User talk:Montanabw

WikiStress level

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

Make articles, not wikidrama

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

Traffic count!

Sandbox invite

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

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

Typical talk page discussion thread

"[The] readers will not be privy to the massive undercurrents of dross that underpins WP. They require well written, well sourced, encyclopaedic material that can inform, enlighten and satisfy their interest."

—User:Leaky caldron to User:ThatPeskyCommoner

"We live a time when criticism, especially here on Wikipedia, is considered to be a personal attack, which is at the root of this nonsense. Yet without criticism we can't improve."

—The user formerly known as Malleus Fatuorum

"Montana, you know I respect you greatly--you write FAs that have fewer adjectives than that outburst."

—User:Drmies

"Every edit, especially bold ones, is disruptive. Disruptive just means changing the status quo and because Wikipedia is in a constant state of evolution, it is in a constant state of disruption ..."

—User: Liz

Before you post on my talk page (humor)

Come here and I'll point the spout at YOU!

Don't call names, you loggerheaded plume-plucked varlot!

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 fawning rough-hewn boar-pig.

Happy Montanabw's Day!

User:Montanabw has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Montanabw's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Montanabw! Peace, Rlevse 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww, gee! That was really super nice! Thank you! Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

'tis the season

Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious translates to the PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Cutthroat island... no, I mean trout

There is something up with your nomination for Today's Featured Article. At least I think there is something up with it, as it isn't in the same format as all the rest and when trying to edit it you are presented with some sort of internal reference for the file to include rather than the text. It's beyond my - as yet - limited Wikipedia powers to fix it if it is indeed broken rather than intentional (I plan to become more powerful in the ways of Wikipedia than your puny earthling brain can possibly imagine but I also need to have some supper and a rumbling tum trumps meglomania for the moment). Belle (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I noticed that too, but someone appears to have fixed it. I think there were random formatting characters buried in the lead somewhere that I neglected to strip out when I wrote the blurb, but it seems to be working now. Thanks for the heads up, though. Much appreciated. Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN/R

Hey, we don't just do this any more. We discuss individual cases and get a consensus for them before adding them to ITN/R. You're obviously more than welcome to initiate those discussions should you have the time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I posted there. My bad!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No bother. Don't expect an answer this side of your lifetime. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Tool for bare references

Hey, thanks for offering this - I can put it to good use. How great to find a horse lover! You have really carried through on that. Enjoyed your great article on Chrome, and it led me to look further. My parents had lived in Louisville when young and saw a great horse win the Kentucky Derby, so I was tracking that down. Your piece on "free rein" on your User Pge made me laugh. Reading when people misuse "free reign" for "free rein" also makes me crazy. Even if they didn't know where the true expression came from, their version usually doesn't make any sense. I wonder how long it will continue, with people having no knowledge of the correct term? Parkwells (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to help! Which horse were you looking for? Pop by here any time; I'm guessing that 90% of the 4000+ articles on my watchlist are horse-related, and the ones that aren't are mostly Montana and the west-related. (Acknowledging that this includes Sip 'n Dip Lounge, rocky mountain oysters, cow tipping, and jackalope). It's an enjoyable corner of wiki. As for misuse of words, I like to explain that "Miss America's privileges during her reign were reined in when she was caught out partying in the rain!" And you just don't want to get me started on why the fetlock is NOT an "ankle"! :P Montanabw^(talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This one?

Thanks Hafspajen!

jousting!
I knew about two of the three, looking more for drama, perhaps a painting?? Montanabw(talk) 04:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC) OK. Hafspajen (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Feisty unicorn

populated places and otherwise

To be populated place, people must be living in the place. Otherwise, it is a former populated place (no trace of it exists) or a ghost town (some trace left). A place cannot be both a populated place and a ghost town. Also the populated place category has been split into subcategories for cities, towns, unincorporated communities, former populated places, etc.. Same with article text. And I only go by what is in the text of the article, not some outside non-RS information. Thanks Hmains (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In some cases I saw that you changed the text to match your categories. You will also note that I did not remove the label from some articles. And a "ghost town" can still have some inhabitants, Bannack, Montana is a classic example. A ghost town has a specific definition in the American west, implying that, yes, it was abandoned, but not that it is Sometimes a town is abandoned and obtains ghost town status, then people move back to help maintain it if it is viewed as a historic monument. Virginia City, Montana is, for example, a thriving town again and a county seat. Census data is the RS, if the census defines it as a unincorporated area with population, then it's not a "former populated place" (which is, by the way, a term that comes from where? ) Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I made changes when the text disagreed with itself. 'Former populated places' comes from the 4 year old category tree in WP Category:Former populated places which previously was Former settlements. Bannack, Montana text states "The last residents left in the 1970s." so it has no people according to is article. In any case, a few houses in the general area where a populated place used to exist does not make it a populated place--no more than a few houses in an area would make a new location a populated place in the first instance. Also the status of what a location is in WP is always present tense unless the word 'former' is used, such as 'former cities', 'former census-designated places', etc. At the state level, there are categories for 'ghost towns' (as a subcategory of former populated places) and 'former populated places'; at the county level, there are no categories for ghost town (too few in a county) but only categories for 'former populated places'. Hmains (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You should do the research to be sure you have it correct, that means checking for population data, though I admit that getting data on unincorporated communities (example, Craig, Montana can be a challenge, plenty of people there, try finding a population statistic) (see here). I would agree there is no need for a Ghost Towns by county cat, ghost towns by state is plenty. But ghost town is not synonymous with abandoned or vice-versa; take the cities that are now drowned by reservoirs for example, they are clearly abandoned, but they are not "ghost towns." These little town articles largely are of poor quality and info taken from less than ideal sources. Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Follow up: USGS lists Bannack as a populated place. Note that USGS does distinguish; the ghost town of Corbin is a "locale," whereas [http://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=136:3:0::NO:3:P3_FID,P3_TITLE:781665,Corbin Corbin itself is a populated place. These terms are defined here. I suggest that this be the guide as to where you categorize these places. (@Hmains: Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I only use the article text in determining categories; I do not do research (my work choice); others can do that and write the text to match the references. Categories are based on the text only. And as you note, it is not possible to obtain reliable population figures on non-census counted places--there are not even defined boundaries to be considered. As far as USGS goes, I see various errors/non-updated information in it. Places that from other information are clearly non-populated for long periods of time still show up in USGS as 'populated'. Sometimes it seems that once USGS gets ahold of a name of a place, it never drops it or updates its content. What my category work generally does is put the place in 'former populated' at the county level when the article says it is a ghost town or otherwise indicates it has no people; and puts the place as 'ghost town' or 'former populated' at the state level depending on whether the article indicates there are still remains of the town or not. Hmains (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well to say "former populated" in absence of a RS is Original research or WP:SYNTH on your part. USGS may be imperfect, but where are you finding more recent info? (sincerely curious as to source) Many people editing articles don't mess with the categories and are unfamiliar with what's out there, so there is a need for synergy and collaboration. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As I have written several times here, my source is the article text. I was just stating what I have found when occasionally looking at USGS, not indicating I either use it or ignore it. Hmains (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It is also obvious that editors prior to me are ignoring this 'reliable source' since USGS often calls a place a 'populated place' but the article says (wrongly) that the place is a 'ghost town'. A place cannot both be a populated place (has people) and a ghost town or former populated place (no people). All these articles' text should be reviewed and corrected as required. Hmains (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that some "ghost towns" do have small populations; usually a combination of historic abandoned buildings and newer structures on the periphery. So "ghost town" is something of a colloquialism, and not a synonym for "former populated place." I would suggest that maybe where there is some question (Corbin, Montana being an example as shown in the USGS sources above), just keeping the ghost town label but not former populated places. JMO. Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, buildings do not equal people. 'Former populated place' means no people; ghost town is a subset of former populated place, one which still has some trace left of it but still no people. A place with people is not a ghost town anywhere. Montana is not a special case. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I have about a dozen ghost towns within an hour's drive of me so don't tell me what a ghost town is; the new buildings are houses with people in them. DUH! Montanabw^(talk) 15:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
    • A few houses with people in an area do not make a populated place in the first places; a former populated place or ghost town which later has some people move into the area does not make it a populated place again, either. It is still a former populated place or a ghost town. Hmains (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And your source for this definition of a ghost town, oh great one, was pulled from your butt or can you provide me a link to a reliable source? By your standard, half the populated places in Montana would not be. Montanabw^(talk) 02:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Domestication of the horse

I see that you have reverted my edits. My edit changed dates to the DMY format because the article contains the template {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2011}}. If you are sure that there is in fact a consensus for another date format then please change that. If you wish, I can come back and re-edit when the matter is settled as I have an AWB tool kit for formatting dates either way. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll fix it, I have no clue who put that template in, (I never bother unless it's an issue) and the only other significant content editor hasn't been on wiki in years. Montanabw^(talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Fred Moodry Middle School 8th Grade Honors Class

It's all OK, I have also redacted your real name from this message for your own safety. Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Art Sherman

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where to say it, TFA or here: precious again, You win for horses, whether they win or not, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. Luckily, today they won! Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

All must have prizes! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

History of the horse in Britain

Hi, no worries about the revert, only I did a fairly heavy overhaul of the article a couple of years back for Pesky, and I thought I'd have another look with a new toy – new to me, anyway: the things I deleted showed up as errors, because they're not used for references. Maybe that's fine and forget it, but Wanderings in Roman Britain is from 1926 so probably very old hat, leaving only Medieval Archaeology: An Encyclopedia from 2001 as something probably useful: thing is, I did check back to see if there were ever any related references with page numbers and I didn't find any. I did the delete with something Eric said to me the other day in mind, about referencing errors, in an article I've just been crazy enough to nominate as a FAC... And I couldn't get sight of the Encyclopedia. Just telling you what I saw in a hopefully helpful sort of way! :o) Nortonius (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, then all is well. Looked like a drive-by. Maybe park the removed sources on the talk page so they can be found again should they be needed for something. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Or in further reading/external links depending on whether they're books or web sites. Dana boomer (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking further reading, as neither Wanderings in Roman Britain nor the Encyclopedia are online, as far as I can see. I'd be interested to know why exactly they were included: the Encyclopedia seems a likely source, but there might be some very nice little nuggets in Wanderings. (I hope Pesky's ok, anyway, I'm sure she'd be able to tell us) That being the case, though, while Wanderings seems a very obscure source without knowing what's in it, the Encyclopedia seems too general a source, yet covering only the medieval period, to fit in a section for further reading in that article. On balance, I think Montanabw's first suggestion of parking those two items on the talk page seems best. Nortonius (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling all #Chromies ;-)

First, a thank you to all my talk page stalkers for helping with the California Chrome article, which got 35,000 hits on Preakness Day and another 50,000 hits the day after. Second, I am in a mood to see if we can have some fun on wikipedia: If anyone feels like it, especially if you watchlist the article, how about changing your signature to be green and purple (Chrome's stable colors), the way I just did, at least through the 2014 Belmont Stakes. (If you've never done this, go to preferences and enter the same syntax as in my signature, only with your user name and user talk instead). I don't think this would be viewed as POV-pushing or as "ownership" of the article, it's just fun! I suppose you could even do different stable colors if you want to cheer for one of the other horses, but I think it would be a fun way to say that you are watching the article and - maybe - acknowledge that you are upholding WP:BLP when it comes to his people's assorted feel-good stories. Montanabw^(talk) 17:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Unload"

Is "unload" a term of art in horse-related topics? It could be but this sentence does read a bit oddly to me: Once the plane landed, however, he refused to unload until he was turned around and backed down the ramp; Alan Sherman explained later that this was his typical way of unloading from ground-based transportation as well. Normally animate objects don't unload; things are unloaded; it is done to them by others, and not by them. Maybe Once the plane landed, however, he refused to be unloaded until he was turned around and backed down the ramp; Alan Sherman explained later that this was his typical manner of egress from ground-based transportation as well.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I think "as well" is superfluous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Yup, it's a horse word, we load and unload horses into and out of trailers all the time. We probably should say "disembark" but we don't. As for the rest, most of your grammar edits are spot-on, and the few that aren't at least signal me that a rewrite of some sort is needed, so a tip o' the hat to you. Montanabw^(talk) 22:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters since the change is in, but the issue wasn't the sense of people unloading and unloading horses, it was that when you say "he refused to unload" – it has the horse [refusing] to unload himself rather than it being done to him. Glad to help. I've made it to the end now. Are you planning to go to FAC?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FAC yes, but not until after the madness of the Belmont dies down and we know the rest of the story! ;-) As for grammar, I suspect you are right, but we horse folks do say that we "ask" horses to load or unload themselves into trailers - it has to be to some degree voluntary on their part or else it's one heckuva fight that often results injured people and/or injured animals. We're weird that way; I think it reflects a huge debate in horse-land over whether the horse is a companion animal or mere livestock. We definitely load and unload cattle, but what DO we do with dogs when we ask them to get in a car? Is that "loading" or does the dog simply "enter"? Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say since car = dog park = dog tries to get into car even if we are just walking by it; there's never a need to ask, though once in a while, car = vet, which = very unhappy dog.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

But does the dog "load" himself? LOL! And let's not start with cats...! =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 23:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for the ping thank you M. You may have already noticed that I have added a hidden message to try and alert other editors who want to add items to the see also section. While they don't work 100% of the time I have been pleasantly surprised with how often they do help. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome and LOL. On that note, be sure to check the "snarkives" link off my main user page. I always accept new nominations! 17:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Great stuff. I will keep it in mind and let you know if I come across anything worth your perusal. Both your talk and user pages are a joy. They rank right up there with User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior and User:KillerChihuahuas useful thoughts section. Depending on how far north you live in Montana, Douglas WY may be halfway between us. As a kid it was always one of my favorite places (the other was Chugwater - such a great name) that my family drove through on the way to visit grandparents in Casper. I loved the jackalope statue in the center of town. Happy editing whenever possible ;-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind, thank you! Yes, I am familiar enough with the I-25 corridor and have passed the Chugwater exit (yes, it is so fun just to have a reason to say "Chugwater!") - I have extended family in your state, let's say I can leave my home and be in theirs at the end of a long days' drive. Feel free to drop me email for more chat on that topic! Ah jackalope... I actually have not driven through downtown Douglas to see the Jackalope statue, so I clearly am suffering from severe cultural deprivation, but I have seen ALL the large fiberglass animals that dot I-94 as one crosses North Dakota, if that counts!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Cultural deprivation" heehee. The ND trip sounds a treat! I should have mentioned that my families trips were in the 1960s and early 70s - before I-25 had extended that far north. Thus, we went through each one of those towns rather than around them. The gas station at C had "Chugwater Chili Mix" on its shelves though I can't remember how it tasted now. The Interstate brought about an amazing change - the five hour trip to Casper turned into a two to three hour one depending on traffic. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am old enough to remember that era as well; the interstates were mostly done up here by the mid-70s, but I remember my dad changing a flat tire on our horse trailer pulled over to the side of a narrow secondary road in those days when the Interstate sort of came and went at random intervals... Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Improving coverage of native dance

I don't think our aims are that different here -- should we try to start a new article about native dance basically from scratch? I could withdraw the deletion nomination, and we could move the page to a new title... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'd support a move to something like Alaskan Native dance, and we could build from there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Great Northern

Re your revert on Great Northern - how does the entry "One of a number of railways; see Great Northern Railway (disambiguation)" (two places above) not cover it? --Redrose64 (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe put it first, it was buried in there. Montanabw^(talk) 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieval dates

Hey Montanabw. As you've said you're planning on a FAC, one thing I noticed in the article (which is really shaping up, good job) is retrieval dates given for paper sources. Not an issue I care much about but you will inevitably be asked to remove them at a FAC so I thought I'd note it to give you one less issue when you nominate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit:Hmmm. If it were google books, I'd agree with you. But here, all were versions accessed online, and sometimes we have news articles corrected and changed after the fact, (plus I'm already having dead link problems) so I think I should keep the access dates. Basically, I have some folks saying I should use "citenews" for the papers, even when accessed online, others saying use citeweb, frankly, I usually just do whatever the formatting gods ask of me in any given week because it changes... Thoughts on the deeper issue hers? Montanabw^(talk) 19:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said it's not an issue I get excited about. But at every FAC/GA I've been asked to remove them. Agreed: it's sometimes quite unclear whether a newspaper's website story is actually just a digitization of what was printed, and so when that's unclear it seems an accessdate is useful. When it is clear, such as, for example, the Wall Street Journal cite, the accessdate is harmless surplusage – again, not my issue; just raising it as an anticipated issue for you and maybe I'm wrong about that. As for cite templates, no one should ever give a damn which you are using so long as it gives consistent and properly formatted output the same as any other template used. A true issue of form over substance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

When I took Mucho Macho Man to FAC, it survived with them, as did Oxbow. I got smacked for some inconsistent referencing, but that was fair. So far, so good, but I'll keep the possibility in mind. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Prep 3

Hi, I didn't realize you were filling Prep 4 at the same time. When I went to copy and paste the ones I chose, I found you had already used them. I'm stopping editing Prep 3 now. There are quite a few good hooks available, but since I approved them, I couldn't promote them. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Tell me which ones you approved and I can promote them. I'm done with prep 4 now. Would you be so kind as to promote nasal strip for me? Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I approved:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Rahul Shewale
• Template:Did you know nominations/T. K. Bellis
• Template:Did you know nominations/Matthaios Kofidis
• Template:Did you know nominations/Justina Ford (she'd be good for a picture slot)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Mischief Makers

I swapped one of the two India hooks that you put in Prep 4 with something else. Hope that's okay. Soman is really busy lately!

Do you want the picture slot in Prep 1 for nasal strips, or will any slot do? Yoninah (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a good picture. It's going in the first slot. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yay for pictures. I'll see if I can promote some of these others to finish up prep 3 for you. I think the preps will all be full then. Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You have 2 India hooks again in Prep 3. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I spoke too soon :). Keep up the good work. I'm going to bed. Yoninah (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, tons of stuff from everywhere but the USA lately. Also tough to find enough stuff without images, I had to promote a couple without pics to get these sets done. Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your efforts to fill out the prep areas and tackle the backlog at WP:DYK. v/r - TP 06:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Troika (driving)

Good morning, Montanabw. I would like to ask you a question about one of my edits, that you reverted, on the article Troika (driving). I'm curious about the reason why you cancelled this edit. Is this because there is a YouTube link as a reference? Regards — KiwiNeko14 _(Meow) 09:12, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Diff link: [1]

Two reasons, one is that the material is irrelevant WP:TRIVIA, and once people start adding pop culture references, the lists grow to endless proportions. The second is that the clip is proof for a cartoon rendering of a troika appearing in that clip, but as such it's pretty much WP:OR. YouTube can, in some cases, be used as a reference source, for example, a news story about troikas, perhaps, but it was mostly the trivia aspects that I was concerned about. Montanabw^(talk) 16:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Hi, I saw the tick you gave it yesterday. I also saw that Storye Book has made an impressive effort to approve all the nominations that have been lying around since March. I'm just a bit wary to start promoting all these hooks, because of the reams of discussion and argument that went into them previously. I admit I'm gun-shy from last month's barrage of criticism of DYK hooks both from within the project and without. I thought I'd wait a couple of days and see if anyone responds to your bold move, and if the coast seems clear, then promote it. Your thoughts? Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, I did it a couple days ago and haven't been slapped yet, but who knows? Nothing like a dramafest to make a person gun-shy! Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been fake blocked from editing for a period of at least 24 hours for self-abuse of editing privileges. Once this ersatz block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be faux unblocked, you may appeal this counterfeit block by adding the following text below this notice: {{fake unblock|reason=Your reason here~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

SCOMN! Best laugh I've had all week! @Fuhghettaboutit:. You just wait, I'll cook up something ... Bwahahahahahaaaa! Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not only did I fake block you but I've psychically stalked you and using my powers, I've downloaded from the collective unconscious exactly what you'll be watching tomorrow at 7:00 p.m EST. Neat trick, huh? (I will be watching too:-))--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nah I'll be reverting vandals by then, post time is 6:52, so by 6:55 I'll be living on wiki. (Note: Best to tun in no later than 6:30 pm EST if you want to be sure to catch the race; post time is, at best, an estimate! Montanabw^(talk) 00:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Nasal strip

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Go, CC horse! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all! Montanabw^(talk) 19:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Open Range edits

Hello, You recently reverted changes I made to the open range page. Specifically, you kept in the language that says Larson-Steiner eliminated the open range doctrine altogether in Montana. I do not believe that is a correct statement of the law. I would encourage you to read the Larson-Steiner opinion again, paying careful attention to paragraphs 28 and 29, and reconsider your edit.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.128.250 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Montana Law Review says otherwise, but I can refine the edit to more closely match the analysis of the top legal minds in the state. Montanabw^(talk)

If you provide a cite for the MLR article, I would like to read it.

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.128.250 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I made a tweak to the article and included a link to the MLR article. The whole situation is extremely complex and difficult to summarize. Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Chic chick

Hey Montana, I'll take "chic" at face value if only for grammatical reasons--"hippie chick cowgirl" is three (really, four) nouns in one compound; "hippie chic cowgirl" has "hippie chic", a fairly common phrase, as a adjectival phrase modifying "cowgirl". In other words, I'm giving her the stylistic benefit of the doubt. I'll get back to the DYK today or tomorrow (I'm teaching today); I do need to look closely at the sources, some of which, as you know, aren't really, well, books or printed magazines and papers. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The gal has a fashion line too, so you might be right. Could also be a play on words, "hippie chick" being lingo from my generation... the article is only about start-class, but I'm already rather sick of her interview style, can't stand people who seem to talk in all caps... the real reason she gets an article from me is because I want the wikicup points, LOL! I stumbled across a song she wrote about California Chrome - the song is so saccharine it nearly sent me into a diabetic coma, but hey, she passes WP:GNG (for the video hitting #1 on CMT, if nothing else) Montanabw^(talk) 16:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's the winning horse, right? Remind me to buy more bourbon and pick more mint on Friday. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That was the Kentucky Derby drink! For the Belmont, if bourbon is your beverage of choice, then you want a Belmont Jewel. However, some claim the official drink is still the Belmont Breeze. Take your pick! Post time is about 6pm Eastern Time, but the "pregame" show will be running a couple hours out and should be worth the watch. Montanabw^(talk) 17:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I always thought the Belmont's was a Long Island Iced Tea for some reason. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Before the Belmont Breeze was some godawful concoction called a White Carnation. And yes, California Chrome. Actually, he has his own drink, also with Bourbon: http://bevvy.co/cocktail/california-chrome-2014/JSl . Montanabw^(talk) 17:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ha, thanks for setting me straight. But that Belmont drink, no, I think I'll skip that. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Bourbon straight up, no chaser? Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

One bourbon, one scotch, and one beer. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Rye > bourbon >>> beer. Sazeracs are great, as far as cocktails go. Absinthe by itself (well, it's diluted, but still) is actually also quite good, despite the fact that I'm not normally a fan of licorice. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Well, you might think you're Bad to the Bone, but I'm more likely to be Lost in the Ozone Ag'in. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to be snarky ...

But your not supporting the Classical music projects attempts to have their own "style" at their articles is now going to bite us all. What that did was basically confirm that wikiprojects can't set their own guidelines on style or naming - so now... you can't use the equine project's knowledge to keep the breed names as they should be. Consider this not so much a "I told you so" but a "wish things were different" because the birds project lost out and now we've got the MOS-pushers on our backs. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Au Contraire. I'm not arguing there for wikiproject consensus, I'm arguing for 12 exceptions to WP:MOS based on individual factors. We can most certainly use our individual KNOWLEDGE of each of us on a case-by-case basis, and so no wimping out of conflict on your part, dearie. Rules are tools, they change the rules, you find new tools. Same end result. And, frankly, the classical music people's bullying of reasonable dissent, failure to AGF and refusal to budge one inch to reach consensus was what led to the result, not any inherent moral rightness for their position; bad facts make bad law. Wikiproject consensus was always a fragile platform but can still be used as a guideline - it's clearly being used to keep infoboxes out of most classical music articles. So weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I already did. And "wikiproject" knowledge is already being discounted. And also any "horsie" papers or things. Someone is arguing for "American paint horse".... I've already put up examples, but it's not my fight totally. I've been involved with it ... sitewide. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 156#Bird common name decapitalisation - that's what is going to be put forth as the "rule". Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CHEESE . Just make your case and keep making it. Proper nouns are proper nouns, that's not a wikiproject issue, it's an expert issue. And dammit, we are experts. TPSers who care, the shitstorm is at Talk:American_Paint_Horse#Requested_moves. Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

(TPS) Ye Gods, what a shitshow that link is. But you should know experts don't matter when it comes to sacred texts like the MOS. Real world standards are as nothing compared to this manufactured reality... Intothatdarkness 13:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What Intothatdarkness said. Nortonius (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, reality is manufactured by those who show up, I guess that's my take. Onward through the fog! Montanabw^(talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Waler horse page unit conversions

I understand your point about metric units being used in Australia, and have no objection to that coming first (though just above is a hands-inches-cm conversion that doesn't follow a metric-first conversion ordering).

My concern was only that it gives an inaccurate result - 16 stone is exactly 224 lbs, by definition, but by converting through kg first you get 223. If you want metric first, I might suggest we just do a stones-kg conversion by template, followed by a manual stones-lbs conversion, which would avoid the inaccuracy. By that same token, if you want metric-first, the hands/inches/cm conversion could have a hands-cm template conversion followed by a manual hands-inches conversion, since again the latter is fixed by definition. Russ3Z (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, frankly, if it matters that much to you, I don't care that deeply about it. As for hands, see my toolbox (off my user page) for ways that those who care can flip the order of things in the template, the thing has been refined to go any way anyone could ever want to take it. Montanabw^(talk)

People are "who", everything else is "that" or "which", when I was taught English. When did naming an animal anthropomorphize it? MOS: Number lists one-nine, then 10; sorry about the 9.

Well, naming does in fact "anthropomorphize it." And "it" is already defined as a he or a she, also. The world is changing from when you and I might have been taught in school, as in those days the churches also taught that animals had no souls, and words like "n-----r" and such were part of a lot of people's everyday vernacular. There is room to distinguish between animals and humans without the need reduce sentient creatures to equal status with an inanimate object. Montanabw^(talk) 23:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Countdown on Chrome, all page stalkers!

Hey all, California Chrome article and 2014 Belmont Stakes articles should be watchlisted for the next 24-36 hours. Anticipate some vandalism, whether the horse wins or loses. We have several regular editors who will make responsible edits to update the articles with race results, besides me, but be alert for people making massive content changes, after the last race, someone deleted half the article! If all else fails, revert to an edit of mine. I'm going to do a couple that I will identify as a baseline for reversion if needed. Thanks for everyone's help! Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi again M. Thanks to you and all the other editors involved for the work in keeping up with this. It is amazing to think that only 25 (or is it 26 I am messing up the math) had passed between Citation and Secretariat and now we are on the way to doubling that number. Having watched so many TC hopes go up in smoke at The Belmont it leaves me more impressed then ever at what Secretariat did. To say nothing of the thrills of watching Alydar and Affirmed. Speaking of which when did Steve Cauthen get so old? I turn my back for a second and another decade goes flying by :-) Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk 23:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, what is it with Cauthen? I'm still 18, what happened to him? LOL! I guess for 50-something he's doing OK, at least he isn't in a wheelchair like poor Ron Turcotte. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Too bad California Chrome didn't win, but terrific work on the article, and one way or another, it looks like it will be an FA pretty soon. Thanks again for your hard work! Go Phightins! 23:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You folks have all been great. Your help is appreciated! Keep vandal watching for a couple hours, this is the peak of the hits. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Tonalist

just some Wikignome edits. the adjective form of tonalist, while widely used, should, i believe, be trumped by the proper noun use in this case. I am a complete newcomer to editing horse articles, but i like to try my hands at new subjects, and to make sure little details are corrected. thanks for noticing. i remember secretariat. this race today was very exciting, and sad for this Cali native. but, hooray to the winner! hope he gets an apple.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You're doing great. Go ahead and swipe @Tigerboy1966:'s default style for the article, see, for example, Wicked Strong. Needs an infobox, even if not all the data is in it yet, Tigerboy usually does the pedigrees 'cause he's good at it. Go to Equibase.com and type in the horse's name for his racing record. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

err sorry but I already created Tonalist (horse). Tigerboy1966  23:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we merge and redirect? To one or the other? Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Follow up: If we can use just "Tonalist," I think that's great, but I want to be sure we have no WP:PRIMARY fights with anyone - a tonalist is a type of art painting, right? Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to merge and redirect. It's 1am in Britain and I'm off to bed! Tigerboy1966  00:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

YOu are a trouper! Thanks for the quick work! Montanabw^(talk) 00:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

California Chrome

Hi, disappointing results today. Just wanted to note that you mentioned that California Chrome lost, and how, in the lead, but didn't source it. Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh, I'll get sources up as soon as Equibase publishes their damn chart! (Chewing fingernails, ripping hair). Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to give a big shoutout to everyone who helped keep an eye on things today, and especially a tip of the hat to @Go Phightins!: For putting temporary semi-protection on the article BEFORE the race and saving us all from an onslaught of trolls - the article got 79,000 hits on Belmont day! Whew! Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pony! (Can't wait to ride it!) Yoninah (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the lovely pony! :) DBaK (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Project

Thanks for the feedback around the horse racing project. im only editing here (after my initial excitement watching the race) because you were kind enough to award me with a pony! That seems to have inspired me. that also increases my ability to assume good faith and be bold, and to also accept criticism or reversion without rancor. if anything i attempt is off base somehow, let me know. I dont know who is keeping the project articles assessed, but thats hard work, and deserves credit. many projects dont keep up with it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

We'd love to have more help both at WikiProject horse racing and WikiProject equine (WPEQ). Feel free to pop by and sign up for either or both projects, between them there are about 12,000 articles (9,000 in horse racing alone). We tend to assess most articles in both projects as "low" unless there is some real clear justification for a higher rating. We also have many stubs in need of expansion. Both projects have active members willing to help! Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re...

This ... I'd say not all TC winners are "high" importance, but some are. SS, Affirmed, War Admiral, Secretariat, Citation, and possibly Count Fleet are definitely high as they went on to have a big breeding influence. Omaha maybe. Sir Barton, no. Assault, no. Whirlaway and Gallant Fox, maybe but probably not. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's my thinking too. I'd say that if there is a push to reassess, we should take it up at WP Horse racing; those are some really nice folks over there these days and they've been quite reasonable and thoughtful. You think Slew can be justified as high due to his influence as a sire, I'm OK with that. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I would expect high importance to be restricted to horses who have had a significant impact beyond their own country over a long period of time (several generations) or who have had a very big cultural impact. Tigerboy1966  19:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

So, besides Eclipse, the foundation stallions and such, what would be other examples, vis-a-vis, for example, Seattle Slew or other Triple Crown winners? I think Ealdgyth is correct as to it's a case-by-case basis, but where would you rank, say, Secretariat or Citation, and would there be horses of equivalent importance in the UK that we Yanks could look at to see what we think? Montanabw^(talk) 20:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Mad Weekend

This been one of the busiest weekends ever. Apart from all the issues relating to the "Big Two" races, which attracted lots of well meaning new editors as well as a few outright trolls, we have had to do updates for lots of top horses including Princess of Sylmar, Beholder, Just A Way, Cirrus des Aigles, Palace Malice etc. The French also saw fit to run their biggest hurdle race of the year on the same weekend. I even managed to forget my nephew's birthday, and much grovelling ensued. If it wasn't so much fun I'd complain! Tigerboy1966  20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, forget family in favor of horse racing and wikipedia? Sounds normal tome! I was so grateful to GoPhightins! for putting semi-protection on California Chrome, that article got more hits than the Belmont Article did. And not one troll edit and only a few editors, those solid. Didn't have to revert a thing, which is lucky because the article for poor Victor Espinoza got hammered a bit, though it could have been worse. Montanabw^(talk) 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Templeton Thompson

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll confess to being mildly embarrassed about creating that one, as I am still recovering from the diabetic coma into which the saccharine tone of her tunes placed me, but what the heck, I have a small soft spot for novelty country music tunes and ones with funny hooks. ("She got the gold mine, I got the shaft") Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Horses on Mars

There is currently a refdesk thread proposing, well, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Horses on Mars. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

OH! I am so on that one! Too good to miss! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Stock horse

Thanks for suggesting i look at it. i feel it is an article, and a potentially great article, and the list aspects are minor. PS this work on horse articles is getting me interested in the human/horse partnership, as a parallel to the human/dog partnership. I will probably actually READ an article on horses that touches on this. wow, reading an article....Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I appreciate your graciousness and care as you look over the organizational issues that have languished a long time around here. Too few horses to pull too many wagons, if I may stretch the metaphor -- to the breaking point... heh, heh, heh...! Domaybe ping WT:EQUINE if you want to do anything terribly drastic, just to avoid reinventing the wheel; there is some project consensus on certain issues that is quite long standing, some of which solved yucky edit wars that we'd like to keep solved... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Pony

Thanks! I always wanted a pony. :) Stylteralmaldo (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

One last cute article

I found this snippet that briefly gives a glimpse into the Martin's lives. It turns out that Mrs. Martin knows a little something about horses.

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/horseracing/27898147-419/chicagoan-california-chrome-co-owners-fine-in-background.html

I'm sorry about California Chrome as well. Racing luck does figure into it. I think he would have gotten the Crown but things to happen. He is a great athlete.

The Belmont was completely filled. We couldn't get out of the parking lot for several hours.

greensodagal (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)