User talk:Montanabw/Archive 9

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I don't suppose we could make this edit official WP policy? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and LOL! I think that the last time I tried using the {{sofixit}} template I got into a world of hurt!! Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Montanabw!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Montanabw: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy New Year

Happy New Year! Hope you are having a lovely time!!!! All the best for you, you surly dismal-dreaming scut!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hafspajen (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

HEEHEEHEEHEEHEEE! Thanks! Great message! Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Hafspajen (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Just stabled the horse on my user page (note top) he's gorgeous. Montanabw^(talk) 01:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looks lovely!! Hafspajen (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Montanabw, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition began on 1 January. There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter peer review

Hi. I've listed Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter/archive1 and would appreciate it if you would take a look at it (if you have the time). Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Point the way

I have a lot of interest in horse and horse related areas. I'm no expert on horses, but I have dabbled a bit here and there on horse related articles. Any help needed in any specific articles or areas?(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil: I've been wanting to work on BLPs lately, especially women jockeys. Does that interest you? They're all in pretty poor shape, so low-hanging fruit for the wikicup, also (!) One I am working on now is Rosie Napravnik and the other one I'd love to get to GA is Julie Krone. If you are interested in a Canadian jockey, the Emma-Jayne Wilson article needs work. If horse racing isn't your gig, I can sure point you at any number of other things that need help (If you are conversant with MEDRS in general, several horse health articles need work too, some are vital to our project and only C-class at best, notably the two big ones, horse colic and laminitis. Oh, there's only 3,000+ tagged for WPEQ, I'm certain we can find something!!! LOL!!Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This all sounds interesting. I'll take a look later tomorrow and see what seems to be a good place to start. The Canadian woman jockey definitely sounds intriguing. Thanks for the directions. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:Jockey#Female_jockeys_in_the_US_and_Canadian_Triple_Crowns addressing some fixes at Jockey#United_States_and_Canada that mention the major Canadian women (and the major historic US ones, for that matter). This is a field where statistically - in spite of it being the 21st century - and in spite of a lot more women than men who mature at less 115 lbs., - only about 15% of all jockeys are women. Almost all of the ones who make it have real interesting stories. I watched Julie Krone (who is about my age now) win the Belmont and really thought it was the beginning of something major, but it's still rare to see women in races - tons of exercise riders on the backside, but none of them seem to get to ride in the afternoon for the big bucks. Montanabw^(talk) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Cowboy edits

Just wondering why you have reverted my changes to Cowboy? My thinking was that it is often considered unprofessional and rude (not saying that is your intent) to call someone by only their last name. Since this is not a quote I thought it would be appropriate to have some sort of title before his last name. Do you agree? Ednyfed (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, titles are not generally used per the Manual of Style. If you had checked the page Montanabw referred to in her edit summary (WP:HONORIFIC), you would have found Wikipedia:HONORIFIC#Subsequent use, which says "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms"...". Dana boomer (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. I am new to some of the editing conventions and didn't realize what that was. Thank you for the clarification.Ednyfed (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it's a pretty common style in journalism also. Montanabw^(talk) 20:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Riding and driving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mucho Macho Man GA process

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

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

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

Douglas Lake & Alkali Lake Ranches

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Mucho Macho Man

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

John Walsh article edits

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

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

Thanks,

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

Feline infectious peritonitis (FIP)

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

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

New Animal Welfare templates

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

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

Williams Lake Stampede and Sugarcane Reserve, 1941

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gallery

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

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

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

Kudos to your gentility!

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

A barnstar for you!

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

"How's my driving?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move like this

Move Like This
by 28bytes

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

Your revert

Hi Montanabw,

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Thunder (mascot)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, apparently Bucephalus versus unicorns was a thing?

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

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

Your GA nomination of Thunder (mascot)

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

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

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

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

Re GANs

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

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

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

Exmoor Pony

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

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

Horse worship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Horse breeds of France

Please see WP:REDNOT and WP:EXISTING regarding red links in navboxes. Also, articles should not be linked to more than once in a navbox. There were also some WP:BIDIRECTIONAL issues. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, go chat with @Justlettersandnumbers: about major changes, I think he created it; I just reverted your edits and then tried to eliminate the duplicated links. I do know that WikiPRoject equine has been using the red links to guide the creation of new articles with an intent to turn them all blue eventually. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Sports governing bodies of Canada

Your wholesale revert of {{Sports governing bodies of Canada}} was not helpful. As this is outside of your usual editing patterns, I can only assume that you were checking my edits. Whilst the discussion rages on about the Animal breeds, your blatant disregard for the guidelines here as well does not show good faith. You may find your WP:LOCALCONSENSUS with the animal breeds, who knows, but a lot of other navboxes need tidying up - and this was clearly one, as it included a lot of unlinked text as well as redlinks. I'd suggest any further discussion regarding this particular navbox be taken to the corresponding talk page, and I urge you not to revert my future edits where your reversions go against the established guidelines for navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, now who has a WP:OWN issue? And no, Equine Canada is on that template, which is why it flagged for me in a automatic notification. Now go assume good faith and quit insisting your interpretation of the navbox guidelines is the only correct one, because it is not the only way to look at this. If you want to preserve the redlinks in a series, then we would have an agreement. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Hi Montana, sorry about mispresuming your gender. (Not so many women on WP as you know. In fact if you did run an RfA, I've observed distinct positive bias that favors women candidates there. However I've also sometimes noticed a fawning quality to same, which is a bit disturbing since seems to be based on perception the candidate is "traditionally conservative" and not likely to rock any boat for "the men in charge". And that would be hypocritically sexist of course.) I'm into board games on the WP, I see our interests intersect in the little article I created here. (I added an art graphic, but really would have preferred this one, but it's proprietary and not on Commons, of course!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have seen some people do a 180 once they realize I'm a woman, usually for the worst, or, occasionally, the "fawining"-but horribly condescending thing you mention. It's so stupid. I don't hide my gender, but I don't advertise it either, I prefer to keep it low key so it doesn't become an issue. Montanabw^(talk) 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:REDNOT

Hello, I thought I'd write here as it's quieter, but it has just occurred to me that you may have missed the point regarding WP:REDNOT. The guideline is a broad guideline for all of Wikipedia, not a specific one for navboxes, and where it mentions "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created", this is not for navboxes, but a rule for all of Wikipedia. It then goes on to state how they should not generally be placed in navboxes, with a possible exception for series sets. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ain't quieter here, have you checked my centijimbos? You are not going to win on your interpretation of the navbox guidelines as the only possible way to do things, and at any rate, they are not "policy" but they are still GUIDELINES. So drop the stick and go fix something that needs fixing, there are tons of bloated, poorly designed navboxes that are languishing where no one cases about them. You are nitpicking some minor navboxes half to death. Now let's go back to the consolidated discussion and keep it there. Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

/me applauds this answer --Tsaag Valren (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my section on "Therapy dogs"

214.15.218.74 (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Since you insist on deleting my entire section from the article instead of editing the part you feel is pure POV I thought I would ask you how it is you feel you have the right to do so? It's akin to someone creating an article on Cars and another person creating a subsection on Tires and you deciding that Tires have nothing to do with cars and then deleting the whole section.

Thanks and have a nice day.

To the previous IP editor - it would be helpful if you named the article so that other editors can follow the discussion. Having said that, it would be much, much better if the discussion was raised on the Talk page of the article rather than here. That way, you are more likely to get feedback from those interested in the page - whatever that is!__DrChrissy (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, this is an IP and a new editor both, I suspect. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Therapy_dog&oldid=595708809&diff=prev I have repeatedly told this person (I think it's the same person) about WP:BRD and to take it to the talk page, because they have some material that MIGHT be useful to include in the article. But as it sits, it's an unencyclopedic POV rant. DrChrissy, all yours if you want it, I'm tired of trying to apply the cluebat. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. Have my own problems over at Marius (giraffe)!__DrChrissy (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As you can see from stalking my talk page, it's silly season on wiki. Cabin fever can be an ugly thing... Montanabw^(talk) 19:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

We have the same thing here! I live on the edge of the flooded Somerest Levels which I believe has made the news on your side of the Pond.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

galloping support
Thank you for your tireless support and teamwork and for your wonderful sandbox rules for a better world, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (13 January 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 27th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! It is truly a "precious" award! Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular Cultural References to White Horses

Unicorns are portrayed as resembling white horses, except when, as here, they're instead portrayed as misshapen bright blue wild boar with gilded highlighting. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't seem to respond to your undoing of my addition to the white horse wiki directly at the location of the edit/notification, so this will have to do. I did add a popular references topic to the Talk page of the article itself but I wasn't sure that you'd see that. I'm sure you'll get a notification that I undid your undoing.

As I say on the Talk page of the article in question, I'm not quite sure how such a well-known popular reference to white horses in mysticism constitutes "a stretch," but whether you're a fan of heavy metal or not I dare say that genre and its associated imagery do indeed qualify as bona fide elements of popular culture. Yes, almost without a doubt, Ozzy Osbourne and similar acts use such imagery for the shock value. The fact remains that fans (i.e. "popular culture") eat it up and many take it very seriously. Even among those who simply like the sound of the music, the reference in the Mr. Crowley lyrics is well-known. Must I provide a demographic counting of heavy metal fans to make the point? If so, I call on you or the previous authors to similarly support your choice of "references in popular culture."

At any rate, I have duly provided a reference to the "official" lyrics of the song from the Ozzy Osbourne website (not sure how much more "official it gets. . . ) as well as a wiki link to Mr. Crowley's wiki page, Mr. Crowley being the subject of the song in question and rider of said white horse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikerrr (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is nothing but popcruft that is apt to attract 10,000 more examples and I have removed all of the examples. See WP:TRIVIA Montanabw^(talk)

The best way to handle "cultural references" in articles is to require third party discussion of the connection of the reference to the actual subject of the article. Thus - say, for King Henry II of England - you have references to plays/literature that Henry appears as a character in, but they are referenced not to the original work but to other works that discuss the actual significance of Henry appearing as a character. This really cuts down on the "cruft" while still preserving important cultural influences. Thus - if it's important to Crowley's influence that he was depicted riding a white horse - there should be articles (not by Crowley) discussing that symbolism. And if Ozzy's usage of Crowley riding a white horse in one of Ozzy's songs is significant, it will be discussed in articles written about Ozzy's songs (and not written by Ozzy or his family). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If ALL references are deleted, fine. Otherwise, I maintain that the Ozzy reference was a valid as the rest and call on whomever is responsible for those to defend them equally. Mikerrr (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I deleted all the video games and pretty much anything from the mid-20th century forward, if that will work for you. I would agree that Ozzy has greater significance than some video game. But let's discuss it over there, not here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

messing around in other people's playpens....

Please see User_talk:CJLippert#payback.3F, and the paragraphs preceding it, and User_talk:Uyvsdi#Whoa.21.21.21_-_re_Category:Squamish, although by the end of the day this will be at anywhere from a CfD to ARBCOM or ANI. The optics here aren't good at all, and indicates to me that somebody's been sharpening axes..... now causing a problem and washing their hands of it glibly.... and so time/energy that should go into article writing/expansion/improvement is now once again going to go to procedural/guideline games....all precipitated by someone unconnected to the articles' subject matter, and oblivious to the on-the-ground realities of same. And now calling on other editors who she's already ignored by overturning the CfD.....and leaving it to me to go enlist other WPCANADA editors to deal with the problem she's re-created, and no doubt will accuse me of "polling" them......the arrogance of all this is breath-taking, IMO.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm staying the heck out of that one; you and Uyvsdi are both good editors and I am not wanting to take sides between the two of you; my thoughts are that you each have legitimate points, and the bigger problem is too much work and not enough worker bees. That and the drama-mongers who never write articles at all, they just haunt the drama boards across subjects. I've noticed that cabin fever hits wikipedia this time of year, every time; February and March are open season on drama around here. I wanna go hibernate! Montanabw^(talk) 05:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, I didn't need this right now either.....as far as what she's done here, she's NOT a good editor, she's behaving in a rogue manner, I'll take it up elsewhere, I guess I was just pointing out to you that somebody's sleeping dog didn't really want to stay lying down....Skookum1 (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Definitely NOT getting in the middle of a disagreement between you two, you each have your strengths as editors. Montanabw^(talk) 08:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Race to the Sky

What was that moving stuff all about? --Falcadore (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but Silverstone Race to the Sky isn't the proper name of the event. It was a short-lived sponsored identity for the race which is generally not used for motorsport event titles (outside of NASCAR). For example Australian Grand Prix is not called Qantas Australian Grand Prix is it? --Falcadore (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no qualms with Race to the Sky (New Zealand/Montana) although a description of the event would be better I feel, Race to the Sky (hillclimb) for the NZ event, Race to the Sky (sled race [am unsure of correct terminology]). No idea how big the Montana race is, although as you've mentioned it's a qualifier for the Iditerod (sp) I would assume it would be of similar value to the qualifying races for the Hawaii Iron Man triathalon? --Falcadore (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Rainbow trout

Sorry, I think I got in your way there. I am finished for now. --John (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Arabian dab page

Just FYI. I have created "Arabian horse (disambiguation)" to list the record album, Arabian Horse, plus see-also links to related Arabian-horse titles, then used template {{other uses}} to link that dab page. In general, record albums should not be in hatnotes in major articles, because it acts as an advert for the album, where page "Arabian horse" is viewed 900 times per day, as 900 mentions of the album to readers. This hatnote issue is an advice from Jimmy Wales, who had decided, years ago (after 12 years of WP experience!), how the hatnotes should avoid promoting specific pages, unless almost as notable as a general Arabian horse. Feel free to expand the dab page with other see-also titles of "Arabian horse". -Wikid77 22:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL and thanks! Good move! Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cutthroat trout peer review

BW: Cutthroat trout has been listed for peer review - go for it: Wikipedia:Peer review/Cutthroat trout/archive1 --Mike Cline (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Groovy, and next time you have a GAN, ping me, I need wikicup points.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 00:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Montana Race to the Sky

Orlady (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Rainbow trout

Please review your reversion of my edits. You reverted several edits, of which only one change is described in your edit summary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, only saw one... mea culpa. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why have you changed the text to direct quotation? In what way is this better than paraphrasing? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Two reasons: 1) One sentence is from the mission statement and is identified in the article as "the mission" of the organization, so a verbatim quote is appropriate. 2) The other is a too-close paraphrase and changing one word doesn't solve the problem that it is still basically an all-but-one word copy, so best to just go with it. Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Belated thanks

I know this is late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation in my RfA. I was very inspired by the many that supported me and it’s that feeling of friendship and camaraderie that keeps me coming back to the project. So, thank you for your support and for your continued sense of fairness and compassion in all areas of WP. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ahem

Buff Laced Polish Chicken

The Czubatka poultry looked and behaved exactly like contemporary Polish chickens do.

Are you any good with chickens, or do you know anyone into chicken breeds? The Polish chicken is a most weird article. Mostly opinions, I think. Hafspajen (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I find them tasty! I shall ping talk page stalkers and @Steven Walling:, @Dana boomer:, @Justlettersandnumbers:. You might also want to post at WikiProject agriculture. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Chickens are basically unicorns with their horns foreshortened into smaller red-coloured structures (in the male) at the top of the head (sometimes also the base of the head). They also lack the unicorn's typical gait due to much shorter legs, smaller body size, and their forelegs being used as wings. (For obvious reasons, an absence of forelegs causes major changes to an animal's gait.) I have never encountered a Polish chicken, but I do know that User:Volunteer Marek and User:Piotrus are Polish or have an interest in Poland-related topics, and perhaps they can help?

I was pleased to see the USA sent six extra F-15's to this part of the world today. Muscovy-sourced MiG-29 steeds get feisty? Hit 'em with (the threat of) missiles, I say. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Unicorns ? Ah, we should add that too to the article. Hafspajen (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone shows up here with a My Little Pony especially a Pegasus Unicorn one, I'm telling! And if it's pink, get out an air-sickness bag for me, as I WILL be barfing! LOL!Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, where chickens are involved, perhaps we need a Bishzilla or a Chedzilla? Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Battlestar Pegasus is a fictional spacecraft that appears in both the original and the reimagined television series Battlestar Galactica. Apparently. WTF? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Flat race holiday

Sorry I never got around to replying to your mail. Anyway, don't expect any contributions from me on Flat racing for the next month or so as it's the climax of the National Hunt season in the UK. A point that might have been of interest to you is that one of the leading contenders for the Champion Hurdle, Un de Sceaux is a non-Thoroughbred with Anglo-Arab ancestry, but sadly his trainer has decided to bypass the race. Pretty sure he'll get an article at some point: he is unbeaten in seven races with an aggregate winning margin of 144 lengths. Tigerboy1966  01:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet, you are still lurking about... I saw that edit to Game On Dude - heh, heh, heh; I know you can't stay away from that soap opera that is American horse racing for long ... Montanabw^(talk) 01:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

This editor is encyclopedically inclined

	The Golden Horsehorse
	But Big Red was the most beautiful horse to ever grace the planet.  ;-) Jbcrichton (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You may be right, but if you put it in the article, the partisans of Man o'War and Phar Lap will start an editing dispute that will make the controversy over "the Beatles" versus "The Beatles" look like a cakewalk! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Cutthroat trout FAC

BW, just loaded up Cutthroat at FAC. Thanks for your help on the peer review. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and back atcha @Mike Cline: and any other TPSers, I just put up Mucho Macho Man at FAC also. Both of these articles will benefit from thoughtful reviews by experienced editors! Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Good project for you

BW, I was linking some stuff in a draft article on Montana grayling and came across this Melrose, Montana. It is in pretty poor shape. I am not big into tagging, but this article could certainly use some work. You are pretty good with city type articles, you might like to whip this one into shape. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! Yikes! Eeek! I agre that it sucks beyond all reason. However, I also have to find a way to actually care enough about Melrose to want to work on the article! LOL! I bet that gem was created by those students at UM -Western who had the instructor tell them to go randomly edit wikipedia last year - with no clue how to do it - remember that time we had Grant-Kohrs ranch get hit by someone who was equally unknowing of wiki editing basics? Montanabw^(talk) 18:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Adena Springs

The DYK project (nominate) 01:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Animal portal image

I fixed some suggestions. Hafspajen (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions on getting the image changed? Portal talk:Animals#Animal portal image issues

Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I posted there. Talk Page Stalkers: We have a technical glitch as well as an image issue, anyone who knows how to do portal templates and stuff, could you pop by and give WP Animals some technical advice on how to fix this? Montanabw^(talk) 00:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it lives at Module:Portal/images/a. You'll need an admin or template editor to change it, but once y'all decide on a good replacement image, just have them change the line ["animals"] = "Sow with piglet.jpg", to whatever the name of the image is (minus the "File:", obviously). It's line 97 in the code. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The first thing is to select an animal... I made a crude attempt to get it started. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, the honey badger rocks! (and also doesn't give a shit, if I recall correctly!) I made it into a gallery. Let's continue the conversation there. Montanabw^(talk) 05:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The first thing is to suggest an animal, that is kind of done, that was my bit. So I made some suggestions, and from now on I am not really competent to fix the rest. I guess we need to have some images selected, and than how the rest works, don't know. SPhil suggested that we should try to make the images change time to time. That would alow many more images to rotate, please se my talk page. Hafspajen (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, Hafspajen! Great work! Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• What the fox say?Hafspajen (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Warning, do NOT ever show that to small children unless you want to then view it 10,000,000,000 times over and over again! Just saying... ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies did that. He is now viewing it 10,000 times over and over again! Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC) ^{(there is a version that will play it for 10 hours)}

Hafspajen, you are silly. The horse is a noble animal. http://xkcd.com/1341/     :-)   — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The pig is a noble animal, which is why God gave us Conecuh sausage. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Guidance Barnstar

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For being an eternal source of knowledge on all things equine. From the user formerly known as Ling.Nut, • Serviceable†Villain 04:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Secretariat DAB

I'm not certain why you reverted my re-ordering of Secretariat -- an edit summary would have been helpful. Anyhow, MOS:DAB indicates that subheadings within DAB pages can be helpful. As is, the list is not all that easy to navigate. Also, any reason for removing the link for Secretariat of the Communist Party of China Central Committee? Korossyl (talk) 11:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Because you lumped them all as a "See also" which is not the way to do a dab page (see also is for similar but not identical words that people may be looking for, i.e. Secretary, for example. Also the bolded line without TOC was poor form. I have no worries about the link you added, feel free to add that back in. Finally, you removed the "Governmental entities" heading, which made things much clearer. Montanabw^(talk) 16:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bazy Tankersley

The article Bazy Tankersley you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bazy Tankersley for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rosiestep -- Rosiestep (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! I was happy to review this one for you. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me if you need a DYK or GAN review. It was fun working with you! Montanabw^(talk) 00:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A messenger kitten for you!

Instead of the old-fashioned talkback, I sent my messenger to you to convey that I've addressed your issues at the DYK nom for Shammi (actress). Thanks for reviewing, and yes, you can keep this kitten.

Ethically^Yours! 09:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Help?

You just pinged me over regarding the Shammi (actress) article. I presently am not in my city and am editing from my mobile, which is very inconvenient. I'll be back on the tenth of this month, so till then I'm really handicapped with this issue. Will you be able to fix the issues? Much thanks in advance. Regards, Ethically^Yours! 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup error

Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Mucho

Sorry. You fixed everything very nicely. It appeared to me that Gerda and Col. Henry had more to say, and I was waiting to see how that turned out. Since all remains quiet, I'm going to make the first move. Very nice job. Finetooth (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. They may have more, but I've noticed that when one person "finishes," others tend to follow.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 01:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Food and Drink Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new Sip 'n Dip Lounge article, and for expanding Wikipedia's coverage of notable tiki bars! NorthAmerica1000 00:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL and thanks! That one was just plain fun! Yes, I've been there, but at the time there were just a few kids swimming in the pool, no mermaids! Haven't tried the fishbowl, either - need to have a lot more friends in tow before tackling that one! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Charles LoPresti

Thank you for this contribution Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Promoted

Update: I have promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Sip 'n Dip Lounge using your original hook. Content has been copied to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. Cheers, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Shammi

The article was developed by me after making on-line search. I was initially surprised there was no wiki article on such a senior actor of Indian film industry.I have made changes to the lines so as to avoid any copyright issue if at all it arises. Furthur changes also can be made to the lines by replacing words or changing sentence formation- but basic information must remain intact.Sortlips (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Answered at your talk. Wasn't my call. Montanabw^(talk) 05:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The full name of the person is Tara Harish. SO better to use full name.Instead of suing just a part of the name.Sortlips (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So go fix it, I'm not going to spend time on this particular article, I was just doing a review. Montanabw^(talk) 05:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Prem Chopra

Another article I have completed. Am sure this gets your approval soon.Sortlips (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Review required

Well Montana, it's been quite a while (a week and more) that no one has reviewed this article. I nominated it on the 27 of March, and it's the 6 of April today. Maybe you can review this article? It's my own creation. Here's the DYK page and this is the article page. Thanks! Ethically^Yours! 06:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a peek, thanks for the ping. Maybe you can give Sortlips a hand with the Shammi article, it's still not passing muster. Wasn't my call. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

When reverting.......

I know that as the creator of the article Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 you must feel like a protective parent towards your creation, but I'm sure that you are aware of WP:OWN. No one person, even the articles creator owns the articles. When you create an article, the article is now part of Wikipedia and can be edited by anyone. Also I must add that the date format, YMD date format is beginning to fall out of favor across Wikipedia. Editors are preferring to use DMY or MDY throughout the articles. Having a different date format in only part of the references makes no sense. They should all be unified. JOJ ^Hutton 02:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton, the guidelines currently allow for the date format that is currently in the article, with publication dates in MDY and access dates in YMD. As per longstanding WP custom, the date format established by the lead editors should remain in use, unless it is against guidelines. Until/unless the guidelines are changed to disallow this format, our preference as lead editors should be respected. WP:OWN has nothing to do with it, and giving patronizing advice to a very experienced editor (as you do above) is only going to annoy people. Dana boomer (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The key word is "currently". Therese no need for that format. No need at all.--JOJ ^Hutton 11:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Let us know when the guidelines are changed to reflect your view. Dana boomer (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, you'll be the first one I contact. And it's not my view, it's the majority view. JOJ ^Hutton 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Jojhutton, you cite nothing but your own interpretation of the guidelines to people who are far more experienced at article writing than yourself. Given that the two of us who created this article and together brought it to GA status have, between us, roughly 40 featured articles and well over 60 GAs, I strongly suggest that before you start screaming WP:OWN at people and leaving snarky messages on their talk pages, you recall WP:CONSENSUS. If you think we made a mistake, you can discuss it at the article's talk page, but it is perfectly acceptable to use narrative MDY date formats in the article body and YMD in citations, particularly when doing one makes the narrative read smoothly and the other is an accepted citation format, which it is. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Sip 'n Dip Lounge

Thank you from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI notifications

Neigh to all of that nonsense!

Hello. This message is to inform you that there are currently two discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding issues with which you probably wouldn't want to be involved. One is a comment which mentions talking horses, and the other is a notification that User:ClueBot has difficulty distinguishing between real and fictional unicorns. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah! ROFLMFAO and SCOMN! Another pink ponies one for the snarkives! Montanabw^(talk) 18:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That said, the other one a comment which mentions talking horses is one of the most egregious pile-on personal attacks on a wikipedia editor I think I've seen in a long time and, IMHO highly sanctionable. No one should have to endure that! Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed.

Is the pink pony pic a "see how many anatomical and behavioural inaccuracies you can spot in this one picture" contest? :)

And, if one took the stupid horn off that white unicorn, what sort of horse would it be (closest to)? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Aw, be kind to the pink pony, it's a free image. As for the Unicorn, absent the horn, it would be an Arabian horse with impossibly hairy fetlocks. Which is why I created the special snarkives section; for some reason (probably because they are pretty) people get just beyond fairy-tale weird about Arabians and Friesian horses. Lipizzaners get their unfair share of this nonsense too. I consulted my gang out in the pasture, and they informed me that they all are rather annoyed by this nonsense too. Though they think the unicorn horn is rather cool, it would actually get in their way when they are grazing... Montanabw^(talk) 18:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	Montana State Award of Merit
	For your excellent work on Montana articles! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There you go, you have two now!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	Montana State Award of Merit
	For your excellent work on Montana articles! And horsies!! - Tim1965 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hee hee! Shameless self-promotion; it's a beautiful thing! Montanabw^(talk) 18:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

SHAMELESS? Heck no! DESERVED!!!! - Tim1965 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fort Shaw

By the way, next time you head Great Falls way, would it be possible to stop by the Fort Shaw National Historic Distric and Cemetery? I've been trying to find some modern shots of the fort, historic sign, and cemetery. But the only ones I can find are not permissible for Commons. Booo! I worked my butt off to improve the Fort Shaw article improved, and now can't find diddly-squat in terms of modern-day images. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a little out of my way (i.e. it isn't on the interstate, and who the hell wants to drive clear out past Vaughan, anyway? heh, heh) but I'll see what I can do. In the meantime, I would put up a historic image or two if you can find some - should be some US-PD by gov't photogs... but I'll keep it on my radar. Usually when I leave GF on the opposite from home side, it's up toward Fort Benton and Havre... Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not even a word of thanks for the barnstar either after all of that :-)!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld:, just your typical wikiquette! What? You do nice things and expect gratitude too? Sheesh!  ;-) (grinning, ducking, running...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, expect gratitude on wikipedia? Never!! I was thinking about adding a horse to the center of the flag, but I thought you wouldn't really care!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

As long as it isn't the pink pony or the unicorn (see above thread)! Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for California Chrome

The DYK project (nominate) 02:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup points

Hi- I just wanting to pick up on something you said on that editor review. "4 points for a GAN review versus 30 for a GA - I suggest bumping up the points for reviewers - along with the length requirement for a thorough review!" As I'm sure you're aware, we have a long consultation process towards the end of every year on how WikiCup rules should change. There was serious opposition from some people to raising the review points above the DYK points, as the perception was that reviewing should not be worth more than content creation. GAC points started out low precisely to discourage poor reviews- the fear was that high points would encourage people to produce large numbers of poor reviews. Like you, I think there's a lot of value in the GAC process, and I've no love for when it's done badly. The last thing I'd want is for the WikiCup to be blamed for poor reviews in the same way that people frequently blame it for bad DYKs. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, we'll hopefully be able to incorporate PR into the points next year! J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A GAN review is much more work than a DYK review - and we don't get points for review of a DYK at all, just the qpq. Also, given a recent kerfuffle over someone who did a ton of GAs but people are now saying the reviews were too superficial, I'd say improving the GAN review process is something to look at. I wouldn't kick if all DYKs went up to 10 points; the multiplier for longer articles just encourages bloat over research, IMHO. Frankly, I think that offering FAC review points would be better than offering PR points, the reviewers there go to a lot of work; PR is kind of hit or miss, I don't really bother with it very often unless I'm just totally fried on an article and need new eyes. Maybe ping me when the next years policy discussions begin, I think I'd like to participate. Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's tricky - PR really needs some incentive as it is an overlooked part of the place. GAN's structure with a sole reviewer is a weakness as well, but is a pretty vital stepping stone for all but the simplest articles for FAC. Yes these are worth discussing for next year. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My own view of PR is that usually it is good for getting a few outside eyes on an article, and many PR folks will then become FAC supporters, but it can also be troll bait. I tend to ask people I know to be thorough to do an informal PR for me unless they are all swamped. As for GA, the backlog is always so huge and there is a need to figure out how to work with that; one idea might be if there was a way that things like image licensing could be checked by a bot that would flag the obvious problems; there'd still need to be a manual eyes on person for the mislabeled stuff, but if there was some way to get the fast fails out of the queue, that would help. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Montana: There's a lot of history to these discussions. "A GAN review is much more work than a DYK review - and we don't get points for review of a DYK at all, just the qpq"- Agreed, the opposition was to GARs being worth more than DYK articles. You say "the multiplier for longer articles just encourages bloat over research", but we introduced that because we were attracting a lot of criticism for apparently encouraging very short DYKs (though that was only really one editor, and then large numbers of people were tarred). It also served as a compromise between those editors who wanted more points for DYKs and those who wanted less (as we've jumped back and forth). A certain FAC regular who was highly critical of the WikiCup made quite clear that FAC reviews should not be eligible for points, and so there's been some negative feeling about the Cup at FAC since- I don't think points for FAC reviews would be welcomed (though at least one PR regular has explicitly requested WikiCup points for PRs). A message will go out on the newsletter when the discussions about next year's competition start. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It's good to know that history and I appreciate you discussing it here. This is the first year I've tried the wikicup and while I certainly am a person who favors credit for content creation, I've also done a lot more reviews of other people's stuff than in the past and am aware that to do a thorough and conscientious review is also a lot of work - which was why I've ducked doing reviews on the past (hangs head...) As with all things, there is a continual need for review and improvement. Thanks for all your comments! Montanabw^(talk) 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review offer

Thanks. User:Another Believer, an Oregon editor that I often work with, has three, which he's listed on my talk page under your query. You could choose any that look interesting. Finetooth (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sip 'n Dip Lounge

The article Sip 'n Dip Lounge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sip 'n Dip Lounge for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations

File:12-11-03 rosa Katzenpony.JPG

A Pony for you to celebrate the great day.

Congrats on the promotion of Mucho Macho Man to featured status. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Whew! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 04:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Good show! Thank you for yet another excellent article.--MONGO 15:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for your reviews and help! Much appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah More pink ponies for the snarkives! Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations again...

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Mucho Macho Man to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates similar to those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating an article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you.

(I know you know, but no harm in advertising the new system to your many talk-page readers, I thought!) Bencherlite^Talk 13:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of California Chrome

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article California Chrome 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 Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Oxbow (horse)

This is a note to let the main editors of Oxbow (horse) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 17, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Oxbow (foaled 2010) is an American Thoroughbred racehorse best known for winning the 2013 Preakness Stakes. A bay colt sired by Awesome Again, a winner of the Breeders' Cup Classic and out of a full sister to Tiznow, another Breeders' Cup Classic winner, he was sold as a yearling at Keeneland for $250,000. Oxbow is owned by Brad Kelley of Calumet Farm, was trained by D. Wayne Lukas, and was ridden in his Triple Crown races by Gary Stevens. His Preakness win was Calumet Farm's first win in a Triple Crown race in 45 years and breeder Richard Santulli's first win in a Triple Crown classic race. It also was Stevens' first Triple Crown win since 2001, following his return to riding in early 2013 after a seven-year retirement, and Lukas' first Triple Crown win since 2000. Oxbow's second-place finish in the Belmont Stakes in June made him only the third horse to have $1 million in purse wins for 2013. Later in the season, he was pulled up shortly after finishing fourth in the Haskell Invitational, whereupon he was found to have suffered a soft tissue injury, was taken out of competition for the remainder of his three-year-old season, and retired to stud in October 2013. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your excellent work on promoting Oxbow (horse) to FA status! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

List of winged unicorns

I appreciate that you took the step of hiding the information rather than deleting it. Red Pen kept deleting stuff all over the place and it was getting ridiculous to try and keep track of things.

I'm still confused why extensive sourcing is needed for such a simple issue as "there's a unicorn with wings here". It's pretty much self-evident, and pictures were even present supporting a lot of the info. I mean when we have actual screenshots of Jewel Riders and She-Ra having them as co-stars and Kleo having one as the primary star, I don't see why that alone wouldn't serve as proof of the media containing the creatures...

Can't help but think some newer articles are being held to (unrealistically) higher standards than older ones. If we look at the various 'list of characters' associated with many series, each character (and sometimes the page altogether) may lack references on a case-by-case basis yet the data is kept up.

Do you have any suggestions on how I can begin adding things back? I am glad at least with it hidden rather than deleted that it will be a simple case of moving things 1 at a time from unseen to seen and take up the disputes individually. Compared to prior times when we have to come and guess what got removed. Ranze (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, things are being held to a higher standard. Most of the time that's a good thing, though here it seems a bit silly. I have to admit that I like that list primarily for the humor value. As for adding stuff in, you can start with my version with the hidden items, though I recommend you seek consensus of active authors and be careful not to violate WP:3RR. Then as you can find any external source that has an image, that meets WP:V for something like this, make said link visible. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of California Chrome

The article California Chrome you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:California Chrome 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 Jamesx12345 -- Jamesx12345 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Derby Day alert to TPSers

Howdy Hi - Just a very polite ping to various trusted editors and my talk page stalkers: on Derby Day (Saturday, May 3) can you please help keep an eye on a recent GA that I've worked on, California Chrome? The horse is the favorite for the race, already has a rabid fan base, the "Chromies" (in a good way, mostly) but the article is already getting anon IP edits from people who are making random odd edits. I have meticulously sourced this article and if there are errors, they are in the sources consulted (or at least my interpretation of them) and, while of course any article can be improved, anyone changing material needs different/better sources to correct errors and not just put in random rants. I think everyone around here knows the drill, but... thanks in advance. I'm driving back home that day and will be on the road about 7 hours, I'm hoping I can at least catch the race itself in a cafe or something along the way, I won't likely have internet access during the race itself and other eyes will be much appreciated, thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Eriskay Pony

You removed an entry I made on the above page describing it as 'Appears to be a bit too personal and too editorializing for here. .'. Whilst I accept that the phrase 'Although it would benefit the breed for the 2 societies to work together......' can be called personal opinion, the remainder of the entry was intended as a factual statement of something that is a huge problem for the breed. It is a fact that the relationship between the 2 breed societies has broken down, and it is a fact that CENE questions the legitimacy of TEPSL's registration, and both these are referred to in the document linked to. Whilst I can understand why the first part of the entry was removed, I am perplexed why facts supported by a link to a document published by a Govt organisation were removed. I was under the impression that being able to link to a reliable source that demonstrated the veracity of what was said gave credence to the statement made.

Please can you clarify this for me. ThanksEriskaypony (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to this edit, I presume. Essentially, all that decision verifies is that there was a dispute, a very basic amount of (useful) background and that the complaint of the one group was dismissed as "vexatious"- The problem with your edit is that it went beyond the source cited, attributed motive, and added editorializing content not in the source. (FWIW, findings 14 and 15 of that decision are useful info that could be added to the article) So basically, I tossed the edit because it was unencyclopedic in tone. Take a look at WP:V, and WP:SOAPBOX. If these guidelines are not helpful to clarify things, feel free to post a message on the article's talk page and we can discuss further. If you would like to see how we can handle a controversy within a breed between two registries, see what we did at Andalusian horse, where they also have competing breed organizations fighting for recognition. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Cutthroat island... no, I mean trout

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

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

ITN/R

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

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

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

Tool for bare references

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

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

This one?

Thanks Hafspajen!

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

Domestication of the horse

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

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

Fred Moodry Middle School 8th Grade Honors Class

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

populated places and otherwise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Art Sherman

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

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

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

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

History of the horse in Britain

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

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

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

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

Calling all #Chromies ;-)

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

"Unload"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improving coverage of native dance

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

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

Great Northern

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

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

Retrieval dates

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

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

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

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

Prep 3

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

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

Thank you. I approved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Troika (driving)

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

• Diff link: [2]

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

DYK for Nasal strip

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

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

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

Open Range edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chic chick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waler horse page unit conversions

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

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

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

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

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

Not to be snarky ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Countdown on Chrome, all page stalkers!

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

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

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

Tonalist

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Chrome

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

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

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

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

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

Project

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

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

Re...

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

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

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

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

Mad Weekend

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

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

DYK for Templeton Thompson

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

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

Horses on Mars

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

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

Stock horse

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

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

Pony

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

GAN

Hi, I am very sorry to do this, but I have some important things going on in real life Thursday and Friday, and I ought to be preparing today and tomorrow, but since I don't trust myself not to get engrossed, I am going to have to take a forced wiki-break from now until Friday afternoon, at which point I will resume the GAN. Again, sorry, but I need to handle the real life matter. Thanks for understanding. Go Phightins! 00:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, 'User:Go Phightins!! Being able to step away from "teh wiki" to manage real life is a sure sign of sanity! Montanabw^(talk) 17:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

California Chrome

I know you are active in editing California Chrome. Are you aware of the cite error? I suspect you can track it down easier than I can.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The bold red one? Thanks for the heads up, but ;-) If you see other errors, feel free to ping at the talk page, I'll get to it. Probably chopped a sentence that used the source. If anything else, be specific as there are almost 200 citations in the article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I stumbled on to this page Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, because an article i had edited was on it. I was able to track down the issue, because I recognized it. I tried a couple on that page where I had no history, realized it was hopeless, so was about to leave when I saw California Chrome, knew you were an active editor, and hoped you could find the problem. So the only thing I knew was that it has an error. Yeah, I guess I could have mentioned it on the talk page, but I thought of you first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well hey (hay?), I'm flattered. And glad you spotted it. I have the article up for PR right now, so all fixes welcomed. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, thanks for your edits too. Actually, mine were about more than the one horse. I was interested in the race and didn't want to see this information left out of the appropriate articles. But it all looks so much better now.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Charreada

I have restored the attribution of the author of File:Lazador insurgente Mexique.jpg in the "History" section of this article. The image presents an idealized view from 1828 of a ranchero in a heroic action. A link to the artist, a radical revolutionary, is entirely relevant. The history section is weak and should be expanded to cover the myths and history that form a large part of the appeal of modern charreada. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the article, then. But the link to the artist makes no sense without such context. All I do is keep that article NPOV, which is a real challenge. Montanabw^(talk) 02:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea there would be POV-pushing on an article like this. To me a link to the artist or publication for a picture is always relevant, as is a link to a place, event or person. Readers are likely to say "where did that picture come from?", "where is that?", "what happened then?" or "who was that person?". We should not restrict links to topics that are narrowly related to the article. If readers stray far from their starting point, that is good. (I also like to give inline accreditation to any image, whether or not it is strictly required, on principle.) Aymatth2 (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There are huge animal abuse concerns with charreada. And equally vehement supporters. I guess it's not a big deal either way is the artist is credited. I'm more apt to be irritable when people identify photographs in a way that goes off on a tangent unrelated to the article topic, particularly where it becomes all but free advertising. Montanabw^(talk) 04:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

O.k. - got it. The picture does show a sort of animal rights abuse, not allowed in modern competitions. The ranchero has lassoed a royalist officer in front of his troops, and will try to haul him away by the neck. The author died in 1832 and the book is long out of print, so it is not advertising. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

|

Want to start a discussion on this topic about dog names. See here why Is there any standard way of doing it? I certainly think that moving Dalmatian (dog) to Dalmatian dog is not a good idea, as it is now the Dalmatian dog could refer to any dog that is in Dalmatia, or born there, no matter what breed. Maybe at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force? Afghan Hound‎; that is one thing, a name, but Chihuahua (dog), Boxer (dog) and will soon be moved, I guess, like the Dalmatian and others, Bolonese...dog? The dog breed is called Dalmatian, not Dalmatian dog. Can't find any discussion on this move... Breed group (dog) - now that will be aproblem, for example, Hafspajen (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I made the move, but not after researching the options and concluding that this was the best option. It sounded uncontroversial and didn't seem to be about capitalization :) so I moved it to remove the parenthetical. I think it would be good to think through the right general way to do so, while nervously hoping it doesn't tern into another bird name capitalization type discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree on that one Sphilbrick. But Hafspanajen means well, so I hope this can be resolved in a friendly manner. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Well, you see, there were a lot of different moves like this, and not you, but an other editor: Bolonese...dog, Armant dog... It was the same editor, and no consensus. And one more, Akbash dog Akita dog, Barbet dog, Billy dog???? this sounds plain silly - and no consensus . I certainly didn't see any discussion about re-naming, but there was a certain conflict here, on horse articles and cats too. Also there was no discussion on horses either, first came a mass move, reverted by Dreadstar, responded like this, see talk page later, [3]. This will be a matter for Dog task forces, but I will not bring up your name, Sphilbrick, I promise. But this really has to be discussed. Hafspajen (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Rajapalayam (dog), Pumi (dog), Landseer (dog), Papillon (dog) Pungsan dog, Laika (dog breed), Karakachan (dog) Kaikadi (dog) Harrier (dog) Bakharwal dog ...OK; my head hurts. ‎ Guard dog ‎and Police dog is the only place that it should be Guard dog ‎and Police dog. Indeed.

Sigh. Also chicken, ducks, cattles pigs, and pigeons are mass- moved. Hafspajen (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hafspajen To be honest, I actually disagree with you on this one, but as it's an issue for Wikiproject dogs (or whatever) I'm also not touching those with a 10-foot pole. We have a unique situation in WikiProject Equine with a carefully crafted stable consensus, which is that the articles about Individually names animals get the disambiguator (horse), as in Secretariat (horse) or Eclipse (horse), but that breeds use Natural disambiguation and are titled Arabian horse, Andalusian horse, etc. (There is also a capitalization spat over some names, but I'm not discussing that issue here. So I tend to favor natural disambiguation in general and find the use of parentheses in titles to be "clunky" and awkward, best avoided where logically possible, but often not possible. Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, fine. But I still think none of the above changes are correct. The breed is called Akita, not Akita dog, Bolonese, not Bolonese dog, Akbash and not Akbash dog... those changes which besides lacking consensus are just inaccurate. Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's the problem: There are Andalusian horses, Andalusian donkey, Charolais cattle, Charolais horses (now extinct, I think, but there were); Friesian horses, Friesian cattle, and so on - to say nothing of the people! In most cases, the human beings will be WP:PRIMARY or the word standing alone is a dab. So we must disambiguate, somehow. See WP:NATURAL Montanabw^(talk) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The page you directed me to tell me: Parenthetical disambiguation: If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name. So, it is very clear, that those dog articles need the parenthetical disambiguation, so we just start putting them back where they were. Hafspajen (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen, take it to the project. In my opinion, you are dead wrong. You also fail to understand the rules of natural disambiguaton and are misinterpreting the guidelines. You mean well, but you do not understand the issue. The use of parenthetical disambiguation was popular several years ago, and articles are moving away from it. As I said previously elsewhere, where a name is the primary form (i.e. Appaloosa), no need to add a disambiguator. But where there IS no primary use, or another thing (like an ethnic group of people ) are the primary use, then adding a natural disambiguator is the next option (i.e. Friesian horse). Only where that doesn't work, such as individual names (i.e. Eclipse (horse) ) we use parenthetical disambiguation. Do you see the progression here? As for the rest, capitalization and such, that is a huge shitstorm going on across other areas of wiki and it is an unbelievably nasty fight that you and I both (if we prefer titles in title case, not sentence case) are in the minority and I for one am only going to dig in and fight for a few examples where capitalization is an unambiguous need, (i.e. American Quarter Horse) because I am not going to win at a meta level here so long as wikipedia software treats capital letters and lower case as separate characters. Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't see how one can call an article Billy dog. Or Akita dog or Dalmatian dog. That is not the dog breeds name. Hafspajen (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that; I'm just explaining disambiguation policies. What DO you think people should do with Charolais, for example? Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• And what DO you think people should do with article Billy dog, Akita dog or Dalmatian dog names? Give me an idea that works. Hafspajen (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No one is arguing that it is "the name" of the breed, though in many cases "dog" or "horse" actually IS appended to the breed name by individual registries. So my suggestion is leave them as is. I admit that "Billy dog" sounds a bit ridiculous but perhaps it's proof that there may be exceptions to any general rule. Take the question to the wikiproject. And then take a nice, deep breath and step away from the horse carcass. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Montana, but I prefer to have YOU as a role model. Like the way you fight your fights. Hafspajen (talk) 09:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Which fights? LOL! To the bitter end? Or until I throw up my hands and say, "f--- it"? Montanabw^(talk) 17:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, mylady, haven't you noticed that you are a dangerous enemy to have? Hafspajen (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Moi? (looks innocent). Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you. Hafspajen (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

GAN

Hey, if you could look at The Boat Race 1978, that'd be great. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do, stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 18:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I like. Tuned in. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

NEED HELP

Hi Montanabw, I need your help. The Black-Eyed Susan Stakes has changed their Logo for the 2013 and 2014 editions. But every time I place any logos or Artwork on wikipedia they are deleted. Apparently I am doing something wrong. Here is a url to see what it looks like. [4] Is there any way that you could help me place the Logo on the 2013 Black-Eyed Susan Stakes and 2014 Black-Eyed Susan Stakes pages in place of the old Logo. I appreciate your help as always if you can accomplish this.--Craiglduncan (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, usually there is a fair use rationale needed, somewhere. Follow my contribs once you see me make changes, if I screw it up, one of my talk page stalkers will no doubt help straighten things out. Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, @Craiglduncan: I think I found a couple problems. Compare what you did to what was done here: File:2014-preakness-logo.jpg for the 2014 Preakness Stakes. The first problem is that you are trying to use the 2011 logo for multiple events. I think you need to do each year's logo. Then, the second problem is when it is uploaded, add the " |image has rationale=yes" parameter in the relevant place. I did a clumsy kludge of the 2011 logo, which I hope will help salvage that one, though it could be done more elegantly if you imitate the Preakness examples. Note at Preakness Stakes itself, there is an image of the starting gate, not a logo. I think for the main article, this logo is the one you want. Also, on Flickr, MarylandGovPics is an absolute gold mine for images of Pimlico, (See Oxbow (horse) artice's images for link to Flickr account in question. The 2014 set had images from Black-Eyed Susan Day, I think ---) Montanabw^(talk) 21:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Olympic sports

• Hello. I have created a normal structure for Category:Olympic sports. You reverted some my edits. [5] [6] [7] Please, note, only one row for Equestrian is in the 2016 Summer Olympics#Calendar (as for cycling, gymnastics and wrestling). Only one entry is in {{Olympic sports}}. By your logic we must include Shot put and Long jump into this category and exclude Athletics (sport) because some athletics events are non-Olympics. It's a wrong, this is category for "umbrella sports". Also categories with disciplines already included. Per WP:SUBCAT: Dressage -> Category:Dressage -> Category:Equestrian sports -> Category:Equestrianism -> already in Category:Summer Olympic sports. Totally we must remove Dressage etc. from parent category Category:Olympic sports. I think we will create Category:Olympic disciplines in future and will put that articles into it. Please revert your edits. NickSt (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, @Nickst: because "equestrianism" is not about the three specific Olympic disciplines any more than is running. These articles need to be linked directly to the Olympics, and there is no rule that you cannot at times have non-diffusing categories. If you want to put them in Summer Olympic Sports or later create an Olympic disciplines category, that would be fine with me. But until then, there needs to be an olympic link in those three articles. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I understand you. Please say your opinion about future categorization of Olympic sports here: Category talk:Olympic sports. NickSt (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• By the way, there is no umbrella article about equestrian sport in generally? I found only list: List of equestrian sports. NickSt (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Equestrianism IS the umbrella article. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mammal banner

Why are you removing the WikiProject Mammal banner? I realize WikiProject Equine is a subproject of Mammals, but I really don't see the sense in having the Mammals project essentially covering only those mammals that aren't equines, felids, canids, primates, cetaceans or rodents. Especially when, aside from rodents, each of the subprojects covers only a few hundred species. There's nothing wrong with having subprojects for people who are particularly interested in a smaller group of mammals, but I don't see the advantage of excluding mammals covered by the subprojects from the parent project. Plantdrew (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Answered at your talk. We don't put in the whole tree. Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

One last cute article

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

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

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

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

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

Oh LOL! Asimov fans! Hari Seldon rocks! Great story! Thanks User:greensodagal. I have an acquaintance here in Montana who actually flew to NYC for the weekend to see the Belmont, she also said the place was a disaster to leave, I think she was trying to take public transportation, which was a nightmare as well. Poor planning by someone. Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Foundation series is a must-read for Wikipedians. It's a story about another bunch of folks who were conned into believing that they were writing an encyclopedia. --Asimov Fan (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Heh, heh, heh and ha ha ha.... We ARE writing an encyclopedia... right...? Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what Lewis Pirenne said. --Asimov Fan (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Chrome

Hey, sorry I didn't respond sooner, but of course, let me know when Chrome hits FAC. It's a great and detailed article, shouldn't be a problem at FAC barring the standard snark. I'll be more than happy to help with technical table stuff if that crops up too, so don't be afraid to ping me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

This is to notify you, as required by dispute resolution, that I have filed a request for dispute resolution regarding your communications with me. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh goody. More drama. Just what I wanted for Christmas. Montanabw^(talk) 01:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's presently at ANI: I believe Daniellagreen was confused about the proper venue. Her misunderstanding has been corrected. Acroterion (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Anywhere else?? Montanabw^(talk) 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Jeepers Montanabw. First me then you. There are currently several threads in the same vein at AN/I as well as some craziness on Gogo Dodo's talk page. I missed when the SOP became a) An IP or named user makes an edit b) It altered or removed by an experienced editor c) Then we take the time to explain things and provide links to the appropriate policies and guidelines which is followed by d) The IP/editor ignores our advice and goes on the attack by making unsupported and unprovable claims of bad faith, ownership, bullying etc. etc. Is there some website out there giving them a "how to" blueprint? Oh well, best regards in this and all else. MarnetteD|Talk 03:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There actually are a couple of essays/articles out there talking about how to do this, but you can learn the same thing by just sitting and watching the drama boards grind away. The place is actually pretty easy to "game" if you're into that sort of thing. Intothatdarkness 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I. M, I thought you should see this post about the "sock" situation with the IP in case you wind up dealing with it in the future. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OMG! That makes perfect sense! That's gotta be right. BTW the email attack is a consistent MO for that one. Thanks MarnetteD! Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep your chin up Montana! You may be the first person to have not been brow-beaten into submission by this user who seems to write the equivalent of a Tolstoy novel when she doesn't get her way. I find the conspiracy undertones quite humorous too, like we're some sort of evil horsey consortium that also hates women (even though most of us are ladies :) Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks everyone! The User who has issues with me on the Standardbred article is just one of the usual people who doesn't get it and they usually just either get a clue or stomp off in a huff after they've wasted enough bandwidth; that troll and sockpuppet, currently editing as an anon IP, who is after MarnetteD, OTOH, is the sort that approached RL scary, doesn't give up, and this is where some of our best admins really shine. Montanabw^(talk) 19:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for all you do....after all, horses are people too! MONGO 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Mongo:! You are one of the good eggs around here too! Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	* Daniellagreen (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

hanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from unfounded accusations

I did not vandalize any page. I correctly pointed out that there was no citations for what was posted as opposed to what had been there before. I do not appreciate your rudeness nor your accusations.--Stubborn Myth (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You'd been punked. That Snopes page on Mr. Ed being a zebra is a joke entry to illustrate that you shouldn't believe everything on the internet even if told by a site that is a supposed authority on the matter. They even joke about it on another page [8]. The paragraph does need correct citations however. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 04:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, it's a question of quality control with a dash of horse sense. Sheesh! Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP Indigenous Peoples of North America in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You have to be the nicest wiki editor I've ever encountered

My subject says it all save - thanks for the pony. Stellabystarlight (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Given that I was just called a troll yesterday, your kind words are very much appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being part of this:

30 June 2012: Precious appeared

and continued precious support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

re MSU Library Project Userbox

BW, there's a bit of method to this madness. The MSU Library is going all out to improve the use (and editing of) wikipedia by MSU students, faculty and staff. The library dean is a great supporter of Wikipedia. They will be hosting a grant funded Wikipedia for historians workshop (Richard Jensen is running it and I'll be assisting) on July 19th. In October, the MSU Library is sponsoring a Wiki Editathon in collaboration with Colorado State University on the subject of Water in the West. I'll be assisting in that. MY fellow Campus Ambassador and I thought the userbox would be a good way to identify all the participants in these projects over time Especially those who are not really MSU alumni. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is fantastic. @Mike Cline: I'd actually like to pop down, what time and where? My little comment was meant with humor and in a spirit of fun. By the way, do you want to continue the review on your Brook Trout GA? Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw,

Thanks for the input on the MSU Library Project Userbox. I'm always surprised by all the wide and varied views of Wikipedians, and the idea of "outing" just never occurred to me, but I'm glad you brought it up.

I don't think this particular userbox would fall into that area because it's a voluntary effort to alert other Wikipedians of the user's interests in the US and Canada Higher Education Project as well as the GLAM Project as they pertain specifically to Montana State University and it's library.

As a campus ambassador, I view userboxes as a gracious way for users, especially newbie Wikipedians, to informally introduce themselves and their interests on their talk pages. At first I thought the userbox should be just about MSU, but then I remembered the GLAM Project and our U.S. Archivist David Ferriero's talk at Wikimania back in 2012 about GLAM and the role Wikipedia is playing in helping facilitate open access to the U.S. Archives.

MSU Library and those Wikipedians who support the MSU library, the US & Canada Higher Education Program, and/or GLAM, regardless of whether they graduated from or are students at MSU, should have a userbox to put on their talk page to introduce their interest in those areas.

Having said that, maybe we need a Montana GLAM userbox for all Wikipedians keenly interested in Montana and all it's galleries, libraries, archives and museums.

Some collections in public institutions' archives actually have copyright restrictions that were put on them at the time they were donated to that institution. The Schlechten collection at MOR may fall under that category.

As for the "photos from the infamous 1933 annual" I'm not sure what you are referring to. 1933 was 81 years ago and I think copyright is only good for 75 years unless renewed. Also if the 1933 annual was published by a government institution then it may already belong to the public-domain because it was paid for by public taxes. I admit this is a slippery slope into public-domain ownership but I doubt this issue will go away now that the US Archives uploaded 100,000 images to the Commons and publicly funded museums, libraries and archives have collections with materials that the public wants to use in digital, free-access format. McMormor (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the Schlechten article? I suppose they don't keep the display about it in the basement of Montana Hall any more, but the "infamous" 1933 annual yearbook was this one and I believe copies are kept in the Renne Library: [9],[10] and a fun story here. My dad worked for Chris Schlechten back in the fifties. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You have to be careful with annuals/yearbooks, as they're often funded by subscription or sources other than tax dollars. Although it may appear to have been published by a public institution (the school), that may not actually be the case. Intothatdarkness 16:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Words of wisdom for the day

"my current and future approach to conflict is and will be moderated by my understanding of the value of reasoned discussion where possible, and formal dispute-resolution processes where necessary" (not written by me) Montanabw^(talk) 16:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki project watch lists

There is not a replacement yet to the watchlists as far as I know. When they are all up and running I will make a template for them to add back to all the projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)

OK, good to know that you'll be doing the repalcements, then? Montanabw^(talk) 21:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep...I hope all is fine soon- all is just being tested will be online then off line - waiting for its permanent home URL's . Will make some template titled Template:WPTools for the project pages that will add back the reflinks, dab, watchlist etc.. with a "Main" link to the lads main page. I was under the impression it would be sometime...but things are moving faster then most believed. Need theses tools back ASAP as I know of many editors that only edit in that fashion. -- Moxy (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I"m lost without reflinks, personally. I never really believed it could be really gone, I figured all the side chatter was just the usual blather.... sound and fury, signifying nothing. Foolish me. (Oh god, does that mean they still are going to try and impose visual editor on all of us again? OH NOOOOO!) Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OMG no Visual editor pls LOL. I have mentioned this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Help making a template.-- Moxy (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As of now

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful interventions on the subject of "as of". Now, a real nitpick from me about formatting fractions. I noticed this in your excellent horse article as well. Rather than typing "1 -1/2 days' worth", type in "{{fraction|1|1|2}} days' worth", which displays as "1+1⁄2 days' worth". Isn't it cool? --John (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do know about the fraction template, I'm just lazy 'cause that takes more keystrokes ... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Review

Moved to article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 23:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Traveler

Moved to article talk. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A Traveller of a different color

Although unrelated to the subject of this thread the title reminded me that I read Richard Adams book Traveller many years ago. Seeing the Civil war through the eyes of R.E. Lee's horse was a fascinating idea. It is long out of print but it might be available at a library or online if it piques your interest. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually own a paperback copy! LOL! And you are right, it was a fun book to read. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

That is great! I should have guessed that you would. I have the paperback as well though it is a a box in storage and it would take some digging to find it. Last time I read it was the original showing of Ken Burns Civil War documentary. Enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 04:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Heh, not sure where my copy is, either. May have loaned it to someone. Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

California Chrome

Not to be a major pain in the _____, but I think this edit is a little ... not nicely worded in the "California Chrome is curious about everything around him". When I read that, I picture Curious George, which I don't think is the intention. I don't have a phrasing that's necessarily better, but just wanted to let you know how I read it. Maybe something like "California Chrome is interested in the world around him" or CC "embodies curiosity in his daily life" or something along those lines. I don't know; just spouting some suggestions. Your call. All the best, Go Phightins! 03:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to park the comment at article talk, maybe someone else can come up with a solution. And who knows? If the horse had an opposible thumb, well, George WAS curious...  ;) Montanabw^(talk) 03:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Auvergne horse

Thank you very much for your edits to my translation of Aubergne horse. I was really hoping that someone who knew about horses would review the article as I was struggling a lot with the terminology since I know nothing about horses. It appeared next on my list of geography articles requiring translation although I dont see how its a geography article. I still do not understand the reference to hocks being clos in French which I translated as closed but you say this is wrong. Also there were a few words that defied translation which I left in the article: noyé (about withers), cordés, avalėe, and en pupitre. Do you have any clue what they mean in English in relation to the horse? There are also a couple of places where I used the word "kidneys" but later realised its supposed to be "loins". There is also reference to the horse being of "postier" type - does it mean the "Breton Postier" or something else? I hesitated to put in the word Breton in case it was wrong. Of course I had no clue what mediolinear meant but assumed that it meant something.

Thanks also for reformatting the article which I think is a great improvement. If you had time to review and correct the contents it would be much appreciated. Samrong01 (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, and I appreciate the work you did! On wikipedia, @Dana boomer: has worked on several of the French horse breed articles and may be able to offer advice, though she is pretty busy IRL right now. @Tsaag Valren: is French and has helped us port over some other horse articles. I personally do not speak French, so I am of little help. I suppose I could run complete sentences through Google translate and see if something useful could be gleaned from context... Montanabw^(talk) 02:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Nez de renard (fox nose) is a french espression fo a mealy nose, so it's the pangaré. Postier mean a horse for the "service des postes", in english, equivalent is the Mail coach. The postier Breton is the main horse breed used for this in France (with the mareyeur Boulonnais). So, it mean a carriage trotting horse semi-heavy. Noyé about the withers it mean there's a lot of muscles around the withers, so it look desappearing. In the fr-wiki we have a problem of copyvio with this article : the french association of Auvergne horse copied the fr. wiki article without mention of the licence (2013). We sent a mail and it as been cleaned, but some internet content in "cache" can remains. And the fr-article need an update. It has been written before the official recognizion (?) of the breed. Now there are new official sources. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

More horsey people

Maybe this person needs a welcome to or from WikiProject equines or something similar, to fill out their currently non-existent talk page? My welcome toolbox only seems to have cookies. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 46#Pemoline --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey (hay?) thanks for the heads up, I'll trot on over and see what's happening. Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling all stalkers

Nominated Chrome for FAC today, FYI: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Chrome/archive1. Grab your popcorn and watch the show. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll see you one horse, and raise you a bird

I will definitely take a pass relatively soon. Can you please take a look at blue nuthatch which I think will be my next FAC candidate? See if anything pops out at you as needing fixing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do! Heh, saw the headline and for a moment thought it read "raise THE bird" aka "flip the bird" aka the infamous USA middle finger salute! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. It needs a fair bit of work, especially the lead, but now I have some specifics to address.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Usually another set of eyes is a good inspiration. Hope I helped! Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Difference between "flaxen" and "silver dapple" genes ?

Hello Montana, I know you're a specialist about horse coat genetics... a, you help me for this case ? In french we have a prehistoric level of knowledge about horse coat color genetics (and an aberrant "official" classification of coat colors, where "noir pangaré" (litterally "black pangaré") correspond with the seal brown coat color ... so regularly, I have to clean and use scientific sources. Is there a difference between flaxen and silver dapple gene, or is it the same gene? We have a French page "crins lavés" matching flaxen, and a silver dapple page I translated from English. --Tsaag Valren (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: Totally different! The genetic mechanism behind flaxen is yet to be mapped (as far as I know), but flaxen occurs on chestnut horses only. The silver dapple gene is a dilution gene that only acts on a black coat. Montanabw^(talk) 00:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks ! Si I'clear the "crins lavés / flaxen" article ;) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. There's no english page about the flaxen gene. I think there's any sources to create it  : http://www.thehorse.com/articles/24245/flaxen-color-genetic-research-in-progress but it's a pay-for-read article :/ --Tsaag Valren (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Tsaag! Actually, The Horse online is a free registration site, I think, but I subscribe to the magazine anyway, so that is a GREAT source, found one other article from 2010 there, stay tuned for Flaxen (horse) to go live! Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: flaxen gene is now live! Any improvements welcomed! Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Today's beating of a dead horse

Yet another editor who has never touched the article in question has a RM request at Talk:Mustang horse. Sheesh. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For unstinting untiring value-adding to article space In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing Horse colic

Hey Montana, I probably should post this in the talk page for Horse colic, but wanted your opinion on breaking it up into two articles since it is getting a little long and unwieldy. I was thinking about starting a new page for they types of colic. What do you think? I'm not sure if that would be OK as a stand-alone article. Open to suggestions. Thanks! Eventer (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

They eliminated the length limits on WP articles a few years ago. Right now, the question would be, into what? I can't really see a logical two-way split, more like a dozen, one for each type of colic, with this main article more of an overview or list. Let me take a peek at it and offer more comments there. I'm just so glad you're working on it! (You want to see long, check out my current FAC, California Chrome. Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hands

I still haven't done that documentation for {{convert}} and hands, but I'm working on it! Meanwhile I have been fiddling with how convert handles fractions, which required dealing with the anomalous use of fractions with hands, and that led me to notice the following:

• {{convert|12+1/2|hand|in cm}} → 12+1⁄2 hands (48.5 inches; 123 cm)
• {{convert|12.0+1/2|hand|in cm}} → 12.0+1⁄2 hands (48.5 inches; 123 cm)
• {{hands|12+1/2}} → 12 ¹⁄₂ hands (48.5 inches, 123 cm)
• {{hands|12.0+1/2}} → 12 ¹⁄₂ hands (48.5 inches, 123 cm)

I think you once told me that 12+1/2 means twelve-and-half hands (50 inches), so two of the above are incorrect. I suppose that detail doesn't really matter? I checked all usage of {{hands}} as at May 2014. There is only one like the above, and I'll leave it for you to decide if some tweak to the article should occur. Andalusian horse#Characteristics has:

• mares average {{hands|15 + 1/2}} → mares average 15 ¹⁄₂ hands (60.5 inches, 154 cm)

Johnuniq (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: I think you already are fine (we have been through this, yes)(grin) Which article needs the tweak? Technically, 12.2 is "twelve and a half" - half of a four inch hand. And people might ifnormally say (on Craigslist ads) a horse is 12-1/2 when they mean 12.2, but that's sloppy. A horse that is 48.5 inches (12.0-1/2) we would say "twelve hands and a half inch." We want 15 and fraction one-half to equal 60 - 1/2 inches, and though decimals are more precise, the measurement system is entirely imperial, so fractions are better. Horse people might go 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4, but nothing more precise than that - horse hooves grow that much in a month, shoes can alter height too. Seldom is anything more precise than 1/2 inch used. Also, noticed the convert/2 template when used on a range only does the measurements at the end not after each number: {{convert/2 |77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} gives {{convert/2|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}}, but what we want is 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2 1⁄2 hands; 30 1⁄2 in to 8.2 1⁄2 h; 34 1⁄2 in) Does that make sense?Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The text that possibly needs a tweak (changing "15+1/2" to "15.0+1/2") is at Andalusian horse#Characteristics.

I think you are saying that the examples I posted above are correct and need no change. Very happy to hear that.

{{convert/2}} is not-my-department (it's part of the old scheme which, since December 2013, has almost entirely been replaced with the new {{convert}}).

Here is your example using convert (new), and convert/2 (old), for comparison:

• {{convert|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} → 77 to 88 centimetres (7.2+1⁄2 to 8.2+1⁄2 hands; 30+1⁄2 to 34+1⁄2 in)
• {{convert/2|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}} → {{convert/2|77|to|88|cm|hand in|2}}

Far be it from me to explain beauty to a horse person, but in my eye, the output from convert is perfect! Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct! In all the tweaking of the tweaking, I somehow lost the "right" convert template for the "backwards" version. I'll fix my collection and make sure the

Talk:Brook trout/GA1

Montanabw, this GA review hasn't had any action since the end of May, and the article hasn't been edited since then either. A "hold" notice was placed on the nominator's page well over a month ago. It's probably time for it to be closed for inaction. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: Mike? Are you going to work on this one? Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mustangs, horses, and burros, oh my!

Well hello there! Mighty comfy digs you've built for yourself, I must say. =)

Would it be OK with you if I cut the entire "Capitalization of 'mustang'" conversation from the article's talk page and paste it here? I'd ping the one other editor who commented as well. — Jaydiem (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's put it in a sandbox so as not to bloat this page and annoy my stalkers fan club! Go here: User:Montanabw/Mustang sandbox. Montanabw^(talk) 17:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I moved it, but I thought it would make more sense to make it a subpage of your talk page instead: User talk:Montanabw/Mustang. If you disagree, feel free to move it elsewhere. — Jaydiem (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

John Walsh page edits

Thanks for your note. I think I'm OK on the references. In fact, one of my arguments against the edits another contributor was trying to make to this page yesterday and today is that he didn't format his references.

I'll look forward to the updates you make to the Walsh page. I forget whether I created it or was an early contributor to it, but it's starting to accrete a lot of new details, especially with the most recent news articles.

Billmckern (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of overdone for someone who has been in office less than a year; I think it's longer than Max Baucus, who was in office over 30 years. Montanabw^(talk) 01:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Invitation

We invite you to join Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with users who are trying to identify gender bias on Wikipedia (including gender bias in articles, in editor interactions, policies and implementation of policies) and take steps to counter it. If you would like to get involved, just visit the Gender Gap task force. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members of the task force. Happy editing, Lightbreather (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Untapable

Before you tell me that Untapable is overdue for an article, I thought I'd let you know that I'm on it. Looks like another good year for the ladies as Taghrooda has overtaken Treve and The Fugue as this year's BIG HORSE in Europe. (btw it was good to see my boy Wicked Strong winning yesterday as well) Tigerboy1966  12:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If O'Brien thinks Australia could win the Classic he'll be there. Trust me the man is determined to beat the Americans on dirt. One horse you can definitely expect is Telescope in the Turf: his trainer Michael Stoute has won six BCs on turf and knows exactly what's required. Shame about Untapable at Monmouth, I didn't see many excuses, so it may be that the current group of US fillies just aren't that good. Tigerboy1966  20:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SHe got caught wide and also had Social Inclusion acting up in the gate, plus Rosie is back early from a shoulder separation injury. Each alone not enough, but all together may have been. Still a disappointment, though. She's so dominant over other fillies. Montanabw^(talk) 20:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Pings

I have Ian's talk on my watchlist so I saw the message, but I haven't gotten that one or several of your other pings via the Notifications system, not quite sure why. (And not sure whether anyone else is being missed...). Unless we can work out what's going on with that, if I haven't responded to something within a couple of days, try pinging the "old-fashioned way" on my talkpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me, go ahead and take another swipe at it. And did this ping @Nikkimaria:? Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually. That's very odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for DAP Racing

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

not DA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Re removal of infobox from Marias Massacre

BW, I think this needs much wider discussion if indeed you think the military conflict infobox is inappropriate for this article. There are several other massacre articles: Wounded Knee Massacre, Bear River Massacre, and Sand Creek massacre that employ this infobox. I am sure I could find others as well. I don't think unilaterally deciding it is unappropriate for the Marias Massacre article is the right move. If you feel strongly about this, I would suggest surfacing it at the Military History project to see if there is wider support for removing the infobox from massacre related articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough but it's not the military project's decision alone. Does Warsaw Ghetto Uprising have a "military conflict infobox? Seriously. Shooting innocent civilians is a "military conflict? Worldwide? Montanabw^(talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Warsaw article does have a conflict infobox, as does Washita River, which bears some strong similarities to the Marias River attack/massacre. Intothatdarkness 15:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. That is batshit crazy. Seriously, will Columbine High School massacre also get one? Shooting unarmed people is "military"? Help me out here. Why not use {{Infobox civilian attack}} (as was done for My Lai or something similar that doesn't glorify criminal behavior as "military?" Montanabw^(talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Can't say I agree with some of the points. Sorry. I've worked from time to time trying to get the Marias article in better shape (even if I don't fully agree with Mike's citation format), and honestly don't care if there's a box there or not. I can see the utility, but didn't miss it when it wasn't there. I'm more interested in adding facts (like the scout intentionally misidentifying the village). Technically one might contend that a military box might be appropriate since a military unit was involved (not that I am advocating that, mind) and also take issue with the statement that the village was unarmed, but those are asides. The Warsaw article does need (IMO) a conflict box, since the Resistance groups were recognized by the Allies as armed combatants (Stalin's decision to encourage the rebellion and then stand by is one of the many crimes that can be tallied against him, IMO).Intothatdarkness 16:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess per Warsaw if a lot of people shot back, I can live with that. But if My Lai uses the civilian attack infobox, then I think the most obvious cases (Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, Marias) should as well. Would I be jumped on if I swapped the boxes? Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree 100% with Marias being lumped into the same category as Sand Creek, honestly. But then again, I didn't mind that it didn't have an infobox originally. The whole Marias mess is a touch more complicated than Sand Creek (and there is also isn't any evidence I've seen of atrocities, which were the rule and not the exception at Sand Creek and My Lai). I wouldn't strongly object if you switched the boxes, but I also wouldn't support such a change as required in this instance. I would support it for Sand Creek, though. Intothatdarkness 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Not complicated in the least. Heavy Runner was unarmed and peaceful, but press at the time made it out to be otherwise. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

He was peaceful (although let's be real...it's very unlikely he was unarmed), but not every element of the village was. There's also the issue of Cobell deliberately misidentifying the village (which was not a factor at My Lai). I'm not debating that Baker was a moron (he was), but he also was convinced (by Cobell) that he was attacking the camp of Mountain Chief (or at least the camps of Big Horn and Red Horn). No such confusion took place at My Lai. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Shooting a visibly unarmed man waving a paper should be viewed as problematic at the least. Blaming the scouts is not going to cut it. Pretty much like Wounded Knee being justified because one old man's gun went off when they tried to take it from him. Seriously, where's your Second Amendment street cred here?  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Read the accounts. Cobell (the scout who deliberately misidentified the village) later claimed he was the one who shot Heavy Runner (with the full intent of starting an engagement). I really think you're reaching here. Baker chose to believe Cobell instead of Kipp, which makes him an idiot. But that doesn't turn this into the sort of deliberate massacre you seem intent on finding. Intothatdarkness 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Which accounts? Most of the contemporary ones were loaded with "evil natives" propaganda. At least we agree that Baker was an idiot!  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 15:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ebe's book (which is devoted to the Marias Massacre) discusses the Cobell story, as does Hutton's piece in "Phil Sheridan and his Army." I specifically cited Hutton's account in the article (even though Mike took out the page number when he changed the citation style). Kim Scott's biography of Doane also touches on this a bit. And the contemporary accounts are divided between "evil natives" and "drunken butchers"...don't forget that the Marias was used by both sides (by both sides I mean within the Anglo community) for their own ends. I'm not saying that this was some sort of valiant battle or anything, but I do firmly believe there is a marked difference between what happened on the Marias and what happened at My Lai or some of the other examples you gave on the article talk page. Intothatdarkness 15:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cannot locate Ebe on WorldCat - what is the title? In my view, it is not required that the noncombatants be wholly unarmed and unable to defend themselves for it to be a "civilian" attack. Contemporary analysis is pretty much universal that this was an attack on noncombatants: (for the short version). But, if we set this one aside due to the debate, tell me how you would view the same question for Sand Creek or Wounded Knee? Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry...typo on my part. It's Ege, and the book is "Tell Baker to Strike Them Hard." Hutton's book came out after Malone's survey history, and most of the more specialist literature on the Indian Wars (Utley, et. al.) has a similar interpretation to Hutton. I though I'd already mentioned Sand Creek above, but I'd support a massacre box there. Likely the same for Wounded Knee, although there are some differences between it and Sand Creek. Sand Creek and My Lai are very similar in far too many ways. The biggest difference is that Chivington and his militia didn't really care who they were attacking, and there is ample evidence of widespread atrocities committed by the unit. With Wounded Knee, I suspect that the majority of the Seventh Cavalry (along with most of the officers who'd been with the regiment since 1876) really didn't care who they were attacking, either. At the Marias, Baker thought (or allowed himself to be persuaded by Cobell) that he was attacking the correct village when in fact he was not. He'd also encountered at least one smaller camp prior to Heavy Runner's and took them prisoner rather than killing them. Intothatdarkness 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering

My brief foray into the gender gap project has been almost surreal. On the one hand, I really identify with and support what you said there:

See? You just proved my point: Women don't support other women, but instead, when a woman stands up for herself against bullies, other women turn on us and tell us how we are to blame! 

But I'm unsure of what your take is on my experience there. I have spent a good part of my editing time defending myself from male editors, and one female (who has also joined the gender gap project). Now, rather than showing any signs of understanding, I'm being lectured or ignored by men and women there. Do you have any sympathy for this sister? If not, I'll just beg your pardon and move along. Btw: I enjoyed the poem. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm kind of feeling like it's a small alternative reality there. And when the porn guy joined to just bug you and be a troll, that was twilight zone. That said, it's happening all over the internet. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't feel like I'm going crazy - so much. Here is one of my favorite poems for you:

The Kookaburras, by Mary Oliver.

--Lightbreather (talk) 05:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the poem. And don't worry, you aren't going crazy, but the problem is usually more the character of various individuals than a male/female thing. It's big city and there are a lot of good people but also some real trolls and a few flat=out scary sorts. There are also a lot of decent people who just misunderstand one another and it escalates to more hostility. Montanabw^(talk) 06:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Help with photos

Hi Montanabw! Just want to apologize in advance, because I have no idea how to use this page- sorry!

I am an archival researcher, and am doing some research on the Montana State Hospital for a documentary movie. I am interested in the photos you've posted of the building here. Would you mind emailing me at susan.johnson@gmail.com so that I might follow up on this? I would be happy to use this Talk page, but it is so confusing!! Thanks so much, in advance- 71.161.192.107 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Susan Johnson

I'd feel a bit more comfortable if you could just click on the "Email this user" link to the left of the screen and send me an email with your questions. I'll get the email through the wikipedia system and then reply to you from there. The photos I uploaded to Wikimedia commons are free use with attribution (cc-3.0/GDFL license) so you can use them if you want. I think I uploaded all that I took that weren't total duds, though I did do some color adjustments on them...if you'd prefer the original (dark, gloomy) versions... Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response, Montanabw. Sigh... feeling like a moron... I really can't find the "email this user" link, even thought I am logged in now. Thanks for your patience. I would love to use one of your photos, however they're not high enough resolution. Do you happen to have the dark, gloomy originals? I'm happy to adjust color/exposure on them myself. The one I'm particularly interested in is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warm_Springs_State_Hospital_04.jpg, only because it has older cars in the photo.

Fyi, this is for a documentary on Robert "Evel" Knievel, who was from Butte, and apparently spent a day selling policies at the Montana State Hospital while he was a salesman for Combined Insurance. Was this hospital not sometimes known as "Deer Lodge" at the time? Thinking maybe you would know. I'm sorry I can't figure out how to email you– it's ridiculous. I guess, just let me know if you still have high resolution for that one shot, and maybe I'll figure it out :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subiej (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, "Deer Lodge" is the slang for the Montana State Prison, which is just outside of Deer Lodge, Montana, a town about 20-30 miles down the road from the state hospital. I'll go ahead and try to get you my original shot, though it was taken with a cheap camera and isn't all that great. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Corsican horse

Translation problem ? --Tsaag Valren (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See Corsican horse history and this discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 19:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

GAN

Hello Montanabw. I have a question: Why did you review the most recent GAN in Sports & Recreation? Wouldn't it be better to review an article that has been languishing in the queue for months not hours? I'm sure there is a valid reason. Cheers NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's about a horse and it was an article that was flagged in the updates for WikiProject Horse racing. Nothing more complicated than that. If there are any other horse articles languishing in the queue - which I HAVEN'T been involved with - I'd be glad to review something older. Montanabw^(talk) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Mustang

I understand that you just want the title to be left alone, but as someone who has not worked on horse articles (which is true for almost all of our readers), I have to say that Mustang horse is grating. It's not natural. Mustang (horse) makes much more sense. I get that there is a convention to use "(horse)" to disambiguate the names of particular individual horses, and that adding "horse" to the title is reasonable for many kinds because that's done in reliable sources, but does it make sense to force that convention onto cases where it's not natural? I mean, the disambiguator "horse" is itself ambiguous with "individual horse" and "horse kind"... why can't it be used for both? In the rare case where a given name might be used for a notable individual horse as well as a horse kind, we can use a more specific disambiguator for both. What's wrong with that? --В²C ☎ 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep it at the talk page, we've explained it endlessly there. But, as I stated there (now and last December) the consensus on this was reached years ago based first upon on the guidelines at WP:NATURAL. Natural disambiguation is actually preferred to parenthetical disambiguation: "... we use the alternative but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, mechanical fan and hand fan are preferable to fan (mechanical) and fan (implement)." Certainly we also might find "English people" a bit odd or grating, but if you remember your earliest days on wiki, and if they were at all like mine, parenthetical disambiguation is really really really weird-looking to the uninitiated! Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course we prefer natural titles, but how does that apply here? "English people" is natural - the phrase is commonly used in reliable sources. But "Mustang horse" is not natural - the phrase is not commonly used.

As weird looking as parenthetical disambiguation might be, we use it, including for disambiguating ambiguous names of individual horses. Why not use it for disambiguating ambiguous names of horse kinds when "horse-kind-name horse" is not natural? --В²C ☎ 18:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The best reason I can give you for that is because of project-wide consensus on articles about individual named humans. We don't title people articles "John Smith veterinarian" but rather John Smith (veterinarian)" Where possible, we might have "John A. Smith" and "John B. Smith", of course, even if no one ever calls them "John A" in real life. I really wish we could just drop this stick. Eight years ago when I started, the horse and pony articles were a mishmash of both types of titling. Over the years, we got them consistently titled. For one thing, many of the breeds are named Foo horse or (especially) Foo pony. To have some parenthetical dabs and others not would just make it even more confusing. Imagine the horror of "American Quarter (horse)". Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the use of Mustang by itself is something of a recent development. It's not uncommon in writing from the 1800s to see "mustang horse" or "mustang hoss" (depending on the writer). Mustang is, after all, an import word to the English language. And as a somewhat humorous/sarcastic policy comment aside, since when has things making sense or not being grating been any sort of requirement here? Intothatdarkness 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with Born2cycle Mlpearc (open channel) 19:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Intothatdarkness, when a title is grating, that means it's not natural, which is contrary to WP:CRITERIA. That it might have been common in the 1800s is not relevant to how we title articles today.

User:Montanabw, sorry, but your "best reason" is not very good. Yes, of course we use parenthetical disambiguation for individual humans. And it's a good idea to do so for individual horses. But that's not a good reason to not use it for horse kinds. In those cases, if natural disambiguation is, well, natural, then fine. Go au naturel! But if it's not natural, like "Mustang horse", then we should use parenthetic disambiguation, just like for any other ambiguous title that does not have a commonly used natural disambiguation. Just because we use parenthetic disambiguation for individual horses does not mean we should not use it for horse kinds, when appropriate. To not use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds because we use it for individual horses is simply a really bizarre and non-nonsensical rule. --В²C ☎ 20:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

All of that is, of course, your opinion as to what's grating and what isn't. It also falls into the great wiki-fallacy of wanting one magical standard to fit every situation and every eventuality. If consensus has gone against you, just let it go. That's usually the best route to take. Intothatdarkness 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And it won't be resolved on my talk page, either, most likely. Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No, but I wanted to make sure I understood your position: you are simply supporting the convention to not use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds, no matter what, because we use parenthetic disambiguation for individual horses. Right?

User:Intothatdarkness, isn't "Mustang horse" obviously grating? Or at least obviously inconsistent with usage in reliable sources? And I'm not the one applying any magic standard here. The magic (and bizarre IMHO) standard being applied here is, "don't use parenthetic disambiguation for horse kinds because we use it for individual horses". --В²C ☎ 23:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No B2C, you do not - you are oversimplifying and misunderstanding. No, "Mustang horse" is NOT obviously grating, it sounds perfectly fine to me and not in the least inconsistent with use in reliable sources. *(Did you even read what ITD said above?). It is a perfectly natural form of disambiguation and completely logical. I think parenthetical disambiguation is very odd-looking, but sometimes unavoidable (as in John Smith (veterinarian) ), I view it as a last resort. Now, please drop the stick, there is no sense arguing about this any further. Parenthetical disambigution - a wikipedia invention as far as I know -is a very strange thing to be fighting for here. Montanabw^(talk) 01:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Typical wiki-junk, if you ask me. Right up there with the whole DashGate crap. Intothatdarkness 15:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw: Indeed. This "Mustang horse is unnatural" business is simply an opinion based on someone's highly personal familiarity with the prhase. There are people who insist that "Manx cat" sounds "wrong" and it should just be "Manx", despite the fact that "Manx" mas other meanings, like "Manx people". There are those who feel that "German shepherd dog" [or capitalize all those if you like] is awkward and who would not use that phrase (I'm one of them, in day-to-day English!), but it's not only common, it's the formal name of the breed in most English-language registries and kennel clubs. "Mustang horse" only seems odds if you have trouble conceiving of a need to disambiguate. If someone in a cowboy hat says "I just washed my mustang", do they mean their horse or their car (you can't see capital letters in spoken language)?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, my hope and dream (the impossible dream, most likely) is that the matter is settled for now. I really have other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Xenia Field

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr.

Hi, Just letting you know that I’ve added a note to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr. I tried pinging you, but that doesn’t seem to work. Thanks  NQ  talk 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion or two

Hello M. I made a few fixes to your 3rr report to make the links work. I hope that is okay with you and I apologize if it isn't. If the IP doesn't get blocked and keeps making the same edit you might want to make a post on the talk page of the article in question about why the addition is inappropriate. That will help in any future situations. Also remember that you can file a RFPP if the IP persists. Now these are just suggestions and you do not have to act on them. I know I have seen another editor with this My Little Pony obsession but darned it I can remember who or when. Maybe the memory banks will come up with something. If so I will let you know. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is just a minor annoyance, but seriously, Bronies as a form of horse worship? i don't think so...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 02:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rare Breeds Survival Trust

Hi, I saw that you reverted all of my changes to the RBST article. I would like you to reconsider the revert:

• the list is now incorrect
• it is less wikilinked
• many of the links are incorrect
• three types of poultry are now not listed

If you have an issue with the lack of wikilinks for ducks, geese and turkeys, why did you not just revert the top edit which added those lists? Then the text at the top will also be relevant as there will only be chickens listed in the article. Kat (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You did a poor quality edit, I wouldn't have reverted if you hadn't screwed something up. I don't have the time to go through and correct everything, just try again and be more careful. Basically: DON'T remove wikilinks - or at least replace them if you redo something, DON'T remove citations unless you replace them with newer and better ones (formatted in the same way as the others in the existing article) - I can't even remember this particular edit,but I suspect you did one of those two errors, which is usually what prompts me to do a total revert. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not make either of those mistakes. Based on what you have said above, the edit was not of poor quality and the revert "screwed up" the page as it removed citations and removed wikilinks. It would have been useful if you had looked at the diff before reverting. I'm sorry that you couldn't help me figure out your thinking or decipher the summary which said the opposite of what you did. Kat (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone screwed up, I reverted what had been screwed up, if a bot or other edit came in about the same time as mine, sometimes things get tangled up in edit conflicts. But next time, take it to the talk page of the article, not here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)