This user is a WikiGryphon.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user

User talk:Montanabw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Animhorse.gif Animhorse.gif

WikiStress level
Navy binoculars.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.
9.7 This user has 9.7 centijimbos.
Phidippus audax Jumping Spider.jpg This talkpage is decorated by Hafspajen
Question mark.svg This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.
User page   Talk page   Good and Featured articles   Barnstars   The DYK Corral   Toolbox   Advice   About Magic unicorns    

Sandbox invite[edit]

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
The Signpost
21 July 2016

"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)[edit]

Happy Montanabw's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

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. RlevseTalk 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

'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)



This is cool[edit]

Parking the link: https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/TED_conferences/TED_speakers_challenge/Participants#Prizes

Abu Farwa[edit]

I'm looking at a reader comment sent in to Wikimedia by OTRS regarding Abu Farwa. I don't think you are an OTRS agent (although perhaps you should be). Do you know an OTRS agent with interest in articles about horses? If you do, please share and I'll bug them. If you do not, my fallback position is to ask for permission to share the question with you. Would that be okay?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I more or less fit that description, Sphilbrick, if I can be of any help. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: ticket:2016062810019398 Thanks in advance. I noticed after the fact that Montanabw has edited this article, so may be interested.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: and Philbrick: I am not an OTRS agent, but perhaps that is something I should pursue. Where do I go to look into this? As for Abu Farwa, I am familiar with the horse and have a great deal of source material for him; let me know what's up, as I can fix any material in that article to RS if there was something problematic. I suppose OTRS will be needed for some photos (I think someone mentioned to me that they had images of him they had taken themselves... he died back in the early 70s, so we could find fair use images, but free is always better... Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's the place to apply for OTRS:
OTRS
If you do apply, let me know so I can add my name in support. There are several things that OTRS agents deal with; you hinted at one, helping with permissions for images. Another major class of items is dealing with email sent to Wikimedia identifying either problems in articles or asking questions. My query to you relates to someone who believes they found an error in the article. We take privacy very seriously so I apologize for being less than open about the issue. I've requested permission to share the problem with you but have not yet received a reply. If we do not get permission I suspect that justlettersandnumbers will be clever enough to ask you questions without violating confidences.
One additional point regarding OTRS agents. Many are admins; it is not a technical requirement. It is useful because many queries come in about an article that was deleted so the ability to see deleted material can be important but there are many tickets that don't require this ability.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, two more points. The info queue (where people email with general problems) is almost under control, with a couple hundred open tickets in the English queue. More help is needed there, but the real need is in Permissions (making sure that permissions for images, and in rarer cases, text are proper and can be accepted.) I used to work in Permissions, but now concentrate on info. The backlog at Permissions is over 1000.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up[edit]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I received permission to share the email so I emailed Montanabw the original and followup emails. I have more than a dozen active tickets so I am hoping I can leave it in your (joint) collective capable hands. Will that work?--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers and Sphilbrick:Got the email. The Abu Farwa email raises an old and well-discussed spat about an ancestor in his pedigree and I will address any corrections that need to be made in the article. It's one of those things that modern equine coat color genetics understand quite well today, less so in the 1950s and 1960s. (Horse people can have unbelievable drama-o-rama about horse markings) It's all about the white-spotting stuff, such as in the discussion of the Thoroughbred foal with the splashed white markings we are discussing in a thread above this one. On it, and thanks. Montanabw(talk) 03:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, that's fine with me. A far as I can see, it's a topic that should be discussed on the talk page (I'd probably have responded to the ticket with a message to that effect). I'll send a note to suggest the person posts there, partly as a way of inviting in an apparently expert potential new editor. I'm completely clueless about the actual details of the breeding, NOT an area where I have expertise. Montana will surely deal with that. Regards to both, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree, and in many cases such as this I do recommend that the person use the article talk page. However when I saw the rather strong opinions in the subject matter I knew it would be a good idea to reach out to Montanabw. I didn't initially realize that Montanabw had edited this particular article; had I realize that I might've jump directly to suggesting use the talk page. However the note above makes it clear the right editor is involved :) Thanks to both of you for agreeing to get involved; it looks like it's in good hands. --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I have the situation fixed. The person pointed out a legitimate error that I hadn't spotted, and which I fixed. That said, they probably should be educated about what is and is not RS, lol (but they were right about the error). I'm getting a little frustrated at how much stuff is now being self-published or posted to Instagram or wherever. Montanabw(talk) 19:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for getting involved. Based upon your response, I think it was clear we needed a subject matter expert, so I'm happy you stepped in - sorry if it was more work than you had hoped. Regarding RS - I've always been trouble about the general problem, but hoped it would be getting better - it may not be which has far-reaching consequences. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Blogs, instagram, facebook, there is so much material being copied into those places, much of it crap but some of it not... yes. There is lot of work to be done. Montanabw(talk) 23:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your editorial critique of Deer Lodge Montana: History[edit]

You have twice referred to that as 'very poorly written'. Could you elucidate. If my writing style is indeed that lame, I will simply delete it which will return the article to its prior state. RegardsJwilsonjwilson (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

  • It's salvagable if you would add a few inline citations. But as it was, it was horribly overlinked, unsourced, timeline list instead of a narrative, written with poor sentence structure and odd phrasing ("Butte City"???). I did some cleanup, but it needs more. You aren't a newbie, you really should know how to edit an article by now. Montanabw(talk) 21:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your clarifications. Will decide what to do. RegardsJwilsonjwilson (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy 4th of July!!![edit]

A special fireworks display for you!
Wishing you a fun & safe holiday weekend. Let the games begin!! Atsme📞📧 01:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Happy Fourth of July![edit]

2007 ilotulituksen sm.jpg Happy Fourth of July!
Here's hoping you have a great Fourth of July! White Arabian Filly Neigh

Happy 4th[edit]

Bratislava New Year Fireworks.jpg Happy 4th!
Hope your 4th is red white and blue! (With other colors too) Horsegeek(talk) 22:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek

The Fat is in the Fire now...[edit]

I don't know if this is the first RfC I've ever filed, but I haven't filed many. Take a peek, all: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Adding_ways_to_assess_Systemic_Bias_to_WP:N Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hook[edit]

Thank you very much for the good hook on Template:Did you know nominations/The creation of the violin. Is there the word "to" missing? "ALT5: ... the Roma fairy tale, The Creation of the Violin, features a fairy queen who uses the power of music to make people happy or sad?" NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review..[edit]

Hi Montanabw. Thanks a lot for the GA review of Sabrina Sidney. It's been a few years since I went near the FA process, I was wondering if the article stood a chance? I'm not a big fan of the process, so would value your opinion on whether it's worth it. Same question to any Talk page Stalkers! WormTT(talk) 15:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(watching) Yes, go for it. It doesn't hurt, and there's nothing to loose. Cautious people do a peer review first. I have a FA mentioned in the last Signpost that was promoted the second attempt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
PR takes a while, but it is a good idea before trying FAC. You might want to ping some of the regular FAC reviewers to do the PR, particularly those who have worked on UK subjects in the past. Montanabw(talk) 21:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Just ping those who opposed Rob's RfA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Without irony: you have a collection of users there who ping each other for FA reviews. I don't, - for me the FAC page and the project page are enough to raise attention. - I recommend to ask Brianboulton and Ian Rose for a quick feasability check, - they see more FAs than we do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Poopers![edit]

I just created Hillary Blumberg but misspelled Hilary - there's only one "l" in her name. Is that what your new "move tool" is all about? Can you rename it to Hilary Blumberg? Atsme📞📧 17:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Secretariat (horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blinkers (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) 10:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

You inspired WP:CONFUSESTUB. Good job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey! Thank you! That was cool! Montanabw(talk) 21:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Duct tape occlusion therapy[edit]

Thank you so for the link to this posting Duct tape occlusion therapy ! I have a HUGE growth atop my shoulders, but I guess even 2 rolls of duct tape can't fix everything... Nikto wha? 17:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I pick things that hit my funny bone... I am not a medical professional and I do not recommend you try this at home!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 17:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

In case you haven't read this...[edit]

It's interesting. Atsme📞📧 17:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


patents[edit]

What's the source for "Women were not even allowed to register patents in her time. ", referring to Catharine Littlefield Greene , as you discussed at WP:N talk? Our article on her says "only because social norms inhibited women from registering for patents." which is very different. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

DGG Since women were not legal entities and often their earnings and assets belonged to their husbands or fathers, I am not sure how there can even be a question? The first Married Women's Property Acts in the United States did not start granting women control of their own property until the 1830s, and Greene died in 1814. However, since you ask, [1] speaks directly to the situation with regard to patents, specifically on pages 7-8. SusunW (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
SusunW, even in the medieval period, legal disqualification to control their property applied only to married women, not for example, widows. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── DGG the ownership rights of widows in the middle ages were largely confined to a life estate in property, mostly so they could support their children and not see the land go to a different man's male line. There were variants from one nation to another as well, seen even today in various state laws governing divorce (community property states tend to be those that had strong Spanish influence and a different tradition from that of the English) so broad generalizations aren't particularly useful, especially when not fully explained. Montanabw(talk) 02:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

DGG I am well aware of the concept of feme soles, but as Montanabw points out, those were an outcropping of British common law. There was a similar vehicle called usus in Dutch law, but, more importantly most studies show that in both Europe and the U.S. the number of unmarried women at any given time fluctuated primarily based on war, disease, disaster killing off marriageable partners. Most studies confirm that on average 14-20% of any given population was unmarried at any given time (hard to break down single, divorced, widowed, because those statistics weren't readily kept, so most figures are based on female-led households). Even if you account for a margin of error, 75% of historic women were married. Even more, access to assets was limited. In the US, studies in the colonial period show women controlled about 4% of the assets. In the case of widowhood, that life interest Montanabw mentioned, usually entitled them use of 1/3 of an estate for their lifetime. They could live there, they could rent it, but it wasn't theirs to control as it belonged to the male heir. None of which negates my original point that women did not control their own assets nor property and had limited means to file for such things as patents. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, DGG, and Wikipedia is not a perfect source. I am uncertain as to the year when women could file patents in their own right, but the point that there have been periods of time when women could not legally file a patent is true ... For example in 1715, women could not file a patent, a man had to. But that source also hints at a woman obtaining a patent in 1795. In the case of the cotton gin, the patent was in 1794. Another set of examples again notes the law in 1712. What I am not sure of is at what point between 1715 and 1795 the laws changed; certainly the US Constitution in 1789 was a watershed year, and I believe the first US Patent laws were passed in 1790, but I am not certain at what point the law in America permitted women to file patents, if it came with the original 1790 statute or only later. this source notes the first woman to have a US patent in her own name was in 1809 and is "credited with being the first woman patentee in the United States." (though on the next page, the book hints at the possibility that women might have been able to file patents as early as 1790). The 1809 date is also noted here. Certainly the social convention existed long past the law itself. This article notes that women also faced difficulties in getting the money to complete the patent process. Montanabw(talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The more fundamental question, which I will discuss elsewhere, is to what extent we adjust to cultural bias. In past time, and to some extent today but in a much lesser extent, it is not only women who were severely disadvantaged in education , occupational possibilities, expected social role, and even legal capacity. In the US at that period black people were disadvantaged to a much greater extent. So were poor people: they could not vote either, and outside cities they were likely to be illiterate; though in the US at the time there were not institutional bars against them people acquiring education, wealth, and a political role. In most earlier periods and most regions of the world, only a small minority of people had the opportunity to have a political role, or education, though there was I think almost always some small degree of opportunity for upwards social mobility. See the classic statement in s:Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. Shall we include someone who could have been a notable scientist, or a judge, or an artist, or businessperson, but whose sex prevented her education? There are hundreds of millions who could have done so except ... for the sex, their race, the social position, their poverty, the lack of opportunity in the times or country when they lived. Perhaps it might even be to most of the people who ever lived--they could have been notable enough for an encyclopedia, but... We have no way of judging what they could have done. An encycopedia is devoted to the accounts of those, who by whatever combination of circumstances, actually did.
In a positive direction, we can include those who did do what was important enough to be notable, but were denied recognition, by adjusting the way we interpet the standards. That's wherethe emphasis should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Well, that IS basically what I was trying to do ... looking at how the standards, especially the SNGs and the non-guideline, very non-policy "outcomes" pages are applied. Right now, they are applied with a white male first world bias, and that is not appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 02:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure we do understand each other yet. I have argued at dozens of AfD for interpreting WP:RS broadly for people from other cultures which do not have WP:RS conforming sources, and most of the time the argument has been accepted. I have also argued at AfDs that decreasing the level of actual importance for non-white males is not appropriate. Or a Black person is notable only in newspapers that are directed towards Black readership, but are not mainstream in the usual sense, we might well accept that, at least before 1960 or 70. But take a black man who taught at a traditionally Black college in the early 20th century. Nowadays he might have become a notable researcher. But how can we know this? Or a woman who in the late 19th century became head of a city's temperance society. Nowadays she might have become a state legislator and thus eligible for an article. But how can we possibly tell that? There are mildly successful but not notable painters, both male and female. Can we assume the women would have been more successful if there had not been cultural prejudice? But what we can do: take for example a scientist who worked with her notable husband in the mid 20th century but not on the tenure track while he was, and worked jointly, and there are sources saying she was of equal importance. That should be accepted as notability--and is.
WP is an encyclopedia that discusses the real world as it is and as it was. The RW constructed barriers against many people. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC) .
I don't buy the "we have to take the world as it is and blindly follow the dominant culture's dictates," if that is what you mean. Clearly we look at the source material and follow where it leads. We aren't engaged in crystal ball-gazing, we look to sources. Your example of coverage in "black newspapers" prior to the 1970s is exactly what I am talking about; for women, it might be a society column instead of the front page. Or it might be noticing that the same woman scientist is listed as second author to the Department head in 100 articles and realizing that the ultimate discovery was hers. That's not "original research" nor is it "synthesis," it is following the source material where it leads. Montanabw(talk) 04:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
DGG I do NOT mean to be contentious, but would like to point out that "black newspapers" were as a rule local and regional sources, which I have seen you argue time and time again are not reliable. This is why we are asking for clarification. The "rules" are unevenly applied. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
SusunW, I generally object to using local sources to show notability when there ought to be better sources if the person is truly important (e.g if a technology company has only local sources, they are not significant enough for an article) ; I have always consistently from the day I came here argued for being flexible about sourcing in cases where because of bias the sources are not likely to cover even the important individuals. There is a difference. To the extent we are ever flexible about such sources its in part because of the work I and a few of my colleagues did here back in 07 and 08. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────DGG, thank you for all you've tried to accomplish, and for your diligence and understanding. I never realized the depth of the issues we're facing because until recently, I had limited exposure to arguments at AfD, and prefer to keep it that way, but realize I'm reaching for stars. I am sincerely trying to develop a better understanding of the entire process from many different perspectives, but it's far too difficult for me to simply dismiss the low notability requirements for a JV sports player or porn star while the opposite holds true for academics, female notables, philanthropists, authors and television news personalities. WP:N has become a minefield rather than a helpful guideline because we often find ourselves debating situations where CIR should be applied, particularly in situations where !votes reflect a rush to judgment or lack of understanding because the time wasn't invested in reaching a fair and neutral determination. There are instances of bias, as well as an inability to properly interpret guidelines or make decisions per IAR. I've also experienced situations where COI issues have erupted where there were none - misguided suspicion often results in a wrongful verdict which is something I can speak to from experience. Another prime example is seen in television journalism, specifically a notable news correspondent/journalist who has won prestigious national awards for excellence in reporting on-the-scene (in US or another country) in dangerous situations, such as a natural disaster in the making, civil unrest, etc. With regards to independent sources, common sense tells us that it's highly unlikely networks and MSM are going to write about their competitors when they have their own to write about. What does that do to "independent" sources? I seriously doubt we'll see major networks like ABC, CBS, NBS, FOX, etc. with all their numerous subsidiaries including digital news sources, publishing companies, radio stations, etc., publishing "multiple articles" about a notable news correspondent who reports for the competition. Unfortunately, according to WP:N such sources are not considered independent, therefore are being wrongfully excluded. Common sense isn't so common anymore. The same applies to universities that publish articles about their alumni or when a notable religious or ethnic organization recognizes notable achievements of a member, etc.. Regional awards (multiple) are also being excluded without considering recipients are judged by peers, or taking into account the impact and sheer volume of local tv news stations in a particular region, not to mention the award being based on the extent of the impact to that region. Award recognition for having made landmark strides as a minority is also being dismissed and the list goes on. We're actually not lowering the standards by allowing such sources to determine notability, particularly dating from 2005 & before, back to a time when the information age was in its earliest stages of development. What we're doing now is actually perpetuating bias by assuming bias when we should be recognizing notability where notability is due. It's time for WP to change it's thinking and enter the 21st Center regarding its acceptability and determination of RS.Atsme📞📧 13:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It actually isn't a "source" issue - it's a double standards issue. We can't eliminate the bias until we eliminate the double standards but in order to eliminate the double standards we have to eliminate the bias....and well, here we are today. m( Atsme📞📧 16:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Atsme makes a real good point that the double standard is alive and well, and comparing SNGs such as WP:PORNSTAR versus WP:ACADEMIC is a particularly egregious example. NSPORTs also has issues with women's sports notability, far fewer professional leagues for women but compared to extremely minor professional leagues for men, the general discouragement of "amateur" sports leagues presents a bias... rather than examining the quality of the players on the league, they apply a broad brush, leaving out many women in team sports that don't reach to an international level. Montanabw(talk) 19:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
How sporting of them. Atsme📞📧 15:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Wolkentanz has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg Hello, Montanabw. Wolkentanz, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar for you[edit]

Rescuebarnstar.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
Thanks for your work on AFD particularly related to articles about women. Though we might not always agree, your good work is appreciated. Hmlarson (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'll second that!! Atsme📞📧 01:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

ani which you may be interested in, includes diffs[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 July[edit]

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

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) 00:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 10 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there is a Celebration for the Tennessee Walking Horse every year? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

10 July[edit]

10 July

Took only 300 years to restore a good name. - Thank you for your work on the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A little on my deletion phylosophy[edit]

As can be seen from my recent vote on Elijah Rasheed, I think that any leader with recognition throughout any church with millions of members is worth having an article on. I have to agree with you that we have way too many articles on people who have only appeared in pornographic films. I consistently vote delete on those articles, unless there is really good reason to keep, and I have never seen an article with even a marginally good reason to keep. On business people I very rarely see any, regardless of gender, who have any notability brought to AfD. I maybe should make more keep votes on academics, I vote in a fairly low percentage of the academic related AfDs I review, but in most of these cases the article has either been looking to be on the way to being saved, or I just do not have any confidence in the sources balancing out. I actually also take a long term view towards the pornographic actors categories, and in doing so am not quite as depressed about it. Yes, we have too many articles and keep them with far too shoddy reasoning. However, we used to have more articles than we do now, and even as Wikipedia overall has expanded, and in theory new people have become notable in the industry, stricter standards have cut the size of the category. It would be nice if more non-notable porn actors had their articles deleted, but I have to admit I just lack the patience to mount many deletion campaigns, especially when they are going to be contested. To me the biggest problem Wikipedia has in articles is articles created by people or their close friends to boost egos when they are no where near even marginally notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

For me, John Pack Lambert I don't think that WP is in danger of running out of server space, and too many AfD discussions run into more bandwidth than a FAC, so to me, the presumption in favor of notability should be respected (i.e. the "no consensus" close should just be a "keep" IMHO) ! You are right that there is a problem with what I call "puff pieces" by generally non-notable people (just prod-tagged something like that yesterday) and articles written (usually poorly-written) by undisclosed paid editors are also a problem. I would say that academics, ambassadors and people who work in the third world are the areas where I see too-rapid deletion, and yes, I agree that the problem is that when a person is actually creating content, it is hard to also take on various drama areas for reform; this AfD stuff is eating my wiki time. The solution is probably a lot of people working together. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Anglicans...[edit]

Don't exist prior to about 1536 or so (the line is pretty fuzzy). I don't touch anything past 1500 as far as ecclesiastics. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your editorial critique of Deer Lodge Montana: History (redux)[edit]

I have substituted rewritten and referenced version. Hope this will be seen as improvement. RegardsJwilsonjwilson (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

A woman who might be notable[edit]

Currently a redirect, Nicole Hamilton. More on the talk page. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Horse whips[edit]

I can certainly understand that you disagree with the result of this discussion, which deleted Category:Whips (horse), but how can you justify defying the decision that was made by creating Category:Horse whips shortly after the decision was implemented? (To me, that looks like disruptive behavior. I've deleted the new category as the functional equivalent to re-created material.) I do know what it's like to have decisions made about content that you disagree with or don't understand; it's not productive though for Wikipedia to try to circumvent community decisions that are made through the correct processes. If you want to challenge the decision that was made, the proper course would be to first bring it up with the user who closed the discussion, and then, if you are not satisifed, to use WP:DRV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The CfD discussion got sidetracked from a rename to an upmerge discussion. The upmerge is inappropriate because the horse tack and equipment category has mostly been a diffusing category. I am adding a note to that category to reflect this reality. Also, I am seriously concerned that this equipment gets a "BDSM" category, which is derivative, while the equestrian equipment subcategory is removed. This needs to be reversed. Montanabw(talk) 22:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
My last sentence above outlines the procedure that should be followed. To unilaterally decide to reverse a decision of CFD is disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The CfD was improperly posted, no one at WikiProject Equine was notified and I have been offline for a few days. This was a massive waste of time and bandwidth but if you insist, then fine, off to the drama boards we go (again). Montanabw(talk) 22:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It was not improperly posted. There is no requirement that any WikiProject be notified of a nomination. Users and WikiProjects who care about particular content should watchlist it and/or create a system for monitoring the content they "claim". Many users and WikiProjects already do so, and that's the reason the requirement is that a CFD template be added to the category when it is nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
A lot of these CfDs don't seem to appear in article alerts, which we do have. Not sure if that's just a category tagging issue or what. Also, not all project members subscribe to article alerts. At any rate an argument as stupid as "whips aren't just used on horses" is most certainly not a policy-based argument as the closer claimed to have followed. As you commented, this is a dispute over a categorization scheme, and it is nothing about "claiming" a topic -- it is about WP:COMPETENCE and people knowing what equipment is used for. Historic equipment claimed by the BDSM crowd needs to also be categorized with its proper and historic use, not defined by some ignorant group of people who wouldn't know a horse's ass from a hole in the ground. (the argument that equipment is used on dogs particularly floored me). I've notified the closer that he made a poor close. Montanabw(talk) 22:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I can see several sides to this discussion, but the point that surprises me is how little alerting there was of articles relating to horse whips. I have been contacted before by editors very interested in catagorisation to discuss my edits, and to be honest, I simply don't understand some of the logic. Although there might not be a requirement for alerts at relevant articles, perhaps there should be one to ensure those editors that deal with the subject matter (perhaps on a daily basis) know what is going on and that a true content-related consensus can be appraised. DrChrissy (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I have come to the conclusion that most of the drama boards are toxic cesspits inhabited by people who rarely if ever actually create content and have no clue whatsoever about actual article curation. Yet, they scream "POLICY" and "CONSENSUS" at the drop of a hat, even when they actually can't really present any actual policy-based citations, and the WPALLCAPS links often don't even say what they state. The problem is, if people don't try to reform some of them, you get absolutely useless "consensus" (consensi? consensuses?) that are useless for people who actually use the encyclopedia. These deletion discussions are such a waste of time and energy. My view is that no one should be allowed to participate in a deletion discussion unless they have created content; most of the people at the drama boards wouldn't know how to create or properly curate content if it bit them. Sigh... Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope you're not implying that I have rarely if ever created content and have no clue about article curation. If so, I feel you may have misjudged. My experience with CFD (at least—I'm not as active with AFD and wouldn't speak to that) is that the vast majority of the editors there are experienced with article content creation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If memory serves, you only proposed the renaming of the category, which I was grumpy about but could live with. I started pounding my head against the wall about the upmerge, particularly after the person who argued that quirts are used on dogs, or that the upmerge was ok because "whips are used on other things besides horses" (**headdesk**) My rant is continued at BU Rob's page. But I don't want to invest a lot of time on this stupid thing. Montanabw(talk) 01:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, the user who made the comment about dogs often makes statements that perplex me. I've learned to nod and smile. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Slight. But apparently the closing admin read those remarks as statements of policy. Montanabw(talk) 05:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I highly doubt that the admin did that. I would not assume the worst. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, we are (pun intended) probably beating a dead horse here. So I think I'm just going to close the thread. Montanabw(talk) 06:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to editor Montanabw for her outstanding article building work, and for her valour in defending other folks work from destruction at AfD. Ruskin: "The greatest thing a human soul ever does in this world is to see something and tell what it saw in a plain way. Hundreds of people can talk for one who can think, but thousands can think for one who can see. To see clearly is poetry, prophecy and religion, all in one." FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

First ever AfD alert of the day[edit]

I've decided that instead of beating my head against the wall every time I read Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts (8 AfDs noted in today's edition), I'm going to take a page from Keilana's book. Every time I read AfD and get frustrated, I will choose one of the articles that I think is particularly worth salvaging and post it here on my talk page for anyone who watchlists my page to look over for themselves. To try and minimize drama here, I shall just post the AfD page. I will not comment as to my reasoning here (but I will at the AfD). Here is my first one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pooja Dhingra. Montanabw(talk) 03:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Saw this linked to on Keilana's talk page, came around to see if I could help, found it closed already. I wanted to encourage the effort, but couldn't; so, in lieu of notability help, have an image. --GRuban (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Green tickYSAVED! Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

So, um ... any others that you think are worthwhile to look into saving? I took a quick glance over Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts and saw mostly minor actresses... --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Fulbright scholar[edit]

DrChrissy posted an interesting bit of info on my TP regarding Fulbright scholar. Apparently, such low numbers should carry some significance, no? I was led to believe they're a dime a dozen. Oh, and while I felt my last post in the AfD was important in quelching the ongoing drama, it may create an unintentional stir - never know what might materialize in such discussions - so I'll apologize in advance. 8-[ Atsme📞📧 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Cordless Larry is just re-raising the debate about endowed chairs that was discussed two weeks ago. What we have going on here is nothing more and nothing less than a screaming case of a double standard cloaked in claims of "policy" that are taking an in-house AfD "consensus" that isn't even the consensus at WP:N... GNG is clear that the SNGs can stack-- even if a person doesn't meet a SNG singly, you can add accomplishments across multiple areas and meet notability. Once again, we are seeing systemic bias against an article on a woman of color from the Third World (and Muslim, to boot), and that is a classic example of what gives Wikipedia a black eye as an environment haunted by people who are hostile to women and women's issues. This too shall pass. Wikipedia is having growing pains again, and so long as good people of goodwill don't rage quit (or depression-quit) and just hang in there, eventually sanity will prevail. Might be another 10 years from now and in the meantime it will feel like passing kidney stones or something, but... Montanabw(talk) 00:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Those "low numbers" are for one country (the UK) for one year. They soon multiply. Take a look at our Fulbright Program article for some idea of the figures involved, Atsme. I'm not sure if more than 360,000 is "a dime a dozen", but it seems a lot to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The UK is one thing, Pakistan is another. Sort of like kids getting into Harvard; in California, a few thousand is probably typical and no one cares but their mom and dad, but out here in Montana, 4 or 5 is pretty impressive and they all get an article in the local paper. Fulbright scholars are a factor of considerably more than kids going to college, but the principle can be extended. And as I pointed out there, the ways an individual can be notable can be "stacked" -- a person on the margins or gray areas of several different SNGs can all add up to meet WP:N. And I think that is the case here. Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to listen to that argument, but I just don't think it is the case here. When supposedly influential scholars, wherever they are from, publish with vanity presses such as VDM Publishing, it takes quite a lot of "stacking" to convince me. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Is our encyclopedia judging notability on a worldwide scale which tells me rule-of-thumb is determined only by advantaged countries where the stats inherently reflect success and high numbers? If that's the case, we are not a world encyclopedia based on the accomplishments and notability of people's accomplishments in their respective countries which would include disadvantaged countries. That would be judging everyone's notability disproportionately. Being an American, I'm ok with making WP an American encyclopedia because America rules *lol* but it wouldn't be fair to do so because disadvantaged countries would be left out. I was under the impression we looked at notability based on national notability first - not unlike we do with national sports figures. Atsme📞📧 13:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that pretty much anybody can publish with VDM, Atsme. Certainly someone capable of writing a Wikipedia article could (in fact, we probably already have done, as they "publish" collections of Wikipedia articles that they sell for extortionate cost on Amazon). So, yes, I don't expect someone from Pakistan to regularly be publishing books with OUP or CUP, but there is a middle ground that would still demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Montanabw/Alanna Shaikh[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Montanabw/Alanna Shaikh, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ca2james (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well isn't that a steaming pile of bullshit? I believe that the article was deleted before this was even posted here. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted User:Montanabw/Draft_space for the same reasons as noted on my talk page. Please do not userfy this way. If you want, I'll ask a couple of admins well versed in copyright to explain why. If the article is deleted, just ask any admin including myself to restore and userfy. --NeilN talk to me 00:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Hoping to ratchet this down, because you are technically right about attribution and Montanabw is right about userfyability, please do go ahead and userfy it for her in the proper fashion. I'd do it myself, but I'm going offline for a few hours. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I will userfy the first article. The second still exists in articlespace. --NeilN talk to me 00:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Done. Montanabw, I looked at the talk page. All it contained were project banners. --NeilN talk to me 00:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
NeilN, it was the talk page of the version created in **my**article space that had the links... and the Draft_space version of the Kanwal Ameen article that you just deleted also had a talk page that contained several links... so if you could at least restore that draft space talk, that would be quite helpful. Henceforth, in the future, I shall just store content off-wiki, I guess. I've already done so for the Ameen article, but this is sad because now no one can work on ideas for fixing it without fear that at any instant the main article will get deleted and then we have lost a day's worth of work... sigh. Montanabw(talk) 00:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Restored User talk:Montanabw/Alanna Shaikh. There's no talk page deleted for "Draft space". There was a version marked "Insert updated version (older version in hist)". Do you want me to email you that or do you want to wait for the AFD outcome? --NeilN talk to me 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, perhaps I did post the links at the article talk. That one is still ongoing and may well have some chance of survival. Montanabw(talk) 01:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Very disconcerting - happy to see NYB jumped in and diffused it but then I doubt you would have allowed it to escalate anyway. I can't seem to find your suggestion requiring some level of experience before an editor can initiate an AfD. I think it's a great suggestion - establish eligibility requirements like we do for rollback rights, autopatroller, pending changes reviewer, etc. I would support a proposal that established eligibility requirements, particularly for G4 tagging starting with (>) 10,000 edits and (>) 5 articles created. What I've seen and experienced is that a certain percentage of editors would rather stick a G4 tag on a stub they know little about while ignoring the alternatives or it's a WP:CIR issue.

Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:

  • For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately.
  • If an article is a copyright violation, please list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
  • Some articles may qualify for speedy deletion; please refer to the speedy deletion criteria and process.
  • For non-controversial deletions, please refer to the proposed deletion process.
  • For a potentially controversial merger, consider listing it at proposed mergers.

Atsme📞📧 02:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I haven't yet thought of the universal solution, but there clearly is a lot of newbie-biting at AfD. The discussion over at WT:N mentioned an article (still here now) that was speedy deletion-tagged literally two minutes after it was created! I think that sort of thing is now less common, but what I fret about are all the AfC drafts declined for similarly poor reasons. I think that's another area where people should have some article creation experience before being allowed to participate. Montanabw(talk) 02:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there some kind of fun drive or contest going on to see who can delete the most articles? WTH? The noms aren't even trying to fix the articles per AfD SUGGESTIONS - they're slapping tags on stubs as if there's some urgent need for space. Maybe a "stub drive" would do some good. O_O Atsme📞📧 19:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, the NYT has her mentioned in articles as " an international relief and development expert working in Tajikistan." Also CSM, AlJazeera, HuffPo, etc. AFAICT, she is "notable" but I missed the AfD discussion. AfDs frequently keep articles with only SPS sourcing - this is past that level. Collect (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a fun drive, Atsme, but I do think there is a walled garden where there is a regular coterie of AfD participants who lean heavily deletionist; and yes, I do wonder if they think that stubs will break "teh wiki." For all the bandwidth wasted on AfD discussions, they could just fix the articles. Sadly, the last stub drive I knew about wound up being people changing dozens of "stub" tags to "start" assessments and doing no actual article work...some were legitimate, others were... marginal. As for the AfD discussions, one pretty much has to know they exist, and I only am familiar due to watchlisting spaces like these: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts (due to transclusion, even watchlisting AfD isn't much help). Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
And, the AfD was pretty nasty, Collect. You really have to go check it out. If you could post the links you found at the userspace talk page, that would be VERY helpful! Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lisa Tenner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toto (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) 10:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Secretariat (horse)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Secretariat (horse) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Atsme -- Atsme (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Speightstown (horse)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice profile! Dance to follow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Congrats to Jlvsclrk for what I think is their first DYK! Montanabw(talk) 18:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help!! Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Wolkentanz[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 22 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wolkentanz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wolkentanz, a leading Hanoverian stallion at the Celle State Stud, sired 21 licensed stallions? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wolkentanz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wolkentanz), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Chrome is back![edit]

I see there are a bunch of parked update links at the Chrome talk page, but not sure what the protocol is. An update is needed though since he just won the San Diego. Probably should mention the Pegasus thingie too, since it sounds like they'll keep him in training for it. The Pacific Classic this year could be a real race if Chrome, Beholder, Effinex, Nyquist and Dortmund all show up as currently planned. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If they'd bring American Pharoah back to training and enter him in the Pegasus with Chrome and Nyquist, that would be the greatest horse race possible! (I know that's extremely unlikely, but still...it'd be something to see. Like the old match races but better.) White Arabian Filly Neigh 18:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
LOL. Sure, and let's ship Frankel over while we're at it, for a royal Donnybrook. :) Is anyone else having trouble updating today? Having a devil of a time making updates. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been having a weird thing going on with pages scrolling up and down when I'm in the edit window. Very odd. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm back on-wiki. What I'm noticing is that my computer connection is slower than snot, everywhere. Sunspots? Montanabw(talk) 21:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School[edit]

Re [2]: This category does go on talk pages, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_6#Category:Articles_in_Wikipedia_Primary_School_Project_SSAJRP. – Fayenatic London 06:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous women & Polar women editathons[edit]

Inuit women 1907 crop.jpg
You are invited...
Women in Red logo.svg

Indigenous women editathon & Polar women editathon
Hosted by Women in Red - August 2016 - #wikiwomeninred

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Disambiguation link notification for July 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beezie Madden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hickstead (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) 10:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day Quality Title Content Headings Images Links Sources Tagged with…
90 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Canter and gallop (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
28 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C War Emblem (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
689 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: FA Constitution of the United Kingdom (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
325 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Eventing (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
19 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Oaklawn Racing & Gaming (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
120 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Standardbred (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Add sources
10 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Thomas Hill (Rotherham) Ltd (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
24,836 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: GA, Predicted class: FA YouTube (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
183 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Fancy mouse (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Cleanup
214 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Dungeons & Dragons Online (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
9 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Ground-directed bombing (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
4,245 3.0 Quality: High, Assessed class: FA, Predicted class: FA Houston (talk) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Expand
134 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
6 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Start W Dowler & Sons (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
1,834 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Dreadlocks (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Unencyclopaedic
23 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Lands inhabited by indigenous peoples (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
329 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Flammability (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
263 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Chill-out music (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Merge
4 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Sunil P Ilayidom (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
43 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (talk) 2.0 2.0 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
32 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Princess Sumaya bint Hassan (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Wikify
38 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Jim Reno (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
10 2.0 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Nellis Air Force Base Complex (talk) 2.0 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 2.0 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
4 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Rick Rockefeller-Silvia (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Orphan
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Peter Wylde (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
10 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Buddhist (horse) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
7 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Daniel Pinto (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
55 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Baroque horse (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
12 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Will Simpson (equestrian) (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub
8 1.0 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Saunterer (talk) 0.0 Please add more content 0.0 Please create proper section headings 0.0 Please add more images 0.0 Please add more wikilinks 0.0 Please add more sources Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Palfrey[edit]

I see you have reverted all my edits in a question over one of them; I have undone this. 217.28.6.255 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We try not to use parentheses in lead sentences, or anywhere else for that matter. Also, Thoroughbred is referring to the breed here, so is capitalized. Using italics in every sentence is not correct either, per MOS. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Secretariat (horse)[edit]

The article Secretariat (horse) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Secretariat (horse) 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Atsme -- Atsme (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)