User talk:Dana boomer/Archive 7

Finnhorse
H Dana, totally  amiss of me - belated congrats for  your promotion! I voted for  you  without  any  hesitation. I'm pleased to  hear from  Pike  that  you  might  be reviewing  the Finnhorse, I  can't  think  of anyone better for  the job. --Kudpung (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I am going to try to take a look over Finnhorse - actually, I think I'll go start looking at it right now while I have a few minutes. Dana boomer (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Spanish horses template
Hello Dana, thanks for contribute in this template, but i need tell you that is about horse, and balearic article is about a language of a people, if you think that im not right please tell me for not fixing the edit at last. Enjoy your day ;)--Venerock (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I forgot to include the disambiguator. Please check now - it should be right. Thanks for letting me know. Dana boomer (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i still improving this template adding donkeys in other line, if you do want you can edit wethever else. cheers from venezuela mamasita ;) --Venerock (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC) mamasita means lady in my native language (for not misunderstanding)--Venerock (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Took a quick peek at this. May be a good idea to review List of horse breeds and Iberian horse to see if we already have articles (under a different spelling) for some of the breeds currently redlinked in the template.  Also not sure if we really need a nav template for this group -- WPEQ is a bit template heavy already... and I'd dread to see separate German, Italian, English and (god fobid!) USA templates, especially if we got fights going over which country claims which breed (like we have at Lipizzan!)...  The Italian, Japanese, and Indonesian horse breed articles just have extensive see also sections that cross-ref the others, or, if the Spanish horse list is too huge for a see also, we could expand Iberian horse into a list something along the lines of stock horse or gaited horse.  Just a thought, and should this whole thread go over to WPEQ for more folks to discuss?   Montanabw (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:School killings in Finland
Hi. Just writing that you closed out the WP:CFD as a merge and delete, but category appears open still at this moment. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. It's on the list at Categories_for_discussion/Working, and the bot should get to it shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you restore a deleted cat to my userspace?
Could you restore Category:Second wave synthpop acts (or at least the bands formerly listed therein) to my userspace? I was checking out some of the bands and bookmarked it to check out some others later, but found that it was deleted. Thanks! JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There would be nothing to restore, and categories can't be moved even if there were. Category pages contain nothing, articles are added to it by an addition of code at the bottom of each article.  When a category is deleted, CFD has an Adminbot that goes through each article and removes the category.  The best you could do would be to find the edits in User:Cydebot's contribution record, and then you'd be able to see what was in the category pre-deletion. Courcelles 02:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Found them. Thanks for your help! JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The new GAs
Hey Dana, Congrats on Trait du Nord and just a nudge to add your new GAs to the portal -- I'm sort of distracted by other things right now (Why do wiki-crises alway hit when my work life is also a mess?). Montanabw (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Added Florida Cracker Horse. I guess I'm sort of the portal maintainer now?  (grin)  Montanabw (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Something for you


Category:Silver Wolf and Bronze Wolf awardees
Your close of this seems like it ignores an apparent consensus to delete the categories. How did you determine that the few keep arguments are stronger then the ones to delete? Also, this decision appears to ignore this guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see an apparent consensus to delete developing here. The discussion had been open for almost a month without a clear consensus (obviously not clear, because we're discussing here whether there was any consensus), and needed to be closed - no other admin wanted to touch it. If you would like to relist the categories at CFD please do so - with the merge happening, the issue will be less confused and a new start will get rid of the sockpuppetry that happened on the existing nomination. Or, you can go to the policy discussion page that you linked above and AusTerrapin suggested and get the rather vaguely worded guideline strengthened. Just because one discussion has been closed doesn't mean another can't be opened or the discussion carried on elsewhere. Addition: If you decide to open a new CFD, it would be appreciated if you'd wait until the bot has gone through the steps of merging the categories - this will help to alleviate any confusion over overlapping deletion templates. Your choice though.Dana boomer (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC) (Edited Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC))

Clarification / next step in AfD
Could you please explain what "Rename to "Foo men's basketball templates", remove from overall championship category" means here? Foo? Also, when will those sub-cats get deleted? Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It means that the one for "UCLA Bruins...championship templates" will be renamed to "UCLA Bruins...templates" and the rest will be renamed per this formula. Then these newly renamed categories will be removed from the overall championship category, but left under the individual school categories, so that additional templates can also be added to them. This was my understanding of the consensus that had developed in the discussion - please let me know if I read this completely wrong! There is a bot that works on these things, and it is usually fairly quick - I am surprised that the templates haven't already been renamed. If it hasn't happened by mid-day tomorrow I'll check with the bot operator and see what's going on. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisting discussions
Hi there Dana, when relisting CFD discussions, please be aware that we don't remove the discussions from one log date to the other; instead, we close the discussion at add the Relisted template instead. As such, this edit should be reverted and the discussions should be closed. This is explained at WP:RELIST, last line. Thanks. — ξ xplicit  23:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my apologies. I apparently read the bolded part and completely missed the part in parentheses. Thanks for letting me know - please let me know if there is anything else I'm doing wrong: I'm new at it, but the backlog needs work so I wanted to chip in. I'll go fix that now. Dana boomer (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And just one other note, Dana—after you relist a CFD, don't forget to change the date on the cfd tag on the category itself so that it goes to the new discussion, like this. Thanks for you service in working on closing CFDs; we are always looking for more help and attention with these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

FAR Nags
I think you should nag MF. He never responds to my nags :P  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  05:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I dropped notes to half a dozen editors on various articles already in the FARC stage. We'll see if it gets us anywhere. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Outofsinc on British Empire is a sock/meat, quite obviously  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Breaking up other users' posts at FAR
Can you please see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Simon Byrne/archive1, and help out with regard to this disruption? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded to you, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Simon Byrne/archive1. -- Cirt (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems fixed now. -- Cirt (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Sent you an email. -- Cirt (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Answering my question
Thank You! Aaron north (talk) 03:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

how to remove FAR notice?
How can the FAR notice be removed from chess? I commented it out on the talk page, but it stills says "review" on the article page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot will come through and close the review in a while (the schedule tends to be Wednesday and Saturday nights, but this varies sometimes). I'm going to uncomment the tag on the talk page so that it doesn't screw up the bot. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Update
I have changed to "Keep", at Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1, see. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Automobile Department Of Rajalakshmi Engineering College
Automobile Department Of Rajalakshmi Engineering College, this article was previously proposed for deletion by User:Salih (see history) for the following concern: Nothing special about this department to have its own article. And this tag was removed by User:Vignesh100992 Without discussion (see history) and for your information I just restored WP:PROD by User:Salih. -- . Shlok  talk. 06:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

World Science Festival
Dana, this was an incorrect (bad) hack that occurred at FAR and only came to my attention because an error was made in the Signpost, indicating the FA had been delisted. When I went to check, I found that 2009 content had simply been deleted, and the main article (notable) had gone away via a redirect to a 2008 article. I have done a partial cleanup, but more work is likely needed-- specifically, I don't know what else may have been deleted during the FAR, and what improvements from the 2008 version need to be restored to the main article. I will leave a note for and direct him to this conversation. The main article will need review to restore any changes made since 2008. Someone else may want to update the main article to include 2010 and 2011, which are mentioned in the Festival website. There are also dead links at the 2008 article that should have been picked up on the FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the main WSF article should exist and include information from all of the years. However, all of the reviewers (including Malleus!) agreed that the WSF 2008 article met FA standards. Most of the dead link tags were invalid - I've removed those and fixed the couple of valid ones. Easy enough. The 2009 info was the only stuff deleted (AFAIK) during the FAR, but I'm not sure what you mean by the "improvements from the 2008 version need to be restored to the main article". Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno-- I may have confused myself between the two versions, but I think it's all up to snuff now! Thanks!  I was surprised by that FAR :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI
New photo added by a drive-by to Marwari horse. Nice image, superficial image check suggests licensing is OK, but it's your article, so may want to peek. It was in a bad spot, so I moved it, but not sure I improved matters. Montanabw (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Licensing isn't quite right. I've dropped a note on the editor's talk; won't remove the image for now, but if it's not cleared up shortly it'll need to go. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Allright, licensing fixed. All good now - it's a nice image. Dana boomer (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

US gov. apologies
Dana boomer, I'd like to try to create a new category that addresses the concerns of Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 9. I think the way to do that is to create a category entitled "Subjects of apoology by the United States government", and then precisely define what that means. My proposal to do so was never addressed at the deletion discussion. So I'd like to find out from you whether it would be permissible in light of the deletion discussion to create such a new category. Although I know ever category stands on its own, I do think the category is analogous to, for example, Category:Politicians convicted of alcohol-related driving offenses, in that, if the apology is substantially important to the subject of the article, a category for it would be worthy. --Bsherr (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See also my discussion at User talk:Good Olfactory, leading to this inquiry. --Bsherr (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded at Good Olfactory's page to keep this all in one spot. Dana boomer (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

PROD at Kol Zimrah
Hi Dana boomer,

Normally I'd agree with you, but the AfD on that particular article was not closed for six years; in fact, not until after I PRODded the article. Thus the AfD never really happened. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Stryker vehicle controversy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stryker vehicle controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Stryker vehicle controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

CfD closing note comment
Hi Dana. Thanks for closing Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_14. That was a decent close. I might have said "no consensus for deviating from policy-based arguments" instead of mentioning IAR. You put your closing note at the bottom of the debate. That is a bit unusual. Usually, the closing explanation goes at the top, with the close, doesn't it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Smokey! Thanks for the nice note! LOL, I guess I'm more used to FAR closures, where closing notes go at the bottom. Feel free to move the comment if you would like. Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahmedabad and Adi Shankara
I think you should close the first one too, as I gave it as an example of a bad FA a few times  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do. When I closed Dorset it wasn't exactly 14 days for those. I'll get to them tomorrow morning (it's getting to be bedtime here!) Have you had a chance to check out the two I pinged you about? Dana boomer (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway
Thanks for your feedback on the above. I wonder if you could give a tip on what is needed in/which direction could be taken regarding the LEAD. It does seem to present a good synopsisof the what is covered in article w/o going into details later discussed. Is it the prose? Is it the info? Is it the order? Not sure, and don't wanna go messin' w/o a focus. Thanks Djflem (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the review page, and have that page watchlisted. Thanks for your work on the article! Dana boomer (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Orissa geography stubs
Hi Db - upmerging would be the perfect solution here. The "sweet-spot" for stub category size is between 100 and 400 stubs, so a category with 210 is almost the perfect size. One with two stubs is not. Some of the Indian stub editors in particular seem to be, erm, over-enthusiastic about making new stub categories without proposing them, especially the editor who made these, (User:Paalappoo), who we've had problems with in the past because he completely ignores any form of consensus creation process involving WP:WSS. Grutness...wha?  23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Userfy Alaska Airlines Flight 536
Could you userfy for me Alaska Airlines Flight 536. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you saw...but Svick's made some progress and a sample posting at http://toolserver.org/~svick/articles.txt. See User_talk:Smallman12q.Smallman12q (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that the program is pretty much done, just working out some bugs with non-conforming wikiprojects. You can see the index at http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/Index.php .Smallman12q (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ready for deletion
Category:Musical groups established before 1900 can now be deleted. I have added the required categories to all entries though I have left the nominated category untouched. __meco (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Allright, thanks for letting me know. I've added it to the list for the bot to empty and delete It should be gone within the next day or two at the latest. Dana boomer (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition to FAR instructions - exceptions for extreme cases

 * Addition to FAR instructions - exceptions for extreme cases - please discuss at WT:FAR. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Got some good positive feedback about this at WT:FAR, will defer to community discussion about it. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

CfD outcome
Please clarify To make sure that I understand here, according to your closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_23, this category should be split with no overarching category to include the two new categories, correct? Please respond on my talk. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll see about splitting this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

 * Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
 * There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
 * If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks &bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Image review request
Sorry, I missed your request. I had a look and the following two concerns me:


 * File:Olgalady.jpg: The uploader is User:Ripley, yet the author is named "mila". This is the only contribution made by the uploader, thus there is no long-term pattern that could help to vouch mila is Ripley; they might be friends, but all is for naught if the upload was done without the author's permission to license the work as such.  Furthermore, this is not from the photograph directly.  The bottom of the image shows that it was cropped.  There are the top halves of words (seemingly a caption that ends with 2008) at the bottom center and a signature at the bottom right.
 * File:Avelengo-Stemma.gif: According to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Italian CoA and commons:Commons talk:Deletion requests/Italian CoA, this is a copyrighted representation of the coat of arms. There is File:CoA civ ITA avelengo.png, which would befit a personal work (more crude than what a professional would be); althought the blazon or another representation should be sourced to let us verify if this is indeed the coat of arms for Avelengo.

Although I have no conclusive proof for my first fear above, I feel the circumstantial evidence is worrying enough. Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the tardiness. There are two images that might be of concern:
 * File:Haflinger-Brandzeichen.JPG: Is that brand a personal design (representing Haflinger Westfalenfleiß Kinderhaus's horses) or is it a standard design that an association has long decided should represent a pure breed Haflinger? In either case, the copyright status of the brand should be verified as the photograph is a derivative work of it.  Was the brand propagated before 1923 and did the designer die more than 70 years ago, and such?  If the brand is a personal design and Walther is the owner of Haflinger Westfalenfleiß Kinderhaus, it might be okay (by personally photographing his design and releasing it under CC).
 * File:DPAG 2007 2631 Haflinger Pferde.jpg: I did not raise this previously, but the issue was in my head. I confirmed just now more or less that the stamp's status on Commons (and Wikipedia) might be invalid.  See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG.  Basically, it hinges on the German legal condition that the stamp must be shown whole to be used (hence, crops and such cannot be done).
 * The rest of the images are fine. Jappalang (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dana, the issue with the German stamps (which affects all of them, not just the one pointed out above) is not solely with their display. The concept of "free media" on Commons (and Wikipedia) is that re-users can modify them to their hearts' content.  The law on German stamps, however, demands the stamps remain whole as is to be reused, eliminating the possibility of cropping.  I see it as a "grey area" in the project policies (there are photographs allowed on the basis of de minimis).  The Deletion Request I pointed out would either lead to the stamps' retention on Commons or their deletion.  I was giving you a heads-up on their status.  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As of this version, yes, the images are fine. Jappalang (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Flickr images are generally fine once they have been reviewed by the Flickr bot or a trusted reviewer (so that the status of the license at the time of upload/review is vouched for). This one has been vouched for.  Jappalang (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

MILHIST Coordinator tasks
Dana, next time you are going to do this, would you mind also doing this as well since MILHIST lists active reviews at two places. Thanks, -MBK004 07:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that, I had forgotten they were in both places. Thanks for the note. Dana boomer (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
Thanks for the peer review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Bill_Clinton/archive4

What did u mean by adding a semicolon to keep the header? without adding to table of contents How do i do that?

A semi-colon at the start of a line makes the entire line boldfaced. Montanabw (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like this.

Ok cool thanks--Iankap99 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Mário de Andrade
Would you mind looking over my changes? Feel free to make specific suggestions about the lead (or just edit it); too-long ones annoy me, personally, and so I probably err in the opposite direction. Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/King Vulture/archive1
I put the discussion on the talk page. What now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on the FAR page, just wait a week or so. If no one replies, you can readd the template to the talk page and retransclude the discussion to the FAR page. Also, a collaborative type of post is much more likely to get a good response; comments such as "dusty, unedited excuse of a talk page" are unnecessary. Dana boomer (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A question Dana
I was reading your well informed posts on a discussion board, and so out of interest clicked on your userpage. Now you have a userbox that instantly jumped out at me..., believing evolution and religion can co-exist (which i've since added to my page as it applies to me).. now could you give me your reason for your belief on why darwinism and Christianity are compatible?.. as i said i believe it also but i'd like someone elses take. My own belief is that the bible contains alot of "biblical myth" (term i was taught in school)...teachings/text that are symbolic, not literal, and give a message (hence the whole 6 days creationism writing doesn't mean exactly that). Just watched a Richard Dawkins programme here (in UK) and while i obviously dont subscribe to his atheism, do concur with evolution that he zealously promotes. If you could briefly give me your own reason i'd really appreciate it.NicholasJr7 (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies..., ignore what i wrote as this of course is not a forum for external discussions.NicholasJr7 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Uncredited plagiarism? LOL!
Think the organization of these may be linked to your work:

http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=17231&src=VW Remember Fallen Horses on Veterans' Day

Naturally, they just could not credit wikipedia, now, could they? LOL!

This, however, does sound cool: http://www.history.co.uk/shows/real-war-horse/about.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
 * Jeez. Well, at least I know it was well written if The Horse is stealing it. There are a couple of pieces from the summary of that documentary that I'll probably add in, just little factoids. I wonder if they're going to release it on DVD - might be a good x-mas present to ask for. Dana boomer (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For now, it's flattery. I guess it's that GDFL license having a flip side, eh?   I think you need to download that article into a wikibook (wikibooks are cool, by the way, I haven't ordered one in hardcopy yet, but I've gathered a batch of articles into a pdf!) If you wanted to start doing this gig for pay, I'd back ya as the original writer!  LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Plains zebra review
Hello, can you please re-review the Plains zebra article for WikiProject Equine? It's come a long way and surely can no longer be considered a "start" article. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re-rated it as C class. It needs a few more references before I would really consider it B-class. Dana boomer (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cute Haffies and Appies and grumpy me
Sorry if I am snarky today. Didn't realize what a foul mood I was in until I started editing. I think my edits/comments were essentially legit, but my tone was snarky and I didn't intend it as such. So sorry if I sounded a little mean. You took a wonderful photo for the Appy article, by the way, and a wonderful-looking horse. And yeah, nothing like the challenge for the next six months of getting photos of wooly mammoths that whinny... !  Montanabw (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, if you think his head looks good it's a good thing you can't see the rest of him. It had rained just enough in the morning that they had all rolled - a filthier group of horses I have rarely seen. And the vet was there for fall checks, of course... No problem on the snarkiness, I know the feeling. Go ride your horse, have some hot chocolate and take a deep breath :) Dana boomer (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He's got a nice Arab-ish profile, so of course he's beautiful!!! I'd ride my horse, but it's dark now! (Could the overall wiki-malaise I've noticed around here have any correlation to the end of daylight savings time, I wonder?) The hot chocolate sounds like a yummy idea though...ummmmm.   Montanabw (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/King Vulture/archive1
No one said anything on the talk page in one week so I relisted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup listings up and running
Dana, in case you haven't heard already. i see smallman messaged you above noting that they were almost finished. it looks like they've got all the listings back up and running. here's the featured one by cleanup category count: http://toolserver.org/~svick/CleanupListing/CleanupListing.php?project=Featured_articles&sort=Count Tom B (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I know. I linked it at the top of the FAR talk page, to replace the old cleanup listing. I've already dropped notices on the pages of all of the articles with 6-7 tags that they're due for a cleanup or FAR. The one with ten is mostly "as of this date" tags and the one with 8 is already at FAR. Thanks for the note, though. Dana boomer (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * bloody hell you're a speed demon! you already dropping notes on the articles needing cleanup, takes the weight off everyone else. from svick's talkpage it looks like they're going to get the bot running again, to post listings on wikipedia pages, which should hopefully allow us to keep track of progress like before. i'll look out for that or give us a shout if you see developments, Tom B (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tamil people, cleanup is done to my best of abilities. Kanatonian (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
I don't understand that on the To Autumn page at FAR, that it was pointed out that the source for this reference clearly says that there is no Hiatus as verified but Amandajm's change saying that there is hiatus is allowed to exist. Also, why is this claim that Bewell's text verifies that the poem is connected to British artworks is allowed to exist when the source was shown to not have anything to do with anything besides a poem by Leigh Hunt and no artwork? The user has been demonstrated to have inserted blatant misstruths and uses references that do not say what she claims. Aren't FARs supposed to remove problematic content like that and people found doing such things admonished for doing them? Here is a link for more background. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of American Livestock Breeds Conservancy
Hello! Your submission of American Livestock Breeds Conservancy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 05:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

closing CfDs with multiple merge targets
Hey there, Dana. I noticed you closed a discussion where Category:Lakes of the Mojave Desert (California) merged into two categories. When you do that, putting the category on Working doesn't do the trick, because the bots will empty the category into one of the target categories and not the other. There's a special section for that on Working/Manual that merges like that can be placed. Thanks!--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet
After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

, with help from, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks & WUDO
Dana, thanks for taking the initiative on my laundry list. Regarding the WUDO, the organization existed for slightly over three years, and while the TIME magazine article (Note 2) mentioned a land exercise planned for the Fall of 1949 as a follow up to Exercise Verity. However, I haven't found any subsequuent mention of that exercise. So it appears that Exercise Verity was the only major military operation undertaken by the WUDO. In any case, it seems that WUDO was a placeholder for the eventual creation of NATO and SHAPE. Your thoughts?Marcd30319 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... Well, I would say a brief summary (one paragraph?) on Exercise Verity, plus a quick mention of the TIME mention of a followup (perhaps with a note saying that no sources have been found that give an extended report on the followup). Also, was there anything special about the mutual defense part of the operation? Or was it the standard "we'll help if the bad guys attack you, but not if you attack them" sort of deal? Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dana, check out the revisions and let me know if this works.Marcd30319 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks good. The lead could stand to be expanded a little bit, but otherwise it's a nice little article. I've upgraded to B-class. Dana boomer (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nokota Horse
Dear Dana - I am the Executive Director of the Nokota Horse Conservancy and have been trying to update the Nokota page with current information and do not understand why you keep reverting the information to a previous version. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia or the way it works, but have been trying to post accurate information and have run into difficulty in the process. Perhaps you could assist me in this process?? Thanks for any help you can offer.

Shelly Hauge Nokota Horse Conservancy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokotashelly (talk • contribs) 02:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Shelly, I'm not Dana, but she and I help with one another's editing sometimes, and I think I can explain what's going on. The Nokota horse article has been designated as a "good article" under wikipedia's WP:GA criteria.  That means that to keep this status, all material in it has to be properly footnoted and sourced. (See WP:V and WP:CITE for information on sourcing) In addition, any properly sourced material that IS there now should not be arbitrarily removed without a very good reason that is explained and discussed with other editors.  Each of your edits simply removed properly sourced material with no explanation.  I checked your edit history, and it looks like you've done this in the past as well.  The best way to handle what you want to do is to click on the "discussion" link at the top of the page, and then on the talk page for the article, explain your concerns.  I noted that the material you removed concerns a dispute between the two Nokota horse organizations.  The dispute itself, at least until settled, is a controversy that is noteworthy and relevant to include. (We've had to manage a similar set of legal disputes involving the Andalusian horse registries at its article too)  Wikipedia takes a neutral position on these issues and attempts to simply explain the controversy and outline the views of each side.  We can't take sides.  I hope this explains things.  If not, feel free to discuss your concerns at Talk:Nokota horse and we can try to further sort matters out.  Montanabw (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already responded on Shelly's talk page, with basically the same information. It can't hurt to repeat it, though. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. By the way, I've probably just stirred up a storm by summarily deleting and redirecting a new article, but it was a content fork and total crap to boot. (Duplicated the list of horse breeds -- and called Akhal-tekes and Arabians "draft" horses.)  This was done by a established user who should have known better.  (grump, grump, grump...harrumph!)  Montanabw (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that. Got to the point where it called Andalusians draft horses, thought about doing something about it, and then decided I didn't have the energy. I've watchlisted the redirect; let me know if stuff starts to heat up. Dana boomer (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take point on this. I was abrupt, but the thing was ridiculous and needed to be weeded out before it grew. I'm OK with conflict.  Just come visit me at WQA if needed- I might get smacked, though it will be for a worthy cause!  ;-)   Montanabw (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Update
Hello Dana boomer, I hope you are doing well. ;) Just an update, I commented, at Featured article review/The Notorious B.I.G./archive1. Cheers! -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Perfect Dark FAR
I have moved the discussion to the article talk page and changed the tone slightly per your comment. Sorry, this is my first FAR, and I must have skipped over or misread the part on taking it to the talk page first. --Teancum (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, very nice. Thank you for responding so quickly. My apologies if I was a bit short with you - for some reason I thought I'd seen you around the FAR board before and so knew the procedure :) As I said before, if no-one bites on the comments after a week, just retransclude. Dana boomer (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gambia
Hi Dana. I recently moved a bunch of The Gambia -related articles partly based on a CFD discussion you closed a month ago, and afterwards there have been some objections to changing the name of the country from "The Gambia" to "the Gambia" (see my talk page). Could you have a look and weigh in if you have an idea about how to proceed with this? Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just closed the CfD - I have no real opinion on the topic. From reading the discussion on your talk page, this looks like something that might be ripe for a RfC, as the pages (and opinions) are all over the board. Dana boomer (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, there's currently an RfC on the naming issue at here. Jafeluv (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Category close
I would like to dispute a part of this close. Specifically, those that do not refer to persons, but rather simply to films and screenplays. I believe that these should be debated, separately from those dealing with persons. These would be the bottom five listed in the above discussion. Please do not delete those five. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_22
 * I believe you mean the bottom four? The fifth one up is the "people who received the award" category. There was no consensus in the CfD to only delete some of the categories, but not others. The policy-based arguments given for the "listify and delete" votes were meant (AFAIK) for all of the categories. I see no reason why I as a neutral closer should discount those votes for a few of the categories. Is there something special for those that I'm missing? If you wanted the nomination split, it would have been something to bring up during the 2.5 week deletion discussion. Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want a new nomination to deal with those five that do not involve people and the one that involves people where persons explicitly do not object to having received the award. The "delete" commenters only primarily focused their discussion on the "person" aspect. The other categories should not be swept under the rug with those "person" related categories. At the very least, they should have a separate discussion. -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Category:Worst Screenplay Golden Raspberry Award winners
 * Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners
 * Category:Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel Golden Raspberry Award winners
 * Category:Worst "Original" Song Golden Raspberry Award-winning songs
 * Category:People who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards
 * Yes, these five should be discussed in a separate discussion, as they do not involve the same "person" issues cited by the delete comments from the CFD. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion had nothing to do with whether or not people objected to the award - it had everything to do with whether the award was a defining point of an actor's career. And there were no votes that stated "keep the movie ones, delete the people ones". That's not really how award categories work. Again, if you wanted the discussion split you should have brought it up during the two and a half weeks the discussion was open, which included one relisting. At the moment, this smacks of running to the other parent, as one batch deletion didn't go the way you wanted it to, so now you're trying to open another on the same categories. Also, while several of the arguments do specifically mention actors, several others don't - they speak of the awards in general terms which could mean either the people or the films. There's always WP:DRV. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This would be much easier if you could retain those I listed above, and start a new deletion discussion for them. The deletion discussion focused unduly on "person" categories. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, there was no consensus for delete, at all. In any event, please retain those I have mentioned, and I will start a new deletion discussion, separately for them, myself. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not request a separate discussion, because I thought it would have been closed as no consensus, seeing as how there were an equal number of people advocating for Keep. Please, I request that these five be retained and discussed separately. Please? -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Furman Paladins and Ole Miss Rebels categories
Did the Furman Paladins and Ole Miss Rebels categories really need another week of discussion (or lack of same)? There were other categories on the 11th and 12th that clearly set a precedent for those to be closed as renames, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh - perhaps not, and they will most likely be closed as renames, but I figured another week to allow anyone who wants to to comment wouldn't hurt anything since you as the nominator were the only one who had commented so far. Is there something I missed, or a hurry to get these quickly renamed? Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, certainly not. I just felt that precedent had been established with the other renames, and that it could be closed analogously.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Cirt (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the slow response - I was called away from my computer. I see that the categories have been deleted in the meantime, and I am glad that you started a DRV, as it seems the best way forward. IIRC, there were a couple more delete votes than keep votes, and in my opinion the delete votes were more closely tied to policy, which was my reasoning for a deletion closure as opposed to a no consensus closure. Dana boomer (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. You closed a DRV with 8 keep comments and 7 delete comments as "delete", with zero explanation as to why. Please improve your admin-related activities in the future, as this type of closure is poor form and inappropriate behavior that is unbecoming of an active admin. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted further comments at the DRV. I don't agree that this was "inappropriate behavior", but we're all allowed to have our opinions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be more mindful of your closures in the future, especially when closing against consensus of the community, to better explain yourself in deletion discussions, as you failed to do so in this case. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Grevy's zebra article
Hello, I did some improvements to the Grevy's zebra article. I don't think it's a "start" article any more. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I have reassessed the article to B-class. Dana boomer (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The grump
Hey Dana,

Just wanted to say that I am sorry if I've been too snarky, grumpy, cynical and generally a poopy puke to be around lately. While I can probably attribute some of it to darkness at 4:30 pm (you know how it is when you live halfway to the north pole! LOL!), post-election depression (there's a really good reason I never edit political articles! ;-),  and the ways this particular year has been a bit challenging in general, I'm realizing that I'm even a little bitey at my friends, so mea culpa  if I've been a snot. Feel free to trout slap me as needed. I anticipate a better mood once I get my students through finals (why DID I assign all that work? Now I have to grade it!), myself through the holidays and over the hurdles of some stuff with my non-teaching work. And in the meantime, my intentions are excellent, my patience, not so much. :-P Montanabw (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still so snarky. Still have one nerve left.  Will be so glad to kiss 2010 goodbye.  But at least I DID get my favorite horse a new midweight blankie    good for the not-that-cold-but-damp-and-windy stuff we've been having here lately. (WTF is "patchy valley freezing fog" anyway? And why do we have zero visibility in a dry climate?  Never mind...)  I guess that's sort of my Xmas present too.  Darn horse has more 'coats' than I do!  But then, she's 30, so she gets anything she wants!  Came in last night, I put it on this morning.  At least ONE of the females around here is happy!   Montanabw (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Appaloosa or Aragorn riding on a horse and holstering a six-shooter (heh)

 * File:THIEL 619.jpg
 * The farm is owned by Bill and Susan Thiels. The photograph is by Darrell Dodds in 2006.  Saddlebrooks's site has copyrighted its contents and credited the photographers.  This photograph cannot be attributed to User:Appaloosa unless he is Darrell Dodds, of which no information points to as such.


 * File:Appaloosa (DSC00229).jpg
 * I found the image at http://www.barnbuddy.net/gallery2/v/S_B/lukenov/?g2_page=2, dated 11/11/06. Per above, who is User:Appaloosa, is he truly the photographer (copyright owner)?


 * File:Stripedhooves.jpg
 * Appaloosa claims to be William Thiel (likely Bill). As far as I can tell, this photograph cannot be found on www.appaloosa.org.  However, per above, it would be best to confirm Appaloosa's identity through an OTRS ticket, or have the Thiels state their Wikipedia/Commons account on their website.  Even then, they might not be the copyright owner of photograph taken by Dodds (again another OTRS ticket with the necessary documentation to prove the case).
 * I found the photograph at http://www.barnbuddy.net/gallery2/v/S_B/cookiefilly/, dated 02/28/08. Jappalang (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a crucial image to the article, IMHO and if we can't use it we need to replace it. (Dana, does your critter have striped hooves if we need an image??) --MTBW


 * File:Viennaspottedstallion1740.jpg
 * Lacking page number and other information of the source (book) like ISBN, author, year of publication, etc.
 * Is there information on its first publication (or exhibition) or origin? An unpublished engraving of unknown origins from the United Kingdom can still be copyrighted till the end of 2039...
 * This was part of an exhibition, which the book is a book from, but the information given with the page number (p. 51) (All the other information on the bibliographical details is given in the Appaloosa article's references) says the picture is courtesy of the Print Room, New York Public Library. it appears that it originally appeared in print in the 18th century, which the caption implies but does not give original publication information for. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a few other paintings on Commons, if we can't clear this one. Posted at Appy article talk page --MTBW
 * Would the New York Public Library be able to provide more information about this image? Jappalang (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Would File:Meulen.jpg be an acceptably licensed substitute for this? Dana boomer (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, it should be fine once the source is located, per WP:CITE. Jappalang (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found a source for this, so it should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Nezperceindians1895ish.jpg, File:Barnesspottedhorsephoto.jpg
 * Lacking page number and other information of the source (book) like ISBN, author, year of publication, etc.
 * A young 20-ish photographer who lived till 80 years old might still have not died more than 70 years ago. Furthermore, if this photograph was first published (or registered) in 1923 or later, it enjoys 95 years of copyright protection; this is especially crucial since US copyrights for unpublished works are perpetual/indefinite until common law covered their expiry in 1989.  The printing of these photographs in Appaloosa: The Spotted Horse in Art and History could constitute first publishing (and determine their copyright status), provided the copyright owners (photographer, his or her heir, or authorized receiver of rights) gave the permission for publishing.
 * The nezperce one says "Courtesy of Mary Hinmes, Cayuse, Oregon", so it may not be safe (p. 76) The roman riding one says "Courtesy of the Hertzberg Circus Collection, San Antonio Public Library" (it's page 97)
 * What's amusing about that one is that I think our good friend Una actually first added it! Ironic.  --MTBW Oh, E did?  I think this one is a critical image too, one well worth trying to get the OK to keep.  Or at least try to find a replacement "Nez Perce with Appaloosas" image somewhere, maybe Library of Congress??--MTBW
 * One good news is that Appaloosa: The Spotted Horse in Art and History was copyrighted in 1963 but never renewed its rights. Hence the book is in the public domain.  I would presume that Hinmes is the photographer or his or her heir or spouse; so her courtesy might constitute publication (thus making the photograph a 1963 publication and in the public domain as well).  The circus photograph might be of concern since it is not certain if the library acquired the rights properly.  Jappalang (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be best to contact Hinmes and Hertzberg to ascertain if they are the copyright holders and if those images were published previously. If they are not the copyright holders, then information about the copyright holder would be needed to further determine the status of those images.  Jappalang (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I finally got around to sending an e-mail to the curator of collections at the Museum where the Hertzberg collection is currently located. I can't find any contact information for Hinmes though, so it looks like we will probably have to replace this. Dana boomer (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The one of the two men with the Appy was also used as an illustration in the Montana Historical Society article I used as a source on Nez Perce history. I'll try to see if I can find copyright info on that article.  I can go either way on the circus photo, but I'd really like to try and keep this one.   Montanabw (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * File:AppyPlate.jpg
 * This seems to be solely for decorative purpose; it thus fails WP:NFCC #8 contextual significance. There is no critical commentary on the artistic design of the customized plates.  In that context, words ("the state of Idaho provide customised licensed plates that feature the Appaloosa") are more than enough to replace such an image.
 * I don't think of it as such (it's my image, I have more ownership in it than I should, work with me here...). Jappalang, can you help me out here a bit?  Define "critical commentary on the artistic design"  I'm thinking the plate matters because it's an illustrative example of how the horse and the state of Idaho are intertwined--it's the state horse. I think the article loses something to take away this crucial connection, and text alone is insufficient.  --MTBW
 * I was thinking of "critical commentary on the artistic design" as a set of commentary (be they reviews, criticisms, praises, etc) on the design or graphics of the license plate. Basically, some information about the art on the plates that require a visual image to help readers understand the statements.  For example, video game articles would usually talk about how the game is played and would describe the interface.  The readers are helped by an image of the interface (clarity of the design or descriptions of the game's actions).  A key point in a film article might be stressing that the subject faced severe criticisms over the portrayal of a certain scene (through camera positioning, or special effects).  Again, that commentary could be helped with a particular image of that scene, showing the criticisms voiced.  The use of these copyrighted images, however, still has to comply with the NFCC.  If words can equally describe what the image is trying to convey, the image is replaceable (e.g. "Reviewers criticized the director for tinting the entire screen in red for the climax, calling the effect pointless and distracting.").
 * I believe it would be hard to find such commentary for the license plate. As I see it, the image is currently used as you say to illustrate that Idaho has, due to tradition, chosen the horse as a design option for customized license plates.  This is my personal opinion, though; matters involving WP:NFCC tend to be subjective but I think unless there is something in the article that comments on the artwork of the plate, objections could be faced over the use of the photograph.  Jappalang (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'll give this some thought and review the provisions of NFCC.  I kind of prefer a "proceed until apprehended" approach to this, but I don't want to stir up unneeded drama once this goes to FA, either.   Montanabw (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Viennaspottedstallion1740.jpg should likely be the most easiest to fix and could be a minor issue, but the others could be problematic. Jappalang (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll get on the two I did (Vienna and NezPerce) in the next couple of days. Ealdgyth - Talk 06:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ealdgyth, could you also note in the descriptions where the photographs are from (collections, museum number or such). Thanks in advance.  Jappalang (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jappalang! I will start working on these in a bit - time to send out e-mails again, yay... :) Dana boomer (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I have sent an e-mail to Bill and also posted on his talk page, so hopefully we can get resolution to those questions. I would hate to have to remove them, as they are some of the best images we have. Dana boomer (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, here's hoping. However, I did find some potential replacements if needed.  Nothing as good as the lead image, though.  Montanabw (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Eep. I was worried about this. We should be able to find Users "Appaloosas" and "AppHistorian" somehow, they were pretty active for a bit. However, I am going to put up a bit of a fuss to try and keep the license plate. To me it is significant for demonstrating the special status between the horse and the state of Idaho. I'd like to think there is an NFCC argument we (OK, I) can advance. I also really busted my butt to get that image. I do want this article to go FA more than I need the license plate to stay, but in general I, for one am a bit tired of having to dumb down longer articles and remove useful images to get them to pass FA review, which at times I think awards form over substance. I know I'm ranting, and I'm very OK with making sure the images pass muster, but I'd rather see the article stay GA than get trashed. I think the longer content is worth fighting for. But in spite of all my ranting, let me know how I can continue to be of more help than harm, too. I am still (by three edits) the #1 contributor to this article! (grin) Montanabw (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, I've already sent an e-mail to User:Appaloosa, so we should hopefully hear back from him shortly. As for the image, images that don't pass copyright muster should really be removed anyway, FAC or not, it's just that we don't have enough copyright experts to monitor every article and so they focus on a few key areas. The criteria that Jappalang is concerned about is WP:NFCC #8, which states that non-free content should only be used when it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". If you have a source which gives more "critical commentary on the artistic design of the customized plates" (Jappalang's wording), then we should add this in to the article in order to make a case for keeping the image. I really don't think that having to remove this image will result in the article being "trashed", and as I said above, poorly licensed images really need to be removed anyway, FAC or not. I think the solution here is to work on image licensing and get more properly licensed images on Commons, not to avoid FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take the NFCC issue up with Jappalang and see if we can arrive at a meeting of the minds. No, I don't think losing that image will trash the article, and that's not really what I meant to say, it's just about three hours of my time down a rathole and thus one of many wikipedia disappointments, that's all.  You will note on the Appy talk page, I just did a run and skim of stuff in Flickr, some of which has previously been uploaded to Commons, so if we have any issues, I took a good whack at locating potential replacements with URL links.  There actually may be some stuff that's worth considering as replacement images.   At the moment, I'm dealing with someone who's all unhappy because I reverted their edit, (I believe they just called me crazy and perfectionistic) and I probably am cruising for another WQA.  Like I care.  Some days, I'm about ready to quit this place, sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
 * As an update, I've been in contact with User:Appaloosas, have confirmed that he holds the copyright on all three images, and have asked him to send an e-mail to OTRS confirming this. So hopefully those three images should be good to go soon. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh Hooray! I hope it all works out!  They are so very nice and it would be good to get all the images by that user approved for any wiki-project.   Montanabw (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dana, best advise Bill that he should forward Dodds' permission (or transfer of rights) to the OTRS team (for THIEL 619.jpg). Physical ownership is not the same as copyright ownership, nor is hiring Dodds to take the photographs unless there is a formal agreement of the transfer (work for hire).  Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All three images now have OTRS confirmation, so I have struck them out above. Please let me know if further work needs to be done on these. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dana, File:THIEL 619.jpg still seems a bit problematic. Appaloosa.org cannot be the "author" since they have personally stated it is Darrell Dodds.  There should be a clear differentiation between author and license holder if Dodds have transferred his copyright to Appaloosa.org.  Jappalang (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the image description to hopefully make the distinction between author and license holder more clear. User:Appaloosas does hold the copyright, that's what the OTRS verified, so hopefully the new arrangement works. Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dana (and anyone else interested), can you check the rewrite I just did on the genetics section? New study just published. Not sure I "translated" it from scientific-ese to English properly. Also maybe make sure I formatted the cites correctly and such. Montanabw (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Shows how much you know about international show jumping
Shows how much you know about international show jumping. Its the Great Britain show jumping team, if you took the time to look it up.

Also we don't measure horses or ponies in individual inches. Its hands (hh = hands high) and centimetres. So thats two things you got wrong. This Wikipedia is not a one country website. Don't be reverting my changes. 86.157.195.116 (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The template that you removed converts hands (and yes, I know what hh means) into both inches and centimeters. This is for the reading pleasure of editors from all countries - as you point out, this isn't a one country website. That's why we convert into both, not just one or the other. It doesn't really matter what country the horse and rider pair competes for, we change into both. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First off 86, you need to learn the rules of wikipedia and not attack those of us who actually DO know what we are talking about.  I must also add that the UK used imperial measurements in the time of Stroller.  I might also note that team GBR is a modern construction for international competition, the rules noted in 1925 were not "Team GBR" as we understand it today.  Thus "United Kingdom" is proper in that context.  The article is about the worldwide sport, not just the UK (or GBR, if you will)  Montanabw (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mars Articles
Hi. I saw your tag on the Mars discussion page and wanted to touch base. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, but I've been working on several Mars articles for a couple of months now. In general, I've found many of the existing Mars articles to be in need of editing. Frequently, they lack scientific rigor and state incorrect or misleading facts. I'm trying to clean these problems up as I find them, without unnecessarily stepping on anyone's toes. I know these articles take a lot of work and appreciate the time and effort of those who've worked on them. No one can know everything about Mars, and new facts and ideas come in constantly. Yours, Schaffman (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Schaffman and thanks for the note. It's great that you're working on Mars-related articles. It looks like there's just one cleanup tag still on the Mars article (a citation needed tag in the infobox). Older FAs also often need a general cleanup and updating as new scholarship is developed, so it's always nice to have new people interested in helping with this. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Cornell University
Hi, I was wondering why cornell was removed from the review? The comments were made in 2008 and the page has improved since then. Why cant it be a featured article? Best, Mojojojo69 (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy wiki-day
I don't know if it's a wiki-birthday or a wiki-anniversary, but congrats on three of 'em! Montanabw (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I suddenly realized it was about that time of year, went to check, and discovered I'd passed the three year mark a few days ago. My, how time flies! Dana boomer (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the syntax I use on my badge and also the userbox for how long I've been on wiki. They can automatically (or at least semi-automatically) adjust, which is kind of fun!   Montanabw (talk) 19:33, 17 December 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, 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) 13:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies is now a Feature article nominee
Hi! Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies has been nominated as possible Featured article. She was an Italian princess and the wife of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. If're interested on reviewing and voting in favor or not of it, please go to Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review/Baby Boy (Beyoncé Knowles song)/archive1
Dear Dana, how are you? I believe we can close the above FAR, as every issue have been resolved per the talk page and the PR assessments, and it is still clean and professional to retain its bronze star. AS a delegate, please do the needful. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Legolas. I've actually just deleted the page, since there was really nothing there to archive. However, I would suggest getting in touch with the nominator of the FAR to make sure that all of his concerns have been addressed, since it doesn't appear that he's commented since just after starting the review. Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes DAna, I confirmed with Xwomanizerx, she's fine. It was just a misundestanding of the nomination procedure. Oh well, part of life eh? Merry Christmas to you. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 08:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

FAR request
Hi Dana. Happy holidays. Is it O.k if I can make another FAR early? My FAR review for Salsa Music hasn't had a comment on it for nearly two weeks. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine to go ahead, as long as you've notified the editors on the talk page in advance. Dana boomer (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ... Crap. I knew I forgot something. Nevermind. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Herbig-Haro
thanks, i've now voted for delist at FARC Tom B (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)