User talk:Montanabw

WikiStress level

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

Make articles, not wikidrama

This talkpage is decorated by Hafspajen

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

User page Talk page Toolbox Advice The "snarkives"

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 fobbing half-faced scut!

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 warped common-kissing ratsbane.

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)

More if you have time

If you have time, could you take a gander at this new article, Paul D. Cronin, and do whatever needs a-doing? Thanks. :-) Softlavender (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, on this article, several non-independent sources are being used for a fair number of citations. If you have time to consider this, could you decide whether the person's self-generated resumes [1] and [2] are adequate to source Awards and Positions held? I personally never use self-generated citations, but maybe it's OK there.(?) Danke, Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Such sources are iffy, but we aren't at GA or FA yet, so at worst they are WP:SELFPUB. I'm a little busy with assorted drahmahz right now, but I'll try to take a look. Montanabw^(talk) 05:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed. LOL. Softlavender (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

re your circus

Advice to RO posted by Chillum today, in response to an email request[3] (see bottom); she removed it along with a random request for comment.[4] Why? EChastain (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a new user. RO is almost certainly a sockpuppet of someone, only question who. They admit to a previous account. It's also probably someone who tangled with me in the past, because they got very hostile very fast when I commented (negatively) at their FAC, then they asked me to not post at their talk page rather quickly when I commented on a discussion there. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the account she disclosed to arbcom is the account you're looking for. She's said variously she used a previous account for a few "weeks" or a couple of "months". It's not enough time to develop whatever agenda she has. She pinged Victoriaearle 18 times on 2 April. That's not rational!

Dr. Blofeld told me how great her last 500 edits were.[5] Look at her first 1000 or so edits, from 1 September to mid December. Then suddenly she starts massively editing a few articles, something like 1200 edits to Irataba alone. Very strange. Perhaps ‎Maunus is now finding out what a mess the sourcing on Irataba is. He should go through the whole article to verify sourcing word for word. I've watched her just change the citation but retain the same wording. EChastain (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This user also went after User:Eric Corbett quite viciously. The mass edits to an article makes it extremely difficult to follow the edit history. If it's a sock of an account that I have concerns about, copyvio and close paraphrasing is a serious worry. Also just plain making up stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There were a whole constellation of odd accounts working in that mess at that time. RO was just one of them. And I found Blofeld's defense unconvincing at best. Intothatdarkness 13:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that her behaviour at times was problematic. All I'm saying is that I did see some decent content from RO, regardless of her down side. You disagree, I know, but from my perspective RO was more productive and useful as an editor than a lot of the trolls who hang out at the board on here who contribute nothing to wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Montanabw/Duck box

User:Montanabw/Duck box, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Montanabw/Duck box and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Montanabw/Duck box during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown:, see above thread for one reason why we need to !keep it. Montanabw^(talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I was one of the first to have suspicions, but from an editor and administrative perspective, I kind of felt to compelled to nominate and let the community decide, just as I would do for any similar page for any other users. Stuff like that is typically best kept off-wiki. I have tons of notes for various editors but they are offwiki. Yahoo Notepad is pretty good for that, if you have a Yahoo account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Sometimes there is an honesty and openness to keeping such things on-wiki as well. I have a Yahoo account, but I don't particularly like it. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree that it is handy, and before becoming an admin, I had notes about spam users and such, it went unnoticed. When I read the policy fully, I just deleted it. It, like your page, was borderline (imho). Again, I don't think you are intentionally trying to do wrong here, but if someone points something out to me, and I think it may be a problem, I'm a bit duty bound to treat it the same as I would any similar page by any user. The problem is that when these pages have the wrong conclusion, they can also intimidate or run off users. I haven't commented on the merits of the information, nor even fully investigated these particular links due to time constraints. If they were less than a month old, I wouldn't have used MFD and ignored it, assuming it was for an upcoming investigation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • • Well, I think you said it best when you said the community needs to decide. It WAS for an upcoming investigation, just never quite ripe, but I think it is correct that at this point I have to let this process (which now also includes an ANI and an SPI filed by one user on herself) unfold. Montanabw^(talk) 00:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • I'm actually finding it a very helpful demonstration of the passive-aggressive tag-teaming which is often conducted by Wikipedia's unsung bullies. It's easy to point out people who cuss, but much harder to find good examples of the ones who will hound people away with superficial policy links and apparently sincere claims. But since the community doesn't seem to be very concerned about this sort of conduct, it may end up deleted just the same. Intothatdarkness 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

My only real frustration is that not enough people of good faith who are here to write an encyclopedia dig in and stand up to the bullies, and then what happens is the few who are left get fatigued and snap after all the WP:BAITing that goes on, resulting in either the wrong side being blocked or a universal "Pox on all your houses" block on everyone. In every case where bullies are outmatched (usually takes a 3-1 ratio for small cases, 2-1 on bigger ones) they usually either give up or get themselves blocked. That said, you can't tilt at every windmill out there and the people who like drama aren't creating content, so they have more time on their hands. Same as it ever was. Wiki can be too much like the real world, sometimes. Montanabw^(talk) 16:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and to an extent I suppose I'm guilty of that (hence your edit summary). I guess I view this as more of a pastime, and on the whole my faith in the ability of the system to take corrective action is very low...especially when it comes to the more stealthy bullies. Some of the comments elsewhere on this page are indicative of that in my view. Intothatdarkness 18:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Outing

Keep in mind I use geolocation as a method of uncovering IP socks. Do you have on wiki info to the Geolocation you are inferring to? If you don't please drop that aspect, if you do please make sure it is very very clear where it was because without that information it's a reasonable assumption that you may have outed RO. If there is proof of that and you have good reasons then probably best to start an SPI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I transplanted a complaint to ANI on behalf of RO [[6]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SheriWysong edited while being logged out and then complained about being "outed" I guess we have us a sockpuppet! Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Will answer at the ANI, stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag bombing?

There is currently another user adding tags to multiple articles. See, for instance, Warburg Haus, Hamburg and [7]. Wikiwiserick (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Have to say you are on your own for those at the moment, as you can see above, I've got my own dramafest happening... (sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

You are free to defend yourself and present evidence of wrongdoing; however, I strongly suggest that you back away from the RO/SW/LW issues. There is no need to repeat your point of view. Provide your evidence, and allow the community to come to a consensus. — Ched :  ?  23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the suggestion, Ched. I think I've provided all I can. I do hope that User:SheriWysong (signing her edits as User:LynnWysong) will likewise cease baiting me. But I guess DFTT applies to those. Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ched: Do you think she should also withdraw from the Irataba FAC? I was looking forward to seeing her give it a fair and a decent review after Maunus has finished. RO doesn't own the article of course, and it now also has major input from Maunus as well as myself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, Montana has said she intends to restart her review, and given the number of changes since her first review that would be very valuable. It would have been better to leave the peer review open, then take time for more rewriting before FAC2. I appreciate the work people have put into it, but it isn't ready. I'm making my way through it carefully to leave a comment, but I find in places that I'm having to read the sources to make sense of it, and it is reaching the stage where there is just too much to comment on. Also, I think full use has not been made of the primary sources. They are really very interesting, and I think more could be done to bring them alive for the reader. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

With due respect, I have contributed to 30 featured articles SV, I think I know when an article is ready for FAC or approaching a level which can drag an article over the line. Wehwalt, SchroCat and RHM22 are three of our most prolific FA editors and have all supported, Wehwalt and RHM before Montanabw even came along. It has been very well researched, especially now Maunus has found specialist books to contribute. Yes, it would have been good to have had this before the FAC but it was approaching FA standard before Maunus began on it which he even acknowledged. And it's not as if I rushed anything. The PR was kept open over twice as long as normal and had more than double the normal turnout for a PR. Also looking at Bernard Williams for instance, that wouldn't stand a chance of passing FAC currently. In fact I think it should be taken to FAR based on the sourcing. Now that's a case where full use has not been made of the primary sources which exist today... I made a considerable effort to find as much on Irataba as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dr. Blofeld, I disagree. As you know, FAC standards have risen. The article went straight from GAN to FAC1, from there straight to peer review, the peer review was closed before people had finishing commenting, then it went straight to FAC2. At each point people were rewriting during a review process, rather than slowly reading the sources to gain a deeper understanding. Some of the problems identified during the peer review remain. Also, the article needs a copy edit, but parts of it are difficult to copy edit because they're not clear enough. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 20:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I know how this looks from my end. I think you're right now that it needs another copyedit after Maunus's addition which we can look into once he's done. Constructive criticism is appreciated, I think what's important here is promoting an article, not who contributed to it. Perhaps you could take a look at Castell Coch anyway and tell us if that's ready or not anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I knew almost nothing about this when I began the reading, but now that I'm doing it, I'm finding it fascinating. Our article doesn't fully bring that out, parts of it are hard to understand, and parts of it are still disjointed. For example, we mention Oatman's last meeting with Irataba toward the end, but we don't say anything about earlier encounters (assuming there were any, and the article implies that there were). So at first mention it's not clear why Oatman is there.

Another example is the connection between the Rose-Baley attack and Irataba making peace with the Maricopa. The article talks about Irataba being away during the attack, then quotes him talking about peace with the Maricopa. Is the link simply that the Rose-Baley issue made Irataba realize the Mohave and Maricopa had to stick together? But the final sentence suggests it had no direct connection to Rose-Baley; rather, Irataba was simply tired of the dispute. Or was he tired of all fighting? (I think it was this.) It needs to be explained. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to ping Maunus. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Yavapai killed seven members of the family, but spared the lives of 14-year-old Olive Oatman and her 7-year-old sister, Mary Ann. After a year with the Yavapai, the girls were sold to the Mohave, and adopted into the Oach clan where she lived with a Mohave warrior called Tokwatha (Musk Melon). Mary Ann died two years later, and Olive remained with the Mohave until February 22, 1856, when Tokwatha brought her to Fort Yuma carpenter Henry Grinnell, releasing her in return for two horses and some blankets and beads.2" earlier on.. As for fascinating, exactly, that's what got me hooked regardless of RO's disputes with various people. I'd hope people would respect me for that here. I see what you mean about a little disjointed in parts, but that's largely because of the lack of real biographical coverage of him, it's sketchy at best. We've tried to fill in some background info without making it seem warbling or irrelevant. I can take another look at it and try to improve the flow in some areas once he's done if you're willing to give it a fair look.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me that SV has decided that the article will not gain her support. I have worked on the article to the point that it is well within what I think can be expected of a FA. I am not going to jump through hoops to get it through the review which has ofcourse by now evolved into a major dramafest and all round clusterfuck. I have done what I am going to do with the article and will not participate further in the review. RO did really quality work, they were extremely positive and open to constructive criticism and help and had fewer ownership issues than most editors I have ever collaborated with. The article is excellent. That is what matters. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Dr. Blofeld, you've quoted the earlier Oatman section without saying why. Note that it doesn't mention Irataba, the subject of the article. But later in the article, we describe Oatman meeting Irataba years later in New York. We quote her: "It was a singular coincidence, that after the lapse of 8 years the wild savage and the released captive should again meet ..." So when did they first meet, and is anything known about it? The relevance to Irataba should be made clear at first mention. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oatman knew Irataba, but we don't know anything about their first meeting or anything they did together before their meeting in NY. As far as I can see Oatman's captivity's relevance to Irataba is 1. That her captivity and release gave the Mohave a taste of the importance of being on good terms with whites. 2. That she described Mohave society after her release and influenced public views and discourses about the Mohave. 3. that her discovery as a captive among the Mohave by the Whipple expedition, created a tension among the Mohave who saw how the whites reacted to seeing one of theirs living with the Mohave. 4. the brief meeting in NY where Oatman seems to step out of character and show affection for those whom in her account she described as her savage captors. There may be a point to mentioning at the first mention of Oatman, that she was noticed by the expedition. I will add that.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The issue throughout the article is the flow. It's not always clear what something means, or why it's being mentioned. The paragraph after Oatman is confusing: "On February 23, 1854, Irataba, Cairook, and other Mohave people encountered an expedition ... Whipple and his men counted six hundred Mohave gathered near their camp, trading corn, beans, squash, and wheat for beads and calico.[25] By the end of their commerce, the party had purchased six bushels of corn and two hundred pounds of flour...." Which party? The next sentence about the game is also a bit confusing. The other example I mentioned above was:

Irataba was away at Fort Yuma during the attack on the settlers [Rose-Baley], and when he heard of it, he scolded the other Mohave. Jo Nelson (Mohave: Chooksa homar), a Mohave warrior who participated in the events reported that he told the warriors, "I hear you fought, though I told you not to. And you will have war again: I know it. You used to fight the Maricopa. I want to go [to Phoenix] to see the Maricopa and tell them: 'The Mohave will not come any more to attack you'."[54] Irataba, weary of the constant conflicts, subsequently organized a peace expedition to the Maricopa, settling the ancient disputes between the two peoples.

It's not clear what the connection is between Rose-Baley and making peace with the Maricopa. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 04:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, you've also viewed the books that RO had to write this. I believe Montana's concern further up was that RO might be a sock of somebody with a history of plagiarism. Can you state that you've checked and believe the issue has now been fully eradicated? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point SV, I thought previously I'd mentioned Irataba buying her. Perhaps it wasn't in the source, Maunus can you answer that one? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oatman's account looks interesting. For example, she discusses the Mohave women trying to stop the men from going to war. It would be good to include that perspective. The women are almost absent from the article. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 21:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• To all of you, I strongly suggest looking at the sources for the Oatman article itself: a) she was not purchased by Irataba, she lived with a different family b) It was the military who demanded in no uncertain terms that she be returned - or else c) She may not have gone back to white culture wholly voluntarily - there was some evidence that she may have actually married d) Her "account" was written by someone else who allegedly interviewed her, the style is typical of a "captive narrative" and not necessarily her own thoughts, and thus e) Being friendly to Irataba may have been because she was actually treated well by the Mohave and had positive feelings toward them, no matter what she said to ease her way through white culture. (see, in comparison, the sad fate of Cynthia Ann Parker, the mother of Quanah Parker). Montanabw^(talk) 04:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld. Sorry for the delay, but I am currently traveling, and won't be back home until the 23rd abouts. Even if I was home though, I wouldn't be much help. Back in the 08-09 era, I did work with a few folks on FLC, and GA things, but have long been away from that area do the the politics involved. I'm not saying there's anything wrong, just that I found too many "personalities" creeping into what passed and failed, rather the prose and resources. (for my tastes). Anymore - I just do copy-editing things or looking for refs, and often do so logged out. In the end, my tl;dr comment is to say that I don't know, because I'm not currently up-to-date on the standards and procedures of FA reviews. Sorry I can't be more help. (User:Ched not at home) 99.108.47.214 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TFA

Hi Montanabw. I commented on your nomination for a May 2 TFA. If you have the time I was wondering if I could trouble you to comment on my TFA nomination for May 1. See here. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What is your opinion?

A recent edit reminded me of an old discussion on Talk:Caspar David Friedrich. One or two other users, among them Rhode Island Red, have removed my short references to HA Schult and Gotthard Graubner (see [8]) from the Caspar David Friedrich page, simply because they were of the opinion that these are minor artists not worth mentioning in the featured Caspar David Friedrich article, although the work of these important German artists is clearly inspired by Friedrich, as several independent sources say. To my mind, linking is an important feature of Wikipedia, binding the project together into an interconnected whole, as connections to related subjects of other articles are always useful, and these were just two additional links that were well sourced. What is your opinion concerning this case? Wikiwiserick (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Montanabw. This is a courtesy notice about a new ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Montanabw. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oh great, another one. And of course my time is limited right at the moment, naturally. Perfect timing. And they didn't notify me, either. Thank you, though, Diannaa, for your professionalism and courtesy. Montanabw^(talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Longchamp Racecourse

Sorry to see you dealing with all this wild, wacky stuff. Might be good to let it go for a while. I know you are busy with a million things, but I wanted to let you know that Longchamp Racecourse is still a very short article. I can also see potential for another article, perhaps titled Longchamp Racecourse in art that would discuss all of the paintings depicting this subject. Be well. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at DRN

Hi MontanaBW, Nice work at the Providence DRN case. Although there was no final resolution you did help the group to clarify their issues. That is often the best we can do as entrenched disputes can take a life of their own. At present DRN is quite calm but there are times when as many as 10 cases are waiting for a moderator. Therefore I hope you are not feeling discouraged and that you will check back from time to time to help again. Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 17:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Boat Race reviews

		The Running Man Barnstar
		Hey Montanabw, just a quick barnstar to say thanks for the reviews of Boat Race articles you've conducted over the past year. As of this morning, I completed my (initial) goal of ensuing that every Boat Race had, not only its own article, but one that was either of GA or FA status: we now have 158 GAs and 3 FAs that we can all be proud of! It doesn't stop here, for me at least, I'm going to keep up with improving the quality of the GAs and look for more FA opportunities. Plus, there's the small matter of 70 Women's Boat Race articles to get up and running! But thanks again, I couldn't have done it without your help. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks! Now, shall the next project be to do the same for the Kentucky Derby? Only 141 of those! Montanabw^(talk) 16:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help with that!! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Smile

Just thought I'd tel you that the first Japanese classic of the season (the Oka Sho) was won by a filly called Let's Go Donki. Brightened up my weekend no end. If she follows up in the Yushun Himba I'll do an article. Thanks for updating Shared Belief: the result came through around bedtime in the UK but the details were not clear. Tigerboy1966  14:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Triple Crown Races

Not really interested in making all the pages and watching them, sorry. I just noticed that they weren't there and i thought i would just put them up so someone would help out. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for the reply and thanks for the edits you did! Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations on getting Bazy Tankersley to FA! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

my opinion FWIW

I don't think RO is ItsLassieTime. My thoughts are based on having tried to add to that SPI and finding that the evidence is very poor for that sock. Of the 108, or whatever, socks that editor is supposed to have, many (or most) of the "confirmed" ones have no edits or very few, that provide any useful behavioural information. So there's no good evidence to use for RO. If she's a sock, then it's someone else. EChastain (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, @EChastain: Actually, when I put together the LTA page I found quite a bit of predictable behavior, much of which I noted there. For one thing, ILT is in a time warp and most accounts just cannot stay away from children's stories and popular culture topics from the 1950s and 1960s. As you know, we did catch SeeSpot Run as an ILT sock, so I feel that creating the LTA page is worthwhile. I am only going to play the SPI card where I think we have a possible account that a) writes really poor articles with copyvio and sourcing issues that will require cleanup; b) attacks other editors who try to correct or collaborate; and c) refuses - for the most part - to work with others beyond the most superficial of "I agree with person foo" type of behavior designed to split editors and distract them from the issues of poor article quality that is the real problem with this user. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, RO can sink or swim based on current behavior, which has been pretty atrocious. While RO has some LassieTime characteristics (an obsession against Victoriaearle and a fascination with Indians and the Old West, for example) and IMHO the SPI was an appropriate thing to file and check even if it didn't pan out; I also agree that RO also has some traits that don't match up, including a penchant for baiting User:Eric Corbett and some backing from a group of people who aren't precisely supporters, but who seem to have sympathy based on some sort of inside information the rest of us are not privy to. Who knows, maybe RO is Mattisse or someone like that. Beats me and at this point I don't really need to know. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EChastain Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

But ILT is still a problem and probably has figured out how to IP hop to evade scrutiny. If ILT is around elsewhere (most likely is, and with multiple accounts), it's all a big "catch me if you can" game to that individual and important not to let sock-hunting drive us nuts. When I put together the LTA page, one thing that struck me was how the ILT sockmaster would go so far as to have one sock account "talk" to another sock account and create different personas for each editor - yet they couldn't stay away from certain topics (SeeSpot got caught in part due to the blend of working on Old West topics and popping over to edit The Three Bears). In most cases, it is probably best to focus on the behavior of the current account on its own merits - or lack thereof - and only go the SPI route where it appears there could be multiple accounts, either tag-teaming or causing similar problems across multiple articles. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not knocking attempts to identify ItsLassieTime socks. And agree with you about focusing on behaviour of the present account. After all, her current block is a result of her behaviour since her first edit August 31, with her second edit, a complex one, made some 16 minutes later.[9] By 13 September, she was already suspected of being a sock.[10] On 23 November, her user page was deleted per her request on an editor's talk page.[11] All this deleting she does is very effective. EChastain (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It's one reason I created the Duck box; to grab the diffs before they escape! That said, deleted pages is probably a reason to take screen snapshots if they are particularly egregious. I just hate the damn drama boards any more, though. They are haunted by too many trolls who aren't here to build an encyclopedia. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have restored earlier version of the UTP of SeeSpot Run. CU could not confirm if it is Itslassietime. You can use a different category such as "Sockpuppets of..." OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • CU is going to be stale, it was behaviorial evidence that got SeeSpot this time, and that is legit for the page in question. Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Revert at CFD

What was this[12] for? DexDor ^(talk) 05:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No clue. I probably tried to answer something else and hit the wrong button! Sorry! Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For mousing around until an answer was found for a previously miscaptioned image and it was posted at Talk:Horse theft. / BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sybil Plumlee

Hi Montana. Another Believer is the nominator. I was able to help a little early on because I had worked on Lola Baldwin, the first officer in the Women's Protective Division of the Portland Police. I have nothing new to add, but if you think I can still help in some way, just ping me. Finetooth (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Finetooth, I have a number of comments at the GA, if you want to help, that's fine. Or not. Figured you'd want to know it was under review! BTW, good luck with the GAn for Jackalope! Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

OK stalkers, everyone on the alert! (Fun)

Chrome's up for TFA today: California Chrome. Has already been vandalized. Creatively, I must admit! I do really and truly have to judge a horse show all day Saturday starting at 8am MST and probably running 10 hours. I will need friends to watchlist. My last edit is a "clean" one to go back to if nothing else seems suitable. I'll discuss all legit questions AFTER TFA day is over! Montanabw^(talk) 02:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Watching now ;) - Jedi instead of Colt was all that happened so far, before I looked. - The cabal of the outcasts is proud! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fun? You call this fun?? I call this work! Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(watching:) I think the intention was to not frighten people reading the header in their watchlist - at least that's what I understood ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not fun is it, especially as there's usually somebody you'll need to revert! Few people really seem to care, in fact it was only Gerda yesterday who took the time to thank me/us for Tower House. Most people just take it for granted I think.. Makes you wonder at times what it's all for! Congratulations anyway Montana, good to see this finally on the main page!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What it is for? Perhaps for the 23k+ readers yesterday (and I predict a four-digit number for today and the next two days)? - See also, about where the readers come into play - or rather not yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

California Chrome was already on my watchlist. I'm judging at a ferret show next weekend as it happens, which has earned me the soubriquet of "weasel diddler" on Wikipediocracy. But we can't take these things too seriously, or even seriously at all. Eric Corbett 10:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should take articles and readers seriously, but TFA not at all, - and perhaps that is what our friend meant in the header. We write for the readers over the years, - the extra ones on TFA day are a nice bonus, from which THEY hopefully will get something. I like the horse in connection with the Head of Christ, a ballet (don't listen, Eric), and the women with the scandals of her life in 18 volumes ;) - I bet the latter will get more hits than the other 2 and the house ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm OK with ballets Gerda, it's musicals/operas I can't stand. Eric Corbett 10:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, - my memory was wrong, happens a lot ;) - I remember this (and the work behind it with pleasure, - did you see the new image?) and compare to See also above (which pleased me less) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Judging at a ferret show sounds like a euphemism for something unsavory though I'd never call anyone a weasel diddler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I promise you, it's not. I really am judging at a ferret show next weekend. Eric Corbett 15:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

for your album (with an article that received an infobox from Tim riley) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations, Montana, on bringing California Chrome to today's featured article! I hope you enjoyed the Derby today. Bede735 (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. Skyerise (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone! Was a good day - I also had money on American Pharaoh this year, so I'm feeling rather chuffed at the moment! I very much appreciate everyone helping to keep an eye on the article! Montanabw^(talk) 03:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

New medal icons for Template:Medal, etc.

Hey, MBW. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your constructive participation -- and willingness to compromise -- in the recent Template:Medal talk page discussions. The new medal icons not only look better graphically, as noted in the discussion, they also provide additional space for additional text and help to greatly reduce line-wrapping within the medal tables. Alakzi implemented the new icons earlier today, and as you can see from the Nicole Haislett article, they look pretty darn good.

I look forward to working with you again in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Glad that one got resolved! Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sybil Plumlee image

Thanks for responding. I am unable to find a free image, but at the same time, if I do a Google image search for "Sybil Plumlee" I only see four images of her and each appears only once. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. @Another Believer: The two most likely to be suitable are the one here. The color one is captioned as owned by the family and they provided it to the newspaper, so presumably they consider it flattering. I think it's worth a try. If anyone gives you heat for it, blame me! Montanabw^(talk) 05:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the American Pharoah page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Ken and Sarah Ramsey revert

Maybe this is better placed on the article's talk page but I wanted to make sure you see it, plus, it doesn't need to be a public issue. Making the edit about the Manhattan Handicap/Manhattan Stakes had nothing to do with adding the sponsor into the title. I agree how ridiculous the sponsorship titles are, remember in the past they had a number of races with the tag "Breeders' Cup" during the racing year at various tracks? Well sometimes they had at the same tracks identically or nearly identically named stakes with the BC tag and a "Budweiser" BC tag. For real. Anyhow the reason I made the edit was to fix the link, the article's title on Wikipedia is the Manhattan "Handicap" you will see the article is the correct one to link to as the winner last year was the Ramsey's Real Solution. The race until last year was run as a handicap, what conditions it will be run under this year who knows, I did not look further when I did a little research at the NYRA website. The only reason I included the sponsor was because I wanted to maintain uniformity, so I cut and pasted from the list of stakes wins in the infobox. If we make the edit Manhattan Stakes, will that be acceptable? I think it will put us on the same page. Thanks for your consideration. Freddiem (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I can live with that. No worries... I just hate having to change the article names all the time as sponsors change... Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I see the edit you made, would you rather I go ahead and make the text Manhattan Stakes and make the link to Manhattan Handicap? I think that's a better compromise and better reflects the actuality. If you just want me to leave it as it is that's okay. Freddiem (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I generally think that the race title usually is best to match the wikipedia title. But either is fine with me. Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree but like you say the names are always changing so with the article title it's best to keep the traditional name. On the race's page at the NYRA site it even says "Manhattan Handicap" at the bottom to introduce its history. But the name will remain "Stakes" for this year at least. Well I'll go ahead and make the edit, then try to go to sleep. Thanks for your forbearance. P.S., I was looking at your user page and see we have a few things in common, and was wondering if I could just BS with you a little sometime. Freddiem (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Any time, the pub here is open! Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool, we'll have a couple pints. Thanks, take care. Freddiem (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your sandbox

I put a bit of new sand in your sandbox. BTW, one of the clerks at ArtbCom, just a week or two ago, told me in a personal note on my talk page that, and I quote, "Humor is dangerous.....". Which just proves...not everybody laffs (but who cares!) . Buster Seven Talk 17:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, so long as it wasn't a cat turd, we're all good here! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I had no one really I knew to ask but you, so apologies for any grievances hearing from me will cause. I noticed you have contributed to a lot of GAs and I was wondering how to submit an article for review. Any additional pointers from your personal experience would help me more than anything as I still have a long way to go before I even consider a review. By what I have read, it is a challenging process that I think you could help me be more prepared for. I understand if you have more important things to attend to, so, again, apologies if I wasted your time.

Also, though I know this means little to you, I saw you were considering to become an admin. I would support that ambition, I'm suprised more people are not doing the same. Anyways, hope everything else goes well for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of helpful info, I will evaluate it to get a better understanding. This was a big help, hopefully, in due time, I will be able to submit an article for review. Thanks for taking the time to message me, I'll let you get back to your work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick:, another thing to consider is putting an article up for Peer review. A good way to get eyes on it and some opinions. Also a good way to gauge how your own temperament can handle the gauntlet. Sometimes you can get a bad reviewer or find that the critiques of your article don't seem fair, It's important to be calm and not get too upset. About 3/4 of the time, the reviewer is actually right, painful as that is, and the other 1/4 of the time they are a troll, but both cases are a no-win if you lose your cool. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I will make sure I do that. I will admit that on one occasion one user (not you, I actually think your actions were not as bad as I first thought) almost made me upset enough to say things I would have regretted saying. I will try to listen to reviewers though, they most likely know a lot more than me about a proper article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination participation of Jackalope

The GA nomination of the article Jackalope you participated in as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jackalope for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Quarter Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Jackalope (estimated annual readership: 262,282.09) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Mr. Guye (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing jackalope adventures

Yes, please do add Jackalope to your GA list and claim shotgun credits. I wouldn't have looked twice at Jackalope except for you. I had no idea that article would become so interesting, that the jackalope has global appeal, that scholars have published articles about it, or that the Wyoming Legislature would debate the status of jackalopes for years and years. Good luck with the wikicup. Finetooth (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you watching the election results from the UK?

They are now airing on C-span. Freddiem (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Very good resource

Hi Montana,

I recently noticed a comment of yours in which you mentioned HathiTrust. So that I'll be kept occupied while I'm reading books on English history, I'm currently planning to improve the article on the First Triumvirate, which, as I just noticed the other day, is in a terrible condition. I've found the website to be a valuable tool in my research. Thanks for mentioning it! Regards, --Biblioworm 01:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tonalist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Bravo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)