fight very hard to keep it that way. The TFA coordinators interpret the guidelines and policy and act as they see fit, though with input from the community. But, some animals are more equal than others, for sure. So my advice is caution: The predecessor there was User:Raul654, his user page self-description is, well, read the last sentence, that sums it up. Getting rid of him took over a year and largely was, at the end of the day, due to the efforts of this now-banned user and the reality that Raul sort of just quit doing the job. My own view is that the current crew get hit about equally from both sides of the "how did this get on TFA" versus "why isn't this on TFA" divide. The problem isn't so much the individuals in the job, it's the unaccountability that's built into the position. Many of us would like to see TFA director/coordinator be an elected position. But it's not. My take is to not go after the individuals, as their replacements would be pretty similar, but instead to look at the underlying structure that creates them and see what can be done there. Montanabw^(talk) 21:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to say you've confirmed everything I fear. I notice that 14 Feb will mark one year "in office", so I'll keep an eye on the situation and see if i think it's worth the trouble to start a sitewide discussion about making some changes. I can't rule out that I just stepped on his toes or said the wrong thing that got under his skin, or if this is generally how he treats people. I'll keep an eye out. --HectorMoffet (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

[tps] One of the problems faced by TFA is that it is, by definition, just about the most visible showcase of articles on Wikipedia. This has the effect of inducing a certain degree of conservatism in the choice of article, because of the fear that something controversial would bring disproportionate reputational damage to our project. Consequently, it tends to make TFA directors err on the side of caution, rather than relying on raw consensus - and that of course is part of the rationale for having a TFA director who can exercise judgement to overrule an inappropriate consensus. I am given to understand that there are certain (unnamed) featured articles possessed of problems that would be better not exposed to public view; these articles should never appear on the Main Page and we must rely on the extra knowledge imparted to the TFA director to ensure that is what happens. It is therefore perfectly possible that the TFA director may come across as rude, unhelpful or obstructive to someone unfamiliar with the process, when they are merely trying to do the job they were appointed to do. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting that edit on Saddlebag! --Keithonearth (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It never ends, does it?  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Thunder (mascot)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

TPS Alert! Given the topic and the day, this one could attract all sorts of vandalism and notice from fans of that other team. Can we all watchlist for vandalism? Montanabw^(talk) 16:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry, travelling. Look at the Swedish Mainpage of today for something blue and tell the author(s), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. As for everyone else, obviously my plea goes out only to those who are hanging out on wiki all day today...  ;) Montanabw^(talk) 19:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Let me know when you nominate it at GA.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did. A day or two ago.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha, you didn't "let me know" though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, man! I didn't want to bug you too much! If you want to review it, be my guest, no one else has gotten to it yet. Montanabw^(talk) 22:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a soft touch. If my reviews are useful and result in decent outcomes for both your WikiCup efforts and humanity, let me know! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent. You are a thorough reviewer, and I appreciate your efforts. Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So, apparently Bucephalus versus unicorns was a thing?

The damn things turn up everywhere... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Snarkives worthy! Thanks for the link! Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thunder (mascot)

The article Thunder (mascot) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thunder (mascot) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thunderous applause to another GA!, GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Y The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! Some consolation for the Broncos loss. Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Re GANs

My plan is to start peer review on Cutthroat trout as soon as the FA comes through on the Rainbow. Then once the cutthroat peer review is underway, I'll list one of the following for GAN: Brown, Brook or Dolly Varden trout. Been working on all three as time permits. On the road this week, but back in frigid Montana on Friday.

FYI re wikilink to Redband trout - Columbia River redband trout is a redirect to same article so I don't know if both links are required. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the Columbia River Redband should get its own article eventually, so I'd argue to keep.. most of the other redbands have their own articles, probably wouldn't take too much trouble to pop up a stub. Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Exmoor Pony

If you have time, can you take a look at the recent series of edits to Exmoor Pony (which I reverted)? The source used introduced no new DNA studies, but contains a new interpretation of existing DNA research, and the (new) editor in question is using it to re-build the focus of the section. You worked with Pesky on this article more than I did, I think, so I'm hoping that you can take a look at the source (it's a freely-available PDF) and see if there's anything useful in it. Dana boomer (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

On it, thanks for the ping. Montanabw^(talk) 16:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Follow up: It's just the usual "our horses are the pure ancient wild horse and thus better than everyone else's" nonsense. POV pushing. You're so kind to these folks, I'll not go over there and bite, but I will continue to monitor and revert as needed. Pesky's research was very solid. Montanabw^(talk) 16:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Horse worship

Hi Montanabw. See User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#Edit#2 Hayagriva and User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship#Edit#3 Horse worship. I've no intention to spend more time to search for sources, but if you think this is better, fine. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, just changing sourced material without checking the source or changing the source is not cool in wiki-land, and in this case, the slightly vague word "inhabitants" avoids an issue over which ethnic groups we are discussing. The section header referred to a specific location and culture, your changes inserted the Dutch word for "Mesolithic," which predates the Bronze Age that is relevant here by several thousand years... appears you have a mentor helping you with language issues, here, absent online sources that others can check, I am hesitant to sign off on your changes. If you can find a peer-reviewed journal or google books link, I would be glad to reconsider. Montanabw^(talk) 17:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I did check the source, that's why I changed it. Mesolithic was incorrect, indeed; should be bronze Age. The "language mentor" is irrelevant here, although she first assumed I'm a native speaker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

So why did you just revert me and keep the section header error? Or was this the other user? Do you have a link to the source? Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The header-error was my fault, working from memory. I simply reverted because I'd checked the source, and concluded it was another example of Blades' rather "free interpretation" of sources, with an Indocentric or Hindutva bend. That's what I'm mentoring him for. At India-related pages, we've got an endless pool of "frogs" who all quack this Indocentric song, (mis)informed by Hindu nationalist propaganda, and blissfully ignorant of basic issues like WP:RS. Publications by Cambridge University Press and the like are routinely dismissed as "fringe theory" when it does not fit their world view, whereas obscure sources are presented as God's holy word (literally!) It's incredible how much time and effort it takes to counter this. That's also why I took a short-cut, and got annoyed; it felt like "yet another one..." Anyway, I've added an explanation, sources and links at Talk:Horse worship#Hayagriva. By the way, I think you may find even older roots for horse worship than 1600 or 2000 BCE, when you search for Indo-European people & horse-worship. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That was actually my concern too. So, basically, the word "inhabitants" and "Indus Civilization" IS probably the better way to keep it? Which is what I actually support, whatever got tangled up in the various editing... did I revert to the wrong version or something? As for the rest, I don't really actively edit that page, I just watch for blatent POV pushing and vandalism; but I'd sure support anyone who wanted to improve it! Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

No, on the contary! IVC is not the same as "Indo-Aryans". Oh man, that's a long story; I won't consume your time explaining it. I'll make a correction at the article, so you can see. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see the issue is also under discussion at article talk; I'll take it there. FWIW, I have had some study of this culture and period, but I admit it was quite a while ago and not terribly thorough, my interest was more on the Near East and the centers of horse domestication in Eurasia. Montanabw^(talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look [1]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That works. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: Pseudoscience

At WP:AE, in a thread related to pseudoscience or fringe science issues, you have engaged in personal attacks against others, to wit: "Your penchant for bullying is well-known and widely commented upon." Such conduct is prohibited, see WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS. You should promptly strike these comments. If you repeat such conduct, you may be blocked or banned without further warning, under the authority of WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

But Wolfie is free to attack me? Sandstein, your comment here is not consistent. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC))

Consistency isn't one of this place's strong points. Unless you count inconsistency as being consistent... Intothatdarkness 18:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I shall gladly strike my comments provided that IRWolfie strikes his attacks upon Olive. Montanabw^(talk) 19:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's the only consistency you're likely to see around here Intothatdarkness. And who appointed Sandstein as the sole enforcer of ArbCom sanctions anyway? Doesn't he have anything more constructive to do? Why doesn't he apply his cudgel to admins such as Kevin Gorman, who has repeatedly accused me of gravedancing over the last few days? Surely not because it's easier to sanction regular editors than it is to rein in fellow administrators? Eric Corbett 19:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Could anyone explain to me why this was done? I've never edited any of the articles in question and it seems inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Because Sandtein is a very good example of the worst kind of process twonk. Rules are rules (except if you're an admin), simple as that. Eric Corbett 20:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

However, the person in question is not an admin and I never edited in the area in question. Curious how this occurred... ? Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You blundered into range of someone with a major case of policyOWN. Intothatdarkness 20:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw, I've been looking for IRWolfie-'s supposed attack on Olive. Where is it, please, because I can't see it? By contrast, your comment, quoted by Sandstein, certainly is a personal attack. Eric, are you talking about this case, and Montanabw's and IRWolfie's comments — did you look at them? Or are you simply fuming about Sandstein in general and about your spat with Kevin Gorman? Because Sandstein is quite right in this case. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

My general rule of thumb is that Sandstein is rarely correct about anything, the details don't matter. Eric Corbett 20:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bish, the attack on Olive in question was this. I'll have to do some digging to get all the history, but it was part of the ongoing TM drahmahz that I have generally avoided. Olive had some extremely unjust sanctions slapped on her and Sandstein was involved. The bullying I was thinking of has been stuff against people like (if memory serves User:Ched as well as myself. The problem here is that Olive made a good faith suggestion to not make a rush to judgement just because someone was advocating a fringe position (and that particular individual IS fringe, for sure) but she sure was lamblasted personally for doing so. Montanabw^(talk) 20:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Follow up: The stuff with Ched was here. I don't feel the need to delve into the whole TM mess, because I'm not a part of it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the post by IRWolfie you link to, certainly — I don't see anything personal in it. "Lambasted personally "? I don't get it, and I think you can see how your own comment is on a whole different level. We're not here to contemptuously dismiss other people.

I'm not a part of the TM mess either, but when it comes to the IRWolfie-Olive-Ched nexus, my memory is pretty good, so don't bother digging on my account. I simply don't see it the way you do. Bishonen | talk 21:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

He misrepresented what happened to Olive as if it was something about him personally, then he proceeded to attack her for her simple, good faith caution in this case. You don't see that as an attack? This guy gets away with stuff like this quite a bit, I really fail to see how others don't see what he does. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and @Bishonen:, best to not just read Sandstein's snippet above, which is out of context, best to read the whole drama. I just added at least three diffs to back up what I said and I am respectfully requesting there that Sandstein strike his "warning." Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User IR Wolfie commenting about his attack on Ched and Olive

"You are dealing this way with a BLP and another human being's life and do so to satisfy some notion you have of what fringe means .... This is not a game Wolfie, this is a man's life. If you had concerns discuss them, collaborate, but leaching out content based on false premises is unconscionable." [2] "Wolfie: That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't, that you unilaterally edit based on this determination, that you would deep revert another editor's painstaking work, unilaterally, based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice."[3] "Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia." [4] yeah, not about me at all ... IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

IR Wolfie, Clearly, you are now watchlisting my talk, so who's the stalker now? Olive was not sanctioned for her comments to you, you are the one who started the whole drama by going after her. Her restrictions had nothing to do with you, your own behavior is why you wound up where you did. Montanabw^(talk) 22:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, can anyone here explain to me why this is viewed as a "personal attack:" when it was intended as a straightforward presentation of evidence? Montanabw^(talk) 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was notified of this discussion above per the username highlighting. Olive was sanctioned for her comments and topic banned for 6 months. You can ask the arbitrator who set the sanctions for the specifics. I "wound up" nowhere except being constantly attacked by you, as is evident from your above collapse of my text. You can try and rewrite history, but the diffs are all there. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

And you were blocked for outing. We agree the diffs are there, we disagree on who is attempting to "rewrite history." You know you cannot bully or intimidate me, and I most sincerely hope you cease bullying and attempting to intimidate Olive. She is a voice of kindness on WP and doesn't deserve the punishment that gets heaped upon her. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My block record clearly shows I was never blocked for outing. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, the exact wording of the one thing was ""IRWolfie is indefinitely banned from speculating in any way upon the real-life identity of any editor in the transcendental meditation area, broadly construed, except that concerns about such may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee." A bit later, you were blocked for three months but before you did, you viciously and unjustly attacked @Ched:/@Chedzilla:. While you are on the right track with things that are truly fringe, such as creationism, as someone who has also called things like psychoanalysis a "pseudoscience," you have a POV to push and seem to be one of the folks who sees the mote in your neighbor's eye but not the log in your own. I suggest that you need to think that over. You could learn much from Olive about remaining positive and peaceful. (Frankly, so could I). Montanabw^(talk) 22:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I was blocked because I emailed an admin and asked to be blocked because of the constant attacks I get from you and others. Any comments I made where fully justified, I will not be responding here further as you have continued your attacks on me. Stay away from me. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be wise for you to 1) Stay away from Olive and when your paths cross, assume good faith toward her, as she is one of the most good faith editors I know, and 2) Cease misrepresenting what I am saying to you. And yes, I think you need to stay away from me as well, though should our paths cross due to third parties or articles where we have a preexisting mutual interest, that will be difficult. Nonetheless, I will now request that you formally stay off of my talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 22:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I won't comment further on this page either. We'd better agree to disagree about Olive's simple good faith (it seems ArbCom agrees with me rather than you), and about the value of IRWolfie's defense of the quality of scientific and fringe articles. Did you really think I'd read only the quoted snippet..? Of course I've read the "whole drama" or I wouldn't have commented. I guess my principles in that regard are quite different from Eric's.[5] If I were Sandstein, I wouldn't strike the warning, and if I were you I wouldn't put scare quotes round the word. It really is time you stopped. By the way, this is your own page, and you're entitled to remove or collapse IRWolfie's comments if you must, but I'm a little shocked that you'd put a snide collapse header over them. The comments consist exclusively of diffs and quotes from Olive. That's not an "attack" except in Bizarro world. And you have presumably seen by now that you jumped to conclusions when you called IRWolfie a "stalker", huh? (I linked his name, and Olive's, and Eric's, in my first post, to notify them.) Hadn't you better strike out these things? I think you'd sleep better. Bishonen | talk 23:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC).