This is an archive of past discussions about User:Montanabw. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
(talk page stalker) That may be true, but the sport does unequivocally originate in Britain. It is practiced in other countries, but it's not as important socially in America, except in some places on the East Coast that have very strong traditions dating back to the 1700s. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I created Road to the Horse; it's now a big enough thing in horseland to meet notability. It's totally a stub, so you and Atsme feel free to expand. I'll see if I can find a YouTube video for an external link to it. Happy new year! 🎆🎇🎉🎊 White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Heh, glad you're having them! I didn't intend to stay up last night but ended up doing it anyway because the championship football game was on late and then the neighbors kept shooting off fireworks. (The stock dogs were probably lying in the barn covering their heads with their paws.) By the way, we don't appear to have articles for any of the winners of Road to the Horse, except Stacy Westfall. All the links lead to different people or disambigs. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt... YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! United kingdoms my home (talk)
00:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Broken link
In University of Montana was an external link with a line break. There were error messages in the reference section "Check |url= value", "line feed character in |url= at position 124". I removed this line feed and the link was working. Why have you reverted this fix to the broken link? --GünniX (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Your recent edit to the article on Seabiscuit (film) restored the words "an undersized and overlooked" to the description of the horse Seabiscuit. According to your edit summary: Well, he was small and he was overlooked, that's verified by other sources and part of his popularity IRL.
If you look at the article on War Admiral, it says:
The 2003 movie Seabiscuit features the match race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral. The film portrays War Admiral at 18 hands (72 in, or 183 cm) even though War Admiral and Seabiscuit were about the same size with Seabiscuit standing at 15.2 hands and outweighing War Admiral 1,040 to 960 lb (470 to 440 kg)[1]
Your own comment shows that the horse was in reality rather small for a Thoroughbred and portrayed as such in the film; the illusion created about War Admiral is irrelevant. Montanabw(talk)15:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music
The ghost of Tongdaeng told me that you've been previously recognized for your work on Fauna, but didn't have this one. Tongdaeng is very respectful of your contributions to Cattle and reminds me that Wikipedians are mammals, too. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Would love your take on my double DYK proposal to see if it's clean of any BLP or other issues. There's a funny lesson somewhere in here about the cost of living with contemporary art... And could the hook be "hookier"? Thanks — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I've updated/expanded the article considerably since the DYK review and wouldn't mind a quick proofreading. I think I give the painting a fair defense, and it's likely to be a new artist for a lot of readers. Meanwhile, in case you thought Wool wasn't influential in the art world, one last image to consider... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
You know, I once had a set of stencils like that, we used them to make a poster for my 4-H demonstration project when I was 9. I think we threw them away in a move... WTF were we thinking? It's like when your mom threw out your 1960s comic book collection! LOL! Montanabw(talk)00:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
And you were an idiot for throwing away(!!) all your empty pre-UPC code cereal boxes and food packaging, much of it now seriously collectible. What the hell were you thinking?!? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.
Hi Montana! I was wondering if you could lend a hand over at ovarian cancer with the section about ovarian cancer in other animals. I just don't know where to start looking for horsey information...is there much more to include than what's there? If so, where do I go looking? I would very much appreciate the help. :) All the best, Keilana (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Given that I actually owned a mare that had a granulosa tumor the size of a volleyball removed from an ovary (along with the ovary) and I was present for the surgery, I'd be glad to take a peek! Montanabw(talk)03:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you very much! (Sorry to hear about your mare, that sucks.) If you know where I could find pictures, too, that would be super helpful. I'm absolutely terrible at digging up good images. Thanks again, Keilana (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Those who wish to continue this discussion may do so, no need to inflict it on everyone else
Please do not leave unconstructive warnings casting aspersions on my talk page as you did here, or make personal attacks at me on other's talk page as you did here. Please remember that you do not own the article in question, despite your assertion here that you are "the owner" you are still expected to avoid personal attacks. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
(watching:) Please sign your post. To avoid warnings (which are no attacks): please respect WP:BRD, which means that if an edit is questioned, it should be discussed on the article talk page and not made a second time. This is a very general guideline which helps the stability of articles. It has nothing to do with ownership. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me to sign my post, and thank you for your interpretation of the BRD ESSAY (not guideline as it specifically states in the ESSAY) and your opinion, that, despite clear evidence to the contrary, it has nothing to do with ownership. It has everything to do with ownership. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
English is not my first language, so please excuse that I called something a guideline that guides me and others well. - Projects where I am active try to go by it, with positive results. I have not counted the times I was reminded ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure it does work well when it's not abused to support ownership and is not used in conjunction with personal attacks. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
(also watching): Lynn, there's nothing in the diffs you provided that contains a personal attack. Respectfully, your combativeness here and elsewhere is troubling, and your use of quotations out of context is only hamstringing your credibility. For instance, your evident claim above that MBW's tongue-in-cheek reference to herself as "the owner" of an article is to be taken seriously, rather than in response to your own assertions that she is behaving as an article owner, is laughable. If you've got serious substantive contributions to articles, you would be best served by engaging in collegial discussion with the people interested in those articles on the article talk pages, rather than... whatever it is you seem to be trying to do here. It's not working. WP:BRD, on the other hand, does work. Even if it's just an essay, it's an essay describing a behavioral trend on Wikipedia that you aren't going to buck just by pointing out it's only an essay. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
LynnWysong, the actual comment in question was They raised one legit issue, which I fixed. Need more eyes because of course I'm just an article owner who doesn't know jack shit about the topic, as usual... :-P and it's clear from this that Montanabw was not saying that you don't know "jack shit" but rather was speaking with a tongue in cheek sarcasm to show their perspective on th situation, which seems to be that someone came and did some massive changes to an article that they've had a history with and they feel they're being pigeon holed as having ownership issues but not even knowing about the topic -- expressed well as i understand that... so i think your above claim that there's a comment that you don't know "jack shit" is a misreading, wouldn't you agree? SageRad (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This exactly. It's a misreading, though it's one I'm having trouble believing took place. All I can say at this point, Lynn, is that you're way off-base, to the point of being embarrassing. It looks like you're doing everything you can to shoehorn a content dispute into a behavioral dispute. That's absolutely destroying any credibility you have. I strongly advise you to cease this before you go to ANI throwing WP:BOOMERANGs. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
So you're arguing the proper interpretation of that quote is that Montanabw is calling herself the article owner, and saying you don't know jack shit about the topic? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, when one uses sarcasm instead of professionally expressing themselves, I guess the interpretation is up in the air, isn't it? I think her actions, many of which you are not familiar with, justify mine. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Just so I can understand, you're arguing that this phrase can be read such that Montanabw is both calling herself an article owner and saying that you don't know jack shit? Need more eyes because of course I'm just an article owner who doesn't know jack shit about the topic... Is that what you're arguing? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
From what I can see, both are at fault as this feud appears to go beyond just a warning template. I would recommend either editing separate topic areas for a bit or asking for an WP:RFA regarding the disputed article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Try an RfA then regarding the sources used for an outside consensus. @SageRad: This is the tip of the iceberg here, one look at the articles talkpage and you can see Lynn, and Montana going at it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Well in one above example, there was a clear misreading of a comment that made it seem like an insult that was not there. The nature of polarization between people is to then begin to assume the worst when it may not even be there. I speak from my own experience and my own hindsight. SageRad (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anything particularly untoward about Montanabw's behavior. Looking at those talk pages you see someone taking a no-nonsense approach with what's, frankly, a bunch of nonsense. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally, the couple of times I tried to step in and give input (at other articles), I felt like I was caught in a free-fire crossfire battle. Why the hell should I do that again? Ealdgyth - Talk15:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Without outside input though there is no reassurance that this wont happen again. I apologize to Montana for the long thread here but in my view it is better to try and resolve this here first rather than ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. Maybe MBW could be asked to separate herself from the article. I have more expertise on the subject matter than she does. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
No, not like that. You need to work with other editors, not against them as you did in that DRN. Also, DRN is probably the wrong process for the situation: It's not really a means of getting new eyes on an issue, but getting someone to step in and try and break a deadlock/strike a balance/forge a compromise. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Please. I don't know you, and I barely know Montanabw. What I do know is that your conduct here and elsewhere leaves a bad taste. If you intend to continue participating on Wikipedia, you desperately need to learn that this is a collaborative environment, not an adversarial environment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Not buying it user:Mendaliv. If your tactics in a dispute are to just throw out cheap, unsubstantiated shots, then don't complain about edit summaries that are worthy of it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd suggest being careful not to read too much into each other's messages, things that might not be there, and realize that you're both probably sensitized to each other and that takes an active effort to counteract once it's gotten emotional entrenchment. That is my experience with getting polarized against some other editors sometimes. But also space from each other and speaking with as little emotional loading as possible when you do interact regarding content. SageRad (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that the aspersions MBW constantly swing my way don't need too much reading into. It's hostile, uncivil behavior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Lynn, I have a constructive request for you: please do not outdent in the middle of a discussions where people responded, carefully placing their comment in the context. Can you try to do the same? I swallow others requests. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You should be asking KnowledgeKid not to insert comments between comments and outdents. As you can see, I did the outdent on 15:14, and he inserted a comment on 15:17 Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A quick comment on "expertise." We all know the adage, On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, therefore our individual "expertise" is less relevant than our use of sources: WP:RS is policy. WP:NPOV is policy. The history I have with this other user consistently is an issue of POV-pushing and poor sourcing. On top of that, well, you see what is happening here, and it is typical of how this user is thin-skinned and refuses to collaborate. If this user actually is some sort of "expert" on feral horses, then we also may have a WP:COI situation here as well, which might explain the POV-pushing behavior. I don't think she is a paid editor, but she may, nonetheless, have a COI. Montanabw(talk)19:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Once again, you are really good at casting aspersions and making accusations, but you really suck at backing them up. As far as the COI thing, since I use my real name here, I'm sure that was part of the oppositional research you were doing when you were trying to prove I was a sock. Bring it on. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
As to the rest, Mendaliv and SageRad correctly identified remarks I made several months back (one Oct 2015 and the other in Feb 2015, actually) that was intended as a sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek expression of my frustration. This user brings up other out of context material from a few months back and is using it as ammo in the present dispute, which is a red herring -- this is a simple dispute over her desire to make massive changes to a GA-class article. I actually agreed with a few of her concerns but the mess of almost 50 edits, poor sourcing, improper citation formatting, and assorted other problems (most listed at that article's talk page) required TNT on her edits back to the last clean version per BRD. I am willing to collaborate; but I am not willing to beat my head against the wall. Montanabw(talk)19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
"This user brings up other out of context material from a few months back and is using it as ammo in the present dispute, which is a red herring" I believe you started this by casting aspersions over supposed incidents that happened several months ago. At least I can back up what I say. "this is a simple dispute over her desire to make massive changes to a GA-class article" Make that: "this is a simple dispute over her desire to make massive improvements to a GA-class article that should be downgraded without them." And you are totally exaggerating the problems with the edits I made. Totally. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:39 pm, Today (UTC−7)
Hi Montanabw, I've noticed you apparently mis-cite this policy for several years now. It doesn't say what you appear to think it does, and isn't about what you appear to think it is about, and I'd personally therefore advise you to stop mentioning it. What you really mean to cite is usually simply WP:BRD (particularly the part about "Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante) ...", and also WP:CONSENSUS. I hope that's helpful. It would probably help you remember and understand what the policy in the header means if instead you used the name WP:VERIFY for it, instead of WP:BURDEN, because it is not about "burden of proof", but rather about one of the three core Wikipedia content policies: verifiability. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC); edited 14:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I undertand both. WP:BURDEN states, "... The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, though you are correct that status quo ante is what is sought. In a BRD situation where an editor removes sourced material and inserts material of poorer quality and poorer sourcing, BURDEN applies on top of BRD. That said, if a "nicer" word causes less drama, that is worth considering, though sometimes being "nice" just prolongs the tl;dr drama. Burden is a subset of verifiability, but I suppose I could do a piped link to point to the correct section, I'll think about it. As for consensus, consensus can always change, of course, but consensus on a GA-class or FA-class article has a higher standard to reach to change things. I hope you understand that I have been on wikipedia almost ten years now, and though I do appreciate being alerted to policies and guidelines that have changed over time, this one is pretty much the same as it ever has been. Montanabw(talk)19:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Early version of Cluebot, delivering multiple warnings and bailing the result
Hi MontanaBW, I thought you might like to see this picture of an early horsedrawn version of cluebot with special trample feature. The photo claims to be from 1825 but my suspicion is that it could be several decades later. ϢereSpielChequers18:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't take it because I'm too "close" to the article, I suggest one of my kind talk page stalkers take a look, WAF is taking an article she created to PR for the first time, so helping hands and mentors will be, I think, most welcome. She's a great new editor and has been a lot of fun to work with! Montanabw(talk)21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Horse races in Rhode Island
There are three so far as I know. Should I create a category or leave them in Horse races in the United States?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof?16:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Please do not cast aspersions as you did here about the quality of my research. You do not own the article, and I do not have to have your "trust" and permission to edit it, and I certainly don't have to accept your "instruction". Please stop framing your opinion on what is undue weight or what belongs in other articles as policy. And for crying out loud, do a little research before you start reverting correct information and chastizing me for it. The information on the Boer war is correct. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, take what you said here ONE HALF HOUR LATER: "I"m fine with a FOC, it's the 'you are too stupid and incompetent to understand the right way to do it' attitude that is baiting and frustrating" and realize that the very behavior you are complaining about is what you are inflicting on me. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Please grow up. And thank you for establishing that you stalk my edits. The reality is that you have a very, very poor record of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You keep "extrapolating" and writing things that clearly exceed the sources you cite. You make exaggerated claims that bolster a POV and refuse to collaborate. I suggest that you also read WP:COMPETENCE (which was pointed out to me by that crowd) and perhaps notice that what is going on over in those articles are basically the same arguments about quality and validity of sources, only on a much higher level (WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS). Perhaps I have a bit more sympathy for those folks, now that you point this out; though I am frustrated with them, they also get short-tempered due to their constant need to deal with tendentious idiots who insist that Bigfoot is real and such. In short, SLW, WP:ROPE also applies to you behavior and if you don't listen to me, trust me, sooner or later others are going to insist that you follow the rules of wikipedia. Have you failed to notice what happened to your good friend Rationalobserver? And I didn't have a thing to do with that user's implosion and indef block; they did it all by themselves. Montanabw(talk)19:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Please do not, in addition to casting aspersions about the quality of my research, cast aspersions about my supposedly poor record of editing, POV and refusal to collaborate. Maybe I should point you to the definition: WP:ASPERSIONS "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
And, may I remind you of this dif? You know damned good and well I'm competent to edit that article. The problem is, you don't want anyone to edit it without your monitoring their every edit. So, you are trying to justify your reverts by attacking me, casting aspersions on my competence and how I edit, removing reliably sourced material and claiming I was wrong to put it in. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
You need to learn to accept constructive criticism and follow the policies of wikipedia. None of us create featured articles all on our own, and I claim substantial contributions to 20; my record of collaboration is excellent. I have helped many other people with their projects and not claimed that I am a major contributor or any kind of lead editor there. So please do not make assumptions about me or what I think. Your false accusations and psychological projection are inappropriate, and if you want "evidence" of how many times I have caught you dead to rights "extrapolating" things (I think that is your word for what the rest of us call OR and SYNTH if it isn't simply promoting your own theories) I can dig it out, though it doesn't seem necessary at the moment -- you know what I have criticized. I would be delighted to have a cooperative and collaborative environment on the Mustang articles, I've wanted that main one to become a GA or FA-class article for years. (And, I might remind you, the 1971 Act article already IS GA-class, and I wasn't even the lead editor.) So let me be blunt: You don't seem to "get it" about wikipedia's rules, the POLICIES that we do not conduct original research. That is where my concerns with your editing lie; your competence problem is that you have a POV, you have a WP:SOAPBOX, and you have been told by other people than just myself that you need to work on your unwillingness to collaborate. Now, as I stated before, if you don't follow the rules, do not be surprised if you get reverted and no one comes to your defense. Study up on how to write a good article on wikipedia; take one of the other articles you've been peacefully working on to GA and see what happens. Montanabw(talk)21:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your biography. You still haven't done one thing to prove what you are saying about me. So, I'll just keep racking them up. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a new user you welcomed, who now has an article about the Cerbat Mustang in draft. I helped them out a little (seems to be a legit breed, it's in 3 of the breed books on Google) and added refs, but it needs some more work and watching. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 17:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Horsegeek/Cerbat Mustang. The urls with the info are in the ref section; I already erased them from my clipboard, but they seemed to have a lot of coverage. Weird genetic thing going on too: apparently the roan foals come out roan, instead of shedding and fading out later. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 01:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Heh. Looks like the article is being worked on by a non-English speaker, but I'm glad they are trying. But nothing weird or unique about the genetics; many foals are born roan, though not all show it until they shed their foal coats. See roan (horse) for the real genetics scoop, and this site has lots of cool photos of roan QH babies. Their source does say what it says, but they are probably copying from a promo website. They probably don't resemble the modern Andalusian in the least, but clearly are of Colonial Spanish Horse type. Use your own judgement as far as diving in and "helping" until it hits mainspace, but I'd say that wikignoming into standard English and running reFill can't hurt. If they are having trouble getting it blessed for mainspace, ping me and I'll make it happen. Montanabw(talk)03:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to an online editathon on Black Women's History
Many many months I replied to a question at a help desk about how old Frédéric Chopin was when he died and explained why this calculation was not done on his page like with other bios (in the infobox). Saw a post within the same ballpark today...asking how old Richard Wagner was when he died.....yet in this case its in the article. I am going to keep note of these talks if I can find them again...this is a great way to demonstrate how people look for info in the box and how some simply are to lazy to search for the info in the article or do a simple calculation. I wonder how many readers we loss to other websites that have this info at readers finger tips. Have you ever seen anything like this yourself? Going to be asking a few people about this as I think its a good debating tool that all need to understand. -- Moxy (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure. The infobox is the place to hold what was formerly hidden in Persondata. Mozart, Sibelius. (Help for Bach, Beethoven, Handel, though.) Tell project composers, not me ;) - I am on vacation, or might do it yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Seriously?
I spent hours editing the Parelli Natural Horsemanship page. I had seen the unfortunate state that it had been in for years and decided to make my first attempt at editing Wikipedia on the page for PNH, a subject with which I have extensive experience and education. By contrast, the initial page had clearly been created by someone with only the most rudimentary familiarity with this variety of natural horsemanship. I wrote the article with the intent of being entirely unbiased (but will admit that I realized upon rereading it that a few brief clauses were too laudatory and needed adjustment).
Yet you appear to have wholesale deleted all of those additions less than two days later?! And, not only that, you *left in* the uncited nonsense that had been there for four years?
Your edits were sourced off your own website, and we're not here for promotional purposes. Also, we can't help that the article was created by somebody with little knowledge of Parelli. Wikipedia is a volunteer organization. Many of the articles are in bad shape, because we have so few people. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 01:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
And it read like an advertisement for Parelli. (See WP:NOADS) Plus, if your " extensive experience and education" means you are Parelli certified and make your living pomoting the Parelli method, then you also have a conflict of interest. (See WP:COI). Also, "natural horsemanship" is far more than Parelli, who simply is probably the most financially successful. As for "uncited nonsense", tag what's uncited. The bottom line is that Parelli is subject to significant criticism in the wider horse world and is a notorious self-promoter. There are other practitioners within the natural horsemanship world (notably Clinton Anderson and John Lyons, just for starters) who are actually far more talented and capable. Montanabw(talk)20:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw, in response to ^^^, I'm just going to say that I can see clearly now, the rain is gone. Patience is a virtue, and over time, often produces great rewards. In retrospect, look at how your patience helped me to see more clearly, and here we are today collaborating, and helping to improve and enhance the project. You are a very special Wikipedian and those of us who have taken the time to know you appreciate that about you. Atsme📞📧23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I've found your profile on the adopt-a-user list and would be happy if you be my mentor helping me with some steps in English wikipedia. I am from Germany and first ask there for some mentor but they recommend me to talk to an user with experience in English version of wikipedia since I would like to publish within the English version
Should I create a new cat titled something like Category:Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders and Trainers for some of my articles? I have Steve Hill (horse trainer), Albert Dement, and Bud Dunn, plus there are a few others I think meet notability and will probably create sooner or later, like James Brantley. It seems sorta stupid to put them in Category:Tennessee Walking Horses, because they're not horses. They don't really fit into the racehorse trainers and owners categories either. Any thoughts? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I went to high school with a girl who was a mermaid at the Sip 'n' Dip. Having gone to Great Falls High, just after they built their fieldhouse and pool, I would hope it's Bison boys who end up in the drink. (Can you imagine being an adult male, and saying to your sweetie, "Oh, yeah, my day job is a half-naked swimming merman at this bar...") - Tim1965 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. I still cannot understand why your own RfA failed. Being an ENTJ personality should automatically qualify you. Again, heartfelt thanks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I saved my comment for here...
You said (no need to mention where because you will know), "...probably after the Belmont Stakes and the flurry of horse article editing surrounding the triple crown races concludes." A give-away to your priorities. It made me smile. Atsme📞📧00:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I've posted pretty much the following on Drmies page as well as Doc James and one or two other admins who are FA & GA editors. Before I jump into the deep end, I thought it best to wade in the shallow pool first with editors I trust as qualified. I just created WP:Project Accuracy, and was hoping you would join, or at least provide some input and help me coordinate this effort because what I'm trying to accomplish will unite the various project teams so that we're all accomplishing the same goal - accuracy and protection of promoted articles. I'm pretty excited about this project because I believe it brings a positive influence to the project in a number of different ways. Meanwhile, please excuse my initial fumbling as I try to collect and organize all the thoughts that are running through my head. This is what I've done so far based on my preliminary thoughts regarding project goals and ultimately, protection of promoted articles that carry our "project seal" indicating the highest level of promotion. What I'm proposing would be an excellent means for countering vandalism, and also protecting against inaccuracies by establishing qualifying editorial teams to fact-check the criteria. Once promoted, reviewed and approved for accuracy (RAAFA) sealed articles could be protected in much the same way special permissions pages are protected in that you have to be qualified and approved to directly edit that level of article. If you're not, when you click on "edit", you will get a message that you don't have permission to edit at that level along with a polite and encouraging explanation of how to get approval - sorta like captcha protection in a way. Our project's qualifying participants could also include approved, qualified members of other WikiProjects with established criteria, such as WP:WikiProject Medicine. The protection afforded those top level articles would be similar to that of semi-protection with pending changes review, (until someone comes up with a better idea) so we're still maintaining the original intent of WP to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. We're simply adding safeguards against vandalism and potential inaccuracies. Further, the inclusion of our Project Accuracy seal at the top of the promoted page will help establish and solidify WP articles as not only accurate, but trustworthy in that they have been peer-reviewed by qualified individuals (including experts or professionals in many cases) and/or have undergone editorial review - something we can promote to all levels of academia, all facets of research and to just plain knowledge seekers. We can spread the word via an outreach incentive about WP's new accuracy project insuring the quality, accuracy and trustworthiness of its articles as a result of newly organized, highly qualified project teams, not too unlike what Doc James has already accomplished with project med articles. I'm just taking it a step further by including a wider range of articles and applying a few extras for good measure, like copyediting for appeal to general readers, organized fact-check/accuracy-check criteria, and editorial oversight/review by qualified teams. I also think it will encourage more qualified editors to come to the project, not to mention improving editor retention by eliminating the disruption of vandalism and inaccuracies. What do you think? Atsme📞📧18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. I smell drama. And technical difficulties. Neither would be a surprise, so here's how I'm parsing it out (in no particular order of importance):
Politically, people on wikipedia have tried various ways to limit the "anyone can edit" rule, starting with Larry Sanger, and most attempts to create any sort of uber-editor on content (as opposed to behavior) have failed miserably.
It could be a technical challenge to create a new type of permission and most likely impossible to customize it to allow access specific to different wikiprojects (i.e. medicine) When my RfA closed last August, one thing I spent some time on was the question of "unbundling" the tools. I got the impression that the creation of a set of customized permissions is quite difficult (Basically, I'm "meh" about "needing" to block vandals, but I really could use tools to move, rename and userfy articles in my everyday editing). Maybe User:WereSpielChequers could comment on the technical aspects; he's been wrasslin' that bear longer than I have.
The idea of creating a seal of approval, akin to the GA or FA process, but focused specifically on fact-checking, is a cool idea with some potential, though if you've ever been through the GAN/FAC gauntlet, you can suspect that this would be even more of a dramafest ( See WP:NOTTRUTH )
It might be worth proposing that FA-class articles -- or your seal of quality articles -- do get automatic semi and/or pending changes protection upon getting the gold star. Would slow down (though not stop) the slow quality creep problem.
We could require a higher percentage of spotchecks on footnotes at FAC and this would be a good idea.
Given that there are hundreds if not thousands of backlogged GAN articles, this raises the question, "who is going to bell the cat?" Is there some way to automate any part of the process... Having been through situations such as the Irataba FAC, where the first two rounds made it clear that a certain (now indefinitely-blocked) editor's edits required every single footnote to be verified, I can tell you that this is a very time-consuming process.
Another approach would be to simply discuss if that standard could be used for things like FA-class articles, as that IS supposed to be part of the FAC review process.
Thanks, M. I just spent wasted a couple of hours performing my duties as a pending changes reviewer which is not much more than extra work with no bite because the IPs and low edit editors will revert you faster than you can download the next article. I can't think of anything more frustrating than being reverted with batshit crazy garbage....well, maybe I can but that's beside the point. I have also experienced vandal attacks on newly promoted FAs, GAs and DYKs. There's really no excuse for it. We have protection in place now so in light of the WMF's recent push to increase WP's reach, and their concerns over editor retention, I would think the timing is at least right. The Board of Trustees vets their Board candidates very closely and I don't see why they would object to Project Teams vetting teams that will be charged with fact-checking, and other checks for policy compliance. Doc James and his team have done an exceptional job with Project Medicine and I see no reason similar procedures wouldn't work Wiki-wide while relieving content creators and reviewers of the tedious tasks of reverting IP vandals and various inaccuracies and illegible content. I've been helping edit articles where English is not the primary language, and it's tedious work to get it all legible just to have an IP add irrelevant information in broken English, revert the work you just did, or completely ignore MOS. What I'm suggesting doesn't challenge the open edit platform - it just alters it slightly (actually improves it) so we don't end-up with the inmates running the asylum. Atsme📞📧21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I've never liked Pending Changes, for that reason -- it doesn't stop vandals, it just makes more work. I like permanent semi-protection better. The problem is, as always, the "anyone can edit" thing, and I wish that the powers that be would spend more time in the trenches and realize that some protections are needed. Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!22:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. It's like trying to interpret the US Constitution. Give me the Federalist papers and I'll figure it out for myself, thank you. Ok, so I just read the following:[1]Wikipedia's best articles are highlighted in the list of featured articles. These articles were granted "featured" status because they were judged to be of high quality by other editors. (If later edits reduce the quality of a featured article, a user can nominate an article for removal from the list.) How does such a ridiculous batshit crazy remedy equate into a judgement call that even comes close to resembling common sense? Is that one help page the reason we're bound to these ridiculous PAGs? After you read this, look at the first discussion on the TP of that help page. So the "common sense" solution to resolve our very problematic, and rather relentless issues is to give IPs free rein in and around the barn while we ignore the stats that tell us at least 80% of them are wild horses. The reason we let the 80% run free is to protect the 20% who may or may not be good horses but all should be allowed to run free. Better yet, it doesn't matter if we're losing nearly 50% of our quality registered proven show horses who are so good at what they do, they can go bridleless. Jiminy Cricket. Atsme📞📧22:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Where have you got that 80% figure from? Every time the WMF have ever researched this (which is fairly regularly), a fairly significant majority of IP edits are shown to be positive; this is easy enough to verify just by glancing at Special:RecentChanges. Kbrown (WMF) (intentionally not pinging since I found out she gets emailed every time she's mentioned) will have the exact stats if you want them.
To save you wasting time, I can tell you now that Form a 7-member team of Project Accuracy Coordinators to oversee the project, establish criteria and minimum qualifications for fact-check teams, help with the project's page design and tasks is not going to fly; not only is the community never going to approve the idea of super-editors (if you haven't heard of Citizendium and Veropedia before, you might want to ask yourself why you haven't heard of them), and certainly never going to approve the idea of a (presumably self-appointed) panel granting themselves the right to decide which editors are "good", the WMF will undoubtedly veto the proposal if it somehow did get community approval. (They vetoed WP:ACTRIAL for breaching core principles, and ACTRIAL was far less contentious or exclusive than anything you're proposing.)
I think that figuring out which problem is in need of solving may be a start. Rather than a mega-overview project, the idea might be to identify the individual problems and work on the policy changes needed to fix them. Here's my take:
Vandalism. Semi-protection helps a lot on the articles where there is a high degree of vandalism. While a lot of IPs may quietly fix typos and even revert vandals, the loss of that compared to shutting down the trolls is worth the price, IMHO. So I'd like to see permanent semi being made more easily available.
Pending changes is generally useless except for a few highly controversial articles with lots of watchers and high traffic count; it's for things like Scientology. As a vandal-fighting tool, it's almost useless, save perhaps for some breaking news stories.
Actual fact-checking is already part of the GAN and FAC process, but the quality of the reviewers is an issue. Also, the GAN backlog is in part because each review is all on one person. Frankly, I think that they should institute QPQ on GAN just like they do for DYK. (But not at FAC as that's a different kettle of fish with multiple reviewers) For FAC, I think a bright line rule that X percent of the citations need to be directly checked by live reviewers -- spot checks are ... sometimes spotty.
Assessing actual expertise is a bugbear. Atsme and I have a pretty good sense in the horse articles when someone knows their stuff or not, but the truth is, WP is written by a lot of people who wouldn't qualify as "experts" in a given field, or often they don't edit in their employment field for fear of the WP:COI cops. For example, should Doc James (using Doc as a bit of a straw man here, sorry Doc) be viewed as an "expert" across all medical articles? All biology articles? All science articles (including astrophysics and paleontology?) Or is he only an "expert" on articles related to Emergency medicine? Does his mean he can't be an expert on horses? What about veterinary medicine? Same for me; I actually edit very little in the area of my primary employment, I do enough of that every day.
It's surprisingly hard to predict vandalism, though, aside from the usual targets like Anal sex which are invariably indefinitely semi-protected anyway. Some pages which would seem to be obvious vandal-magnets are untouched, even at TFA; meanwhile, some deeply obscure pages get ripped to shreds. (I can't remember whose it was, but I remember one of the horse biographies coming under a sustained 24-hour attack through its entire time at TFA.) It's worth bearing in mind that Semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes is a policy which the WMF has consistently said is non-negotiable; we had to fight tooth-and-nail just to get the ability to semi-protect TFAs under any circumstances.
In my experience, where Pending Changes shines isn't on high-traffic articles, but on low traffic pages which experience a steady stream of well-intentioned cluelessness. The articles on executions, which see a steady stream of well-intentioned IPs correcting 'Hanged' to 'Hung' without realizing 'hanged' is a specific legal term of art, is one which springs to mind in which PC has worked well; see the history of Hanged, drawn and quartered, for instance. The admins would likely be very wary of any attempt to expand Pending Changes/Flagged Revisions significantly, given what happened on de-wiki when they tried it which could politely be described as "a complete fiasco".
Enforcing a mandatory percentage of sources to be checked is a nice theory, but in practice I can't see it working. For some topics like Japanese naval history, the overwhelming majority of sources are offline and not in English, so these topics would languish at FAC for months; plus, it would introduce a further systemic bias towards the US since far more works are available online if one's in the US (Google Books for users outside the US has most books in snippet or very-limited-preview view, often boots users altogether if they read more than a couple of pages of any given work if the work's still in copyright, and has a books-per-month limit meaning the more you use it, the less you see). With my cynical hat on, QPQ at GA would just lead to back-scratching and quick-passing, and with no Malleus any more to clean up the trash the GA pool would rapidly degenerate into a huge pile of poor-quality nonsense akin to the old Brilliant Prose Candidates.
While sometimes it swings too far towards the cult of amateurism, I actually support the general disdain towards experts. Quite aside from the "on the internet, no-one knows you're a dog" factor (I'm sure everyone has a story of some obvious bozo having to be escorted to the exit, loudly proclaiming themselves "the leading expert" the whole way out), experts are quite often not particularly well qualified to fact-check or to maintain NPOV, since they tend to have pet theories and not be able to summarize differing viewpoints dispassionately. You may not see it much on horses (AFAIK there's broad consensus on how a horse works and what its purpose is), but head on over to Talk:Christ myth theory and Talk:Historicity of Jesus and their 54 and 38 archives respectively and check out the number of variants on "as a preacher for 40 years I'm an expert in the Bible and feel this gives undue weight to the idea that the scriptures aren't true". (Hell, just read the archives of Talk:Tree shaping—a topic so obscure, virtually everyone involved in the article is an expert since nobody without a professional connection could possibly care—and tell me experts can be trusted to make sensible decisions.) ‑ Iridescent00:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
There are a range of possible changes here. My favoured is flagged revisions. German and several other language versions of wikipedia have implemented WP:Flagged revisions. Under this system your edit doesn't go live unless you are a known editor or your edit is approved by one. This hasn't got consensus for deployment here, but we could reopen the debate. One divide is over whether you make one step - rejecting edits that are vandalism, or two steps actually verifying the edit. I don't think we should just try for featured articles, we have the possibility of making a quality improvement to the whole project. Flagged revisions would be a bit like putting pending changes on all articles, IPs could still edit, but instead of some newbie edits being checked multiple times and others not at all, all newbie edits would be checked at least once. There was a bit of a hiccup when the Germans introduced it because they hadn't whitelisted enough editors in advance, but they got past that. ϢereSpielChequers23:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Atsme, as a mind-focusing exercise consider what would have happened had FR/PC been in place when you joined Wikipedia. Your first 10 edits (and probably quite a bit further) would all have been rejected prior to going live under PC; how would you have felt as a good-faith newcomer if the first thing to have happened to you on Wikipedia was that (despite the "anyone can edit" banners) whatever edit you made, it didn't become visible, and your talkpage promptly filled up with {{uw-nor1}} and {{uw-spam1}} messages? It's no secret that Wikipedia has a serious problem retaining new editors (see this thread if you like raw data and shiny multi-coloured charts), and there's an extremely fine line between "maintaining quality" and "biting the newcomers", one which IMO your proposals—with their implicit assumption of bad faith from anyone without a seal of approval granted by your proposed council of elders—falls well onto the wrong side of. ‑ Iridescent16:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I am appreciative of the excellent input from Montanabw, Iridescent, WereSpielChequers and a few others with whom I've had the pleasure of discussing what I consider to be a worthy endeavor. In an effort to not inundate Montana's TP, I have moved all discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accuracy and also initiated a RfC to address two of the concerns mentioned. Iridescent, if it's ok with you, I've copied your question and pasted it at the project TP where I will respond to the excellent issues you've raised. If it's not ok, please feel free to revert it. Atsme📞📧18:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries about a temporary hijacking on my TP for preliminary discussion. It's been really interesting and I appreciate everyone having a calm, focused, good faith conversation. We need more of this on-wiki. Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!00:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You did an oopsy.
Project Accuracy - you commented in my section and forgot to sign. Two oopses. When you click on edit, you see a pattern to use to make suggestions and comments. Just follow the instructions and if you have any problems, let me know, but please hurry before others follow suit. *lol* Atsme📞📧00:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yes, it's ok. We don't have any age limit here and all useful contribs are welcome, although if you are a kid, it's best not to reveal your actual age or exact location. (Like the town where you live.) I'm an adult, and I don't reveal my age or exact location, beyond saying that I'm older than 20 and live in the Southern US. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I know of at least one person who got admin tools at the age of 13 (no one knew this at the time, I suspect). But for safety, it's VERY important not to reveal your age or location. Best to downplay gender too. Over the years I've chosen to admit that I am over 50 and live in Montana (see my userboxes) but it's best to be protective of your identity if you are a younger editor. Wikipedia is like a great big city; has some wonderful neighborhoods but also can be haunted by some real creeps, so best to stay street smart. Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!00:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know that my cat, Gus, thinks that the the galloping horse animation on this page is the the most fascinating thing evah! He's gone from sniffing at it to trying to hit it with his paw to scrabbling around the back of the screen to see where it's gone when I go to another page. Tigerboy1966 22:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you wrote about the Jackalope. I'm also interested in mythological critters in the Western United States and Canada. Have you heard of these?
Ogopogo aka Naitaka - Lake Okanagan (cryptid and/or Native legend)
Cadborosaurus aka "hiyitl'iik", "T'chain-ko" and "Numkse lee Kwala" - Pacific coast (cryptid and/or Native legend)
We could rename the navbox to something "Legendary Creatures of the American West" perhaps -- the trick being to define "West" (My dad thought Minnesota was "back east," but Minnesota has a road sign in a suburb of Minneapolis that proclaims it's "where the west begins". And what about Ohio and the Old Northwest? LOL!
Again, those who care can continue this discussion
This ... what you both don't see is ... the editors who might be willing to have anything to do with any of the contested articles running in terror and not wanting to have anything to do with them. Ealdgyth - Talk00:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I feel that way too, but if no one stands up for content you wind up with a mess like animal treatment in rodeo. The "you're both wrong so I'm giving everyone detention" doesn't work, it just rewards the actual bully by punishing the person who stood up for what was right. And it is also passive-aggressive to say, "I have an opinion but I'm not going to express it because I don't want to get involved..." Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!01:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Not so much passive-aggressive but more knowing my limits. I am not in a place where I can deal with that kind of conflict. It just isn't possible. If I get dragged into something like that ... it'd just mean I quit editing Wikipedia. Who is right/wrong or who started it doesn't really matter at this point - it's gotten so acrimonious it's going to bring you both down at some point. It WILL torpedo any future RfA you try to run, and it could end up badly for Lynn also. Its so acrimonious that I have no desire whatsoever to even try to read anything about mustangs/the Wild Horse Act/etc so that I might be able to take part with knowledge. And if I, who actually like horse subjects, feels that way, it's going to be difficult to get other neutral editors to weigh in - which is what is really needed at this point. Ealdgyth - Talk01:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't intend to make things personal; I know people have limits -- IRL I choose my battles every day and I actually choose to avoid a lot of battles on wikipedia as well, and walk away from a lot of no-wins. I'm coming up on 10 years on-wiki and, so far, if I stick to my guns, modify my position where the evidence convinces me that I was incorrect (which happens quite a bit, actually), but don't violate policy, sooner or later the other person usually figures out that I cannot be bullied and we manage to become civil to one another -- and even occasionally helpful. We might not have a lot of trust, exactly, and some apologies on both sides may be in order, but we reach a point of being able to interact with respect and civility, which is crucial. For example there is another editor we both know who opposed my first RfA and will probably oppose it the next time as well, but while we will never agree on some issues, we do agree on others, and if I think I need help on something within his specialty, I respect and seek his judgement. On the other hand, you and I both can name several other editors I had huge battles with and are now indefinitely blocked, and most of them got their indef due to their behavior towards others, not me -- I stood my ground until they gave up on fighting with me and so they sought other prey without changing their behavior, and that's when they (rightly) got slapped. Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!19:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Please do not cast aspersions as you did here. Your implications that I cannot be trusted to edit properly or do not have the trust of the community are unwarranted. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
We will, of course, not agree on that point and you are welcome to provide diffs that indicate that you've been able to successfully work with others elsewhere. And I have caught you dead to rights inserting citations that don't match up with the material you are sourcing. Trust is earned. Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!07:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Law School 101: People are innocent until proven guilty. You are the one continually casting aspersions. You have to come up with evidence; I don't have to defend myself until you do. You've spent hours going through my edits trying to prove I was a sock, since you failed at that, why don't you put the same effort into backing up your other accusations? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
And incidentally, once I reviewed the material I had available to me, I decided that you were not a sockpuppet of the now-indefinitely-banned Rationalobserver. And I told you that several months ago. I am choosing to focus on your present behavior. Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!07:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Try again. You just said: "I have caught you dead to rights inserting citations that don't match up with the material you are sourcing." Come up with difs. Not just one, but enough to show a pattern that you are making a justified accusations and not just casting aspersions. If I was going for an RfA you might find that dif useful, but right now we're discussing your behavior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The "dead to rights" spot I was referring to, which we've already discussed this at talk, was this:
These two links [8][9] were misattributed as a source for the statement that ended "...escaped from settlers within the previous 75 years" when the content did not say that.
And we have here, and everything listed at talk which illustrates PRECISELY the problem: here
Now, it's late, I'm not going to spend a half hour per diff looking for more examples, I've made my point. Most of the others were your "extrapolations" about Mustang numbers over at the Mustang page. Now go away. Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!08:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I believe we have discussed most of those at length. I just spent several hours fixing all the mistakes you put into the Colonial Spanish Horse article in your latest attempt to discredit me. You keep going back to the same lame examples again and again, ignoring my defenses, (as well as your own missteps when I point them out) to justify your uncivil behavior. If you can't do better than that, I really suggest you stop casting aspersions. Arbcom doesn't like it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
For your excellent contributions on all things equine. Your resilience in the face of the moronic and the stupid who get some sort of perverted satisfaction in belittling and berating you, as illustrated in the sections above, is something to behold. Keep up the great work, the rest of us value you! CassiantoTalk18:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
A little help?
I did something on my article, the Cerbat Mustang and something went wrong with the picture...
(talk page stalker) I see MontanaBW has fixed the image for you. As you can see, when filling in an infobox, you only need provide the image filename (like Cerbat Mustang.jpg), because the infobox - which we call a "template" - will supply the rest of the image syntax for you. In general, you can check how you need to fill in any template by looking at its documentation. In this case, have a look at Template:Infobox horse breed and you can see what is needed for each parameter. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
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.
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!
Are you taking any calls for help from Project Equine? I took a quick look at the edit warring, and at first glance saw where quite a bit of trivia should be deleted. You may or may not be thinking along the same line, but I think we'd probably be close in the way we view it so if you're interested, I'll keep working on Faisalabad which is probably turning into the longest article on Wikipedia!!! *LOL* Atsme📞📧03:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The situation is complicated by the fact that it is playing out across at least three different articles and their talk pages and has been going on for at least a year. Faisalabad? For length, you oughta see California Chrome -- and he's racing again this year! LOL! Montanabw(talk)|GOTHUNDER!18:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well aware of it - been there, done that. I simply remarked about the number of sources required for that length of prose. I've been helping to get Faisalabad ready as a FAC but collaborators keep adding more info!!! It's liable to catch up to the Chrome article at this rate. In the interim, I'm still waiting on a GA reviewer to finish Gabor B. Racz which is only 593 words - it's been ready for a couple of days now but the editor who took the review appears to be a very busy editor. Guess I need to get busy reviewing some of the GA & FA candidates and help free up some of our reviewers. PS: California Chrome, 9132 words of readable prose - Faisalabad a mere 5735 of readable prose in comparison (nearly half as much) but the ratio of sources holds true. Jiminy Cricket!! Clearly a labor of love. 😳 Atsme📞📧23:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hee Hee! I looooooove both the citation templates and reFill, they have saved so much of my bacon! I used to hand-input everything back in the old days...! It's OK to ping the reviewer, they usually don't get into trouble until they've clearly abandoned the review, usually a few weeks. I think you are doing fine, and ping me if you need a GA review of an article I haven't ever worked on, I do get WP:WIKICUP points for GAN reviews. Montanabw(talk)23:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You just opened the flood gates!! *lol* Same back at ya. I have pinged and posted on the reviewer's TP - apparently active but for some reason not responding. Last comment was 7 days ago which I responded to in a timely manner but now it's just sitting there....waiting....waiting....waiting. Atsme📞📧23:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that my own sandboxed new article drafts are languishing due to other brushfires, the only way I'm getting my wikicup points for this round will be GA reviews because people will nag me... squeaky wheel gets the grease. Montanabw(talk)00:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for passing Bud Dunn! Btw, Horsegeek is interested in getting the Cerbat Mustang to that level, and I told them I'd help because the criteria is fresh in my mind right now. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Montanabw. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Kimono111, you don't have enough experience to possibly pass RfA right now. Also, you have a history of making somewhat inappropriate edits, like the one to Cerbat Mustang where you said the page was made by you. Concentrate your energies on contributing to Wikipedia for 2 or 3 years and then worry about adminship. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 23:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Littleolive oil
I think we've all said our piece. Time to move on to other things. All of you are good folks and mean well, so let's all be a bit forgiving. Montanabw(talk)02:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Montanabw, since I've been told not to post further on Littleolive oil's talk page, I'll briefly reply to your comment here, although I don't want to get bogged down by all this. You are, of course, right; only the dispute occurred long before the editor had died, and the "Dreadfulstar" comment was made by SchroCat who at the time, did not know that the editor had since passed on. An apology, I think, admits guilt, and guilt was not obvious here. It was a simple mistake through no fault of his own and SchroCat rightly identified this being as such. That should be enough. Saying "I'm sorry, I didn't know" is wrong. How can one be sorry for not knowing something; should he have known? CassiantoTalk09:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
If Littleolive oil would've kept quite in the first place, then this wouldn't have escalated. I wanted to reply to Montanabw, which I'm entitled to do, and here we are, as I've been told not to reply on Littleolive oil's talk page. If you don't want things to carry on, Gerda, may I defer you, respectively, to the same advice as I've just given Littleolive oil, in hindsight. CassiantoTalk12:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Cassianto: I haven't banned you from my talk page; I had asked that you do not carry on this conversation further on my talk page because I had nothing further to say. I have never banned anyone from my talk page and probably never will. Further, as I said no one was asking for an apology. So yes, this should be dropped and chalked up to misunderstanding. Best to all.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC))
Two points I'd like to make:
If Schrocat (not pinging due to their previous declaration of not wanting to discuss further) had stated here that they were not aware of the situation at the time of the offending edit, much of this could have been avoided. Clarity improves comprehension. (and Kudos to Montanabw for asking for clarification)
re: If one has an offending remark to make about an editor A, then posting such an offending remark to a friend's (editor B) page isn't a good idea. If you're going to be demeaning to someone, have the decency to do so to their face.
Ched, I'm confused; who is "A", who is "B", to which talk page are you referring, what was the "offending remark", and why are you chiming in to a discussion which should have ceased days ago? Everyone wants an end to this discussion, but it's being kept alive by unconnected people shoving in their two penn'orth and its me who's being blamed for keeping it going! I'm not having a dig and I AGF. CassiantoTalk01:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's my thinking, folks. I'm someone who doesn't see a lot of value in ceremonial "now you say you're sorry" mea culpas absent having something to apologize for. But I do, nonetheless, think there is a place for culturally-appropriate acknowledgements when one has accidentally overstepped a line of politeness, creating offense or hurt feelings. Doing so does not mean you are "guilty" of something, it is akin to the apology you might give someone for stepping on their foot or bumping into them; you didn't do it on purpose, but they still got a bruise. For example, I recall being called out one time for pointing during a conversation with some folks from India, who considered it quite offensive. In my subculture (America of Northern European decent and rural heritage), pointing is merely a gesture of emphasis. I apologized and said that I didn't intend to cause offense, and in turn, they made a conciliatory response and we went on to have a friendly conversation. In this case, I gave a gentle admonition to an editor who in my opinion had crossed a line regarding a deceased wikipedian was a good wiki-friend of mine, the editor made an appropriate response and addressed at least part of their error, and now I think it's time for everyone to drop the stick. Montanabw(talk)02:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You already are a "registered" editor, you have a username and an account. For more privileges, you actually have to start making constructive edits to articles as opposed to posting random things. I suggest you go over to the Teahouse and ask questions there. Montanabw(talk)23:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hm. I've not done much with book series. Looks interesting. Be sure you have good, reliable sources. I'm going to ping Figureskatingfan, who may know who is good with articles about young adult literature and see if we can get you some additional helpers~ Montanabw(talk)23:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Just started a PR on the article. Nice job, Montanabw! I'm currently working on a bit of copyediting with a few tweaks that you might like, but I thought it best to work on it in my Sandbox since the article is already a GA. When I'm done, I'll post the link for you. Oh, and while I'm on the subject of GAs, the Racz article still doesn't reflect the reviewer's decision to discontinue the review so it is still live on the TP but not listed at WP:GAN. I don't have a clue how to close it on the TP, and it's too late for me to simply withdraw because a review was already started. Very confusing. Atsme📞📧07:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Montanabw, I've finished the initial ce/tweak on Thunder but before I initiate any changes on the article, I'd like for you to preview it. I tweaked the lede and a section that syncs to some of the same info - more sections may need tweaking but I haven't gone that far. See User:Atsme/sandbox2. I tried to make the prose a bit more fluid and hopefully a bit more engaging in an effort to best satisfy the criteria for an FAC. If it meets your expectations, I'll be happy to continue ce and tweaking the rest of the article. Atsme📞📧20:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't put what's in your sandbox into the article, though your helpful wikignoming so far has been good. I'll comment on your sandbox there. Basically, we NEVER put citations into the lede, provided that all material in the lead is sourced in the main article (which it should be) the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. (See WP:LEAD. Montanabw(talk)01:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Naborr
Hello! Your submission of Naborr at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC) I would've just fixed it, but since it's a newbie, I thought it might be a learning point. Not necessary for all parts of the hook to be claimed in the same sentence, but it is necessary that all parts of the hook be cited immediately following the claim. End of paragraph is not sufficient. Why this is, I have no idea, but I've been busted by that rule too many times to count. ;) SusunW (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I ended up doing boxes for eventing, saddle seat, barrel racing, cutting, rodeo, and western riding in general, which are all listed in the WP:Userboxes/Sports page by the jumping and dressage ones that were already there.
I also did a couple of breed ones; Akhal-Teke, Saddlebred, Morgan and Quarter Horse, plus a general pony one (fat little fuzzball!); they are all on the WP:Userboxes/Animals page under the horse section, except for the pony, which I put in its own section because they are supposed to be different species. Got ideas for any more? White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the person or people who wrote all my breed books did not hear that. Or maybe they just didn't want to acknowledge that a 9 hand fuzzball of a Shetland was the same species as a Friesian or Arabian. Ha. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 20:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Except for the Simon and Schuster one, all my breed books are basically crap (the Pavia one, which dumbs it down too much, and a couple of others that are basically one paragraph per breed. I do have the Knack grooming book that gives good basic info on some of the more popular ones). I don't like ordering online so it's a tossup as to what I can find in the local bookstore; once I found a really good, comprehensive horse veterinary book for only $2 used, but more often it's books intended for kids or very green beginners. Or none at all. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
These days, I don't even own a hardcopy breed book, at least not a new one; I usually just access Hendricks, Storey or one of the others online. They all tend to be flawed in some ways and often just parrot the uncritical postings of breed associations (Lynghaug does so openly). The more popular breeds are pretty easy to find good secondary sources on, but the small obscure ones can be a real challenge. Montanabw(talk)21:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Forgive the interruption from a page stalker, but, as a point of general biology, breeds are definitely animals of the same species. Our own Breed article starts with A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species and that were arrived at through selective breeding. (my emphasis). The article then indicates there is not a widely accepted definition, but is a "term of art". I know of no reputable biological source that would indicate breeds are different species.DrChrissy(talk)22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't think anybody was suggesting breeds do not all belong to the same species. Indeed in the cases we're looking at, there is no way of having breeding if there were different species. Although the definition of species varies with organism, for most mammals it represents animals that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring (which is a by-product of close genetic similarity). The definition of a breed is even more fuzzy, although it is generally used for a group of animals that share multiple common traits (sometimes through deliberate attempts by breeders to emphasise those traits in a population). Because the creation and recognition of a unique breed can be a lucrative business, it predisposes breeders to get recognition for their creations as separate breeds and goes a long way to muddy the waters even further. I suspect those are the sort of issues that are so elusive to source with any degree of confidence. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The creation of the new breeds is also confused by the current trend of designer breeding, both in horses and dogs, as well as some other animals. (Like the Friesian Sporthorse, basically a way to capitalize on the huge popularity of the Friesian horse, at least IMO--you can buy an off the track Thoroughbred cheap, breed it to a Friesian, and wham! Expensive designer babies.) Although most of this crossbreeding is within the species, it's possible to cross to other species, like with the coydog or those cats that are a cross of a housecat and a serval. The what-makes-a-breed argument is also muddied by the fact that some people with pure breeds don't want them recognized by major groups. A prime example is the Coonhound dog breeds--a lot of breeders fought to keep them getting accepted by the American Kennel Club because they wanted the dogs to stay true to their hunting purpose. They didn't want them to go the route of the spaniels, which are now so far removed from their original use that you'd probably have to buy one specifically from a hunting breeder to be able to hunt with it. The same thing is out there in the herding breeds as well. It's virtually impossible to find a Collie or Australian Shepherd bred for herding, even though that's what both breeds were used for for hundreds of years. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The concept of "breed" is often a human construct. I suspect the Kennel Club says in their breed description something like "Cocker Spaniels must have a short, cropped tail". So, any ethically minded owner who refuses to amputate their dog's tail, actually does not have a Cocker Spaniel (in the eyes of the Kennel Club). (please shoot me down in flames if I am wrong - I am not an expert in this area).DrChrissy(talk)00:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I mean when you get right down to it, most ways of dividing the world into categories is a human construct. My personal favorite Ship of Theseus argument for biologists is "After how many generations does a subspecies become a species?"--Guerillero | Parlez Moi03:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ha! Guerillero, I hit an edit conflict with your post when I tried to post the following: Breeds are probably closer to being subspecies, DrChrissy - the products of controlled (or planned) evolutionary and/or ecological adaptations which altered their DNA and/or remapped their genome sequencing. Who knows what breed actually represents the true species as it came to us in its original genetic wardrobe as described in a century old cladogram? Atsme📞📧03:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Guerillero - interesting question. We may already be there with the Domestic Turkey which taxonomically is the same as the Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Male domestic turkeys have such large breasts and are so heavy, they have great difficulty mating naturally with domestic females - a substantial amount of artificial breeding relies on artificial insemination. A Wild turkey hen weighs approx 5 kg, so I imagine a 20 kg Domestic male would find it very difficult to mate successfully without squashing his (very surprised!) mate. Do we have a new species...?DrChrissy(talk)16:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess I was thinking of this in rather narrow perspectives. Species are defined by biology which is related to biological fitness, whereas we humans, in animal breeding circles, often define a breed according to characteristics which may not have any basis in fitness (e.g. Dogs: cropped tail, spotted coat, brachycephalic, Cattle: Double muscled, Sheep: Highly wrinkled, Goldfish: Bulging eyes - are there any examples for horses?). Perhaps the difference we are discussing here is between domestic breeds and wild-type breeds.DrChrissy(talk)16:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any horses that have the vast discrepancies between breeds that are present in the dog world, like the difference between a Great Pyrenees and a Pekingese dog. There are differences with horses that are bred for different purposes, especially since horses are mostly pleasure or recreational animals now and most people don't farm with them or drive them to town. That has probably allowed the breeds to diverge more, but a Saddlebred and Quarter Horse are both still clearly of the same species, and could produce fertile offspring. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think equus ferus caballus has diverged enough to consider making any particular breed a superspecies or semispecies so I imagine "breed" it will be for a long time. Interesting read starting on page 4, [11]. --Atsme📞📧18:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess humans may well have had longer to interfere with dogs' genetics than with most other animals, so it's no surprise that there is such diversity in dog breeds. On the other hand, there may be practical considerations if you were trying to cross a Shetland stallion with a carthorse mare, although I'm pretty sure we would consider them the same species. Here's a treat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aU_c8aabw2Y --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Breeds are not subspecies. No DNA differences that distinguish breeds. In contrast, the Przewalski's horse IS a subspecies -- different number of chromosomes, for one thing. The "multiple origins" of domestic horse was an old theory promulgated in the late1800s/early 1900s that certain old horse breeds (notably the Arabians and the Andalusians) were of completely different subspecies (see History of horse domestication theories) but that theory has been quite thoroughly discredited. In fact, it appears that ALL domesticated horses come from only ONE -- or at the most, a very few -- stallion, but crossed on multiple mare lines. The Y-DNA lines traced so far all converge on a single progenitor. (Possibly a second in China). Yes, you could cross a miniature horse on a Shire horse, but who would want to?? Clearly, though, as the piece {[u|Atsme}} links, there are political considerations where very different animals can mate with fertile offspring. Where do we draw the line between hybridize and crossbreeding? (I briefly came across an analogous issue at Brown bear and cutthroat trout). Montanabw(talk)18:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I refer to your deletion of my newly added history section to the Mounted police article. Your statement that I should have provided source references for each of the French, Turkish, Mexican, Canadian and British colonial forces named is a valid one. However it will take me a few hours to track and add all of the individual references required - please do not revert the restored material again while this is work in progress. I note your advice that the Texas Rangers are not police and will delete this particular reference. Regards Buistr (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Your edit brought us up to 1473 characters. We shoot for 1150 and usually don't go over 1175. Give it another shot? Also, "range work" doesn't appear in the text below the lead ... if you keep it, can you clarify? - Dank (push to talk) 06:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Montababw, would you be interested/available to participate in Wikipedia:Meetup/Bozeman/ArtAndFeminism 2016? This edit-a-thon is being organized by enthusiastic new academic editors, and they could greatly benefit from the assistance of a very experienced and friendly local Wikipedian like yourself.--Pharos (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Montanabw. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Women's History Month worldwide online edit-a-thon
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.
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!
Speaking of Parelli Natural Horsemanship, don't you think "horsenality" deserves its own article? (Introduced here, actually as "Parelli Horsenality™".) What a valuable concept! Incidentally, Google shows a surprising number of Parelli mentions on Swedish pages, and especially of horsenality. Mainly blogs, I guess. Horsenality is there translated as — are you ready for this? — hästonlighet. Sounds even better in Swedish, doesn't it? Bishonen | talk17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
No, no! Not me! Darwinbish wrote that! The little poltergeist had figured out my password. (Changed it now.) Naughty anklebiter! Bishonen | talk18:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
Googling Parelli is an interesting experiment in extremely good search engine optimization, it takes about four pages of results to get a hit that's not to the "savvy club" or something. The man (or more likely, his former-cosmetic-company-salesperson wife) is a true genius at branding and marketing. Gotta give them credit for that. Montanabw(talk)18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of marketing genius, horsenality being "described in the press as providing 'valuable insights'" is not sourced to some third party. It comes from an interview with Linda. Not, admittedly, directly quoted to Linda, with quote marks; but it comes from the reporter's introductory background summary, which clearly comes from Linda. It's Linda's opinion. "Described in the press", indeed. I hesitate somewhat to edit the article, since DB already has, but what the hell, hers was just a typo correction. Done. Bishonen | talk18:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
I think the problem with the Horsenality is that probably fewer than 1 in 10 horses are going to fall into one of the four categories, which probably stems from the fact that Linda, the apparent creator, didn't have much horsey experience before she married Pat. A few years of Pony Club and then some low-level eventing are not going to prepare you for dealing with the spectrum of issues you get with problem horses--and the problem horses are the ones that get sent to trainers! I've seen a bunch of horses, seen horses that tried to kill people and horses that were like big puppies, and most of them just don't fit her categories. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
She also wasn't a psychologist, either. However, she DOES have a background in "industrial psychology" (i.e. how to sell stuff to people) and I would suggest she is a genius in that department. One of the many bbs discussions of the method calls it "the horse world's answer to Scientology." Montanabw(talk)22:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Googling "Parelli Natural Horsemanship" may give a different set of results - and you have to remember Google tailors results to the searcher - as I get http://www.equiportal.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?id=524 as hit number 5. It's not as popular as our article would have you believe. Should we ask Jimbo if he knows any "toxic horsenalities"? --RexxS (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
And Bishonen, have at it. I'm really getting tired of that COI editor and her POV pushing, but when it's only two people involved, outside viewers think you're both crazy and she thinks I have an evil kitten-eating agenda to be a big meanie. (OK, in crazy land, I'm maybe a few beers short of a 6-pack, but only in my own special way). Montanabw(talk)22:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Very puffed-up article. I thought at first I should hang back in case an admin was needed to deal with the promotional editor and their COI, but I've removed some stuff now, so I obviously can't act as an admin wrt the article. (Can't be helped. It was a pleasure to remove the sentence about how the school maintains an online site — who'd have thought it!) Bishonen | talk23:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC).
And the puffing was a sincere attempt to be fair to the editor in question, but because I massively toned down what was originally added, that editor still feels that we are "slandering" a great man. Better you than me. ;-) Montanabw(talk)23:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Somewhere in my boxes of already packed books .. I have a book by Anne Wilson titled Top Horse Training Methods Explored which I've only ever managed to skim. It did not appear to be a very fawning work towards any of the big name trainers. Looks like it's going for a cent on Amazon (plus shipping). Might have useful info. Ealdgyth - Talk01:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that sounds like a good one to have. I guess what I don't love about most of the big name guys is that most of the horses never DO anything. I mean, they stand out in somebody's backyard and eat and go on 3 trail rides a year. If the methods are so great you'd think they'd use them on big stakes racers or high dollar show horses or something. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 16:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As the "COI editor" in question, I thought I'd chime in here.
detail from editor, hatting for length
WAF, my experience with horsenality is that about 80-90% of horses fall fairly clearly into one primary horsenality. (That doesn't mean they're 100% in any given category, but most of their behaviors are.) The other 10-20% are 1) "more complicated" (ha, ha) but 2) horsenality still helps out with the training. Just my 2c, given experience with many horses over the years (as well as a fair bit of familiarity with the horsenality concept).
Bishonen, the text you referred to was originally "offers education online," not merely that PNH has a website. The educational element was deleted somewhere along the way and, thus, the remainder became, as you noted, an expression of the obvious.
Finally, as a general note to those late to what appears to have devolved into mud-slinging, I will add this: I understand why, at first glance, you would think I am a COI editor. I add a fair bit of positive material. What is not immediately obvious, though, is why that is not unreasonable under the circumstances.
When I arrived at the article in late December, it was a smear piece. It had two sentences of bland praise (something akin to "Notable people A, B, C and D have utilized similar methods and have said assorted positive things about PNH. Robert Miller has supported PNH for decades."). That, in turn, was accompanied by 7 paragraphs blasting PNH in colorful, nasty (and sometimes untrue) detail.
I have no COI. I am merely a student on PNH who wants both the negatives and the positives to be reflected accurately on the page.JackieLL007 (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
About what you said to me about getting Cerbat to GA status, if you can go ahead and add some things. I don't want you doing all the work and make it like, you know, I'm making you do it. I've been down with fever and my mind's not going straight. Horsegeek(talk)21:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek
(talk page stalker) Sorry to hear that, but I have allergies and have been stuffed up and sick for the past week, so I know how you feel (some of the early plants are already blooming/producing pollen where I am). I can help expand the article too. I think that's mostly what it needs; to be a couple paragraphs longer, more if possible. White Arabian FillyNeigh01:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Added a wikilink
See Thunder - I was fascinated by Sharon's story, and started a BLP. Long way to go yet. There's also a BLP on Bob that somebody created but it's a just a stub. I'm planning to work on it, later. Oh, and if you get a break will you consider taking on a GA review for Gabor B. Racz which appears to be in limbo at the GA/N page? Thanks bunches. Atsme📞📧07:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
why did you delete this picture in the article Horse transports in the Middle Ages? It's historically accurate, based on the description of Angevin chronicles, and the image has been created using as a reference the drawing of the history magazine Desperta ferro, which is 100% reliable (you can found the original picture here). I don't see any reason to undo the edition, it's a good way of illustrating the way of transporting horses during the Middle Ages.
Hm. I restored it; I think my concern was the word "Roma" in the title, sometimes am moving rapidly through articles on my watchlist, and I must have been thinking you had an ancient Roman design, not a medieval one. But that was my error, I misread the caption. Sorry! Montanabw(talk)21:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring it! The word "Roma" is there because Catalan ships were often named after Saints (in this case Saint Peter of Rome, in Catalan Sant Pere de Roma), but it's completely from the Middle Ages, built in 1354. Nothing to be sorry about and pleased to meet you, --Auledas (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I've got about 5000 articles on my watchlist (cleaned out about 1000 recently so now it's about 4800 and change) the number that are edited on any given day varies, but when it's been busy for me, I get a little twitchy with the rollback button, and on this one I hit too fast. Appreciate the goodwill. Montanabw(talk)01:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
that wall
LOL .. actually that youtube video is what made me think of it. :-) .. Now if I can just get one of my Canadian friends to sponsor me. — Ched : ? 07:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if you saw it by I already get I new response again that it is still not enough in "third-party-sources" regarding my draft.
Do you have another idea? I mean we have also newspapers and magazines which are only write reports about vip persons.
Would such a link help?
Or can I ask for a second reviewer? Since other persons which has almost exact the same status in Germany got a Wikipedia page already. So there isn't really one or two rules on which people refer since some articles are ok and some not except of the references as far as I see.
One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1
That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.
On 5 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Naborr, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Naborr, an Arabianstallion, was imported to America via ship in 1963, the ship ran low on hay and the horse lost 50 pounds (23 kg)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Naborr. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Horse gait may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Records]] lists a [[Thoroughbred]] as having averaged {{convert|43.97|mph}} over a two-[[furlong]] ({{convert|.25|mi}} distance in 2008.<ref name=guinness>{{cite web| title = Fastest speed for a race
Infobox on Thunder - need to correct breeder as the correct breeder of JB Kobask is Henderson Arabian Stud. Also, not sure what Ian is asking re: Image review? Atsme📞📧16:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) If you're prepared to give away your work under a free licence, and if there's a reasonable chance that the drawings might be useful in a Wikipedia article or outside of Wikipedia, then of course you can upload them. In fact, I'd encourage you to do that - the encyclopedia is text-rich but image-poor on the whole. Sometimes drawings specifically created by editors to serve a particular purpose in an article are the only ones available under a free licence. --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, annotating existing images for articles can be helpful as well, provided that you can source the annotations (like we did at Back (horse) where someone took an image of mine and overlaid a skeleton to show the underlying structure, that was a really cool thing to do. We also have some drawings at shoulder-in that are helpful). Montanabw(talk)21:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Montanabw. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
What I wanted to write on Emily's AfD, but I won't because the cabal is just too vicious:
Sexism is completely tolerated on WP. Through actual scholarship one can be partial to inclusiveness and impartial to bias, but that isn't really what WP is about. It is delusional to pretend that WP is remotely academic. The very notion that secondary sources, rather than primary sources (which are not the same as self-generated materials), that length of discussion represents depth, that regional materials are somehow less than international sources, or that English language sources are more substantive, underscores this bias. Anyone who watches these AfDs with regularity sees the naysayers dominating the "conversations?" and voting! for or against articles typically falls with those who yell loudest. The exact same logic is used to eliminate articles on women and keep articles on plastic shamans. The question is do we, as a community want to allow the historical biases that only the victors and powerful write history to remain, or do we actually want history to be representive of the diversity in our world? There are indeed reliable sources to verify minority contributions, but the loudest voices rule here. GNG and Notability both allow inclusion, and yet ... One could be the best basketweaver that society allowed one to be and it would not be enough for the cadre of editors who think that only those who were part of the power matrix deserve articles. SusunW (talk) 08:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Rosie. I get so frustrated with the nonsense, but see little desire from the bulk of the vocal minority to actually see what is in front of them. I appreciate those who are willing to call them out or at least try to make them pull their heads out of the sand. But methinks they are of the variety who believes that they are impartial and it is others who are biased. SusunW (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I have reviewed the above nomination. Although it is approved, there remains some discussion on the nomination. Although you are not a nominator, you are a co-editor, and may be interested in the process.
Not very important, but while the DYK of Flim Flam is being reviewed, I'm going to work on another horse, Wilhelm Tell II. Found a lot of sources about him. :)
Not too important, I don't think I'm going to do a DYK on him, but it's worth the time writing. Do you know anything about him? Just wondering. HorsegeekWhisper in a horse's ear01:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek
oh, oh... generational split! It's The Black Stallion! A classic of equine literature! (One only notices later that Walter Farley tended to recycle horse racing sequences from novel to novel...) Montanabw(talk)03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm here about this reversion of my edit, which removed a space I had added after a comma. The phrase "apples and oranges" seemed kind of unrelated to the removal of such spaces, so I'm wondering if perhaps this was your intention. If it was something else that I did, or if my reversion was wrong in any way, please tell me. Thanks! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Just curious, Montanabw - I've not previously seen on other WP articles the style of referencing that's currently being used at that article - basically a general reference list with inline citations pointing to a notes section. What style is that and is it acceptable for an article that's subject to WP:MEDRS which requires inline citations to high quality sources and notes used for further definition? Atsme📞📧16:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Veterinary medicine is NOT subject to those guidelines. If things have changed somewhere, please could you point me in the right direction. And I agree - it's a rather unusual referencing system. DrChrissy(talk)17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Veterinary medicine articles are subject to WP:SCIRS, which is almost as stringent. But in the case of that article, the "references" are really a "further reading" section, and I renamed it accordingly. (I think it's kind of overdone, but I also don't really see it does any harm) Montanabw(talk)02:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
SCIRS is an unofficial guidance essay while MEDRS is a content guideline. Wonder why they haven't tried to at least make it a guideline? Atsme📞📧03:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
On 26 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ann T. Bowling, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ann Bowling studied hereditary diseases in animals that were genetically linked to their coat color? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ann T. Bowling. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
To celebrate Easter and the beginning of spring, here's a cute Easter bunny for you! (By the way, check out Strolling Jim's pedigree on Allbreed when you get a chance; look close at that Thoroughbred on his dam's side. Sound familiar? White Arabian FillyNeigh
I was just referring to Bend Or. I thought it was funny that he went to a famous Thoroughbred. (Why don't they mention that in any of the books? It's probably in that $100 TWH-only book I can't afford to buy--unless it's on a really good sale.) White Arabian FillyNeigh21:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
No matter how much the local content sucks, Interlibrary Loan is something that exists nationwide and allows participating libraries to get books from anywhere else in the country (Ealdgyth survives on it, I think). But I do love used bookstores too! Montanabw(talk)03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
She's an Al Khamsa foundation mare - she's listed in AK Arabians II on page 58. Might check with their site. I already packed my Forbis books up (don't get me started on Forbis) so I'm not much help there. The mare is going to be of marginal notability I'd guess. The AKII listing doesn't give any details on her beyond her breeding and when she was purchased (unlike entries for other horses which give more details). Ealdgyth - Talk21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
MBW - I'm out of sources for her. She wasn't behind my stallion so I don't really have any magazine articles for her and my Forbis is packed (and all I have is Classic Arabian Horse, not Bloodstock). I gots nothing to add so nothing to add to the AfD. Ealdgyth - Talk17:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, the dear Judith Forbis (anyone who wears a turban for 50 years and lives in Arkansas ... Okay), but maybe if you could pop by the Afd and make a fast comment, that would help. Google books has Forbis/Classic and we have already added an excerpt there. WAF found some source material. It's the usual nasty deletionist argument going on there. Montanabw(talk)17:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Good call, and good point in your closing statement. I'd actually not even realized that we'd suddenly lost 3 editors in that dispute. I started a discussion at WT:SOCK#Clarification of WP:FAMILY? regarding the use of WP:FAMILY that seemed to really trigger things, arguing that some change or clarification might prevent that sort of statement in the future. You might be interested in joining. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it was heating up more than settling down. Yeah, check the talk pages of the users involved. Three just quit. They might be back, but it could be awhile. Montanabw(talk)03:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
"The Cloisters" at ANI
Thanks for your close of this, but one thing you wrote confused me a bit, that three editors had indicated a desire to retire from WP because of it. I didn't get that from the discussion, and I certainly hope you're not referring to me as one of them. I did (and do) want to stay away from the discussion, but it'll take a lot more than Alansohn's and DrChrissy's fervid dislike of me to leave Wikipedia. Did I miss something in the discussion?
Oh, I just saw the thread above this one, so let me take a look at the talk pages of the participants. BMK (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
So, you're talking about Kafka Liz, Victoriaearle and... Ceoil?? I don't know the editing of the first two and have nothing against them (and certainly didn't know that KL & C were partners)and Ceoil I only know a little bit. (Or am I wrong, and Ceoil is not the third person you're referring to?) In any case, if these are editors whose contributions you value, take solace in the fact that most retirements -- at least in my experience -- are not permanent. Wikipedia is a wickedly hard addiction to kick, especially if you use it as a source (which most of the English-speaking world does) and so is exposed to it every time you look up a fact. Then you see something wrong that needs to be fixed, and whammo, you're editing again. I've tried, and never lasted very long. BMK (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Yep, you've got the gist of it right. I don't think it was because of anything you personally said or did, but the comment I reference in the thread above (and Montanabw referenced in her closing summary at ANI) seems to have done it. Sucks to see it happen. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Victoriaearle blanked her page, Ceoil blanked his page and KafkaLiz put up a "retired" banner. Yes, I think that it was one of the other people's comments at the ANI that prompted this. I hope you are right and that they will return. Montanabw(talk)06:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Flim Flam (horse)
On 30 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flim Flam (horse), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Flim Flam was originally supposed to be a breeding stallion, but was gelded so he could excel in Olympic dressage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flim Flam (horse). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), 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.
Hi, I was wondering if you could help produce a few articles towards this in April? The idea is that people can use the Amazon vouchers to buy books for their future projects. I'm sure the getting articles to GA is compatible with the WikiCup too!♦ Dr. Blofeld16:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
in serving for ten years Arabian horses (and others) and people from Montana (and others) with humor and outspoken fairness! You make this ... a better place.
Hi Montanabw. I'm an editor of the Italian Wikipedia. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks,--Kenzia (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh crap. I saw this at ANI--the nominator was trying to bully the article creator and was shoving their DYKs in their face. And yes, I have at least one book to back up Bull Rock being the first Thoroughbred racehorse in the US. Their hook is inaccurate. White Arabian FillyNeigh14:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to A+F
Thank you for participating
Over 800 new articles were created in connection with Art and Feminism
Just change the category, people are not good at doing this. (If it's housed at Commons, go there. If it' copyrighted, tag it for deletion. Montanabw(talk)18:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Just wrong category. So what category do we have to choose from? Maybe we need to create some Commons categories, which I don't know how to do, but I bet I find somebody who can. The image is my work, I released it, so it's good to go. It just needs the right category. Thx!! Atsme📞📧20:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)I'm pretty sure there's a category for just regular, non-racing Quarter Horses. Although I haven't uploaded anything, I have categorized some dog pictures that were in the unidentified category. By the way, that picture might be good for Western pleasure, the images there are crap.
Well, Atsme has the original - that's her Photoshopped version, and we have to remember that the images will get used beyond Wikipedia, so a black background may sometimes be appropriate. It would not be difficult to make a png version that had a transparent background which would work nicely on its own, but could also be used to create collages, or to place the image against a different background, etc. You too could be seen trotting across the Mongolian Steppes! --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to have the image with its background as an option; for the aficionado, it is useful to remove distracting elements, but for someone who has never been to a horse show, the disembodied image looks really odd! :-) Montanabw(talk)02:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Noted. Will upload the background, as well as more horse picts that can be used for color ID, performance, halter, etc. Also plan to upload some performance video and on another completely different note, some really cool underwater video. Let me know if there's anything in particular you need because I have at least 20,000 images to choose from, or that I can acquire under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Atsme📞📧15:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll look - but I know I have video of it. I'll see if a frame capture will be suitable quality. Atsme📞📧16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Even crappy screen captures beat no images. Video needs to be very short on WP because generally no one will watch a whole long video (I like 10-second clips, personally). I'd say take a tour through the WP horse articles and ask if you can improve on what's there. What we need the most are free images of well-known racehorses, especially the still-living ones where we aren't allowed to use fair use images. We also need images of the rarer horse breeds. I wouldn't mind better images for the American Quarter Horse article, that's one that could benefit from better-quality images and then an upgrade to GA status. Horse showmanship and Halter (horse show) might also benefit from some good show photos. I'd almost give my eyeteeth for good photos for Trail (horse show), Western riding (horse show) and better images at reining. Montanabw(talk)18:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! (And that's a neat one with you, Terry Bradshaw and his horse!) By the way, I think part of the issue with Commons is that most of the pictures aren't being categorized so we can find them. I just found 10 or 15 Saddlebred pictures that weren't in the Saddlebred cat. I categorized several of them, and will probably do more later. White Arabian FillyNeigh21:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Don't even get me started on the mess that commons categories are! But getting images into them is important, however messy they are ... Montanabw(talk)22:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clinton Anderson (horse trainer), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chris Cox and Craig Cameron. 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.
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Horsegeek, I am a page stalker on here. I think the first thing you need to do is say here, or on the article Talk page, which page you want to delete and why. There is an official process called AfD (articles for deletion), but you need to have discussed this elsewhere before going there. DrChrissy(talk)00:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
{{db-g7}} for pretty much anything where you're the only contributor is generally fine. I think some admins might balk at deleting archives of your user talk page, but generally so long as the history of contribs are maintained at your main user talk page it shouldn't be a problem. {{db-owner}}, as others have said, is for User:, but not (usually) User talk: pages. However, if you're like me, and you're drafting an article in your userspace, you use the user talk for that page as a scratch pad or storage for references. You can also do {{db-multiple|U1|G7}} if you're not quite sure and it's in your own userspace. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Nevzorov
Dear Montanabw,
I'm a newcomer here. I'd like to ask you why did you undo my changes about Nevzorov (12:44, 23 March 2016). You deleted his publications that I had added.
There is an important discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention about possibly finding a way to salvage Single-purpose editors and transforming them into positive WP collaborators in the general mainspace. I'm sure you run in to many of them as you wander around WP. I'm also sure that every now and then one of the SPA editors rises above the crowd and seems worthy of more of your time and effort. Your personal insight and experience would be appreciated. WP:WER has become a relative ghost town (and I may be one of the few ghosts left in town) and User:Robert's idea may be just the boost the Project needs to revitalize. It's an opportunity for the Project to actually do something beyond handing out awards. I think Dennis Brown would like it. Please comment. Buster Seven Talk14:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Montanabw, thank you so much for you assistance in creating the page for Rangeland management. I look forward to working under your guidance and greatly appreciate your offering to assist me in writing more entries and expanding this one (which I plan to do a lot of)!
Glad to help. I'll put your talk page on my watchlist, but if you want me to respond faster, put a message on my talk page so I get a notification. I usually am on wikipedia daily, but lately (springtime in Montana, the busiest day of the year) I've gone a few times when I've been offline for a couple days. My best advice is to find the best quality articles you can and then "steal" the formatting, the footnote style and so on. It's kind of a steep learning curve at first but once you get the hang of it, you'll do fine. I also suggest you pop over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Montana, sign up and say hello at the talk page. There are several Montana residents on wikipedia and several expats in the project as well. We're all good folks and willing to help. Montanabw(talk)06:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.
Hi! Not that it matters much, but you closed this as withdrawn when really I was waiting for Bcp67 or some other user to comment on the question of how the size is to be calculated. Perhaps re-open it until someone knowledgeable (you?) does that? If that editor is right, it's withdrawn; but if not, it should run – she's an interesting enough person. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh! OK, will undo. I was unclear on that, so I can reopen. I can look at the word count and see if I can assess. Fascinating person, indeed. Montanabw(talk)22:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Disney
Hi Montana, I've worked a little on the TV angle recently and made some key additions. As the changes were mixed up with others elsewhere in the article, I've dropped a before and after of the section in User:SchroCat/litter tray 8 for comparison. I've tried to avoid adding too much about the programme itself, but I have raised WD's profile within the show so it becomes clear that he moved from behind the camera to being an integral part of the cast, and the knock on effect on his image, etc. Please let me know if you think I've hit the right note on that aspect.
I still need to deal with his Disneyland work a little more, which I hope to be able to do today or tomorrow I've added some additional info on this, but still have a little more to do, I think. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Here's a nice story to lower your tension level a bit :)
Fascinating. I wonder if the UK has smaller distances and lower speed limits that make horse-drawn conveyances still feasible? I'm only about 7 miles from town, and in the wild west to boot, but there are a couple stretches of highway between home and town that have high speed limits and no shoulder -- they would be suicide to take a horse on. (I think even bicyclists risk their necks on one bit...) Montanabw(talk)00:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully they're not texting while driving those shoulder-less roads... automatic collision-avoidance systems will save the day, the precursor to self-driving cars. In Ohio, most horses on the roads are pulling Amish buggies; concentrated in the mostly rural areas where they live. wbm1058 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, the horse WAS the original "self-driving" conveyance. That said, the human part of the operation still screwed things up a lot of the time... Montanabw(talk)21:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Question
I am going to do an article Bruce Nickells who is being inducted into the Harness racing Hall of Fame this summer. He was my father's former partner. One reason I've postponed it is the scant bio material I have on Bruce. Like I only know the year he was born not the date or where. I have two good photos of Bruce. One is a portrait size photo of him aboard Fast Clip, the other is a race winner photo taken in 1972 also involving Fast Clip. (And me and my father are in it BTW) If I were to use the race winner photo (That's the easier for me to use because the wall photo would have to be taken to Kinkos for scanning.) run into any form of copyright issues? Clip is mentioned as one of Bruce's more famous horses. Please get back to me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?00:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The copyright of a photograph generally resides with the photographer, so you'd have to find out who took the photos before you could arrange to use them freely. If you can't find out who took the photograph, copyright will exist for 70 years after the publication of the image. I assume Bruce Nickells is still alive from this: http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/7-9-15/nickells-selected-hall-induction.html so you wouldn't be able to use the photos under fair use either, because a freely licensed photograph could still be taken even though he's 87 (although the photo could be included under fair use in an article on Fast Clip because a fresh photo of Fast Clip can't be taken). --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
WilliamJE, I have two ideas besides taking a photo of him now. The first is if the 1972 photo was published ANYWHERE prior to 1978 and we can make a "copyright not renewed" claim. This could maybe be a local newspaper, an industry publication, or better yet a race program or a sales catalogue (because those generally are copyright not renewed). White Arabian Filly is really good at finding stuff in old newspapers scanned in Google. Froggerlaura is the genius for searching in Hathi Trust materials (I once found an old National Horse Show program there...) If the horse is deceased, RexxS is correct, you can probably do an article on the horse, if notable, and IMHO you MAYBE could pull off a "fair use" claim on the same image on the bio. I did get fair use for a horse photo with the lead image for Bask (the guy riding the horse is still alive), though not sure how it would hold up if challenged. Montanabw(talk)17:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Was Fast Clip notable? He won the American National in 1972 as a two-year-old, the Matron Stakes as a 4-year-old. He went 156.3 to win the Geer Stakes(? Not sure if that's the right spelling or name but the race was in Duqoin Illinois where the Hambletonian was raced at the time) as a three year old. Prior to his racing in the Realizaton as a 4 yo, his photo was supposedly in a New York City area newspaper (Late April or Early May 1973. The NY Daily News and Newsday were the best local papers so far as horse racing went) with something about him being 'always the bridesmaid never the bride' because he had finished 2nd like 10 times as a 3 yo. He was 2nd in world record time of 156.4 in the 1972 Little Brown Jug. Unfortunately Strike Out finished ahead of him and set the world record at the time of 156.3 for a 3yo pacer on a half mile track.
Driver Joe Marsh Jr. said he was driving a little sports car, just step on the gas and Clip goes and Driver Ted Taylor I think said Clip was the fastest pacer born in 1969 for an 1/8th of a mile. Clip also bit off 2 or 3 fingers of his groom's hand just before the horse was retired. He was a small mean horse.
All that said, 1- Most of it would be thoroughly unreferenced. The races and drivers don't have articles, though they should. Trouble with harness racing history- there is so little on the internet. 2- Most of this is from my memory of stuff 40+ years ago and probably originating from my father. How reliable my father's memories were, I don't know. I was there the day of the 72 Jug and as Clip and Strike Out made the final turn for home Dad said- "We have this race won" because Clip hadn't been used and had been covered up the whole race with Strike Out in front of him. We had the 4 post position and Strike out the 3.
There are 3 mentions of Clip on the internet. His being one of Hall of Famer Bruce Nickells most famous horses, his 2nd place finish to Strike Out in the Jug(Pacing's Kentucky Derby) and his finishing 2nd to Silent Majority in the LK Shapiro as a 3 yo. If someone around has a collection of Hoof Beats magazines from 1971-1973 Clip would be in it.
I may some old photos of Bruce in a collection of family photos. I haven't looked. My photo skills were not very good. Dad and Bruce's partnership, Brubil Farms, broke up in the late 1970's.
As for the photos- The portrait photo might have been published. It was from that Geers Stakes win in August or September 1972. The other one was a winner's circle photo/race photo the winning owners of a horse could get. That photo was taken at Sportsmans Park in the summer of 1972....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?18:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
BTW if you would like to see the Sportsmans photo, I could scan it and then you a email. If you want to email this user....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?18:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Wow! Quite a few, really. Possible paydirt: Is the second place horse in this photo Fast Clip with Nickells? (Article says they were second) Here is a really bad-quality photo that might be of Nickells in the driver's seat looking at the guy on the ground: [15]. Nickells is the headliner here, here, and here. Montanabw(talk)20:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your American Pharoah, "the first Triple Crown winner in 37 years, a delightful young racehorse with a brilliant future", on which "the team at WikiProject horse racing worked very hard"!
I agree. The first thing I saw coming on Wikipedia was American Pharoah. I was so surprised to see a horse on the main page.
Horsegeek(talk)19:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek
Dear Montanbw, you are now officially part of the permanent exhibits. Fortunately, it is not a petting zoo! Thus,
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Quite possible White Arabian Filly. What I've always wondered, though, is how the foal is "raised in the trees... on wobbly knees..." I don't think horses can climb trees (though if you grammatically parse that lyric and exclude the independent clause represented by the elipses, that IS what he's saying... LOL!) Montanabw(talk)20:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
YUM! Thanks, Mendaliv! Mint Juleps for all! The party is here (well, I might not be, as I will be glued to the TV, but the rest of y'all have fun now )! Oh yes, we all need hats too! Fedoras for the guys and fancy things with flowers for the ladies... or just the goofiest things you can find. Stop by and show off your hat, grab a Mint Julep -- and "behaive"! Montanabw(talk)20:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Mint julep.
Also, everyone: American Pharoah is TFA for Derby Day (which will start on the WP UTC, meaning it's up about two hours from now. Be on the lookout for vandals, and all watchlisting will be much appreciated. Tigerboy1966 will be waiting with fingers poised over the keyboard to have a bio of the winner live within the hour (because neither one of us are rooting for Nyquist, even though he is a strong favorite). Montanabw(talk)20:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
and in the meantime there is a certain race for fillies coming up very soon. I'm rooting for Weep No More, bang in form and cute as a button. Oh Songbird, where art thou? Tigerboy1966 21:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Think there's another Triple Crown winner in there somewhere? I was looking at the records earlier, and every time a horse wins all three races, it seems like some foal gets inspired and wins the Triple Crown himself within a year or two. (And in the 70s, there were Secretariat, Seattle Slew and Affirmed.) White Arabian FillyNeigh21:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I had Cathryn Sophia in my exacta for the Oaks and a show bet on Weep No More (she did look damn good in the post parade, and BTW, we had no article on Corey Lanerie, so I just started one, anyone want to dive in and expand, feel free!), so though I spotted the winner, everything else on my tickets laid an egg and I made no money at all (dang, I have to figure out not just who to pick but how to bet them!). Yes, we all missed Songbird in the Oaks, and dear Rachel Valentina couldn't quite live up to her mama's standards, though she tried. As for the Triple Crown, well it is true that it seems they run in batches, three in the 1940s also. I'm not particularly fond of the favorite this year, I'm probably going to put my money on yet another gray, colt that will, most likely, break my heart (again). This time, at least, there are (I think) four of them, mostly courtesy of Tapit. That said, you gotta give a nod to Baffert's not-particularly well-regarded horse this year, just because someone said he "runs like an anteater" And then there is the very, very quirky Lani -- Tigerboy1966 does a Japanese-owned Tapit son out of a Sunday Silence mare have a shot when he doesn't like to work in the mornings? Basically, other than the favorite, the race is really quite wide open. My friends in town are betting based on the names... Montanabw(talk)01:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Well we have articles for Nyquist, Brody's Cause, Mohaymen and Exagerrator, so sod's law predicts a 1-2-3 for Gun Runner, Mor Spirit and Outwork. As for the Japanese entry, well if they sent over one of their top colts like Leontes, Makahiki, Air Spinel or Dee Majesty then the American horses would be in big trouble. Lani is a nice horse but he's only running overseas because he isn't quite up to top class in Japan. As for Baffert's comment, I have never seen a running anteater run although I once saw a fairly lively hedgehog. Tigerboy1966 16:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Heh, we call it Murphy's Law over here and yes, it governs the known universe. I also strongly suspect that whoever coined the phrase must have been a horse owner too! Montanabw(talk)17:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
If he does win, I get bragging rights for starting his article. It's hard to overlook an undefeated horse, and such a handsome one at that. But this is a very big field, full of possibilities ... I've placed no bets. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Well folks, we had a lot of fun and the best part of a wikipedia party is ... no hangover! I'd say it's time for us all to go over and whip 2016 Kentucky Derby into shape for ITN. (I had money on Exaggerator and Mohaymen so dang! Half the superfecta still = Cash poor! Montanabw(talk)01:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I've got a project and am posting here to draw my talk page stalkers that aren't necessarily the horsey people. But also pinging Tigerboy1966 and Vesuvius Dogg, who were invaluable last year. Given the big picture, I think it's time to bring Doug O'Neill (trainer of Nyquist (horse) up to GA status the way we did with Ahmed Zayat last year, and for a similar reason—a highly colorful and controversial person is going to be getting a big media spotlight in horse racing land, and if his bio here is at GA status, it will be a lot LESS drama with vandals and people do like to do childish stuff like this. As we did with Zayat's financial woes, we need to address O'Neill's medication violations in a complete fashion, without whitewashing, but also in a fair fashion—I will not be surprised if PETA and that ilk began to target him and we need to be super-accurate with the article. So, welcome anyone who wants to watchlist and (I hope) lend a hand. I'm going to put up the GAN soon, but we can continue to improve the article until a reviewer comes along (or anyone here who wants to review, please feel welcome, and DO be appropriately critical!) Montanabw(talk)23:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
For the help with Fast Clip. I have begun a draft article on Bruce Nickells. You can find it here[17]. I'll work on the article more this week. Feel free to go at it also if you want.
I'm going to try calling Bruce at his Florida home this week too. In addition to congratulating him on his Hall of Fame selection, I will ask if he would care to share a recent photo and supply me with his birthdate and where he grew up. I know the year- 1928, and that he grew up in Illinois....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?17:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
That and maybe a death date for Fast Clip, by the way, if he was a stallion, do you know where he was retired to and if he sired any/many offspring? Montanabw(talk)18:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Fast Clip was sold by Dad and Bruce in 1975 or 1976 to some Canadian farm or breeder. After that I know next to zero details about Clip except-
He sired a stallion named Close Clip. Saw him race at Pompano Park around 1980.
According to Dad, Clip didn't sire any notable horse due to poor broodmares being bred to him.
Also according to Dad, that Clip was the most prolific sire in Canada. They try breeding up to 120(?) broodmares to a stallion and he got 95% or more into foal. Which leads to some jokes which I think I posted to this talk page once before. That he worked at a real Fast Clip and was certainly living up to his Dad's name- Good Time.
Be careful not to run afoul of original research. If you can't back up your info with third-party published stuff, you can't use it on WP (that said, if you do get a lot of good stuff, I'd suggest writing up an article for one of the harness racing magazines -- they always need copy and once it's published, it's a source for WP! LOL! Montanabw(talk)19:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Somewhere in the past, I've seen an email from an article subject containing their CV forwarded to OTRS for verification, and then the content "published" on the article talk page. It's usually acceptable for a subject to provide their own uncontroversial biographical details. --RexxS (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I found this photo[18] of Fast Clip on the internet. He's the #11 horse in the photo. It is from his 1973 Matron Stakes win. There were 11 horses in that race, we drew the #11 post position or the only horse not at the gate. Wolverine was a mile track, 10 horses across. Ambro Mystic, a pacer from Canada and also in the photo as he came in 3rd, had the 1 post position and we were behind. Prior to the race that looked good because if you read the program, Mystic always went to the top. Program has last six races and no matter, 7, 8, 1, 5, post position, he was 1st at the 1/4 pole in every race. Except he didn't go to the top that night and we were buried. 10th at the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4. 6th at the turn and like 4 or 5 wide. Clip took off. We went by a tiring race favorite, Keystone Pebble who's in the photo and finished 4th, and edged Breadwinner by a head and Ambro Mystic by a neck. The photo can't be used for the article, and I do have a IC for the Matron Stakes win already. Just thought I'd share....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?22:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'd bet the magazine IS now copyright-not-renewed, a lot of those industry publications from the 70s are. Wehwalt, isn't there a place online where one can check to see if these older publications qualify as public domain now? Montanabw(talk)19:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
10 d and 8 k = delete? No explanation on the close for Brumby? I queried the closer - would like for it to be reviewed - your thoughts? I'm not experienced at this process so any direction you can provide will be greatly appreciated. I also posted my query at project WIR. Atsme📞📧21:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I found this statement to be 100% telling "that we have absurdly lax standards for pornographic actors is not an argument to have absurdly lax standards everywhere else as well. (In actual fact, the standards even for porn actors have tightened in the last few years,they used to be even worse)." To insinuate that standards are lax for GNG is ridiculous. WP has few standards AT ALL. This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, one that anyone can nominate any article for deletion, one that has no oversight over admins once they become admins as they are in effect in it for life with slim possibility of removal, one that ... the list is endless. There are no standards here, instead there is a pretty small group of folks who wish to shape things to their vision. It is virtually impossible to change this system run amok, as that small group is very vocal. I think the best we can ever do against them is state our truth and politely refute theirs. In truth, it is inevitable that we will lose more than we win, but those that we do win, are thus, much sweeter victories. I thank you for your hard work on the AfD Atsme. Montanabw, as always, much respect. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm all about trying to look for change at the meta level, and simply the work of creating more women's biographies and fighting to keep them is going to be, in time, revolutionary. The small, noisy group of naysayers will, eventually, either grow up or go on to other things. To me, the important thing is to never give up! Montanabw(talk)18:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ann T. Bowling you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cow tipping you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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) 15:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
CONGRATULATIONS - the article was promoted to GA. Very well done in every aspect of the review!! See my comments on the review page! I love reviewing articles like this one. Atsme📞📧15:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Exaggerator won the Preakness, I created an article on his trainer about an hour before the race, plus on a hunch I put Cherry Wine in my 10-cent superfecta and so I won about 30 bucks! LOL! Montanabw(talk)00:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
How freaking exciting!! I knew Exaggerator would win this one, and he'll also win the Belmont. The rest of the field may be a little tough to pinpoint but I'd be willing to gamble on Exaggerator for the win, and if Cherry Wine breaks a bit sooner than he did in the Preakness, will push Exaggerator but Lani may surprise us on a dry track and pass Cherry Wine to be the one to push Exaggerator. It will be the most exciting race of the 3. If I were to bet on it, my Trifecta would be Exaggerator, Lani and Cherry Wine. Lordy, and I just got back from a good run in Vegas! *LOL* Atsme📞📧01:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I just did the chart for the Preakness, and equibase noted that Cherry Wine actually hit his head on the gate and ran second to last much of the race. Very impressive to finish second. What we had here was a near-identical setup as this year's Santa Anita Derby: muddy track and very fast early pace. Both good for Exaggerator. There weren't very many speed horses in the Derby, most were closers, and that favored Nyquist's front-running style. Will be interesting to see who enters the Belmont, and if Exaggerator can run on a dry track as well as on a sloppy one. Montanabw(talk)01:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I saw him swerve coming out of the gate but didn't see what made him do it. I think Nyquist lost because he was going too fast right out of the gate. I wish they'd had the speed clock up there, because they were flying to be on a sloppy track! White Arabian FillyNeigh14:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Great info to have, Montanabw! The head bang may explain why Cherry Wine didn't really settle. My hands-on experiences with TB racing happened so long ago, I've forgotten most of it but watching the Triple Crown races is still an adrenaline rush! Boy does it stir memories of my short-lived jockey career when I rode for Red Barn Farms. They had me slated to go to the Derby, but my parents denied permission thinking I was too young - another coulda, woulda, shoulda. The following year, Diane Crump earned the honor of being the first female jockey. Anyway, not having seen any of the horses run in prior races except for the Derby, much less breezed in training, all I have to go on is the video of the actual race. I get too flustered watching horse racing which is why I tend to avoid it, but the call of the Triple Crown is too hard to resist. What I noticed most about Exaggerator in the Derby was that his distance running is superior to this particular field of horses. The Belmont at 12 furlongs is quite a bit longer than the 9.5 furlongs of the Preakness, so what I've seen of Nyquist, I believe he will fade on the stretch and Exaggerator will start leaving the pack with both Cherry Wine and Lani pushing him hard. Lani could make it a pretty exciting finish if his jockey rates him properly - could be he was riding overly cautious on the sloppy track. If none of the three ended up with a pull or sprain and make it to the Belmont, it should prove to be a very exciting race. Wouldn't it be fun if our project team could watch it together in person? Bring us another bucket of iced down beer, please. 🍻 Atsme📞📧14:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh my - we are one busy project. I recently created Bubba Cascio who trains AQHA running horses. He won the All-American Futurity twice - remember Dash For Cash?
For your incredible help behind the scenes, and for ensuring we continue to meet our deadlines, I hereby award you this medal. Thank you for all you do! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
DYK archive
Hello Montanabw, you archived a DYK (which was passed) here. Your edit summary reads "to prep 4 sans pic (need more hooks, used up most without pics)". I am not at all clear with the edit summary and what the archive was all about. I performed the QPQ and noticed that the DYK has not been credited. Can you please help me understand whats going on? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Basically, congratulations! It has been "promoted" to a prep set to be ready to go on the Main Page as a DYK in a few days. My edit summary was for the DYK team, incidating tt is now waiting in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 for an administrator to put it into the DYK queue, (my estimate is that it will be on the Main Page May 25-26 (depending on your time zone)). "Sans pic" just meant "without the picture" because we were running out of articles to promote and so some of the ones that had photos with their nominations had to be promoted without the pictures. It will probably be credited in the qpq check after it appears on the main page. Montanabw(talk)08:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Montanabw, thanks for the detailed reply. I am aware about the word "sans" but just was not sure about leaving the picture behind. Pardon my ignorance, but I am fairly new to DYK (this was my 5th attempt only) and usually I see a note on my TP about that DYK; hence the confusion. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The note on your DYK will show up when it appears on the main page in a couple days; I can't do that part. I know it's a bummer to not have the picture run, but we usually have more images than we can run and have to triage a bit. Montanabw(talk)08:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello Montanabw, absolutely fine, no issues. I can see lots of pictured DYK's in the nominations and can understand that there is only so much we can do. Thanks for all your help once again. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Montanabw. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Cheju pony and Jeju horse might be different spellings of the same breed (like Ghengis Khan, Chingis Khan...). Can happen when a non-Roman alphabet language is put into Roman letters. Also, not all equines under 14.2 are ponies, that's a "legal" cutoff mostly for show purposes (see pony for explanation of that). A lot of these Asian horses are pretty small and the local people view them as horses, while the 19th-century Colonial powers looked down on them as "mere ponies." On the other hand, List of horse breeds in DAD-IS lists both, though both from Korea, so perhaps Justlettersandnumbers could weigh in here, as that editor knows the DAD-IS classifications and language issues better than I do. We either should note both names at the Jeju horse article if they are the same, or maybe add something on the "Cheju" situatio to the Jeju article for now... not sure. FWIW, we tend to view The equinest as a very weak source. The breed encyclopedias are better. (They too have limits, but at least they are not self-published). Montanabw(talk)02:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Strongly agree, the equinest should not be cited anywhere in this project, not WP:RS or anything like one. I don't know a word of Korean; however, Jeju and Cheju seem to be simply two different transliterations of the same name. Although the Cheju Pony was listed in DAD-IS when I compiled the List of horse breeds in DAD-IS, it no longer is. The Jeju Horse page uses the "Cheju" spelling in its image captions. Mason is unhelpful, but I think there's little doubt they are the same breed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Just replying based on my knowledge of Korean transliteration, it wouldn't be surprising if they were the same breed. The province of Jeju, for which the breed is named, was formerly called Cheju. Transliteration of Korean is a touchy subject, with at least one reformation coming after the Korean War (which would be when the name of the province began to be transliterated as Jeju). It's at least as controversial, probably much more so, than using Pinyin to transliterate Chinese (Mao Zedong vs. Mao Tse-Tung). In Hangul, Cheju and Jeju would be written the same way to my understanding. Might be worth asking someone who can do research in Korean to see if there's an indication of more than one breed so named. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
See generally MOS:KO by the way. South Korea adopted a new romanization system in 2000. And of course adoption outside South Korea will have lagged. But yeah, if "Jeju Horse" exists nowhere before 2000, I wouldn't be surprised. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
So you get t about the transliteration issues. I think for now, I'd create a redirect from Cheju to Jeju and call it good. Montanabw(talk)02:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
PS: Thank you for the trout!! Oh, and I not only have trouble remembering idioms, I can't remember acronyms, people's names, user names, my kids' names....and well, it's all Greek to me. Atsme📞📧16:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I have been told that learning English is not easy, either... after all, we've borrowed from so many other languages and have so many exceptions to the rules. (Others often ask why, for example we have cattle/beef, sheep/mutton, swine, pigs/pork, and let's not even discuss goose/geese or why sheep and deer are identical in the singular and the plural!) Montanabw(talk)17:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
We refined the British dialect. Yes, that's what we did - and it began back in the mid to late 1700s. Then, like you said, we mixed in a little Italian (I only know the cuss words), Spanish (I only know ranch Spanich), French (everything 'cept English is French, isn't it? No, wait - it's Greek. Never realized folks in Greece spoke Greek), German (which sounds like Dutch to me), Russian (named correctly cuz they're always in a rush), and so on. It also explains why American English and British English don't always jive, although I do enjoy watching Mr. Bean - he makes me laugh - out loud. Atsme📞📧23:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Who's 'We'? I never refined my British dialect (I speak Black Country). Nevertheless English as we know it was forged in the centuries following the Norman Invasion of 1066, when the rulers spoke French and the peasants spoke Anglo-Saxon (sort of old German). That's why the names of the animals come from Germanic roots like 'sheep' (Schaf), but the name of the food comes from French roots like 'mutton' (mouton). One class saw the animals only in the field and the other class only saw it on the dinner plate. --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
"We" is whoever identifies with we, or maybe oui or ons or نحن or nosotros or 我们 or noi or 우리, etc. etc. in the big melting pot called the Newnited States ofa 'Merica. The 'me' in we cultivated a business out of seeing animals in the field in order to know how good they'd look on the dinner plate. 🍴🍺 Atsme📞📧01:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Update: I figured the hanja (Chinese character writing) for Jeju horse was probably the hanja for the island's name, plus the Chinese character 馬, for horse. From that, Google got me to ko:제주마, which turns out to be the Korean WP article on the horse! I can't confirm that it's the same thing as Cheju pony from that (I can't read Korean), but based on what Google Translate says for the first paragraph of the section "개요", I have a pretty strong suspicion. The Korean article that matches up to pony is ko:조랑말, and the string "조랑말" appears in the Korean article on the Jeju horse. Now here's where help is needed. Apparently wikidata:Q12616452 is the Wikidata item for the Korean page. It needs to be merged with wikidata:Q2962169, which is the one that has all the other interwikis. I have no clue how to do this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Ice beer anyone?
Wikidata boggles my brain, now calling {{u}Pigsonthewing}}: Can you do the wikidata fix described by Mendaliv?
LOL!. Great reference! It's not always the equine noticeboard, sometimes it's just the fun place to hang out, other times, I host the Latest Drahmahz. Usually something happening. Montanabw(talk)22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. If we created her own article, it most likely would be promptly AfD'd. But the link to the CBS Sunday Morning story gives you a pretty full-on experience! Montanabw(talk)01:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Do it! Then we can start an RfC to exempt it from deletion forever! Aah, maybe just leave content about Piano Pat in the article. North America100001:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Good work on the articles M! I always get a kick out of seeing this hotel when I am in Fraser, Colorado. The place is probably not article worthy but I thought you'ld enjoy seeing it - if you haven't already that is :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk19:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
On 1 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dude Rancher Lodge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Dude Rancher Lodge(stairway pictured) is said to be haunted by the ghost of its original owner? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dude Rancher Lodge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dude Rancher Lodge), 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.
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
On 3 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cow tipping, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to scientists, cow tipping would require between 4 and 14 coordinated people, unlike the depiction of the urban legend in film and television? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cow tipping. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cow tipping), 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.
Hello Montanabw. I just want to let you know that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agarc192 was not filed correctly. If a case isn't filed following the instructions at WP:SPI (or with the sock reporting function of Twinkle) the bot that maintains the list of open cases will not see it, so it will never be noticed by SPI clerks. Thankfully, we have another bot that tries to find cases like this. No worries, though - I went ahead and formatted it for you. —DoRD (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried using the menu tab with the new set of prefs, it clearly needs work as it didn't bring up the template, just created the page. Hm...Montanabw(talk)17:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
DHeyward (talk·contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
Can you or some of your talk page stalkers please keep an eye on the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration article? There's this new editor who is rearranging sentences and stuff. They're trying to help, but not doing much; they changed the lead so the reason for founding the show is after the stuff about when they founded it. I took it to their talk but no response. I've already reverted three times and don't want to edit war, but don't want to keep their un-chronological and run-on sentences in the article. I am hoping to be able to get the article to GA by the time the show is held this year. I'm not happy with their messing with the lead, especially. They make it sound like the organizers held the first show before they got the idea. White Arabian FillyNeigh15:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
On it. ("Bad cop hat" on... This is why people accuse me of biting newbies... sigh) Your version is current, I gave the other user a warning. Montanabw(talk)22:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll police the page, if you want to file an SPI, go to WP:SPI and ping me when you do, I'll add my assessment. Montanabw(talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Follow up: I went ahead and did a SPI, may not be that big of a deal, but weird. Very weird. Montanabw(talk)01:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I've never filed an SPI (although I did once catch a sock IP that was doing weird things with the infoboxes on dog articles). I added a comment on the casepage about their weird style of English. White Arabian FillyNeigh20:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
And they have just made another weird edit. [21] This one is more of a problem than the previous stuff because it changes the meaning of the sentences with bad results. Really, the class is also known as the canter? White Arabian FillyNeigh20:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
recent edit
I just noticed your recent edit at an editor's talk page. Can I suggest that calling a group of editors "trolls" may attract negative attention which you did not intend. Perhaps you should edit that comment, and then come back and delete this post. Trying to be helpful. DrChrissy(talk)20:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The "young earth creationism" promoters can be trolls. But you have a point, I don't want those idiots to pick me up on the radar. ;-) Montanabw(talk)20:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Your proposal is a "10" alright. I had walked away from the whole thing in deep disgust last night. I'm beyond pleasantly surprised today to find intelligent, rational people are still willing to put time into this project. I can't thank you enough.
Getting the current science properly represented has been a Herculean task for the past 4 years; I am so happy you've come along and offered your expertise.
I added a proposal after many had already weighed in, and thought it might be wise to alert those folks to new additions and arguments. Still today, there haven't been many editors yet to ivote, so I think the idea of alerting those who have is a good one. People will appreciate it, I would imagine.
Can you post a diff to your proposal? That GMO RFC is a tl;dr and I sometimes have trouble finding new stuff in there. Montanabw(talk)19:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned the problems to Wordsmith here. The problem with an addition of OR to the stated goal of the RfC (detailed on Wordsmith's page) extends to your proposal. I see that you took cues perhaps from other proposals, however most of them are not in alignment with the stated goal. Admins may decide to change the RfC goal to match the majority of the already-submitted proposals, but I highly doubt it and hope that won't be the case. If not, I would suggest your proposal should address only the issues in the statement we are trying to replace. Make sense? petrarchan47คุก21:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, again Happy Belmont Day and best wishes to all!
With all the stakes on the undercard, I thought I'd focus on updating the respective wiki articles for these and leave the Big Race to all y'all. I'll also update Kent D's page, and will look to update the page of any relevant sire. Anything else?Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, watch for vandals. I had to put semi-protection on the Desormeaux articles due to odd vandalism... someone thought it was funny to change all the numbers around... 19:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Labor history of Butte
I notice that you reverted my edit to Butte, Montana, and, of course, you were perfectly right to do so. What I had meant to do, before I was called away by my wife in mid-edit, was to link to an article I just started: Butte, Montana labor riots of 1914. Because of your interest in the history of Butte, I would invite you to review the article and make appropriate edits. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Curious to see the underlying study if anyone can find it. Many sources say that the Y-DNA of modern horses traces to either one or a very few stallions. Could be that there was more diversity back then but did not continue through to today -- be very curious to know further details, such as whether the animals were bred in captivity or captured, evidence of individual domestication (riding leaves some skeletal evidence) and so on. Very interesting and worth staying tuned. Ping me if you can find the study or the paper! Montanabw(talk)23:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Merge proposal Dosage and Thoroughbred Breeding Theories
A while back you proposed a merger of Dosage Index and Thoroughbred Breeding Theories. I worked on the latter a bit and added a section on Dosage with a link to the Dosage Index article. Similarly I added a quick section about Inbreeding versus Outcrosses, since I thought there was something specific to be said about inbreeding for thoroughbreds. (And more to follow if I can just track down the article I was reading last week.) LMK what you think. Jlvsclrk (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather sit in a dentist's chair and suffer through a root canal. The most work intensive WP articles I've ever worked on are clearly the Middle Eastern & South Asian articles. I'm up for a breath of air after attempting to fix citations on Faisalabad. Didn't want you to think I was ignoring Project Equine. Atsme📞📧19:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
1- What states, if any, besides California has the Breeders' Cup been raced in?
2- Are screen captures of videos allowed for photo files in biographies? I just did an article on Sandra Smith who is probably best remembered for the Star Trek episode Turnabout Intruder. There is what looks to be a screen capture in the Turnabout Intruder episode but I'd prefer a better one of Smith from that episode. In light of her ST work, I was surprised she didn't have a WP article. She did over two dozen guest appearances on television....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?12:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
WilliamJE, Screen captures can be used in the same manner as photos, depending on their copyright status (see California Chrome, where we have a screen capture of the Belmont start) , It's all about licensing. For your other questions, see Breeders' Cup#Race tracks, which, if accurate says, it's been in Kentucky, California, New Jersey (Monmouth Park), Canada (Woodbine, Toronto, Ontario), New York, Florida, Illinois (Arlington), and - believe it or not - Texas (Lone Star Park). Montanabw(talk)21:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Turnabout Intruder, the Star Trek episode Smith appeared in, has a screenshot[22]. It wouldn't really be good for Smith's article, though she is in it. You mean if I took a screenshot of Smith from the episode, I could post it? Thanks for the horse race help....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?23:46, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Probably not, as she is a still-living person, so "fair use" doesn't apply. You need an image that is under a free license. If she was deceased, you could do it with a fair use rationale, but she isn't. Montanabw(talk)00:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
The revert now links to a dab page. Buddhist mythology may be an option, but "Windhorse was predominantly a feature of the folk culture, ... a rather than a Buddhist religious ideal," Mannanan51 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Possibly cannot be helped. May need to expand the dab into a short article. Linking to a dab deliberately can, in some cases, be accepatable. Montanabw(talk)05:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Help requested: Good Article Review
Hello, I was just wondering if you would be interested in reviewing another of mine and Worm That Turned articles? Tessie Reynolds is another powerful woman who took a little step forward in the history of women's rights - though just wearing "manly" clothing on a bike! Don't worry if you can't - I know there are 101 other things for Wikipedians to do! ツStacey (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I just did an article on this driver and his trainer wife Julie. Andy has the nickname, The Orange Crush. I tried to put it in his horsemen's box, along with a reference for the nickname, but it isn't appearing. Could you please fix it for me? Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?12:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Has the Hequ Horse article been created yet? I looked around, and even searched its nickname, but nothing showed up. So I decided to create it. User:Horsegeek/Hequ Horse
I'm not so sure if it's created, but I just wanted to double check... Thanks.
Horsegeek(talk)20:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek
What kind of source material do you have on it... this isn't a breed with an alternative name, is it? (Might be...) Looking at the article on French wikipedia, I'm wondering if we are talking about the Tibetan pony ... we also have the Heihe horse ... I'd start with List of horse breeds in DAD-IS, which lists it, and there is an entry (in fractured English) here. Montanabw(talk)04:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems more related to the Heihe horse. On the sources I have, none say anything like Heihe. The nicknames are Hequl, Nanfan, and Khetsyui horse. I'm sure it's not the tibetan pony. But it doesn't look like the heihe article mentions anything about having three types of the breed. That's what the sources on Hequ say.
But this is it I think: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hequ_(cheval)Horsegeek(talk)16:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek
Hello. I've written the french article about Hequ horse, and it passed de GA review, so, if you wish translate.... you're very welcome :) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again! As a newbie here, I'm still trying to figure things out and really appreciate the help. I hope you don't mind a few questions:
if I've edited an article and want a second look, who should I ask. for example, I recently changed the Byerley Turk article because it was on the cleanup listing, but I'd like a second look because it is a High importance article
when a big race day rolls around, like next week with the Belmont, is there a list or something to show who's going to handle what? I'm glad to pitch in, but I'm not sure where, so for now I'm just tidying up older articles as I see issues
Hi Jlvsclrk, and great questions. First off, tidying up old articles is VERY MUCH needed! When you want to get other eyes, you can either post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine and ask for help, or post on the article's talk page (to draw anyone else who has it watchlisted) or do what you did here -- ask a helpful wikipedian! You'll get to know folks here and figure out who the go-to people are for different things. For the upcoming 2016 Belmont Stakes, the article is slowly being worked on in dribs and drabs, and updates as the field develops are always good. Source as you go, that is way better than sourcing after the fact. Usually someone does do a "drive-by" and make it all come together with the charts and payouts, but sometimes the pre-race narrative and post-race analysis gets short shrift (look at examples from earlier years as examples, some really... suck) take a look at what was already done at 2016 Kentucky Derby and 2016 Preakness Stakes to see what the final, post-race product looks like. Also, as I have something like 200+ people watchlisting my talk page, posting here with an edit summary or section heading that indicates "help needed" may draw more folks than just me. Montanabw(talk)03:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again! I'd noticed a while back that there was no wiki entry for the Grade 1 Belmont Oaks Invitational Stakes, and put it on my to-do list. Just found out that it used to be the Garden City Stakes/Handicap, so a move is needed, but I'm afraid to do it because there are redirects out there already and I'm not sure how that works. Can you clarify?? I'm planning to update the page tomorrow but no tearing rush. Reference" http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Results.cfm?type=Stakes&stkid=1983 Thanks again! Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Prep5
Can you remove from Prep5 "... that while Inger Hanmann created enamels for the Copenhagen Airport, her daughter Charlotte made processed photographs of urban environment?". It is unclear what it means but more importantly, the Charlotte Hanmann fact is not supported by a citation and you will get the sort of criticism I am currently being subjected to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the problem, it actually was sourced, but with one those "multiple footnotes at the very end" things that I dislike. I made a tweak. They can criticize me all they want, I'm used to it! LOL! Montanabw(talk)05:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I looked and asked the authors for details of translation. Perhaps we should word something less precise, if they can't come up with it. I find "urban environment" only in mirror sites. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I ran one of the sources from the mom's article through google translate and it popped up, added that source to the Charlotte Hanmann article, only to note that it was the source used, just at the end of the next sentence (I really hate it when people do that multiple source at end of multiple sentence thing!). And with "urban" content. I think it's OK now. Montanabw(talk)06:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
U.S. presidential primaries hooks being held until after June 15
Hi, I'm wondering why you went ahead and closed all the outstanding nominations for U.S. presidential primaries hooks that were being held until "after June 15" per the DYK rule of not running such hooks within 30 days of a political election? Personally, I also questioned the wisdom of nominating a news event in March and having it run in June, but them's the rules. I reverted your closure of Template:Did you know nominations/Romney's March 3 Speech, but am holding off on Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash and others until I hear from you. User:PFHLai had added re-review icons to these nominations to solicit updated reviews, but there have been few takers. I guess this is my next project :). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
If them's the rules, go ahead and revert both. We were after June 15 and nothing much was happening. I don't have particularly strong feelings, Yoninah other than they are both no longer timely in the least (and the Dank Meme Stash article has references to April 2016 in the lead, so it's out of date too. Frankly, I don't see either of them passing any time soon, but if you want to "bless" them, go for it. Montanabw(talk)19:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
How does one find an expert Wikipedian in a given field, such as a botanist in Texas? Is there a way? Atsme📞📧19:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Officially, there is {{expert}} that can be placed on the page, which can't hurt, but seldom generates action (the one on laminitis languished for about 4-5 years). Unofficially, the better approach is to go to a wikiproject (biology or Texas, for example) and post at the project talk, or go to articles similar to the one where you have a question and see who is doing the "expert" edits and then pop by their talk page.
Hi, I followed here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement and I am reaching out for an opinion; as the member of the project I hope could provide input on the topics of sourcing, neutrality, extraordinary claims, and level of detail in the articles, as well as general Wikipedia policies.
It has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The issues above are included in the review, so I hope there's enough of a cross-functional applicability. The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz; no specialist knowledge is required to be able to contributed to the GAR.
I would welcome feedback or a review of the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would also welcome any feedback you'd be willing to share. Thank you and happy editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, the article does over-rely on Roll 2011, which is in German and a hardcopy source that I cannot access, so even if it is reliable, it's over-used. That said, I am no expert on military history, nor do I speak or read German with any fluency at all (I must rely on machine translation). Looks like there are people on both sides of the issues. You may want to ask Diannaa to look at the GAR, as she has some expertise on Third Reich topics, and I tend to avoid that area. Montanabw(talk)00:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
My last one took three weeks. Rightfully so. Wikicup is part of the situation, points for both reviews and passing. That part is good, but maybe GA should move to a qpq system like DYK. Thoughts? Montanabw(talk)23:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I did one DYK - seemed to be heaven for nitpicking <g> (Charles S. Strong), and I did 2 GAs - one was "GA by negotiation" editing with Slim Virgin at Christian Science, the other was (I think) the only "GA by reduction on Wikipedia" on Joseph Widney (which Eric guided me on). I think the process on DYK was tougher, as I am not a horrid writer (IMHO). I think GA should have one MOS review by a person who is truly dedicated to those minutia, a different person to vet the claims, and a third to simply aim for readability ... having one reviewer adequately do all three tasks provides too strong an incentive for shortcuts, I fear. Should they divide the tasks in such a way? Collect (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
They sort of do -- but that is called FAC! Basically, DYK has gotten to to the point that their standard is close to GA itself. Montanabw(talk)00:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The reason for rapid GA reviews is probably the GA Cup which finishes at the end of the month. As for filling prep areas, I suggest you be very careful otherwise you just provide ammunition for the extreme nitpickers and anti-DYK folk. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. As for the nitpickers, ah heck, I haven't had enough drama in the last 48 hours, might as well go stir up some. Montanabw(talk)05:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
For fun - look at my recent posts. I can not understand why in (FITB) an editor would regard me improving an article by using best sources and obeying the MOS is somehow such an affront that he must "shame" me on his own UT page, and chase down my own edits in order to stubify articles which have had unsourceable claims removed. Happy 4th! BTW, is Angela Merkel editing lately? <g> Collect (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, so let me be sure I am correct on this. You and Dr. Blofeld appear to be having significant disputes over the biography of "a much-feared and notoriously bitchy celebrity biographer whose works fell squarely in the “unauthorised” category." Am I correct? And, among other places, the dispute has spilled over to the talk page of Eric Corbett? Oh d-d-d-d-dear! Even I lack the courage to dive into the middle of that one! Montanabw(talk)01:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
<g> I did not seek any dispute - I just find it amusing(?) that I am accused of having added POV language to an article, which is not only not POV, it was there before I even arrived. I believe the term is "Kafka strikes again". Unless I used tachyons. I thought you might find the contretemps which is entirely from the other editor "interesting" (and yes - I consider causing major edits to any article to make it substantially improved to be a worthy endeavor). Collect (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I want you and Blofeld to both trot over here, light a nice campfire, join hands and sing Kumbayah — and then roast some {{trout}}. he knows better, and as far as I can tell, a content dispute became too personalized. Which is the way of wiki these last few months, and I hope all that settles down. I'm also too lazy-ass to research it thoroughly and I think both of you are good editors, so that's why I am weaseling, ducking and running! Montanabw(talk)01:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) He's a cute little thing; I once knew a horse named Shotgun who was marked similarly to him, although he wasn't a Thoroughbred. It's odd how you can breed two solid animals and get patterned offspring. White Arabian FillyNeigh18:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Cropout. First I've seen in a TB. They're talking about naming the foal after Bob Baffert. If he can't dazzle them with brilliance, he could always "Baffert them with BS". Anyway, I'm sitting here thanking my lucky stars I didn't do a Trifecta today. Runners came out of the woodwork. Atsme📞📧01:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The foal's leg and belly markings are similar to Top Notch Tonto, a popular Listed/ G3 performer in England.[24]. And Ive checked the pedigrees without finding a link. Let's hope we see some more like this one, it would make the sport even more fun. Tigerboy1966 12:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe someday we'll see pintos winning the big races, like Piebald from National Velvet. Actually, one of the grays in the Belmont yesterday (not Lani) had an odd white spot on his right hind leg, far above the hock. I wonder if he was born with it? It was a lot bigger than a dapple would be, and he didn't have others. White Arabian FillyNeigh15:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Uh oh. If it spreads to the point it becomes commonplace, we may need to rewrite the breed characteristics section for "Thoroughbred". Best to wait and see if any of the "whities" win notable races. Atsme📞📧21:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
See dominant white: There are multiple lines now in the TB world with white and spotting patterns. The most interesting is the Puchilingui bloodline [see here http://www.oakwoodfarmtb.com/Puchilingui.jpg ] and more here-- we used to call that "sabino" but the studies of the W allele suggest it is possibly responsible; what's even weirder is that some are probably embryonic lethals, but others may be completely harmless. Montanabw(talk)06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd call him Dipped in Paint from his breeder's comment. Interesting that he says Bodemeister throws a lot of white. (I added a brief note on Bodemeister's page for the colt.) Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
On June 27, I edited the Wiki page "Dressage", adding a reference to Xenophon; specifically, a link to his book The Art of Horsemanship.
You reverted my edit, commenting: "Reverted good faith edits by VexorAbVikipædia (talk): Xenophon is not a source for being the source."
I don't understand this. How can Xenophon's own writings not be a source for Xenophon?
I am completely, utterly perplexed.VexorAbVikipædia (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Read WP:PRIMARY Xenophon cannot be a source for a statement such as "Classical horsemanship dates back to Xenophon." He didn't know he was going to be the father of classical horsemanship at the time he wrote. You need a different source that verifies the importance of Xenophon. Also, you don't site a multi-page section of a book for a single, simple proposition. If, for example, the editor of that book has a statement in the preface that Xenophon was the father of classical horsemanship, that might work -- attributing the statement to the person who wrote it and the precise page number in the specific work. Hope that helps. Montanabw(talk)03:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abu Farwa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Naseem and Skowronek. 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.
Sorry for the delay, but I took a look - it has to do with the way the coordinates are listed. If you take a look at the article now, the maps are showing because I changed the way the coordinates are entered in the infobox. That look about right to you? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.20:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your editorial critique of Deer Lodge Montana: History
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)
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)
@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)
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
@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)
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
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. 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.
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)
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)
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)
Wolkentanz has been nominated for Did You Know
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 Did you know. 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
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)
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...
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 - Talk18:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your editorial critique of Deer Lodge Montana: History (redux)
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)
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)
Fulbright scholar
DrChrissyposted 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. 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)
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. 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 Wolkentanz
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.
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, [26] 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. 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)
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)
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 FillyNeigh18:07, 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)
We were, as they say, moving like a TREMENDOUS MACHINE! LOL! Thank Atsme, for a thorough(bred) review, and especially to Jlvsclrk for a lot of hard work -- and access to hardcover books! Montanabw(talk)03:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
You keep removing prods with summaries like this one: "makes a claim to notability, so passes PROD". Have you readWikipedia:Proposed deletion? Ever? Because you're quoting the rationale for removing a speedy tag, not a prod. A prod is meant to indicate that there is no reasonable expectation that the article would survive an AfD. Articles with mere unsupported claims to notability are deleted through prod constantly. You can't honestly believe that all the articles from which you are removing prods stand a reasonable chance of being kept at AfD. Many of these articles offer no source at all, reliable or otherwise, and Google offers nothing either. Please read the policies I keep pointing you at, every word of them, before you continue to waste everyone's time with these unnecessary AfDs. Because, honestly, this level of willful ignorance of policy, if continued, could rise to the level of actionable disruption, as could continual mal-justified keep votes on one particular editor's AfD's, in what is increasingly coming to look like bad faith. —swpbT12:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Get the beam out of your own eye, swpb. WP:CONTESTED says, quite clearly "To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from the article". The PROD template itself says "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason". False allegations of disruption are themselves disruptive. Consider yourself warned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits14:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The allegation isn't false (I'm not sure you've observed the full pattern), but it could be premature: whether it ends up meritting action is entirely determined by how Montana goes forward. And while the policy is that a prod can be removed for any reason, consistently removing prods for a bad reason, especially while targeting one prod'er, is 100% disruptive. I don't know how you can imagine that it isn't. To Montana, it would be unwise to conclude from Andy's incorrect comment that you can't eventually find yourself in trouble. I don't expect you will, but I've been around enough to be confident that you can. —swpbT15:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
swpb, I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, an which pops up on my watchlist daily (that's how many article about women are PRODed and AfD'd, it's ridiculous), and then I'm sometimes drawn to the various topic lists and pages that are linked at the same time as these. I have placed PROD templates, and I have removed PROD templates. I have sometimes left PROD templates alone because I agree with them. I have !voted both "keep" and "delete" on AfDs (though I am admittedly on the inclusionist side), and my friendly talk page stalkers have given you good advice: Get over it and please leave me alone. Montanabw(talk)17:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I only want one thing from you, and that's more care taken. Four or five times now, you've asserted that policies and guidelines say things that they clearly do not say, or that sources have been added where they haven't. That must stop, immediately and forever. Either read the policies and guidelines, or don't mention them at all. As for your apparently particular interest in what I'm doing, if you say you have no such interest, I'll take your word for it, until you give me good reason not to. —swpbT17:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
swpb, unless you can actually point to some evidence of "asserting that policies and guidelines say things that they clearly do not say" and "claiming that sources have been added where they haven't", you're starting to cross the line into harassment here. ("Four or five" problematic edits out of 88,000 will get you laughed out of ANI if you're foolish enough to try to escalate this, in any case.) For the record, one does not need and never has needed to provide any reason for contesting a proposed deletion, and "anyone can deprod anything for whatever reason they like" is a principle which has always been upheld whenever it's been questioned, most recently last month. ‑ Iridescent18:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
How about four or five in less than a week, all of the same pattern? Not enough for ANI (which you brought up, not me), but not as innocent as you'd have it sound. Here's the diff of "claiming that sources have been added where they haven't", clear as a bell—were you really suggesting I'd just make that up? I don't think "anyone can deprod anything for whatever reason they like" was meant to include bad faith removals. And no, there isn't enough to support a case of bad faith yet; Montana will decide if there eventually is. I don't want to keep coming back to this talk page, but there's no reason I should let your misrepresentation stand unanswered. —swpbT18:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Start an RfQ on "editor A continuously and selectively removes editor B's prods" and we'll see how far that logic goes. —swpbT18:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This has become harassment. Like all of the editors in this thread, I believe Montana hasn't done anything a normal uninvolved contributor like myself would do, and User:swpb needs to take their cases to AfD as opposed to complaining on the page of the editor who happened to remove a PROD in good faith. BusterD (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. swpb, you need to take a serious chill pill. In the meantime, perhaps you should consider if you have done an adequate job of WP:BEFORE. Before wasting more server space arguing over overeager AfDs than the article itself would require to be at FAC, maybe remember that there is no deadline. Or just hang at NPP and keep tossing all the garage band and one-season junior hockey players; that's the work of the angels and we'd all appreciate you for it. Montanabw(talk)19:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@Swpb: The first thing you need to read is the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion: "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion." That double emphasis on uncontroversial deletion is there for a reason: PROD is not suitable for articles where there is a reasonable possibility that its deletion may be debatable. That principle lies at the very heart of both of our short-cut processes. It is abundantly clear from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Galletti that there is some difference of opinion about whether Gallietti appearing in four notable TV series is sufficient to meet our notability guidelines. If MontanaBW believes that appearing in those four notable TV series may be a sufficient claim to notability to mean its deletion is not uncontroversial, then she's perfectly entitled to remove the PROD. That she gave you the courtesy of leaving a reason in her edit summary is something you should be grateful for, not something that requires your presence here to whine about. You owe her an apology, and you need to re-think your approach to editors who remove PRODs in good faith. Nobody elected you marshall to clean up PRODding, and you need to back off. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Digital Anthropology research
Hello Montanabw,
My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages.
1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me.
2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages?
3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me.
4. How would you describe your gender?
5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor?
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to!
Sincerely,
Stelba90 (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I tend not to respond first when someone asks me to contact them, for simple safety reasons. But go ahead and try in a couple days... Montanabw(talk)02:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Name for an article
Hall of Fame harness racing driver William D. 'Buddy' Gilmour. Should I name the article William D. Gilmour (William Gilmour already has an article) or Buddy Gilmour? He was more commonly known as Buddy. BTW I just did an article on HOF driver Jim Dennis....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?12:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I think Buddy Gilmour could work, though William D is acceptable. Montanabw(talk) 05:55, 9 August 2016 (U
Hello: I post this link as it may be of interest to you. I can see both sides of the argument on this one. So check it, if you desire or not. Kierzek (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
In case you find interest
Hello Montanabw. We recently participated in a discussion which motivated my filing of an Arbcom request. Although you are not a named party, your interest in the RFC mentioned juxtaposes to potential interest in the Arbcom request as well. I am therefore, inviting you to consider your own interest in the matter, and welcoming your involvement should you find it desirous. Best--John Cline (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Although Lauren and Veronica took a bad spill yesterday on the BRUTAL Rio cross-country course, which took out many riders, she had a nice write-up in The New Yorker over the weekend. Thought you might appreciate it. (Horse and rider were uninjured BTW.) Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, like anyone gives a rat's rear end about the qualifying heats in swimming. I want to see the horses -- and the fun weird stuff like fencing or yachting! Montanabw(talk)05:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I saw a bit of dressage today. I think it was Charlotte Dujardin and Valegro, but not sure. The other day a woman in the bookstore I go to said that most of the horse stuff is on USA channel, which I don't have. At least they're showing trampolines and archery. White Arabian FillyNeigh20:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I came across this on the dog WikiProject. It's recent changes to articles, but only tailored to a specific project, not everything on Wikipedia. Do we have this on the horse project? (If we do I can't find it.) Do you think we could get it or set it up somehow? It's very handy for fighting vandals, and would be especially good for those who don't have everything watchlisted. White Arabian FillyNeigh15:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a part of MediaWiki, not specific to the dog project. Go to any page and click "Related changes" on the sidebar and it will generate the list for everything linked on that page. To get it to work for every horse article, you'd need to generate a page equivalent to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dogs/Related which includes a link to every horsey article—if you ask Anomie nicely, AnomieBOT can keep such a list automatically updated based on categories. ‑ Iridescent15:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, such pages are very useful. Many moons ago, one was created for WP:WikiProject Middle-earth, which is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Pages (similar examples exist in a number of places, see for example these search results). I knew about this, but had forgotten that you can get a bot to create it! (I want to do a similar page for WWI topics, but haven't found time to request it yet). Such a list based on categories can end up including articles on the edge of a project's scope, so you might want to tailor the initial list a bit and then periodically update it with new articles from something like User:AlexNewArtBot. I recently asked for User:AlexNewArtBot/WWISearchResult to be created, but am struggling to understand the coding used there. Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Because I'm, like, helpful and shit, here's every article on Wikipedia which falls into Category:Horses or one of its subcategories, sorted by category. Because Category:Summer Olympic disciplines is included under Category:Equestrian sports, someone will need to go through and remove all the non-horsey Olympic events. It also includes some things which are only very tangentially related to horses and which you probably don't want in your remit, like locomotives which were owned by primarily horse-drawn railways, or towns which were founded by Cossacks. Feel free to move/copy the list elsewhere if you want to bring it under the project's remit. ‑ Iridescent17:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but what about all the articles tagged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Horses? The full list of 3533 is here; compare that with the over 20,000 articles on the list you created. Articles tagged by a WikiProject and articles within a categorisation scheme produce lists that can be quite different. Sometimes there are also articles that haven't been tagged or categorised yet (either too obscure or too new). Carcharoth (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It's actually WikiProject Equine (shortcut WPEQ) -- we include donkeys, mules, zebras... the old "wikiproject horses" should be a redirect to WPEQ now
Thank you for your vote of confidence and your kind comment back in April in support of my nomination for Editor of the Week, which I just got today, to my great surprise. I find your user page quite interesting. I can relate to the early one on the left, saying that you'll take some time off the computer...after just one more edit. I've let food burn on the stove just trying to finish an article. Thanks again! – Corinne (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Turned out sweet, matching a TFA on justice. Why does WP need so many inventive ways to waste time? Look! How many articles of DYK quality could have been written with that accumulated writing skill. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Glad things turned out OK in the Pit Of Hell. Sorry I could not support you in the boomerang - I actually think the damn things should not be allowed without a completely separate thread being started. I've seen too many people "escape" because a boomerang is thrown which deflects attention from the original "offender" (not suggesting you were an offender here). All the best. DrChrissy(talk)16:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You DO make a good point about boomerangs. That is food for thought and I should mull it over. Perhaps we should look at the WP:BOOMERANG essay and open an appropriate discussion at the relevant pages. Montanabw(talk)17:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
IMO, it is a fairly poor point as the original poster often does not have "clean hands" and all behavior should be looked at in the same thread. --NeilNtalk to me18:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
That often is true (and I personally have benefitted from boomerangs several times when I have been attacked in a way that turned out to be quite a bad faith post by the filing party). But the question is if they are really fair and if they have a chilling effect on people bringing legitimate cases to ANI. I'm OK chatting about this a bit here on my page to see what thoughts arise. Montanabw(talk)18:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
If they have a chilling effect then that's good. Perhaps the poster realizes their own behavior contributed to the situation and will think twice when they know all behavior is examined. ANI threads are not court cases. The "accused" can point out problems with the accuser's behavior and experienced editors and admins can look at the whole situation. If you have two threads I can practically guarantee 75% of the content will be duplicated. And what if multiple editors are involved? --NeilNtalk to me18:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Boomerangs are not good when you know that multiple followers will pile in, distract discussion from the main issue you wanted addressed, and get you sanctioned in the process. If someone has an issue with an OP that is sufficiently strong, they will/should be sufficiently motivated to start a separate thread. Aren't issues at AN/I usually raised by a single editor, so I don't understand where the multiple editors is a concern wrt boomerangs. DrChrissy(talk)19:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
This is why it is a sticky issue. NeilN, as I've said, I have personally benefitted from boomerangs that landed on people who dragged me to ANI in bad faith (some have even blocked), so for me it has sometimes been a good antidote to bullying—when it is the "real" bully who filed. But for actual victims, the propensity of bullies to double down and threaten a boomerang is very, very scary -- and I've been threatened with boomerangs a time or two, luckily with none thrown. So I can also relate to DrChrissy's view. And of course, there are a few people who have claimed that I am bullying them (I don't think so, of course, but the "you're the bully/no, YOU'RE the bully" argument is completely fruitless). On the above one, I did ask for a boomerang, but mostly for just the reason you list -- to discourage further disruption and frivolous filing. (I should start an essay titled, "ANI is not your shmoo"). But I've seen it abused. I could see a "close with suggestion that victim consider action at the appropriate board..." Montanabw(talk)22:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Idle comment: Perhaps it's the sunny weather where I am, but I feel ANI's bark is worse than its bite. Sure there's random tangents, pile-ons, some silly comments and occasional false equivalences. But most actual outcomes seem reasonable enough.
Well, speaking as someone with a clean block log, I have no grounds to personally disagree, but I've seen some other folks get dogpiled. At the end of the day, I'd rather be dragged to ANI than ArbCom, I'll say that much! (grin) Montanabw(talk)04:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Sinatra
I've never made a "push" to promote Sinatra to FAC, and who the hell are you to judge my own editorial decisions in the article, you couldn't be bothered to work on it when I invited you, all you did was conflict with RO like a seven year old girl. The infobox looked hideous, excessively long and bloated, making the article look amateurish. Given that I was trying to produce a better article, a simple photograph looked much more attractive. Perfectly justified. More inappropriate was your behaviour on the talk page turning up to try to force something on an article you'd not edited. You're exactly the sort of editor wikipedia needs to crack down on with infobox enforcement. Learn to respect the views of others and butt out.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Chill, Blofeld. First off, neither you nor I had done much work on the article before you decided is was -- appropriately -- a good FAC candidate. Second, my interest at the time stemmed in part from my father's then-recent death and his fondness for the "rat pack" performers of that era such as Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc. (I made some edits on Dino's article too, also Wayne Newton, etc...) You also conveniently seem to forget that RO drove you batshit nuts. Luckily for you, I was the one who engaged with that highly disruptive (and now indeffed) editor and freed you up to to the more substantive work that you wanted to do. Also keep in mind that most of the time when I proposed something in the article, you were a little touchy about it, (you really do kind of have to look at your own tendencies toward a wee tiny bit of ownership, my friend) so the only issue I pushed on was the infobox, where we actually reached a compromise that didn't quite satisfy either of us, but that's what a compromise is; each gives a little to get a little. The infobox there did need improvement, and the collapsing was my very sincere attempt to reach a middle ground and so we got the look you wanted (which I still think is ugly, but oh well) but the metadata and collected information that I felt necessary was included (which you didn't really care for, but you could live with it). My view is that we each are entitled to our personal opinions and to express them. Now, let's get back to quality content and stop attacking each other. Someday the infobox wars will be settled, then maybe we can take that skillset and move onto negotiating peace in the Middle East or resolving the abortion debate in a manner that will leave all sides holding hands and singing Kumbayah. Montanabw(talk)16:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
If there wasn't a certain degree of ownership by people who bother to put in weeks of work on articles promoting them to GA and FA then decent articles would soon rot again and you know it. You're the same. If I went and proposed to remove infoboxes on some of your horse articles by starting a thread on the talk page and inviting people like SchroCat, Cassianto and Ssilvers to comment, you'd think "Who the heck is this guy to think he can lay down the law on these articles?". You'd be outraged that people who contribute nothing to horse articles would think it within their right to control what you've done, right?♦ Dr. Blofeld18:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
You make a good point, as far as content goes. But on formatting, though sometimes it does admittedly make me very, very, grumpy (even to the point that I'm dragged kicking and screaming into making the requested changes and I might have bruised feelings for some time after) I actually have been asked to change citation formats (early on, usually at GAN), and even after FAC, some people have pointed out formatting and layout things to me such as accessibility concerns in ALT text for images, or colors of quoteboxes and such. (RexxS recalls that I got hit with the latter on California Chrome in fact -- and right in the middle of my RfA -- the user who did it was being a total troll about their timing and they knew it, but it was a legitimate issue, no matter how irritating the source). So, I agree with you very much on questions of content, absolutely. But when it comes to the techie stuff -- and infoboxes, to me, are techie stuff -- I certainly do have my preferred style and way of doing things, but if the tide turns against me, there are times I've just learned to sigh deeply and say, "well, whatever the wikigods decree this week." Montanabw(talk)18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
All that said, for the record, I think that there can be a lot done with cleaning up infoboxes (some are bloated, I don't like the ones with bar of color at the top, etc...I think the design should be standardized across all areas... only content and parameters alter from one subject area to another), but I sincerely do think they have a legitimate purpose in most articles, for all the reasons we've all laid out a hundred times already. Montanabw(talk)18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 23:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Atsme📞📧 23:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Atsme📞📧 21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 22:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 00:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Naborr at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC) I would've just fixed it, but since it's a newbie, I thought it might be a learning point. Not necessary for all parts of the hook to be claimed in the same sentence, but it is necessary that all parts of the hook be cited immediately following the claim. End of paragraph is not sufficient. Why this is, I have no idea, but I've been busted by that rule too many times to count. ;) SusunW (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by 
MPJ-DK (submissions), 
Hurricanehink (submissions), 
12george1 (submissions), and 
Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by 
Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by 
Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with 
J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.
; see Talk:Naborr 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Horse gait may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 18:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 15:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 19:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
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 David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 15:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Atsme📞📧 16:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I not only have trouble remembering idioms, I can't remember acronyms, people's names, user names, my kids' names....and well, it's all Greek to me. 
.jpg)
Aah, maybe just leave content about Piano Pat in the article. North America1000 01:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:STTIntruder.jpg){kind=link}
As you participated in a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian communism, you are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious communism. Graham (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Runners came out of the woodwork. Atsme📞📧 01:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)![[24]](http://www.horsegroomingsupplies.com/horse-forums/attachments/horse-colors-genetics/184374d1381006372-rare-colored-horses-post-away-1376510_574738009229783_1199002093_n.jpg){kind=link}
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)
Atsme📞📧 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
SAVED! Montanabw(talk) 20:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)