User talk:Dana boomer/Archive 5

Oba Chandler
Hi i have seen your review of this article for Good Article standard. And i have done some work on it. Could you please check it out and tell me what you think. I personally think that most of the sourcing issues are far gone by now. Cheers.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was even considering making a Featured article request because of what atleast I can see, most of the subject of trouble people pointed out in the first failed review has been taken care of by other users in a good way.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure
Thanks a bunch for enlightening me and letting me know what needs to be done in order to achieve the GA status. I will definitely remove sources that are not considered to be reliable. I am proud to be speaking to someone who has already bagged a medal. Hats off to you. I also needed to know what steps are to be taken to ensure that the article that I am editing reaches the FA status. I would personally want you to give me some tips. I'll be grateful. Nefirious (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Mini Mathur
The Mini Mathur article has been revised to remove extraneous and NPOV content, consistent with Wikipedia standards. You tagged this article for clean up in January 2008. Please see my edits. --John Kronenwetter (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Preparing Dominant white for GA review?
Hi! I've been working on Dominant white for a little bit, and I'm hoping to get it closer to GA-ready by getting some fresh eyes on it. If you get the chance to have a look, I'd be really grateful. All the best, Countercanter (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm adding a plug for this effort. The article is really well-researched, the organizational structure is strong and CC has been working really hard on this (PLUS putting up with me in the process!).  As far as I can see, her research looks to me to be close to impeccable (and she had to change my mind on several points, and you ALL know what a challenge THAT is!).  I am too close to the article to help with a GA review because I've been helping (or maybe just "helping-NOT!" --LOL)  and maybe even occasionally contributing something useful. So any help you can offer will be much appreciated!    Montanabw (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'm going to help, just had to find some time to get to it. Also, being close to the article doesn't preclude you from helping with the GA review, it just precludes you from being the reviewer. Once I jump in with my two cents, I won't be able to be the reviewer either. Same with Ealdgyth. However, between the four of us, we should be able to turn out an article that's ready for GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oba Chandler nominated
Have followed your directions to the best of my ability and have now re-nominated Oba Chandler for GA.--Judo112 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Spam
Thanks! Cgoodwin (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Butts
Sigh. Why is it that horse terminology is "jargon," when weird words in other genres are terms of art? Thanks for the fix! Montanabw (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Submitted Dominant white for GAN
Hey, I nominated Dominant white for GA today. Thanks for all your help! Countercanter (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleveland Bay
Congrats, dah-ling!!! Way to go!!! Montanabw (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolko I the Strict
Hi Dana. Thanks for your comments about the article of Bolko I; I really appreciate if you let me know how improved the article. Thanks again and sorry for my bad english!!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Burmese Indians
Hi Dana. Thanks for volunteering to review the article.I am sorry that I got caught in stuff so could not see the article. I will start working on your comments. Vinay84 (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana regarding some of the citations, many of them are sourced from the references and further reading section.Should each of those statements be referenced or is there some other simpler way to cite them? Guidance to any wiki templates or articles on this topic will also be useful. Vinay84 (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dana the paragraph you specified has been referenced.

--Vinay84 (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If not watchlisting
You may want to eyeball this one, which is getting some attention, and if you note edit history, there appears to be two political factions. Nokota horse. May be right up your alley with your access to the books on world horse breeds. I'm keeping out of it unless things get heated, seems to be mostly a "no one is sourcing anything" situation. Montanabw (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't have it watchlisted before, but I do now, and will keep an eye on it. I don't have my books right now, but will in about a month, so might start playing with it at that point. If things get heated between the two factions, I'll step in and start asking for sources from both sides, but at the moment, it seems to not be all that hot. Dana boomer (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also seems to be a kid wanting to tweak the Quarter pony stub. It needs it, but needs good material added, not info on plastic toys.   Montanabw (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Watchlisted that as well; expanding this article is on my to-do list for when I get home (along with about 8 million other articles) :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I"m also watching a low-level ethnic dispute at Karabakh horse. Armenians versus Azerbaijani stuff.  May also want to watchlist. I'm staying out of it mostly, made one small edit that may resolve the issue, but if we need to go in and send everyone to separate corners, it would be good to have backup.  The debate is actually interesting from the point of view of avoiding nationalistic disputes in this and any other articles dealing with the region. (I was surprised you got off so easy on Marjawi horse, that article was seriously owned for awhile by some folks whose English clearly suggested they were editing from India)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Icelandic horse
I looked it over, and did one small MOS edit on dashes as well as checking the sources. The sourcing looks fine to me. Trust Malleus' copyedits and queries, he's much better at the whole non-horse thing than I am. I spent the weekend hanging out with sailors, and that was interesting. They are almost as jargon heavy as horse people, and three-quarters of the time I had no freaking clue what the hell they were talking about! Certainly put a new perspective on the poor folks who have to read our horse articles! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick! How much jargon is in the GA and FA navigation  and sailing articles?  Do we FINALLY have an example of accepted terms of art that normal people accept so that we can quit being forced to say "the horse's mommy" instead of "dam?"  Please?  Poseidon is the god of the sea and horses, he understands both, so can we make an offering to him or something???  (LOL! And sounds quite entertaining, by the way)   Montanabw (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL, I know what you mean about sailors - I'm engaged to one, so when he and his buddies get together I tend to just mentally check out, since even after almost two years I still can't understand half of the conversation :) As for the Icelandic article, thanks for the help (both of you)! I will get to the rest of Malleus' suggestions soon, hopefully. I was all set to be able to have a lot of time on WP, and then work sat on me. Over 30 hrs of overtime over what was supposed to be a 4-day weekend - yay for the money but sucks for the rest of my life since by the time I get home all I want to do is sleep... Anyway, I'll see what I can do with his suggestions over the next few days. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You need this
Barnstar moved to userspace awards page.


 * Ooooohhh, pretty :) Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * More here: Personal user awards if you want to use them!   Montanabw (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Block User
Thanx for letting me know. I was thinking that it actually blocks all the vandals. I din't realise that I had no power or authority to block the users from editing. I will inform the administrator if I feel that some article has been vandalised or is being vandalised. Nefirious (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Joint Expedition Against Franklin GA
we have expanded this article with views from the other side. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 17:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Carthusian
That article totally appalls me. See my comments there. I personally think it isn't even worth working on, and should be merged with Andalusian. Montanabw (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Darndest stuff
Why there is a political spat over Nokota Horse, I wonder? Oh well. Montanabw (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea - people pick the weirdest breeds to fight over. It's on my to-do list to source, which will hopefully stop the in-fighting...I just got side-tracked by the Carolina Marsh Tacky. I'm working on it in one of my sandboxes right now, I'll drop you a note when it's readable. Dana boomer (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

GA review
Hi Dana!

Thanks for taking up the review. I've been waiting for so long I've simply forgotten about that article. I'll add the citations where they're needed soon. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello again.
 * I'm very busy these days, which is why I haven't been addressing the issues you raised in the Operation Badr review. I'll fix these problems sometime this week, so I'd appreciate it very much if you would keep the review on hold. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolt
NW says it is OK to use the tolt picture. Hooray. Fainites barley scribs 18:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I do believe that all of the issues have now been dealt with. -MBK004 19:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Glossary and portal
Hi Dana,

Say, don't know how much time you've spent at the project that took fire while you were moving, but see Glossary of equestrian terms. Could you add it to the Portal in some significant and easy to find way? And add more words too, if you want...But Ealdgyth is making us source everything as we go, so beware! LOL! Montanabw (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (cracks her whip) Well, I'm TRYING to get ya'll to source it. Somehow that always seems to work out to me digging out the books and doing a source pass every couple of weeks... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We also need to come up with a general policy on alt text for horse colors and such. Between the Icelandic GA and now the spat at Clydesdale horse, I wonder what to do.  Seems Dana's solution at Icelandic horse is the best?  (Color described literally with fancy word after: "Reddish-brown (chestnut) horse").   Montanabw (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had noticed the glossary, but just didn't have the time to add anything else in. Looks like you gals have it covered. I'll figure out some way to add it into the portal, but I think I'll wait until the featured portal process is complete before I change more stuff. Dana boomer (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an article on Horse color. Fainites barley scribs 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? I must be missing something, because I'm not sure where the above comment fits into the rest of the discussion... Dana boomer (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Maybe I just didn't read it carefully enough.Fainites barley scribs 16:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to what were you trying to say with the link to horse color, though... Was there someplace you thought it should be linked, or something it could be added to/added to it? Not trying to be pushy, you've just got me really curious as to where you were headed with the link... :) Dana boomer (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for alt text. Giving the horsey colour plus a description of the colour. Like "Dun (sandy brown with dark points)" type of thing. For ordinary text you can link the colour. Fainites barley scribs 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Yeah, all of us in the discussion are fairly familiar with the various specialized horse colors. It's just figuring out what the alt text gurus (i.e. Eublides, etc) want that is the issue. Also, having a set policy for this sort of thing will make it easier when we're dealing with random editors trying to add alt text to breed articles and using terms that visually impaired readers may not understand, and not being willing to add normal colors to it, as is happening in one of the other breed articles right now. Dana boomer (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well alt text for the visually impaired is obviously needed so I suppose there could be an almost standard description of colours. But also I don't think these colours are necessarily the same worldwide are they? Do you have strawberry roans in the US? Do the Brits have cremellos? Do either of those mean a thing to non-horsey types? Fainites barley scribs 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hee Hee! I was the lead editor on the last big cleanup of Equine coat color.  For the alt text, we have two issues.  One is the question of using "weird horse words" in general --doe we say  dun instead of tan, bay instead of "reddish-brown with a black mane and tail" or do we do both?  "Golden-colored horse (palomino)," for example.  The UK vs US English question is probably simpler because we can use the same standards for alt text as for article text itself, I think.  If it's UK English, we have a piebald, if US, we have a Black and White pinto.  Yes, we have strawberry roans, by the way, though people, including the AQHA, are trying to call chestnut base coat roans red roans now (I was taught that a bay roan was the red roan, but never mind...)    You may find Roan (horse), interesting.  We are discussing the terminology question there to sort it all out. Dana, is it OK we are all hijacking your talk page for this?  LOL! Montanabw (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both! Definitely both. As in "bright orange (chestnut)".Fainites barley scribs 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! "Orange?"  Now THAT I'd want to see!   Montanabw (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a chestnut irish sport horse and I have to say, bright orange was really the only adequate description.Fainites barley scribs 08:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile) GA review
Hi! Thank you much for your review! I fixed all the three issues. If the word "contested" is still unclear it may be removed. Flayer (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, again! Flayer (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Quarter pony


Congrats!
Congrats on the FA for Icelandic horse! My question: I don't want to glom onto your hard work, and you unquestionably did the FA push, but I did originally put hours into that article to clean up the base and do some (admittedly inadequate) sourcing. Would you object if I added the FA star to my user page as a "contributer" to the article's FA status? I don't want to claim credit where credit is not due, so it's your call, and I won't be "butt hurt" (grin) if you feel that you cleaned up a disaster that was my previous version. (Even though I cleaned up the disaster that was the version previous to that...) Let me know... Montanabw (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Next FA push? Hmmm.  What about Appaloosa?  I can probably source the Nez Perce stuff that's iffy, we have a lot of appropriate Native American history resources available to me up here.  I also have (for the moment) access to paid scientific databases for stuff on the leopard gene and genetic diseases, or we could ask Countercanter to help with the genetics stuff (she is AWESOME in that area!).   Montanabw (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(Very) belated thanks
Hi Dana, I always meant to pop by and say thanks for the GA review you did for an article which I wrote (Joseph Dennie), but I just never got around to it. Anywho, thanks for the review and the kind words. :) Best, faithless   (speak)  02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are quite welcome. It was an interesting article to read. Dana boomer (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ponystars
Instead of deletion, I'm considering simply redirecting Ponystars to Acclaim Games. Any objections? Marasmusine (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi and all that stuff
GREAT JOB on the Featured Portal status for Portal:Horse! Hope you gave yourself a BIG pat on the back for that! Congrats! Congrats!

Also, here's hoping that the Andalusian article gets a good review. I have bookmarked the GA review page and will try to be around to offer techical support. I'll also see if I can find that book I used in the Appy article that needs pagination, I think that was mine...did you like that I found the license plate??

Overall, wanted to say thanks for all your cleanup efforts and just the general housekeeping of WPEQ that you are doing. It is much appreciated!

I am a little dubious about the prod tag on Road to the Horse. I don't care deeply about the article so will let it proceed as it will proceed, but it is a big deal with the Natural Horsemanship crowd and will undoubtably be recreated if we dump it. Arguably, it could be merged into Natural horsemanship if you think it's taking up bandwidth. But I hesitate to toss it altogether. In that world, it's the only real competition thing they have, even if blatently commercial. Anyhoo, no big deal to me either way, but a thought. I don't get why someone had a fit about tossing the list of books, I think it needs to go too. AFD, perhaps??? Montanabw (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Fauna Barnstar


Suggestions?
Hey Dana!

Thank you very much for reviewing the article, and thanks again for being patient!

I was wondering if you had any suggestions on how I can improve the article to bring it up to FA-class. Any comments and criticisms are welcome.

Cheers! --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I went to a few users for help with copy-editing, but they were generally too busy. Could you suggest someone who could help me on this point? Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Will-do. Thanks for your help! --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

GAN
Bear in mind that RFC bot pays no attention to WP:GAN. If you want the bot to be fed with new information, you'll have to edit the nominations on the talk pages themselves. @harej 00:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually wasn't talking about your bot. I was talking about the bot that creates WP:GAN/R. Funky coding can sometimes make it not read properly, so I was correcting a few things to reduce the GAN/R section. Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Just that I am working on a GAN-related bot of my own, and when I see mentions of bots I think of my own. @harej 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Horsies
Dana, I tweaked on Andalusian and Appaloosa a bit. I think I clarified things, but if I screwed them up instead, mea culpa in advance. Oh, and am I bad to say that I am ever more convinced that all factions of the Andalusian/PRE crowd seriously needs to get a life? (I'm just the editor, sigh)  Montanabw (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kaimanawa horse
I put a note on Gwinva's talk page. She's not a horse person, but she IS a New Zealander, so maybe between her and CG, they'll spot anything really off. You'e been doing a lot of really good work on these, Wow!!! Montanabw (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! For some reason I had thought she was from GB...my bad. Dana boomer (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * She was living in GB, but moved back to NZ a couple years ago! So you are partly correct! LOL!  By the way, I see you have a new toy! (AWB)  I have never been able to figure out how that works... but looks like you are doing way cool things with it!  Montanabw (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got bored last night and installed that and Huggle, just to see what all the fuss is about. They're both fun, but I doubt I'll be using them on a daily basis. AWB is good nice though, for spell checking and small errors, along with general formatting. Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Have they improved the instructions? I looked a couple years ago and the details made my eyes cross!   Montanabw (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, not having seen the instructions a couple of years ago. However, I didn't really go too deep into the details - I was mainly experimenting last night with the basics - spell checking and other basic features. I haven't tried using any of the custom add-ons or anything; I have a feeling that the coding on those will make me need a couple of advil and a good book. Dana boomer (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A yes, coding. Yes, that was it...  You are a brave person to get as far as you got!  Congrats!   Montanabw (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I really could not add much to the article except a link to a TV programme that I saw a few days earlier. You may care to check Talk:British Horseracing Hall of Fame Cgoodwin (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments.00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Eshmun
Hi Dana, i fixed the issues you pointed out, could you please check again, let me know of unresolved stuff/new comments, thx for your time Eli  +  16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad Hasan Dani
Hi Dana. Thanks for very useful comments at Talk:Ahmad Hasan Dani/GA1. I have tried to address all your concerns. -- Isles CapeTalk 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dana. -- Isles CapeTalk 18:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Horsey articles
Hey, if you wanted to upgrade Kinsky horse, I'd be fascinated to see what you could find. (Details why via email). Montanabw (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * E-mail received. I'll see what I can do on the article; I should have some time either tonight or tomorrow. Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Swiss Air Force GAN
Hi, I was quite surprised that you failed this GAN without even noticing the nominator on its talk page that you left any comments. As far as I know, when someone reviews an article he should announce the editor especially when he gets no response in a decent amount of days. Considering that I was a bit inactive in the past two weeks (though not completely inactive, usually made few edits per day), and my watchlist contains 1000+ pages, I haven't seen that you posted any comments on Swiss Air Force talk page - plus not counting that the GAN was placed two months ago and I completely forgot about it. However, if I'd knew of your comments I'd certainly address them since they weren't very serious issues. Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good enough, thanks. I'll take care of the issues today and let you know when the GAN is reopened. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Music of Minnesota
You're right, I did sorta tag-spam that article. I've reined back on most of the fact tags, but I think the other inline tags should stand, as some might say that there might be many weasel words in it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Olympic medalists in equestrian featured list nomination
Hi! Added my comment for your List of Olympic medalists in equestrian featured list nomination. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruby Laffoon
Thanks for your GA review of Ruby Laffoon. I think I have addressed all the issues now. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kiliaen
Thanks for dropping me a line; I hadn't noticed. I addressed your concerns the best I could. Let me know what you think.  upstate NYer  01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks very much for the review. I appreciate your comments, and your fresh eye! (nothing left on the Ostrach talk page for you, just that this is easier to leave a message with....:   Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Walter Peeler ACR
Hi Dana. Thank you very much for your comments in the A-Class review of Walter Peeler. I think I have addressed all of your issues, so, if you are not too busy, would you please be able to check back in to see if everything has been remedied to your satisfaction? :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Congrats on your Olympic article going FL status! Montanabw (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division FA
Hello. I have responded to your concerns on the 7th Infantry Division FA and was wondering if you had any more. Thank you! — Ed! (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Image and language question
The uploader hasn't been active in the French wikipedia since summer 2006. He has a history of images with dubious copyright here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Check your books?
Hi Dana, Our new WPEQ member, Pitke, is working up a storm on Finnhorse and doing an astonishing job. Only problem is that Pitke is in Finland, as are all the source materials, and they are in Finnish. So while his/her sources are pretty good (I think Pitke has access to a university library for this), and unquestionably the best available sources, they aren't in English, which may someday cause some heartache. I was wondering if you could check your breed books and see if some of the material in the article can be sourced to English language materials. If your sources contradict what's in there, I would put that content on the talk page rather than editing the article itself, as I suspect the Finnish sources will be more accurate, but hard for us to verify. But anything that is consistent would do well with English sources. Anyway, I really am impressed with the way Pitke is coming along as an English wiki editor, I believe all this started because of his/her efforts to translate English articles to Finnish wiki...and I am finding this editor really willing to discuss issues, find sources, etc... I'm just way impressed, and I'd like us all to see if we can lend a hand on the Finnhorse article, which is clearly becoming a labor of love for Pitke. And really interesting, to boot! Montanabw (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked through my stuff, and nothing beyond the trusty Simon & Schuster's Book of Horses and Ponies. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything there that agrees with existing content we can use to supplement any of the Finnish footnotes? Pitke is (rightfully I think) concerned that the generic US breed books may contain inaccurate information, particularly about the color genetics and patterns, but where they are correct, I think it helpful to add them.  I think article has the potential to go GA if we can avoid citation issues.   Montanabw (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also a brief entry in Edwards Encyclopedia of the Horse on the "Finnish Horse", which may be the same thing. However, both of these entries are very brief, and have nothing that expands on the information already in the article. I don't think the preponderance of Finnish sources will be a problem, as long as they're properly noted. In this case, I think the Finnish sources will probably be better on this subject, although Pitke may have to present translations of some of the sources upon request of the GA reviewer, if the reviewer so chooses. Sorry I couldn't be of more help; I think in this case (as in many others where there is significant literature on a specific breed) the generic books aren't going to be of much help. My biggest suggestion would be to make sure that Pitke knows what is considered a reliable source, as he is the only one of us who can read the sources, and so he's really the only one who can judge reliability. Dana boomer (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some, but I'm also doing lot of copyediting there for flow and such, so I'm a bit too close to do a good job (partly because I'm already a nag).  But if you wanted to pop by and offer some comments, I think they would be well received.   Montanabw (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You started it... (grin)
Please weigh in on Monty Roberts and the merge tag you put on the article about one of his books. My merge, per your tag, which seemed noncontroversial at the time, seems to have stirred up a minor shitstorm, Could you weigh in on the Monty Roberts talk page with your views? Montanabw (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have fun...
On the 22nd with Icelandic horse ... you're on the main page! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh...yay...not. I'm going to have to work for a good part of that day, so I am sending a fervent plea to any and all of my talk page watchers to help with the vandal fighting. Thanks for the heads up, Ealdgyth. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * She shoots, she scores! We'll help out.  Maybe post on WPEQ's talk page too!  This is the first breed article to go on the main page, isn't it?  We haven't put up TB have we?  (We ought to around Derby Day, though...)  Ealdgyth had a horse bio there,didn't you? And one of the bishops articles??   Montanabw (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Go Man Go was on the main page this spring. I've also had Stigand, Ælfheah of Canterbury, and Paulinus of York on the main page, plus have helped watchlist a few I supported at FAC (including Martin Bucer which was just on the main page the other day...) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, congrats on Cleveland Bay Dana! Nice work!   Montanabw (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, congrats! What's next? (And we really really need to work on Horse folks...) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've thought about Marwari horse, but some of my sources are a little light and there are some gaps, so I'm still thinking on that one. Possibly Haflinger (horse), which I'm currently working on expanding with some new ILL sources. Andalusian and Appaloosa are also on my list for the next 6 months or so. And yeah, I know Horse needs more work; I just get twitchy even thinking about that article after the little GA fiasco. It may be smooth sailing through FAC, but... Has Kim finished her run through of the taxonomy/evolution/domestication sections? That's one of the major things that still needs doing, I believe. Working on the remaining unreliable sources/sources needed tags is on my post-New Years agenda. Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Kim's left Wiki again. And talk about politics, Andalusian?? Yikes. Appaloosa's probably close to ready, as is Arabian horse. I've got Lightning Bar (sire of Doc Bar!) on my list and Miss Meyers and have been thinking about doing a Thoroughbred or two for variety. I also have been working on William T. Porter and Fairfax Harrison, both instrumental in documenting Thoroughbred history in the U.S. I also hope to start United States Remount Service sooner or later... fun! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of an article on the Remount, there are several places where it is redlinked already or could be linked, quite easily. As for a FA run, Haflinger will probably be like Cleveland Bay, a fairly non-controversial, safe run -- and good luck!  Horse could go FA with a little work; I think the GA fiasco is unlikely to reoccur as the source of that fiasco is now well-recognized for such things and has been blocked at least once now.  I like the idea of trying to see if we can get Appaloosa to FA  before tackling Arabian horse, because both have long history sections and some controversies over genetic conditions that could cause some blowback on both articles.  I'm less emotionally vested in the Appy article and could probably handle the process there easier; and I can probably get access to material at the Historical Society if we need better sources on western history.  Plus. doing Appy first will get us a preview of coming attractions that could arise if we tried to take Arabian to FA (the thought of which utterly terrifies me at the moment).  I'm even less emotionally vested in Andalusian, if we wanted to tackle it, I think the politics are just going to be an example of how to handle a controversy on wiki; the article itself is pretty stable and free of significant edit-warring.  My only concern there is that there is some serious scholarly work on that breed out there, probably mostly in Spanish, and we may need to do some serious sleuthing about the pedigree keeping by the Carthusian monks and all that.  Could be fun though, and E, with your collection of stuff on Anglicanism, got anything more general that discusses pre-Reformation history of the Church and such- like the Carthusian order and so on?   Montanabw (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't honestly have much on Spain, though. Everything is oriented towards England. Sandy does speak Spanish though, if we wanted to beg her for translations... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And Remount will be fun because there really isn't much written about it. I may just write a new book, I'm almost to the point in the house/horse/photography thing where I can start writing again...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Authentic
I created a page on my user page (if that makes sense) in prep for a real page on wikipedia. could you help with editing?? Go to it at User:Taylor Lane/Authentic (horse). Thank you SO much!! *dream on*dance on* 20:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Gurkha VC's
Thanks for the heads up Dana boomer. I did see the FLC when it went up and mean to comment then, but I've recently moved house so I've been a little busy! Sorry 'bout that. I'll give it a final look tonight or tomorrow, but I'm already erring towards support! Merry Christmas! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

GA article - Thanks
Thanks for your help, suggestions and good wishes. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm being good today
Santa is on his way, I guess, so I discussed the merge of Mallein test at the talk page, but also did add the material from the article into glanders, because it seemed useful to do so. But I didn't merge or remove the other article. So now I'm being good, and if no one seems to care, I'll let you do the honors of creating the actual merge this time. LOL! Montanabw (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You are one of the twelve editors advancing into the second round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The second round started at 00:00, 29 December and ends 23:59, 31 January. The top six ranked players at the end of this stage will advance into the final round of the contest so keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Malvern, Worcestershire
Hi Dana, i noticed the GA review you  made for the Warwickshire article and was impressed by  the fair way  you  summarised it. I have nominated Malvern, Worcestershire for GA review a while ago but  I  don't think anyone has got round to  it yet. Perhaps you are just the person  who would be interested in  doing this. The page is now complete. There is just some on-going  work to  introduce a new Wikipedia form of presenting  references in  the reflist, but  this has no  effect  on the overall content,  presentation, or quality  of the article. Kind regards, --Kudpung (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
should be okay now. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

FAR thanks
Dana, thanks for all the help at FAR ... reviews there are really lagging, so your good work is appreciated! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome :) I try to run through a few now and then... Please let me know if there's anything about my reviews that is off-kilter, I'm rather new at reviewing for the FA processes! Dana boomer (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're doing great! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern
--Kudpung (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Donkeys
Good luck on your new project, let me know if you want a second set of eyes. And this one is a MUCH needed effort! Montanabw (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably going to be a slow one. It'll take quite a bit of time and som ILLs before it even goes live, much less to GA or further. Cross your fingers for me on this one..., although I suppose it's better than tackling Laminitis or Horse meat at this point (the other two articles with the highest tag count at the cleanup page). Dana boomer (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't touch the horsemeat article with a ten-foot pole, I admire that you are even thinking about it! I would have an interest, eventually, on a collaboration on the laminitis article, though -- it's a topic near and dear to my heart, having dealt with it personally, plus I have a ton of stuff from The horse  -- the research is quite cutting edge, our understanding of laminitis is changing almost as dramatically as is our understanding of genetics.  It's going to be a daunting task and maybe one where we don't even look at the existing article and just recreate it from scratch.   Oh, FYI, speaking of horse health, noticing a redlink on one of Ealdgyth's new articles, I created Colitis-X, which was somewhat new to me, at least in how serious it is. =:-O  The up side of that is that I realize that we will have a lot more luck getting scientific articles on the net than we do the history/breed stuff.   Montanabw (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL.. Lightning Bar isn't new.. he's just getting ready for his FAC push. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GAN for Horses in World War I
I left a review at Talk:Horses in World War I/GA1. NVO (talk) 03:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern, Worcestershire GA review
Hi Dana boomer. Perhaps I could make some observations.

Firstly, on the mix of embedded and List-defined references, as I now know they are called. They sit quite unproblematically side-by-side, and create no problems for the readability of the article. Nor do they create any problems for the editing.

Indeed there are featured articles with mixed styles, such as the recent M249 light machine gun. This contains a type of list-defined style (Harvard templates, which result in a list-defined style), and embedded reference, analogous to that which you refer to for Malven. And today's featured article Splendid Fairywren contains both "cite xyz" and "citation" templates, with no problems. For example, Schodde R (1975) (a "citation" ref) has sat alongside other ref templates without issue since 23 September 2007. One can find other examples, such as Jerry Voorhis, or Elwood Haynes. Differing styles can and do co-exist. Probably the most common reason for the same style in any given article is simply that new editors copy the format of previous editors - and this applies to me as well as anyone else. That's more about group dynamics than the physical inability to make differing styles co-exist.

In the Malvern, Worcestershire article, I don't see any evidence that "citation" and "cite xyz" screwed up the formatting. They sat quite well alongside each other, as they continue to do in some other articles, along with the simple style, with or without, and , and this sat alongside each other without causing problems either for each other or the referencing layout, is all the proof that is needed that the template co-existence is not a genuine issue.

In the end, it's how the reference displays that matters. What one does behind the scenes to make it work is less relevant. One can get the same effect with 'free-hand' references between ref tags, or using the various templates available. In my experience to date trying to get various templates to work, what I have found sometimes is that it is the "xyz" that causes the problem, preventing the reference from showing up in the fashion desired. In some such cases, I found removing "xyz" and exchanging for "citation" fixed it. It doesn't always work. Sometimes the problem appears to be whether you're using "cite x", when "cite y" will give the desired display. Here it's a matter of trial and error, checking previews along the way.

In other words, sometimes the utilisation of ever more specific templates creates more problems than solutions. Certainly GyroMagician and I found this in trying to implement the Harvard style templates in an article probably not suited to to that layout, and thus not benefiting from the templates, which of course are not the style, but tools for the style.

The creation of more problems than solutions by the implementation of ever more 'sophisticated', or at least ever more specific templates is the crux of one of Kudpung's points, which is easy to acknowledge, as I have in our discussions. One can find examples of my earlier citations, where I simply placed free-hand information between the ref tags. Later, once I was familiar with templates, I 'upgraded' to template format. But in some cases, this added no new information, apart from say, ISBN, which could have been placed free-hand anyway. The point? There's no point trying to impose the ever-increasing use of templates on someone if they're using a method that is compatible with more recent developments - it may well be those people who are showing the greater sense!

Thus there was unambiguously no serious disagreement as such among the editors. Certainly nothing that of itself created a problem for the article. We tried a referencing layout style (like a phenotype, or visible layout), and while in the process of doing that, we had some very good, rational discussion about the pros and cons, which serves as a good example, not a bad one (we've all seen bad ones, probably you more than me with your experience and role). I for one had my doubts about the new layout (not the templates - it was always a question of the referencing layout), and as a courtesy, I elaborated them as best I could formalise my thoughts, as soon as I could, to give people time to ponder on it as we beavered away. I could have been wrong. The referencing exercise would have been completed just the same, with help from me as I could. So the discussion was far from an indicator of anything problematic.

So all the while we made the effort to make the style work, and see how it panned out. There came a point where, of hs own volition, GyroMagician reached the same conclusion as me about the style we were trying. At that point, we reverted to the style we'd had previously, and carried on. There was no one-upmanship, coercion, ingroup-outgroup, dominance-submission stuff, or edit-warring, as one sees when people get irrational with each other or pursue secondary agendas. Rather, we all realised that no matter what, progress was occurring, and that we could all learn from the exercise, and from each other. Which we did, remarkably well.

During this process, Kudpung's style remained unchanged, placing embedding references within the text. This worked, and works, for him, and was certainly not an issue for either GyroMagician or myself. The references show up just the same, and did not affect the attempt to find a suitable layout or make the templates work. Someone else could format them into template if they wanted, but if they didn't the net effect on the article would be zero, as long as the referencing details were spelled out correctly between the ref tags.

As you doubtless know, not all editors are familiar with, or comfortable with, or can see much gain, from the use of templates. Some get a better return for effort by simply using the, while others do well using templates. Some of us have no strong opinion either way.

The main function of the list-defined references is to declutter the article text to make editing easier. I saw this in User:Chienlit's implementation of a reference update for the Vincent Priessnitz article on 15 November 2009, and knew immediately that I was looking at a useful tool. I find it particularly useful for articles that are heavily referenced, or have long references, and/or clusters of references. When I came to the Malvern article, GyroMagician was, as I understand it, approaching the same conclusion, from a different direction. At that point, the main objective was implementation of templates, which were embedded in the text. But the templates were deliberately spread vertically (rather than collapsed horizontally) to try to make the task of reading and editing easier. But I could see it was slow going.

I already knew from previous trials that by grouping the references at the end, and reducing the clutter WITHIN the article, the task of editing both the body and the references could be made easier. GyroMagician, who was working on the templates, could see this too, but suggested we try another way of achieving the same thing. I had my doubts, and gave others the courtesy of outlining them at the earliest time that I could formalise them (per discussion pages). But on its own, that was no reason not to see if we could make it work. No matter what, we'd achieve something useful, and no matter what, we'd learn something useful. So we proceeded. GyroMagician eventually reached the same conclusion as me, of his own volition, albeit making the effort to see what I was on about. And of course I now know the history of that idea.

I sum, I don't see the evidence that the behind-the-scenes referencing formats as were used caused any conflict. Errors occurring during editing are quite normal business, and it's always the solution that counts. We sorted those as we went, as one does. The dialogue accompanying that is not evidence of anything other than good problem solving dialogue.

My impression was that the overall readability of the article was the aim, and in this I had the impression that the progress was in the right direction. Regards Wotnow (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "And another thing...". No actually, when fixing the refs (#90, 91, 92), I recalled how it came about that we had templates with "citation", and "cite xyz". When trying to implement templates for the Harvard style, I found that when placing citations in the bibliography section, those with "cite xyz" didn't work. I looked at a couple of articles utilising the Harvard-style templates, and saw that they used "citation". On the offchance that this would fix the problem, I changed the recalcitrant refs, and they worked (see e.g. this version at beginning of changeover, and this version just prior to reversion from Harvard to Malvern Water style.


 * When we reverted back to the previous referencing layout, having given the Harvard layout a good shot to see how it would fare, those citation changes didn't cause any ill effects, so remained. I think I see something of where you are coming from. There wasn't any history of edit warring etc, and the article was stable and looked ready to roll, but then you notice these changes going on. If I were you, I'd feel remiss not to comment, and I acknowledge and appreciate that.


 * I guess the crux of the point I was trying to make is that we initially went down a 'wrong road', recognised it just in time, and despite it all, we seemed to pull it off, with the refs reading as refs should, bar ordinary bits to fix, like missing publishers. I'd have spotted that, along with the double up of the Tony Freer-Minshull (2007) listing in 'Further reading', which I'll fix just after this message. I would only say that if all is not lost, lets not lose it. Regards Wotnow (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * HI Dona, I  would like to  thank  you both  personally, and on behalf of the WorcestershireProject team for you  patience and perseverance, and for according  Malvern, Worcestershire a GA. :) Kindest  regards, --Kudpung (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur wholeheartedly with Kudpung's sentiments. Your role must be at times difficult and frustrating, yet simultaneously fascinating (powerful motivators to learning if ever there were). Despite it all, you have done a good thing, for which I not only thank you, but also commend you. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dana boomer - a slightly belated thank you from me as well. I was sceptical about the WP review process, having had some less than helpful interactions with reviewers previously. Your specific, detailed comments have restored my confidence in the process! Thank you for taking the time to not just say "it's wrong", but to explain what was wrong/missing/repeated (we had a few of those), and how we might address the problem. Your regular updates on our progress were also very helpful. If such a thing existed, I would give you a FR (fine reviewer) rating :-) GyroMagician (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Smedley Butler
Thanks for your comments on the Smedley Butler article. I think I have addressed most of the things you mentioned however there are a couple of questions that I have. If you get the time could you swing back by and see if it meets your expectations.--04:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for taking time to review the article. I think I have addressed all of your concerns but please let me know if you find anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I got them all know. --Kumioko (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients list
I just noticed you are working on this list (I edit conflicted with you). I am in the process of rebuilding this list also and was just about to add a bunch of changes (my internet is slow so I am drafting it in word). I am reformatting this to look like the other Medal of Honor recipient lists nd hope to have most of it done this weekend. Please let me know once your done so I don't accidentally undo your edits edits. --Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the Home of Heroes website isn't unreliable but I use the Army Center of Military History site or the Marine Corps Who's Who (for the Marine Corps recipients) just as a general rule. --Kumioko (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I really do appreciate your help on the article. I just reread my comment and I think I came on a little strong and didn't mean too. I also wanted to point you to the page I created to track the MOH recipients here. Its still in a state of development but it helps me figure out who has an article or not and I am adding the statuses so that will be visible as well. I am also trying to figure out a way to show the last date an edit was made for each one, but I haven't broke the code on that one yet. Eventually I would like to get a project going similar to teh one running now for the battleships but I havent got all my ducks in a row yet. Since you seem to be interested in the topic here are a few notes.


 * 1) All MOH recipients with articles have Infoboxes,
 * 2) most have persondata,
 * 3) all have links to the relevant list (related to the MOH anyway)
 * 4) all have links to relevant portals
 * 5) most have the citation of the Medal
 * 6) Most are start or better, very few are truly stubs and those that are still have the above listed items.
 * 7) using this list I can easily see if a new article for a recipient is created so if a new one appears I add the above items if they arent there, then I line it out. This can be seen easily on the articles for creation page. Thanks again for the help. Cheers--Kumioko (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

military people
Have you checked in every case that they were not notable subsequently for something else? (If you have, it helps to say so on prod listings. )  DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The way you are doing them now is exactly right, and is a model for what ought to be said in such cases. Very nice work.    DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Toys for your sandbox
] Here is a decent photo, been used on other wikis. Sometimes surfing those interwiki links to see what the other language articles have is a good place to surf images. Montanabw (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, saw that one, but thanks. I'll work it in soon, just need to get some more length to the article to be able to fit it in :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an argument for it to be the lead. The other horse is not as attractive, though the photo is somewhat clearer. Your call.  Montanabw (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Horses in World War I/Sources
By a somewhat convoluted route I've just stumbled over http://horseinculture.blogspot.com/, an academic group blog which does what it says on the tin. They also have the following group library online https://www.zotero.org/groups/horses_in_history_and_culture/items which might identify some additional sources. David Underdown (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot this was here. A belated thanks, David, this looks like it could be a good bibliography-type site for horses in culture type articles. Dana boomer (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

re: Horses in World War I
Hi Dana. The editor I had in mind was Eurocopter. He had originally asked me if I was interested in reviewing the article as it would be one of the more important topics to be promoted during the WWI Contest period, so may be interested in reviewing it himself. I just left him a little note on his talk page here asking him if he was willing to do so. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

But of course
I'll have a look ASAP. Sounds like an interesting article. RB88 (T) 15:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I threw in my two cents. It's a good article, source wise. I hope I've made another pony person happy as it's part of my job description around here. RB88 (T) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's me done I think. Any more FARs you need help with, just send a message. It's a nice change from the FAC fandangos. ;) RB88 (T) 02:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota
Thanks for asking for my help, but I don't know about the subject, and have no experience in FA reviews. Best of luck in your endeavours. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Parrot of Doom has done some FA work. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy Dana boomer's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)hap

George F. Engel
You prodded George F. Engel; however, the article was prodded and contested by the author in September 2009. I have opened an AfD, Articles for deletion/George F. Engel, and copied your prod rationale. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Marwari horse
I've been through Marwari horse as you asked; hopefully I haven't wrecked your article. I do have a couple of queries though, things I couldn't resolve myself:


 * The opening sentence of the 1900s to today section says "the period of the British Raj perpetuated the breed's downfall ...". "Perpetuated" is clearly the wrong word here, as the downfall wasn't perpetual, but I'm not sure what's really being suggested here. "Hastened the breed's downfall"?


 * There are a couple of citations where it looks like the authors are being listed firstname lastname (#14 and #21), but I don't understand what an author name of "S. N. Tandon and Sonia" is supposed to mean. Is that "Sonia Tandon"?

Overall though it's another nice little article. Shouldn't have much trouble with it at FAC I wouldn't have thought. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: Texas Oil Boom
Thanks for looking at Texas Oil Boom.

Question/advice: I took a look at 102 329 nobel oilwells.jpg (I had been remiss in not checking this more thoroughly before). I found the exact place it was copied from (though that was a copy from another credited source that I don't have direct access to). I have found copies of this image around different locations on the web but have seen no specific info on the photographer or the date it was taken. Since the photo is specifically described as the "Nobel wells" and the Nobels abandoned this site in 1920 (which would be the cutoff for the public domain justification) it seems likely the photo was taken before that year. However, I don't believe the wells were destroyed in any fashion after the Soviet takeover so it is not inconceivable that the photo was taken after that but is still described to credit the men who first created the structures. I hate to take the photo out but I'm not sure how else to pursue establishing with certitude the dates/rights. Suggestions?

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Horses in World War I
I've leeft comments at Talk:Horses in World War I/GA1. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wright Brothers FAC
Ack, sorry for misplaced FAC. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Aepryus (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Fun Fun!
Congrats on getting Suffolk Punch as today's featured article! Good for you! Going to update the horse portal and WPEQ? In local news, we put in our early greenhouse 'crops' over the weekend. Montanabw (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Horse headings
You need to sort out the preferences, and make them logical! If they had followed a sensible consistent order, I would not have bought into it.

Three points here:
 * Among the FA articles they were inconsistent. One article already had Notes, References, Bibliography. A number of the articles had Notes, Citations, References. At least two had Notes, Footnotes, References.


 * It is inappropriate to label something that is a "reference" or "citation" as a "note" or "footnote". These two headings imply that the content is not simply a reference but contains "notes" ie further information or comment.


 * The term "references" can apply either to a citation or a list of books. It is quite applicable to use it for the latter, but then a word other than "notes" or "footnotes" needs to be found for the inline references. "Citations" is a perfectly good solution. "Footnotes" is not. And using a list of headings that includes both "notes" and "footnotes" is, frankly, ridiculous!

Amandajm (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review for Lusitano
Hello, Dana boomer. I have been reviewing Lusitano, and so far I have found it to be well written; however, I noticed several problems with the article that need to be addressed before the article can pass the review. I have noted the issues here: Talk:Lusitano/GA1. I will be watching for the articles revisions, and please feel free to ask questions or give your concerns on the talk page. --Tea with toast (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Horse
Hi, I'd love to trot over for a look. I've been insanely busy in real life in the last couple of months but I may have a moment tomorrow and/or Wednesday when I can stop being a headless chicken for a bit. Fainites barley scribs 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll have a look in the near future. For what it's worth, my Delichon article is also at FAC, about three places above your candidate  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR

 * Thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded, and also thanks for this! I can't believe I forgot to do that. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Horses in the Great War
Hi Dana,

You might want to take a look at this site. I haven't read it through yet, but it looks useful. Kulystab (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Kulystab. This site has been mentioned before on the HiWWI talk page. However, we had a few problems with it. First of all, we don't know how the site itself is reliable. The index page doesn't exist, and as far as I can find, there is no "about us" page that describes the site. Second, how do they have permission to post these magazines and stuff? Although it is doubtful that any of them are still under copyright, that is possible. Third, most of the magazines themselves are contemporary publications that were meant to arouse patriotism in the population of whatever country they were being published in. There is a good chance that not all of the info is actually factual, and that a lot of the exploits described haven't had a bit (or more) of hyperbole added to them to make them sound better and more heroic. Thanks for pointing this site out to me, but at this point it's not one that I want to use in an article that will, I hope, soon be going to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review/USS Bridgeport (AD-10)/archive1
I never said the article was copyvio, so I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting my views by bringing up copyvio. If you have an opinion about the article's quality then say it, but quit wasting time by changing the topic to copyright when that was never the topic to begin with. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR
Yellowmonkey has told me we need another FAR delegate and recommended you for the job. Is that something you're willing to do? Raul654 (talk) 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR delegate
Welcome, Dana (hope you don't regret it :) If you ever need any help, drop a note on my talk. One thing you might be aware of is that Gimmetrow (Gimmebot) runs the bot on Tuesdays and Saturdays, and prefers that we archive on those days. Let me know if you have any questions! I'd love to see FAR get back to a higher save percentages, and pinging people in to work in their specialty areas might help. Have fun, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for both the welcome and the offer of assistance if needed, Sandy. I will keep Gimmetrow's archiving schedule in mind and make a special effort to archive on those days. I have been attempting to ping people about some articles that are at FAR, and I want to make this even more of a priority. Dana boomer (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well done, I was expecting some dramatic drumroll or unveiling on a catwalk or something...  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, YM! For my part, I was for some reason expecting it to be slightly more painful. Perhaps something to do with Sandy's comment about Raul putting it up for community consensus - that thought scared me for a while :) Dana boomer (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Tony has gone soft and has been overtaken in the reviewing stakes for high standards by the new crop :P I was rather surprised by his stance. Wonder what Malleus will come up with if he comes  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  00:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The apathy on the two Australian FARs is a bit depressing, with the article fix-up that is. The two FARs you just pinged Tony for, I'm still wondering if Malleus will respond. Maybe a second nag will work  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  06:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminder, don't forget to update the counts ... Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you thinking of closing Biman and Dalek soon? I was thinking about it and didn't want a edit conflict or anything, since the result may not be obvious  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  09:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, don't forget to add the "Review commentary" subheading when sectioning . Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Chin up! Getting a right decision is the main thing, and you're doing fine  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  02:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bitten on Dalek, so that's for you  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  01:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Israel FARC
Hi Dana, I'd prefer not to get involved for two reasons. First, when I did earlier try to help at the Israel FAR stage, I ended up being attacked by one of the main writers because I didn't agree with him over something, so I'd prefer not to expose myself to that again. Secondly, I'm so sick of the whole Israel-Palestine situation on Wikipedia that I've vowed not to get involved in it again, apart from one article I brought to FA which I'd like to help maintain. I'm sorry! Good luck with sorting it out. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Alison Krauss
By "move it to FARC stat," I obviously meant "within the minimum time the process calls for." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)