User talk:Montanabw/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Montanabw. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

The holidays are almost here!!

^{Atsme📞📧} 22:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

	Merry Christmas!
	Have a safe Christmas! Horsegeek^(talk) 21:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Montanabw: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Montanabw!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Festive greetings!

A barnstar of deep recognition for all your efforts on Women in Red throughout the year. Enjoy the end of year festivities and prepare to put more women on the world map in 2017. --Ipigott (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from your favourite dinosaur as well. I hope you don't mind that I cleaned up the above as an act of kindness for anybody viewing the page with assistive technology. --RexxS (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


	Wishing you a very happy holiday season and a fulfilling 2017. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Montanabw!!
	Hi Montanabw, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

That's a mighty fine card, that is. Happy editing in 2017 - see you around Women in Red, surely? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy Festivus!

	Happy Festivus
	Air grievances, enjoy meatloaf (vegetarian or not) and challenge others in feats of strength! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the card!

Thanks for the nifty holiday card. Merry Christmas to you, too! Bob Cummings (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday greeting cards

If anyone didn't get a Holiday card from me and wants one, let me know, I didn't forget you on purpose, but I did hand out a lot of them, individually (and a few of you accidentally got two), so my confusion is understandable! Montanabw^(talk) 23:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Here We Come A-wassailing

Merry Christmas! Better not open the box! The Bishonen Conglomerate talk 00:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC).

Happy Holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	Hi, Montanabw! Have a happy and safe season, and a blessed new year! Holiday cheers, --Discographer (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas my new friend

Merry Christmas and many blessings, Santa loves horses too. Dawnleelynn (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hey Montana, thanks for the card, and I hope you have a great Christmas. All the best, SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Winter solstice holidays

Thank you for remembering me on Christmas. However cold and dark it may seem, the days just keep getting brighter this time of year. Here's hoping Christmas brings some warm California sunshine to the big sky country. Thewellman (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for a special editor

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For montanabw primarily for being an outstanding mentor since the first day I started editing. Patient, encouraging, smart, knows where to push. Without her welcome and guidance, my journey into Wikipedia would have been very different. The Wikipedia community is very lucky to have this woman. Dawnleelynn (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Seconded! Thanks montanabw. Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet another

Merry
Rexxmas

--RexxS (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2016

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Tito Dutta (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Tito Dutta (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for the nice card. Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Finetooth (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Gerard David, London) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

--Pine^✉ 23:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Holiday greetings

	Thank you for the well wishes. Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2017!
	TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Me too

looking forward to working with you in 2017 Victuallers (talk) 11:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Montanabw!

Happy New Year!

Montanabw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year 2017

Happy New Year!

Hello Montanabw: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy 2017!

Wishing good health and happiness as we start the new year! --Rosiestep (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

ldid=755019131 -->

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hi Montanabw - I hope you had a very merry holiday season. May your new year be happy and prosperous! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Montanabw!

Happy New Year!

Montanabw,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

preakness help

Thanks for the completion of the preakness GAN, I started school and had to focus on that rather than editing wikipedia haha. Disc Wheel (T + C) 20:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. Dang, those priorities! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 20:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, school's number 1! Anywho, I've been editing the 1973 Belmont Stakes page and was wondering if you could give it a quick look over and tell me anything you think may be lacking before I nominate for GA, do you think you could? In addition, I'm thinking of nominating the three triple crown races (and secretariat's page) as a good topic afterwards, do you think that would be a good idea? Happy New Year! Disc Wheel (T + C) 21:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Can we co-nom the topic? Montanabw^(talk) 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

New categories Bucking bulls list

Bucking bulls list

Talking about bucking bulls articles being fun that they are being worked on - some in existence being reworking and some new ones being created. I thought about this and decided to creat two new categories. So, there are 6 bucking bull articles that I know of in existence. Did you notice Category:Bucking bulls yet? And to get those all edited and expanded is my plan of action. And to finish the new articles Red Rock (bull) and its associated article Challenge of the Champions. And then add more - the Brand of Honor Bulls from 2011 to 2016 (Little Yellow Jacket is almost done. ** Forgot Chicken on a Chain needs expansion Dillinger (bull) and Bushwacker (bull) are created but basically stubs. The ProRodeo Hall of Fame bulls (if I can find enough doc for them). There are 7 of those. Red Rock is close to first draft being done. Skoal Pacific Bell is virtually done. *I forgot Bodacious-it's a stub that needs expanded too. And then there is the new category Category:Bull riders. There are 22 bull riders in that list but two are duplicates. Will work on them consecutively as I feel like it or not. They fall into all different wikiprojects. Oh also, there is the bull V-61, which is the first bull inducted into the new Bull Riding Hall of Fame just created in 2012 and first induction in 2015. Many of the bulls inducted into this hall of fame will be duplicates of other hall of fame bulls. And this new hall of fame needs an article. Which reminds me, you mentioned that we could self-evaluate an article's quality in Skoal Pacific Bell's talk page. I had seen that you had listed the article Professional Bull Riders: Heroes and Legends for a review here Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/Assessment. It doesn't look like this assessment page gets used much though? Anyway, I thought you could use the new category pages so you knew what articles I am planning to work on for improvement. As far as for creation, I'll have to let you know as I haven't decided what comes after the two I'm currently working on. Thanks so much for editing Pacific Bell; it looks great. I think we have done what we can with a topic that just doesn't have much source to work with. Dawnleelynn (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic! I am sure my talk page stalkers will also help. I'd suggest doing what they did with the Tennessee Walkers and start by making a list article (see List of World Grand Champion Tennessee Walking Horses), then spinning out the most significant ones as time allows. You might want to take a look at {{Infobox animal}} and {{Infobox named horse}} then talk with White Arabian Filly to see if we can do one for famous cattle (probably best to do both cows, steers and bulls... having infoboxes that have few uses usually means they wind up being nominated for deletion. RexxS might also be able to help with syntax. We've been talking about setting up a rodeo task force that would be "parented" by both WPEQ and probably WP FARM. Montanabw^(talk) 18:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I just fixed the two categories so they show up! Duh! I didn't know you need a colon in the link until now. You can see and click them now so more useful. Also, good suggestions! Also, we have an Infobox being used in Bodacious and I copied it to Little Yellow Jacket. I'm not sure who created it.Dawnleelynn (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all my apologies, I am fairly new with using Wikipedia for anything other than reading the articles. Having read the article on calf-roping I have noticed that a number of the references on the page link to dead ends with no available citation. Surely it is misleading and poor practice to have so many claims on that page without any working citations to back them up. I would also like to add that there is plenty of evidence published in reputable scientific journals on the topic of animal suffering in rodeo events, yet none of this is mentioned or cited. The article reads as being very biased in its current state. Could you fix this? I would love to fix it all up myself, and I am more than happy to, but I don't want to get banned if someone mistakenly believes that I am vandalizing the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.179.113 (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

222.152.179.113 (talk · contribs) Hi, thanks for your concern. montanabw will reply in time, sometimes she is very busy. But in the meantime, you could read these other two topics that also contain information on animal treatment. 1. animal treatment in rodeo and 2. rodeo. Also, I see your concern for dead links. Unfortunately, links that are working when an article is written or links that are added a many years ago can be prone to becoming dead links because a website pulls or archives the source. And it's hard to maintain all of these links in over 5 million articles. I have done my share of fixing them. They can sometimes be found in the Wayback Machine and linked from there. No one would ever have an issue with someone fixing dead links. Other times we have to keep them with the dead link code and let them be used to cite the source as permanent dead links. I work on the bull riding topics around here right now. montanabw has been the one who has responded to the animal care issues and she has been here a whole lot longer than I. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The animal treatment in rodeo article used to be really, really bad. It was written by a sockpuppet who wanted to make trouble and broke a lot of rules to do it. I know DrChrissy did some work there, but I'm not sure how good it is now. It was so bad at one point that I recommended TNT (blow it up and start over with a neutral base). White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Bovine Infobox

I can do the infobox, maybe name it Infobox Named Cattle/Bovine? I'll sandbox a draft and then let everybody suggest more things we can use that I won't think of! Ha ha. I agree, it's fun to start with lists and then create articles one at a time off them; I've been doing that on the TWH list for a while and plan to do every horse and person in it eventually. An hour later: It'll probably be tomorrow before I can do the infobox creation; got some Christmas shopping to do.😉🎁 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs) Regarding the user box, did you look at the one I mentioned in the conversation above? Does it not fit what we need or maybe serve as a starting template? Just a thought - not to start from scratch if the one that an editor of the bull Bodacious article did is a good one. :) I copied it and used in Little Yellow Jacket too. Brianhe, thanks, good stuff, I'm all for beefing up general bull related articles, just not until the new year comes, k? RexxS, thanks for the tip on links to categories, I obviously read the help page too quickly! I will put Bushwacker on the disambiguation page tomorrow for sure. Ok...busy day in real life for me. back soon! Dawnleelynn (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The infobox used on the current articles is OK, but if there's a need for more specific parameters similar to what we have in the horse one, I can definitely rework/improve. 😊 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs)I'm definitely open to new or improved infobox at any point as articles grow. There is a definite trend to keeping more information on the bulls as the sport grows and breeding becomes more industrialized, bulls are worth more, etc. You have bulls that are worth six figures now, not like the old days. Bushwacker made it to $1 million at the height of his career. I'm sure Julio Moreno who raised him and still owns him has detailed records on his breeding. He can trace his sire back to ProRodeo Hall of Fame bucking bull Oscar who was inducted in 1979. Dawnleelynn (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw (talk · contribs)Check this link User:Dawnleelynn/PlannedEditing out. I just took something I was using for myself and made it useful for others. It shows everything in my sights. The first 4 sections are the bulls. Of those, the first 3 sections are obvious to do as long as we can find enough doc-they are hall of fame bulls. The 4th section is the one where some deciding needs to be done, which I talked about before. Trying to figure out how I could translate this to a type of list like the Walking Horses. Did you mean to put all of the bulls in the list, including the hall of fame, or just the ones we need to decide on...? There are so many? Dawnleelynn (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll get up a rough draft so we can put in the bull's parents, maybe notable people who rode him, like Lane Frost and Red Rock, etc. For the list, maybe start with a list titled, "List of Bulls in the ProRodeo Hall of Fame" or something. You can copy the wikitext for the table from the Walker one (I think I stole it from the Kentucky Derby article when I wrote it) and then change the headers to whatever is appropriate. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just thinking a bit earlier that I should ping you WAF about this. I know how busy montanabw is and it is your list. So, making up a rough draft sounds great. A lot of times I can find the bull's parents on the breeding connection, just depends. That list of bulls in the ProRodeo Hall of Fame would be exactly 7 bulls, not many there. Then there are 6 in the PBR Brand of Honor. And 2 in the Bull Riding Hall of Fame. Just so you realize there really aren't that many. Plus, one is a duplicate in two halls. Total of 14 bulls in halls of fame. The rest would have to be decided from section 4 of that page I linked. And montanabw, you would find the list useful just to see what I am working on or intend to work on. Thanks for your help yet again WAF. :) Fixing typos! grrr and you are welcome Dawnleelynn (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox discussion moved to my page after this Dawnleelynn (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Literature

How about a basic article describing what a bucking bull is? That was a redlink until a moment ago, or you were directed to an Australian restaurant. Also, the term "rodeo" doesn't even appear in bull, sadly. - Brianhe (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

We should do more work on bull; there was a pretty good article improvement drive on that article maybe 5-6 years ago, but I think we could definitely add some more on the "jobs" that bulls can do -- rodeo is one of the few areas where bulls actually do some kind of work other than, um, reproductive duties. Some great opportunities for the cow tipping and cattle guard crowd to pitch in! Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Using the literature listed below, I've made the barest gloss and begun some text at Bucking bull. - Brianhe (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds nice Brianhe. I look forward to reading it! You know they call them animal athletes now in the PBR. It's also one of the fastest growing sports in the U.S. That can be good and bad. Participants besides cowboys may become interested if it gets big enough. They've already changed the bulls through breeding. Bulls are already stronger than they used to be. The PBR will change more than the PRCA. Or least it will change first. It's the one on television the most. I just read an article about bull breeding changing them, actually. Well, off to the next task. Those books sound interesting, btw. Dawnleelynn (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

A Star is Born to Buck: Animal celebrity and the marketing of professional rodeo by Susan Nance in Sport, Animals, and Society eds. James Gillett and Michelle Gilbert, Routledge
Stock contractors and animals in Ropes, Reins, and Rawhide: All about Rodeo by Melody Groves, UNM Press
The role of cattle in rodeo in Rodeo: An Anthropologist Looks at the Wild and the Tame by Elizabeth Atwood Lawrence, University of Chicago Press

Starting points in the literature, above. - Brianhe (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Article titles

Sorry, it's me again. I just noticed that those links put your talk page into the category so I made them hard links. If someone wants to show me the right way to do, thanks. Dawnleelynn (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I've created links to articles and potential articles, and I've linked to the categories - you put another colon before the word 'Category' if you want to avoid putting the page into the category but keep the link. I've added Dillinger the bull to Dillinger (disambiguation) and you might want to do the same for Bushwacker. I'll have a look at articles/lists as soon as you need me for anything. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

RexxS Bushwacker redirects to Bushwhacker. Then doing some more searches I finally found that it's actually on a disambiguation page for Bushwhacker. Both spellings of the word are on this page, which I found confusing but doesn't mean it's incorrect. Bushwhackers (disambiguation) The only way to get Bushwacker the bull to come up in the search results in Wikipedia is to search on "bushwacker bull". Any thoughts since you've been an editor longer than me? I've only been doing this since the beginning of October. Dawnleelynn (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: Yes, it is complicated. What probably ought to be done is to make Bushwacker a redirect to Bushwacker (bull) and add a {{Redirect}} hatnote on the article for other uses see the disambiguation page. Let me know if you want me to just do it. - Brianhe (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually on second thought we may want to have the bull article moved to Bushwacker using move over redirect procedure including the hatnote as above. - Brianhe (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I pinged both of you RexxS and Brianhe by mistake but Brianhe responded which is fine...sorry RexxS. Okay, so Briahe aren't there other Bushwacker articles? bushwacker (comics) and bushwacker (cocktail) for example? Shouldn't we have a disambiguation page for bushwacker and one for bushwhacker actually? Just thinking why does the bull article get bushwacker title over the others? Just a newbie thinking out loud... Dawnleelynn (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's reasonable, as it's quite possibly the principal use of that spelling. It's worth trying to see if anybody objects. If you do move the page to Bushwacker, you'll have to put a hatnote {{other|Bushwhackers (disambiguation)}} so people searching for other uses of "bushwacker" (or poor spellers) can get a link to what they want.

Currently, the bull can be found on a search on "bushwacker" or "bushwhacker" as the former presently redirects to the latter and the hatnote at the top of Bushwhacker leads to the disambiguation page Bushwhackers (disambiguation), where people can find the bull under the Sports section. Not ideal, but possible. --RexxS (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I trust you guys to do what's best and thank you for your help! :) Dawnleelynn (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Montanabw!

Happy New Year!

Montanabw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

I think we have not interacted if I recall correctly, but I have noted your prolific contributions and wish you a happy, productive and prosperous New Year. Donner60 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

GBE

FYI, I moved Montanabw/GBE to User:Montanabw/GBE; I'm guessing that's what you meant to do? Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I had a brain fart. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Question

Is there a law that protects people for "drunk texting"? ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The law of unintended consequences? ;) That said, "laws differ from state to state, for specific legal advice, please consult an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction." LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 00:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So if it occurred over the internet from one state in one country to an entirely different "state" in another country, are we subject to drunk texting international laws? 😇 And if not, who would one consult since it's multi-jurisdictional, as in world-wide? I don't do things on a small scale, not that I'm admitting to anything. 😂 j/k of course, but now that I've brought it up, it has aroused me...er uh, my curiosity. We must remain "encyclopedic", even on TP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As we like to say, this sounds like it would make a good law school exam question... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Behavioural genetics/GA1

Montanabw, your review of this GAN was responded to in late December; do you think you'll be able to get back to it soon? Thanks for whatever you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I will get back to it soon, yes! Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Help finding cited journal article Comment

Hi. I'm trying to track down a journal article that was cited in an edit that you made some time ago. The citation given is: Harrison JC, George QF, Cronk CC. Stereotypic behaviour in zoo animals. J Zoo Sc. 2001;1(23):71–86. I realize that this was a while ago, but would appreciate any suggestions or leads you may be able to provide. Thanks Quercusechinus (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is fixed now; it was not a citation I added, it was a citation that came in with an article merge in 2011. I did some digging and found the cite appeared to have been added sometime in 2007. But in any case, the proper citation was found and the article is fixed now, so other than sleuthing out its origins, there seems to be no trouble any longer. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Admin

It's a little while since your RfA and I wondered if you'd considered running again. Do you think you've addressed some/many/all the oppose arguments? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am considering running again, particularly in light of Ealdgyth's recent effort, which was very positive. I've intended to do so for a while; it's mostly a matter of carving out the time in real life and such. I would be interested in my talk page watchers' opinions here. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd support you. It would be particularly handy to have somebody around with the ability to put page protection on articles that are being vandalized like crazy. (Half the time when I try to post at RPP I get edit conflicts.) I think your biggest asset is that, like Ealdgyth, you have a lot of work on GAs and FAs. That's a big deal! White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd support you, especially if you comment on the FAC I'm getting nervous about, peace and joy (would love to see it 2 Feb, the date for which it was written) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You have my support too. - Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. Please poke me up when the time comes. Finetooth (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest one of these might be useful: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I echo Dweller's point - and you may want to consider carefully all the opposes in the last RfA. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that many of the opposes will never go away, no matter how long Montanabw waits, or how much she considers them. Many editors who have been active in controversial fields, or who habitually speak their minds, will have accumulated sufficient opponents who will come out of the woodwork to torpedo a good candidate as Rational Observer was allowed to do in Montanabw's previous RfA. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Montana, you and I have discussed this privately at some length. I think ORCP would certainly be a worthwhile test, even if you decide to continue to wait a while longer. The dust hasn't yet settled completely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. [1] Here's the rub, folks; I don't think the dust will ever settle completely! I have, over the years, attracted some fairly strong opponents. That won't change. Some people will think that I am a mean and terrible person who cannot be trusted with the tools. So, I guess, I'll open the floor to a discussion. I spent about a month after my last RfA making inquiries of various people whose views seemed well worth seeking out (this included several of the !opposes). I got some good feedback that I've been chewing on. I invite more. Montanabw^(talk) 17:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You have my support! --Rosiestep (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said last time, I have absolutely no idea why anyone would want to take charge in the asylum. Too much like parenting in my mind. But that being said, I totally trust you with the tools. It shouldn't be a matter of like or dislike (though I certainly fall into the first group); it should be a question of whether one can responsibly administer. One can certainly work with people one doesn't like and often, it adds a layer of perspective one wouldn't normally acquire. I have no doubt that you can fairly administrate and as an added plus, you actually understand what it takes to create content, which too few people in this crazy environment do. SusunW (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, here's my feedback:

Even if you say you only want admin tools to help with (1) revdel of BLP vios, (2) RFPP, and (3) the DYK queue, you'll still get opposition from those who disagree with your inclination as a normal editor to try to save articles about women wherever possible – as if that had any bearing on your fitness to be an admin. Expect exactly the same garbage from the likes of Kraxler, Davey2010 and Biblioworm. A considerable proportion of the previous opposes were based on that single, misguided meme. Have a think about how you'll deal with that.
You can expect people you've had content disagreements with, like LynnWysong to be just as disruptive as they were last time.
Similarly with supporters of Rational Observer, like Reyk. Although hopefully, he'll be too ashamed to show his face.
As someone who generally supports the concept that infoboxes tend to improve articles, you'll have opposes from anybody whose nose you've put out of joint because they don't like you disagreeing with their view, such as Follatin. They will inevitably frame that as "tag-team" supporting another editor, rather than supporting a principle, because much of the time, it's the same people who get involved, and it's an easy aspersion to cast.
You'll have Jedi-mind trick smears like "she calls other editors assholes", which although untrue, will cause many of the weaker-minded to vote oppose without checking and potentially wreck the RfA.

Not much to look forward to, I'm afraid – you can see why I've never allowed myself to submit to the same hazing. Nevertheless, you have some strong voices watching here, and perhaps they may be persuaded to examine the problems I foresee and perhaps look for ways that obviously qualified candidates like yourself can get a fair hearing at RfA. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I will support. We need strong, honest, straightforward admins and those who will wade into areas others won't. We need admins period, for that matter.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC))

I have no idea why you might want to expose yourself to such an ordeal again, but if you do accept nomination, you will have my full support. You and I have locked horns on a couple of occasions, but I think the fact that you and I are now on extremely good editing and talking terms is testament to the fact you are exactly of the nature we need in admins. Please ping me if if this moves ahead. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I expressed my views at ORCP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you do try again and fail I will know for sure that this place is in much worse shape than I thought. BTW Montana, would you take a look at the Women's March on Washington article and see if you think that it would make a good DYK article? I've asked the marvelous copy editor that I use to take a look at it, but I think it looks pretty good. It is so good for my morale, which gets pretty low at times, to know that there are smart women like you who are not afraid to speak out around this place. Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately you know most of the people who will vote for you, you know some of the people who will vote against you and there are the tragic few who just disrupt the process. As I said elsewhere, I think you're on a 60% chance, and that means it's probably just an opportunity for pricks to chat shit. Pardon my basic lingo. You would forever be a net positive for Wikipedia as an admin, I can't imagine a point where you'd delete Jimbo or whatever, but that's gone long by the wayside these days. If you do go for it, and if you would consider my support of any value (don't forget how much of a shamed Wikipedian I am these days) let me know, and I'll do my best to be my Russia for your Trump. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you'll be fine. I'm not really sure why your talk page is on my watchlist (a good sign!) but it is and so I took a look at your previous RfA. I'd be surprised if you didn't make it through this time. RO is gone. Several of the oppose !voters are gone. Enough time has gone by to weaken that particular !vote reason. RfA itself, other things being equal, appears to be seeing many more people popping in (which usually translates to more votes on the support column). All this prepolling stuff doesn't help anyway because most editors who vote don't necessarily see your talk page or the straw poll page. Just go for it. --regentspark (comment) 23:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Nothing ventured, nothing gained". I certainly think you should give it another try. Make sure you let me know when it come's up for discussion.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified! You personify an administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

You can count on my support. You are a thoughtful editor, deliberately kind in manner and I believe you will be a fine administrator as well.--John Cline (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Horse trainer article follow up

Hi, Montanabw! Thanks for your feedback on the Horse trainer article. I understand where you are coming from. I added some comments a few days ago and wanted to get yours and WAFs thoughts on some article sections moving forward. I'd like to leverage some of the research I did for this article, in a couple of others. The details are all in the comments. It would help me to hear your thoughts before delving back in, so that my efforts are better focused and more likely to be what is needed. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks much, Curdigirl Curdigirl (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Update - found your response and again, thanks! Sounds like we have a working plan. I'll leverage some of that content for some list articles and the Randall's & Tom Smith. I'll check in periodically, so we stay on the same page. That was a good lesson; it will help me think about the best approach going forward. Thanks!

Curdigirl (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Curdigirl

Montana Silversmiths

Saw that they didn't have an article and just had to do a quick creation. Feel free to expand, and particularly add categories because I couldn't find any that fit. I didn't know they made all the NFR buckles, but I love their jewelry. (I'm seriously going to order this when it's back in stock! Ha ha) White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a peek. Thanks for the heads up! Montanabw^(talk) 00:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

They do PBR buckles too. Also, I like this one they did for Bodacious.

Whose Knowledge? News - February 2017

Thanks for all of your support for Whose Knowledge? so far! Get ready, we're going to need lots of your help in 2017 :)

What's new in 2017:

1. Volunteers needed

As Whose Knowledge? grows, there are lots of things to do! Can you help?

Are you good with data entry, categories, mailing lists or social media? We especially need people to help with organizing knowledge for Dalit History Month, and building out our communications (including this monthly newsletter!) right now!
If you're interested in volunteering for these or any other projects, please signup here

2. Pilot projects

Building partnerships and testing our approach with marginalized communities.

Dalit History Month: We're working with Equality Labs to support Dalit communities in South Asia and the United States to map knowledge and create Wikipedia content. Dalit History Month edit-a-thons are coming in April!
Women's Human Rights Defenders: In partnership with Urgent Action Fund, we'll be supporting a group of women's human rights defenders around the world with more mapping and wiki content creation. Themes and geographies coming soon!
Kumeyaay Wikipedia Initiative: Following the 2016 Indigenous People's Day edit-a-thon, we're continuing to work with members of the Kumeyaay tribe in Southern California and Baja to map and contribute indigenous knowledge to Wikimedia projects. A discussion day with Kumeyaay community in San Diego is being planned for May. (and Montanabw, I'm going to come back to you about this in particular a bit later!)

3. Funding

We've got financial support for 2017!

WMF grant: 6-month funding (February-July 2017) was approved to pilot our approach to mapping knowledge and creating Wikipedia content with the Dalit community and global women's human rights defenders. Thanks for all your endorsements!
Shuttleworth Fellowship: Anasuya is a Shuttleworth Fellow! This means we'll be able to spend more time organizing, and have support for convenings, campaign infrastructure, etc.

4. Wikimedia Strategy

Find us at Wikimedia Conference.

Anasuya and Siko will be carrying the Whose Knowledge? vision of diversity, pluralism and representation of marginalized communities into movement strategy conversations in Berlin March 2017.
What's your vision for the Wikimedia movement? If you have a perspective that you'd like us to help represent in Berlin, please reach out and let us know!

In solidarity,

Siko (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

followthemoney.org

Interesting organization you have there in Helena. I just added a link to them on Follow the Money (disambiguation) and uploaded their logo to the infobox. Wondering whether you've ever heard of them? wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Wbm1058, thanks for the note. Oh yes, I've heard of them, I actually worked for them one summer between my first and second year of law school, which was over 15 years ago, but I suppose that does give me a conflict -- What's your take on my COI if it comes to editing the article? I enjoyed working there, I did research on state supreme court elections, it was truly fascinating work -- a lot of research of public records databases -- hmmm, maybe that's why I like editing WP so much -- guess I enjoy research ...! Montanabw^(talk) 23:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't have a problem with your editing the article, but if you want to be conservative about it to avoid any potential objections from the WP:COI patrol, put a {{Request edit}} on the talk page, I'd be happy to help out. A difficult topic to stay neutral about perhaps. How many people are truly neutral about Citizens United, I'd guess not many, at least among those who understand what it's about. wbm1058 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea that Project Vote Smart was in Montana too! Was in MT. Hormonal torrent that is the young... lol. I've actually heard of that organization, and never would have guessed that they operated from a ranch in the middle of nowhere. wbm1058 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Phillipsburg is kind of the middle of nowhere, but it's pretty. We have places more middle of nowhere than there that aren't nearly as appealing (*cough* Jordan, Montana, *cough*). Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for help using a magazine citation

This one is open to any of montanabw's help page stalkers. :) On the article Bushwacker, I used an article from a magazine American Bucking Bull. I used one of the citation templates you can pull down from inside the editing box and it's there with all the references. It's #3. However, I noticed while I was looking at Secretariat that the hardcopy books were listed in a separate section named "Sources." So now I am wondering if I used the right template and if I put it in the right place. Can any one assist me? It would be much appreciated. Article title: A Tale of Two Champions: Kent Cox and Bushwacker. Issue: Nov/Dec 2011. Magazine: American Bucking Bull. Publisher: USBBA. Author: Keith Ryan Cartwright (I know it's misspelled in the article). dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

We used shortened format (SFN) for some of the articles. It doesn't really matter, you can mix both. Someone will change it if it really bugs them. I personally prefer SFN for books and scientific papers only. If you want to see an example where 99.9% of the citations were done with SFN, look at Blue Hills (Washington). Matter of taste which to use. - Brianhe (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Brianhe (talk · contribs)You are always so quick to respond and be helpful! I think I will leave it as is. Like you said, someone can change it if it bugs them. I am fine with someone changing it. But it seems strange to move it to a Source subsection for just 1 entry. So, if that bugs someone as well, they can move it. Unless you feel strongly I should move it and then I will. Thanks again and sorry on the delayed response. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Behavioural genetics

Replied at article

Didn't you see my comment on the talk page? No way that an unbalanced article like this is GA. 4 lines on animal research which represents at least half of all research on behavior genetics is absolutely insufficient. Just look at the tables of contents of the major journals in the field (Behavior Genetics (journal) and Genes, Brain and Behavior). Even the part on humans is not really balanced. From the article it seems like quantitative genetics is the major approach, even for psychiatric disorders. This is incorrect. While it is true for BG research on normal human behavior, there's a huge amount of research on the genetics of psychiatric disorders that doesn't even mention heritabilities (see the contents of journals like Molecular Psychiatry or American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics). Sorry to be so negative. I do appreciate all the work that has been done and the article is better than it was before. It's just not representative of the field, neither past nor present. --Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Replying at article talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 10:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Women's History Month

Hello! I was going to organize a local meet-up focused on Women's History Month. Unfortunately I broke my leg and ankle. It is going to be quite a while before I can do much. I'll probably still look at doing something this summer. Just wanted to let you know why I haven't progressed on this, so you weren't feeling left out. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

RfA

FYI. I would support you for RfA. I didn't notice the survey until after it closed. I'm not into Crystal balls, so am not going to speculate on other what other people would do. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Bull Riding Hall of Fame notability and AfD

Hi, just thought I'd write a quick note as this is my fourth article now, but my first article that has been recommended for speedy deletion. It's recommended for AfD due to notabilty, even though we did all that notability work before taking it live. I'm grateful to you for your help on getting the article ready for mainspace. Now I'll do what it talks to keep the article alive. Forward ho! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Luckily, it wasn't your article that was speedied, it was one someone else started about a month ago. Yours is fine. Hugs! Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought we should at least have some discussion about it, but how weird that it happened right after we went live, that this past editor had another article with the same name! LOL! You are the best staying calm while I panicked...Hugs back! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Page stalkers alert

Latest wiki-drama is here: Talk:Equine-assisted_therapy#Status_Quo_Ante. Issue is, basically, this. Issues involve interpretation and use of WP:MEDRS sources (Newbies, don’t go here, MEDRS and pseudoscience debates are pretty intense). Be interested in some viewpoints of experienced wikipedians who are not up to their ears in the article. Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Just in case you weren't aware. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Why thank you, Kingofaces43 now, please apply that to yourself as well. Montanabw^(talk) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

animal welfare or vandalism on calf roping again

porcine.pig is back making edits to calf roping again. Rodeo may be next. Animal welfare or vandalism? Only you can tell...You reverted last time. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source, and an isolated incident should not be generalized to an entire sport (see WP:SYNTH). The study out of Australia was legit, though, so I put in a summary of it, see what you think. Montanabw^(talk) 01:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Calf roping. Looks like WP:ADVOCACY which is not allowed, whatever their intention. Anybody else is more than welcome to chime in on their opinion (pro or con). - Brianhe (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianhe. I think the editor in question passed the 4 day mark, so it may not help, but we shall see. Maybe a talkpage warning, today seems to be the day for those. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 02:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Brianhe, you verbalized something that had been bothering me about these "animal welfare" content editors for awhile now - but could not put my finger on. Just like on social media, they are all about advocating. They are not here on WP to add content for an Encyclopedia. I have had plenty of contact with them on social media and have seen enough of their advocacy there to know how they work. WP is just one more place to them where they can get their views online. They don't have NPOV. There are lots of issues surrounding animal activities - who's to say which are included or not - and they can't all be included. We are just here to describe the activity itself in the article. That's my thought. Thanks for chiming in. dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of essays about this topic. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is one. Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE could also apply. Brianhe (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL Yes, stick to the facts. :) dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I know that this issue is hopefully over for now, but I'm just going to chime in. Dawn, you hit the nail right on the head when you said that those type of editors are POV oriented and want only to advocate. Facebook is fine for that, but I agree with you that WP isn't the place for that kind of stuff, and well...I've seen just enough faked stuff on YouTube I wouldn't consider it reliable either. I'll admit I'm not a fan of these large national SPCAs and that kind of thing because most of them are getting more and more radical and PETA-like--they care more about protesting and trying to get laws that don't really improve anything passed than actually rescuing animals that need it. HSUS is a lobbying group that doesn't run a single animal shelter and they're now one of the biggest anti-rodeo groups (also one of my least favorite bunches of people on the planet for their anti-agriculture/hunting stance...some guy on Huffington post wrote a not so complimentary article about them a while back, it's well worth looking up.) Anyway, I think if there's a legit problem with something, we include it in the article, but we don't do the whole bunny-hugger "this is TORTURE save the cute whatever!" White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I always invite people to click the "about magic unicorns" tab,at the top of this page ;-) . Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I’m OK enough with HSUS, they are a lot less crazy than PETA, and good on some issues, but I wish they’d change their name to clarify that they are a lobbying group, not an association of shelters. Ironically, PETA does have shelters — and euthanizes a lot of animals; they say it’s because they take in the most-abused animals and many cannot be saved, but I don’t know how many pinocchios would be awarded by Politifact for that statement. Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's true that HSUS doesn't contribute much to shelters. This group https://www.humanewatch.org/ claims it is about 1%. If you want your money to go to shelters, you are better off contributing directly to the shelters or to the SPCA in your area, not the ASPCA or HSUS. And yes, I have seen the evidence about Peta's shelter activities from 2015. I think they are cleaning that up actually since government authorities in Virginia threatened to shut down their so called shelters. Cited that shelters actually keep animals on their premises and adopt them out. But again, I don't have any evidence other than what is on their social media sites. WAF, yes I have seen the advocacy from AR on YouTube. I especially enjoyed "Rodeo Bulls are Gentle Giants" by SHARK video. This is a good thing to teach children, NOT. I also enjoyed their one web page story version of what happened to Bodacious on their web site. They knew him better than his owners! LOL. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah! But now we see the beauty of Wikipedia's insistence on verifiability and determining reliable sources. Humanewatch is an industry front. It is run by the Center for Organizational Research and Education, which “lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries. So, rather like the Daily Mail, it is not a reliable source. The group is run by Richard Berman, who “is hired by companies to attack consumer, safety and environmental groups.” So, you see, you have to watch your sources! Bettter sources are those without this level of an agenda. IF you look up HSUS and Humanewatch both on Guidestar, you see that HSUS is a “silver” rated charity and you can access their IRS form 990 with a free login. Humanewatch via CORE provides no info to Guidestar, but you can still access their 990 (I think, I didn’t get a login, I would if I was going to be editing a lot of articles on non-profits). The two organizations have had a long-standing conflict: [2] HSUS is very good on issues like puppy mills and they have been diligent on the soring issue. (PETA is not involved to a large extent on either). Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Didn't do my homework. I should know better after finding out that petakillsanimals.com turned out to be agricultural interests behind the scenes. Sigh. Note to Self: Don't take these orgs at face value. Thanks guys. dawnleelynn^(talk) 01:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Draft article Glossary of rodeo terms

To everyone that works in the WikiProject Equine with montanabw (or anyone that just has useful feedback too). I happened upon the Glossary of equestrian terms. I found it to be extremely helpful and pleasantly formatted. I suggested to montanabw that we do one for bull riding, or even for rodeo. She liked the idea of doing one for rodeo. So I created a draft article in my User space, Glossary of rodeo terms. I was able to find a few terms in the same online references as the equine article. But now I am only seeing many of the terms I want to define in the Dictionary at www.pbr.com, which is The Professional Bull Riders web site. What I don't know is if it would be the same as using terms from Merriam-Webster if we were to use the PBR's terms with credit. I need some help making sure I don't violate any copyright. Also, I'd like to make the article live so that anyone in the three WikiProjects (2 agriculture and 1 equine) could start using it to add words (or improve). I'm not sure if there are any horse articles that involve rodeo? Anyone is welcome to edit the article in my Sandbox. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is almost all copyright violation (whew, false alarm but good lesson

Hi, I was working on this article today. I had found some more honors for Jim Shoulders while I was working on a notable bull article, a bull he had owned so there was overlap. I created the bull article here in my User pages: Tornado (bull) yesterday. One of the sources I found for Tornado contained text that seemed familiar for the honors. So I started comparing the honors in the source to the previous honors before I had started changing them. Word for word match. But then I noticed that more was similar. Practically the entire article is a word for word copy of this new source I found. The source is not a reference in the Jim Shoulders article, but there sure is a lot of it in the article. Word for word pretty much. I'd like someone else to take a look and verify and then let me know what I'm supposed to do next. If you go back to the 09:30, 18 January 2017 version of the article, you'll see the honors show how they were before I did any editing of them. That's where they will look the same as the source. I haven't even used the source in Tornado yet. This is the source: https://alchetron.com/Jim-Shoulders-1041129-W dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations are very serious and you should take a look at WP:COPY and WP:COPYVIO when you get the time. However in this case, the source you are looking at is a mirror of our article - you can see the attribution to "Jim Shoulders Wikipedia" (linked) and "CC-BY-SA" at the bottom of the page. So our article came first and there's no copvio {phew!}. The only thing you need to be aware of is not to use that article as a source for anything in Wikipedia - it's called "citogenesis" and there's an amusing XKCD comic] about it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

RexxS (talk · contribs) Thanks for your quick reply. Yes, I did find it amazing that it could still be word for word with so many different users having touched it since creation. I have seen article text being siphoned into other sites before but in an obvious way. This site had the look of a real site using so many pictures and a video in between paragraphs that it didn't occur to me it could be a mirror. And I did overlook the attributions at the bottom. But you can bet that will never happen again. Fortunately, I did notice the similarity so I didn't end up using the source for Tornado. Whew! Well, it wouldn't have been the same words, but still. And yes, that bit about citogenesis is important. I am always so careful that I cite everything I add. But what I write is only as accurate as my source. And cute comic, by the way. Nice sense of humor. I appreciate your help, truly. Glad it turned out to be a false alarm. I should have paid more attention, this was not a news site...grrr. hehe. Cheers to you too! dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Just saying hi

I hope you've been well and are having a good new year. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

About 2017 Kentucky Derby - could you possibly look into this?

Hi MBW.
This page was at one point nominated for speedy deletion.
At present, I can find only betting websites about this, little that could verify which horses will race, and so on.
Pete "my iron horse is actually made of Aluminum" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit premature to start it as at this point we only know the date. There is lots of stuff out there on bloodhorse.com, drf.com etc but its pretty much all speculation with two months and all the major preps to go. If don't want to delete, could link to the article on the 2017 Road to the Kentucky Derby and maybe a brief discussion of leading contenders. Steve Haskins Derby Dozen articles at the bloodhorse could also serve as a source for early favorites. Or delete for now and wait until April to create, when things start to firm up.

Also, should copy the top and bottom sections from the 2016 Kentucky Derby article, with dates updated but all details left out. Jlvsclrk (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh FFS! Calling all page stalkers to dive in here, I'm overbooked at the moment. Just look at the early versions of 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, and so on, copy, paste, repeat. Upload the logo from https://www.kentuckyderby.com once they release it and @Brudder Andrusha:, Stevietheman for help. The race has only been run annually since 1876. Good lord, speedied LESS THAN ONE MINUTE AFTER CREATION? Also pinging Kudpung for advice on how to deal with people who put up bogus speedies with completely inadequate WP:BEFORE. Worst case of “I’ve never heard of it so it must not be notable” that I’ve ever seen! **headdesk** ARGH! Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't panic! (sounds familiar). The Cavalry is on its way. The request for more context and sources was reasonable, so I've obliged, albeit minimally for now. Be gentle with that desk. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, my head is hard enough that I'd probably crack formica, LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Man o' War at 100

Anyone else interested in upgrading Man o' War for his 100th anniversary? Starting to see some good articles to use as source material. Jlvsclrk (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.@Jlvsclrk:: Have you also posted at WT:EQUINE and WP:Horse racing? Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Tapit color

Can you check the recent edit made on Tapit in the background section on his color. It doesn't seem right to me and I've certainly never seen anything asserting he has a chestnut base coat and he doesn't have a lot of chestnut ancestors, but then I've never studied up on the genes at work. Thanks Jlvsclrk (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The source—Paulick Report— says he carries “e” (the “red” gene that creates chestnut) and implies that he does not carry "E" (which, with the Agouti gene would give him a bay base coat). It would be interesting to see a baby photo of him to know what color he was at birth. Even by his yearling sale at Keeneland he had grayed out. Remember that his half-brother Lucky Pulpit was a chestnut with two bay parents. Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. It thrills me to think Pulpit's chestnut gene may very well be from Secretariat. (Seattle Slew never sired a chestnut but A.P. Indy did so that gene must have come from Weekend Surprise.) I'm goofy that way. Jlvsclrk (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC) (Yeah, I know. Recessive gene, could come from anywhere.)

Or Raise a Native, maybe. When I was a baby Wikipedian, I worked on most of the coat color articles and learned a lot in the process about how color inheritance works. But short version is that either Ee or ee can throw a chestnut (the Agouti gene that creates bay is irrelevant in chestnut horses as it only affects black) , the extreme cases are in the Friesian horses, where they have been breeding for black for generations, but every now and then, there’s an Ee lurking in there and if they breed two of them, voila! A chestnut from two blacks. OK, sorry. I’m geeking out on color genetics. But I find the topic fascinating. My original interest stemmed from a study of genetic diseases (I once owned a mare with cerebellar abiotrophy then I owned a little black filly for awhile who came with her own little certificate from UC Davis showing that she was really black and not just dark bay, which got me interested in figuring out how it all worked… Montanabw^(talk) 07:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert of Interwiki-link

Hey! Just thought I'd stop by because you reverted my edit in Airs above the ground here. Since I was about to do more work in that field (in the German wikipedia, we have a lot of articles about the different jumps and Wikidata-concerning, it's all pretty entangled...), I just wanted to know whether it was simply not appreciated to link to sections in articles here. Sadly, you cannot connect those items via Wikidata because they have a primary article they are linked to (in this case, "Dressage") and one cannot be connected to more than one Wikidata item. However, I, personally, do nnot think you should abandon such sections just because they do not have an own article (different Wikis have different syntax) - that's why I pasted that Interwiki link there (now, you will see, it is gone). Again, I really don't mind, just would like to settle this for future edits! All the best, --Fallen Sheep (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing can explain why we don't do interwiki links in the individual articles any more, it's a tech thing too complicated for me to explain. But if you and he can figure out how to do what you are discussing, more power to you. Montanabw^(talk) 09:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Until that is sorted out, I will refrain from such edits. --Fallen Sheep (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Even though manual interlanguage links are deprecated in favour of automatically generated ones, we actually do make the inter-wiki links manually when Wikidata doesn't have the corresponding article linked, and the software can't create the interlanguage link automatically. In those cases, as long as you're sure that the link points to a good target on the foreign wiki, there's no good reason not to manually add it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS:Ahh, thank you! That's what I thought, too - maybe you could take a quick look at the link I've posted, just want to have mutual consent before putting it back in. Trying not to step on anyones toes here :) Fallen Sheep (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fallen Sheep: I think you'll find the link has already been restored by a third editor, so you may assume there's some consensus for it. To be honest, as long as the link isn't blocking a genuine Wikidata-derived interlanguage link, and it's not completely inappropriate, it doesn't do any harm and can be useful. In other words, my advice is not to bother erring on the side of caution in these cases. But we all appreciate the collegial manner in which you've approached the issue. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Congrats

Great article for the blog! (You know what I'm talking about.) - Tim1965 (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

My personal COI up the wazoo article improvement drive -- anyone interested?

In the past year, two people who each encouraged me to go to law school have passed away, one just this past weekend. One has a wikipedia article, the other does not (but should — pinging KingJeff1970 for the kickstart because he has access to offline source material) and if anyone wants to work on these biographies, it would be interesting for the editor and I’d be glad to pop by talk if I think anyone is going in the wrong direction. One was a “known” Republican before taking the bench, the other a “known” Democrat. They are former Montana Supreme Court chief justice Karla M. Gray and former associate justice William E. Hunt. (see also List of Justices of the Montana Supreme Court) To some extent, they were political adversaries of each other, but both mentors to me for whom I had great respect. My COI disclosure is that I knew both of them personally in a “we’d have coffee or lunch once in a while and I’d listen to their advice” way. I was not an employee of either of them, though Judge Hunt was one of my customers when I had a computer repair business — I used to fix his Mac. Both will have plenty of Google-able material and online obituaries. I also wrote a blog piece on Hunt when he passed, if someone wants to email me for the link — it’s not a RS, of course, but I linked the piece to some RS, like a good editor should! Montanabw^(talk) 18:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your wish is my command: William E. Hunt. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Request assistance with table formatting

Hi all, I have three tables in this article Bull Riding Hall of Fame which just went live this week. I noticed that the first table developed an extra, empty column. And the second two tables had extra, empty rows at the bottom. When I used the Visual Editor to correct this, well it looked right. But I forgot to use Preview before saving. At any rate, now the columns are all misaligned and the extra column is still there in the first table. I am not having any success in trying to correct this. But I haven't done much work with tables yet. I actually copied the first table from another article Country Music Hall of Fame and used it for my purposes.

Also, in the article Bushwacker, I copied a table on pedigree that I liked in montanabw's article California Chrome. But, of course, now using it for a bull. Naturally, they haven't been keeping track of bucking bull pedigrees as long as horses. They are now, but Bushwacker's pedigree does not fill out the table nearly as well as California Chrome. And the last column only has one entry, and the cells are very smooshed. Is there anything I can do to make the table look better, or would it be better not to use the table in this case? dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the empty column. The only way to guarantee that columns line up is to consolidate the information into one table. I've done that as an example for you, and the way it's presented there is the most accessible (and could also be sortable if required). However, if you really, really, wanted to separate out the years with pseudo-headers, I could re-do the table for you with the year as a row spanning all of the columns, and not as an extra cell in each row. That would be less accessible and wouldn't be sortable, but that's up to you.

In Bushwhacker, I've un-smooshed the cells by simply putting a non-breaking space in each of the empty ones. If you leave a table cell empty, the browser sees that as an excuse to make the cell as small as it can, hence the smooshing.

Whatever you don't like, feel free to revert, you won't offend me. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

RexxS (talk · contribs) Hi, first of all, thanks for your help. I probably would have spent too much time on it myself. I've done plenty with tables in Word and HTML, but this table just wouldn't let me select that column. I got the table from List of Country Music Hall of Fame inductees not the article above I mentioned actually. Their tables are all separate and stay lined up, so I thought that would be okay. The one thing I liked about separate table was as the article grows longer with each year of inductions, there would be an entry in the TOC to click. Otherwise, one table or many shouldn't matter as much. And it did cross my mind about putting in headers for each year, but like you said then you can't sort. I've run into that issue in MS Word too. Since montanabw did much work on this article too, I tempted to see what she thinks first. And just digest it for a bit. So, again, I am most grateful. Bushwacker looks awesome, and now I know how to fix this issue myself the next I use the table for a similar pedigree. Will post here if we make a change that you might interesting. Have a great day! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw (talk · contribs) Hi, now that you are around again and have had some time to settle in, can you weigh in on this topic and give me your opinion on what table format you think would work best for this article? Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

A different kind of rustling

Hi Montana, it's me with a new username. You might be interested in this: Bee rustling. - Bri (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Bal a Bali - notable enough?

I'm a bit vague on notability when it comes to horses that don't come from one of the main racing nations. Case in point is Bal a Bali. He won the Brazilian Triple Crown, shipped to the US, came down with laminitis, survived but didn't run particularly well for a long time. set to retire to calumet, but trainer said he was doing too well so they kept him going and he finally earned his first G1 on Saturday. Notable? Or should I wait to see if he follows up? Jlvsclrk (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I think he passes. See

Notability for people involved in sport horse disciplines other than horse racing are covered at WP:NEQUESTRIAN or WP:NRODEO For expanded notability guidelines to assist in applying GNG for all horse racing-related subjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing/Notability. Essentially, Brazil is a pretty major nation for South American horse racing (though I think Argentina is an even bigger deal) and if he won the equivalent of a G1 race both here and there, I’d say he fits. Montanabw^(talk) 22:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Mustang

Hey Montanabw--search for "more than half of all mustangs" and you'll see why that edit was made. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies, it was all the other stuff that needed the big undo. I think I got it fixed now Montanabw^(talk) 23:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Gallery

What's the difference between a "gallery" and "a series of illustrative images" as you called it, and why should one have a section header and not the other?★Trekker (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

"Galleries" tend to be discouraged, as most are random collections of images, the separate section is used only for articles such as those about artists. Where you have a simple four-image sequence, that is not a gallery. It is also unnecessary to have a header that says “gallery” for such a short article. Montanabw^(talk) 16:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the guidance in our manual of style insists that "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." From that, it follows that an illustrative sequence of images – for example, illustrating a horse's gait – is a benefit to the understanding of an article, while a series of images showing scenery, for example, is much more likely to be mainly decorative. Either of them may be implemented as a gallery or as a {{multiple image}}, etc. but a series of images that do not relate directly to enhancing a point made in the article is much better rendered as a Commons gallery, and then linked using a template like Template:Commons or Template:Commons-inline. There's good advice at Wikipedia:Image use policy #Image galleries.

I should add that section headers are particularly useful for visually impaired visitors using a screen reader, as it allows them to jump directly to the section they want in a long article. It's obviously less useful in a very short article. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

New project for page stalkers?

My personal nominee for article improvement is 4-H. I just removed a massive list of famous people who were 4-H members that, arguably, could become a list article. There are also way too many images and the article is disorganized. It’s a good topic for WP to do a better job on. Anyone interested? (pinging Bri ) Montanabw^(talk) 23:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Done Yes, too many images and probably too many ELs as well. I ~~will take~~ took a whack at it tonight. - Bri (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

A different question

A week or two back at the Teahouse, I answered a question about whether Green Harbor Entrance Light was GA-ready by leaving some comments on its talk page. The editor who asked the initial question then asked me to do the GA review. I figured I could, since I've never edited that topic before and the comments were like informal peer review. Here's the problem: as far as I can see, the article meets the criteria now, but a while ago the same editor who requested the GA review added a bunch of copyrighted material, which got revdelled by an admin (they are fairly new, about 600 edits). I commented on that in the review, but I'm not sure whether to pass the article or not. I'm going to run Earwig on it to make sure it's copyvio free, but I don't want to pass anything that's going to be a problem. Any thoughts? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You evaluate the article as it is now. If it comes up clean for copyvio, and you might want to spotcheck anything on earwig that is over maybe 30 percent for too-close paraphrasing, given the past problem just to be sure. If you are really worried, ping RexxS or Diannaa for advice (they stalk this page). I asked for second opinions on my first couple of GAs, just to be sure. Montanabw^(talk) 01:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Questions

What are the rules concerning screen captures? I was going to do an article on actor Jacques Aubuchon. An image to put in the article would be helpful.

An editor removed the image in Bruce Nickells, the one of him driving Fast Clip. Was that right?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The fair use guidelines and policies are pretty strict. You can find the section covering screen capture at WP:NFCI. - Bri (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The folks at Commons are super-anal about copyright. Sometimes you can demonstrate prior publication of something and get it in as PD-copyright not renewed if you can prove publication before (I think) 1978. Wehwalt is the expert… I’m pinging him. You might need to do the Nickells image as a Fair Use image. See how I did that with two Ansel Adams photos at Russell and Sigurd Varian. Montanabw^(talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons shouldn't enter into it; fair use images must be uploaded only to Wikipedia. Commons doesn't host fair use. - Bri (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's got a Fair Use rationale. (We did exactly the same thing with a photo of Turcotte on Secretariat at Secretariat) I restored the image in the Nickells article, it looks like everything is in place. If you have further problems, ask the editor their reasoning at the article talk page per WP:BRD and ping me with the link. Montanabw^(talk) 01:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain the situation to me?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Short version is that I think it’s settled with a fair use rationale, but is the image in Bruce Nickells OK as a Fair Use? I was wondering out loud if it is old enough to be PD-copyright not renewed but I don’t know if it had been published, so that part is more of a theoretical. Montanabw^(talk) 07:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not old enough for copyright not renewed, but it may be copyright no notice (pre 1978). I'm a bit dubious though. Although images published in a work that is not copyrighted (pre-1978) are often copyright no notice, this may be a copyrighted photo used under license. This looks to be some sort of image taken at the track, and they may have had to get permission to use it. Generally, photos of someone still alive are not considered fair use as "replaceable" but in situations like this with the guy 88, the discussions go back and forth and I'm not sure what the state of play is at present.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You are partly to blame!

Quite some time back at my request you left comments at Talk:Blue nuthatch. One of them stopped me in my tracks. I had always struggled with the fact there was nowhere to link to for so many technical terms in bird articles. Your comment about "upper parts", that was the point at which I decided to do something about it. So I've written glossary of bird terms (a massive effort, and the article I'm most proud of writing to date), which I would not have started, or at the very least, not when I did, if you hadn't of given me that inadvertent sparking nudge. So thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that's gorgeous. Congratulations. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Please help to prevent deletion!

Hi....(I've posted several places since I'm still unfamiliar with how talk works)

I appreciate the input and thought I put in enough sources to provide notability. I am open to suggestions and edits....especially since my wiki page for (Justin Casse) does not sound like its "promotional". There are 15 different sources from 13 different authors, I thought that was enough. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. :( Im open ears!! Thanks!

March 23, 2017/time 12:45 Ladyngetal :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyngetal (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Basically, Ladyngetal, all that is added are more and more laundry lists of horses he bought and sold, that doesn’t explain why he is notable; it’s his job to find good horses for his clients, but why is he special? You have to get this past being a “PR puff piece” because Wikipedia does not permit advertising (See WP:NOADS) The criteria on Wikipedia is notability (see WP:N), which means that we need more than a list of famous horses or famous clients. Compare this, for example, to the notability for music or actor talent agents — why is one more notable than the rest of the herd? You need to demonstrate why Casse is different or more notable than most other bloodstock agents; are there industry awards he has won? Has he done something to stand out from the pack? (richest, bought the most horses, spent the most money, statistics that show he has pinhooked more future champions than most, etc…) Montanabw^(talk) 17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey Montana, I consulted with some others who posted on the board and made some deletions to this page. Let me know if you think it looks better. I would appreciate your input. Thanks. Ladyngetal talk

Hi there. I definitely think it's heading in the right direction. If I might suggest, rework the 3rd paragraph to focus on exactly what Casse does as a bloodstock agent, especially since we don't have a topic on that. (Incidentally, I'd remove the link in the lede to foundation stock since its not really relevant). Here are two general references that I found quite interesting: So you want to be a bloodstock agent and TOC overview

Maybe we should write an article about bloodstock agents? As a side note, if other members of Casse's family are notable, we could rename the article 'Casse family' or something, and add content about the other notable people in his family. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Mark Casse is a trainer who is _extremely_ well known in the horse racing world: multiple Sovereign Award winner, lots of Breeders' Cup horses including Tepin, an early Derby favorite in Classic Empire. So he definitely warrants an article of his own. If Justin was his son and not his brother, I might put Justin in as a subsection on family in Mark's article, but that's not the case. For Justin, we're dealing with a part of the racing industry that's not covered much on wiki so notability is an elusive standard. For me, what tipped me to keep was the little bit at the end of the current article where he was brought to Australia to help them start a two-year-old-in-training sale. If I had time, I'd do a few _more_ articles on other bloodstock agents like John Ferguson, who represents Darley, and Demi O'Byrne, who represents Coolmore. The bidding duels between these two, especially for The Green Monkey, are kinda legendary. And then there could be an article on the occupation itself, including the topic of pinhooking which we only cover briefly in the glossary. Alas, I'm too busy trying to keep up with the Derby trail and grinding away at Man o' War in my spare time! Jlvsclrk (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at what was done when you have a chance, and feel free to edit where I added the definition of Bloodstock Agent. Also I included sovereign award, eclipse award and Horse of the year winners where necessary. thanks! Im enjoying this learning process Ladyngetal talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I may get a chance to start the bloodstock agent article within the next couple of days, depending on whether it comes a thunderstorm tomorrow (ha!). Thanks for clearing up the Casse family thing, too, Jlvsclrk. I could remember hearing about people with the name before, but not particularly what they did. I know I've definitely heard about Ferguson and The Green Monkey before. Sixteen million for a horse! 🏇 White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Article Tornado (bull), as reviewed by you.

Hello, my apologies over the intrusion but wanted to check if you had already reviewed the possible copyright violation over the aforementioned article that you had patrolled on 9 March 2017? Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Same for Long John (bull) - here, I think we have a definite violation
TopCipher (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I just checked Long John in the tool and all those copied paragraphs were direct quotes. That is allowed. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

cc @Diannaa:
TopCipher (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The amount of non-free content is excessive, and a violation of our non-free content policy. I am cleaning these two articles and dawnleelynn is aware of the problem now and will not do this any more. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Topcipher: Thank you for your concerns, but I feel that you would benefit from thoroughly reading the essay Wikipedia:Quotations. Please note that the quotations that showed up on Earwig's Copyvio Detector were accurately transcribed and correctly attributed per MOS:PMC, and were closely followed by the relevant citation per WP:CITE.

Wikipedia does its best to go beyond the minimum requirements for fair use of non-free content but that does not extend to completely forbidding the use of direct quotation. Many editors will consider that over-use of direct quotation is poor style in creating articles, and very often copy-editors will convert quotes to paraphrased text, as recommended in MOS:QUOTE. Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, the use of relatively brief direct quotations in both Tornado (bull) and Long John (bull) is a small enough fraction of the text not to be a concern. MontanaBW is a very experienced member of the Guild of Copy Editors and may suggest further paraphrasing some of the longer quotes to further alleviate concerns.

My apologies for referring you to so many policies and guidelines, but if you are going to use automated tools like Earwig's Detector, you do need to be able to interpret the results in the light of what is accepted practice on Wikipedia. Hopefully on further review of the results, you'll see more clearly the points dawnleelynn and I are making, and you'll be able to gain a greater perspective that will help with your patrolling in the future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Oh, yes. Absolutely! And thank you for sharing the references too; I did read through most of them a while ago but will ensure to re-read them again; just that, I stumble over A LOT of articles that violate copyright guidelines and these (the aforementioned articles) caught up my attention after I had made a similar error on another article, where the usage of direct quotes were caught up in copyvio and so thought to rather first have it clarified instead.
Rest assured that all my interventions as well as your's (and rest other's) inputs are taken in the spirit they are intended. Thanks, again!
TopCipher (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry, Diannaa, to disagree with your assessment, because I don't feel that the amount of non-free content was disproportionate in these cases, but I'm sure we can agree to disagree on that as it is often going to be a subjective assessment. Nevertheless, I do agree that reducing the amount of non-free content in an article is almost always an improvement because it increases the encyclopedic tone and means that editors are taking care to think about how to convey a summary of the source, rather than merely making a transcript. I'm sure dawnleelynn will take to heart the issues raised here. --RexxS (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS (talk · contribs) Thank you RexxS, as you know I have always relied on your guidance here and once again. I wanted you to know that this originally started with a speedy deletion nomination on an article I created which I took live earlier today. Please see Red Wolf (bull) as I value the opinion on that article as well. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: It's probably also worth asking Topcipher to run the article through Earwig and see what they think of the results. A high score is always indicative that some clean-up would benefit the article. I see that in Red Wolf (bull), you've only used two direct quotations and one is commendably brief. The other could be profitably paraphrased, in my humble opinion. However, I think that some of the tone of the source material has "leaked through" into the article text. Consider: "He had the swagger of a champion boxer in the arena ... if someone rode him or almost rode him, look out!". The use of metaphors like "swagger" and "champion boxer" is not particularly encyclopedic in tone: beware of straying into hagiography. More obviously, the use of imperative, like "look out!", really is something that we should strive to avoid in an encyclopedia outside of a direct quotation. Casual writing style is also best avoided; there's an obvious example in the same section where a sentence begins "Well, even today some commentators attempt ...". I hope I'm not coming across as too critical, as I realise that hitting the right note when writing an encyclopedia article is something that takes quite some time to learn how to do well. Again, you have the fortune of having MontanaBW closely involved in equine/riding topics, who is expert in polishing text into the encyclopedic style, and I'm sure that when she has a moment to spare, she'll look at these articles for you. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks for the feedback RexxS. However our non-free content policy permits quotations only when there's no alternative. Describing events using quotations from participants is not an appropriate use of non-free content, as it's a fairly simple matter to write prose ourselves that serves the same purpose. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Thanks, Diannaa, but I should point out that quotations are specifically not included in NFCC#1 per the introduction at WP:NFCCP. For quotations, the policy refers us to WP:NFC #Text, and that addresses the use of quotations by stating "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited", which unfortunately leaves us to determine what is meant by "extensive", although it does refer us to the essay WP:QUOTE "for use". I find the general guidance in that essay and the examples of quotations in particular to be useful. After all that, I do agree with your assessment about using quotes to describe events, and I would always urge editors to summarise sources in their own words, wherever possible, so I hope we're not in too much disagreement on the issues. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a judgement call as to what is excessive. Here's the data on these specific articles:

I removed from Tornado (bull) 685 words of quotations, which represented 32% of the article
From Red Wolf (bull) I removed 1123 words of quotations, which represented 38% of the prose (someone had nominated this one for deletion as copyvio - that's how I happened to get involved)
From Long John (bull) I removed 346 words of quotations, which was 28.5% of the prose in the article. My opinion is yes, that amount of quoting is excessive. A couple of short quotations of 10-15 words would be the level of quoting I would judge to be acceptable in articles this size. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS (talk · contribs) Regarding Red Wolf, you are right on. I know how to do the Earwig, I use it. Thanks, though. But yes, I did mess up on the prose with the metaphors. I know better. I should have given the article a couple more swipes on reviews before going live. Still trying to get that encyclopedic tone down. You are not too critical but right on, I'm good with taking edits after 20 years on the job doing it. Taking your edits to heart right away. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS (talk · contribs) P.S. The article Red Wolf is not the same one any longer. The quotes you saw are not what I originally authored. There were a few more than what you saw. A certain admin has edited the topic to decide which quotes stay or go. Btw, removing the quote about Stanley Fatmax makes the rest of the text about him and Red Wolf make no sense. The whole paragraph should have stayed or gone. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I am waiting for the policy reference that says using too many quotes is a copyright violation. Does this mean a copyright violation per Wikipedia policy? Or does it mean a copyright violation per copyright law? Cause tell you what, you scared the bejesus out of me in the talk page where I contested the speedy deletion of the Red Wolf article. Can I get a reference to where it actually says these exact words? dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry dawnleelynn I made a mistake when I said that. I have just now reviewed both the non-free content policy and the copyright policy and neither of them say that. Over-use of quotations is a violation of the non-free content policy of this website but not its copyright policy or of copyright law. Again, I apologise. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added some of the quotation about Stanley Fatmax per your above post. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa I appreciate you acknowledging and correcting both your mistakes. Thank you. Also, I wish to advise all that I have reviewed WP:SPEEDY again, and violation of the non-free content policy certainly does not appear to be a criteria for speedy deletion nomination. Meaning I do not expect one of my articles to be nominated for direct quotes again, thank you very much,Topcipher.

I have also reviewed the non-free content policy for myself. WP:F In reading through it, it certainly does say that brief quotations of text can be acceptable and very long quotes are not. It is difficult to discern exactly the number of text quotes per article that this policy is trying to make clear are acceptable (at least to me) but it is at least clear that the intent is somewhat constrained.

I'd like to, however, point out that policy is also defined by how an entity uses and approves of it, as well. Just for one example, let's take the Owner of this talk page's crown jewel, her Featured Article, Secretariat (horse). This article uses a number of quotations, including three stanzas from a poem, and a separated out, paragraph long quotation. This article is Featured, yet mine are censored? Double standard? dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at Secretariat and found the quotations are about 900 words, which is about 11% of the article. It's more than I would use or am comfortable with, but passed its FA nomination in this state, so I am not going to challenge it. You of course are free to do so if you are so inclined. The poem in particular was challenged during the nomination process and Montanabw gave a rationale for its inclusion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Poems are inherently a problem for any fair use policy, because you simply can't paraphrase a poem into your own words without losing the essence of the poem, so there is no middle ground between direct quotation and complete omission. Therefore a short excerpt (perhaps two or three stanzas of a longer work) that makes a relevant point is more likely to be acceptable than a similar sized quotation from a prose source. The issue of "pull quotes" (a quotation set aside from the running text, often in a Template:Quote box) – as seen in Secretariat – is a hugely controversial topic and you can read an entire archive at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184 discussing what ought to be permissible. The current MOS guideline is at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. As you can see, opinions differ widely an the interpretation of "excessive use of quotations" and there are no hard-and-fast "rules", because so much depends on context and implementation. My advice is to think critically about issues such as this which are not "black-and-white"; and to draw heavily on the wisdom of experienced Wikipedians – Diannaa does a massive amount of work in the field of copyright/fair use and is generally acknowledged as valuable source of advice on these topics. She's certainly my first choice for an opinion whenever I'm unsure about a copyright problem. --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to a long quote within the text that was separated out as a paragraph in between other paragraphs, but yes the pull quote was also relevant. And no, I was just using Secretariat to make a point. I had no intention of anyone challenging it, especially me. montanabw has been my mentor since I joined in October 2016. I see the point about not being able to paraphrase poems. RexxS, if I were to draw heavily on Diannaa's advice, as you advise, I would not use quotations at all, or just 1 or 2 short ones not even one complete sentence sometimes in an article - as evidenced by her heavy edits in my articles. Why Tornado doesn't even have one whole sentence quote left in it now. Is this type of editing to be forced on me in the future as well? Am I to be scrutinized as I write more articles? If so, I think I'll just bow out of here and leave you guys to your little communities who all stick up together against a new editor. I cleaned up a mess in bull riding, and this is the thanks I get? Forced editing of my articles which completely screws them up? In Tornado, text got removed too. I feel disrespected as an editor, that's for sure.

I took at look at WP:ADMINACCT. And it says "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)," I am particularly looking at lack of explanation of actions. Diannaa, I understand you are a longtime editor and respected. Perhaps, that's why you feel entitled? However, I find that this has been on my mind since yesterday. I do not understand why you got involved in my articles after fulfilling your role as the admin who handled the speedy deletion nomination of Red Wolf. You gave no explanation or warning for your actions as to why you felt you had to "clean" my article as well as other articles that were not involved in the case. Being an admin gives you access to special tools for special purposes, yet I see on the page that it says you receive no other entitlements as an editor. I am the editor who is the creator and the subject matter expert in these articles, and I had stated in the contestment area that I was going to take care of Red Wolf. You did not respond to this comment. Would you have treated an equal peer this way? Or is just because I am a relative newbie that you feel entitled to edit the articles without discussion or explanation? Especially considering the topic was erroneously nominated for speedy deletion in the first place. Is this your usual modis operandi? Perhaps you might read WP:ANOT. Being an admin doesn't give you any other entitlements over other editors. It's not like these articles would have normally been on your radar. Also, since you removed the quotes, it makes it pretty difficult for me to paraphrase them, doesn't it? montanabw is the editor who has edited or looked over my articles. She can sometimes be very busy IRL, which can explain why she has not commented here. I have never been told I was using too many quotes by my mentor, so you can understand why I don't appreciate an unknown editor coming in without a word and taking a hacksaw to my articles without discussion. I have to stand up for myself the best I can in the meantime. If I decide to bow out of this place, you all are going to at least know why. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I want you all to know that this whole thing makes me feel sick to my stomach. I was happy working here in this wikiprojeck agriculture for the last 6 months until yesterday. No conflicts. Doing my best to do things the right way. Writing a few articles. But also fixing dead links, putting citations in articles, stopping vandalism, and generally making existing topics better. And now I don't feel like working in the WP at all. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well folks, I’m late to this party, but if you want to see a textbook case of what WP can do to a new editor who has knowledge and a passion for their subject, we have it here. Topcipher, you really need to learn how to properly apply the policies and guidelines of WP; a little bit of overuse of quotations is not a crime, it is something to work with the user and educate. Here we have a long-neglected area of WP that someone finally wants to improve and she gets treated like this. I’m pretty frustrated here myself. Montanabw^(talk) 17:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry dawnleelynn, at the point when you said you intended to work on Red Wolf (21:58, March 18), I had already removed the non-free content from the article (21:41, March 18). I only cleaned that one and the two mentioned by Topcipher, who specifically pinged me to have a look at those two articles in the opening post of this thread. I have no intention of following you around or visiting any of your other articles. All the quotations are still visible in the article history and are available for use as a resource to improve the articles. I am sorry that you have found this incident so upsetting and hope that you continue to stay here and continue your good work on the encylopedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: @Montanabw: Let me profess this by saying that I do realize that I may've inadvertently triggered a long, very complicated chain of discussions, that could've rather been easily avoided. Also, that I've also already agreed to making a similar error on another article and while moving along the same lines over Red Wolf (bull); however, it was for the very reason that when I found a pattern (over patrolling/marking them as reviewed) over the other 2 articles (Tornado (bull) & Long John (bull)), I realized to first check & so thought to reach out instead.
Introducing Diannaa in the loop here was simply because she was the first responder (an admin) who correctly declined my inadequate and rather sloppy CSD tag.
As assuerd, I have re-read the links and understandings shared by RexxS & will err on the side of caution moving forward.
dawnleelynn - Again, I realize & understand that I've raised unnecessary concerns - bells that cannot be unrung - for which I apologize on all counts of my poor judgement in this course of action; should've rather reached out to you directly & having said that, I further reconcile that it would do us all a lot good to have you in the community doing what you do best, rather than otherwise. Again, my apologies (to all)!
TopCipher (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I’ve been accused of biting people a few times myself. One problem with the NPP toolkit is that tagging is easy and fixing is hard. When possible, it is nice to at least put in some inline tags with a gentle message at the talk page outlining the problems. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa This whole incident is about respect, and it's a two way street. An editor with 7 years experience who is an admin I thought that would automatically get my respect but that changed fast. I got disappointed. Serious mistakes at your level like calling something a copyright violation that is not. You think of me as a new writer, but that's only here. I am a professional technical writer with over 20 years of experience in real life. I am not used to being treated like a child. And I'm not going to oooo and ahhh over every high level WP editor. Raise your hand if you've documented an XML coding language. Or scripted one. However, being a professional writer made me realize that that I was at least getting treated with respect when it came to edits and I was getting paid for it. When I was new, no one senior to me decided to just suddenly take one of my help files or my documents and make corrections to it without warning or explanation. And I never did the same to any other writers who were newer than me when I became the senior most writer. You decided that my articles were going to abide by your exact standards for quotations and you were going to make the corrections without a word to me. (again in WP:ADMIN "Failure to communicate: (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)") It was not a simple case of being an editor who just decided to improve an article. Making the changes without communication=no respect. And again, the responsibilities listed for admin do not state anywhere in them that this is one of your jobs as an admin. WP:ADMIN So, what struck me after an afternoon of thinking about all this is that this is no longer fun. This is too much like a real job. I had to put up with different BS at my jobs, but it's like work all the same. If this is an example of what it's like to work with senior people and montanabw is the exception, than maybe this isn't for me. Even discussion about whether quotes were allowed at all just added to the headache. I've been unemployed for awhile by choice. I thought it would be meaningful contribution, and also fun to edit WP. But maybe a real job where I get paid would be less stressful. You know, Uber just arrived here. No hassles. Take a break from writing. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

WP does have an ongoing problem with how we treat content editors who are relatively new to WP, and this was a prime example. Here we had a minor problem (a few too many long quotations and a couple close paraphrases, pretty standard errors for someone new to WP) that got treated with a storm of templates and a very pointy CSD tag by another relatively new user. Then we had a pile on by experienced people who normally know better, not realizing that there was mentoring in place. But some of this is due to a backlog and legitimate problems with copied content. I have survived this sort of thing myself (early on, equine nutrition got shut down with a copyvio tag and I had to scramble to fix it and recall I had a lot of angry hurt feelings at the time) so I know how a person just feels sick in their gut. We also wonder why there is a backlog at NPP (pinging Kudpung about this example) when we see that there are people patrolling the patrollers and questioning their work; I can only handle about 5-10 articles on NPP if I do it right, and yet the backlog is thousands of articles deep. Every time I’m there, someone is complaining about what I do, whether deletion, tagging or reviewing without comment. Too many patrollers have little content contribution experience and tend to use “when in doubt, delete” instead of the opposite approach, and at the same time, we all know there are articles created for every cricket player who reached the minor leagues that somehow pass NSPORTS. I’m feeling rather frustrated, myself. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I spend most of my time working on https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en, which is our new bot that flags potential copyright violations added to both new and existing articles as they happen. There's 75 to 100 cases that need to be assessed most days. This represents anywhere from 4 to 6 hours of editing time, and most days I am the only person working on that task. This volume of work doesn't allow the time to individually discuss with each editor prior to taking action, as to do so would at least double the time it takes to complete each report and keeping track of all the open cases would be a logistical problem. There simply aren't enough editing hours in the day to do it that way, as I have a part-time job and other pursuits outside of Wikipedia. (Like every other Wikipedia editor, I am an unpaid volunteer.) dawnleelynn, sorry if my approach came across as disrespectful or pompous. Wikipedia editing can indeed be stressful, but I hope you can bear with us and continue to edit. It's a worthwhile pursuit that is producing an encyclopedia of lasting value that we can all be proud of. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a fantastic tool, but the size of the problem is huge. I just spent 20 minutes on a single report at Jamal Mohamed College – find the wikitext; check it against the source url (which doesn't work directly); check the edit history: there's also a copyrighted image that I had to nominate for deletion on Commons; revert the copyvio; leave a warning on the editor's page; mark the tool's report as "fixed". And that was an obvious one! I don't know how you do it, Diannaa. --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with that. Fixing problem articles is time-consuming. I suppose one reason CSD and AFD are deletionist paradises is because WP:TNT is easier than meticulous fixing. One of the ways WP is in danger of imploding under its own weight is because there aren’t enough people to do the wikignoming tasks and they get burned out. Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa Some of the things I said about not respecting you, or being disappointed, or about high level editors were unnecessary, untrue, and said in frustration. I regret that and apologize. I realize you had good intentions in everything you did. And, the migraine I had yesterday is gone, so that helps. I didn't mean to take away from your contributions to WP, which actually sound quite awesome and to do what you do with all your real life responsibilities is quite something. Copyright violations are quite serious, I realize that. In fact, when I started editing, the existing bull articles that were already here had some copious amounts of copied text (whole sentences and paragraphs copied word-for-word) from online articles which I removed. Some of it had been here for years-like I said earlier-the bull riding area had been seriously neglected.

So, just to boil things down to the simple facts: I agree editors have lost their rights when they have committed copyright violations and you remove the offending text from articles without warning. But, when it became evident that I had not committed any copyright violation, perhaps you might have issued a suggestion that I reduce the quotation in my articles by length and number and moved on. For these reasons: 1. Your limited time, as stated by you. If so busy, why edit these that weren't copyright violations, and should never have come under your purview in the first place? Save yourself time and move on. 2. I am the subject matter expert, who would better know which quotes were most important to keep or paraphrase. 3. It actually creates more work for me when the quotes are removed quickly and without regard for the context of the text they supported, as per the example of Red Wolf and Stanley Fatmax, for one. 4. One editor said there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to the amount of quotes, but a percentage could have given a percentage range beforehand. Doing it yourself was not the only way to communicate how you thought it might be done. 5. What about WP:BOLD and WP:IAR? When I apply these, room must be given for me to learn from them. 6. As stated before at least twice, it is not the responsibility of the admin to make a correction or to do so without warning. This was not a severe infraction (or in other's opinions, who wish to remain anonymous) an infraction at all. 7. WP:ANOT "Admins should gain broad respect, but frankly no user is obligated to respect or listen to them (it's not a requirement of editing), and many will not." I agree Admins deserve broad respect. And it also says "Adminship is not meant to be anything special beyond access to extra editing tools which, pragmatically, cannot be given to every user. It does not give any extra status, weight in discussions, or special privileges beyond what is necessary to technically use those extra tools."

So, I guess what I have been getting at all along, and whether you will admit it or not is--according to the articles quoted above, you overstepped your bounds and if I had reverted those articles at the time and edited the quotes myself, I would not have been out of line. I don't enjoy doing this. But according to WP:ADMINABUSE "If a user believes an administrator has acted improperly, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner." I have obviously gone about this the wrong way at first. There was no serious intent to belittle you, your overall adminship, or disrepect you. I just wanted to see about redressing a particular issue. In this last post, I have stayed away from anything personal and just presented facts. And at that, I wanted to make it clear what my goal had been about. So it is understood what I poorly communicated. It is moot now since montanabw has edited the articles. And yes, she has had prior consent from me to edit my articles. Thank you. It's been a learning process. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I hope this settles things down. I’d like us all to be able to get back to editing! Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa RexxS
You are probably thinking not again, and you would be right. In fact, that's the whole point. The discourse in this particular section has become disruptive. As montanabw said, she'd hoped everyone could get back to editing. But I've had an epiphany and I'll make it as concise as I can. I've been reading up on conflict resolution on WP policy and essay pages. I've let my ego get involved and was trying to "win an argument." See WP:WINNING. When actually what is important is that we collaboratively build an encyclopedia and not be disruptive. Diannaa actually made the point about getting on with the encyclopedia earlier but I wasn't ready to "hear" it yet. The point is, if I am here to win rather than build an encyclopedia we can all be proud of, this may not be the place for me. So, I had to do some soul searching. Did I want to be part of the group that works toward consensus or the one who tries to win the argument? Did I like me in this thread going on and on about justice or the me who kept making excuses for that IP user with bull riding knowledge who kept refusing to add sources (so I would find sources for them)? What I should have done instead - politely told Diaanna that her edits were more disruptive than helpful, why and do with that what she would and moved on. And now I end with saying I am sorry everyone, I thank everyone for their help and input. I don't know what is next but I have more peace. I am taking a break. dawnleelynn^(talk) 05:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hugs Dawn! trust me, I’ve behaved worse, much worse! (I once called someone a jackass) Take a break and come back. It’s sort of like getting bucked off, you dust yourself off, cuss a little, and then get back on again! Montanabw^(talk) 06:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

^{(talk page stalker)} dawnleelynn, please don't be so hard on yourself. Many of us have been down that same road - we've all had bumpy rides from time to time - that's how we learn, grow and develop a better understanding of the WP community. Wikibreaks are a good way to re-energize (and the best ones are the ones we take voluntarily 😄). I just took a short break to spend time with family and now I'm back, (are those groans I hear in the background?) ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Everyone - I haven't edited on WP at all for a week. And I probably bit off more than I should have, trying to learn everything at once. This time, I'm going to take my time editing and spend a bit more time reading up as well as editing. I will focus on collaboration, consensus, MOS, policy, and never distracting anyone from editing.

Atsme - I did see your comments when you initially posted them. Your comments meant a lot to me, big hugs back! I had been a fervent editor for a long time, and you were right that a break re-energize me. It will be just six months now since I started editing on April 2nd.

RexxS I wanted to make sure you knew that I appreciated your support on policy that day. I was definitely not up on the policies for non-free content. Thanks for stepping in. I have always appreciated your help as one of montanabw's talk page stalkers. :)

Anyone else besides myself who has had montanabw mentor them knows how lucky they are. I think one of the main reasons I am willing to move on is because I will still have her guidance. And next to her, WAM has been another wonderful counselor the last six months. I am very thankful for both of them. I look forward to continuing to stalk this page with you all in future. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mission Mountain Wood Band, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluegrass. 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) 10:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Robert M. Miller

Hello Montanabw. Please note that, per WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." My removal of the material in the first place should be construed as a challenge and thus should not be reinserted with out a citation to a reliable source. In terms of living people, there's nothing in the policy about tagging in lieu of removal. My initial intention was only to adjust the sentences on the basis of WP:DATED, since sentences such as "He continues to travel and lecture" and "He resides in..." can very easily date and thus fail the verifiability test. As such, I am removing the material once again per policy. Canadian Paul 09:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've explained to Canadian Paul that I don't regard Miller's retirement or his living at a ranch with his wife to be contentious material, and I've restored that material, complete with {{citation needed}} tags. I've also invited him to make his case for immediate removal at the article talk page. However, I should say that although I do not agree with immediate removal of the unsourced material, it should not languish with cn tags for too long. I'd therefore urge any fellow talk-page stalkers who know where to find these sources to add them to the article at the earliest opportunity. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've found two sources for some of the contested content. The other content I could not find sources for anywhere. But I agree that the content is not "contentious" material according to WP policy. However, the gentleman was born in 1927 and might simply be too old at this point to be raising any animals. He does have a Facebook page that seems more active than his website; I only mention this because this is the only place I can find any mention of his wife. But I understand that Facebook can not be used as a source. I looked at his web site in the Wayback Machine back to 2009. The only thing that appeared to change was the Appearances page. There was never any mention of horses or mules or his wife. dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, dawnleelynn for finding those sources. That should assuage much of the concerns about BLP issues. As for Facebook, it's a peculiar source, in that an increasing number of people are using it to maintain a web presence, rather than have a dedicated website (that takes effort to get updated). You are quite right to be cautious in using any self-published source, but have a look at WP:ABOUTSELF, if you can stand to read yet another policy page. You'll see that there are five conditions laid down for the use of self-published material as sources on themselves. A source that meets all of those can be considered for use to support mundane claims about the subject, but obviously an independent source will always be preferred. In those cases, a subject's Facebook page is no different from their website, so could be considered in just the same way. As a source for the statement "Mr X lives with his wife, Mrs X", I wouldn't have any qualms about using it. Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS I was just looking at his Facebook page. It's not a personal page. It's a public person page. And then I find this particular area on it, where, in 2013, he had created a "note" that includes text from his WP article. It includes the contested text in this section. I would say that is an endorsement. [3]. Can I get consensus on this guys? dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dawnleelynn: That's a red flag for me. As that Facebook entry contains the text of his Wikipedia entry, I would avoid using that as a reference because of the problem of citogenesis. It may be that Miller copied our article text and that could be seen as an endorsement of the content, but it's also possible that a publicist or someone else posted it for him without checking the facts. Miller himself would clearly know his own life story, so would not need to copy our article (although he may have felt it convenient). That's enough to cast doubt in my mind, and almost certainly in others', so my advice would be to keep looking for "cleaner" sources. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Ah, yes that's right, the Jim Shoulders article I asked about copyright violation (refer to section "This article is almost all copyright violation (whew, false alarm but good lesson") you pointed out that term to me back then. The Facebook public figure page does still show that he lives with his wife Debby. I need to let it settle, my subconscious may think of another way to go at this. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this qualify as advertising?

Hi, this should be a quick answer for someone who knows the policy WP:NOTADVERTISING. On some of the bull rider articles (and all of them were here before my time), the editors have listed all of the rider's sponsors. See Shane Proctor for one example. Is this a violation of one of the no advertising policies or is it done in a neutral fashion? dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup, that sort of adspam is a long way from being encyclopedic information. I've taken an axe to the article. Anybody who wants to know who sponsors him only has to look at his website. Except they couldn't because it was a dead link until I found an archive version. Also there was a sentence stating "He is also one of the most talented bull riders in the PBR." which I removed, particularly as the only reference in the article was his own website. He may think he's "one of the most talented bull riders in the PBR", but I'd prefer not to simply take his word for it, thankyouverymuch (see http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/demo/rex.htm). And the Twitter feed was dead. Does that help you get an idea of the sort of cleanup you can try on other articles? Be Bold and do what you think is best. The worst that can happen is you get reverted and then you have the fun of explaining your edit on the article talk page (which is good training, but you mustn't ever take it personally). HTH --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(Adding) Praise or criticism of an article subject is best delivered in the form of short quotations from third parties. The emphasis on short and third-party. Also - avoid too much detail - compare Blame (horse) to Springbok (horse). Another common problem with these sorts of articles is non-encyclopedic writing - we don't write like a newspaper sports reporter. See Caracortado or Ben's Cat. (Gees, I really need to go on a whacking spree through Category:American racehorses...)Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the dead web site is why I put the citation template on the article earlier. I tried to find the web site in the Wayback Archive but it said site not found for me. Should have tried harder. I've used the Wayback Archive a lot; it's not new to me. Although I did find it on http://archive.is/ but clicking links there broke. I follow the PBR Twitter feed. It was announced about the mistake and I know his real Twitter handle now. But are Facebook pages and Twitter handles something we usually put in External Links? Yes, the sentence about him being most talented was definitely an opinion. There are 32 bull rider articles and there's an editor I deal with often who has added sponsors in other articles too. I will clean them up and inform that editor not to do it anymore, politely. Ealdgyth, you are right about the bull rider articles' sources tone. And the bucking bull articles that I have worked on have an extraordinary amount of, shall we say, enthusiastic writing in their sources, lol. RexxS, good thing I hadn't gotten to writing in this topic, because now I don't have to find alternate sources. Thanks all. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

List of horse shows

I created a short article, only to have it immediately moved to draft space with the note, "you can move back when it's expanded and referenced." I didn't think a dang list had to be referenced if all the subjects had their own articles, and expanding it was part of my motive behind creating it. I thought it might give us a good starting point on which major horse shows need articles. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Arrgh! I hate that sort of thing! The real solution is for you to get the “autopatrolled” right and then you don’t have to worry about NPP, you bypass it. You’ve been around here long enough and created enough new articles, I think. I’ll go figure it out, thanks for the heads up. If there are issues, I’ll put them at the article talkpage. I don’t know what the rules are for lists this week, because there certainly are plenty of unreferenced lists on WP — I guess the threshold is “how is this list more than the list that is at the category? Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Montanabw, you will want to go to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled to request the permission. Know that it usually requires creation of 25 articles so you will be requested to provide some rationale. - Bri (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Make that White Arabian Filly; I am an autopatroller! Montanabw^(talk) 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

NP, I thought you meant you were going to request that permissions be granted for another editor, when you said you needed to figure it out. Bri (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@White Arabian Filly: Perhaps you can take advantage of the suggestion to expand the list. The guidance is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and particularly at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. I've added some ideas for you at Draft:List of horse shows, but feel free to throw out or modify them to whatever suits you. Anyway, you will want to (1) define the topic; (2) specify the criteria for inclusion in the list; and (3) explain any structure to the list. I see that you've only listed USA horse shows, so there's a simple route for expansion: check Category:Equestrian sports competitions by country and drill down by country or continent or whatever and gather more horse shows to provide additional embedded lists for your article (e.g. a list for UK, for Germany, etc. or one for Europe, one for the Americas and so on). I wouldn't worry about referencing for now; most stand-alone lists that use "notability" as the inclusion criterion have hardly any references, because – as you've realised – the existence of the blue-linked article supports its notability and there's nothing else to verify. Don't worry too much about structure or whether to use lists or tables, for now. It's not difficult to re-arrange the information however you feel best after you've collected and tried it out. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all comments. I do have autopatrolled and have for months or maybe close to a year, so I'm not sure how the other editor saw it that fast. I've done one list before, List of World Grand Champion Tennessee Walking Horses, and it was referenced mainly because most of the listed horses and people don't have articles yet. I'll expand the list, and thanks for the help. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictures in Helena, Montana

Hello. Are you able to take more pictures in Helena, Montana please? In particular, Confederate Memorial Fountain (Helena, Montana) as well as the Gymnasium, Forestry Building and Corbin Hall on the campus of the University of Montana? This is to improve George H. Carsley. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, I’ll try to pop by and get some photos of the fountain. University of Montana is not in Helena, it's in Missoula, which is two hours away from me, but if there are no photos, I can put them on my “list for next road trip” — though no guarantees of when I might be at the U and able to do this. You might want to check the NRHP for Missoula or Missoula county to see if there are images, UM is pretty well documented -- maybe https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:University_of_Montana has stuff? Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Please ping me when you've taken some pictures of the fountain. (And yes, I did look on Commons.)Zigzig20s (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, posted link to your page, but also here.

Scottsdale Arabian Horse Show

		The Original Barnstar
		For your fine efforts on the Scottsdale Arabian Horse Show article. Very much improved. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Making categories from hall of fame inductees

Dear talk page stalkers

Recently an outside editor, Karanacs, has taken an interest in the Rodeo categories. She has not made any attempt contact our wikiprojects: agriculture or equine. The first issue was moving the bull riders into the Category:Rodeo performers category. Now, I am not real knowledgeable in creating and using categories yet, but I did create Category:bull riders and Category:Bucking bulls. It sounded like a good idea to me, so I followed suit and moved bucking bulls into rodeo performers too. I just realized today that rodeo performers category is still in all of these articles that are in the bucking bulls and bull riders articles. So, it's redundant right. She and I should have removed the rodeo performers category from these articles right? Okay, that's one issue.

Then, yesterday, she created this category: Category:Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame inductees I thought about that, and it just didn't seem to sit right with me, so I researched it. I found this WP:OCAWARD. It's short so what it says it this: "In general (though there are a few exceptions to this),[clarification needed] recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic."

But I also found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hall_of_fame_inductees But, there are very few here, only 10 exceptions.

And I'd also like to point out that the Bull Riding Hall of Fame lists all of its inductees in its article. And the ProRodeo Hall of Fame lists some of its inductees in its article. And it could be expanded to list them. Or it could have a separate article that lists them all, like the Country Music Hall of Fame does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Country_Music_Hall_of_Fame_inductees. Or, it could be a list like the article I linked above says. Here's an example List: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_on_the_Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame

Another point to be made is that there are several rodeo hall of fames that rodeo performers belong to, and what makes the ProRdeo Hall of Fame deserve a list any more than any other hall of fame, like Bull Riding Hall of Fame or the [[Texas Cowboy Hall of Fame], or the Professional Bull Riders: Heroes and Legends, and many more. Additionally, many performers and animals belong to more than one hall of fame, so you could end up with category overkill. Jim Shoulders is in about 10 hall of fames.

She's still adding more performers to the category today and adding new articles so it looks like she knows something about rodeo. So I'm not sure I have enough knowledge on categories on my own to address this. But thought I should bring it up; could be more categories could be created and there would be too many?

I think that you could just engage with her at her talkpage and see if you can establish a friendly collaboration. The consensus on the "List versus categories" debate changes constantly and I see no reason not to have both... Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right. I did overreact on the whole thing. Establishing one such category is totally fine. There are others, I discovering. And I did go by her page and leave a message. She responded quickly, and she's absolutely one of the friendliest people I have met on WP. Why would having this category be an issue, it was just silly of me. Thanks montanabw, you always have the best advice...dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Horse colic

Hi Montanabw,

Just wondering if this edit was meaning to revert this? Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, wrong button. Term paper season again… sigh… WP class projects can improve the encyclopedia, but only when they don’t copy and paste the term paper directly in… Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks! I agree, student contributions can be very helpful to the project, but if we'd have to constantly reformat copy and pastes, that would get tedious. Hopefully the editor who placed that content can also come back and fix it. Have a nice day! Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 06:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

	Happy Easter
	To celebrate Easter and the beginning of spring, here's a cute Easter bunny for you! White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy Easter

I know this is quite a bit late, but I hope you had a Happy and Blessed Easter with your family. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Montana non-fiction

This House of Sky has been listed as (one of) the most important nonfition books about Montana. Maybe you have some ideas on how to expand it, or access to other sources? Also, Category:Books about Montana was recently created but is underpopulated. - Bri (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to read that book about five times because I know it's supposed to be significant and I just keep ... getting sleepy... (I think it's maybe the prophet in his own hometown thing -- we admire Doig but most folks I know sheepishly admit that they too haven't read it... LOL) It is widely recognized and well-reviewed, so I suspect that looking for reviews and expanding on its critical reception and literary significance would be the way to go. I guess my take is to start with the Doig article first, and then see what is particularly unique to that one book ... he melds memoir and fiction in most of his works to some extent... here are a couple good sources...Montanabw^(talk) 22:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times doesn't say much about it other than having been a National Book Review finalist. Maybe they got sleepy too ;) - Bri (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The language is lyrical, but I've actually hung out in some of the places described and, well, yes, and his voice is authentic, which is good too, but... I guess my favorite Montana writer is the late James Welsh. Maybe Norman MacLean second. Probably my real problem with Doig is how everyone insists that you have to read his stuff, I hate following the flock... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirected page should not be

Hi there! I was just updating the Federico Tesio Stakes for some info published today and found that it was redirecting to Canonero II Stakes, even though it has never been known as such. All the "what links here" go to the "redirect" for Federico Tesio Stakes. So I would normally just move but am afraid of creating some sort of bizarre loop because of the existing redirect. Can you clarify me or point me to a fuller explanation? Thanks as always! Jlvsclrk (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Jlvsclrk, I wonder if this is one of those things where the race wasn't a successor but took the "slot" (kind of like how they used the Donn handicap "slot" for the Pegasus World Cup, even though the races aren't at all the same). I'd say do the research and proceed until apprehended...! Be sure to check the "what links here" link on both articles, though, to be sure nothing is now mis-directed. Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

- For the Canonero II stakes, I've found things like: [4], [5] but the problem appears to be Equibase: [6] where the Federico Stakes appears to have been named the Canonero II stakes for one year, 2012, even though Pimlico was still promoting it as such in 2013. Maybe that's the problem? I'd say make everything go to Tesio Stakes for now...and wooo, does Federico Tesio need some work... Montanabw^(talk) 02:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		WikiProject Architecture Award
		Thank you for uploading pictures of the Montana Club! Zigzig20s (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Cool barnstar too! Montanabw^(talk) 06:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply from Naawada2016

Thanks for the invitation. I will think it over. Right now, I will like to work on some subjects I know something about already. I am not sure how much time I have to read on new subjects.Naawada2016 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ming Opera House

When you uploaded pictures of the Ming Opera House in Helena, Montana on Wikimedia Commons, you added an NRHP category. I've since created a subcategory for the building, and I kept the NRHP category, but I do not see it at National Register of Historic Places listings in Lewis and Clark County, Montana. Is it simply old but not listed?Zigzig20s (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I believe that, like the Montana Club, it is another conforming property for the Helena Historic District (there are dozens). Montanabw^(talk) 16:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Demerge Link & Haire?

Would you agree to demerge Link & Haire please? I think both architects should have an article of their own. By the way, Haire worked with John C. Paulsen on the Montana Deaf and Dumb Asylum.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a big deal to me, though the problem is that they were a firm together... we have multiple generations too... maybe the thing to do is to create additional articles as opposed to splitting that one...? Montanabw^(talk) 09:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a palaver. Created a stub for Paulsen; I'm sure there's more out there (including a scandal about state politics apparently); feel free to expand it.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Paulsen also designed the "Bach-Cory Block" in Great Falls, Montana...I don't see it on Commons.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's ping @Tim1965:, who has been working on the NHRP articles for Great Falls. He might know. A lot of buildings get nicknames that are better known than their official name. (We have one here, just down the street from the Montana Club, in fact, that is nicknamed the "Granola Block" because it houses a bunch of nonprofits, and, until a couple months ago, a bakery. Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, Zigzig20s, I found this image of the building on an old postcard (might be able to move to commons...?) and some obscure references here and here and in the application for the Arvon Block (which I need to get a new photo of on my next road trip up, it's been rehabbed...) Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the building in question was built for the Bach, Cory & Co. grocery and hardware store chain, which occupied the first floor. A cursory impression is that offices occupied the second floor, and apartments the third and fourth. David A. Cory (d. 1913) and Edmund William Bach (d. 1904) were Helena businessmen who established the chain. The "block" occupied 101-103-105 Central Avenue in Great Falls, was built in 1890, and was the first retail business block in the city. (It wasn't actually a full block; the building occupied only the western third of the city block.) It was variously known as the Bach, Cory Block, the Bach-Cory Block, the Bach Building, and the Montana Power Building. (2-4-6-8 5th Street S. is called the "Cory Block" and 424-426 Central Avenue is also called the "Cory Block"/"Cory Hotel", but should not be confused with the Bach-Cory Block.) The structure was significantly remodeled in 1909, and by 1934 housed Montana Power. (The neon sign jutting out in front of the building was present into the 1970s, as I recall.) The building still stands, but has been altered beyond recognition. I have no evidence when the alterations were made; 1960s by the look of the facade. The eastern half of the building was torn down to create a parking lot, and only the first and second floors of the western part of the building retained. (A barber shop, photography studio, and defunct quilting company are there now.) The current owner is Charlie Byrnes. (The structure is listed as part of the Great Falls Central Business Historic District NRHP listing, but as non-contributing.) There are references to the structure/block out there, but you have to look under all the different permutations of the name. (Note: The 1984 book A Centennial Celebration: A History of Great Falls, Montana, by Clifford D. Yuill and Ellan R. Yuill, contains references to the Bach-Cory Block on pages 33, 71, and 112.) - Tim1965 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Very interesting. Are you able to take a picture please? We could add it to Paulsen's article. (I can't find his date of birth by the way, and his death is controversial.)Zigzig20s (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't lived in Great Falls since 1988! I'm in Cleveland now... I wish we could recruit someone, anyone -- a high school kid, a retiree, an interested citizen, anybody -- to take photos in Great Falls. If I could afford to, I'd freaking fly back for two weeks and just shoot pictures in GF and Cascade County. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

OMG! "Reddy Kilowatt!" I remember that very scene, I lived there when I was little! I still get up to GF a few times a year and, weather and work permitting, I've have done photo requests (for Tim...), but Zigzig20s take a look at the current building -- do you really want a photo of whats left??? (And I'll definitely be up there during State Fair week sometime...) Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Prior Park GA review

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Prior Park/GA1. I was unable to respond for a few days as I was away over Easter, but did respond to the issues you identified about a week ago. I was wondering if you had a moment to take another look and see whether these edits had met some of your concerns. If there are other things needed please just let me know and I will do my best to address them.— Rod ^talk 07:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In particular I would welcome your help/advice in relation to a PD-US on some of the old images as I can't seem to get this right.— Rod ^talk 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, sorry for the delay and thanks for the ping. Montanabw^(talk) 06:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Bluebook

Just search for Template:Bluebook website and Template:Bluebook journal - there isn't really a good one for case cites though. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Also see Template:West (for case cites), :USPL (Public law cite), :USStat (Stat law cite), and so on. GregJackP Boomer! 06:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Checking {{Bluebook website}}, {{Bluebook journal}}, {{West}}, {{USPL}}, {{USStat}}. Montanabw^(talk) 18:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Review of Scamper (horse)

@Atsme: and @White Arabian Filly: I came across a great article from Barrel Racing News on the ProRodeo Hall of Fame barrel racing horse Scamper [7]. His article, was shall we say, overly loved? The new article had some great information that could be added while also removing some problems that had plagued the article. I brought this to montanabw's attention. We agreed I would update the article under her supervision, since I had never worked on a horse article before. I have finished updating the article today. It's pretty much about 75% new now. montanabw suggested I post here and see if one of you could give it a lookover some time within the week. It's not like it's going to be jumped on by a patroller so it's not a huge rush. I especially would take a look at the awards and honors that I added to the article. The horse is an extremely notable horse, I wanted to do justice to him. I'd definitely prefer a horse person get eyes on it. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I took a look and think it's mostly good, made a few copyedits mainly for flow and neutrality. It's a good job though, and the only real problem I can see is no source in the awards and honors section. (I'm sure one exists though). I wonder if there's a video of the bridle falling off? I remember reading about that years ago and James said it was a screw that came loose. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs) Thanks for reviewing, much appreciated. You're absolutely right. There's no citation for the awards and honors in the article. But I do have one, and I'll add it. I'll also look for the video and see if there's a mention of the screw coming loose somewhere. Very good input.

I just looked at it again and saw a few typos I need to fix of my own. I also just realized that I never ran Earwig on it, so I will do that too later. Thanks again WAF! dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't help but note that we have the expression "a screw loose" and a horse article... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

^{It's a strike right over home plate, isn't it? *lol* ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)}

I guess that is kind of funny! dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs) Well, I have a strange question. All of the awards and honors are from the same source. How do you cite them when that is the case? It seems silly to add a citation at the end of each one.

I'm not WAF, but you can usually put the citation at the beginning or end of the list, whichever is more logical for the layout. Montanabw^(talk) 00:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks montanabw. White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs)

I've added the things you suggested WAF, if you want to take a quick look. You too, montanabw. I don't know if the way I cited the awards and honors is what you meant, we'll see. I found a video where Charmayne tells exactly what happened to the headstall and the bit. The only other thing I want to do is run it through Earwig, but really I was very careful to use my own words. But it doesn't hurt to check. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC) p.s. Maybe you could look at the video, it's just 30 seconds at the beginning where she describes what happened. And then make sure where I described the mechanics are right regarding what happened to the screw, headstall, etc. k? dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I took another look and it's still good. It's fine to put the refs for the awards list at the end and you described the bridle correctly as far as I know. I don't think I've ever used one that had screws. I have one nylon bridle that's like buckled together and two leather ones that are tied with leather lacing. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs) Thanks for checking. I had never heard of a headstall before yesterday. It's really an interesting story that she still won the round with no bridle or bit by the third barrel. That horse wanted to win as much as she did, lol. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Many western-style bridles are attached via Chicago screws. I had one come loose once, too, but luckily BEFORE I put on the bridle! Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for review Bones (bull)

To all you lovely talk page stalkers. I'm finally feeling confident enough to publish my first article since that last (ahem) situation a few weeks ago. When I'm working on bucking bull articles, I'm kinda over there on my own. Sometimes montanabw will review them for me. She's pretty busy IRL right now. I just need someone to make a surface review to say it looks ready for publication. Looks notable, I kept quotes to a minimum, structure looks good, nothing obvious sticks out that a patroller might jump on. I have run it through Earwig several times. Copy edit is welcome too or any other suggestions. I'm not looking for something that would take a lot of time or be in depth. Just a surface review. I have gone over it many times myself. It's in my sandbox: Bones (bull)

Done. This one has DYK potential. Montanabw^(talk) 15:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your very thorough review. I appreciate it so much. I will definitely take a look at doing my first DYK. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I did a bit of copyediting too. It didn't need too much. - Bri (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Bri, you fooled me. You changed your username from BrianHe. But I appreciate all help, thanks! This is just my 7th article that I have created since starting to edit seriously. Every bit helps as you say. And I'm always willing to return the favor. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw (talk · contribs) I just finished incorporating your edits. Well, that's what I used to say on the job. I really love it when you do an edit on my articles. You perform what we call in the professional technical writing world a developmental edit, as well as doing copy editing. You pose great questions that make one think about the material and how the reader will perceive it. You even uncover things along the way, such as the proper way to refer to an old TV network, such as Versus. I have addressed all of your comments and the content is better for it. And I ran the Earwig tool as suggested on the article Talk page and I have reworded a few things. But that tool is annoying. Most of the time it doesn't update, even when you check Bypass cache. Didn't you tell me about another tool that you can use once? Thanks for the edit, it was very edifying! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Paniolo

If it grabs your interest, you might want to create an article on paniolo, the Hawaiian cowboys (which originated by 1830 and definitely still exist today). As usual, Wikipedia has got things all wrong in that silly redirect, including the derivation of the name, which definitely came from the word espanol, not something else.

Anyway, if you choose to do this, here are a couple of pointers:

Cattle, cattle ranches, and paniolo(s) originated on the Island of Hawaii, not the archipelago as a whole (which btw was then called the Sandwich Islands and was not a state or even territory). Although there are now a few paniolo on some of the other Hawaiian islands, they are by far mostly on this island (the one I live on lol).

Here is a nice little intro, accurate, and not a copyvio so it can be used as a source if desired: [8].

A few random links: [9], [10], [11]

The paniolo(s) also brought guitars to Hawaii, which transmogrified into the Hawaiian slack-key guitar, the major staple of Hawaiian music.

There's already an article on Parker Ranch.

I learned something weird today: The Hawaiian word was originally "paniola" with an "a": [12]. Which seems to be fairly borne out on GoogleBooks: [13], [14], [15], (and web).

-- Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The wider influence of Hispanic culture on Hawaii would be interesting too. For example, Portuguese sweet bread, pao doce, became Hawaii sweet bread, which came with fishermen from the Azores as I understand. Some of this I discovered working on Leonard's Bakery. More stuff at Portuguese immigration to Hawaii#Immigrant culture and traditions, maybe there's a chance here for a bigger tie-in with other aspects of Hispanic culture. - Bri (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The Portuguese brought the ukulele, which is now the prototypical Hawaiian instrument. They also brought malasadas, which are everywhere here. Here we call the Portuguese "Portagee". They are the only non-Asian nationality imported to work on the plantations (the others were Japanese, Chinese, Korean; the native Hawaiians saw no reason to labor [lol have no work ethic in Paradise] and so the sugar [and later pineapple] plantation owners had to import cheap labor). Although most locals are very mixed race (usually a mix of three or four races), I do know some pure Portagee folks here. That aside, the Spanish-speaking folks were brought over as cowboys, not as plantation laborers. The Portagee were brought over as laborers. Softlavender (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you know what's missing? Culture of Hawaii. It's a redirect to Hawaii § Culture, which is really thin and has been marked as under-referenced since 2013. There are bits and pieces that could be referenced from an overall culture article, like Japanese in Hawaii and other topics in Category:History of immigration to Hawaii. There are good online references like People and cultures of Hawaii and [16], even public domain stuff from US State Department like Preserving intangible culture.

And another by-the-way: in studying Quinault culture at the tribal museum, I found out that Hawaiian culture is flowing back to the US mainland, at least for one tribe, via their returning veterans, which is another interesting side trail.

Maybe a workpage is in order to start collecting? - Bri (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Bri Softlavender: Please see what already exists at Cowboy#Hawaiian_Paniolo, and if there is enough interest to do a spinoff with a {{main}} link, that could be a lot of fun. The section in the cowboy article has some sources, looks like you've found better ones, and so if someone wants to sandbox it, send me a link and I'd be glad to contribute and help move the finished product to mainspace over the redirect (I have pagemover tools, so can do that). You may be interested to note we also have a Pau riders article. I know very little about Hawai'i, but I'm most certainly willing to help others with material on equestrian and cattle-raising traditions. Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my OP, that re-direct section you are talking about is really bad. I was hoping someone would create an actual article, from scratch, and throw that inaccurate and irrelevant stuff out. I'd do it myself but I don't actually generally like to create or substantially edit articles on Hawaii; I find it boring and I much prefer to write/edit things that are not in my back door. By the way, Pa'u riders is an obscure and unimportant topic, whereas paniolos are important in all kinds of ways. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

{[u|Softlavende}}, I'd welcome you popping by Talk:Cowboy article and noting the specific stuff to fix, and link the sources (even just a copypaste of the above). Maybe we can get a few more eyes involved and meet in the middle on this -- at least make sure the existing material in the article is accurate --Bri can help too, if he wants. I'm afraid I'm not the person to do an entirely new article, though I think it's a good idea. I've been a bit disheartened in my WP editing lately, and my energy is low (I just washed out of the wikicup this year, after making it to about round 4 last year, just as an example) but I'm always glad to collaborate with someone. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Softlavender, I messed up the ping yesterday, so pinging again! Montanabw^(talk) 23:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech boom in Montana

Hello again. I thought of you while watching this. Perhaps you could start an article?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing new there, actually, but thanks for alerting me to the piece. Sadly, the story is just a vehicle to give a certain candidate free publicity for the upcoming congressional race. Actually, I've chosen to put my efforts into improving an existing article on another Montana industry, so to speak. It's up at GAN, should any of my page stalkers need a GA review for their wikicup points. ;-) 23:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it not a thing?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a new thing, any more than the tech boom in Boise, Idaho and other inland western cities. This is ongoing for the last 20 years. Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Homelessness in Montana

I was a little upset to read your message the other day. I think people become homeless because they don't have access to resources, and our taxes should be going to the neediest among us but they don't, because politicians know that the homeless don't vote, etc. Anyway, perhaps you could take pictures of the homeless shelter in Helena?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying. Where I live, we have a pretty decent homeless shelter [17] plus another good place just for women who are in need of transitional housing, and the shelter doesn't turn people away just because they are running out of space [18] -- but they won't take people who are high or drunk (for obvious reasons), some people get kicked out for bad behavior, and some folks who are mentally ill and homeless have a deep suspicion of "the system" so those are the folks who are usually the ones panhandling in the park. It's not a huge problem here, compared to a major metro area, but it exists. It's a little scary for folks in the winter, but usually that's when the people who get kicked out of the shelter do something to earn three hots and a cot at the county hoosgow, so most everyone winds up under a roof, somehow... Montanabw^(talk) 08:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

this.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That is awesome and awe-inspiring. Thanks for sharing. In my work, I spend more time on the last clause of Matthew 25:36, though I don't really have all that many criminal cases. Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We have Homeless Jesus, which needs to be updated...Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy

added a link pointing to Union Theological Seminary

Todd Pletcher

added a link pointing to Hollywood Park

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Inspired by your must-read article

Inspired by the must-read article of the moment, I created {{Military animals}}. I think it's incomplete yet but you're welcome to have a look and contribute. - Bri (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert M. Miller (again)

RexxS (talk · contribs) Another driveby editor on this article, Robert M. Miller. See the last three edits on the article. He points out the problem, deletes the offending text and offers no solution. He gives a shortcut reason to an MOS:CREDENTIAL. Silly me, I assume that he's deleted the text because there's no source for the credential DVM. So I find one and add it, put the DVM back in. I should have the policy first. The next day, today, he's back and has made another edit, removing the DVM once again. So, he's monitoring the article even though I didn't revert his edit. He cites the policy shortcut again and this time adds we don't list titles here. So he is happy to just pull the offending text but not be part of the solution. I don't know how to fix this now, so could you or some other talk page stalker take a look? I am only trying to help out on an article like I did before, it's not an article I wrote or edited. Thanks much. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it, dawnleelynn. Connormah is right that we have a convention not to add degrees as post-nominals in the opening sentence. So we don't add BA, MA, PhD, MD, DVM, etc. You've done right to provide a reference to his claim of having a DVM, but if you follow that link, you get a dab page. That will then take you to Doctor of veterinary medicine, which is a redirect to Veterinary physician. Of course, that's also where you arrive by following the link on veterinarian in the first sentence. In that case, it's really OK, because an interested reader will still find the article about DVM from that link. Hope that makes sense. --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Color me confused, lol. I did add a source to the first sentence to document his having a DVM when I added it back to the opening sentence. That link takes you to the about page of his web site. And, I did not add any other references today, especially not any that lead to dab pages. I tried to look at all the other references to see if maybe you were referring to another but did not see it. To be clear, this is the reference I added...just to be sure we are on the same page: [19]. I see some things that need cleaned up on the page concerning references, and I am happy to do it now, though. Let me know about that link specifically, I will fix it. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I caused confusion. All the links I was talking about were to wiki-pages. When I wrote 'if you follow that link', I was referring to DVM. I was trying to explain that nobody has to find a solution. The post-nominal letters 'DVM' give just the same information as the word 'veterinarian', which is already in the first sentence. Is that any clearer? --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Crystal clear now. DVM = Doctor of veterinary medicine = veterinarian. They are the same. I knew that, I just needed a reminder. Very good. I'll just fix my reference because I noticed I added in one that was already there, so I'll combine them with <ref name . I promise I am not always this thickheaded, LOL. Thanks a bunch. Have a great weekend! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Gotta love problems resolved before I ever arrive! LOL! I met Dr. Miller IRL once at an equine conference. He's a good speaker and seems like a genuinely nice fellow. Montanabw^(talk) 01:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw (talk · contribs) So happy to oblige you. But seriously, I learned two new rules today. 1. No titles in the first line/sentence of an article. 2. Don't use multiple blue links when you list an article on a disambiguation page. And, that sounds cool that you met Dr. Miller. It's always great when you can meet someone in a field that you are so involved in, like an author of books you read. And attend his lecture too. I doubt he is traveling as much now. He's really getting up there in age. dawnleelynn^(talk) 02:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

St. Peter's Cathedral (Helena, Montana)

Could you please take pictures of St. Peter's Cathedral (Helena, Montana)?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Will put it on the list. In the meantime, if you can/want to improve Cathedral of Saint Helena or Temple Emanu-El (Helena, Montana), go for it. Montanabw^(talk) 16:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well--I created Olsen House (Helena, Montana).Zigzig20s (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how you are working on articles on buildings in that block (the park with the Confederate Fountain is at the end of the street...), you may want to do something with File:Young Women's Christian Association (Independent) (2012) - Lewis and Clark County, Montana.png. Montanabw^(talk) 17:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I created a stub--hopefully someone else will expand it. There may be more to the architect.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Vanguard (racehorse)

I recently identified an attack of vandalism on the page for the Grand National winning horse, Vanguard. the vandalism in question being that he is suggested as defeating over one hundred competitors. Also the vandal stated that the horses head was mounted on his jockey's personal carriage hile it's carcass was sold for food to the people of Liverpool and then for glue. All of this is of course not correct. The horse's hide was however made into a sofa by the jockey and is now in possession of the Aintree museum. I corrected this vandalism but have noticed that you have since gone in and reverted the edit, putting the vandalised version of the page back. I'm certain this is nothing more than simple misunderstanding on your part so I am removing the vandalism once again. Captainbeecher (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Captainbeecher, sorry about that. The vandalism had been in there for years and yet I missed it. My apologies for that mess up. Montanabw^(talk) 01:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Welsh Pony and Cob

We readied it for GA a year ago but never nominated it. I would be willing to be nom and fix any issues with it. Most of the other major breed articles are GA, seems like this one should be too. Any thoughts? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a peek at it; it's had several runs in the past. I think it's worth doing. We also need to get American Quarter Horse up to GA quality too (calling Ealdgyth? Shall we "get the band back together" again for that AQHA one? I bet WAF would gladly become a new member to replace Dana... ) Montanabw^(talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm eyebrow deep in the Core Contest. I've bit off History of the World and The Holocaust, with a possible side order of Reformation and Harold Godwinson. Not to mention painting and readying the house for sale... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, that means you can to the GA review on the Welsh pony article! Montanabw^(talk) 23:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd be willing to work on the Quarter Horse one too, probably do the pony first cause it's closer to passing. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I read over it and couldn't see anything wrong, so I nominated it just now. Maybe a stalker would like to review? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Drama of the day article

Greg Gianforte. Just assaulted a reporter from The Guardian the day before our Montana special election. The article is, no surprise, blowing up. They could use some cool and neutral heads over there, particularly the Brits and Aussies who watch my talkpage (as it's going into evening in Montana). I'm supporting Rob Quist, his opponent, so I feel I need to stay totally out of this particular drama. Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supplying the cite for the Missoulian and the addition of the Record endorsement withdrawals. I was about to, and discovered you had done so literally seconds earlier. Activist (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

At the talkpage, I posted quite a few links. Montanabw^(talk) 21:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Another note entirely

You might find this article interesting. I did quite a bit of work on it. See notes 1 and 11 in particular. Bill_Allen_(corporate_CEO) And then this: Owners Reverse Course on Attempted Preakness Blockade of Rachel Alexandra (in Phelpssport.com) Activist (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the post. Did you see 50 to 1? Montanabw^(talk) 23:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Didn't. I'll check Netflix. Thanks!

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Indefinite one-way AfD proposal and argument ban. RonSigPi (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh my. Well, that's using a howitzer to swat a flea. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Trying to restrain myself from using bad language. What a ... Jlvsclrk (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editor giveaways

Due to WP:BEANS I don't want to say here all the things that undisclosed paid editors do to leave a signature. But off the bat, they usually don't have accounts that are "seasoned" (somebody said that to me the other day and it still stings). For my own amusement I started User:Bri/Paid editing oddities with some of the more standout cases, not that it will help you much in this case, but maybe you'll get a laugh out of it anyhow. In a more serious vein I started User:Bri/COI patterns but I'm not sure if it's worthwhile to continue on it. - Bri (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh, you probably noted the above. It's an interesting situation. Montanabw^(talk) 02:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Florence Terry Griswold

Griswold article is here. I am amazed at how little I find of her actual career as a cattlewoman, though it is clear that she was still doing that into the 1930s (legal notices on land sales). Maybe you have access to sources I don't? I am also curious why there isn't a category for women ranchers, cattlewomen or the like, i.e. American women ranchers possibly? Seems like lots of people from a search would populate it, but I have zero clue how to do that. SusunW (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi SusunW (talk · contribs), I would start with this category Category:Ranchers, if you haven't already. You have both genders there. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks dawnleelynn I added it ;) American ranchers. SusunW (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of discourse over the question of gendered categories, because of the problem of ghettoisation. Most categories are "diffused" into lower, more specific categories – that means you would move Don Bendell from Category:Ranchers into the more specific Category:American ranchers. However when it comes to male/female subcategories, they are generally "non-diffusing" – that means articles should be duplicated in both the "Female XYZ" category and other categories where they also belong, There's a whole page of guidance at Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality that probably ought to be at least looked at before thinking about creating specific categories like Category:Women ranchers. Hope that helps, if not immediately, then at some point in the future. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Re Blacksmith revert

Hi User:Montanabw.

I refer to your revert of my edit on Blacksmith.

No biggy, but I just thought I should ask you why you think they were trivia? Each was there because of the main reason they met GNG in their own articles. Surely that by definition is not trivial?

I did note your suggested alterantive for a list article, but one of the same name had been A7ed 8 years ago, and I did not think that it was that critical for a fight anywhere, my strong preference is still for a short Notables section in Blacksmith, but/so I have deorphaned the article that prompted my edit in the first place another way.

Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Taking discussion to Talk:Blacksmith so other interested editors there can weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 01:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Nation building

Pls see Talk:Iron Confederacy#Infobox....note the same change at Blackfoot Confederacy. Any sources for this kind of assertion? --Moxy (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the usual POV-pushing by people with their own agenda. Same editor. Also, that infobox is being merged with {{Infobox country}}. I have to admit that {{Infobox organization}} isn't ideal either... is there a template for "ethnic groups that formed political and military alliances"? (pinging RexxS and Pigsonthewing for infobox advice. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Laspeyre

I think Thomas Laspeyre may have become a Democratic city attorney in Butte, Montana after the war, but I am not sure it is the same person. He would have died in 1883. Are you able to find a full obituary please?Zigzig20s (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s [20] SusunW (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:SusunW: This is hard to read. Would you be able to transcribe it for me please? "For a while he engaged in ??".Zigzig20s (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't read which year he arrived in California either.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s "Although Col. LaSpeyre had been a resident of Butte less than two years his sterling character and many qualities had gained him an enviable position in the estimation of the community, and the sudden death of but few men could have caused so great a shock. While on a professional visit to Anaconda last Monday he contracted a heavy cold which resulted in an attack of acute pneumonia which prostrated him on Wednesday. From that day the ravages of the disease did their work with remarkable rapidity and on Sunday morning at 9:30 he breathed his last. The deceased was a pioneer on the Pacific coast emigrating from North Carolina, his native state to California in 1853. For a time he engaged in placer mining in the Golden state but afterwards located in San Joaquin county in the practice of his profession. At the outbreak of the war he represented his county in the California legislature, where he gained considerable note as the author and advocate of a resolution providing for the secession from the Union of the State of California. Subsequently he removed to Eureka, Nevada, where he practiced law for several years and in 1881 he became a citizen of Butte. At the lasterly election he was elected city attorney which office he held at the time of his death. He was unmarried and had no immediate relatives in Montana, but a sister resides in Florida, and another sister in Georgia, and numerous relatives in North Carolina.His age is believed to have been49 years. The remains will be buried from the Episcopal church at 10 o’clock this morning under the auspices of the Bar Association and the order of Odd Fellows, of which he was a member." SusunW (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

SusunW: Thank you, I've added more. Did he become a colonel in the Confederate States Army?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Zigzig20s I have no idea. Didn't look at the article, was simply responding to your request for an obit and a transcript. I've never heard of this guy before. SusunW (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Strange that he went by "Colonel" but they don't explain why.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably not if he was in California by the time the war broke out. Titles with no meaning happens often enough -- someone in a minor local militia might have such a title, or it could even be honorary. ( Colonel Sanders?). Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, Lansford Hastings became a Major in the CSA even though he was living in California. It's a very under-researched area.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely interesting. Montana was settled by veterans of both sides. History of Butte is a life's work itself. I will see if KingJeff1970 has any info also. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

No reply. I guess nobody knows.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable?

Should we create an article about Horsey McHorseface? [21] Montanabw^(talk) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC) (grinning, ducking and running...)

Help, please...

Ok, I tried to create a Meadows Foundation (disambiguation) because we have Meadows Foundation and The Meadows Foundation (Dallas), so I'm thinking there should be a redirect for Meadows Foundation to the disambig page I just created (unless the disambig & redirect all happens on the same page). Another option could be to rename Meadows Foundation to Meadows Foundation (New Jersey) but if we do that, do we still need the disambig page? Anyway...HELP??!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think I can help here ... I have page mover rights. What you want is WP:ROUNDROBIN to move the disambig page to Meadows Foundation, and rename the other page to maybe Meadows Foundation (New Jersey)? - Bri (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Bri - I'm not quite sure what to do. I was working on the Wilson Block and wikilinked the Meadows Foundation, but I linked the wrong one. Didn't realize it until The Meadows Foundation (Dallas) was tagged as an orphan. Just need to do whatever is easiest for editors and readers to get to the right page. If you think RoundRobin will do it, please do. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I did the swap. If there are more Meadows Foundations, they can be added to the dabpage, Meadows Foundation. - Bri (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Could you please...?

Add the links to the USEF PDFs on Welsh Pony and Cob to the article's refs to replace the dead webpage links? I can download PDFs, but can't copy the url before it vanishes. (Maddening! 😬) I've asked on the Help Desk to see if they have advice for mobile phones, but no replies yet. Has to be done as part of the review, which started yesterday. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Stay tuned. Montanabw^(talk) 21:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Starresha

I don't know if you've seen her but I thought you might enjoy this article on Starresha, registered as a bay. Might be a good source for updating the breed characteristics in the thoroughbred article talking about colors.

Oh, and do you think anyone has the energy to work on our next good article? Of the articles I've worked on lately, Man o' War is pretty decent and might be closest, Dan Patch could use a review but is decent, and I've just finished an upgrade on Dr. Fager (though I still have a bunch of sources to flip through - Steve Haskin loves to write about him!) And I'd love to get Northern Dancer upgraded as part of the Canada 10,000 project. Jlvsclrk (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Charmayne James image

As per our previous discussion regarding this image file of the statue of Charmayne James and her horse, Scamper: [22] we were discussing the possibility of using this image in Charmayne's article as a fair use image - special case. In Charmayne's case, we thought it might pass fair use even though she is still alive, as the horse is deceased and it shows her at the peak of her career.

But more importantly, we thought it might fly as a special exception for a fair use image given that it conveys a historic moment - her bridleless win. Does it qualify as replicating a unique moment? I am pinging Wehwalt as you suggested, as he is an expert of these type of cases. Thnaks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You'd have better luck finding an actual image of her that was published in a few other articles. WPRA or NFR images are more apt to pass fair use. The problem with statues/sculptures/art is that it requires permission from the artist as well as the owner of the statue, and getting a fair use application accepted at WP is worse than a root canal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm dubious. It's not a historic image in so many words but an artist's impression of that historic moment. Assuming it's historic, that is, which I'm far from certain of.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to look at it. I'm sure montanabw will chime in when she can. As she stated earlier on in a post, she is terribly busy in real life right now. Thanks again and happy trails! dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I know I have seen an actual photo of the bridleless win, I think in 2011 or '12 Barrel Horse News from November or December. For any non-horse stalkers, it was like somebody winning the Indianapolis 500 without an adequate steering wheel. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice analogy WAF. And rodeo never seems to be historic to many people outside of its fans (not wanting to make a blanket statement of course). Just like the reviewer of my recently created article on Mossy Oak Mudslinger thought we couldn't possibly have an SNG on bucking bulls when faced with one of the most historic and baddest of them of all time and tagged it for notability. LOL. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Montana earthquake

Yes, the 5.8 magnitude earthquake was fairly close to where I live. Yes, I noticed it. Yes, I am fine. Yes, the horses are fine. No, we don't appear to have any significant damage to buildings in the community, but a lot of ketchup fell off the shelves at Wal-Mart and that photo is going viral. Thanks everyone who emailed for your kind expressions of concern. Hugs to all! (Historic note: My mother remembers the 1935 Helena earthquake). Montanabw^(talk) 21:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

So glad to know you are safe M! Thanks for letting us know. MarnetteD|Talk 21:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This is The Far Side cartoon that's going around facebook about it: [23] Montanabw^(talk) 21:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The only earthquake I've been in, I never noticed it as I was driving from Montreal to Trois-Rivieres in 1988 I think and I stopped at a gas station and there was no power.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy to know that you are safe. Will publish an article you wrote, translated to German, tomorrow, because it's the birthday of someone mentioned in it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My social media is lacking as I haven't heard about it until you posted here. Weird. But definitely glad all is well there with you and yours. The cartoon is funny. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I knew it would take more than a 5.8 earthquake to shake you up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

The first shake and first aftershock were a little freaky... after that, it was mostly just not being able to sleep so, talking about it on facebook, watching people weigh in about it (someone way over in Spokane said they felt it, and also rumors it was noticed on the west side of Billings). I noticed the aftershocks that were 4.0 and up, but missed the 3.9 one yesterday morning even though two other people in the building did feel it... wasn't paying attention, I guess. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Anybody wanna review?

Charmayne James is up for GA. I'm co-nom and this is the first GA attempt for Dawnleelynn. We are hoping for a quick review! White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take you up on offer of gnoming for Signpost

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media needs copyediting, if you dont' mind. Thanks! - Bri (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Signpost gnoming

Several sections could do with copyediting – notifying you here as well per your request - Evad37 [talk] 02:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey, Montanabw, I love your excellent writing skills. Your FAs and GAs are inspiring. Just want you to know how much they are appreciated by the wiki community. Rosiestep (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello?

Montanabw, I have a question. Are you working here today? 😆 ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A little, yes. Montanabw^(talk) 01:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I interpreted the policy/guideline accurately, and presented it with clarity. It's a non-free/fair-use discussion over at the Sultan's Great Day media TP if you want to give it a peek. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Blackfeet nation redirects

Blackfeet nation and Blackfeet Nation now point to different pages, and only one mentions Blackfeet Nation as a name. Does the different capitalisation give it a different meaning, or should both redirect to the same page? Peter James (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'll sort it out. Those articles are all kind of a mess and some merges might not be the worst idea. No, in this case they should both point to the same article, but the problem is that we have an ethnic group with three major sub-groups that cross an International boundary with people of all three groups on both sides, and two different sets of political entities governing now, plus a historic confederacy (that crossed an international boundary too) and so it's kind of a challenge. We can probably work together to sort this all out. Montanabw^(talk) 18:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, Peter James, I looked over what's out there and the best solution was to make one of them a dab, so I did. Feel free to discuss further if you have ideas to help clarify things further. Montanabw^(talk) 19:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I had noticed when looking for information that the different capitalisation went to different pages, it isn't something I know enough about to make more than minor edits - I should have probably taken it to RFD rather than making the change myself. The disambiguation page is more helpful, as there are no links between the two pages other than in templates; I've redirected Blackfoot Nation to it. Piegan Blackfeet has an explanation; could an article describing the term Blackfoot/Blackfeet be a possibility? Peter James (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The nomenclature is confusing -- and I happen to live about three hours from Browning, Montana! The Blackfoot Confederacy article is probably the best of the current "catchall" articles at the moment, so maybe something there. But I am reluctant to delve very deep into this without doing a LOT of research first, as the background is pretty complex. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ironically, we just had a similar discussion regarding NPP and articles tagged for speedy-d vs redirects. I think Montanabw made the right move using dab.^{Atsme📞📧} 01:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As a disambiguation, Blackfeet Nation is a fork of Blackfoot (disambiguation). It's been tagged with {{incoming links}}, and I'm here because Blackfoot Confederacy landed in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review (because Blackfoot stopped redirecting to that article). Having spent the bulk of my time today working on disambiguation of Dayan – which almost always refers to Dayan (rabbinic judge) – I'm not in the mood to go through another one of these exercises. So as Blackfoot Confederacy is the collective name of three First Nation band governments in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia, and one Native American tribe in Montana, that seems to me an appropriate broad-concept article for all things Blackfoot and Blackfeet (including Nations). If you would like to re-target particular generic links to a more specific article, feel free. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are asking us to do, as "Blackfoot confederacy" is NOT in fact the collective name for the modern governments, but rather is a historic anthropological construct. But if you can clarify what the best procedure is in MOS DAB land, I can try to clean up. It is clear that there are far more items at Blackfoot (disambiguation) than the people, so what is the best way to be clear that people are not plants? Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

For starters, there are 58 articles linking to Blackfeet. If this is an ambiguous term, then I'm asking you to disambiguate these links. For example, Albert Racine was a Blackfoot artist from Browning, Montana, noted for his relief wood carvings depicting the life and culture of the Blackfeet. It's not clear to me that there is any difference between Blackfoot and Blackfeet; the first term refers to an individual person (singular form of foot) and the second refers to the tribe (plural for people). I think redirecting these back to Blackfoot Confederacy is sufficient, as that covers all Blackfoot/Blackfeet people. wbm1058 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I can fix this. The "Blackfoot/Blackfeet" thing is horribly confusing, but the best way to say it is "All Blackfeet are Blackfoot, but not all Blackfoot are Blackfeet". Or put differently, those who care, care a lot. Give me a day or two to try and get this fixed. The family or articles is kind of a mess on top of this issue, but I'll see what I can do. Montanabw^(talk) 22:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058 and Peter James:, I solved the problem (at least for now) by moving the Indian Reservation article to Blackfeet Nation (which is what their new draft constitution uses, so clearly the people's preferred title: [24]). I am trying to fix all capitalization variants there, and for now am keeping "Blackfoot Nation" as a redirect there as well, though there is a decent argument to make it a separate dab. The ethnic group article is Blackfoot Confederacy and I'm rather making a judgement call to not redirect the "nation" articles to it because it never was a unified nation, it was basically an alliance of related people akin to the Iroquois confederacy. Each of the four modern Blackfoot/Blackfeet bands are separate legal entities and each have their own "nation" article. Montanabw^(talk) 22:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, your changes make sense to me and are holding so far; the Confederacy is a confederacy of four nations; one of the four has a very similar, but subtly different name, while the other 3 nations have more unique names. links to "Blackfoot Confederacy" still shows some "Blackfeet" variants. Perhaps those without "confereracy" as part of the title should redirect to the Nation? – wbm1058 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wbm1058, it's probably going to be contextual. Those related directly to the people who live in the United States, then, most likely, Blackfeet. Those referencing the larger ethnic group historically, to the individual band articles where possible, but then to the Confederary. Really, what probably should happen is that the confederacy article should be shortened to just discuss the political alliance, and a larger article encompassing the ethnic group probably should be created, something akin to how Iroquois is handled. But that's a big job and probably for a team. Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Colors

Just curious...have you seen this and/or this? My guess would be yes, you have. This one shows the dark thru the shoulders, and this one. I suppose it matters not since there's no way to examine anything under a microscope. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Cream gene with sooty gene. No question. That said, the new discoveries of "non-dun1" and "non-dun2" are making my head explode, as apparently some countershading strips can occur which are not dun. Non-dun 1 might explain this. Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

American Computer & Robotics Museum

Today, while updating the article on the world's first microcomputer, the Micral N (one of the few surviving copies of it recently sold for 62,000 euros to someone in Seattle), I just discovered the American Computer & Robotics Museum, another one of Montana's hidden gems. Was wondering if you had heard of it, or perhaps even visited it? A real added incentive for me to make another trip to Montana... they have an IBM 1620 in their collection... that's the machine on which I learned FORTRAN, when I was in high school. wbm1058 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I visited the place about 15+ years ago; at the time they had a visiting exhibit of one of the Apollo computers, that was fun. (They also had a PONG machine... the first video game I ever saw, LOL) Yes, small place, but a real gem. It's in Bozeman, which is a good starting point for a Montana vacation, as it's also where a lot of people fly in if they want to see Yellowstone Park. Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your improvement of many articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MarnetteD submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I am pleased to nominate Montanabw. Nearing 100,000 edits in her 11+ years of editing at Wikipedia she is well known for her work on equine articles. It should be noted that she has also improved articles for other fauna and numerous and varied subjects from the "Big Sky" region of the US. I especially enjoy when she turns her attentions to establishments like Dude Rancher Lodge. Worthy, competent, deserving of acclaim, special, level-headed and pleasant are compliments used to describe her by those seconding her nomination. Her value to Wikipedia is immense and IMO justifies consideration for an EotW award.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Montanabw

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning July 30. 2017

Well known for her work on equine articles and the fauna and numerous varied subjects of the "Big Sky" region of the US. Worthy, competent, deserving of acclaim, special, level-headed, pleasant. Her value to WP is immense.

Recognized for

Notable work(s)

Arabian horse, Horse, Mustang

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh wow! THANK YOU! MarnetteD, that was so kind of you to nominate me! I see there was also support from White Arabian Filly,Gerda Arendt, Martinevans123, Mark Miller, Buster7, Davey2010 and Agathoclea so THANK YOU ALL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, your very own week! I'm a fan, too, from collaborating occasionally on Montana NRHPs over the years, including recently (e.g. your contribution on the Montana Club article with its unusual swastika tile floor). Cheers, --do ncr am 18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Heck, I didn't even see the nomination. Guess that's what I get for my tunnel vision. Well deserved, B. My first WP mentor and an amazing resource, you know how much I appreciate you, though I should tell you more often. SusunW (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am so glad that you are receiving this M. It is a privilege to have made the nomination and a real joy to see how many editors seconded it. You are such a valuable asset to WikiP. Enjoy your week!! MarnetteD|Talk 19:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your week! I was the first to second. I just got lucky and saw the nom before anybody else. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see it either but if I had, I would have said you are well-deserving! Congrats! --Rosiestep (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

You deserve it, enjoy! Thank you for defending here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What a wonderful and well-deserved recognition!! Congratulations Montanabw!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, Montanabw. A well-deserved honour. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

File:MasterOfTheHorseUn.jpg

Suggested proper attire for the first Master of the Horse Editor of the Week

Well, how did I miss it too? I can't say anything more than everyone else has said about how much she deserves it. Having been here seriously editing for about 10 months now, a great deal of what I have learned thus far is from her editing, both from watching her edit topics and her help on editing my new ones. Heartfelt congratulations for so well deserved an honor. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

To paraphrase something often said elsewhere on WP ... "I thought she'd already been EOTW". Well deserved, I think. Have we worked on an article together yet? I can't remember. Sorry, I seem to be bogged down with railway stations at the moment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, Ritchie333, I think our paths have mostly crossed at the drama boards, but if you've got a topic that involves -- however tangentially -- the American west, rural life (see Bri's comment below) or equines, let me know! Montanabw^(talk) 03:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, very well deserved! Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it was memories of cow tipping that put you over the top. LOL, congratulations. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

ANI

This conversation is closed

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw First off, I am the one responsible for the ANI-notice. However, it was a misunderstanding, to some extent. I was looking for help, regarding my experience with you, and just ended up in the wrong place. It was not my intent to file any ANI complaint at the time. Nor is it now. But I was seeking help on how to resolve conflicts...especially when one party is much more powerful than the other. Anyhow, I did close the ANI discussion, and I apologize for any alarm it may have caused.

That said, there are things I would like to bring closure to. And I have sought out a way to do that. My hope is that we can respectfully refrain from interacting with one another. I hold no ill-will toward you. Though our communication has been brief, it's been one of the most eye-opening exchanges I've had in 6 years of being on this project. Just wanted you to know. So, in any event, best to you. Justbean (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It appears to me that the best way forward for you to bring closure to the mess you've created, Justbean, is for you to spend more time reading WP:PAG, and learn what is and isn't acceptable in WP articles. I read what you wanted in the article, and the first thing that came to mind was WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE. I support the edits by Montanabw because the topics were covered appropriately and in accordance with WP:MOS. Rather than making yourself appear to be a combative editor, consider stepping back and learning from seasoned editors whose work has been recognized by their peers. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Atsme I'm sorry, but who are you? This issue is not about you. You're free to give your opinion, but your suggestions were not sought. If you support Montanabw, by all means...that's your choice. Reach out to her personally, and vocalize whatever you need to express to other users. But, please don't force your unrequested opinions upon me. There was no reason for you to contact me, so I'm at a loss as to why you felt compelled to do so –– unless you were trying to provoke me. I am handling this in a manner that is best for me at this time, as I respectfully told Montanabw. Please stop inflaming things that will be resolved in their own time. Justbean (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Justbean Atsme Hi Justbean, Atsme appropriately announced herself as a talk page stalker WP:TALKSTALK. As I am doing now. montanabw has many of them on her talk page. If you wanted to keep the conversation private (or at least between editors of that article), you should have left it on the Cowboy talk page where it belongs. Wikipedia is a community of editors and their input on an article does not have to sought before it can be added. Atsme is a solid, longtime, editor whose advice would only improve matters. She has worked on many Good Articles and is a Good Article Reviewer. In fact, she has assisted me many times. As for montanabw, there is a reason why she has so many talk page stalkers and just won the Editor of the Week award. You would do well to learn from her. I wouldn't be an editor if it wasn't for her. Respectfully, dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there an article for this event?

Hello M. I was talking with a friend about the film Bite the Bullet. Not one of the all time greats but a nice little film shot in some of my favorite parts of southern Colorado, northern New Mexico and Nevada. I mentioned to them that it is very loosely (and I do mean very) based on this 1908 event. I've done some searching - starting at this article Endurance riding - and I can't tell if there is a wikiP article for it or not. I thought you would be the person to ask. If there isn't one do you think there should be? I know you are always busy with numerous things so you may not have the time, or even the inclination, to create an article for it but I did want to give you the opportunity to read about the film and the real life event. Best regards and enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 21:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on the Great Horse Race of 1908 or The Great Horse Race of 1908, but I think it would be a fun topic to do an article on; being made into a feature film does confer sufficient notability. I'll post this as a red link here and see if someone wants to jump on this, (adding to my "to do eventually after the other 10 articles languishing in userdraft space" list...) Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look M. I figured your to do list was as long as the miles of the race :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 23:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:TNT??

Seriously? WP:TNT? The overwhelming majority of my edits were tiny copy edits, fixing punctuation and capitalization. The small amount of actual content that I changed was, as I noted in my lengthy and detailed summaries, to bring the text more in line with what the Equibase text actually said. Regarding the 2 entries I removed, there shouldn't be any need for prior discussion; that's WP:BRD (not to mention that here I also used lengthy, highly detailed rationales in my edit-summaries). Of course, "R" is part of "BRD"; if you still feel the need to "R", be my guest, although I hope it won't be for no reason other than lack of discussion. Was reverting everything, complete with the obvious simple mis-capitalizations really necessary? This basically amounts to a "Pending Changes" situation, where any change to the article requires your approval. I know you're not fond of WP:OWN accusations, but can't you see how that looks? Topping it off by citing WP:TNT wasn't especially nice either. "So bad it can't be fixed, so blow it up and start over"? I spent several hours working on that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Is it possible, assuming good faith, that Montana meant WP:BRD but wrote WP:TNT out of habit, a brain slip, whatever? Consider WP:COOL, OK? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you obviously don't know me. :) WP:COOL? Believe me, this is below freezing (at least per my usual style [so I'm told]). :) MT and I are cool, all good. Just found it a bit surprising, that's all. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It actually reminded me that I was far from finished with it, but had to get to sleep. It still has a lot of problems. Some of the entries don't even appear in the listed sources, while others are direct copy-vios (please particularly keep this in mind with any potential reverts), not to mention the still-ubiquitous minor errors. I should have time to finish with it by the end of the day. You can review it at that point and see what you think, or feel free to jump in and help out in the meantime. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Three things Joefromrandb: 1) Don't remove already cited stuff. 2) Don't change cited stuff without checking the citation to be sure your changes don't exceed it. 3) For these glossaries, cite everything as it's added, because if you don't, someone else has to and it's a huge workload to dump on other people. You made so many changes and so many of them had one of the above three problems, you got reverted. So slow down and be more careful, please. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

And I am moving the gist of this discussion to the talkpage of the article in question, Glossary of North American horse racing. Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Charmayne James and Scamper.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Charmayne James and Scamper.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Wehwalt, Ealdgyth and Atsme to the discussion at the talkpage of the image at File Talk:Charmayne James and Scamper.jpg. I respect your judgement on this matter. Montanabw^(talk) 17:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Terry Gauthier

You might be interested in Terry Gauthier! I also wonder if the fountain will remain.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The fountain issue is a difficult one. IMHO, the city shouldn't have been dragging their feet about the signage issue. As for the other, meh. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 16:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

this.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I'm watching the story. Yesterday's story on it provides more background. Go ahead and add to the article if you want to! Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I did...Feel free to keep updating it though!Zigzig20s (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mission Mountain Wood Band

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mission Mountain Wood Band 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 Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ellen Baumler

Do you think local historian Ellen Baumler is notable? Amazon shows she's written lots of books, but I'm not sure.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I know her personally, so I have a COI. Maybe post at the Women in Red project to see what they think. Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

A beautiful house!

Montana has beautiful houses!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Image troubles

I'm trying to write a sandbox draft of Mary Gaylord McClean, the Saddlebred rider, here. We have a couple of pics of her riding her horses in the World's Championship Horse Show on Commons (they have watermarks but maybe I can get somebody to remove them, and she's alive so we have to use free stuff...) but I can't for the life of me get the one I chose for the infobox to appear. Can you or your stalkers help? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Stalker to the rescue. Imagine that, me fixing a technical issue ;) SusunW (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Another stalker. That image unfortunately is unsuitable because of the photographer's banner all across it. ~~Is there another?~~ I inserted another. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

All you have to do to get the watermark off is ask Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop to remove them. They do a great job. SusunW (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to all. There are a couple more I might take to the graphics lab. They are good quality except for the watermark. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Those "Heather Abentour" images are a gold mine for horse show shots, and if you are able to recognize the people in them, double goldmine! Montanabw^(talk) 22:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Another missed editor

Another sad day: User_talk:DrChrissy#CHERISHED_MEMORIES. Montanabw^(talk) 17:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Eclipse photos and stuff

Hi all, a few quick updates: 1) I am sorting through a few hundred images of the 2017 Solar eclipse that I took from near Glenrock, Wyoming. Some will be uploaded. Those of you who know me on facebook can see about 5-6 I put there, plus a picture of a fairly large bullsnake. 2) Cwmhiraeth, due to #1, I know you have responded at my GAN and I will be getting to it, but I'm a little delayed. 3) For those of you who know my name in real life, an FYI there is another person in the USA who has my same first and last name who recently passed away. Obviously, it wasn't me, but the two of us had met online. This person had a professional career that created a wb presence, and so Google searches usually have about a 50-50 chance of turning up either of us. We had different middle initials and used to joke over who got the Pinterest/Instagram/Twitter account first and who had to use their middle initial! it is sad to hear of this person's passing, and my condolences go out to that person's friends and family. Montanabw^(talk) 17:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back. When you have settled in a bit, I will ask for your input on something we've been working on. SusunW (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead and post it now, not sure when I will be ducking by, it will be in and out, on and off... Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

[25] here. SusunW (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

GA review

I am in need of a couple of GA reviews. If you or any of your stalkers are interested. My newest Carmen Casco de Lara Castro was a Paraguayan politician and human rights advocate. (Most of the sourcing is in Portuguese or Spanish) My oldest (it's been pending since June) is Sophia Parnok, a Russian poet. (Most of the sourcing is in English). If you can help, that'd be great and thanks! SusunW (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Montanabw, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Pony question

Hi Montana, I'm doing research on how to make a Native American travois for my doll Kaya, a girl from the Nez Perce tribe. I have her Nez Perce horse and saddle as well. Today I am reading this:

Indian horses were small and more correctly described as ponies. Hendry (Burpee 1973: 32), in 1754 the first to describe horses on the northern Plains, said they were "fine tractible animals, about 14 hands high; lively and clean made." Ewers (1955: 33) summarizes a composite type picture of Indian ponies: "The adult male Indian pony averaged a little under 14 hands in height, weighed about 700 pounds, possessed a large head in proportion to its body, good eyes ... large, round barrel, relatively heavy shoulders and hips; small, fine, strong limbs and small feet." Doring (1984: 65) presents a similar composite picture of Comanche and Cheyenne ponies, and ascribes their large bellies to their range grass diet. Remington states the "barrel is a veritable tun" and emphasizes the horse's practical rather than aesthetic build: the "head and neck join like the two parts of a hammer" and the mane is as likely to fall half to each side, rather than cleanly to one shoulder (Remington 1889: 339). [26]

I looked at our pony article and it does not mention Native American ponies. Also, do you think that the Nez Perce horse would be called a pony (our article calls it a "horse" and does not mention pony)? Gandydancer (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) According to what I've read, the original American Indian horses were the true old-time mustangs that came straight from the Spanish horses. They technically were classed as horses and not ponies, but it got muddled because most of the tribes called them "ponies" and other people, like cowboys, picked up the term. (Lots of old books refer to "cowponies" and their attributes are pretty much the same as the Indian horses, since they were mostly mustangs too.) Since your doll is Nez Perce, her horse is probably an Appaloosa, but there is a lot of difference between an Appaloosa from (I'm guessing the era your doll is from) the early 1800s and now. The old ones with the Nez Perce were from Spanish bloodlines, but they nearly died out in the 1930s and subsequently got crossbred with Quarter Horses, Thoroughbreds, etc. Therefore, most of the modern ones are much bigger and built "prettier" than the ones the Nez Perce had in the 1800s. (There are some people breeding foundation Appaloosas with as little outside blood as possible.) Ok, I got a little sidetracked, but hopefully there's something helpful in there. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm greatly interested in everything you said or anything you may have to add. It sort of fits into something I noticed reading an old on-line book about their attempt to reach Canada in which the US Calvary's horses were called horses but the Nez Perce's horses were called ponies. I also read a little about the attempt in the 90's to study and attempt to breed a good replica. DNA testing was done and was interesting. One source said that the last Nez Perce horse was killed by the Calvary and another said that a small band were still on some ranch. BTW, my doll Kaya (1764) is one of the historical dolls that we will have in our library along with their books. [[27]] Gandydancer (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WAF pretty much nailed it, Gandydancer. Horses 14 hands high are registered with the American Quarter Horse Association, (see American_Quarter_Horse#Breed characteristics),the American Paint Horse Association, the Jockey Club Thoroughbred registry (we had a reg TB filly just under 14.2 hands that set a track record), and so on. The standard top end height for Pony of the Americas is 14 hands and for a Shetland pony it is much less. Equine professionals (mostly stock horses) still use the term "pony" when referring to a horse. I use it more frequently in business...as in "pony up."😆 On the racetrack, we have pony horses to assist race horses from the paddocks to the track. I guess when it comes to using the term, context matters. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

My own horse is half Quarter Horse and half mustang and is right under 14 hands, but with fairly big bones and heavy muscles so he weighs about 800 pounds. I don't know where his mustang mother came from, but she did have the Bureau of Land Management freeze brand on her neck and he has that old Spanish look like the horses in Will James' cowboy illustrations. His feet are a lot harder than a regular domestic horse's and while most horses have to have their teeth floated (filed down) every year, his grow extremely slow and only need it every 2 years. He is also much more observant and less friendly than most full-blood domestic horses. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

About the Mustang heritage I had found this: [28]...but please remember that I know next to nothing about horses. And I certainly do not know what a "hand" is either. C:) Gandydancer (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) All this brings back fond memories the old country and of Luc, my Uncles Brabander. I came to America at seven (63 years ago) and I can still remember riding him as he pulled the hay wagons into the fields and I held on to his golden mane for dear life. So enormous and so gentle. ―Buster7 ☎ 23:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Gandydancer a hand is a unit of measure used to determine the height of a horse. SusunW (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

This Nez Perce "Indian pony" doesn't look pony-sized based on the size of the guys sitting on the ground next to it

Late to this party, but looks like the stalkers got it. Gandydancer, The reality is that there is no universally agreed-upon definition of a "pony." The modern Appaloosa is a descendant from the horses owned by the Nez Perce people, though now crossed with other breeds of horse, and the modern Nez Perce horse is a modern attempt to recreate the body phenotype of the original by crossing Appies on (of all things) the Akhal-Teke (why they want to cross two breeds that both have notoriously quirky dispositions is beyond me, but never mind...). On WP, our official position is, per WP:NOR and WP:V, designating breeds as "horse" or "pony" is usually the responsibility of the breed registry or other official organization that sets the breed standard. Where there is no organization to offer a firm definition, or where we are looking at a historical record, the term usually is used to imply a diminutive horse, but also can be used both as a term of affection ("well, gotta go feed my ponies") or in a condescending manner ("just a pony") to imply that some horse is just too small. It is also used in verb form (to pony) to describe the act of a rider on one horse leading another horse -- (Ponying). As Atsme pointed out, there are plenty of very tall horses that get dubbed "ponies", such as Polo "ponies" and racetrack "ponies" (often retired racehorses, such as Lava Man). In short, even a lot of Native people adopted the term "pony" to describe their horses, which were often small due to life in harsh conditions, they generally had a horse phenotype (longer legs, slim bodies, etc). So... I'd say you are always safe to say "horse" and if you want to call it a "pony", it's best to also imply that the person who has the animal is a child. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I expected to get excellent information from you Montana and I was right. I'd actually hoped to be able to call my little (plastic) horse a pony but it seems I do need to call her a horse. Sort of... On the other hand, my heart strings still strongly pull me to call Kaya's horse a pony as was done in the book I read of the (heartbreaking) story of the Nez Perce last gasp for freedom from American rule. When one wonders what it was that prompted our early settlers to call their horses "horses" and the Native American horses "ponies" one needs to think. It seems that the Indian horses were a little smaller but I think it is more than just that. They must have noted that in battle the Indians stripped off their clothing and the saddles from their horses, and painted themselves and their horses as well. Perhaps the Americans sensed that this spoke of a brotherhood that the Native Americans felt with their horses, which indeed they did, calling them "the four-leggeds" as opposed to us, the two-leggeds. Maybe this was expressed by calling their horses ponies, perhaps... Same thing (as mentioned above) for the cowboys...maybe. Also, I can't forget what I read about how the Indians broke their horses: after running them to the point of exhaustion they breathed into their nostrils and then the wild horse was "tamed". Perhaps just a romantic tale and perhaps not. Heartfelt thanks to all who responded. One can read this stuff in books but it takes conversation to make it jell, at least for me it does. Gandydancer (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, "pony" can be weighted with political and historic baggage. There were also social class implications. Some of it dates back to the Breed of Horses Act 1535 & Horses Act 1540. The training methods of Native people varied, and the run to exhaustion method you describe is sort of romanticized (the breathing in the nostrils to tame them thing), but underlain by some actual methods used by many plains-dwelling peoples worldwide, including cowboys. Montanabw^(talk) 17:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mission Mountain Wood Band

The article Mission Mountain Wood Band you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mission Mountain Wood Band for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Metropolitan Museum of Art Weekly Challenge, WikiProject Equine and The Horse Fair

Hi friend! We've chosen Rosa Bonheur's The Horse Fair has been chosen as the first-ever Metropolitan Museum of Art Weekly Challenge for the coming week, and I'd like to invite you to become involved. I don't know if you or other folks at WikiProject Equine has tackled artworks before, but this seems like a particularly relevant one with an interesting history.--Pharos (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. That's fun, I've work on the french article (with french sources) at the beginning of this year. Could be interesting to have a cross-language challenge ! --Tsaag Valren (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tsaag Valren: That's great, and I admire work work on the French article, but I was hoping even more that we could work together and share content between languages and projects.--Pharos (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red October editathon invitation

		Welcome to Women in Red's October 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Women and disability" "Healthcare" "Geofocus on the Nordic countries" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Begin preparing for November's big event: Women World Contest
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for 2017 Montana wildfires

On 26 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2017 Montana wildfires, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as of 12 September, 48 wildfires in Montana (example pictured) were actively burning? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2017 Montana wildfires. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2017 Montana wildfires), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent hockey AfDs

I see you're advocating salting some of these fresh nominations I've been putting up, but I don't think that's needful. What's going on is that following a comment Djsasso made, I decided for a lark to take a look at the whole archived list of ice hockey AfDs, since standards have both tightened over the years and AfD voting itself isn't nearly so loosey-goosey. Unsurprisingly, a lot of early AfDs were kept on specious or stale grounds and deserve revisiting, but they were valid closes in the first instance. As far as the bogus recreations go, those are almost all the doing of Dolovis, whom I hope and trust we won't see again. Ravenswing 07:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries, just was thinking about how to avoid articles being recreated for the third or fourth time. Kind of blows my mind that a sports figure who played for a couple seasons in a minor league seems to survive AfD, while a woman scientist who had to publish her work under her husband's name has to endure an AfD battle for what should be a snow keep. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 16:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Meykandar

Hi Monanabw, Thank you very much for reviewing the article Meykandar. I accept that I felt some difficulties in making clear some terms and phrases in that page since I'm a second language editor. The page is now rewritten but I didn't remove multiple issues tag yet. Could you please review the article whether it is clear enough to understand or not. If the page still want further clarification and grammatical enhancement please let me know. I'll try my best. Thanks again. --5anan27 (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Animal enclosure redirect for deletion

Of possible interest: WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 30#Animal enclosure ☆ Bri (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

On that note, page stalker alert: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cage (enclosure) (2nd nomination). **headdesk**Montanabw^(talk) 15:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Eternal Sun horse copy edit due to DYK

I recently authored my first racing/show horse article on hall of fame horse Eternal Sun with White Arabian Filly's assistance. I decided to put it up for my 3rd DYK. Montanabw reviewed the nomination for me and passed it through. However, the editor who was checking it over to promote it took a very strong stance against its readiness, citing about half of the article as storytelling and magazine style. This editor is very gung-ho. I made one edit pass to it, and then the editor jumped on it with a suggestion to go to WP:GOCE and I hadn't even replied on my talk page or on the nomination that I was done yet editing yet. I let the editor know this on the talk page, and things are now in my court. Montanabw can't help me with the editing since she was a reviewer. WAF, since you helped me, feel free to jump in, but please do so soon. Otherwise, anyone else with horse experience that would be great. Or, just anyone who feels they can help would be great. I'd like to keep the facts and the essence of the article but satisfy the objection. I actually feel that the sections being pointed out do not entirely fail the MOS, but need an objective hand. Also, the editor is obviously not familiar with horse articles. For example, pleasure driving is a show horse event, not fun. I followed the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame articles as my guidelines. In particular, Lightning Bar, a featured article takes some of the same "story telling" liberties. To get familiar with the editor's claims and so forth, see the following: [29] and [30] dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I did a quick edit that I think might help. Take a look and revise as you see fit. Good luck with the DYK! Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Jlvsclrk I love what you did! Thanks for helping. I know you are Montananbw's right hand with horses. I've seen your great work on some very notable horses. Just the same, I'd like to hold it open to WAF since she helped with it initially and a few others (Bri or Rexx?) since the editor in question is objecting to the storytelling from that section to the end of the article. But definitely you've done more than half of what was needed since the rest is progeny and death/legacy, and I don't agree that progeny has storytelling or has very little storytelling. I also can't see how the death and legacy needs much work, there isn't one adjective in there. I can't say enough thanks. :) dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I finally broke down and gave it a few copyedits too. The promoter probably will now say it needs a new reviewer,meh... anyone game? Montanabw^(talk) 01:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The promoting editor took a long time, but then finally took action. Apparently, this editor knows better than all of us. They felt that all of our edits did not meet their standards this second go-around either. So if you can't get your demands met and can't get consensus, then take what you want by force. Just edit the article and make the changes you want, so that's what they just did. All of this for a DYK. You'd think I was getting a GA review or something. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about this, it looks pretty mild to me. Sometimes you have to take copyediting in stride, and this looks like one of those times. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Bri Actually, I see what you mean if it was just that. But from what I edited out or changed, to what Jlvsclrk changed, and then what they took out, they removed everything they could about Howard and why he sought and bought the horse, and why the horse changed his life enough that he wrote that on the horse's tombstone. And I didn't even write all I could have from the source about it, trying to be concise. I was "storytelling." The last three sections were storytelling and sounded like a magazine article. Oh, yes the editor is probably settling, they wanted more changed then just that one section. They mentioned that Progeny and the Death and legacy sections had the same issues. Oh yes, and it was not impassioned and concise. That's why the last time they suggested I go to WP:GOCE. So I asked that the content about Howard be reworded to be more encyclopedic and Jlvsclrk did a great job on that. And with one of the edits, the promoter took the opportunity to remove even more content about him. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did have a look at the article when you first posted here, but didn't have time to come back to it till today. And to be honest I stumbled over that same section and another passage with a quote about an "honorable man who truly loved his horses" – it really isn't about Eternal Sun. But in the end I tend to take rather a light touch with someone with a passion for the subject, some press a little harder; you got a little squooshed here but don't let it get to you.

If it helps any, I came across an archived Signpost op-ed the other day that deals with this a bit; I think there's a good point made that we press a little to hard and expect DYKs from newer editors to be too polished, because there's too much emphasis on "seasoned" editors (ahem) to collect them for wikipoints. Part of why I'm here working with you indicates the degree to which I agree. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Bri, I appreciate your honesty. I have grown some since I started editing here a year ago. I have recognized my tendency to overreact to issues as my first response, and I now take time to digest issues before responding, sometimes that entails cooling down periods too. That's why I have not taken any action or responded to the editor in question yet. Your advice about the difference in intensity of editors is very well noted. And I have encountered all of those intensities before in the last year, so yes I need to move on and not let it get to me. I was just thinking earlier that this whole DYK is taking up too much of my time. I am still struggling with how to I tell the facts and make it encyclopedic. But I have faith I will get there. I can see the difference between articles I wrote a year ago and ones I write now. And I know ones I write a year from now will improve. And being a tech writer for a long time in real life, I know I can get there. It's my passion for the subjects that gets in my way and it doesn't help that the sources for bull are so darn passionate too, LOL! At any rate, I read the article and it has many good points, thanks. Thanks also for spending time on this newbie. I will remember the horse is the subject, not the owners. That quote by a well-known horse trainer, should have left out the part about Howard, and just retained the part of Eternal Sun being a big part of her success. I can change that. Also, I think the editor got frustrated that I was "getting it" and just did it themself. Which is what I think you meant, they are wanting me to be more polished? dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Montana says she broke down and made an edit earlier. But really the editor who was looking to the promote the nomination negated her review and ignored her questions, so I really feel that let her off the hook as a reviewer and any conflict doing an edit. But doesn't the same rule apply to the promoter? Isn't this a conflict of interest to make an edit to the article when you're the one reviewing it and looking to promote it? Just sayin' dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Fun pics

Hello M. I hope that you are having a pleasant autumn. I though you might enjoy the pics and posts at this thread User talk:Bishonen#Thanks as they are about your part of the globe. It is fun seeing TB's reactions to them. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 01:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest

Hi. Thankyou for your participation in the challenge series or/and contests. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women during this month for your region or wherever please sign up in the participants section. The articles done may also count towards the ongoing challenge. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles please add them to the sub lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion

Hello, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heilman (3rd nomination).NikolaiHo^☎️ 03:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Edward P. Evans

Hello. I thought of you while creating Edward P. Evans. Perhaps you'll be able to expand it with more sources and content? There is more info about the prizes his horses won in the Washington Post article, and it would be nice to have 10+ sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: The Women in Red World Contest Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Montanabw, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Chris Sherwin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chris Sherwin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Sherwin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Atsme and my other talk page stalkers, take a look at this one. See also User talk:DrChrissy. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you read the noms comment on Talk:Chris Sherwin? I added a few more citations, and a bit more information about his scientific contributions to the EFSA Journal and the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare which earned him the Hume Fellowship. Strange but the UFAW article mentions ~~nothing~~ little beyond listing the Hume Research Fellowship. What other projects should we notifiy? ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to raise a stink here, but it's probably inappropriate to post a notification for this on DrChrissy's talk page. You may want to consider removing it for the sake of propriety. GMG^talk 21:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Atsme probably WikiProject Vet Med for sure. Maybe WP Agriculture. Your call, but a neutral "discussion of interest" is the appropriate method. Even here on my own talkpage, I am keeping as neutral a tone as possible. As for the talkpage link, information connecting the article and the account was already at the talkpage, I've kept a similar tone here, and the AfD nom uses "Not Memorial" as one of their reasons in their rationale. I'll leave it for others to decide if the link stays or is hatted. I think it appropriate to alert those who in the community who may have an interest in the debate, whichever way they choose to !vote. Montanabw^(talk) 22:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@ GMG, et al. Agree if you are saying that it is appropriate (in this instance) to alert other editors via User talk:DrChrissy to the deletion page then I don't see anything wrong in that. Likewise, the article Chris Sherwin is not a WP memorial page but an article about this academic. WP's memorial page, has become editor DrChrissy's talk page – no more no less. Thus, has clearly become two different and separable things. Have in mind to get my Ouija Board out to-night and ask DrChrissy if he decided to study animals because they were a ruddy sight easier to understand than most of the homo sapiens on this planet ;¬ ) Aspro (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Well... it may not be the intention, but it could pretty easily be construed as an attempt to notify editors who might be more sympathetic to keep !votes, and I wish Montanabw had decided to remove it initially. I'm not sure if anyone has considered that if this gets put up for a second nomination or goes to DRV, the fact that there is a notice on the user talk page is quite likely to be thrown up as a form of canvassing to invalidate the results. GMG ^talk 14:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: Look. If you think I and other Wikipedia editors are ganging up on you – why waist our time still further and instead bring it up onWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ? Aspro (talk) 15:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I mean. You're the one who pinged me back this this thread. I haven't even commented on the AfD. It's all good. Take a deep breath. We're all unpaid coworkers here. Nobody's flipping out. GMG ^talk 15:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I saw the situation little different from notifying subject-area wikiprojects. Perhaps the knowledgable on a subject could in theory be prone to lean in favor of inclusion of a topic, but that is not a guarantee. Those with knowledge are simply the individuals who can bring their understanding to the AfD subject, as opposed to the random editors drawn solely to the AfD notice. Montanabw^(talk) 17:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sherwin's notability is a shoo-in so it would surprise me if an experienced editor would even consider a 2nd AfD. It would not be a positive reflection of their knowledge of WP:PAGs. I find it a bit disconcerting that we may have reviewers in NPP who are not understanding WP:ACADEMIC as it applies to the lesser publicized fields of academics/research in the sciences, or that it doesn't necessarily make an article/bio/BLP any less worthy of inclusion. Famous and/or notable via multiple independent sources doesn't always = encyclopedic. Just look at what qualifies in the categories of sports and porn; i.e., being written about doesn't always make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, while at the same time, limited coverage doesn't automatically mean it's not worthy of inclusion. If that were the case, there would be fewer novels, little to no artwork/artists, fewer animal articles, and so on. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 15, 2017

Okay, color me flummoxed. There's so much going on in this one, I don't know what to cut. Want to take a whack at it? Around 1100 characters if you can, with a hard max of 1200 characters. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at it. Thanks for the heads up. Montanabw^(talk)

I tried, now it's too short. What should go back? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at it, give me about 30 min. Montanabw^(talk) 21:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Done... compare approaches at talk. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK potential

SV mentioned that Chris Sherwin is now eligible for DYK since the prose size has been increased 5x. I've only done 2 DYKs in my WP career, and I would imagine we need to wait for the AfD to close before we can nominate, right? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Articles have to be submitted within seven days of being expanded fivefold, so the clock is ticking. The guidelines say: "Articles nominated for deletion must go on hold until they have survived the deletion process." So you can submit, but it could not be accepted until the AfD closes.

I'm not trying to persuade you, by the way; I'm not a huge fan of DYK. But it could produce some interesting hooks (e.g. "Did you know that veterinary biologist and Wikipedian Chris Sherwin believed that insects have minds?"). SarahSV ^(talk) 05:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest you nominate anyway because the deadline is absolute. Any delay would be in reviewing and such. Take a look at the instructions and create the nomination, Atsme! (See the details section of my DYK Corral for hook ideas) Ping me when you have it live (Sarah and I could be co-noms if Sarah is OK with it...) If you create it, you don't have to do a "QPQ" as you would be a new DYK participant (at 5 you have to review someone else's before you submit your own). Other folks here can help too! Montanabw^(talk) 06:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, done - Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Chris_Sherwin - but I screwed up by not adding his picture. I have no clue how to add it now. See what you think. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme:, I think the image is a Fair Use image (at least, the OTRS ticket hasn't been approved yet), so it can't be used at DYK anyway. Which is fine, because they can only use one image per set, so it might be promoted faster if it doesn't have one. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think SV included it, and reminded me that I forgot to add you as co-nom. Ooops. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Montanabw:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

On the road again....

It's a wrap. Oh, and I've adopted a new slogan: It's important to know when to stop arguing with people, and simply let them be wrong. That time has come. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Job well done!

	Collaboration Power
	Thank you for your contributions in helping to improve Chris Sherwin, and for being part of the DYK collaboration. It makes a difference, is greatly appreciated, and I wanted you to know that. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Montanabw:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Linguist^un Eins ^uno 21:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

John Trotwood Moore

Hi. Are you able to retrieve enough information about his horse breeding to create a subsection about it please?Zigzig20s (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horse racing. I don't have a lot of access to the real old records and usually have to bug people there for my own digging into the more obscure subjects. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Chris Sherwin

On 10 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chris Sherwin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that animal behavior scientist Chris Sherwin wrote that insects can experience "negative mental states"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Sherwin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chris Sherwin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
556	Friesian horse (talk)	Add sources
82	Candy Ride (talk)	Add sources
93	Connemara pony (talk)	Add sources
25	Ruth Hanna McCormick (talk)	Add sources
12	William Grigsby McCormick (talk)	Add sources
162	Godolphin Arabian (talk)	Add sources
93	LaPerm (talk)	Cleanup
39	Rex mutation (talk)	Cleanup
19	Competitive trail riding (talk)	Cleanup
70	Greg Weisman (talk)	Expand
408	Working animal (talk)	Expand
175	Kraal (talk)	Expand
57	Appleby Horse Fair (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
85	Devocalization (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
28	Secular icon (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
10	Combat de Reines (talk)	Merge
836	Pilaf (talk)	Merge
60	Discography of the Metal Gear series (talk)	Merge
252	Pinto horse (talk)	Wikify
434	The Police discography (talk)	Wikify
4	The Enclosure (talk)	Wikify
3	Janine Brown (talk)	Orphan
2	Cantigny First Division Oral Histories Collection (talk)	Orphan
2	Showdown USA (talk)	Orphan
3	Rare and Exotic Feline Registry (talk)	Stub
94	Joseph Medill Patterson Albright (talk)	Stub
5	Robert Wilson Patterson (talk)	Stub
13	Frank Sidoris (talk)	Stub
19	Legacy hero (talk)	Stub
14	Cyrus McCormick Jr. (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bazy Tankersley scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Bazy Tankersley article has been scheduled as today's featured article for November 15, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 15, 2017. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am so happy for you, Montanabw! I remember the GA review 3.5 years ago... and now the article will be a TFA. Congrats, my friend! --Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

One thing that immediately jumps out at me is that one of her horses won the Tevis Cup, and many others earned national championships over the course of her career is very vague; do we have at least a rough idea of how many "many others" was? I'd like to think that if I had 2800 horses, at least some of them would win something just by statistical chance (the principle by which Joe Cole manages to describe himself as a successful horse breeder); at the moment the article isn't entirely clear whether she was a hugely respected figure, or just a dilettante with more money than she knew what to do with and an obsession with horses? ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent, we are talking hundreds of national-level wins. The best info are those USEF top breeder stats that accumulate all wins by all horses recorded as bred by a particular individual...should I look into a list of those like I did for Sheila Varian? Ealdgyth, do you know any other RS for cumulative national stats? (And thank you for getting that one up!) Montanabw^(talk) 18:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I"m not aware of any ... you could ask Arlene Magid ... I'm not as "up" on Arabian sources as I am on QHs. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a list of Legion of Merit (++++//!! etc.) horses is out there somewhere...? Montanabw^(talk) 18:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this isn't one of those "if this goes on the main page I'll throw a tantrum" TRM/Colonel Warden comments and don't add in a count of wins if it's problematic to source—it was just that on reading this as someone who's never heard of her, it isn't at all clear if she was someone widely respected and successful, or an enthusiastic amateur with the wealth to indulge her hobby (the horsey equivalent of Macaulay Culkin's pizza-themed Lou Reed tribute band, and I wish I was making that up). ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

She's widely respected and successful AND had the wealth to get her business going. I most certainly welcome ideas to make that clearer, Iri. Feel free to post here or at the article talkpage. Ealdgyth, feel free to pop over there and tweak it some too, if you wish. Extra eyes are always welcome! Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for "one of the most significant Arabian horse breeders in modern times, and an individual who also had a fascinating early career as a newspaper publisher in the heart of the McCarthy era of the 1950s"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

American prostitutes

Montana, I am madder than a wet hen. I watch Maya Angelou's article and the question came up about including her in the American prostitutes category. Believe it or not, this is a real arguable question. At least that is what I found when I looked at the women that Wikipedia considers to be or to have been "American prostitutes". The first one that caught me eye was Calamity Jane who has no more of a connection than Angelou, or perhaps less. So I started to go through Wikipedia's list and still in the A's Modesta Avila rather pissed me off. This young woman stood up to the railroad, in other words she was a female activist fighting a powerful corporation, and she was a Mexican too -- what could possibly go wrong???. For documentation we are using unknown journalists, though skipping the one that said the prostitution rumors were spread to assist in her conviction after the first jury was hung. She died in prison two years after her conviction. Here we have a true American hero, in my opinion anyway, and we have Wikipedia calling her an American prostitute. I've seen other categorizations that have made me roll my eyes but this one really takes the cake. I'd like to clean her article up - she does after all deserve the same respect that we give to our other BLP articles and remove her name from the prostitute list. I'd also perhaps like to bring this up at the women's input group, though I forget what it's called, to figure out if we really want to be throwing women who were not known for prostitution into this category. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I am with you on this one. First off, there is a precedent (I can't find it now, but Ser Amantio di Nicolao or Nikkimaria probably know where it is) for removing categories that are "not a defining characteristic" (i.e. religion, sometimes nationality, etc.) when it is appropriate. So first off, revert and WP:BRD. Then, go check in with Rosiestep and the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's history to alert them to a category that needs review and cleanup. Also . Also, I've get about 300 talkpage watchers, most friendly, so HEY EVERYONE! READ THIS! Montanabw^(talk) 04:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: Take a look through WP:CATDEF, WP:CATEGRS, and WP:CATV - they give a strong argument for not including many of the current articles in that set. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. This was the most helpful for me with my limited experience and understanding of policies:

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define<ref>in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list formFor example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio.

It seems that this in itself will help us to throw many of the "American prostitutes" from the list? But I am still left with doubts about how to clean up Modesta's article (who, as an aside, I've taken a strong liking to because I was a similar type of girl myself...a very long time ago). I know that it all falls back on RS's but in the case of old reports before women and minorities had any voice at all, it can be difficult... Any help will be appreciated. Gandydancer (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

On that, @SusunW: can definitely help! Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Gandydancer, so far, not a lot of info that isn't already in the article, but this piece lends credence to the information being invented to malign Modesto. I don't see any reason she should be in the category, as it clearly wasn't defining of who she was. (I find it totally ironic that you noted this category on the same day that I wrote an article about an actual Surinamese prostitute, Maxi Linder ;).) SusunW (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am frustrated, I am finding lots of sources, but can't actually access much. This and this in the snippet view claim Avila was Ajachmem. This which you can "check out" from archive.org, indicates she attended mission schools and could read and write. It also says she sued the railroad, rather than vice verse, so am not sure how much of a RS it is. This and [31] supposedly look at the legal case. A lot of what I see repeats rumor and legend. Little actual scholarly work on her. This and this show that she did attempt to fight the charges on a legal basis. Would that I were somewhere with a lending library, I would shuffle off there to see what could be obtained either on the shelf or via interlibrary loan. No such thing exists here in Mexico. SusunW (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To add, I do not want to see women merely removed from the list, which IMO serves as a good list of articles that may need to be reviewed regarding the use of RS to document their prostitution. If the women are merely removed from the list we will no longer know just which articles need to be reviewed. Gandydancer (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Gandydancer Ready and willing to help...not sure how able...but I'll check on what you do and give a helping hand. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I see this as a diversity issue and something we should have a greater awareness of, e.g. look at all the missing language links at Category:Prostitutes such as French, Italian, Spanish, etc. Also, I started a discussion thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Prostitutes for greater awareness. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Well Buster, it seems that others have taken over the decisions on how to handle this. I had hoped to go more slowly and can only hope that the "Modestas" will not get lost in the hurry to make the list look good. Gandydancer (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Coming here from the Women in Red discussion - this discussion is pretty gross. If a soccer player, for example, subsequently goes on and has a career as a lawyer, we would tag them as both a soccer player and a lawyer. The attempt to remove former sex workers who subsequently went on and did something a couple of editors view as too "respectable" to have it referred to is grotesque, particularly so where - as in Angelou's case - they were open about it and wrote about it in their books. (Where it is denied/vague on the sources is another matter though, obviously.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

{[u|The Drover's Wife}} You raise an interesting point. I think some of it depends on the person's own view of their past. If it is now how they primarily define themselves, but rather a time in their life that they put behind them, then the next threshold question is how much that past defines why they are famous -- i.e. a defining characteristic. In the case of Angelou, she admits to her past, but while it certainly played a role in the person she became, the category question is if that part of her life was so significant as to be a "defining characteristic". Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I am a follower on this page and also went to see the thread at WiR, where at least one post suggests the topic is more than WiR should take on right now. Should there be an open discussion at Category talk:Prostitutes, about the guidelines for all of its subcategories? I think that could be an appropriate spot for central discussion, to be pointed out at Category talk:American prostitutes and anywhere else. Offhand I think the point about "defining characteristic" is relevant to be stated as a guideline. There may be gray area about a person for whom being a prostitute was defining then later went on to other notability not associated with the topic; I would think guidelines for when to remove the category for such a person would be naturally discussed at the category talk page. --do ncr am 00:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I strongly feel that something needs to be done and I agree with your "defining characteristic" suggestion. Looking at another article, Barbara Payton (dead from alcohol/drug addiction at only 39) who likely did exchange sex for money in her later years, as is common for addicts, but then to label her an "American prostitute" for needing money to support her illness just is not at all acceptable, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please take nothing I say here as my "final position" because I feel great ambivalence about this issue and will always accept consensus. I recognize that the word "prostitute" is often pejorative and that these connotations should at least partially inform our editorial judgment in this area. Personally, I prefer the more neutral term "sex worker" in such cases, but perhaps that is too "politically correct" for some editors. In her second memoir, Maya Angelou wrote quite frankly of her time as a prostitute. I hold her and her awesome accomplishments in the highest regard. I see our lists and categories as tools for more in-depth research. If a student was researching the involvement as prostitutes or sex workers of women who later went on to greater accomplishments in other fields, then knowing about this period in Angelou's life would be useful. On the other hand, we have no need to facilitate the prurient interests of a someone obsessed with "famous prostitutes". So, I am unsure of the proper balance. My thought is that the fact that Angelou wrote frankly about this period of her life is a strong argument in favor of the category. If it was only an arrest and plea deal cited to primary sources, then I would certainly oppose placing her in this category. Thank you for considering my humble comments. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent place to start to draw a useful distinction based in BLP policy and reliable sources rather than respectability politic messes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that a good argument could be made for including Angelou in the list and I would not object to her as strongly as I object to the others I have brought up. Gandydancer (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

My own position is, similar to the language we use to describe other "out" groups, to the extent a person self-defines themselves in a certain way, fine, no problem. But if it is something that the person was coerced into, or a part of their life that they worked desperately to put behind them, then it would be one thing to address the issue to a proportional degree in the article, (as in the example of Angelou) but I would hesitate to "categorize" the person as such. Perhaps if the person's past work was a major factor in their lives, and part of why they were famous, even if they denied it (such as Dorothy Baker (madam), it might be a case-by-case discussion to use the category. OTOH, to take a non-controversial example, if a famous person worked at 8 different crap jobs when they were 16 to 21, but went on to win a Nobel Prize, would we categorize them as Category:Fast food workers, Category:Carwash attendants, and Category:Janitors? Probably not. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Including embarrassing incidents in public figure BLPs is tricky. Example of not: Bill Gates is not in Category:Criminals from Washington (state)‎ but on the other hand Bill Clinton has been at Category:Disbarred lawyers for some time. I'm not sure what the guiding principle is to decide on these things. Just to clarify the first example: Gates' mug shot is in the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there really is consensus or consistency. There's an argument that neither of these Bills belong in those categories because it is over-categorization and not defining. But, I suppose there is an equally compelling argument that the case of the two Bills is a good example of precisely where to draw the line, as Clinton was a lawyer disbarred while he was famous, whereas Gates' brain fart occurred long before he became famous. Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As for Category:Janitors, please take a look at George Meany, an article I brought to GA status. Meany is included in Category:Plumbers even though his time as a working plumber was brief. I worked as a hospital janitor as a very young man, got promoted to housekeeping supervisor, transferred to assistant communications supervisor and was later promoted to telecommunications manager. I then switched to the construction industry. After nine years in management in the construction industry, I went into business for myself 24 years ago, and still work very hard at age 65. If someone wrote a Wikipedia biography of me, I would certainly hope that they would categorize me as a janitor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Cullen328, if instead of having worked as a janitor, you had, as a teenager, very briefly had sex with men for money—because you found you had a child to support from a teenage pregnancy, or because you had become a drug addict and had an expensive habit to support, or because you had been raped as a child and had grown up to see yourself as a sexual object, or because you had been forced into it by people who beat you, threatened your family and stole your passport, would you now want to be categorized as a prostitute? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

If I was a revered memoirist and had written openly about those experiences, SarahSV, then I would not object to that category. I consider overt self-identification to be a very important element in decisions about biographical categorization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jim, there's a difference between self- and third-party labelling. Angelou said (here) that it was like a "kick in the stomach" when someone referred to her as a prostitute. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I would certainly take her words on this matter quite seriously, SarahSV. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Few people in the category were notable as prostitutes, so The Drover's Wife's comparison fails. It might make more sense to have a category like Category:Former sex workers (less biased and more expansive term, and qualified with an adjective), for cases where the subject was not notable for sex work but their having been in it and having left it is part of their encyclopedic story, and properly documented. The bare label "prostitute" is limiting, legally/morally judgemental, and wrongly implies continuance of the work into the period of notability (i.e., would apply to Aileen Wuornos, but not to Angelou). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 15:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this issue can be simplified. Wikipedia subjects for articles are selected because of their notability. Maya Angelou was not notable for her brief period as a prostitute and her article was not created based on her notability as a prostitute. Had her life ended at the time she was a prostitute, we would not have an article on her; she hadn't accomplished what made her notable. It is perfectly acceptable to include content on this period in her life per the sources and with the appropriate weight per the sources, per the weight in her life, and per the article's structure. Maya Angelou is not defined by her prostitution as WP:CAT dictates in "knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic," so a navigational tool that leads a reader to her based on a non-defining characteristic does both Angelou and the reader a disservice and is a misuse of the tool.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC))

Gandydancer: As you see, we have a lot of interesting discussion here, and I thank you for coming to my page with this discussion. I hope you saw the comments from SusunW about sources on the Modesta Avila article (above). I also want to thank everyone who weighted in, this was a great discussion with a lot of appropriate points raised. Next question: We did something right here. How do we do more of this across the various WP dramaboards? Montanabw^(talk)

Oh yes, I did see her research and appreciate it. When the dust settles I hope to fix the article. So anyway Montana, what do you see here? Do we have adequate guidelines, we just need to apply them? Do we need to write something up for the people that make these lists to use for guidance? As for the existing list, I will not rest until we have removed any woman who does not belong on it. I'd like some help with that - Buster for one said that he wants to help. Strangely, I see some of the others as even more important than Mya Angelou whose accomplishments were so broad and so huge that it does not mar our impression of her in the least to know that she worked as a prostitute. Which is not to say that any woman at all should actually feel shame anymore than her customers do, and they sure don't!... Oddly, and I can't explain it, the adding of Angelou's name to The List is somehow what makes it unacceptable... It's like a scarlet letter. Gandydancer (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My take is that the general guidelines on categories discussed above give you enough grounds to argue in favor of removing over-categorization (the "Bill and Bill" example is particularly apt). I think that, though it would be nice in a perfect world if sex workers faced less stigmatizing, reality is that the use of the category most certainly could be used to belittle the larger and significant accomplishments of some people. My view is that I'd be bold and toss it where it doesn't fit. Proceed until apprehended! Maybe if others have issues, the idea that SMcCandlish had above (to create a "former" category that is less stigmatizing) might work as a compromise.

The thing is Montana, I want to respect our bio rules regarding the strength of a source needed to even discuss the possibility that they worked as a prostitute. That seems fair, doesn't it? Do you have any advice about that? (BTW, look at these fine little ponies that I added to this article that I just finished. I thought aha, I bet even Montana doesn't know about these! But I was wrong, of course.)

Gandydancer (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Exmoor ponies! Yay!! Montanabw^(talk) 09:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Love Proceed until apprehended and will proceed accordingly. Also Love SarahSV's truthful evaluation of the dreadful necessities that a womans RL can bring and Littleolive oil's clarification that this "List of Prostitutes" is a misuse of the Category navigational tool. Categories should not be used to debase a persons life or the choices they were forced to make. ―Buster7 ☎ 08:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Staging

Hi. What would you estimate to be the number of miles between changes of horses for a 19th century stagecoach given level going and a well-enough formed road? Thanks, very interested in your response. Eddaido (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It would vary a lot, based on geography and terrain, as there really was no such thing as totally level going anywhere and roads were... if they existed at all, mostly just dirt, so it would depend on weather too. But what you can do is narrow down the part of the country (conditions in New England would be different from Kansas, which would be different from, say, Arizona) and probably get into the records of various stagecoach companies. Figure that horses could walk at an average pace of 4 miles per hour, trot at 8 mph, and lope or gallop at about 12 mph, but galloping would be very rare, quite dangerous (the vehicle could tip over) and only for short distances, probably in a crisis. So mostly intermixed periods of trotting and walking. Also, there could be both 4- and 6-horse teams. This page might help give you some info, and as an example, Wells Fargo has a little bit of information on their stagecoach routes. This page is used as a citation here on Wiki and that source indicates that in the area of the Cumberland Gap, a stagecoach would average 5 mph and 60-70 miles per day. But that doesn't indicate how often they changed out horses, and that is mountainous terrain. You can usually look at the distance between stage stops in an area and estimate that horses may have been switched no MORE often than that, but in some cases, perhaps if they had a shortage of horses, or didn't really care about speed, less. Mark Twain gave an account where horses were swapped out every 10 miles and they "flew along." That site notes an average was more often 12-15 miles and an 8mph average under "good" conditions. This page tells about more horrific conditions in Regency period England. So there is no "average." Keep in mind, like gas mileage, your results might vary. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. That must be very close to a perfect answer. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Natural Predation of feral horses

I thought I'd bring this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFree-roaming_horse_management_in_North_America&type=revision&diff=811022184&oldid=811021080 over here to discuss, since it is inappropriate to discuss the subject on the article talk page. Not that I agree for a minute that "the real problem is that there is no natural predation" but the rationale that it is "because the BLM is all about supporting the cattle industry, not ecological balance" is untenable since it is not the BLM that manages predator populations, it is State wildlife agencies, and APHIS. As mandated by Congress, the only animals that BLM manages are feral horses and livestock that grazes public lands under permit.

In addition, "natural predation" of an introduced species is an oxy-moron. There may be predators that can exploit the opportunity presented by the presence of feral domestic horses, but horses are not their natural prey. To achieve an "ecological balance" to be struck between them would involve centuries of co-evolution and adaptation. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant to management of mustangs, so I am going to move the discussion back to the article talkpage so anyone else watchlisting that page can join the discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 18:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Signpost newsroom

Hi! I don't know what your schedule is like right now, but it's crunch time for Signpost if you can lend a hand ☆ Bri (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Greetings

Want more yams? No thanks, I'm stuffed.	Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
	A Thanksgiving tale... Two pilgrims go out hunting. One has two blunderbusses (guns). The second pilgrim queries, “Why two blunderbusses?” The first pilgrim responds, “I usually miss on the first shot; with two I can shoot again”. The second pilgrim pauses, then asks, “Why not just take the second one, and only shoot once?” ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

	Happy Thanksgiving!
	Wishing you a wonderful Thanksgiving with lots of good food and family! White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Turkey Day!

	Happy Thanksgiving!
	Hope you are having a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday with your family and friends! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

	Happy Thanksgiving!
	Hope you're having a relaxing day! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy turkey day

WiR December highlights

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: "Seasonal celebrations" "First Ladies" "Go local!" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
618	Jack in the Box (talk)	Add sources
419	Horse gait (talk)	Add sources
6,556	George Takei (talk)	Add sources
142	Horse care (talk)	Add sources
9	L. Hamilton McCormick (talk)	Add sources
1,512	Florence Cathedral (talk)	Add sources
16	Skookum cat (talk)	Cleanup
8	United States Grazing Service (talk)	Cleanup
5	Joe Hernandez (race caller) (talk)	Cleanup
42	Dana Buchman (talk)	Expand
10	Kentucky State Fair World's Championship Horse Show (talk)	Expand
17	French Trotter (talk)	Expand
27	Ethical omnivorism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
85	The International Cat Association (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
428	Motorcycle racing (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,336	Saint Helena (talk)	Merge
1,076	Beekeeping (talk)	Merge
224	Premarin (talk)	Merge
34	Animal unit (talk)	Wikify
2	Joe William Trotter Jr. (talk)	Wikify
22	Stix Baer & Fuller (talk)	Wikify
3	Keith Trotter (talk)	Orphan
9	Hannah Stouffer (talk)	Orphan
9	Alika Kinan (talk)	Orphan
6	Sally Haydon (talk)	Stub
107	J. B. Mauney (talk)	Stub
5	James Joseph Patterson (talk)	Stub
23	Congregation Shaar Hashomayim (talk)	Stub
3	Anthony McKinney murder conviction controversy (talk)	Stub
10	Equestrian drill team (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Montanabw|Montanabw]][[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]: Montanabw^(talk)

to

[[User:Montanabw|Montanabw]][[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]: Montanabw^(talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have changed my tags as described. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere on my "to do" list... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

OK ... it's very easy ... click on "Preferences", and the signature field is right there on the default User profile tab. Enter the signature and click the save button at the bottom of the screen. Cheers! Anomalocaris (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that part, how do you think I created it in the first place. What I am asking is why is this a crisis? I have no idea what problems these errors you speak of are actually causing and if it's a "do it right away" or a "whenever you get around to it in the next few months." ;) Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, every time you sign something, you add one more lint error. It's not a crisis. It's good housekeeping in preparation for HTML5. See Wikipedia:Linter. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Do all of us with customized signatures have to change them now? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

White Arabian Filly: Nobody has to do anything; so far we are in "seek cooperation mode" and so far most are cooperating. Your signature is fine. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Montanabw. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for Code Blue articles

Bri If my memory serves me right, you are very knowledgeable about disambiguation pages. This is also open to any talk page stalkers. I wrote the article about the bucking bull Code Blue which was moved to mainspace on November 20th. I found no disambiguation page at the time. The page Code Blue was taken up by a redirect to a section on the article Hospital emergency codes. Which means if you typed in the words Code Blue in the search box, it took you to that article to the section on emergency code blue. montanabw and I decided to leave that alone considering the general reaction to bull articles on wikipedia (generally editors not seeing them as very notable). But we did put in a bit of code on that page as the section that said, ""Code blue" redirects here. For bucking bull, see Code Blue (bull)." So, this is the address of the redirect page, which I give as a URL [32] to be sure you get the right one.

A couple of days ago, I discovered, quite by accident, that there was an existing disambiguation page not being able to be accessed. What happened was that during a search I noticed that there were other articles named Code Blue, and I was going to make a list of them also and push for an disambiguation page, then one I clicked turned out to a disambiguation page. Its URL is [33].

I've searched policy, but am still not quite sure what is the proper resolution. The way things exist now, no one is getting the benefit of the disambiguation page. The Hospital emergency codes article is on the disambiguation page so do they need the redirect too? One option would be to delete the redirect pages. Another would be to do what the article Red wolf does for example, on the Hospital emergency codes page.

Red wolf

This article is about the species Canis rufus. For other uses, see Red wolf (disambiguation).

Do we address the hospital page editors or the disambiguation page editors or both? Who gets priority? The hospital page redirect is older. Any suggestion or guidance is welcome, thanks. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Sounds like we will need to move existing page Code Blue to a disambguated name.

Best process to avoid a contentious move is to propose it first. If there are no objections, I have page-mover permissions and can take care of it in maybe a week.

Could you please go ahead and make a topic at at Talk:Code Blue proposing a new name maybe Code Blue (emergency medicine)? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The situation is a nod (or smh) to WP's capitalization conventions. Code Blue is a disambiguation page. Code blue redirects to the hospital page. It might be best if we do this as a RM so that the more technically inclined can also peek at it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've initiated a requested move discussion at Talk:Code Blue, and posted notice on the hospital codes page. Anyone interested can weigh in. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC) (Pinging @Bri: and @Dawnleelynn:. Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi back Bri! montanabw beat me to it. I just added a comment. I guess we watch what happens for a week like you said? I'm happy to let you do your thing in your own time. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It is a bit of a mess. I don't think the capitalized page should have been made a dab. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bri Yes, I am sure you are right, and I knew there was no way I could handle it alone. I didn't even know how to do what montanabw did. And I don't have enough of a handle on the capitalization issues in regard to the dab and redirects, etc., especially when they are not done right. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
1,126	Equestrianism (talk)	Add sources
138	4-Aminopyridine (talk)	Add sources
23	Robert McCormick (Virginia) (talk)	Add sources
122	Standardbred (talk)	Add sources
166	McCormick family (talk)	Add sources
12	Brooks McCormick (talk)	Add sources
54	Feral goats in Australia (talk)	Cleanup
226	Information and communications technology in agriculture (talk)	Cleanup
50	Intrinsic value (animal ethics) (talk)	Cleanup
6	Lax-kw'alaams First Nation (talk)	Expand
4	Ronald Trotter (talk)	Expand
12	Code: Blue (talk)	Expand
8	Farmer Research Committee (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
178	Micro-enterprise (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
851	Weight training (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
20	Participatory video (talk)	Merge
344	Asystole (talk)	Merge
157	Appropriation bill (talk)	Merge
160	Mass-casualty incident (talk)	Wikify
58	International Fund for Animal Welfare (talk)	Wikify
3	Lovie Olivia (talk)	Wikify
10	Richie Champion (talk)	Orphan
8	Agropedia (talk)	Orphan
4	African Forum for Agricultural Advisory Services (talk)	Orphan
8	Shetland goose (talk)	Stub
3	Wayne Lordan (talk)	Stub
18	Castlemilk Moorit (talk)	Stub
9	American Walking Pony (talk)	Stub
39	Churchill Airport (talk)	Stub
8	Ted Nuce (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Montanabw, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Logan Henderson Farm

You may be interested in this horse farm: Logan Henderson Farm!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana

While clearing out the expired WP:PRODs I came across List of cemeteries in Powder River County, Montana (it may have already been deleted by the time you read this). In general I'm loath to delete articles of this nature since they so obviously serve a potential useful purpose to readers, but the fact that I've never heard of Powder River County makes me think it may be a fly-speck of a place on which the sources just don't exist. Do you think the sources exist for this to be a viable topic? (If it is deleted, because the deletion will be under WP:PROD I'll be in my rights to unilaterally reverse the deletion if you think doing so would be worthwhile.) ‑ Iridescent 10:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Powder River County is pretty small in population, but it is a legitimate county and governmental entity. So, I suspect there are few sources, but probably at least a dozen small cemeteries. I'll check. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

^{Or wait until Halloween to check it out and take your camera so you can take pictures of "orbs". ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)}

Where has the time gone?!!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) ^{^{Atsme📞📧} 12:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)}
	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: it doesn't need water won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Happy Saturnalia!

		Happy Saturnalia
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas
	Hoping you stay warm and have lots of good times and good food this holiday season! White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

No fancy template...

Montana, but just but to wish you happy holidays and all the best for 2018. It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sherman's Lexington

A while ago you were telling me about this horse--I think. I seem to be having trouble finding things about him since there are several different horses with the name Lexington (figures), so do you think you could maybe help me a little bit? I know he was ridden in a war or something by William Sherman, but I can't seem to find much more than that.

Thanks! And happy early thanksgiving!

Horsegeek^(talk) 04:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Horsegeek

I think he was a Saddlebred, but I really don't know much else. Most of the cavalry horses in the Civil War were Saddlebreds or Morgans, including the ones ridden by the top commanders on both sides. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

[34], and Lexington (horse), and [35] <---hopefully will give you a starting place. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you guys! Horsegeek^(talk) 15:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Horsegeek

Season's Greetings

Hello Montanabw: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

"tis the season...."

Hello Montanabw: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 20:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

I see you got this card already. :)...―Buster7 ☎

Yo Ho Ho

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec17a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Ϣere SpielChequers 20:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless! — Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hi Montanabw, I come empty-handed, with no fancy card, but nevertheless want to wish you and yours all the best for Christmas and the New Year. Thanks for everything you've done this year. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Montanabw!!

Hi Montanabw, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Here comes Santa Claus on the outside! Leading a pack of 16... clearly not reindeer! On Indiana! On Dilettante! On Anselmo and Baldric!

In all seriousness, Merry Christmas. I hope all's well on your end and you're enjoying a good Christmas weekend. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Christmas greetings

	A Shaker Christmas wish
	Give good gifts, one to another Peace, joy and comfort gladly bestow Harbor no ill 'gainst sister or brother Smooth life's journey as you onward go. Broad as the sunshine, free as the showers. So shed an influence blessing to prove; Give for the noblest of efforts your pow'rs; Blest and be blest, is the law of love.

Wishing you all the best for 2018 and beyond! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

	Merry Christmas!
	Wishing you warmth and joy throughout this holiday season and a very Happy New Year! -dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Festivus!

		Happy Festivus!
		Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

		Happy Holidays! Happy New Year!
		Thinking of you and wishing you good health and happiness. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and All That

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Prisoners" New: "Fashion designers" New: "Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speaking of WIR articles

This may be of interest to my talkpage watchers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hazel_Carter . Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Montanabw!

Happy New Year!

Montanabw,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Montanabw, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Please share your point of view

Hi. I noticed that you have a law background. Please take a look at this discussion about Reid Collins & Tsai article? I would appreciate your expert advice on the subject. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty much in agreement with what Mendaliv said there. Article is too promotional in tone, I'd want to see more coverage specifically of the firm and not just its high profile cases. If there are other articles just as bad, they need to be fixed. (see WP:OTHERSTUFF) There is way too much "who cares?" stuff in there. I mean, heck, sometimes I've paid my annual dues to the ABA and I am most certainly not notable, nor is my law practice. I also have to get CLE credits every year and sometimes go to conferences to do so, that also doesn't create notability, that's just stuff for a resume, not a WP article. In short, credibility (ala resumes or a LinkedIn profile) is not notability. Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Montanabw: thank you for sharing your point of view. Well, @Mendaliv: didn't say it was promotional. He said it is hard to write about law firms because they are rarely mentioned separately from their cases. Can you give any suggestions for the improvement? For "getting the tone down" so to say. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it was also overly promotional, though it may have been phrased differently (the "who cares? comments there). You got good feedback at the draft page, I'd take it. Basically, don't just list stuff off of people's resumes the groups they joined and a laundry list of their big cases or clients. If it reads like the firms's home page on the web, it's overly promotional. Explain WHY they are already notable, not why they should get business. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

So your first suggestion is to remove the "Notes" part completely, right? Second suggestion is to filter "Notable cases. I've thought about it but they are all important, it is a selection of their cases, not all of them. What criteria should I uses for deleting (filtering) this info? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not giving you specific advice on the article, as I do not have the time. I have given you broad ideas. Take them to heart. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

J. W. Harris

Hi everyone. I was going to start an article on J.W. Harris, the world champion bull rider. Then I noticed there was a stub article on a deceased British man who went by the exact same moniker, J. W. Harris. He also has a redirection from a modification page at J W Harris. I don't necessarily care about that redirect page though. I checked the help at WP:MULTIDABS under the section No primary topic. It indicates there can be a dab page for two name articles that are the same. However, not only I have never done this, I am not sure of the etiquette regarding the other page.Bri, if you are reading, hi, and is this like the last case where we post a move page message and wait for consensus? Montanabw did this for me the last time. Any input appreciated. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would make the article at J. W. Harris (bull rider), then propose via Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the existing J. W. Harris to J. W. Harris (solicitor) to make way for the creation of a disambiguation page. There is, at least, a John Williams Harris, who could also conceivably be referred to by those initials, so it wouldn't be a pure WP:TWODABS situation. bd2412 T 04:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Yes, right I have seen the (bull rider) on article names before. It's late here, so I'll do this tomorrow morning. This sounds like what I need, thanks much. I'll post if I need assistance with any of it. dawnleelynn^(talk) 05:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Beat me to it, that sounds like a good plan. You can also use hatnotes like {{for}} if you prefer not to move the existing page. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bri and BD2412. I have requested the page move. Comments are absolutely welcome. This is my first page move request, so if anyone is allowed to edit it and make corrections they see needed, go for it. Oh, it's here - Talk:J. W. Harris Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Done J. W. Harris is a dabpage now ☆ Bri (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I just checked it out, wondered how things would turn out with the new information from editor ictu oculi in the move page discussion. Looks great. I'll close the discussion. Thanks a bunch Bri. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. Oh, I have to wait seven days. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh I see what happened there with the page move request and why you closed it now. Great, I can forget about it now, thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  - It was a little irregular because I worked faster than the requested 7 days to leave the notice up. But the moved article is for an obscure, deceased person whereas the new one has people seeking it (Google auto fill shows me this). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    - Yes, I thought you had your reasons, I concur with this naturally. It was my intention from the beginning to add this article quickly. It's the only thing I am working on and I could actually move it to mainspace now and keep expanding it. Otherwise, I think I could have it done by tomorrow. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey Montanabw or Bri Whoever sees this first, could you patrol J.W. Harris (bull rider), as I just moved it to mainspace. It's not quite done, but good enough to roll with since Bri so nicely made the page available for me and it's an article rodeo fans are interested in. I'll continue to make minor adjustments to it and some minor copy edits are also welcome. Later I need to make season 2014 more concise. Except for the Decatur event which I copied in from Shepherd Hills Tested. Thanks guys. There is a rodeo SNG but it seems that typical folks reviewing don't always see rodeo as notable. Thanks! dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- Montanabw and Bri Well, some nice editor reviewed my article and passed it, so maybe things are improving out there. No need for you two to patrol the article after all. I saw your edits, Bri, and thank you much. Bri, I found this WP:BLPNAME regarding privacy of names and the fact that I had the children's names in the article. The children's names and dates of birth are actually in the PRCA's website under the bull rider's cowboy biography. Even though I can't stop readers from obtaining the information if they go to the bio, there does seem to be a strong argument for not including the names in the article unless the information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. The section also states that the names must be left out if they are not properly sourced. I am glad to learn this information. I did not know. However, I think it is more relaxed on individuals who have been deceased for awhile? For example, I just received a notice in my Watchlist today that children names were added to Slim Pickens. How say you? Also, back when I expanded Bonner Bolton, I included names of his siblings because I was including information about their sporting activities relating to their brother. The policy expands to all immediate family members, not just children. Thanks for making me aware of this. One keeps reading but it will take awhile to take in and learn all of the policies. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Pickens' children probably aren't minors anymore. The policy as I apply it pertains to persons who are currently minors. If adults, I just leave it be if it is properly sourced. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense then, thanks.dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
17	Hunter pacing (talk)	Add sources
10	Tersk Stud (talk)	Add sources
34	Championship Bull Riding (talk)	Add sources
8	Scurry driving (talk)	Add sources
10	Icelandic equitation (talk)	Add sources
341	Farrier (talk)	Add sources
25	Competitive trail riding (talk)	Cleanup
116	United Team of Germany (talk)	Cleanup
9	Raymond Stampede (talk)	Cleanup
16	Musselburgh Racecourse (talk)	Expand
34	Chester Racecourse (talk)	Expand
43	Management of cerebral palsy (talk)	Expand
252	Ski touring (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
40	Animal treatment in rodeo (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
84	Roller skiing (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
239	Sheep dog (talk)	Merge
31	Participatory GIS (talk)	Merge
49	E-agriculture (talk)	Merge
16	1983 Grand National (talk)	Wikify
170	Fixed-odds betting (talk)	Wikify
9	Partners for Change Outcome Management System (talk)	Wikify
4	Mel Andrews (talk)	Orphan
5	Psychotherapy discontinuation (talk)	Orphan
11	Social media therapy (talk)	Orphan
16	Pleasure driving (talk)	Stub
13	Deporte de lazo (talk)	Stub
10	Myrtis Dightman (talk)	Stub
12	Keyhole race (talk)	Stub
42	Shane Proctor (talk)	Stub
10	Acoso y derribo (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Feburary 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Black women" New: "Mathematicians and statisticians" New: "Geofocus: Island women" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Montanabw|Montanabw]][[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]: Montanabw^(talk)

to

[[User:Montanabw|Montanabw]][[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]: Montanabw^(talk)

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have changed my tags as described. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Somewhere on my "to do" list... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 19:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

OK ... it's very easy ... click on "Preferences", and the signature field is right there on the default User profile tab. Enter the signature and click the save button at the bottom of the screen. Cheers! Anomalocaris (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I know that part, how do you think I created it in the first place. What I am asking is why is this a crisis? I have no idea what problems these errors you speak of are actually causing and if it's a "do it right away" or a "whenever you get around to it in the next few months." ;) Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, every time you sign something, you add one more lint error. It's not a crisis. It's good housekeeping in preparation for HTML5. See Wikipedia:Linter. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been a few months. Can you spare a minute now, please? —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, I changed it, is it correct now? Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Article content thread

Moving discussion over to article

So, @Atsme:, can you please point to any policy or essay that condones reversion based on the idea that status quo must be maintained? Because BRD (which isn't policy by the way) states: Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. There's nothing there about reversion being justified just because you don't want the article changed until you've approved the changes on talk. Especially after your first two reasons for reverting was an unsubstantiated accusation of COI, then an unsubstantiated accusation of synth and cherry picking. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE, but the first thing I saw was "blood markers" VS "genetic markers" and there was no justification for "blood markers" unless you work in forensics. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't see anything about status quo in WP:PRESERVE. And I have no idea what you are talking about "blood markers" VS "genetic markers." Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand...but before we move forward, I ask that you please look at this edit, and when you see "blood markers", let me know. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean, where is your authority that "blood marker" is not a valid phrase in this case? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How about we take that DNA-vs-"blood marker" (which is the name for older testing used for parentage identification prior to modern testing that is described as "DNA test" -- both being used as parentage and ancestry testing for horses, regardless of method) to the article page? Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

We can. But first, I would like to post this source: [36] where the term is used by impeccable experts. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's dated 1996, Lynn - we could also say the Edsel is the car of the future. It's not a term that's used in the 21st Century. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Source? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I will as soon as I catch my breath from laughing over Bull Pucky. Haven't heard that in a while. Wish we were having this discussion with country music playing in the background while drinking our favorite beverages! ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

See the following (quick picks): [37], and [38]. Hope that helps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

They don't. The first is discussing DNA. The second is talking about why some Blood marker tests are outdated. But the article is talking about the blood marker typing that was done in the past. It is a valid term to use in the context of the article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Folks, can you take this content discussion to the article, please? But in the spirit of beer and horses: [39] Thanks! (will let this cool and then will hat the discussion) Montanabw^(talk) 21:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Professional Bull Riders. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: I can see one revert from Montana at that article on 28 January and one on 9 January. What is the warning for? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Montanabw edited once at the beginning of the month and not again until 27 days later. Doesn't appear to be involved in an edit war on the cited article. SusunW (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason for the revert maybe? "Restore status quo ante until the issues on the other article are worked out." That seems to go against all the principles of Wikipedia, that an editor cannot be bold until other editors "finish" another article and get around to collaborating. Smacks of ownership. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I suggest you review this users contribution history... this isn't the first "revert" they've made today without discussing it on the talk page. This needs to stop or I will have to block them for not editing collaboratively. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: At several articles, she removed unsourced content and inaccuracies added by new accounts and IP addresses. At the article you mentioned above, she reverted once today and once on January 9. I can't see any reason to warn or block. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It was also tag-teaming. Dawnleelynn, MBWs protege, added material. She was bold but was reverted for a good faith reason. MBW jumped in and reverted for Dawnleelynn, giving an ivalid reason. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

montanabw reverted for me, because an admin had reverted my edit to an anonymous unsourced editor who most likely was a troll. I did not want to revert an admin. She helped me, rightfully so. dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC) P.S. I forgot to add, montanabw is a regular contributor to this article. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring by tag teaming is still edit warring. Calling an anonymous editor a troll to justify it adds one more dimension to the problem. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

LynnWysong, you're seriously accusing Montanabw of doing something as planned and devious as tag-team reverting/edit warring? I can't even imagine what your evidence is of that or why you would make such an aspersion about a long-time editor with over 100,000 edits and no blocks. But I can imagine that you'd say it based on the fact that you are currently ticked at Montanabw because of their edits to articles you have an interest in. Your edit summaries there express your distaste for MBW and her edits, don't you think? "You do not own this article" [40], "Engage at talk instead of reverting" [41], "Once again, you cast aspersions" [42], "Don't just give a new excuse for the same changes. Now explain how, instead of POV pushing, it's cherry picking and synth" [43], "Come and actively engage in collaboration. Stop reverting with lame justifications because you just want the article to remain untouched [44]. Indeed, you've been baiting and battling with Montanabw for a couple of weeks now, reverting a lot of what they've done in articles where you have an interest. As we can see here, you've been disparaging them and acting in quite bad faith in edit summaries directed at them. Really close to personal attacks, actually. Is that not true? I haven't even looked yet at the discussion at the talk pages of these articles, but my guess is you weren't too charitable there, either. Maybe you should step away from this discussion since you have a very obvious bias that's unlikely to add anything productive or collegial. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: This discussion is not about anyone other than Montanabw. I left a warning on Lynn's talkpage as well... and if you want to have a conversation about their edits I suggest you start a conversation there. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Do you also find this to not be edit-warring? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This ain't about me. If you want to discuss ME, take it to MY talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: Lynn and Montana were reverting each other at that article (Colonial Spanish Horse); Montana reverted once on 13 January, once on the 17th and once on the 19th. After that no one edited the article for two days, until for some reason you added full protection for seven days. And now today a warning on both their pages, but not the same warning: Montana gets {{uw-ew}}, which includes a threat to block, and Lynn gets {{uw-ewsoft}}, which doesn't. I suppose I'm wondering why you're issuing warnings and what distinction you're drawing between them. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The article was locked in response to this bogus ANI. I wasn't even aware of the ANI until another editor put a sock master template on my talk page, or that the Colonial Spanish Horse article was locked until MBW brought it up at the talk page, but I assume it was done to try to get us to collaborate. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

My issue with this anonymous user is taking place in two articles. The other is at the Built Ford Tough Series article where you can that same anonymous editor make changes and being reverted by me. And then you'll see an admin get involved. montanabw is there making talk page edits. But you won't find even one revert by her. So you see, this issue is entirely mine, and you trying tie to any blame to montanabw or any tag team is a long stretch. Additionally, a new IP was created to post a one-off message in the page move request that accuses me of deceit. More trolls. I am the bull riding writer here, not montanabw. It's been me 1 1/2 years now. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC) p.s. oh yes the PBR World Cup too. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I notice the Built Ford Tough Series article is locked also. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

An IP was making disruptive edits to that one too, that among other things made the references seem to not support the content by changing names. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I requested the page protection, easy to verify on the page protection page. Trying to stop the anonymous unsourced edits. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I also notice that MBW went to user:Only's talk page and requested that it only be locked to IPs. But it's locked against everyone.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

- Yeah, instead of granting my semi-protection request, that admin took over everything without being asked, blocked out everyone from the article, initiated the page move request, which no one asked for and I didn't want, pretty much ruled in favor of the troll in the Professional Bull Riders and the Built Ford Tough Series articles. Life's a bitch, isn't it? Why do you think another troll became emboldened enough to create a new IP on the spot and accuse me of deceit in the page move request discussion? As well as post another unsourced inappropriate edit in the PBR World Cup article?
  - @Dawnleelynn:The nature of IP editing, is that IPs change, either as the person moves around, or changes devices. A mobile device has a different IP than a stationary router. So, your accusation that the editor is being nefarious because his/her IP changes, is out of line. Wikipedia has made the decision to allow IP editing, and the consequence of that is an anonymous editor's contributions are difficult to track. Beyond that, I'm not going to jump into the fray as to the good faith of the IP's edits or the constructiveness of your responses. I will say that continually calling them a troll here doesn't do your case any good. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    - Ok, I did not know that bit about the IPs changing and etc. Thanks for explaining. I will refrain from now on. I only made one accusation of being a troll. After they accused me of deceiving editors. However, the edits were made without sources and that is easy to prove. Also, that the edits made in the PBR World Cup certainly show that the same two IPs tried to take the same tact there, trying to take an event that was discontinued 9 years ago, and remake it into an event called the PBR Global Cup which was created last year, as though the new event was a continuance of the old event, just a name change. But that is simply not true. [[45]] doesn't mention the old event. And, these edits are being made without sources...anyway, again, thanks for explaining. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      - @Dawnleelynn:Well, again, I'm not going to wade into the fray of who is right or wrong here. My interest in Bull Riding is limited to occasionally watching it with my husband while imbibing in a cold IPA. My guess is that Only reverted you at Professional Bull Riders to demonstrate neutrality since he/she had locked the other article at your preferred version. MBWs jumping into the fray by reverting him/her probably did your case no good. My suggestion is that first you put notices on all the IP's talk pages NICELY inviting them to discuss at the article talk pages (get rid of "royal we" which is the most patronizing, infuriating, and least collaborative way to address someone), and if that fails then make a good solid case that an anonymous editor is making questionable edits on the articles, not engaging in talk, and cannot be held accountable because their IP keeps changing. Then ask for a long term semi-protection that would force them to create an account if they want to continue editing them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over again. So at this point I'm terminating my participation in this conversation. I've explained the issues with the editor's behavior. You are more than welcome to disagree, as that's how this site works. But, I'm obviously not going to be able to change your mind on this issue when you believe this editor has been reverting to the WP:RIGHTVERSION, something that does not exist in our policy against edit warring. So I'm moving on to other areas that need my attention. Cheers, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we please take the slack out of our reins, cowboys/cowgirls, and slow this discussion down to a walk? The fast gallop is getting us nowhere fast. I'm late to the rodeo, but it appears we've got two editors who have different views (hope that doesn't shock anyone) but I must say that this edit by Mbw was a good one, and if that represents the kind of edits she's having to correct, then all the more reason for a concerted effort to discuss edits among the Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine members, which is not at all unlike what any of the other projects do including WP:WikiProject Med. @Coffee:, thank you for doing what you believed to be the right thing to stop disruption - you've certainly had your hands full in recent weeks - but please allow this group of veteran editors to work on the content issues that have created this little riff. Can we please begin on the TP of whatever article triggered the biggest disagreement, and work our way forward from there? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you ...

... for improving article quality in January 2018! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom ban appeal of interest to you

Linking to this, since I don't see any notification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Good grief. I can't believe that they are seriously considering this. And in particular right while I've been having some serious trolling problems. I cannot believe this is a coincidence. Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm....^{Atsme📞📧} 21:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Montanabw, when I first saw this, I assumed the committee had discussed it with you and Godot in advance, given the proposal for two-way ibans. Did you first hear about it after it was posted? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus posted here and that pinged my email, I found out about all this today. Montanabw^(talk) 21:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

That's astonishing. I thought the days where that kind of thing happened were over. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, its Rationalobserver, so nothing surprises me about that case. Montanabw^(talk) 21:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
50	Built Ford Tough Series (talk)	Add sources
155	Bronco (talk)	Add sources
26	Breakaway roping (talk)	Add sources
29	Collection (horse) (talk)	Add sources
134	Gymkhana (equestrian) (talk)	Add sources
5,113	Pornographic film actor (talk)	Add sources
18	Patrick M. Hughes (talk)	Cleanup
446	Seroma (talk)	Cleanup
488	Butte, Montana (talk)	Cleanup
772	Jimmie Johnson (talk)	Expand
6	Australian Professional Rodeo Association (talk)	Expand
33	Cattle baron (talk)	Expand
14	Milltown Reservoir Superfund Site (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
660	Horse meat (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
515	James and the Giant Peach (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
183	Word stem (talk)	Merge
59	Manx English (talk)	Merge
189	Case series (talk)	Merge
39	Animal unit (talk)	Wikify
4	Ice Breaker Road Race (talk)	Wikify
5	Federación Mexicana de Rodeo (talk)	Wikify
4	North American Sportpony (talk)	Orphan
3	Keith Trotter (talk)	Orphan
4	GTR Patricks Vindicator (talk)	Orphan
176	J. B. Mauney (talk)	Stub
261	SNAC (talk)	Stub
51	Horse trainer (talk)	Stub
116	Guilherme Marchi (talk)	Stub
5	Tony Mendes (talk)	Stub
7	United States Grazing Service (talk)	Stub

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Montanabw, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Three years of Wikipedia

Thank you for getting me hooked on Wikipedia three years ago over at Splashed white. I can easily say based on all of the interactions I have had since that none would have turned me into a regular editor. I had fun learning about something new and that is all one can really ask from a hobby. Jbh ^Talk 17:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

February 14th

(1860-1880) Museum of London	Happy Valentine's Day!
	It wasn't easy to come up with an innocuous Valentine's Day greeting to share with collaborators on Wikipedia, so I went with "evolutionary". Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There’s too much fraternizing with the enemy. ~Henry Kissinger ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for your help with the Skowronek issue! ArabHorseResearch (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons. Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative. Women's History Month 2018 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging