User talk:Dawnleelynn/Archive 2

Happy New Year, Dawnleelynn!


Happy New Year! Dawnleelynn, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 12:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Happy New Year


CAPTAIN RAJU ( ✉ ) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Page to expand?
You have some good source material, perhaps could create a "history" section and expand on Bucking bull in general? Montanabw (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi montanabw! Ok, I'm not sure which article you are referring to? The one you just edited, Challenge of the Champions, which seems doubtful? Or, the one I am expanding right now, Bodadious? for which I still have quite a bit more source? I am not working in any other articles as such, although I have made small edits over the last few days in a few articles.


 * Just as a comparison here is where page views stand as of today-Using the tool Pageviews Analysis, the number is the daily average. You can see that Lane Frost is by far the busiest page and that hopefully Red Rock and Challenge of the Champions will pick up because they are linked from his page. Especially now that I did the Main Article section link thing like is on Red Rock's page. So hopefully, the challenge topic will get more hits now.


 * As for bulls, Little Yellow Jacket and Bushwacker have some tread. Bushwacker is surprising since it's a small paragraph stub. But he is the best bucker of all time to most modern fans.


 * Bodacious blows them all out of the water. He had this kind of traffic before I started expanding the article, by the way. He might well be the most popular bull of all time. When the PBR came out with its top 10 baddest PBR buckers recently, the post on their Facebook was full of complaints that Bodacious was not on the list. LOL. I figure they were counting him because the majority of his career was in the PRCA. And he only bucked one year in the PBR. But hey, he did win PBR World Champion in 1995, his last year bucking. It really looks like Bushwacker and Bodacious are the top two best bulls. As far as old school articles, Bodacious will get the most traffic. Bushwacker is getting decent hits, there's really not much to see there. Once expanded, I think it would go up, he's known as the best bucking bull ever in modern circles.

NEW NOTE: Again I typed too fast. What I meant to say, is that the PBR probably DID NOT include Bodacious on their Top 10 list because his career was mostly PRCA, not PBR. The fans don't care, they want him on all greatest bulls lists. And what I also meant to confer about Bushwacker's number of views is that it is quite a lot considering it's a stub of 3 sentences. LOL. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Little Yellow Jacket 63
 * Skoal Pacific Bell 5
 * Red Rock 35
 * Challenge of the Champions 6
 * Bushwacker 67
 * Lane Frost 644
 * Chicken on a Chain 14
 * Dillinger 20
 * Bodacious 239
 * dawnleelynn (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I LOVE the work you are doing here! I might edit your stuff, but it's not a criticism, it's just editing to help meet the WP:MOS.  What I was wondering about is if you wanted to help with any of the  "generic" articles with general information.   spun off and expanded the article bucking bull from bull riding, and I think there can be more info added there.  I know of some other articles where your expertise might be helpful, such as stock contractor, pickup rider, and rodeo clown (yeah, I know we call them "bullfighters" now, but they don't in Australia and some other places, long debate ... ). The bull article is pretty comprehensive, but always room for improvement, perhaps.   Montanabw (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks. I know the quote in the Challenge article was too long, we talked about that re the quotes I added to Brand of Honor in Little Yellow Jacket and Dillinger. I just hadn't gotten around the removing that very long quote at the top. I'm good with what you edited in the article, it looks great. It needed done. No worries. Glad you are happy with what I'm doing. Bodacious is turning out to be a monster, but it's also going to be a very high traffic article. I will definitely need other eyes on it at some point even if just to catch copy edit stuff at the very least. This is one I'll need to make be a really good article. Also, I was trying to say that for not having much content, Bushwacker was getting more hits than some other articles. Now I looked at your first message again...and noticed that bucking bull was a link. How did I miss that? Anyway I understand what you are asking now, and yes I think I can do that. After I finish Bodacious, which is actually going pretty quickly considering how much content I have. Well, I can finish the first draft and then work on both...do editing of Bodacious on the side...gives me some variety to be able to switch between the two. I'll look at this in depth in a bit. I just finished adding some more content to Bodacious and going to take a break down. Thanks! :) dawnleelynn (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to post over at my talk page any time if you want to draw additional reviewers. The main thing is just to enjoy what you are doing. I'll tell you, it's a real blast to see pageview stats: When I worked on California Chrome and American Pharoah, I realized that "my" work was getting more readership than the stuff in any specialty press publication. Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's so cool about the recent Kentucky horse race winners. Ok, so your watchers are open to doing reviewers, that's nice to know. I wonder how many people watch your page, can't measure that, lol. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, you sort of can: you, me...  Montanabw (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's kind of funny but interesting, being able to see that. I'd also be interested to know if there was a way of being able to see who has a particular page on their watchlist. You know, like Ebay does. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a way to do that; at least not that I've ever heard. Usually Wikistalking is obvious from people's edits; I have a couple of folks who routinely pop up at certain articles I edit, and likewise I routinely pop up at theirs.  Folks such as you, who I am mentoring or otherwise keeping an eye on (some editors face harassment or have people following them from article to article in ways that aren't helpful), I use the "user contributions" link to see what they are working on.  You can also learn a lot about someone from the tools at wmflabs that track statistics, particularly  this one (plug your user name in to see your stats).  Montanabw (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey! That way to look at someone's Wikipedia (or your own) at wmflabs is really cool. I could see in one page all the topics I had ever edited. Total coolness. I had already been using the "user contributions" link from time to time. On the other topic, I was curious about what pages people put on their watchlist more from a reader viewpoint than an editor viewpoint, but most readers probably don't even realize it is there. Maybe some do, and come back to read updates on their favorite articles. Yes, it's a shame someone would use that contributions feature to follow/stalk an editor. Back to the wmflabs tool, it just showed me that I forgot to leave edit summaries on some articles I just edited this morning to put in some missing hall of fame honors... boo on me. I wish you could edit that field! lol dawnleelynn (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bweare... I now have 5000 articles on my watchlist! Some people occasionally just clear the whole thing, but I probably have 2000 or so I actually want to watch!  I spend time periodically clearing out the cruft; I was once close to 6000!  It sounds bad, but truth is, seldom do I see more than 30-40 hit in any one day and 75% of those are vandals that a bot has already fixed.    Montanabw (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought that moving up to 75 was a lot. And you know, the watchlist and emails don't always work. They miss notifying you sometimes. I run across topics that have been changed, and I know I didn't notified on them. I do really want to watch the ones that I have in my list so far. But the warning is well heeded, believe me. Thanks to the good 'ole bots! dawnleelynn (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have the "Watch this page" checkbox set permanently. When you get more familiar with the techie stuff, going into your preferences and being sure you have "Add pages and files I edit to my watchlist" marked usually gets a lot -- I don't really know what the defaults are these days, but that's the secret hideout for all kinds of amazing toys.   Montanabw (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the preferences a couple times, and changed some of them. I wasn't at the point where wanted that preference set yet the last time I was in there. I should probably take another looksie again sometime this week. I am pretty good about checking watch this page where I want it done so far. But I'm sure it will get unwieldy at some point. I had taken off yesterday from WP. I was getting tired of Bodacious. The day before I tried to do some research. Research doesn't really show up in WP, while you are doing it but it sure makes a difference later. I've tried and tried to find info. on Buckers, Inc. which is supposedly the precursor to ABBI but still only have the one article that talks about handling Bodacious and I can't link them to ABBI so far. I need to in as much as handling bull DNA. It would be helpful not just for BO but also for that bull riding article if we decide to update the article in reference to breeding and how it changed after Bodacious. I'll look again later. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Challenge
Hope I didn't take too big a whack at Challenge of the Champions. Most of what I did was to conform the article better to the MOS -- using last names instead of first names, moving a couple things to spots where they seemed to "flow" better, some minor rewording, and consolidating sources when the same source was used (usually you only have to source every sentence when each sentence has a different source; if someone nags me about one source for an entire paragraph, I add hidden text that says "this source is for the entire paragraph" or "this source is for the preceding two sentences" or whatever the other editor is worked up about... (it looks like this: ) If you ever run into a person who is being, WP:TENDENTIOUS, then you can repeat the same source for every sentence, but it's generally not necessary. I didn't know about that matchup, and it was a cool article to read!  Montanabw (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You took an appropriate whack at the article, everything was spot on for what the article needed, as per usual. I think I'll take at whack at Red Rock for the same issues soon. I did clean up the citations for Red Rock once, it was very difficult because there were 3 sources that were used quite a lot. I am glad that you found the matchup article Challenge of the Champions interesting to read. Hopefully it will get more views now that I put a better link to it in Lane Frost. There's a lot of good edits to take away from your changes to the article and I will try to apply them to Bodacious which I am expanding now as it was a stub. Thanks again for your help, means a lot! Oh, and I did change the bit about how the bull harmed Lane and added a citation for it. He was not actually gored, no skin was broken. The citation was from a web site maintained by the Frost Family, so it is considered the most reliable site of the ones out there. I put a comment in there about it that explains better. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Around
I'm going to try and be around more. Holler about anything you need now. I'm moving your HOF article to mainspace I think it's ready to go. Montanabw (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Red Wolf (bull)


A tag has been placed on Red Wolf (bull) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.pbr.com/en/news/features/other-features/2013/8/red-wolf-honored-for-his-longevity.aspx. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TopCipher (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note This speedy delete nomination was a mistake. The article used direct quotes, which the speedy delete editor mistook for copyright violation. The admin who reviewed agreed that the only issue here was using perhaps more quotes than the non-free content policy states are a reasonable amount. The admin who reviewed felt there were too many quotes and took a heavy hand to the article and edited it to remove almost all of the quotes. Something which I would preferred to do myself was to decide which quotes were most important to retain. And it would have been less disruptive to do myself, being I am the subject matter expert on this article. Anyway, this is clearly shown at the article talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Wolf_(bull). dawnleelynn (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Challenge of the Champions
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Challenge of the Champions, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.redbluffdailynews.com/general-news/20140718/iconic-cowboy-linked-to-red-bluff-bull-remembered, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Challenge of the Champions and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Challenge of the Champions, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Challenge of the Champions. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Challenge of the Champions with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Challenge of the Champions saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! TopCipher (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Biting
Hi Dawn don't let the biting and templating get you down. There is always someone like this who doesn’t know the rules and gets over-zealous. Deep breaths and you will in fact, handle this rodeo and make it to the buzzer! Montanabw (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I second Montanabw. Her comment above reminded me of something and I looked up this video. Hopefully it will cheer you up and remind you that worse things could happen and we all have to deal with conflict. (It's a classic in the Tennessee Walking Horse industry; the guy on the horse is Tracy Boyd, later president of the TWHBEA, the guy by the trailer is Jeff Givens, a horse trainer. Givens obviously had no idea the horse was going to do what he did. 😉) Don't let that stuff discourage you from editing. We all have editing disputes once in a while and most of the time they're overcomable. (If that's not a word, I just invented it.)  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you both watch my page by now. I can't believe it's been 6 months since I seriously starting editing here. I couldn't have done so much without both of your help. Thank you both for your comments here in this section. The video was very funny. WAF, how did you know my favorite horse breed was Palomino :)? I'm thankful for of you. After a week of serious contemplation of many issues, I've decided to move forward, although I will be doing some things differently from now on. Here's a funny video back for you guys. No one was hurt; they are professionals, hehe. If you don't have Facebook, let me know and I have a different one in YouTube.  dawnleelynn (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I watch your talk and Montanabw's too. I don't have Facebook, but I can sometimes look at content on there if it's public; I look up companies and that kind of thing pretty often. I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I just love Jeff Givens' face; you can tell that horse has dumped him a time or two! White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WAF In case you weren't able to watch that Facebook video, I have a YouTube video here. Watch it even if you did see the other. This is extremely hilarious. I am a big pro golf fan. This video stars four top golf pros making idiots of themselves to entertain their fans. They made more than one, but this is the first one. It is sooo good. . It's the brainchild of golf pro Bubba Watson. You'll get a kick out of this too.  dawnleelynn (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I had written five articles and didn't have them reviewed right away. No one bothered them for weeks. I did get them all approved by montanabw eventually. But then when I created my sixth article, the one that was the subject of all the controversy, it was found within a couple of hours of me moving it from my Userspace into the mainspace. I didn't even use the Create button to submit it. Anyway, the point being, and this is just my opinion, some geniuses have gotten together and are watching the top of the feed where new articles are coming in. And it was just bad luck, the article was flagged for copyright violation because of the quoted material in it-it was incorrectly flagged, it never should have been submitted for speedy deletion in the first place. From what I've seen in this controversy of reviewing new pages, the criteria looks very complicated. I'm not sure I would want to review new pages myself. Anyway, you might want to approve your own pages right away from now on if that's how it works? Best wishes! :)) dawnleelynn (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I have autopatrolled, every page I create, whether an article, a userbox, a talk page welcoming a newbie or whatever, is supposed to be marked as patrolled from the second I create it. (I also have the new page reviewer right that lets me review other people's new pages.) I think the editor saw my list because it was probably tagged with no references. In your case, the copyvio thing was also a false alarm. I know there are bots/software that automatically tag potentially problematic new content with "no references" "potential copyvio" etc and this makes it show up in the special feed which some users patrol to try to fix the issues.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for explaining all this. It's very enlightening. I'd like to get the right that approves my pages when I have 25 or more articles written. I don't necessarily want the right to approve other's pages. I'm not sure I want to learn all of the criteria for that. I'll see how I feel when that time comes. It's good to know that there is a special feed, I didn't know that. However, all of my articles had quotes in them, not sure Red Wolf had more than any of the others that it would have been triggered into the special feed or not. Anyway, that issue won't happy again, that's for sure! :) Thanks for taking time to explain all of that. Good luck on your list article. dawnleelynn (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

 * Thank you for the nice greeting! Happy Easter to you too. Such an important day to remember for us Christians. I appreciate you taking the time to make up the greeting. Spring is just getting started here at approximately 6,000 feet elevation. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's 80 degrees here. My flowers have already been blooming for a month. 😊🌷🌹🌸🌼🌻 White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's finally gotten warm here starting late last week. But it's typical weather here. Nice flower emoticons. I never have gotten into the habit of using them. The tree in front of our place is just starting to bloom. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI
Hi, Dawnleelynn - for future reference, I just wanted to give you a heads-up that NCHA cutting and the NCHA itself are not rodeo, so I removed the rodeo categories. See the list of rodeo events. Warmest regards... Atsme 📞📧 05:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Then it's actually good that I was in there. It had one rodeo category in there prior to my visit, and I was going through all of the articles that had existing rodeo categories and adding the Rodeo category to them. So the topics had some rodeo category in them already, I just added one more. Which brought it to your attention so you could remove both - the old and new one. So, the article is better off now than before. Thanks for catching that. Now the articles are off our radar. Also, a good source is http://www.prorodeo.com/prorodeo/rodeo/rodeo101 which is current, while the HoF is historic. dawnleelynn (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Categories
I took a whack at the categories and hope I didn't screw up what you had in mind. I created Category:Rodeo competition series‎ and Category:Rodeo-affiliated events‎ for the things that don't really fit as individual rodeos -- they only have one article in each, but I suspect more can be moved in there. I also put the Category diffuse template on the Rodeo and Rodeo performers categories, as they are sort of the "container" categories for all the others -- if we have under 200 rodeo articles total, we technically don't need to go crazy with creating 10 trillion small categories to move everything out, but I'm also not sure we really want those categories to be completely non-diffusing, either... at least, not rodeo (maybe rodeo performers could double-dip, given that some people compete in multiple events... ) I'm thinking that regardless of what goes where, we want to have the structure set up for the area to grow because it really sucks to move a lot of articles (I wish I could find a WP tool like "cat-a-lot" in commons...but I don't think there is one) -- for example, WikiProject Horse racing now has about 10,000 (!) articles and it's also a screaming mess... the categorization scheme is so confusing that it gets very difficult to even know what category to put a horse racing article into sometimes. :-P  Montanabw (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, I looked up to see what the Category diffuse meant. I understand now. I totally agree that we want to have the structure set so we don't end up with major problems when the area grows. The ProRodeo Hall of Fame gives some good prospects for categories we can take from. We do have some of them already. It lists All-Around Cowboy


 * All-Around - I know of at least 3 articles of cowboys who competed in this event
 * Bareback Riding - we have this one
 * Steer Wrestling - we have this one
 * Team Roping - I'd have decide on this one as I go through the articles whether we need it now or later
 * Saddle Bronc Riding - I've seen several articles where it says the subject did this
 * Tie-Down Roping - again need to assess now or later
 * Bull Riding - we have bull riders and bucking bull categories
 * Steer Roping - need to assess now or later
 * Contract Personnel - looks like its bullfighters/rodeo clowns and announcers - we have rodeo clowns (I know of at least 3 announcer articles)
 * Notables/Lifetime Achievement - These are articles like Chris LeDoux who was inducted for his contribution to rodeo through country music, or Myrtis Dightman first black to compete in the NFR, etc.
 * Stock Contractors - Pretty sure we don't have any, or we might have one in the Bascom boys.
 * Media - no idea
 * Livestock - We have Rodeo livestock category. Not sure we need it if it's just another sub-category of Rodeo Performers at the same level as the sub-categories it lists. However, the livestock in the HoF does break down Livestock into the following categories: Bareback Broncs, Saddleback Broncs, Bulls, and Timed Event Horses. As need arises, we can create the sub-categories. Bucking Bulls already takes care of the Bulls category. Category Rodeo horses lumps all of the other horses together, there's only 6.
 * Rodeo Committees - About 18 rodeos were all inducted at the same time in 2008. Calgary Stampede, Cheyenne Frontier Days, etc.


 * So, Rodeo performers is now these categories
 * Bareback riders, Bucking bulls, Bull riders, Rodeo clowns, Rodeo horses, Rodeo livestock (maybe remove?), Steer wrestlers


 * Note that the term bullfighters is now used instead of rodeo clowns


 * Rodeo has these sub-categories:
 * Rodeo by country, Charreada, Cowboy halls of fame, Rodeo events, Rodeo logos, Rodeo organizations, Rodeo performers, ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees, Rodeo in film, Rodeos, Rodeo venues


 * Rodeos and Rodeo Committees are the same thing. Some of these categories we don't really oversee such as Rodeo in film, Rodeo by country, Charreada, Cowboy hall of fame. And why is there a Rodeo logos category? There are three graphics files in this category with questionable fair use logos for the PBR, ProRodeoHall of Fame, etc.


 * Anyway, I propose going through the articles and trying to match them up to the categories and creating a sub-category in Rodeo performer as needed. I can ask you questions as I go along. Naturally, any changes to categories right now should happen first.


 * I think try to follow the rodeo events is the best strategy and you had mentioned that too. What say you? dawnleelynn (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I say, share whatever it is you're taking or drinking that gives you so much energy!! 🤠 Atsme 📞📧 18:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've always been a computer geek. And some morning coffee. LOL Being a newbie doesn't hurt either, right? dawnleelynn (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - and the enthusiasm of a newbie is the part we want to protect and preserve for as long as humanly possible!! Atsme 📞📧 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I completely see the need for it. :) dawnleelynn (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The ProRodeo Hall of Fame just created a new category in preparation for this year's inductions of two barrel racers. Another horse is also being inducted to join Scamper. http://www.prorodeohalloffame.com/inductees/by-category/barrel-racing/
 * The ProRodeo Hall of Fame just created a new category in preparation for this year's inductions of two barrel racers. Another horse is also being inducted to join Scamper. http://www.prorodeohalloffame.com/inductees/by-category/barrel-racing/


 * Charmayne James and Wanda Bush are the two women being honored this year. Star Plaudit (Red) is the horse.


 * They are also inducting another barrel racing horse, but I assume that Star Plaudit (Red) will join Scamper under Livestock - Timed-Event Horses. In case you didn't see the articles about the hall now adding WOMEN, YAY! they will now be inducting from the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association (WPRA). See http://www.prorodeo.com/news-display/2017/03/28/prorodeo-hall-of-fame-announces-2017-induction-class and http://wpra.com/site/index.php/2017-hall-of-fame-class-announced. This is great news for us women. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Special recognition

 * Well, bless your heart! High gear indeed. I couldn't think of anything more appropriate to describe my high powered and energetic state this last week, that's for sure. It's not always like this, but I surely enjoy myself when it is. You are thanking me for something I sincerely enjoy doing. Mucho gracias for thinking of me. I know all you who work on rodeo besides myself also have many other equine projects that keep you busy, so thank you too. dawnleelynn (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Pickup riders
Debating whether to add bull riding to the pickup rider article as a separate section and maybe the categories -- they don't have pickup riders, per se, but there are guys on horseback herding any recalcitrant bulls around, at least at PRCA rodeos -- usually the same guys hired as pickup riders. But I dunno because I don't watch a lot of PBR, more live PRCA stuff... Thoughts? Montanabw (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * For sure those bulls in the PBR can be very determined in wanting to strut around the arena or chase a rider. I could point you to videos on YouTube that portray this happening, not actually necessary, I know. It can take anywhere from one to three men on horseback to rope the bulls and get them back to the stripping chutes when this happens. It all depends on the size of the bull (anywhere from 1,300 to 2,2400 pounds), and the size of the arena. But there are no pickup riders. The only ones helping the guys dismount are the bull fighters. LOL and the bulls. Yes, I have watched this at the PRCA too at Cheyenne Frontier Days, and it's pretty much the same on both circuits if that helps. You have to remember that many stock contractors run some of their bulls on both circuits. PBR 2015 World Champion Bull Long John was second place bull in the PRCA that same year. (They call it Reserve Champion.) To be runner-up means he bucked a lot on the PRCA that year as well as the PBR. But when you come down to it, there really aren't any pickup riders in bull riding. No transfer of a man from a bull to any helper on a horse. And at the PBR, there's definitely no guys who are pickup riders that become bull herders. So, to be honest, I don't really see it. And I couldn't find anything on the Internet that supported it. But it didn't hurt to visit the idea. In fact, I wonder what those guys who herd the bulls are called. I might research that a bit later tonight. dawnleelynn (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No kidding! No one would risk a horse getting gored!  Plus, unlike broncs, bulls don't get all that far from the chutes.  The horsemen at the PBR must have a title, perhaps wrangler?  I honestly don't know the answer (maybe email the PBR, they might tell you!) -- as I said, it's often the same guys rope the bulls if needed along with being pickup riders, or at least they seem to all have matching chaps... I suspect they work for or closely with the stock contractor (note the chaps on the guys in my photos...]].   Montanabw (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm taking a look around now for a title. I found this in the meantime. We both could find it useful. http://www.pbr.com/en/education/dictionary.aspx dawnleelynn (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I found a source that says the guys that escort bulls to the exit are pickup men too. They are called pickup men too or they are the same, no matter the origin, the nomenclature is the same, which is what we care about. And I'm happy to be wrong, LOL.

http://www.hotfair.com/p/events/prca-rodeo/222

More cats

 * I also created Category:Rodeo equipment. Almost all the links are redirects, but if you can think of more stuff, go for it!   Montanabw (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I like this category. I'll put straw man and mechanical bull in too. I'll take a good look around here either tonight or early tomorrow morning. I'll get back to working on categories again now. I finished up Bones (bull) as you know. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I went through Rodeo events and the three noun items left in that category are spur, stirrup, and horse tack. I propose we put those in your new category, Rodeo equipment. I will also be on the look out for new items that could go in this category as I keep working in rodeo articles. I think we are pretty close to getting the categories organized. What remains is what I said I would do earlier, which is more work on the Rodeo performers (general) category. I'll research the articles that say the subject performed in rodeos but did specify what events to see if I can come up with the events and move them out of the category into an event specific category.


 * I also wanted to notify you that I added two rodeo artists to the Rodeo professionals category. They are at the top level for now. There is a current well known sculptor, Chris Navarro, who hasn't gotten an article yet. He has sculpted Bushwacker's head, for example. He is also the artist who did the bronze of Lane Frost riding a bull here in Cheyenne. There are probably more artists out there. It could be a category someday, but for now I don't see a category of two. Leave them here at the top? Thoughts? Well, what are your next plans on the categories? Any thing you'd like me to do? dawnleelynn (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I've moved I think 5 or 6 articles out of Rodeo performers (other) into specific categories. But two of the articles I could only get as specific as bronc riders and couldn't find if they were saddle or bareback. So I put them in your new category Bronc riders. I also identified two that were cutting horse performers so I left a message on Atmes' page. You can look at my contribs to see what I did or I can give you the wikilinks to the article if you want them. I don't know how detailed you want to see. I'll do some more later.


 * Cutting and reining are not rodeo sports even though they have cowboy roots; but a person could do both... so it all depends on what the individual bios say.  Montanabw (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Since I wrote this, one has been decided which was Louis Pearce Jr.. He was a horse cutter (Atsme knows) and was involved in many roles at the Houston Stock Show and Rodeo. So you put him in Rodeo professionals. That takes care of one.


 * The second one I also discussed with Atsme. Wylie Gustafson He's a yodeler. He's a horse cutter (which Atsme now knows and will see to that side of it). And, he's a roper. "He is a participant in local ranch roping contests. In his younger days he was a competitive team roper." https://www.crossthreequarterhorses.com/. So, I put him under Roping (rodeo). But you can revisit if you wish, please do so if you want to be absolutely sure.  dawnleelynn (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK
I saw your request for review of your latest bull article on Montanabw's talk, so I thought I'd post here. It's certainly good enough to do a DYK on, so here are some tips: I hope you nominate it. I've had 27 that ran on the main page, not counting coon hunting which has been passed but hasn't been promoted or run yet. As far as I know, we've never had a bucking bull on the main page since I've been here. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have to nominate within seven days of moving to mainspace.
 * Experienced editors/ie, 5 DYKs or more have to review another nom, but the first 5 are free. All you have to do is nominate.
 * The hook has to be 200 characters or less, not counting the markup.
 * Thanks for thinking of me. You must be on the same wavelength as because she suggested this over on Bones Talk:Bones (bull). I thought about it with Tornado because he was the most notable bull I've written about, but there was some issue then that kept me from doing so at that time. And then, with Red Wolf, well you know how that turned out, a fiasco. So, yes I would love to do it with Bones. I've been trying to think of some hooks. I won't move the article to mainspace until I'm ready with a hook(s)? and know what the steps are I have to do to take once it is in mainspace. And yes, I'm open to suggestions. Thanks for saying that the article is good, that's encouraging. I work very hard on the articles I write. I am all about quality versus quantity. It feels good to finish Bones because he is the last one in the PBR Brand of Honor series; they are all documented now (until next year anyway lol). Oh, btw, it is taking me awhile to get that ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees list cited...well over 300 inductees to create citations for inside a table. LOL.  dawnleelynn (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a page that explains the DYK nom precedure in quick and easy terms. I looked at the article and I thought of a hook, something like, "...that the bucking bull Bones was named because he looked like a bag of bones as a calf?"  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 15:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I'll probably give a couple hooks they can choose from. Bones' name did occur. I'm still thinking about it. It says the hook has to come from a fact that is inline cited. A paragraph citation won't do. I got an alert that you reviewed the article. Does that you mean you patrolled it? And what does that mean before the article has been moved to mainspace? Oh, I thought your article title Coon Hunting was funny. I have a friend who thought a coon was a different animal than a raccoon when she was little. She grew up in a small town in Missouri. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Review is just the new name for patrol, they changed it when they made it a specific thing you have to ask for (used to anybody could do it after they'd had an account a certain length of time). It should stay patrolled when moved.
 * I'm kind of surprised that there wasn't a coon hunting article already. We're not supposed to link to copyrighted content, but both the original Where the Red Fern Grows movie and the funny Jerry Clower story are on YouTube. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Coon hunting sounds like a redneck sport no? j/k LOL. Understood about the reviewing now, thanks for doing that. Hopefully, it will avoid issues when I move, probably tomorrow. :) dawnleelynn (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I just added the four I am considering to Talk:Bones (bull). Btw, the source for the DYK that I like the best, where Bones exercises in a revolving sand pit, is shown on a YouTube video here:. dawnleelynn (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can use all 4 in the nom and let the reviewer choose from them if you want. Yeah, it's seen as a redneck thing, kind of like ridin' bulls 😉😆. Then again, if more people did it, we might not have an obesity epidemic in America. I would like to get another coon dog someday and hunt with it, maybe when the dogs I have now are gone. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I just moved the page to mainspace. I've updated the links in this section. We'll see how the page settles in mainspace a little while; plus I'm waiting to see if montanabw has any feedback. Then I'll submit probably all four for DYK. Thanks for your help. Yes, I'm sure bull riding throughout its history has appeared as a red neck sport to some. Especially early on before there were any cowboy associations. I assume it's desirable to use wiklinks in the hook? :) dawnleelynn (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You have to link and bold the article title within the hook, others are optional but good. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a tweak or two. Go for it!  Montanabw (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks great. Thanks you two! I'm going to put the exact wording of the hooks into Bones talk page first. There will be time to comment on it before I go live in the morning with the nomination. All has been quiet since I moved Bones into mainspace. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Bones (bull)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

My Bones DKY is running now.
Hey y'all, my Bones DKY is running right now! :) for the date of May 20, 2017. dawnleelynn (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That ROCKS, doesn't it?!?! Do watch for vandals and I will too.   Montanabw (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It so does rock! Ha, ha. Oh, good point about watching for vandals. I've been getting one on my Red Rock page this week. Well, actually two different ones. But the one edit they made on the account was just one edit. They created the account just to vandalize Red Rock. Whatever! lol. So, yes, it's cool having my article up there on the main page. I have had a few people make good edits. :)) dawnleelynn (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Page semi-protection is really good to lock out the "drive-by" vandals, both the anonymous IPs and the brand new accounts.  Montanabw (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Sorry I wasn't on yesterday, I had a lot of stuff going on in real life and then had to try and watch the Preakness between thunderstorms. I'll check the pageviews for you and see how many it got! White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the tool it got 3114 views, which would be high end of average for a horse article! White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes I missed you, thanks for letting me know. I can relate. We had 24 hours of snow here from Friday through Saturday here. LOL. But I can relate to the thunderstorm weather from where I grew up and lived the earlier part of my adult life in the Northeast. That's pretty cool about the pageviews. I tried to check it last night after the DYK had stopped running, but the results hadn't been posted yet. That seems like pretty darn good results! I had a few stragglers edit Bones' page and one edit another bull page. I didn't think about the fact that some of the people who saw the DYK might come in for some edits, LOL. But that's ok, I told montanabw I was too isolated in here anyway. I'm close to finishing Charmayne James in my sandbox now. I'll put her up with the bridleless go-round as the DYK, maybe next week. I just put some polish on Scamper; I'm really happy with that article now. Oh, and that Preakness race was quite the upset. dawnleelynn (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Another friendly user
Hey dawn, I want to alert you to my buddy, who is a really terrific and experienced editor, and who might be interested in your bull riding and cowboy articles, particularly the hall of fame one you are still sandboxing. He's done several featured articles and featured lists, was inactive for awhile, but now is back. Anyway, it's always good to expand your network of helpful people, plus he's very good with more advanced wikipedia syntax and markup. We worked together on the Yogo sapphire article and it was a real good collaboration; what wikipedia is all about. Montanabw (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I am just doing a little editing now. I just saw your copy edit to the section on Bones vs Big Tex on the Bones article. It needed those edits, good stuff as usual. Would be very cool to have someone more experienced to collaborate with in rodeo. Also, did you see the conversation with on her talk page? Another experienced editor that you mentored once to collaborate with. It's in a state that I can take that sandbox article and move it to main space now if someone will patrol it. It's List of ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees. I haven't the inclination to add more to it lately. It could be added to later even after it's an article. Or it can stay sandboxed, whatever you think is best. Good news is welcome here!  dawnleelynn (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

List article ready to be published
Hi montanabw and WAF! montanabw and I were thinking this article needs to go live after one more review. WAF, montanabw plans to review it today. You are welcome to, at your option, as well. It's not a lot of text to review as it's a list article. You actually helped me get it started. It's List of ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees in my sandbox. After it's reviewed, if someone could patrol it, that would be great. Then I'll move it to mainspace. I'm not inclined right now to do anything else to make it more flashy. Maybe later. Thanks for your help girls! It wouldn't even be this nice without your help. dawnleelynn (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, looks really good! I don't see anything that needs to be fixed. (If I had I probably would have fixed it.) I don't see an unpatrolled notice, and I think I patrolled it already, so it shouldn't pop up in the backlog. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm around. Thanks! I've always wondered this, but where do you find the unpatrolled notice? Is it something only people with the patrol right can see? Thanks for checking it over. I've definitely had it in my sandbox way too long. I hope it is helpful to someone. Trying to think of places where I can put links to it now. :)) montanbw just has to take a look when she's ready. I know she's busy a lot. dawnleelynn (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is now something only people with the right can see. Used to anybody could patrol once you had been here more than 10 days and made so many edits, but now you have to ask for it. To me it's a little blue thing that says "mark this page as patrolled" at the bottom of the page. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheyenne Frontier Days
Howdy rodeo fans! I'm doing an expansion to Cheyenne Frontier Days, heaven knows it needs one. I've added a bunch but it still has a long way to go. I've not added anything about rodeo or FrontierNight yet, just the side events. You can easily go to see what it looked like before I started adding anything at an early version because I just started a couple days ago. Whenever you have a few minutes here or there in the next few weeks, take a look and make some edits if you feel like it. No need to ask, just edit. And remember, I am always willing to return the favor. A rodeo article is a big effort, and could use more than one pair of eyes on it. And it's a shame for one of the biggest and best to be lacking any depth while the Calgary Stampede is a featured article. Thanks for listening. I was thinking I could do a decent job since I have attended many times and I live here now. The goal is to finish at least a couple weeks before the next event, which is the last full week of July. Happy Trails! :))

A barnstar for you!
Thank you Atsme, that is very sweet of you. dawnleelynn (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

To mainspace
I moved Charmayne James to mainspace. I'd recommend adding a wee bit more about her post-Scamper career with the other barrel horse and maybe consider trimming some of the material that was moved in from the Scamper article to focus more on her than the horse. Other than that, maybe have or someone look it over and then if you want to do a DYK nom, go for it, would be fun to have rodeo on the main page. Montanabw (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed it would, . As a side note: I've gone and gotten myself involved in NPP, and the stuff you find out over there regarding COI editing, promotional articles, etc. is unreal. We sure could use more help (hint-hint) Atsme 📞📧 19:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's nice to have friends on WP, especially when you aren't feeling completely up to snuff for awhile. And when they help you despite having a full schedule themselves in real life. I saw your post on your page montantabw. I also caught a tad of the talk you've been having with another user on NPP and COI . I don't know much about that. But I will take a peak when things are more normal. I took a look at Scamper great additions. I noticed the word brideless was used in a citation so corrected that. I did a quick fix of a couple things on Charmayne James - fixing the two bride references. Also the cloned link pointed to a disambiguation page. And a reference got screwed up and threw an error. Some very good edits there as well. After this, it really won't be easy to keep the content the same between the two articles, but that wasn't the intent anyway. It was just to get it in there for use for James and to mold it for a person article, not a horse article. So it's all good. I will take your edits and do them as they are great suggestions. Then maybe Atsme could take a quick look over when I'm done, could ping her. I plan do to a DYK on the bridleless win of a round. Sounds like a pretty good hook to me. Oh, have to add categories, which reminds me montanabw, someone just tagged Margaret Cabell Self as needing categories. Thanks so much. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I finished editing Charmayne James if you care to take a little edit of it as montanabw suggested. I will return the favor. It's my first person article. Thanks! dawnleelynn (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You've done a lot of good work, Dawn. The only issues I can see are syntax but that's easily fixed - just basic copy editing.  It also needs a bit of toning down to an encyclopedic level. If you'll create a sandbox page, I'll demonstrate what I mean. Atsme 📞📧 04:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Atsme. I guess my long history in tech writing only helps me so much here. I do struggle with the promotional writing that is so prevalent in rodeo articles, especially in the PBR. montanabw did do a little bit of editing in James and Scamper to help tone it down some but it needs more as you say. I took a quick swipe this morning and also fixed a few syntax errors that I saw. But I know it needs more for sure, and I would love to learn from you. Just so you know, in real life I am entirely used to having my work edited in great detail by others. So I don't get upset easily. montanabw edits my work in the article freely. You may also do so, but the sandbox is there for you if that is really what you prefer. It's at User:Dawnleelynn/James. Again, thanks. dawnleelynn (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One other thought. montanabw has always told me that one way to get in some content about, for example, how great a bull was, is to have others say it, like a bull rider or the livestock director of the PBR, which he often does, usually by quoting or paraphrasing him. Or just saying the article says... things like that, but keep it to a minimum also. Sometimes you just have to let the facts speak for themselves. Obviously if a bull won the world champ bull title three times and only two bulls have ever done it, it should be obvious that he's a great bull. dawnleelynn (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ^^^^Exactly.^^^^ I'll come back in a bit. Atsme 📞📧 18:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I love what you've done so far. I'm going to try to emulate it all in Scamper's article when James is done. Just a small thing, is James is being inducted on August 5, 2017 into the ProRodeo Hall of Fame. Scamper was inducted in 1996. Also, I have had it drilled into me for many years, use active voice in writing everything. It's amazing how much it improves writing. Although I'd say 95% of your writing was in active voice already so that's great. And your writing is superb overall. In the hall of fame articles, so and so ...was inducted... seems to come up fairly often and I am guilty of writing this way myself. But it's passive voice. I've been trying to think up a way of saying this in active voice that sounds good, but no luck so far. I tried ...The ProRodeo Hall of Fame inducted so and so on such a date... just doesn't sound right. So still thinking. There are a lot of rodeo articles that start out with this induction sentence used in the passive form. Maybe you have a different perspective that would help... :)) dawnleelynn (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Check this out: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/verb-tenses/ Atsme 📞📧 21:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In your first writing, you stated: is a retired ProRodeo Hall of Fame competitor in barrel racing which tells us she's already in the Hall of Fame. To add one example of why syntax is compromised when not maintaining the proper tense: You wrote Charmayne James (Born June 23, 1970) is a retired ProRodeo Hall of Fame competitor in barrel racing. She didn't compete in ProRodeo Hall of Fame competition, she competed in barrel racing...she is retired now...and according to the information you provided, I was led to believe she was already inducted into the Hall of Fame because the following sentence follows Scamper as an inductee Both Scamper and James won many other championships, awards, and honors. The "honors" threw me. Sorry about that. Atsme 📞📧 22:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's totally my bad. It's been a stickler for me writing about her when she's being inducted this year. I really stuffed the pooch on that one. Totally not your fault. I did exactly what you just said. I take total responsibility for that. Trying to write it that way, yet not have to come back did not work out. Sorry!! I should have said so earlier! dawnleelynn (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Completely my fault, not yours at all! dawnleelynn (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * SMirC-chuckle.svg "stuffed the pooch" - love it!! I'll think of you each time I use that phrase...Atsme 📞📧 22:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you like my saying which I took from another saying "screw the pooch" and I don't use bad language at all so this my clean version. :)) dawnleelynn (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Or, this: https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/CCS_activevoice.html Note this example specifically which emulates the one I am talking about with the induction. Website example: Active: The dog bit the man. Passive: The man was bitten by the dog. My issue: Active: The ProRodeo Hall of Fame inducted Scamper in 1996. Passive: Scamper was inducted by the ProRodeo Hall of Fame in 1996. This is not having to do with verb tense but rather keeping the subject the actor instead of being acted upon. One of many types of active voice. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When you get to career, there is a leading line, "James believes Scamper hit his peak as a barrel racing horse around 1986–87. According to James, all horses peak and during that peak, they run their best. She has stated that Scamper was unbeatable at his peak. She viewed him as always great and unfailing. But in his peak years, she said, "he dominated"." If you feel that this line only needs to be in Scamper's article, go ahead and delete it. I'm going to tone it down in his article either way, though. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie - but just wanted to mention....
 * The dog bit the man - when? Just now?
 * The man was bitten by the dog - when? In 1972?
 * After you've been through an FA review or two or three, you'll have a better understanding of what I'm trying to explain but apparently, I'm not doing a good job of it.  is an expert at explaining things with brevity.  I write diatribes. Bottomline: it's a "bumpy" adjustment when trying to "engage the reader" and still be "encyclopedic".  No peacock terms, no promotion, inline citations for almost every other sentence - I'll be the first to admit that back in 2011, I resisted, left for a while, came back and resisted again. *lol*  In retrospect, I got lucky because an incredible editor  who is now gone/retired/MIA from WP helped me immensely - exercised extreme patience, was nurturing, understanding...yes, he lost it a couple of times (who wouldn't?)...but I learned despite myself.  I also have to give  some of the credit, although he wasn't quite as patient, but I take full responsibility for my actions.  Together with Alf, SJP taught me a lot about the WP community...seems like forever ago.  You are way further ahead than I was because I was headstrong back then.  I was especially scared of early retirement as an "A" personality...but not anymore!!  I've "acclimated"!!  SMirC-wink.svg Atsme 📞📧 22:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Read this Britannica article about Larry. Granted, I misunderstood that she had not yet been inducted to the Hall of Fame. The chronological order of events needs tweaking, as does the sentence structure because it jumps from her to the horse back to her, skipped years, and I had not yet had a chance to proofread what I had changed.  I'll let you do the tweaking because we both can't work on it at the same time. I was remiss by not putting the  tag on it while I was editing. Atsme 📞📧 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And keep in mind that we're writing an encyclopedia, not a magazine article. There's a big difference.22:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Too funny, I added that source on Larry Mahan to his article actually. I did not create his article, but I have done some editing on it. I guess it's also my bad that I tried to do a quick edit to James while you were working on it. I thought you were going away and coming back in between sections. Sorry for messing that up too. You really could have rejected my edit, it was such a tiny one that could have been redone. Not exactly sure what you want me to do now, but I will go in and look. Yes, I will be sure to focus and think encyclopedia. Thanks for what you've done so far. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Too funny, I added that source on Larry Mahan to his article actually. I did not create his article, but I have done some editing on it. I guess it's also my bad that I tried to do a quick edit to James while you were working on it. I thought you were going away and coming back in between sections. Sorry for messing that up too. You really could have rejected my edit, it was such a tiny one that could have been redone. Not exactly sure what you want me to do now, but I will go in and look. Yes, I will be sure to focus and think encyclopedia. Thanks for what you've done so far. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL, it must be frustrating, and I do know how you feel. Really. In my 20 years working in software development, most of it was as a technical writer. But I also did some training and QA as well. My skills at explaining things are only exceedingly good because it was my job in writing software documentation for so long. You can't succeed doing documentation and get paid for it for 15 years if you are not doing a good job. But doing it in training and QA was extremely frustrating. However, not all of the skills seemed to have translated well here. Plus, I have not been working for several years, so am out of practice. You are right, I am much more accepting of taking edits. But believe me, in the beginning I was just as headstrong about taking edits as you were. I was very defensive and hurt at first in taking edits, but after 15 years, you are long past taking exception to both substantial and copy edits. It's just another day at work. But I do admit when my co-worker in one job got promoted to manager about halfway through my career, she came with the active voice baggage and she was so strict with it, it made me crazy at first. I really thought she was overdoing it. She practically forbade the verb of being and past tense altogether... yeah, that's right. But I did come to see the value of active voice over passive voice in moderation and it really does improve your writing and you can use it without getting extreme about it like she did. I am trying to learn from you, I promise. I am willing to take all the edits for the Charmayne James article, I will not oppose any. For two reasons. 1. To learn. 2. It will improve the article. The article is more important than my ego. And so, I'm staring at the article. Did you want me to tweak the lead section, is that what you meant? I've got about 45 minutes before dinner. lol Words cannot say how much I appreciate your help. I will owe you a big one for this. Oh yes, montanabw got me to the point where I was just using one citation per paragraph if that paragraph was based only on one source. I really could use some more education on citing, though I think. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did make changes, but probably not everything you are looking for yet. I have to take a break for awhile now. I've been on all day. One bright side is that since I starting using Chrome (since last night after having problems with Firefox), I've been much more productive). I'll check back in a few hours. Might be able to do some more later. Thanks again. I do see the difference in the edits you are making, I'm just trying to emulate. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I second that motion. I really haven't gotten into the body of the article - just the lead & first section.  Scamper's registered name should be included in the lead.  Strictly from a "reader's" perspective, I'm interested in knowing a bit about the clone, like who/what/where? The section in the body of the article states: Clayton the stallion was cloned from Gils Bay Boy, nicknamed Scamper, before he passed away. Since Scamper was a gelding before James bought him, there was no opportunity to breed him. Clayton is an identical genetic match. January 2017 marks the eighth year Clayton is available for breeding. In 2008, Clayton was bred for the first time. This first breeding proved that Clayton is an extraordinary selection for breeding healthy offspring and passing on the inheritable traits of his bloodline. Reword without the peacock terms. Clayton has several descendants who are healthy and comparable to him. They also have many character traits of Scamper. A bit more detail is needed where Clayton is mentioned in the lead - who was the donor mare - if important. If not leave it out. Atsme 📞📧 00:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I will address that section on Clayton first thing when I get at it tomorrow morning. Good observations. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * One last thing before I shut 'er down for dinner: the winner is called either a World Champion Barrel Racer or Barrel Racing World Champion or World Barrel Racing Champion. If one is competing for a world, national, youth or American title, and has won multiple times, it would be has won several World Barrel Racing Championships, or National Barrel Racing Championships, or Youth Barrel Racing Championships or American Barrel Racing Championships.  Also acceptable would be she won the title of PRCA World Champion Barrel Racer on 12 occasions.  Does that make sense? Atsme 📞📧 00:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the titles, yes I have been following mostly what I have seen in the rodeo articles that already exist. The encyclopedia articles like the Larry Mahan one we both know and this one on Jim Shoulders really aren't that helpful: . Maybe the one Shoulders one is correct but just doesn't include the World in it. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be anything on the WPRA site about how to correctly use titles. But that's okay, I believe you and will follow you for those titles. And the PRCA web site has an entry that seems to follow what you've said here: . This is how titles look on the NFR web site just out of curiosity:  . However, since you brought this up, I have thought of one question. The PRCA website doesn't list barrel riding as one of its events or championships. So, when James claims winning the NFR world championship, what is she actually winning? She lists both the WPRA and the NFR championships. You could see how I might be confused? Not that I don't think she did, just want to understand how. I am surprised I didn't think of this before. A any rate, I'd like to get it right on using the titles. I took the time to be sure I was using the right titles in bull riding, so same should apply here.


 * Okay, well I am probably not going to get any more work done tonight. But I have a lot of time to devote to it tomorrow. I'll make sure to edit this section first though, before editing. By the way, because WP calls us all editors, it may not always be clear that there is actually a difference between writing and editing in the real world. I've actually done a great deal of substantive and copy editing in the real world. In fact, my last job, we had a technical editor on our writing team, who just did editing. So, I think sometimes editors on WP equate your editing skills with your writing skills and that's not always the case. I might say that sometimes I'm better editor than I am a writer. :)) I'm working hard to improve my writing though. P.S. If I were to pick any of the articles I've written to do such a thorough edit on, it would have been this one. One of first two women to be inducted into ProRodeo Hall of Fame (not talking secretaries in the Notable category etc). dawnleelynn (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * The National Finals Rodeo (held in Las Vegas every year) comprising the top 15 contestants in bareback, saddle bronc, bull riding, steer wrestling, team roping (headers and heelers), tie-down roping, and WPRA barrel racing is the all-time biggie. Contestants qualify based on their earnings during regular season, so for the barrel racers, it would be their WPRA earnings. After the NFR competition is over, the NFR World Champion Barrel Racer is determined by the total of what they won at the NFR event plus their regular WPRA season earnings.
 * The WPRA World Finals is a different event that's held every year in Waco, TX. and like the NFR includes other rodeo events for women, like calf roping, etc. They qualify for that event during the year, then compete at the finals. The WPRA Champion Barrel Racer is determined by their annual earnings plus winnings at the WPRA World Finals.  That is how they can be a WPRA World Barrel Racing Champion, and an NFR World Barrel Racing Champion.  Are you confused, yet? SMirC-beam.svg Atsme 📞📧 04:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I needed a reminder that the NFR is based on money earnings, duh, I knew that...but hadn't thought about it in awhile. Once you know that, the rest of what you say falls into place pretty easily. It's the foundation of what you need to understand the rest. I also know about winning the average and that being a separate thing that can be won at the NFR. I do get it now. As I have opportunity to edit existing articles in future, I will correct the way titles are referred to in them. I'm glad you brought this subject up. Thanks! dawnleelynn (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

More editing the next day
Ok, I will see what I can do in James now for awhile. And address Clayton too.


 * Just finished an edit of the leadin section and Clayton. Made lead in chronological and separated out James and Scamper into two separate paragraphs. Redid Clayton's section altogether. Pulled some stuff from Scamper's article which I wrote. Will come back later in a bit and do more...look at Background... dawnleelynn (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

An error caused by GreenC bot
Hey there!

I wanted to make you (Atsme and WAF) both aware of an error I found. Montanabw knows. It's all explained on this bot's page. But, basically the Visual Source Editor is creating empty parameters in citations when adding them. And this bot was thinking that the empty parameter for the archiveurl= meant it should be turned into a weird not dead link archive link, my bad, but reversed. It's weird, you have to see one to understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GreenC_bot#Bot_doesn.27t_like_citations_from_Visual_Source_Editor.3F

For sure, the bot will be or is already fixed so it does not do this anymore. However, the past mistakes it already made are out there in articles and you may encounter them sometime in your travels.

Now I corrected all of these issues in the Rodeo articles. I did this because I got access to the AutoWikiBrowser. I used the powerful Search and Replace feature in this tool to search for all of the empty parameters that the Visual Source Editor creates in citations and removed them. Now a bot can't find these parameters and turn a perfectly good URL into an archive link.

To see an example of what I did, the best one is my article List of ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees.

I could also potentially use this tool to help out editors. To do things, like rename the category in all the articles it is in one fell swoop. This tool has helped me many times since I got access to it. It does lots of things. But its most powerful feature is definitely the search and replace. Also, I saved the text of that section into a text file on my computer so I always have access to it. I know it will not always be readily available. So, yes let me know if I can ever help you with a task by using AWB.

Just a heads up. dawnleelynn (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to hide this offer or risk 1,000+ other editors requesting help. Those of us who work on a Mac don't have access to AWB (which only works on a PC). *LOL* <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, anything based on that Microsoft Framework rules out using it on Mac. I don't run across applications that use it so much anymore. dawnleelynn (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Mossy Oak Mudslinger
I thought this article in my sandbox was patrolled so I moved it out to mainspace. I forgot a link to the article, it's Mossy Oak Mudslinger. It just got reviewed and slapped with a notability tag. I added some notability information in the talk page. If you can spare a minute anyone, please see if you can add anything. Thanks! This article should not need notability questioning. The bull is a 2006 PBR World Champion bull AND a PBR Heroes and Legends Brand of Honor bull of which we have 5 articles in existence already. The Brand of Honor is equivalent to a hall of fame designation in the PBR, the highest honor the PBR can give a bull. Appreciate just a comment or whatever, thanks all. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Howdy and Happy Sunday all. Atsme took care of this issue and in the nicest way possible. I still have much to learn about the notability guidelines. I mean when it comes to having your topic reviewing and what to say to a reviewer like she did when she addressed the reviewer of my article on his page. She also removed the notability tag from my article. Obviously, since it's my article, I can't remove the tag. Atsme, it sounds like you are familiar with this bull. I love how you described him in the edit summary and on the reviewer's page! He was one bad hombre. Thank you! And, btw, looking at the article, I'm seeing puffery that needs removed, which I will do later this week. It comes from our work on Charmayne James me thinks. :)) dawnleelynn (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing on Charmayne James
Charmayne James


 * SMirC-beam.svg you're doing a great job, Dawn!! I'm not a "rodeo cowgirl" but I did barrel race in my younger days, and have quite a few friends who are rodeo folks - mostly ropers, though. A few years ago, I came very close to buying-in on a PRCA stock contractor license with Barney Brehmer. There's a picture of him bull riding that is legendary. My late husband (a PRCA roper/header-healer) knew Donnie Gay's father, Neal, who kept some of his rough stock a few miles down the road from us. My horse show interests were primarily cutting but I did show halter & performance horses for a while.  We were also involved in breeding TB and Quarter Horses, and had a sizable breeding operation back in the late 70s - early 80s. We helped Texas A&M with some of the research during the earliest beginnings of embryo transfers in mares. The cattle industry (which we were also involved in) was far ahead of the equine industry in that department. We had a fully equipped laboratory here at the ranch and provided both donor and recipient mares to A&M (and also provided halter horses to them for their AQHA judging clinics).  We stood a couple of TB stallions, too, and did live cover in addition to AI. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 16:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that while I am milling around in there, LOL. I can only say wow to all of your links. It will take me some time to digest it all. But it is all so cool! I recognized without all of that that you were far ahead of me in knowledge about horses and rodeo. I saw that great link and information you added in James lead section about AQHA. That's some wonderful history you have and it's good to look back on it and enjoy the memories. I truly appreciate you sharing them with me. After all your help and now this, just makes my day! I just finished an edit to James, but will come back in a bit later. I edited the lead and made it chronological and made two sections - one for James and one for Scamper. And I totally redid Clayton's section.

Oh, also, I am definitely not a rodeo anything except through what I have taught myself. But I have loved bull riding a long time and I have taught myself about it, both old school and new. So I know who the Gays are, they are both Legends of Pro Rodeo as well as hall of famers. I used to watch Don back when he was a PBR announcer. And it was due to Lane Frost and Red Rock that I started watching bull riding. :)) dawnleelynn (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't have to compete in bull riding to write about it. SMirC-chuckle.svg I tweaked the lead a bit more so that we avoid "dating" the article, WP:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. I also removed a bit of redundancy, such as the dates she acquired national standing as they were redundant to the dates she earned the titles. Keep doing what you're doing and you'll have this puppy ready for a GA review. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 18:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I changed that reference from Neals to Gays. Typo. I really think it was the movie 8 Seconds that got me started enjoying bull riding. Plus, I've been attending Cheyenne Frontier Days off and on for about 20 years now. Although I'm not originally from here. I've been doing some editing on that article-CFD. It needs some help. Your changes look great. I was struggling with how to write the induction content because she wasn't quite inducted yet. Yes, I understand why you did what you did in the lead. I found your link very helpful and promptly bookmarked that one! GA?? Really? I haven't done one before, have felt lucky to get to one grade below, haha. Oh and I don't take full credit for the new content in Clayton, montanabw edited that content. So, okay to head in and edit some more? Or, are you going to do more? Don't want to cross the streams again. dawnleelynn (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Careful there cupcake or you might find yourself added to some random list of homophobes.SMirC-chuckle.svg You go ahead and work on the article - add the template (without the preceding colon) while you're working, and then remove it when you're through.  I'll be working on NPP, AfC, AfD and some photos for a while and probably won't get back here until later this evening.  Oh, and if you can, take some pictures while you're at Frontier Days!!  We need some good rodeo images. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I didn't think of that when I changed the last name from Neals. LOL good joke. Another funny thing about that. I used to work at a software company with a software developer whose name was Don Gay, no lie. I'm still Facebook friends with him. I did some editing in every section of the article. I'm not happy with the Achievements and Retirements sections though, but I was starting to get tired by then. I did do some editing to change some things to active voice along with lots of other editing to try to remove peacock wording and just make the wording better. I really did make a lot of changes and try really hard to edit better. Oh, yes, and I consolidated a reference. Well, I think I'm probably done for today. Unless I get on in the mid evening..and if I do I'll use the inuse template. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Howdy! I've edited James a bunch yesterday and some early today. I need a breather for a little while now. I've changed quite a bit in every section now. Hope you are having a good day! dawnleelynn (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm word-blind right now, so I'm taking a break. Please review the article, and correct any glaring errors and redundancies I may have missed. In the future, please be careful about citing information to autobiographical material. We also do not list all the awards and honors a person has received - only the top 5 or so major awards. See WP:PUFFERY. Context, chronological order, proper syntax, and reliable sources are very important, especially when writing a BLP.  The cited sources must support the claim.  You did one helluva job getting all that information together - cudos!!  Don't hesitate to ask questions.  Do you know if there are any public domain or fair use images available of her & Scamper? An infobox would also be helpful. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes you were at it a long time, goodness. And I can only say "Wow!" at the result. It's getting close to dinner, but I will edit when I can in the early to mid-evening and assume you won't be coming back for quite awhile. I'll go put the inuse tag on it right after I finish this comment. I've got about 1/2 hour to do a bit of editing. I'm not sure I know what you mean regarding "citing information to autobiographical material." And I've never heard the rule about only listing the top 5 or so major awards - montanabw never mentioned it. What about honors, do they count in that 5. I mean, for example, like a bull rider, I list awards he's won his championships and finals, etc. And then separately I list as honors all the halls of fame he's been inducted into and etc.. So, honors and awards are two separate lists I add. I don't know of any fair use images but that doesn't mean there aren't any. I will see if I can find anything tomorrow? I asked White Arabian Filly about the infobox, she creates them, she created a bull infoxbox for me. She might know of a suitable one. This is my first article about a person, so I had a lot to learn. I have only created articles about animals before now and edited articles about people. So, yes forgive my mistakes here. Actually, James' awards were all listed in order in the articles "Scamper's Stats with Charmayne James" and on her web site. As for the halls of fame, I am a pro doing that from long before I did this article. I've been doing it for all of the rodeo performers awhile now, and I've even developed a file with most of them in it, that I can search for their name and find the halls they are in. I just have to update each year with new inductions. Ok, yes, I may have some more questions later so I don't mess up anything you've done. Thanks so much... dawnleelynn (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See #5 footnote for my reference to "autobiography" - granted the info was co-authored, but there's no way to know who wrote what. It's far more acceptable to cite 3rd party sources (I know, I know - it's crazy - I've seen instances where a BLP couldn't get WP to correct the year they were born because "RS" conflicted with the date.   The technical aspects can quickly become fly-paper. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It took me a little bit to understand what you meant... I did some searching and looked at WP:BLP. Apparently, you must be careful when using material written by the subject. There are rules as to when it's acceptable or not. I'm assuming this Barrel Horse Racing article is not quite kosher so to speak?  dawnleelynn (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources are fine - the one I alluded to was the one she co-authored. We can use her quotes about herself in published sources but the info must meet WP:V such as stats, earnings & various other facts.<span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 00:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Issues that need to be fixed:
 * 1) move the sentence She began her rodeo career by joining the Rabbit Ear 4-H Club. so that it follows By age 6, she was running barrels.
 * 2) delete the following: She recalled that prior to the run, Scamper had rubbed his head against a concrete wall which, unbeknownst to her, had loosened the Chicago screw that held one side of the headstall to the bit. It was during their run between the 1st and 2nd barrels that the screw dislodged, causing one side of the headstall to detach from the bit. The loose end of the bridle swung around and hit James below the eye, then fell to a hanging position as they rounded the 3rd barrel. All James could do was sit tight and finish the run. The pair won the round with a time of 14.4 despite the broken bridle. and replace it with Upon entering the arena that historic night, Scamper caught his bridle on the edge of the gate which dislodged the Chicago screw that held one side of his bridle to the bit. On approach to the second barrel, it was obvious the bridle was coming off. At some point during the action, the loose end of the bridle swung around and hit James below the eye.cite the relevant article that supports the eye claim Scamper spit the bit out of his mouth causing the bridle to drop to his chest but he kept running full speed ahead. While running down the home stretch after the 3rd barrel, all James had to control Scamper was a single rein around his neck. Despite all that happened, the pair crossed the finish line with a time of 14.4 to win the round. (Cite the 2017 WPRA Hall of Fame article) <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 03:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll fix those right and now and get out. It's past my time to be working. I don't have a lot of time to work in the evening but I can pretty much work all day. I'm unemployed by choice right. I'll take the in use tag out in a few. Thanks! dawnleelynn (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * All done now. Wish I had done more tonight. Some things came up. I have lots of time tomorrow. Have a good night and thanks again. :) dawnleelynn (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a media guide that is accessible to all on the PRCA website. I wasn't able to find much on James that we could use as a secondary source for awards, just this one: You can access the guides from the Nav Bar on the home page under Media. Each section is a separat PDF. If you search the PDF for Charmayne, it will bring up a few records for Scamper. You might have to download the PDF to search in it, depends what reader you are using. The award is for AQHA/PRCA Horses of the Year, 1989-2015. He won WPRA/GB in 1989 - 1993. And also it lists AQHA/PRCA Horses of the Year: records - Barrel racing 5 wins: 1989-93, Charmayne James, which, I think is just saying the total of the listings before. So there's one source we could potentially use as another secondary source. dawnleelynn (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That link for Scamper's AQHA award on the PRCA sight in the Media Guide actually belongs on Scamper's article so never mind about that one. The NFR History and Records lists all of the champions for all of the events but seems to leave out the barrel racing events, bummer. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - invite and  to do a peer review, and consider nomintating the article for WP:GA.  Good job, Dawn!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 23:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)af


 * Note: in the infobox you state 10 WPRA World Championships but in the article it states 11 so I fixed it. Also see this so you can fix all the problem links.  When you get all the links fixed, I suggest that you nominate it for WP:GA and let the chips fall where they may. SMirC-wink.svg <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 20:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had just clicked to save the article changes after my edit when I realized I had written 10 instead of 11, but that's great that you saw it and fixed it, along with your other changes to the infobox. And I was still mulling what and how to display some information in the infobox. Well, my first time doing one for a person, you know. :) Give me a bull and no problem doing an infobox! :)) So yes, thanks a bunch. I'll look through that link you just gave me, and wow another new tool! I love tools like this, I'm a big techie person. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jumping in since I was pinged. I think you would stand a very good chance of getting the article through GA as soon as the minor issues Atsme points out are fixed. I don't remember if I've edited it yet 😋 but even if I haven't I can be a co-nom and help you with the process if you want, since I've been through it multiple times. I've never done a barrel racer, but I've been through FAC with a horse trainer.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

WAF, how kind of you to offer. I am pretty sure you are aware that I have never done one of these before. I would want to make sure Atsme gets credit for her part in this article, she's done more of the editing than I have at this point. She's done her best mentoring me, and I can only hope that I will be able to pick it it all up with practice. I am almost 100 percent positive that you have not edited this article, and 100 percent positive that you edited Scamper's article. I would love some help with having a co-nom as it's my first time. I'm sure that doing a horse trainer would have some similarities to doing a barrel racer. Remember, I've not done a barrel racer either. And, we can always ask Atsme for help if we need to, she used to be a barrel racer for awhile when she was younger. So, we should be okay. I'll get to work on the remaining issues as I can. I can hopefully finish those today. I was trying to get a photo, but I'm not having any luck yet. One of the two of them would have been nice. I admit all I've done so far is fair use photos for deceased bulls. Anyway, thank you big time. montanabw suggested earlier I might get Jlvsclrk to do a peer review, tell her that we are asking her per montanabw's request as she's so busy in the real world, so we can keep that mind once I finish edits. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was able to fix two of the links the tool identified. But the St. Paul Rodeo link loads fine, even though it is flagged by the tool. There is no other link to use for it. The other one is the Sports Illustrated Vault for when Charmayne was 16, it loads a tad slow, I tried to find another link with no success. But I was able to find new links for the The Horse - Cloning link and Charmayne Scamper Plush. Any thoughts? thanks... dawnleelynn (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was pretty sure that you'd never done it before, but DYK is picky enough that they are similar to a GA review in many ways and you've done that, soo... One thing to remember is that the worst that can happen in a GA review is they won't pass it. They can't delete it because it doesn't pass or anything, but once the review starts you generally have 7 days to fix any issues the reviewer brings up. (To get a good idea of what goes on in a review, see Talk:Bud Dunn/GA1 or any of the others I've done that have the green plud by them on my userpage.) By the way, I tried to train a horse for barrel racing years ago and discovered the hard way that he hated it. 😅 So I know the basics of the sport. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Charmayne James GA
Let's break this process into a new section. Just so you know, this article is out for DYK, actually. I put it out right after montanabw moved it to mainspace for me, which she did as there was already a page named Charmayne James already which was a redirect to Scamper. I nominated it before Atsme got involved, and we decided to shoot for GA quality in the article. The hook is regarding the bridleless win, what else? :). Wow, your horse didn't want to barrel race. According to James, Scamper took right to it. It's the same with bucking bulls, some want to buck and others just stand there after they put that dummy on their back. Anyhow, I will check the articles out. But since Atsme is a good article reviewer herself and has many articles pass GA, we should be okay, I"m sure she will keep an eye out a little bit too. I don't think I'm going to be able to find a photo since Charmayne is still alive. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have done all I could regarding Atsme's last request on links. So, what is the next step? Peer review? Being a co-nom, does that mean you can or can't edit the article? I'm ready for what is next. Is there any other reviewing you want me to do? Thanks! dawnleelynn (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Peer review is up to you. I've only put one article up for it and only got one comment that time, so I haven't bothered since. In order to get a big response you have to have an article about an odd topic or something a lot of people are intetested in. I saw that it's up for DYK. Being a co-nom means I will edit it and help reply to review questions, etc. I'll read it over again and fix any minor issues I find first. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm hanging out online. I'll take your word for it regarding peer review. I await your review at your convenience. Thanks. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a few minor edits but I think it can pass as it stands. They usually want a few tweaks, but those are typically minor. You can nominate at any time you're ready or I can do it whenever you tell me because I've done it before. By the way, be aware of any new editors on the rodeo articles, particularly if they're POV-pushing anti rodeo stuff. A sockmaster, User:ItsLassieTime, who harassed Montanabw before I got on here, created POV content forks, and in general raised Cain, is back. They have made dozens of accounts to bypass the blocks they've had and have been a problem for years. Hopefully you won't have to deal with them, but if you see anything suspicious contact Floquenbeam or another admin. I just thought I'd warn you since you do rodeo articles and that's a topic they've targeted. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, nice edits. Because of them, I noticed a few acronym issues in the lead, and I just fixed them. WPRA was spelled out twice with the acronym. And AQHA was used first and then spelled out the second time, so I made it spelled out the first instance in the lead. I noticed someone added Clayton to the special horses in the infobox too. Well, of course he is, how did I miss that, lol. Anyway, I don't even know how to nominate. So, I'll watch you do it, and then next time, I'll know how and I will do it. Don't we all get credit for the article regardless, I hope? You, me and Atsme? What happens, we just put that little green circle on our page... and a userbox if we want. And thanks for the heads up on that user. Not happy news, but it is what it is. So, we are just getting a random editor from our wikiproject to review it? Is that right? dawnleelynn (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anybody can pick up the review, but I'll ping in case she knows somebody who is interested. Anybody who hasn't worked on the article can review, but somebody with knowledge of horses would be more likely to pick it up. I can nominate it today or tomorrow if you are ready. Yes, everybody who did work will get credit for it.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, yes, go ahead and nominate as soon as you are ready. I'm ready today or tomorrow, depending on when montanabw answers. Thanks! dawnleelynn (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC) WAF, hey thanks for getting back to me about editing it while it is waiting to be picked up for GA review. It's still waiting for the DYK too, my first DYK on Bones took awhile as well. That's okay, plenty else to do in the meantime. :) dawnleelynn (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest posting at my talkpage when it goes up for GAN and ask if any of my watchers want to review it. Also post at the WP:GACUP, as people get points for doing reviews there.  We do run some small risk of getting a random idiot reviewer, but with three of us watching, we can help folks focus on the right things.  (WAF handled an inexperienced reviewer masterfully at her most recent GA on the Welsh pony article!)   Montanabw (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've nominated it. I'll post a couple of places and see if I can find a reviewer, but somebody will be sure to pick it up sooner or later. Sometimes it takes a month or so for somebody to pick up the review, but maybe we'll get lucky and get a review fast. I have the page watchlisted, but we are listed as co noms so when the review starts we will both get an automatic notification from Legobot.   White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm online adding content to an article, so I'm online and saw your posts. Ok, it's out there. I saw someone just made a minor change to it it - the official website in External links. It's also in the infobox, that same link. Should we have it in both places? Once it's out there we are probably not supposed to edit it right? Just a game of waiting now. dawnleelynn (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's ok to edit an article that is up for review. They will only see that as a negative if there's an edit war going on. I think it's ok to have her website in both places, but am not 100% because I rarely do one where the person is still living. I'd just leave it like it is. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Charmayne James at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with db-g7, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

How did I miss this? Anyway it's done for anyone who is watching my page. Off to bed, it's late! dawnleelynn (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Charmayne James
Alex ShihTalk 12:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

, I'm following up here, as it seems Montanabw closed the page before I could reply.

I've never even heard of WP:TALKSTALK. This is new to me, and if I would have known it, I would have responded a different way. Chastisting me for not doing something you assume I know to do is part of the problem. I have no ill-will toward. I don't know her, wasn't attacking her, nor did I inquire anything about her. So, your glowing words for her weren't about me...but about you showing favor/friendship upon her. And that's part of the problem on Wiki to. Lack of objectivism. Everyone who's "been around for a while" supports each other, without question. Penetrating that wall, as someone relatively new...well, it's virtually impossible. Minds are already made up...and you're taunted/shamed for daring to make any complaint against :one of their own."

Beyond that, now, that I know about WP: TALKSTALK (thank you for educating me), I will handle things different going forward. As for Montanabw, perhaps if she would have presented herself in a more helpful manner to me, versus belittling me and accusing me of things I did not do, the situation would have been more apt for me to learn from her, rather than to learn of her. This is about civility and respect. If I broke the rules...fine. Explain that to me (as other editors did) in a civil and respectful way, and don't treat me differently by holding me to standards you have a track record of not ever holding for yourself. Yet, in asking for this, I've been treated as some indignant troublemaker...when I have never acted outside of good faith in any of my dealings on Wiki.

And just for the record, I did not commit WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE, as implied. I'm not some social justice warrior. But given the strength of Wiki bias, I get why my efforts to be factually accurate, when it comes to matters of race, etc. are futile...unless they fit within a certain worldview. No one has ever had any issue with an edit I've made of a "black" or "Hispanic" page...because those are "sub-pages." And there's never any controversy when these facts are excluded from the places they should, according to history, be. The "issues" occur only when one tries to include them. And then...sit back an watch as the myriad of reasons for why "your edit doesn't work" pour in. I've found that I've been able to edit anything I want, without issue, so long as my edits don't challenge that certain worldview...regardless of how accurate my edit is....regardless of the number or strength of my sources. It's always the same. So, I'm labelled as some SJW drama queen with an "agenda"...and it's easier to dismiss me. To call me "difficult." "Aggressive." To accuse me of "throwing fits." To band together and say my calls of differential treatment are all in my head. I get it. And hopefully you do now too. Justbean (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , if you think bias is an issue in articles that are completely free of bias, don't even try to edit political or religious articles. I'm just trying to spare you from making some of the same mistakes I made early on. I can assure you, even though Montanabw may appear to be the opposition to you, she is not. You don't have to listen to a thing I say...all I ask is that you at least consider what I'm saying because I've been where you are, and quite frankly, over time you will see that it's not as bad as you first imagined. What actually does help is learning how the WP community works...I learned the hard way...so if there's anything I can do or say that will spare you some of that grief, I can at least say I tried. If you step back and seriously analyze the situation from a detached POV, you'll find more good in the opinions of veteran editors than you will anything else, despite the differences you may have. I think you have a lot to offer once you get beyond that one obstacle. Best wishes! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your response. Very kind and thoughtful.  My apologies for being curt.  I meant no disrespect, but I've really had some nasty things thrown at me over the last 12 hrs.  Considering I made a good faith effort...and spent hours/days on it...this is not where I expected to end up.  I was caught off guard by Montanabw.  My edit received the support of three other editors...and then...it was all just gone.  I had 54 sources, but she said they were weak.  Yet, how do I improve on Time Magazine, Smithsonian, Harvard, etc?  It felt like I was being needled because she didn't like the content...not that anything was wrong with the sources.  I felt that if the sources were an issue, any one of the other three editors would have said something. So, it all felt like a waste of time/effort.  And, her tone was belittling, not helpful.  Then, she started reverting other edits of mine, and even restored one less than 10 min later.  I didn't really know what to think...but it made me feel like anything I edited...she might target.  And, it made my Wiki experience anxious.  I was feeling like I wanted to walk away.  But, she just sent a thoughtful note on the Cowboy Talk page.  I tried to extend an olive branch, so hopefully, we can both move on past this...maybe even together.


 * I appreciate the heads up about the community. I've been on for 6 years, but have never really been active until this year.  This was only my 2nd attempt at making a big edit...especially on a major page.  And receiving encouragement was great, so my head spun a bit when she reverted it.  Anyhow, I'm trying to learn the community, and I thank you for your offer to help.  Will definitely take you up on it :)  Justbean (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)



Howdy! Justbean, if you felt that I was chastizing you, that was not my intent, so I apologize. Regarding someone adding input to a talk page, you never know when someone may do so, talk page stalker or not. You say you are trying to learn the Wikipedia community. Community is the key word there. We are all a community of editors who should be working together for collaboration. And for consensus when there are issues. So, perhaps not rejecting another editor's input is a good idea, is what I was trying to say, no matter who they are. They might turn out to be someone like Atsme, who knows quite a lot about rodeo, I would venture to say more than both of us put together. My only intent was to say please let's all be more courteous to talk page stalkers or anyone who joins in a conversation on a talk page. We would do the same on an article talk page too.

As for myself, I have only been seriously editing for 10 months, and I have already had one serious issue with an article I created that brought me to the point I almost quit Wikipedia. A reviewer inaccurately marked it for copyright violation, and then went out and searched my other articles for copyright vio and marked three others. A big mess. It was quotes that I had used from sources. It was these experienced editors, Montanabw, Atsme, White Arabian Filly, and other talk page stalkers that convinced me to stay. And also without montanabw as my mentor, I would be so far behind in my knowledge and editing ability than I am now. I mean huge difference. So naturally I would tell others the great things they can learn from these editors. And none of us are perfect. Having these other editors to assist and assist me is something that makes a huge difference. I highly advise it!

Just on my last new article when I moved it to mainspace, I had an issue where the reviewer marked it for deletion due to notability. The subject was clearly notable. I posted on my talk page for help, and Atsme fairly quickly responded and messaged the reviewer about the notability guidelines for rodeo which I did not know well enough yet and took care of it. We are all members of the wikiprojects that handle the rodeo articles. That's one reason why we support each other. So anytime you edit rodeo articles, you will find that at least one of us are stewarding them. For myself, I would rather us get along together. I have no stewardship role in Cowboy. My interests mostly lie in bull riding. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * ...wow thanks for the kind message! Am feeling much better about all this now.  When I started, I felt like the wiki community was sort of this..."man behind the curtain."  It's nice to know there are genuine people behind that curtain, especially as I'm still figuring so much out.  I had one edit a few months back –– my first attempt at a "big" edit. –– that was discouraging.  I walked away for a while.  I learned the Wiki world can be weird.  Things that make sense, in the real world, don't always apply here.  So, I pointed out that my edit was in the spirit of Wiki's policy that "there are no rules, and that this was supported by the Five Pillars : "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles."  However, this point fell on deaf ears back then...and it doesn't seem to be what guides people in general.  So, that's been disappointing.  Because, both of these times...I really gave my all for the edits.


 * I definitely don't see myself as combative...or rejecting an editor for the sake of doing so. Rather, when I've done something in good faith, and it's rejected, I seek to understand why it was rejected and to reconcile that with things on other edits that stand.  And when other edits stand, while violating the same things my edit is accused of violating, it's hard not to feel discriminated against.  I'm a very curious person...I ask a lot of questions because I really value information and knowledge.  So...if I "don't get it'... I seek a healthy debate to find understanding.  Basically...when someone says, "Do this..."  I always ask, "Why?"  :)


 * In reading what you've gone through, on some of your own edits –– and of 's experiences too –– it's a bit of a relief to know that experienced editors have some of the same experiences here as I do. Honestly, I just felt very alone.  I've only really had one editor reach out to me in a substantive way in six years.  He was awesome, but not looking for a mentee.  So, on my own, I've obviously had a bit of a learning curve...which is not always pleasant for me...I'm really a people pleaser at heart, and I despise conflict...but when I'm trying to learn something, I won't give up a fight until I understand why I'm fighting ;)


 * As for me...I spent several years living on the Plains –– in the Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas tri-state area. But have also lived on both coasts and in the deep south.  I don't know much about bull-riding, but love PBR when I can catch it.  But, tangentially, I do know a lot about bull-fighting.  Suppose I should properly set up my user page ;)


 * Again, thanks (to all of you) for reaching out to me. This has been a learning experience, and I hope we'll continue to connect.  Please know, that my intentions here are genuine, and I take editing very seriously.  Essentially, we're volunteering to be recorders/gatekeepers of public information.  That's a big responsibility.  I once said this to some editors on a Talk page, who seemed to be abdicating that responsibility:


 * "...you say that this 'is not necessarily the problem of Wikipedia, but perhaps society.' However, Wikipedia IS society. This is not a private company, but a non-profit that thrives off editorial, and monetary, contributions by the public. This very Talk page/open forum, upon which users debate and vote, is nothing more than public discourse. So, if Wiki's own users, as members of the public, don't treat this as a public service for the public good...then what good is Wikipedia? Because if it can't do that much, then it's nothing more than a social media platform of users surveying over their own edits and user pages like individual fiefdoms, acting like guardians of a private company that doesn't exist. I don't think that's what this is...Rather, this encyclopedia is supposed to be an open source reference of our society, by our society, protecting and contributing accurate knowledge for the sole purpose of the betterment of the public that uses it."


 * I hope this is not too naive and, if it is...I'll still try to honor its essence as best I can. lol.  Again, many thx Justbean (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Justbean, I think you may be reading too much into If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. While this a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, it's also probably the hardest of the core policies to understand. It doesn't mean "Wikipedia's rules can be disregarded", it means firstly that editors won't be punished for being unaware of rules provided that they're editing in good faith, and secondly that it's legitimate to do things that violate the letter of Wikipedia's rules provided you can demonstrate that you genuinely believe that in doing so you acting in keeping with the spirit in which those rules were written. What "Ignore all rules" means is dated, but is a good place to start. It's also worth remembering that the "ignore all rules" language dates from Nupedia days when Wikipedia only had a couple of hundred articles and a small handful of editors, and nobody was really sure what direction Wikipedia was going to take. The rules as they exist today are the product of 16 years of discussions and of trial and error to see what works, and you're far less likely to come across a badly-worded policy than you were in 2001 when WP:IAR was written. As a very rough rule of thumb, if you find yourself formally invoking WP:IAR (that is, "I know this goes against consensus but I intend to do it regardless" as opposed to just being unaware of a previous consensus that it shouldn't be done) more than once every 10,000 edits or so you're probably invoking it too often. &#8209; Iridescent 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Justbean, I think you may be reading too much into If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. While this a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, it's also probably the hardest of the core policies to understand. It doesn't mean "Wikipedia's rules can be disregarded", it means firstly that editors won't be punished for being unaware of rules provided that they're editing in good faith, and secondly that it's legitimate to do things that violate the letter of Wikipedia's rules provided you can demonstrate that you genuinely believe that in doing so you acting in keeping with the spirit in which those rules were written. What "Ignore all rules" means is dated, but is a good place to start. It's also worth remembering that the "ignore all rules" language dates from Nupedia days when Wikipedia only had a couple of hundred articles and a small handful of editors, and nobody was really sure what direction Wikipedia was going to take. The rules as they exist today are the product of 16 years of discussions and of trial and error to see what works, and you're far less likely to come across a badly-worded policy than you were in 2001 when WP:IAR was written. As a very rough rule of thumb, if you find yourself formally invoking WP:IAR (that is, "I know this goes against consensus but I intend to do it regardless" as opposed to just being unaware of a previous consensus that it shouldn't be done) more than once every 10,000 edits or so you're probably invoking it too often. &#8209; Iridescent 18:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks for the comment and willingness to help me...appreciate it. Please know, when I mention IAR, I don't mean to "discard the rules."  My position is that sometimes there may be edits that conflict with established worldview/dogma.  But, if they are accurate, and come with the benefit of perspective over time, perhaps the rules should be ignored to accept them.


 * For example, the COMMONNAME of an event that occurred between two groups may have been a name that came into the public lexicon based on lies, misrepresentations, no input from one of the groups, etc. Let's say that name stood for 100 years because the people harmed by event's name lacked the resources or power to change it.  And so, for over 100 years, 250 "reputable" sources wrote about the event referencing that COMMONNAME.  However, in the last 10 years, the full account of the event has come to light, thanks to recorded oral stories of the other group –– retained by their families –– and to some survived writings of a few local reporters who investigated the event at the time.  So, let's say, in the last 10 years, 30 reputable sources have written about it, calling the event by a different name to reflect the accuracy of what, in fact, occurred.  Now, let's say a Wiki editor uses those 30 sources, and requests a WP:MOVE to reflect this truth.  But, the editor's request is denied because the Wiki community says there's not enough reputable sources to change the COMMONNAME.  Well, it took 100 years to establish the COMMONNAME.  By that logic, it could take 100 more to change it.  But, if Wiki editors know that the COMMONNAME is inaccurate, and that the 30 sources that support the name change are, in fact, reputable...I think IAR should be taken into account. Because not only do we have the benefit of time and perspective, but also because I think this situation falls in line with:


 * "If a rule prevents you from improving...Wikipedia, ignore it."
 * "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions."
 * "Be bold."


 * So I agree with you. I don't think any of Wiki's rules should be chucked for convenience.  But, under special circumstances...I do.  So, when I invoke IAR, it's the invocation of this spirit –– to edit for accuracy.  And sometimes, getting to accuracy requires more of us than blindly accepting what's always been.  Thx Justbean (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I have been busy with real life and other things on Wikipedia for the past week or two and have not had time to participate in any of these discussions, but I'll jump in for a minute. You referred to Montanabw as an administrator. She is not. On Wikipedia you must go through a request for adminship in order to become one; it takes a week and they will dissect every thing you've ever done here, ask questions, etc. She went through a failed request a year or two back because an editor who didn't like her, and later got banned for their bad behavior in other areas, kept arguing with all the supporters. She was the one who welcomed me to Wikipedia and I've worked with her closely multiple times even though she reverted some of my first edits.
 * I'm not saying this in a negative way, but you seem to think Wikipedia is biased against black people, LGBT, etc. I've always found this the opposite. Most of the American editors seem to be liberals and if you were to take a poll, probably 70% or more supported Clinton last year. I didn't; I'm a conservative who voted for Trump and I haven't met many other editors who share my views, or any from the same background as me (see my userpage for details). If you have different political opinions, that's fine. I have had a lot of positive interactions with editors who have very different views from me. I'm just saying Wikipedia is different from what you appeared to think it is.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

, great to hear from you, and thanks for taking the time to not only read what I wrote (I know it's epic), but to also reach out/chime in.

As for bias...yes, I do think there is bias on Wiki. As there is in all walks of life. Let me explain...

I've contributed edits to 226 articles over 6 years, and of those...55% have been minor edits. I've never complained against anyone, and have only requested for two of my contributions to be restored. Once for a requested move on the Tulsa race riots...and once for my edit of Cowboys (coinciding with a request for the restoration of my contribution to Stephen F. Austin...which was reverted by the same person). And because I refuted these reversions, and pressed to have them reversed, I've been called names and have had judgment passed upon my intent, my politics, and my psychology. In six years...I've only felt compelled to fight for 2 edits –– 2 –– and the fact that my inquiry led to two similar experiences....leads me to think bias has played a role.

I base my thinking on Wiki's recognition of its own bias, on articles written about Wiki's bias, and on a recognition of bias in human psychology. The idea that 9/10 editors are similar, by gender and race, would present bias in anything. For example, if you have 9 Russian male writers on a TV show, their worldview bias will be reflected in the TV show. Just as it would for 9 Chinese women. Or 9 black female cops. Or 9 Hispanic mothers, etc.

There are many examples of Wiki bias. For example, bias contributes to only 17% of Wiki biographies being about women, it's exemplified in one editor making about 50,000 edits by changing the phrase "comprised of" to something else that makes "more sense" to him, and is expressed in the fact that one of the three most cited reasons that editors contribute to Wiki is "ideology."

The issue, I think, is that most people think "bias" is a bad word. Somehow, they equate "bias" with "racist" or "discriminatory." And that's not necessarily true. Can bias lead to racism/discrimination? Sure. But that's not what bias, on it's own, is. Cultural bias is psychological...ALL people have it. It's literally a fact of life. Take a look at how Wiki defines "bias":


 * ""Bias is the tendency to have an opinion, or view that is often without considering evidence and other information. Biases can be learned implicitly within cultural contexts. People may develop biases toward or against an individual, an ethnic group, a nation, a religion, a social class, a political party, theoretical paradigms and ideologies within academic domains, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, or not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is related to prejudice and intuition.""

So, the fact that I'm being judged, not across the totality of my 226 edits...but on my pushback about these two edits...well, that demonstrates my point. And editors have been very quick to defend Montanabw's character, expressing some version of "...she's not like that." But bias isn't about one's character. It's about psychology. Yet, because people equate it with racism/discrimination, they disassociate themselves of the word, condemn those who accuse them of it as being overly sensitive, and do whatever they can to return things back to a place of psychological comfort. So, unless you're not human...we're all susceptible to it.

Programs and policies, like Affirmative Action, were implemented to block racism/discrimination that arises from bias. For example, bias is personally preferring "white" names. While discrimination is ignoring resumes with "black" names. So, while bias is an intuituve psychological feeling...discrimination/racism is an actionable choice. But unless/until people stop conflating "bias" with "racist"/"discriminatory," they will never see, or acknowledge, bias for what it is. This isn't about politics...but about recognizing that, as humans, our perceptions are filled with blindspots.

The fact remains that of my 226 edits...editors have only taken drastic exception with 3 of them. And what those 3 edits have in common is that they were edits that included minority experience/contributions/presence on "white" pages and/or challenged white historical interpretations. So, while it's fine for editors to say bias played no part in this, human psychology refutes that...as does Wiki's admission of its own bias. Again, that doesn't mean I'm accusing anyone on Wiki of racism/discrimination. However, my experience on Wiki does feel like I've come across bias...specifically confirmation bias, attribution bias, self-serving bias and status quo bias.

So, please know that I'm not accusing the Wiki community of anything other than being human. And being human is imperfect. Which is why we sometimes don't recognize the humanity/perceptions/voice of others unless we can relate to them. It's why we show solidarity when 137 Parisians die in a terror attack, but are barely aware when an entire Congolese village is hacked and burned to death. So, from one human to another, it's important for us to point out bias, recognize it, and try not to let it interfere with the accurate recording of the way the world is/was...for preference of the way we see it.

As for Montanabw...she's reached out to me and has tried to help me. I'm working on doing some new edits in hopes that we can start off on a fresh foot. In any event...am hopeful for a better experience on Wiki, all around. So, again, thank you for caring enough to reach out and help :) Justbean (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just as a quick drive-by comment, don't take all those "Wikipedia is 90% male" stories seriously. They're all based on a single very flawed survey which was based on a wholly self-selected sample of participants on all Wikipedias (although most people think of "Wikipedia" as meaning "English Wikipedia", this project is only one of 298 projects under the Wikipedia umbrella) including those targeted at cultures where women traditionally have lower literacy levels or less leisure time, so what those figures actually say is "90% of people who bother to reply to unsolicited emails from researchers are male, across all cultures and languages". The "official" gender gap on English Wikipedia is 16%, but that's almost certainly a significant understatement, as it's again measuring a self-selecting group measuring "people who choose to self identify" and only ≈600,000 out of Wikipedia's registered accounts have bothered to specify a gender at all. (En-wikipedia grew out of the free culture movement and retains a deeply ingrained culture of anonymity; the most common response to any request for personal information here is "go away".) In terms of activity (as opposed to registered accounts) on the English Wikipedia, the gender gap drops dramatically—it's hard to measure empirically but "who are the names I see most frequently and what proportion of them are women?" is an easy enough thought experiment.
 * Bias contributes to only 17% of Wiki biographies being about women is a nonsensical statement, unless you're making a meta-point about our obligation to reflect the bias of history. Wikipedia (not "Wiki") reflects the world, and it's a world in which for most of recorded history women were excluded by design or by convention from most positions of authority. "All biographies" is by necessity going to include large numbers of politicians, military figures, clergy (of virtually all religions), civil engineers, painters, doctors and other professions from which women were excluded until at least the late 19th or early 20th century and in much of the world are still excluded—if the number of female biographies were to rise much above 15-20% it would be a sign of massive systemic bias towards women. To put that 17% figure in perspective, in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography—which covers a country which was historically relatively socially progressive and in which one would expect the proportion of women to be relatively higher than the rest of the world—12% of pre-1900 entries, 18% of post-1900 entries, and 25% of recent additions are female. If you want a big stack of links on this, you can do worse than reading this talk thread.
 * To be honest, reading your above comment gives the impression that you have a skewed impression of who actually writes Wikipedia. Although the servers and registered office are in the US, it's a global project and well below half of English Wikipedia's editors are in the US and Canada—it really isn't dominated by the social and ideological divides of North America to anything like the extent you appear to believe. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose—the accurate recording of the way the world is/was is explicitly in our remit, our job is only to summarise what secondary sources independent of the subject say regardless of whether we personally agree with those sources. (Wikipedia's sourcing requirements were traditionally defined as Verifiability, not truth, although the phrase no longer has official status as too many people were misinterpreting it.) &#8209; Iridescent 09:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, reading your above comment gives the impression that you have a skewed impression of who actually writes Wikipedia. Although the servers and registered office are in the US, it's a global project and well below half of English Wikipedia's editors are in the US and Canada—it really isn't dominated by the social and ideological divides of North America to anything like the extent you appear to believe. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose—the accurate recording of the way the world is/was is explicitly in our remit, our job is only to summarise what secondary sources independent of the subject say regardless of whether we personally agree with those sources. (Wikipedia's sourcing requirements were traditionally defined as Verifiability, not truth, although the phrase no longer has official status as too many people were misinterpreting it.) &#8209; Iridescent 09:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, reading your above comment gives the impression that you have a skewed impression of who actually writes Wikipedia. Although the servers and registered office are in the US, it's a global project and well below half of English Wikipedia's editors are in the US and Canada—it really isn't dominated by the social and ideological divides of North America to anything like the extent you appear to believe. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose—the accurate recording of the way the world is/was is explicitly in our remit, our job is only to summarise what secondary sources independent of the subject say regardless of whether we personally agree with those sources. (Wikipedia's sourcing requirements were traditionally defined as Verifiability, not truth, although the phrase no longer has official status as too many people were misinterpreting it.) &#8209; Iridescent 09:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * thank you for your comment. While I respectfully disagree, you also kind of proved my point.  You don't know anything about me, but think I give an "impression that I have a skewed impression of who actually writes Wikipedia."  I never said anything about who I think writes for Wiki...I only used Wiki's own numbers, own admission(s), and articles by/on Wiki's own members.  Yet, by doing so...somehow I'm the one that's biased?  The fact that every time I even bring up Wiki's own accounting of its bias...it's refuted, with such passion, by those who refuse to believe it...


 * Again, you proved my point. My point was to say that no matter what I say, or what sources I use...rather than people being open to even saying, "Perhaps one cultural perspective is dominant here, and maybe we can address it"...I'm shot down.  Essentially told I've made this all up in my head.


 * As I mentioned above, "...bias isn't about one's character.  It's about psychology.  Yet, because people equate it with racism/discrimination, they disassociate themselves of the word, condemn those who accuse them of it as being overly sensitive, and do whatever they can to return things back to a place of psychological comfort."  But as psychologists say, we all have biases.  That's called being human.  And there's no such thing as a perfect, unbiased human.  The idea that bias exists every day, in every walk of life, but not on Wiki, is illogical.  Because bias is simply a side effect of being cognitive (aka "thinking") beings.  This is a fact, and a rather simple one.  So, if this simple fact gets such pushback from Wiki editors...then, yes...it does say a lot about "who actually writes Wikipedia."


 * As for your point about women being excluded from history, I'm sorry, but I find your logic flawed. You're essentially saying, "Bias against women has been maintained in society.  Wiki is a reflection of society.  Therefore, Wiki should maintain a bias against women."  I agree that much wasn't written about women historically...however; now we have the benefit of perspective and recent history.  Wiki does not just include historical bios...but bios on living people....and bios on people who recently passed away.  Even if you just wrote on all the people of note, across the last 100 years, statistically...more than 17% of those bios should be on women.  I said nothing about "correcting" history, but the fact that you would even allude to that...it only exposes your own bias against women being "owed" more pages.  The issue is, I never said women were owed anything.  I simply said that bias contributes to (not that it is the cause of) the percentage of women's representation on Wiki.   Yet, somehow, you took that...condemned me as some sort of naive social justice warrior, and ran with it.


 * And, I do know the difference between English wiki and the global project...which further proves my point. There are about 4,150 active users (100+ edits/month) on English wiki.  That's about one editor for every 1,325 pages.  The idea that this ratio doesn't create bias is nonsensical.  It's why some subjects are written about more than others.  It's why some pages are cited to death, while others skirt by with one/two questionable sources.  It's why some edits stand forever when others are reverted when any edit challenges a page that one editor "owns."  That is bias.  Why is that so difficult to see?


 * Finally, I do know what Wiki's purpose is: "Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge within its five pillars."  This is exactly in line with what I said above.  Perhaps you should review Wiki's purpose/five pillars...specifically the part where it says: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy."  Justbean (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm done here; you're clearly on a mission and have you fingers firmly jammed in your ears when it comes to any attempt to explain anything you don't want to hear. Wikipedia (again, not "Wiki") reflects what sources say, not what you think sources ought to be saying, and it is a straight forward statement of fact that coverage of men exceeds coverage of women hugely disproportionately in the historical record, and relatively disproportionately today, given that arts, industry, politics, entertainment and sport—the five main engines driving the creation of biographies—are all still disproportionately male. (Looking at the front page of today's Guardian—of all the world's mainstream media, probably the one most obsessively devoted to diversity and equal treatment—there are 12 men mentioned before we get to the first mention of a woman, and that's a Mariah Carey review.) Dredging up a 2007 personal essay about what its author felt Wikipedia's purpose was has no relevance to what Wikipedia's actual mission is, and every attempt to try to give WP:Five pillars—again, not Wikipedia policy but just a personal essay as to what its authors felt Wikipedia's purpose ought to be—any kind of formal status is invariably rejected. (If you really care, the formal purpose of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally—"all branches of knowledge" doesn't actually come into it. If more books have been published about Japanese steam trains than about 19th-century English pottery then we'll have more coverage of trains than we do of ceramics, and we won't consider that a problem.) If you want an environment with a moderated approach rather than straightforward reflection of the balance of reliable sources, Wikipedia is almost certainly not the place for you—you may want to take a look at Citizendium. &#8209; Iridescent 16:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm done here; you're clearly on a mission and have you fingers firmly jammed in your ears when it comes to any attempt to explain anything you don't want to hear. Wikipedia (again, not "Wiki") reflects what sources say, not what you think sources ought to be saying, and it is a straight forward statement of fact that coverage of men exceeds coverage of women hugely disproportionately in the historical record, and relatively disproportionately today, given that arts, industry, politics, entertainment and sport—the five main engines driving the creation of biographies—are all still disproportionately male. (Looking at the front page of today's Guardian—of all the world's mainstream media, probably the one most obsessively devoted to diversity and equal treatment—there are 12 men mentioned before we get to the first mention of a woman, and that's a Mariah Carey review.) Dredging up a 2007 personal essay about what its author felt Wikipedia's purpose was has no relevance to what Wikipedia's actual mission is, and every attempt to try to give WP:Five pillars—again, not Wikipedia policy but just a personal essay as to what its authors felt Wikipedia's purpose ought to be—any kind of formal status is invariably rejected. (If you really care, the formal purpose of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally—"all branches of knowledge" doesn't actually come into it. If more books have been published about Japanese steam trains than about 19th-century English pottery then we'll have more coverage of trains than we do of ceramics, and we won't consider that a problem.) If you want an environment with a moderated approach rather than straightforward reflection of the balance of reliable sources, Wikipedia is almost certainly not the place for you—you may want to take a look at Citizendium. &#8209; Iridescent 16:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Clearly, you weren't "done" or you wouldn't have replied. But, absent that...you literally suggested I take a hike on Wiki.  Yes...I called it "Wiki."  And, if not for you telling me my fingers are "firmly jammed up my ears," I would've thought you were mature enough that me using an abbreviation wouldn't actually get under your skin.  It's actually quite interesting that something so trivial irks you so much.  Given it does...as you say...it says a lot about "who actually writes Wikipedia."  You're clearly driven to try to "win" an argument/prove a point, and have had little interest offering any help.   I mean, come on...I cited the statistic on women's bios as an example.  Yet, you keep anchoring on it to make it seem like you actually have something of substance to say.   Do you know how far of a tangent you had to go off on in order to bring up Mariah Carey?  And I cited Wiki's purpose (which is an information page, not an essay page) as my personal aspiration –– to be accurate, respectful, open-minded, etc.  But, you can't even let that be...(but just a side thought, couldn't it be dangerous to "empower" people with inaccurate information?)  Beyond that, you didn't state Wiki's "formal" Purpose/Vision Statement above, but its Mission Statement.  Before accusing someone of not knowing a company's purpose, it might be a good idea to first make sure you actually know the difference between a "purpose"/"vision statement" and a "mission statement".  In any event, you have tried so hard to pick apart any aspect –– no matter how insignificant –– of what my point was all about, in an attempt to try to discredit ALL of it.  I know the game you're playing.  It's predictable.  And it was the same game played with my reverted edits.  Beyond that, I haven't said anything to you to warrant you trying so hard to discredit me in some way.  And, now you've actually hinted that you want me gone.  I've done something so flagrant for you to even suggest that I shouldn't be here?  Shocker.  Regardless, I thank you for your warm welcome.  You've shown, when it comes to bias here...obviously, I couldn't be more wrong. Justbean (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey all, if you haven't noticed, we are hijacking Dawnleelynn's talkpage. How about taking this party to someone else's userspace? (And not mine, either) Montanabw (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)  Thank you. dawnleelynn (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I somehow got bogged down on a fricken political article (or two), so you'd be wise to steer clear of mine, too. The natives are restless. 😂 <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC) Thanks, and that doesn't sound fun. dawnleelynn (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * , sorry to take up so much of your page, but appreciate you allowing the dialogue and being a good sport about it. Cheers! Justbean (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it did start to become way off topic by the end. I left it on my talk page but with a Show / Hide link. It's just as easy to continue the discussion on either of your talk pages and the discussion here will be available awhile for reference. I haven't reached an archival point for my talk page really. Whether you continue or not, I feel it best to have this particular discussion collapsible. Best wishes in your ongoing editing. dawnleelynn


 * ,, , (and, of course, )…in all sincerity, I thank each of you…particularly for your time, and for your engagement.  I know this correspondence wasn't the easiest, and the passion behind differing voices showed it.  And I hope you all know, I would not spend the kind of time I've spent addressing this if my intentions were not genuine, if my grievance was insincere, or if I didn't think that I can/do add something useful to the Wiki community.  I also hope something positive comes from the time and thought spent here…from everyone who cared enough to chime in.  Definitely hope to connect with each of you in the future…hopefully, in more fun capacities :)  Till then, sincere appreciation…and best of luck with future edits.  Cheers Justbean (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC) (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oscar and V-61
Moved Oscar to mainspace. Did some copyediting and have some hidden text questions for you to answer, hope my changes didn't go too far. I'll look at the other draft later. Montanabw (talk) 21:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Made some changes based on your questions. Oscar's beginnings are blurry though. The reason I have anything at all is due to the article I found in American Bucking Bull magazine dated 2011 on issuu recently. Unfortunately, I couldn't download that issue into a PDF (sometimes you can, it seems random on issuu). I will look at it some more later, I have to get offline for a bit. And yes, your edits are always welcome! I will look at V-61 too, thanks. :)) dawnleelynn (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I also went ahead and moved V-61; I figured we could use that image from Life Magazine, but they upload wizard complained that the article wasn't live yet. So I moved it into mainspace.  I also did some similar hidden text and copyedits.  Go for it. FYI, I have found that sometimes I have to do screenshots on issu stuff... sigh.   Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice one on the picture, thanks. I also noticed how you added (d. 1983) to Oscar, I will remember that. Also, the (c. 1962 ) bit was good. As well as how you added that bit in there about saving the bull's hide with the brand on it. I notice all these things. Do you think these articles had less puffery in them? I think I'm getting better at that. So, I've a few minutes. I was thinking about a picture for Oscar. I really like this one: . To see the very few that are available, see this link: . It's mostly just the top row, and one more on the second row.


 * I have done some more incorporation of feedback in both articles. I have a list of to dos for when I add new articles also - that's why I had already added Oscar to a disambiguation page, for example. At any rate, some great editing but also some great questions too. I will look at again tomorrow when I am fresh. Thanks sooo much! dawnleelynn (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Where did you find out who took the picture of V-61 Life magazine? In that link I shared that gives a small amount of possible pictures to use for Oscar's article, I can't find (or read) any author on any of them, so not sure which picture to use. dawnleelynn (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding using the pound sign with the brand number in bull articles, I first worked with Little Yellow Jacket's article, and this is how the North Dakota Cowboy Hall of Fame did it: . In fact, they used it in two places, actually. For me, I think it just makes it clearer that it is a brand number. Some times there is a pound sign on ear tags, some times not. Sometimes we are putting in a brand for a bull article, maybe sometimes it's an ear tag. However, the majority are brands right now as we have more older bulls than newer. But it is possible that Long John is an ear tag bull, he was a newer bull when he died this year - at the young age of seven years old. It's something to decide now while there still not dozens of bull articles yet. I'm highly in favor of the # sign, and it's in all of the bull articles right now. As well as the disambiguation pages. dawnleelynn (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey you two, feel free to chime in on the brand # issue or help me with the graphics issue on Oscar or Long John below...montanabw is so busy. She has helped me a lot already, but if you can spare a bit of time that would be great. And somehow things come around full circle. I can always nominate a DYK for you. dawnleelynn (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * K - I just started a GA review so I'll be tied-up for a bit. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 19:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * For V-61, I'd leave off the # sign because it's a ranch brand. Ear tag numbers and such are usually a registry number or a rancher's ID number.  So I think that's enough of a difference (where the other bulls have names AND numbers).   Montanabw (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice catch of the word shoot which should be chute in Oscar's article. It came through in a quotation. Guess we don't always proofread quotations when we bring them in. LOL. dawnleelynn (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Long John photo
I uploaded a photo for Long John's article here:. It seems I'm not picking the same option as you because I have to enter more fields than you did in V-16 plus provide a list of verification for historic use (like I did with Red Rock, Tornado, and Challenge of the Champions). Also, I am having trouble using the file in his article, I get an error message. Still so much to learn on these graphics I guess. I wanted to get a few other bulls images in for ones who are deceased. dawnleelynn (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Something is wonky with the infobox right now, I did a kludge to make the image appear. I think that you just used a slightly different box in the upload wizard, it works fine, I tweaked a couple things and approved it.  Nice work!  Montanabw (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking at it. So, it wasn't me, it was something weird with the infobox. I wouldn't have figured on it being a glitchy infobox. Thanks for fixing that; it is so much appreciated. I keep saying I don't know what I would do without you. And I try to return the favor as much as I can. I will now see if I can upload a photo and use it in Red Wolf's article. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Red Wolf photo
I just uploaded and added a photograph for deceased PRCA Bull of the Year (and also PBR Brand of Honor bull) Red Wolf. The image is at:  if anyone gets a chance, can they patrol it for me? It looks quite good in the article, and there was no quirkiness in the infobox this time like there was with Long John. This is not a rush as the file seems to be working well in the article. Thanks! Let me say, I'm working towards a time when I can self patrol my own articles and files, if anyone has any tips for speeding this up, please share. :) I know I need at least 25 articles under my belt. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I patrolled it. I honestly didn't think I had the permission to patrol files, but apparently it's a part of npp. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! And now you know you can do those too! dawnleelynn (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I see from my Watchlist you patrolled Red Wolf's photo file. WAF did, but I'm sure it won't hurt to have it done twice. Thanks! It was probably easier to just run through all three and be done with it. dawnleelynn (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Mossy Oak Mudslinger photograph
I uploaded a photograph for deceased Brand of Honor and World Champion bull Mossy Oak Mudslinger. However, there seem to be glitches again. Once I insert the image in the article in the infobox some of the content seems to vanish for the rest of the article. File is at:  dawnleelynn (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I tried it again, and I was able to upload the photograph with no glitches. I think I was getting weary and confused toward the end of the afternoon, maybe, tried the wrong photo in the wrong article, I don't know. This works fine now. Just need the graphic file patrolled some time, thanks to whoever can take a few minutes and approve this one and Oscar. :) dawnleelynn (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I see from my Watchlist you patrolled Mossy Oak Mudslinger's photo file. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Oscar photograph
I uploaded a photograph for the ProRodeo Hall of Fame deceased bucking bull Oscar. The same issue that is happening to Mossy Oak Mudslinger is happening here. So, can try again later maybe, or whens someone checks Mudslinger, they can check this one too. The file is here:. Many thanks... This is the last article that needed a photograph. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC) And then will need patrolled. Also note has no author listed, all photos I could find for him have no author or publication. It's very sparse finding photos and none have authorized sources with the photographer listed. Not even the ProRodeo Hall of Fame photo. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I tried again later and was able to get the photograph of Oscar to work in the article without any glitches. The only left that I need is for the file to be patrolled some time. Mucho thanks in advance. dawnleelynn (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I see from my Watchlist you patrolled Oscar's photo file. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

John C. Hunton's grave
Hello. User:Montanabw tells me you might be a good person to ask for a picture of John C. Hunton's grave (including the Confederate marker) in Lakeview Cemetery, Cheyenne, Wyoming. If so, could you please take a few pictures asap (in case they're planning to remove it)? Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sure I know exactly where that cemetery is already. There is no talk here in Cheyenne about any kind of removal of any Confederate monuments or other items whatsoever. At any rate, I will be going to a building right next door to that cemetary the day after tomorrow. And I have a nice digital camera I can use to snap a few shots. No problem at all. I will post here again after I have them. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Please ping me when you have uploaded them on Wikimedia Commons!Zigzig20s (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was at the cemetery yesterday afternoon. I had used the web site information for the location of the headstone. Nevertheless, I was unable to find it on my own, but a helpful worker went into his computer and found it it. He then led me to the location, so that was a blessing. I've never done this before; I didn't realize there could issues locating it. So, there are actually two headstones. One is a small very old headstone which is the original. And then behind it is one that was installed later by Wyoming Pioneer Association. And, there is writing on it on both sides. So, it actually comes down to more than one picture. You need at least three pictures to capture the whole thing. Well, and maybe more to see the writing on the little headstone. Also, there were headstones on both sides that were also Hunton. The one on the right was James Hunton who it says was killed by Indians. And on the left side was a modern headstone of a couple, in fact, one who had just died in May of this year. I also took one photo of each of those, just in case. If you don't want them, no loss. I just thought maybe you knew about them, maybe you didn't. It didn't hurt to take them, and I could delete them if you didn't want them. And I took more than one of each of John's to give you a choice, and yet you might still have to crop the sides. So, really this is not good to upload all these into Commons, even w/o the other two. I tried creating a shared album in my Google Photos where I could just give you a link to download them at and then I would just delete the album after you had gotten them, but Wikipedia would not allow me to save a post with that link in it. I'm trying to figure out another way to share the photos. If you have other preferences or knowledge please share. Also, my mother says there is talk of having a Veterans cemetery eventually where they would move all of the veterans from all of the cemetaries, so you had the right idea. But that is not going to happen right away, it may take years. dawnleelynn (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Why do you not want to upload them all on Wikimedia Commons? Too personal?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've e-mailed you.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No I just thought it was a lot of photos (11) and if I used Google Photos, take no time at all. So okay, I will send them to you. dawnleelynn (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As the copyright holder, you are the one who will need to upload them on Wikimedia Commons. It may save you time to do this rather than e-mailing them to me?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I got your e-mail but I think it's easier if you upload them all on Wikimedia Commons.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only uploaded one file on Commons before. I thought I was going to have to upload each one at a time like I do here for my historic photos for my articles. I was just over at Commons checking it out. I found out it can let you select multiple photos at one time to upload which it is doing now. I really am saying the only issue I had with it was time. Let me finish this and I'll let you know. I never thought about the copyright owner issue either. This is also my first time doing photos for someone else. I've only been a serious editor since last October and most of the articles I work on I work on alone, mostly rodeo, especially bull riding. dawnleelynn (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC) p.s. My Internet is a bit slow right now.
 * Ok, they are uploaded. Feel free to change the names and any other information on the files.
 * Even put in a location if you can get one. The files are at It didn't take nearly as long. It's an excruciating process in Wiki so sorry about that. Appreciate your patience. I hope they provide what you were looking for. I know where the headstones are now.  dawnleelynn (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am a little underwhelmed (I was expecting a big CSA monument like this), but good to see it. Perhaps you could create an article about the cemetery, if there are more notable burials.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess you never know what you will see. As it was placed by the Wyoming Pioneer Association, that may be why it's different than you expected? At any rate, I hope it's better than the original. dawnleelynn (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, very nice. I hope I can visit Cheyenne at some point.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need an article about the Wyoming Pioneer Association by the way. Would you be interested in creating it please? Are there enough RS out there?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If I can find enough sources, all I can find is a Facebook page for the association so far. What is a RS? I feel dumb but ... a resource? I did find this article that has a photo of him and says James is his brother. I think maybe the couple next to him is not related if you read this article. He and James both had no children. . Here is the Facebook page. . I will look some more later. Have real life commitments now. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I found the American Pioneer Association web site this morning through a backdoor in Google search. I don't know why it doesn't come up directly in search results. Also, I wanted to tell you that the website for the West Lake Cemetery is  in case you want to add it to your Hunton article. It's the one I used to get the location of the burial plot, even though I still had to get help once I got there. Yes, I saw your article on him for the first time this morning. Regarding your newspaper.com references, 3 of them, when I try to view them, it tells me I need a subscription. Also, I see you had already found and used the article from the Billing Gazette I saw last night. I should have looked for your article first. At any rate, it's a small web site, but there may be some articles around to write an article bigger than a stub.  dawnleelynn (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just ask for an account at Newspapers.com.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did ask for an account weeks ago. I got an approval notice, and now I've been waiting for many weeks for that email with a username and password. I know it's supposed to take awhile, but this seems really slow. Also, how does that help regular users reading the article? You know, the ones who aren't editors? Just a thought. You can make clippings that don't require subscriptions to view. Obviously, I haven't actually done it since I can't get an account working so I don't know if it will let you clip all of what you need, and you may have already checked this feature out. Just throwing it out there. dawnleelynn (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know. I don't have time to do the clippings, but other editors could do it. Yes, I suspect it is taking longer than usual because of summer break.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Wyoming Pioneer Association
cc: Per our discussion in the previous section on this talk page, John C. Hunton's grave, I have created a first draft of the article, Wyoming Pioneer Association, in my sandbox. I also created the talk page with wiki projects in it. It's actually fairly close to finished, unless you and montanabw care to take a swipe at some editing in it. Feel free. I will do another another review and copy edit of it again in about two days. I want to take a couple days away from it and let it gel, let my mind settle and then come back. Oh, montanabw also advised that the Wyoming Pioneer Museum portion is definitely notable, since the Wyoming State Legislature provided the funds for the new building and owns it. Zigzig20s, please also weigh in on how you feel the article stands in its current state regarding notability. I have no experience in these types of articles. I was also hoping you would patrol the article once I move it into mainspace. You have been here over 10 years, so I am thinking you have that right. I have only been editing seriously about a year, and I'm about halfway to creating enough articles to earn that right. Thanks! dawnleelynn (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You need more reliable third-party sources. The Wyoming Pioneer Association website is not third party.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't get right back to you. I appreciate you patrolling this article. However, montanabw and I have been realizing that the articles in userspace getting patrolled don't stay patrolled once they get out to mainspace. I had her patrol three articles awhile ago. Not long after we moved Mossy Oak Mudslinger out to mainspace, someone marked it for deletion due to their thought that bulls were not notable, they didn't even bother to check for an SNG, which there was. And there were a couple other articles patrolled that got hit. Also, you had patrolled List of ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees for me in userspace like two or three months ago or something. Then around two weeks ago, I got a message that someone had reviewed it and accepted it. Funny, that is the only article I have written that someone I don't know has patrolled and accepted it, everyone else has marked them for deletion. Which is why I always try to get montanabw or you to patrol for me. Most editors seem to be really out of touch with rodeo notability, especially when it comes to bucking bulls. And then there's just the bad luck of editors who are patrolling and make errors, which has happened to me twice. So, I am hopeful that Wikipedia is or will be doing something about making sure editors are learning all of the rules before they go patrolling lots of articles. So, anyway, once this article is moved to mainspace, I will ping you and montanabw to patrol it and whoever gets there first can help me out. I am working on getting enough articles written that I can get the right to do my own. Oh, I guess someday someone will review Charmayne? haha Happy Trails! dawnleelynn (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I have been working on a new version of the majorly weird table at World's Championship Horse Show in my sandbox for the past few days and not much else. I hadn't realized that at all about the patrolled articles being moved; that's really strange. I do know about the trouble with deletion, because I also went through that when I first started writing articles. Apparently a lot of people don't read the SNGs for horses/rodeos/bulls etc. And while it does often take a while, we will get a review someday. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, I will just be patient regarding our pending GA request. So, it's not just me on these article subjects, you too had difficulty in the beginning too with getting them patrolled as approved. I'll just keep going. I can't believe it's been a year yesterday that I starting editing now, wow. Anyway, I am so glad I have had you and montanabw through it all. :) dawnleelynn (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's coincidence but the article you patrolled for me in my Userspace Miniature bull riding just got reviewed. I just got a message and this showed up in my Watchlist. This had happened with others that were reviewed in Userspace, part of why I think I need to get them reviewed after moving to Mainspace. Fortunately, the reviewer approved it with no changes. (Page curation log); 13:22. . Wgolf (talk | contribs) marked Miniature bull riding as reviewed ‎

Ok, I added some secondary sources to the article, let me know what you think now thanks. dawnleelynn (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

QHs...
Saw your notes, will try to get to them later this weekend. My desktop decided to crash bad enough to need a full restore and I'm still working through that. Am volunteering at the library book sale much of the rest of the weekend so it'll be a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for checking in. No problem! I'm just finishing up on the letter O right now. So, there may be some more notes coming anyway. There's no rush for this particular issue. I can relate to the computer problem, though. A couple months ago, I had a serious issue that caused me to do a full restore too. So yes, anyway, I'll probably be working on these all weekend off and on between other things. dawnleelynn (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, I didn't let you know that when I updated the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame article, I found one horse in the AQHA web site's list of inductees that was not in the Wikipedia article, so I added a redlink in the table for her. She's at, her name is Corona Chick, and she was just inducted in 2015. So I thought you might want to add her in one of your lists on your Userpage, or not. But at least you're aware now of another inductee on the list in that article who needs an article some day. I take it the target is to give all of the hall of fame articles an article some day? I know I have that goal with a couple halls of fame in rodeo. Speaking of which, that explains how I came to be editing in the horses. We have a few crossovers in some of these AQHA Hall of Fame horses are also rodeo horses, one is even in the ProRodeo Hall of Fame (Baby Doll Combs). I organized the table mostly in the same order as the AQHA hall of fame inductees so I could make sure that the table included all inductees. The table was in need of some organzation anyway. It was half in order by alphabetical and half by inductee year. That could be confusing to end-users. When I am all done with the citations, I'll put it completely in alphabetical order (dropping the bit where I followed the web site order which is only partly alpha). But sure, if you want something different, speak the word and it shall be done. dawnleelynn (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is just to notify you that I am done, and what I've done. You can respond at your convenience. Truly, there's no rush. All link work I did, I kept the formatting already in place or as discussed previously. I used the Checklinks tool on each article to identify broken links. The best way to check the articles I changed might be by following this article: American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame rather than a watchlist. That's what I followed to change the articles. 1. Replaced all of the AQHA horse induction links and hall of fame inductee links that were either archive links or broken links. 2. Replaced any AQHA generic links with specific links to the horse's hall of fame induction page when there weren't any. 3. Replaced all third party broken links with links from the web site if it was just a case of it being reorganized. 4. Replaced third party broken links with archive links from the Wayback Machine when replacements could not be found anywhere else. 5. For the NCHA and NRHA, the links for the hall of fame and earnings were broken for both, so I just replaced the URLs in all of these articles. You will note all of the links are different now as they changed their root URL. 6. Wrote messages in the article's talk page when broken links could not be resolved addressed to you. 7. Added horse's date of induction into the AQHA hall of fame, date of death, cause of death when missing and it was in their AQHA hall of fame induction page. 8. Added the AQHA Hall of Fame members (horses) category to every horse's article if missing. I believe there is around 87 horses in that category now. 9. The following two URLs in External Links are very unreliable now.
 * http://www.qhd.com/horse/stallion.asp?id=448 This link never seems to load at all for any horse.
 * https://sites.google.com/site/quarterhorselegends/home4222222223222222222 The page loads, but many of the horse's links do not load on the pages within. It works very well on a page in the Wayback Machine though.

I think I learned a bit about horses this weekend. Wow, a horse that sucked eggs through the shell and chased chickens off their nest to get their eggs. LOL! If it comes up (and I hope it won't as I was very careful) before you spend any significant time changing anything, ask me about it. I might be able to change it with AWB and a quick search and replace. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I just had a thought it might make it easier for you if I put all the talk pages I edited and left a message for you here. I certainly don't expect you to check every article I edited since I told you what I have done in each one and that it was in accordance with your citation formatting wishes, seriously, there are about 87 horses in that hall of fame article. So here's the list: Talk:Baby Doll Combs, Talk:Peppy San Badger, Talk:Skipper W, Talk:Rugged Lark, Talk:Chicado V, Talk:Poco Pine, Talk:Miss Meyers, Talk:Lightning Bar, Talk:Go Man Go, and Talk:Easy Jet. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Rodeo performers (other) has been nominated for discussion
Category:Rodeo performers (other), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Justin, I read this message late last night and commented in the discussion, as you have already probably have seen. I gather it is pretty much procedural to notify the creator of the category, but wanted to acknowledge the heads-up here as well. dawnleelynn (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The wiki only works with a lot of communication. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK? Nomination Issues
Hello,

I have reviewed your DYK? nomination here: Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal Sun. Basically, you need to do a QPQ (Quid Pro Quo). If you do that, though, then I think that your DYK? nomination will be good to go! Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for reviewing and correcting my DYK? nomination on Eternal Sun which I added today. I just fixed a mistake in the source content, a small one. This is only my third nomination. The first two nominations I did not have to do a QPQ. They were promoted and ran without a QPQ. My two mentors I've worked with for a year said the first five are basically "free" per the rules in WP:WIADYK where it says "Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ."

You can see this for yourself in my last DYK? on Charmayne James at where the promoter says, "QPQ satisfied, user has not yet received enough Did you know credits to need to do this yet." by Sagecandor.

Thanks for again for reviewing and let me know if I missed anything or misunderstood anything. I very much appreciate your help! dawnleelynn (talk) 03:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have now addressed and responded to the points that you raised here; indeed, thanks for bringing this information to my attention. Anyway, as my most recent edit to your DYK? nomination shows, your DYK? nomination should be good to go right now. Futurist110 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for verifying the information, responding, and updating the template and my talk page. It is most appreciated. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem! Also, good luck to you in your future endeavors here on Wikipedia, Dawnleelynn! Futurist110 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Phil Lyne
Hi, Dawn. I seem to have upset you with one of my recent edits, which wasn't my intention at all. Sorry if that is the case. I left you a question on the talk page above, which relates to why I made the change. It's safe to say that you have way more knowledge of rodeo than I do, so please have a look at your convenience so we can get the wording right. Giants2008 ( Talk ) 17:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Giants2008 I promise you I'm not as upset as the text makes it seem. Text is so cold without emotive anything. But I do appreciate your response. I have replied regarding the edit issue on the article talk page. I see now why a change needed to be made. I can't explain how I missed it at first. I checked the fact anyway, just to be safe, as I describe on the article page, since statistic keeping in that era, was not as well done as it is now. Thanks for your consideration, dawnleelynn (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eternal Sun
Hello! Your submission of Eternal Sun at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Thank you for your rewriting efforts, but the whole story could be condensed and told in a much more impassionate style. You could ask at WP:GOCE for help with copy-editing. Best, Yoninah (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I hadn't told you here that I was done editing. dawnleelynn (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Looking forward to seeing more! Best, Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe TNT on Bodacious
Boy, the new version of the Bodacious article is a real challenge, isn't it? Redundant sections, a disaster of organization -- you are making valiant headway but I'm not sure it's worth it -- Maybe the thing to do is to WP:TNT it -- start a sandbox draft with the section headings needed for good structure, then move in only the good stuff from the existing article, and then when the draft is solid, overwrite the whole article with the new version. Montanabw (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This is what the article has looked like for months. Before that editor came in this weekend to chop it down. . Talk about a challenge! LOL


 * But now seriously, I just took another look at it. And I tried to look at it with a user's eyes, not a writer. Which I have had to do many times in my real life job. Just throwing out there that the PBR section, for example, is really a mess. I do see what you are saying when I try to look at it with fresh eyes. And even though I cut it in half, it's still so long. Now, it's never going to be a one page article, this is Bodacious we are talking about, one of the two most popular bulls ever. Ever. PRCA and PBR combined ever. There's a lot that happened with him. But it still should definitely be shorter than it is. And there's a great deal of really good breeding information that belongs in the bucking bull article. So yes, I am digesting your suggestion. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. A Charbray is a Charolais and a Brahman cross. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have been ignoring my watchlist for months... just caught up on the backlog yesterday, finally! That article has always bothered me, but I hoped if I ignored it... LOL. I do think that the first problem is organization, though; there is no clear chronology, one section doesn't flow into the next, a lot of stuff is introduced out of context... and these long articles are often the most challenging because they ARE so complex.  Give one a lot of respect for those who can bring, say, a Presidential biography to FAC... lots of work!   Montanabw (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean! I expanded it back when I was a much newer editor. And it always bothered me. But every time I would look at it to try to condense it, I would always give up. When that editor came in this weekend, it forced me to do something. And my skills were better. And still it's not enough. I am happier than what it was, but it's still not right. I did feel that I made some parts of it better, like the Early life section and Offspring section. But other parts are still messy. So yes, you are probably right that it needs TNT. By the way, I put in Beaver Creek Beau's owner on purpose, I found a significant article on Berger's background and plan to write an article on Chad Berger Bucking Bulls. dawnleelynn (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Basically, the process of improving individual articles usually goes like this: While trying to preserve the best of others' work, we 1)  source the unsourced, 2) clean up the less-then-sparkling prose, 3) Minor reorganization.  But here, we can do all of that, and it still is disorganized and choppy.  Plus, I think you sourced things, but intervening edits seem to have separated stuff from its original sources.  I think there will be some entire paragraphs that can be salvaged, but I'd prefer to import them into a whole new draft.    Montanabw (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought it over a lot more. It does seem that would be the only way to do justice to the subject who is one of the most notable bucking bulls in history. For the reasons you mentioned, it should be done as a new draft. If I'm serious about this seeing this article eventually become a GA or FA, it has to be done right. And that means starting with a new skeleton. One area where I went wrong was to try to use all of the source that was available. So yes anyhow, I agree it needs to be redone as draft. dawnleelynn (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is the sandbox for Bodacious: User:Dawnleelynn/Bodacious (bull). I also added a talk page. I did not copy everything in from the mainspace article. I figured that could come last. I just added the wikiproject. The sandbox just contains the Infobox and the first sentence, albeit with the end chopped off for now. I did not add the picture of Bodacious to the article; it was there when I started expanding way back when. dawnleelynn (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to change the date format on the references to US format and I'll put in the coding that Ealgdyth uses on her horse articles for it. I will also try to do a better job of formatting the references this time around. dawnleelynn (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Eternal Sun
Alex ShihTalk 02:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD
I saw your !vote on the Chris Sherwin AfD and I wanted to address a couple of things since you'd mentioned you were newish. AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, that determines whether or not an article should be kept on Wikipedia; the best arguments centre around whether the article does or does not meet relevant policies. That's why the nominator put all that in the nomination statement. Whether the nominator is neutral on the article subject - or not - really doesn't matter.

Also, the nominator has not found some others editors who have also obviously been apprised of the fact that the article subject was a Wikipedian; to say this implies that the nominator WP:CANVASSED other editors, which would be a big no-no. The nominator has not canvassed participants (you can tell based on his contributions). Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am going to assume good faith in your message. I am willing to conclude the process is more of a discussion than votes, especially after seeing the latest comments in the AfD. As for collusion in the AfD, your link to WP:CANVASSED does mention stealthy ways to communicate, so it's possible. However, to accuse without proof was not a good idea, even if the comments all seemed to show up around the same time. The AfD is now much larger and includes comments from all different viewpoints, so I would have been wise to hold my tongue. Thanks. dawnleelynn (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No problem! I'd been watching the article for a while so knew about the AfD pretty quickly - I don't know the nominator from a hole in the ground and he definitely didn't contact me. That AfD is probably going to see a lot of activity, if the number of comments so far is any indication. Ca2james (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So much I've learned here, but still so much more to learn! :) Happy trails from Cheyenne! dawnleelynn (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!!!
You did it!!! Charmayne James was promoted to GA!!! It was a fun project to work with you on. I enjoyed our collaboration. We're all so proud of you and the good work you're doing!! <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 13:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive the delay in replying today. I've been indisposed the first half of the day. Yes, it's very exciting that James is a good article now! I'm glad you mentioned that you enjoyed our collaboration, because I certainly did. Yes, I did learn a lot from you and that was good. But it was also important that it was an enjoyable partnership. Just the other day I thought of you. I went in to update something on one of the first articles I expanded back in the beginning. I couldn't believe how badly I wanted to rewrite it right away! LOL Too much puffery and not enough encyclopedic tone! I put that article on my list. It gave me a good measurement of how far I have come in a year. And I'm sure a year from now, the same thing will happen again. I'll improve more and see even more difference. I'm so glad I'll have that article to look at as guide as I write more articles. Thanks again, because I know sometimes you had to be very patient with me during the process! :)) LOL. In a good way. dawnleelynn (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Thank you for fixing your signature even before I asked you to. Your signature is fine, but it would be OK to shorten it from


 * : dawnleelynn (talk)

to
 * : <i style="color:#006600;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I see what you did there with the tags. I've implemented that update as well. Signatures get used a lot so it's worth it to make the markup as efficient as possible. <i style="color:#006600;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 23:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Um, I just noticed my signature is now green instead of red... <i style="color:#006600;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 18:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your signature was
 * : dawnleelynn (talk)
 * until you changed it yourself. To revert to that appearance, without using deprecated  tags, change it to:


 * : <i style="color: #800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk)


 * Color codes with 6 hexadecimal digits are easy to figure out. The first two digits are red, the second two digits are green, and the third two digits are blue, from a minimum of 00hex (0) to FFhex (255). #006600 means 0 red, 66hex or 108 green, 0 blue. 108/255 is about 42% of the maximum possible green. #800000 means 80hex or 128 red, 0 green, 0 blue. 128/255 is about 50% of the maximum possible red.


 * In  markup, omitting the pound sign in a color described in 3 or 6 hexadecimal digits was allowed. Omitting the pound sign is not allowed in the new markup. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. It wasn't your mistake. I haven't been paying close attention to things this weekend. When I was last working, I did work in HTML some of the time, as well as XML. But it's been several years, and truthfully I've been under the weather and just didn't feel like focusing hard on anything really. I added the # in front of the code that was there with the style tag, and it worked. So thank you very much for that. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 04:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, again, thank you for changing your signature avoid lint errors, and I'm glad everything has worked out. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Code Blue (bull)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-radius: 32px; border-color:#009600; background: #FFFBC4; border-width:8px; text-align:center; padding:7px; height:210px;" class="plainlinks"> Merry Christmas !!

Hi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,

– Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet another
--RexxS (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)