User talk:Montanabw/Archive 14

Hey watchers, I need a snappy hook
I need to get Pony ride submitted to DYK, but for the life of me I can't think of a hook. Has to be sourced. Anyone with bright ideas, please put them here or at the article talk. Montanabw (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DYK that equestrian helmets are required to be worn by children on a pony ride in many locations?
 * (Not exactly snappy, but a placeholder until something better comes along.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely, and am open to more ideas, but that will get me over the threshold! Thanks!   Montanabw (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I kinda like "A rule of thumb is that the legs of the child should reach at least halfway down the sides of the pony" - It reminds me of being young and seeing the "you must be this tall" signage to get on many rides at the amusement parks in my town. It was agony waiting to grow to the necessary height :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes! I was small and had the same problem, and we used to go to Dollywood all the time when I was a kid. It took forever to get big enough to ride the swing ride. Alternately, you could use, "Dyk that a western saddle is recommended for pony rides?" Or something about the western saddle being preferred. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * DYK that insurance companies consider pony rides to be a high-risk activity? (I can't see that exact claim in any source, though.) Bishonen &#124; talk 20:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC).
 * One of the most interesting points in the article for me is "The official position of the ASPCA is "The ASPCA is opposed to the cruelty that is inherent in ... attractions such as elephant rides, camel rides, and llama and pony rides that either stand alone or are attached to [petting zoos]." Perhaps the hook could be something related to this - although it may be too contentious.  We do pony rides here in the UK, but Donkey rides are probably more popular...and we have donkey sanctuaries where they go to live their final days. DrChrissy (talk) 22:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentoring
Thank you for signing up for the new scheme. I haven't yet made a general trawl for volunteers as I wanted to get a few names on the list first – I was going to  ask  you anyway. I want around a dozen or so names before going live, and we're not far off that now. I'll keep you posted when we do – although I'm not expecting a rush of activity. Schemes like this often need months to take off and some, sadly, never do. But it's worth trying. Brianboulton (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Film/Golden Hollywood Contest
Doc's just started up this contest about topics and articles covering Classical Hollywood cinema. Do express if you are interested or not by signing up under the "Editors Interested" section. Thanks. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kayla Martell
I've actually found a fair bit of continuing coverage of her alopecia advocacy efforts (and wig spokespersonship) over the past 5 years. Want to take a look? --GRuban (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Susan Stover
I thought this was pretty interesting and noteworthy, though I have no idea if its the kind of thing to add to wiki, and if so, where to put it and what to say. Sounds like she's had quite the career. http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/213919/university-of-kentucky-to-honor-vet-stover https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/laurels-%E2%80%98hall-fame%E2%80%99-week-equine-vet-susan-stover Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * YES! I would think she definitely fits, .  There is a push to add biographies of women scientists to wikipedia in general, and the equine science folks are great subjects!  If you want to know "how to do it,"  Take a look at a GA I just did:  Ann T. Bowling (she's kind of my hero for her work on genetic diseases in horses, particularly Arabians). I'd suggest starting the article in a sandbox and pinging me or someone over at WP:Women scientists to look it over before going live because  (as you may have noticed from my talk page), there is sort of a problem with deletionists who fear all of wikipedia's servers will crash if we have too many articles.  But if well-sourced, with "significant coverage in multiple, third-party sources independent of the subject," you should be fine.   Montanabw (talk)  21:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm slogging away, most of it is pretty rough. Think we can link to the section on catastrophich breakdowns in a few places so it won't be an orphan. Lots of professional stuff out there. Can't find anything personal, any ideas? Or just leave it? Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take a peek. Was kind of slammed with RL work but will be back on-wiki some tomorrow...  Montanabw (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , the article draft is looking really good! If you can't find personal stuff, that's not an issue.  I only had a lot of stuff on Bowling because she was so active in Arabian breeding and her husband has continued a lot of her work by writing for the popular press market. I think some articles where you can add good info incorporating her research might include Limbs of the horse, Equine lameness, Track surface, and any articles on specific famous racehorses or tracks where she did research on catastrophic breakdowns.   Montanabw (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I stalled on this during the Olympics but think I've got it in shape now. Do you mind taking a last look before it goes live? Do you agree the image on her UC Davis Faculty page would be fair use?  User:Jlvsclrk/Susan_Stover Thanks as always for your help. Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We can't use images of living people as fair use, as a general rule. The theory is that there is the possibility of someone taking a free license photo of them (that's why so many of the celebrity articles have crappy photos... captioned "Celebrity Foo at..." But, it might be possible that she'd release a photo under a creative commons license (see WP:OTRS).  But I'll pop over to the sandbox and look at the article... I'll make a couple edits if I see something obvious, otherwise will discuss at sandbox talk if I see something bigger than an easy fix.   Montanabw (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Lisa Tenner BRD
I'd like your feedback on this if you are interested in contributing. Thanks! Wilipino (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming editathons: Women in Nursing & Women Labor Activists
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right
A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at  New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Popcorn
Well, the infobox wars dramahaz have popped up in an unusual spot: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox. Interesting. Montanabw (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox wars don't even exist, - a lot of fiction ;) - Some people seem to be afraid of plain facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Good point, rephrased.  Montanabw (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Akhal-Teke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monogenic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Backlog
The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap: You naturally  don't  have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 13 July 2016: 7,000
 * 1 August 2016: 9,000
 * 7 August 2016: 10,472
 * 16 August 2016: 11,500
 * 28 August 2016: 13,158


 * Which link do you use to access the new pages? I find several, some of which lead to a very clunky interface that even as an experienced user I find rather confusing.  There's a lot that can be quick-approved or quick-failed, but appropriate tagging seems to present a challenge.  Montanabw (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Clarify: , what I am finding is that the New Pages feed pulls up a LOT of articles that are already at AfD or something similar... how can one filter just for the stuff that's truly not been reviewed at all?   Montanabw (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * this might be it. As a bonus, it comes with the handy little toolbar thing so you can greet/tag/patrol all at once. Well, maybe it's been out there a while, but this is my first time with the toolbar. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
For your advocacy for the vetmed project JarrahTree 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Looks like we who care need to sign up at the project page.  For those of you outside that loop, here's the discussion:  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine   Montanabw (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Need your eyes for a sec...
do we now not capitalize proper nouns and/or company names in an infobox? Atsme 📞📧 02:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Scripts. Bleh  Fixed.  Montanabw (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/September 14, 2016
You like? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thank you!   Montanabw (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pony ride
Allen3 talk 00:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this was a redlink until so recently. Congratulations on another DYK. - Brianhe (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Everyone. Yes, it surprised me too.  Fun little piece to work on.   Montanabw (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW, that was #59 and I still haven't gotten my 50 DYK medal yet! LOL!   Montanabw (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Hi Montana, do you or any of your tps know which would be the best IB to use on an article of a kidnapping? I was looking at the Lindbergh kidnapping article, which carries a infobox person box, which jars badly. Any thoughts on what should be used instead? – Gavin (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I found this one Template:Infobox civilian attack in use on a couple kidnapping articles. If it doesn't suit your needs hopefully others will find one that does. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm Disappearance of Natalee Holloway used infobox person, I think that's a featured article. It jars, but it also acknowledges the victim.  MarnetteD's idea might also work.  Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking over some others, IB event is also used, as is none at all, so there are four different formats used, which seems odd. Thanks for both your help. – Gavin (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You could have one after the other, first infobox event (with just the key data: time and place), the normal thing, below person (as already in the article), because in this special case the crime article is at the same time the only article about the little person who was the victim. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It won't be for me to tackle: I don't have the time or inclination over my final couple of months; I only asked out of curiosity. – Gavin (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tackled. I wonder if the image should go in the first box, - but then it also has the info about the person. As it's not "far away" it may not even matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the top, - choose what you prefer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you, Gavin, are the perfect person to moderate to some extent in the infoboxes dispute because you know it. I don't think an outsider would not understand what I also don't understand. I retired from the topic (won't be in talk page discussions, - life is too short) but would still see us find more common ground. My suggestion to drop using group names led to reducing "Gerda & Co" to just Gerda, - not without irony ;) - thank you for not supporting that! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Sharon Christian, artist
thanks for your comments on the wikipage about Sharon Christian. I believe all the facts are now supported by verifiable and reliable sources.Icareaboutart (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Another AfD that needs more eyes
Hi all, this one is three weeks on and just relisted. I've said my piece there, others need to take a look and opine as seems appropriate: Articles for deletion/Blossom Ozurumba. Montanabw (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see the history of Creator in Buddhism
Please see the history.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

MOS DS
I didn't want to keep lighting up Ian's talk page about this, but here the wording is "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed." My reading of that is that the entire MOS is covered. I think this was on purpose because the same people blowing up the article titles area would just move to another area of the MOS and keep on. It appears that ArbCom may actually move to authorize DS on this area specifically, so the entire question may be moot. I think DS work quite well in topic areas where behavior problems quite often transcend the actual issue being discussed. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And {[u|:Laser_brain}}, I see the comma placement as meaning MOS as to titles only, LOL! That's why I suggest asking them specifically. Can't hurt.  Montanabw (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixing your ping to Atsme 📞📧 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * DS has already been applied, under ARBATC, to MOS issues that had nothing to do with article titles (e.g., a now-indeffed editor and tendentiousness about quotation marks). Unfortunately, it's generally been applied one-sidedly to punish MoS regulars for being slightly strident, or not including a diff for something obvious, never editors who repeatedly and unmistakably verbally attack people seeking MoS guideline compliance.  One can but hope for some evenness at some point. I agree ArbCom should enable DS for infobox disputes specifically, because people constantly argue about whether they're a style matter or a content matter, casting doubt in admin minds whether ARBATC can be applied (thus two ARCA requests about this in one month).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI: SCOTUS, horse racing, and the commerce clause
I noticed that yesterday's "petition of the day" at SCOTUSblog featured an interesting case that involves horse racing and the commerce clause; I thought you may be interested. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks!
Thanks for the thank you! Good to see you are still steadily improving the site :)--Tbennert (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good to see you back! Montanabw (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Following your advice has lead to an attempt to impose sanctions on me at ANI
Following your advice to redirect beauty pageant articles instead of having stayed the course of just nominating them for deletion is the first step in the process that has lead to an ANI against me. I am feeling somewhere between personally attacked and thrown under the bus by the whole process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll pop over and see what I can do. Maybe merge tagging would have been wiser -- but truth is, it's now officially contentious.  But you shouldn't be thrown under the bus. Your views are sincerely held.   Montanabw (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Suffolk Punch page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=737989166 your edit] caused a URL error (help) and an archiveurl error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F737989166%7CSuffolk Punch%5D%5D Ask for help])

Changes need to be made to FU
Montanabw, it appears to me that we have an ambiguous delete policy regarding WP:FU as it relates to images and other media we want to include in WP articles, even when they meet the 10 requirements for use. The problems arise when an uploader and/or primary copyright holder is unable to release an image or clip into the public domain or under any form of CC-By-SA license because of certain 3rd party license restrictions. While an editor may own the primary copyright of a work in its entirety, they may be restricted from releasing a specific portion of it because of 3rd party licenses which prohibit public domain and CC-By-SA use, and forces the copyright holder to release it as FU. The customary choice when interpreting the ambiguity of the policy is to err on the side of deleting, regardless of the media being unobtainable otherwise, highly educational and useful to the project, and despite no liability exposure or copyvio issues for WP. In fact, just yesterday I was involved in a discussion on my TP regarding this issue and thought it had been resolved. *sigh* There appears to be an exclusionist movement that is fueled by misinterpretations of policy. I'm certainly open to any suggestions. Atsme 📞📧 18:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For a lot of editors, it's not misinterpretations of policy, it's principle. Veganism parable --GRuban (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Principal? Principle? can you be a bit more specific because I don't see how the two are even close. Atsme 📞📧 11:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Er... no. "Principle". The base of a truth (or of a faith). Not the head of a school. But it is a long, hard word. So I will use small words, say of one voice sound each. The point of that link is that our work is free for all to use; or it is not. All of it, each part, must be free, or the whole is not. Not "we will not be sued". Not "close to free". Not "would be free if it could". But free in truth, in whole, no ifs, ands, or buts. That is the point of that link; that is the "principle". I do not say that I think that way, mind you, but I can see their point. And now, I hope, so can you.
 * With a smile and a bow to this Guy, who wrote this work that I like. (And posed for a pic I took. A free one.) --GRuban (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Clubbing editors over a simple spelling error that was made in haste is rather distasteful. Dismount your high horse and we'll have a far more productive discussion. SMirC-sceptic.svg You completely missed the point. In fact, your response helps validate the reason I initiated this discussion: that being, the ambiguity and skewed interpretations of WP:FU; the latter of which occasionally results in conflicts that waste time and cause unnecessary disruption. If the intention of WP:FU was for it to never be applicable, then it's pointless and should be removed "in whole, no ifs, ands, or buts."  Atsme 📞📧 17:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you could link to the (at least the last) specific fair use discussion, we (or at least I) might be able to join in. Or at least understand more. (We could go clubbing together!) --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh geez. Is it this one Files_for_discussion/2016_September_9? Then I think I can do you more good by staying out of it, because, I'm afraid, I would agree with the delete opinions. It's thoroughly replaceable content. I could imagine the argument that a picture of the horse might be of vital importance to the article, but it's hard to argue motion picture of him covering a mare is, especially with narration by William Shatner. Even if he's most notable as a sire, I somehow doubt he was specifically notable for the way he went about it. --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope your posting of that link doesn't result in accusations against me for canvassing but now that you've decided to use it as part of your argument, I'll simply say that I disagree with your position, and for valid reasons.
 * Thank you for further validating why we need to eliminate the ambiguity and make some of the requirements of FU less confusing. To begin, the stallion is dead and has been for many years.  The stallion manager is also dead.  She guarded that stallion and the breeding shed like it was the US mint. The clip of that particular stallion live-covering a mare that was also part of the breeding program is irreplaceable encyclopedic content.  The only nonfree restriction is commercial use and because of that, you seem to think we should deny readers the opportunity of watching that clip and learning from the encyclopedic content it provides.  Using any other stallion breeding scene would not be that stallion - it would be a fraud, if such footage is even available - not to mention the fact that other stallions perform differently.  That's like saying all humans perform the same. With no intention of being condescending, it appears the lack of knowledge most people have about breeding stallions, equine sports, and the equine industry in general coupled with skewed interpretations of FU may actually contribute in a small degree to WP's inability to keep pace, not to mention the level of editor retention it would bring.  Denying inclusion of the clip is denying WP readers of anopportunity to acquire encyclopedic knowledge about a notable stallion that was owned by a notable celebrity.  It even has historic significance.  What you suggested would be like using Mickey Mouse look-alikes in the Mickey Mouse article...which is a bit too Mickey Mouse for me. Atsme 📞📧 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Susan Stover
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Montana Medicine Show
I'm wondering if you are familiar with the MMS which is on PBS. See for example:

"Montana Medicine Show: York", KGLT, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed September 14, 2016. Available on-site or online in the US only.

This and 40,000 other hours of PBS radio and TV programming have become available online, but there are a few quirks, e.g. you can't get it now outside the US. I figure it can be used in a limited way, e.g. as an external link in US related articles, or as a ref in the same way we can use a rare book that's only available in 1 or 2 libraries. (Do we still allow books as refs?)

I'm hoping that there are more than a few Montana women in the series that might be used as refs for Montana women in red. Please let me know what you think of the series and related questions. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was once a DJ at KGLT, back in the 1980s. Yes, I agree the archive material can be used as a ref just as we can use real books as refs, and we can use things that not everyone can access in all countries. The bottom line is if SOMEONE can verify them, not if everyone can.  I am not personally familiar with MMS, but it looks to be produced by a legitimate individual.  (I can't get the audio to load, though...)  KGLT is the campus radio station for Montana State University, and it is not a NPR affiliate, but it does air some NPR material and Montana State U does have a PBS affiliate TV station on campus, though KGLT is independent of that as well.   Montanabw (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've started an email conversation with AAPB, so it is very good to know how other editors view their material and its possible uses.  AAPB is very comfortable with us including it, but does have some limitations.  This may develop into a full blown large GLAM project, or maybe just a personal project of mine, throwing in some links on local history from time-to-time.  I hadn't realized that non-NPR affiliates were archived also.  All the best, Smallbones( smalltalk ) 13:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * KGLT has actually been an incubator for some NPR programming, such as Chrysti the Wordsmith. *hey, speaking of a redlink...  Montanabw (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What redlink? It could use a bit of work, but good enough for now. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit reversion in "Horse Racing"
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horse_racing&type=revision&diff=739767196&oldid=739683943

I would like to know what you mean with reason given. I bona fide thought I wrote (somewhat) coherent English and cited everything properly.


 * Greece - thought some people would like to know why with announcements header. (And as nitpicking, it directed to Greek's debt crisis specifically to highlight unnecessary luxury is one of the things to go when things need to be cut.)
 * Mauritius - http://elegantdestinations.com/mauritius.html Selling suites and villas
 * http://www.mauritiusonline.info/horse-racing/the-racing-industry-history "Strict Standards: Non-static method JLoader....."
 * http://www.otayo.com/mtc.htm 404, site itself selling tickets


 * China - Separate entity as Communist party forbids racing conducted by Chinese (not by foreigners, yes that event exists) on mainland, so its distinct from special administrative regions(Hong Kong and Macau conduct gambling under one country, two systems#Implementation). And what comes to Chinese jockeys... Proper terms are Hongkonger and Macanese. Mainland China: speaks Chinese, writes Simplified script and uses Renminbi. Hong Kong SAR: English and Cantonese, Traditional Chinese and Modern English, Hong Kong dollar. Macau SAR:(yes, it exists) Cantonese and Portuguese, Traditional Chinese characters and Latin alphabet, Macanese pataca. (and removed one racetrack link because website no longer exists.)
 * Criticism - imho its claim after they've been proved wrong? And to decode those years in that document.. Heisei period#Conversion table H20: 2008. Unless time itself has warped. Also figure is cited by FAO.
 * Reversed jockey and horse to highlight subtly that JT McNamara ended up injuring himself seriously and dying as result.

I'm confused a bit. ※〶 23:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You never use a reference to wikipedia as a reference in a wikipedia article. That's the start.  I rewrote some of what you added so it was smoother and, particularly in the case of the Greek citation, I just left the raw URL so Refill can run on it if needed, it was not properly formatted.  I rephrased the PETA bit, and used your citation, the phrasing issue was the biggest problem. There is room to work on the Mainland China bit, but what you said here makes more sense than what was there... we may want to work on that at the talk page, your ideas here have promise.  I missed the Mauritius bits, but it's better to just use  or fix the material than to just remove the references.  Hope that helps.  Let's take this discussion to the article's talk page and continue it there.  Montanabw (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

You should watch this!
It's hilariously outdated sometimes, absolutely modern at other points. It's Eleanor Roosevelt interviewing John F. Kennedy. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a very interesting piece. What is sad is that it is so modern on so many points.  You'd think in 50+ years (my entire lifetime, basically, I was a very small child at the time that interview was recorded) we would be farther along. On one hand, I can point to a lot of progress (now we at least have school hot lunch; equal pay laws, if not actual pay equity; women are now admitted to places like Harvard or West Point; we have better laws addressing discrimination and domestic violence; we have better though not equal access to bank credit; women are better represented in law and medicine, etc...) but what is so sad for me is to hear young women face many still-problematic issues that are the same as what I used to lament when I was their age -- in the 1980s!  We are still debating the role of the working mom, we are still not fully funding daycare and preschool, we still only earn 80 cents on the dollar, and so on. Also, there is still a long way to go to change some hearts and minds.  The current US Presidential campaign is really bringing a lot of unresolved issues to the surface.  But I am probably preaching to the choir here, so that's all for now.  Thanks for the post!   Montanabw (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Horse slaughter, meat and all becomes from that..
I don't even want edit that page in the end... I just wanted make even _slight_ distinction between USA and Big Baaaddddd Europe(we all aren't one big lump) + Eeeeevil Horse-Killing-Japs(who have same MRL-rule than EU - dunno about actual limits per species, not bothering with MAFF.go.jp now) ※〶 09:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly explained that the main issue with your edits is not the content so much as improper citation format (please, please, please read WP:CITE and view the video on using the citation templates that I posted on your talk page) and the problems you are having with English grammar and sentence structure.  Montanabw (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Being foreigner and thus non-native speaker of English, I'm trying my best. (That being exact reason for please "may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling"-template.) ※〶 18:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You can use the citation templates, though. We can do some cleanup on your grammar, but the way you cite your sources is a mess that is time-consuming to fix.  So please work on that.   Montanabw (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, back to the discussion topic I was trying to iniate.. It seems there is two "practices" to slaughter horse.. The abattoirs that accept horses but their main business is cattle (Finland has only those) and horse is killed without it having witness (see, hear or smell) others being killed before it. (They process only like one horse per day, but can't cite "I think they do"-here. Only thing I've read its they do it before day really starts.)
 * Then there is this what I've termed as "pipeline"-style slaughter, thats exactly opposite what I said above. This where variable (human element), botched slaughters and kneejerk-reactions from certain groups come to play.
 * And on personal level... I'm oddball editing controversial articles, because I recently gave up meat.

(And on sidenote, wmlabs-site is blocked by F-Secure as harmful.) ※〶 19:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not debating the horse slaughter issue here. I am debating your editing skills.  You can take content discussions to the talk pages of the articles in question.  As always, everything requires reliable sources.  As for formatting those sources, reFill does not come up as a harmful site on my browser, you may have a software issue, but reFill is not your only option.  The citation templates are accessible from the editing window (use "edit source" tab if you are using the visual editor) within wikipedia.  Or just copy the template at cite web.   Montanabw (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, unfortunately I have just felt obliged to template the editor above with a caution about 3RR. What I am trying to do over at the article is globalise the content.  Some of the content in the US section applies equally to other countries and I have been in the process of trying to move this to a section which applies to the entire subject, not just the US.  I am also in danger of 3RR so I will not be making any more edits there for 24 -hrs.  If you get a moment, I'd appreciate you letting me know if you agree or disagree with this globalisation approach. DrChrissy (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thought about explaining why I edit it out of blue.. Its been biased, USA-centric and.... whatever for so long. Oh well. ※〶 20:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll go take a look. , please understand that the problem is not so much whether to improve article content as it is your attitude. Montanabw (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Decided to drop a note.
Will no longer edit horse meat and horse slaughter in wikipedia since everything involved to them seems to stress me too much. I may be stable as person, but not normal by any definition. ※〶 09:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thunder
Welcome back to the land of disruption! Any idea why the Thunder article is the target of IP vandalism? The minute the semi-protect was removed, the vandalism returned. *sigh* Atsme 📞📧 15:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just requested pp. Atsme 📞📧 15:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * He was TFA. Main page always attracts trolls.   Montanabw (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Congrats on the TFA despite the "disruption". Freddiem (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes...nice job on Thunder!--MONGO 23:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Meh...stalkers kindly watchlist, we have an ... individual ... who keeps insisting on removing a picture from the article because the horse isn't in the picture... mmmph!  Montanabw (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The logic of ...the individual... is flawed. I started thinking about celebrities and their homes and sure enough, the first two I looked at (David Cameron and Barak Obama) show photos of their residencies but the people themselves are not in the photos.  Using the "logic" of...the individual..., these should also be deleted. DrChrissy (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And before that, there was somebody complaining on the talk page about how the article shouldn't be featured because it's rated as low importance and is apparently not interesting to people outside the United States. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * e/c Oh, I think both the UK and US can be guilty of that. On of my favourite articles at the moment is Larry (cat). This is a cat that was brought in to catch mice at 10 Downing St. I like it because it is very tongue-in-cheek, but I can understand anyone from outside the UK thinking it is irrelevant. DrChrissy (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office! Love it!  Montanabw (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I love editing it because it is challenging to make it both factual and humorous - I loved giving him a "Job description". It is fun to edit - something which is becoming rarer on here. DrChrissy (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I love it! I was laughing so hard I had snot running out my nose.  (oh wait, I also have the flu... but I as laughing really hard!)  Montanabw (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have caused you excessive nasal exudate. ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm just getting out more popcorn!  Another day in wiki-paradise.  But it sure was fun to have Thunder as TFA!   Montanabw (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fun for you, of course - you were off traveling while we stayed home alone beating off trolls. SMirC-super.svg Lawdy - somebody get that gal a Kleenex! 😰😷 Atsme 📞📧 22:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually was home on TFA day, but was in between recovering from a 1600-mile round trip driving... much of it through the most boring parts of W(h)yoming... and coming down with the post-event flu! So my gratitude to all troll-fighters and the TFA regulars for helping me when I not only dropped the ball on my own TFA, but watched helplessly as it rolled own the street, got run over by a car, and...   Montanabw (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Trying to do late what I would have done if not on pleasant vacation! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidental delete of most of this page, and thanks to Ealdgyth for restoring it. Not at my best after a transatlantic flight with an extra-short night, I also was on a slow and shaky connection, telephone-driven, not yet home. Often an edit wasn't completed when the line was interrupted, and I had to restart. Seems that one of those did something awful, which I didn't realize until much later, - and on trying to repair it collapsed again. Back home, finally. Will try to deliver a few more praises. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC
A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to 	 Women in Architecture & Women in Archaeology editathons
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

question you might be able to help with
Hi. Over at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science someone has asked a question about "Tying up a horse in old TV shows and movies". I was wondering whether you might be interested in this. DrChrissy (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I actually could answer that one!  Montanabw (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you would be able to. Thanks for the explanation - very helpful. It's a question I have also asked myself. DrChrissy (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My dad would sometimes tie up horses with the reins in a knot, but not for long periods of time, and mostly in quiet spots; I don't recall much trouble with broken reins back then. Once I learned that there were other ways, I quit doing it (Note, this would have been when I joined 4-H at about age 10...).  I remember one time some idiot at a rodeo tied a horse with bridle reins to a portable pipe panel, the horse set back, the reins were nylon, so they didn't break, plus the panels were not attached to posts, so the horse completely freaked from the combo of bit pain, clanking panels, and whatever spooked it in the first place and basically pulled over a couple of cattle pens before the weight stopped him and somehow, someone got the horse loose, probably cut the reins... no idea how bad the horse's mouth was, but I've seen some horrific photos of horses with half-severed tongues from things like that.  When the choice is the horse gets loose or the horse is horribly injured, well, the only time to risk the latter is if the former is somehow an even greater danger, which it seldom is (someone on WP once mentioned tying a horse by a busy highway if your trailer rig had a breakdown, loose horse getting hit by a car AND people also getting hurt versus the horse getting injured from fighting a rope.  Yeah, maybe that one...except generally you wouldn't unload the horse in the first place)  Montanabw (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I bet a lot of people used to tie by the reins in the pre-car days because it was hard to carry lead ropes and halters all over the place. Plus, if you were a real cowboy you would have been going through brush, and a lariat rope was enough to have to deal with getting caught on branches and junk. The practice seems to have died out or been replaced by ground tying (training the horse to stand still when the reins are dropped on the ground). One side note, in most of the movies I've seen the people would simply throw the rein over the hitch rail and not actually tie them to it. I don't know if that was historical or just a product of Hollywood, though. Tying by the bridle can hurt the horse, but I've seen people tie them up with hackamores too, and that can probably hurt a horse just as bad. That and those stupid rope halters half the world insists on using (those things will skin a horse's head up). White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WAF - your comments are interesting and pertinent to the question at the reference desk. Can I suggest you comment over there to inform the readers. DrChrissy (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I commented over there. A lot of people probably don't know about ground tying, as it's more a western thing that developed from cowboys working in areas where there were no trees. It's useful for all horses though---the guy who taught me rode primarily saddle seat and he taught every horse he had to ground tie. He said he started doing it after he went on a trail ride in the state park and was stopped when his horse saw an endurance ride, freaked out and took off, leaving him behind. (That was a funny story because of his description of his horse "runnin' a hundred miles an hour" back to where he had parked the horse trailer. Besides, the thought of him chasing it was funny, because he was sort of fat.) White Arabian Filly  Neigh 22:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hackamores would be equally problematic for tying up horses, the heavier nosebands can really hurt! Oh and thank you WAF for sharing my opinion of rope halters!!!  Montanabw (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agricultural waste
Well, that's a bit annoying. I admit I hadn't checked the content of the two cited handbooks for the figures; mea culpa. It's quite possible they are in there, hidden in the many tables, but I can't find them either at this point. It appears the Cowspiracy people made a stab at good sourcing but didn't quite carry it through :/ As for the dead EPA link, that at least had the stated content and worked two days ago, so I imagine it may come back online. Thanks for your verifications! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Horse communication with humans
Hello horse-kind, are you across this one: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/horses-can-use-symbols-talk-us Regards, wolf-kind   William Harris  &#124;talk 07:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte
What exactly was wrong with my edit on Greg Gianforte? His article states that he is known for his connections with Christians groups, so I don't see why his infobox shouldn't reflect that. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Many different types of Christians, they are not one unified group; he's a particular type of conservative fundamentalist Christian who has expressed belief in Young Earth creationism. That is not a universal "Christian" belief. Find a denomination or affiliation.   Montanabw (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, he belongs to a specific denomination/tradition of Christianity, but he is still a Christian nonetheless, as opposed to some other religion. Do we have to put the specific denomination/affiliation in the infobox to include it there? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I would. The differences, for example, between a Catholic and a mainstream Protestant and a Mormon are pretty substantial, and I think Gianforte is some sort of evangelical or fundamentalist; though he doesn't speak much about it in public and his local church is described as "nondenominational" (which usually means "evangelical or fundamentalist"). It would be like listing the leader of a Middle East nation as "Muslim" without specifying Shi'ite or Sunni.  Kind of a big deal.   Montanabw (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point. Would you please show me the source that states which church Gianforte attends? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Gladly, 1990&#39;sguy: "...his nondenominational church" "for a non-denominational Christian and conservative Republican" ("Non-denominational" being a buzzword for churches that are generally in the conservative/evangelical camp. See ).  Montanabw (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I added this to Gianforte's article. I think simply saying "Nondenominational Christianity" is fine is fine for the infobox. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that works and is sourceable. Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A situation that might be of interest
Hello M. I hope you are well. I saw this Administrators' noticeboard and thought that rescuing any of the articles might be right in your wheel house. I also know you might be too busy to follow up but I wanted to let you know just in case. Have you had any snow yet? The leaves are falling like crazy here. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just rain so far...  Montanabw (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Thanks for your posts at the various noticeboards about this situation. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiConference N. America
Your presentation today was fantastic! Thanks for all your work on the conference. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I am glad you liked it!   Montanabw (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, very well presented and great way of humanizing the importance of great content creation. By the way, the recent editing incident regarding Cow tipping is here. The editor seems to be trying to discount upcoming sources in the article body. It may be reverted by now, or re-un-reverted again. - Brianhe (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A question, is it OK with you if I mark Act for the Government and Protection of Indians as created/improved during the conference with WikiConference North America 2016? Is there anything else I may do this for? - Brianhe (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Go for it. More articles at that one here:  additional articles listed at each of the other editathon page links too:,  and .  Montanabw (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I got them. If you were working on Secretariat (horse) during the conference, feel free to slap WikiConference North America 2016 on it (or anything else). - Brianhe (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Cow tipping
Would you mind weighing in on the talk page, after your "let's discuss extensive changes at talk" revert a few days ago? Your restoration of the ambiguous sentence "Whether cow tipping is an urban legend, or are a set of tall tales is disputed." seems at odds with your other reverts, and I'm wondering if that one was made in error. --McGeddon (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Am slowly recovering from the WikiCon. Patience, please.   Montanabw (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

New problems with Rhode Island Red
You may remember my problems with Rhode Island Red concerning the article on Julius von Schlosser. See also this edit from Dr Blofeld's talk page. I did not contribute to Wikipedia for several months. Now I added some information to the article on HA Schult, and one or two hours later my old opponent User:Rhode Island Red has reappeared on the scene, removing content from the said article, falsely claiming that major exhibition catalogs and other publications are not reliable sources and such things (see, for instance, ) and now saying that the Washington Post article does not contain the removed information, although he himself included it in the main text of the article some years ago (see ). He even changed the wording of some parts of the text, thereby changing the original meaning supported by the given sources (see ). He also questions the notabilty of art historian Wolf Tegethoff (see ), presumably because I have created this article, and he continues questioning the notablity of articles on other art historians I have created (see ). I think it is high time to block the activities of this user. Do you have an idea what we can do? Wikiwiserick (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Whose Knowledge
'''Hi Montanabw! Thanks for joining the Whose Knowledge user group - we’re so glad to have you involved!'''

Here are some updates about recent activities:


 * User group approved: Our user group was officially approved in October - hooray! Big thanks to Raystorm and FloNight for the idea to create a user group for the Whose Knowledge? campaign :)
 * Mapping feminist knowledge at AWID's 2016 Forum: Interested in learning more about what we’ve been doing lately? Read our blog post on what we learned from mapping feminist knowledge at Association for Women's Rights in Developments 2016 Forum.
 * New grant proposal:
 * We’ve proposed a WMF project grant. It would be great to have your feedback and/or endorsement by November 1 if this project interests you!
 * It would also be great to have your help notifying communities already working on systemic bias about this proposal. Here is a draft message to use if you'd like - please translate, change as you see fit for your own context, and share in any communities you’re active in on and off-wiki!

It was great seeing and working with you at WikiConference this month! Looking forward to doing more together soon. Siko (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

An invitation to November's events
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

OK, back at it
All right sports fans, after a three-week gap of minimal activity (mostly related to helping with WikiConference North America and trying to keep real life afloat at the same time), I'm back and slowly digging through my watchlist. I am finding some projects of interest where anyone who wants to help me with would be more than welcome! Montanabw (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Club Moderne, NHRP property and bar, recently gutted by a fire earlier this month. Worthy of bringing up to GA status as another notable Montana watering hole.
 * 2) Mare milk. Here's a stub that needs a ton of help, perhaps from WikiProject food and drink members, if any are watching my page.
 * 3) Sir Barton: Now that Secretariat is a featured article as well as American Pharoah, it occurred to me that we have 10 more Triple Crown winners to work on...
 * 4) Pants on Fire (horse), desperately in need of sources and cleanup, appears to be started by a new editor who may need mentoring. We don't have enough "horses" at WP Horse racing to pull the "wagon" of all the articles there that need help.


 * I do have the Most Glorious Crown and Man O' War books to help out with Sir Barton if you like. Further to our discussion about that 2006 Breeders Cup Classic merge / not merge, I'm now leaning towards creating separate BCC articles for each years. Sections: contenders / race description / race summary / payout. Shouldn't take that long methinks to do 2007-2015, because a lot just comes from the Equibase charts. Should I proceed? Also working on the XXXX BC Challenge series, but it's harder to find details as I move back in time because folks just tend to overwrite the data each year (much as we have done). And then I'll start going back again to fill in missing years for the BC, Belmont and Preakness. Jlvsclrk (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say go with separate BCC articles. As for Challenge series, that's a bit more daunting, though I sure won't stop you if you want to give it a shot.  Maybe for now include the series in each year's race as opposed to separate "Road to the..." articles?  Your call.   Montanabw (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Seemed familiar
— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Montanabw. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
 * Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
 * Featured List – produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
 * Featured Portal – produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
 * Featured Topic – and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
 * Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
 * Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
 * In The News – and, each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
 * Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and

Dan Patch Trainer of the Year Award
Article was recently created by editor. The article is referenced but none of the references in the article say Dan Patch. In fact, here, here, here, here, and more say the award is Glen Garnsey Trainer of the Year. There is a Dan Patch award but it is for harness horse of the year. I therefore think the article should be corrected and properly named Glen Garnsey Trainer of the Year award. User Mateusz K you are doing very good work, but I think you made a mistake here. I came to Montana for a second opinion. because she does lots of horse racing article work too....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the Dan Patch Award for ...... It is frequently, but incorrectly, called the Glen Garnsey Trainer of the Year Award but is only the "Glen Garner Trophy" as per the article. A Redirect page would be a good idea. I have inserted another reference to ALL 2015 Dan Patch Awards including TotY which refers to the Trophy. Mateusz K (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. The sources that  mentioned seem to have the other name., I guess my take is that just source it up the wazoo because I have no knowledge on this particular topic at all.  Maybe see if the industry magazines clarify the matter, and perhaps do a redirect from the other title.  Perhaps the lead could also say something like, "actual name, popularly (or commonly) known as the other name is... "  If you two can't sort it out there, shoot me your best sources and I'll give you a neutral (or perhaps blessed with ignorance) perspective on it.   Montanabw (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox invite
At another talk page, I realized that I have several languishing drafts in my sandboxes and folks are welcome to go play in there any time! Some that need help include: We also have some kickass women race horse trainers in redlinks: Anyone who thinks these are interested, dive in! Montanabw (talk) 04:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Montanabw/Margaret Cabell Self -- We were all working on this and then got distracted. I'd like to find one good photo of her to include (she is deceased, so if we can't find a PD image, we can use something as a fair use one)
 * User:Montanabw/Thoroughbred Daily News] -- Started by a COI editor and abandoned in draft space, I had it userfied. This is a legit mainstream TB magazine that deserves its own article
 * User:Montanabw/Mike de Kock This is less than a stub, but the guy is notable
 * Kristin Mulhall
 * Carla Gaines

Thank You
<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are editing our posts on Wikipedia article on laminitis
My husband and I wrote a field study which suggested a new hypothesis for the etiology and treatment of a serious equine disease called laminitis. We presented the study at an international Veterinary Symposium ( The 2001 International Bluegrass Laminitis Symposium). Our hypothesis caused a big stir at the conference--and since that time, is considered to be the currently accepted theory of the cause of most laminitis in the horse. Because neither my husband (a  farrier) nor I are veterinarians or academic researchers, we never received credit for our contribution to the understanding of this complex disease. We understand that, and have accepted that we will never receive the credit we deserve.

However, our paper (which we self published after the conference as a book), has been read and praised by many equine practitioners and researchers. We certainly believe that our book should be added as "suggested further reading" at the end of the Wikipedia article on laminitis. However, whenever we have tried to add it to this list, it is promptly removed. We believe that you might be the "editor" who removes it. If this is true-we'd like to ask you why you are doing it?

We believe that our book/published paper has merit and deserves to be part of the body of knowledge that Wikipedia represents.
 * Thank you


 * Sincerely,

Susan Frederick

Co-Author of Founder! Hope for Refractory Laminitis   A new hypothesis on the etiology and treatment of complicated laminitis

Published in the proceedings of the 2001 Bluegrass Laminitis Symposium in Louisville, KY  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE42:D650:252D:443F:9F40:F177 (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that you say the source is self-published is why it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Since anybody csn self-publish virtually anything, and some selfpubs are inaccurate, they aren't allowed here. If your husband is a farrier, can't he get it published by a farrier's journal or maybe an agricultural publishing company, of which there are many? It sounds like it would be acceptable if it was published by a third party. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another. As WAF says, if the book is self-published, it is definitely not acceptable as a reliable source.  If the results have been published in the proceedings of a scientific conference, this might be acceptable. I notice here that the conference was reported.  Does this discuss your results? DrChrissy (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And another . In addition to what was mentioned above, if Wikipedia is inappropriate, there are alternatives to Wikipedia for your work. Some are sister projects, like Wikiversity (maybe your best bet), some are independent. Best of luck ... Brianhe (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Like the folks said above. We simply cannot use self-published material in this fashion.  Please read our policies about reliable sources.  At a minimum, we need sources that are neutral, third-party independent sources that exercise editorial control over content.   Montanabw (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would very much like to see you get credit for your contribution on a very important subject to horse owners (YT included). As was suggested by editor White Arabian Filly, I would add my encouragement that you work to get it published with a reputable source online or somewhere else and come back here to give it even more credit. Good luck and thanks for your efforts.Mateusz K (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Have some spare time?
I saw you looking for some things to edit, and I'm still trying to find a picture for Margaret Cabell Self. In the meantime though, I was wondering if you'd like to lend a hand. I was searching about some horses I wanted to enter in for Asian Wikipedia month. This horse was one: Suzuka Mambo Think you could help? I can't seem to find much life info Horsegeek (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek


 * Heh, I have only too much to edit, but was hoping folks might be interested in working on things languishing in MY sandboxes! LOL!  But I'll take a look at your article!  Montanabw (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh
After stalking your page, I read the Fur-bearing trout article. Very funny! Remind me never to eat one and get pregnant!!!!! ;-) DrChrissy (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I got a kick out of it too, especially the part about how to tell if a trout is big enough to harvest! 🎣 White Arabian Filly  Neigh 19:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey talk page watchers: A project
I can't work on this article, but it needs help: Tim Holmes. I think he does pass GNG, but, well, the problem is clear when you get there. I don't really know this person real well, but am close enough that I'd best not edit. Pinging folks interested in art, and maybe others?? Montanabw (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you know this person at all, can you ask him to confirm (by email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) that all the images uploaded by User:Musegaze are properly released with his, Tim Holmes's, permission? Otherwise they seem to have been nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. --GRuban (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really know him that well. I presume someone has already sent email via OTRS to inquire.   Montanabw (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#Category:Tim_Holmes_and_User:Musegaze --GRuban (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket #2016110510010492." --GRuban (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Montana. I've completely re-written and re-referenced that mass of self-promotional dross and left a stern note at Talk:Tim Holmes to that effect. Hopefully, the miscreant(s) will take notice. He probably now scrapes a pass via GNG with the new references, but they are virtually all local to Montana. So, someone more draconian than me might still AfD it. He's also created an article about his group Montana Logging and Ballet Co.—marginally less flaming than his (former) autobiography but still... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, Montana Logging and Ballet Co. has been around for a long time (like, at least since the 80s) and is far more notable.  I am OK with cleanup if it's to self-promotional.  As far as Holmes, having work exhibited permanently at the Hermitage probably puts him solidly on the notable side, but the self-promotion is definitely not OK.  Montanabw (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Montana Logging and Ballet Co. is at least as notable as the artist, if not more. Some of your other talk page watchers have now been cleaning it up. As for the Hermitage claim, it appears in all his official bios and in newspaper articles that rely on them, but I have a feeling that it may be somewhat exaggerated. A search for his name in the Hermitage catalog reveals zero results, indicating that if they do hold some of his works they are not on display, and the Hermitage permanently holds and displays multiple works by American artists. In any case, I left the claim about the exhibition itself in the article since there appears to be a catalog supporting the fact that an exhibition of his works was held there November 2–December 5 1993 . Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Articles for deletion/Maximal (Transformers) (2nd nomination)
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Maximal (Transformers) (2nd nomination). A user has posted a question for you at the discussion. North America1000 05:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

RfA
I have followed and commented on almost every RfA for many years. I have also campaigned very heavily for reforms that might make its environment more welcoming for prospective candidates of the right calibre. Among all those RfA, yours stands out at the one that while it had a lot of oppose votes, they were all saying the same thing. Not only the same thing, but the vast majority of them actually regretted having to oppose. Now that's unique. What your chances would be today, a year later, I can't accurately risk a prognosis. There were a lot of heavyweights, including me, in the oppose section who might simply oppose again. Under the new rules however, which have vastly increased the number of votes from newbies and reduced the threshold for a pass, there is a strong possibility that their votes may outweigh the opposition. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am curious why you would oppose: Not in an argumentative way, but the question being a rather sincere inquiry.   The main lesson I took from the last RfA was that people seemed to think I would misuse the tools to punish those with whom I disagreed, in spite of my explanation that I fully understand WP:INVOLVED and am willing to immediately recuse.  I do not know how to explain to others these two most salient points:  1)  I am able to resolve heated issues because I have been there and I understand how important it is to have a neutral arbiter, but one with a spine who will not just say, "oh, everyone is at fault equally."  2)  I am an adult and I understand perfectly well when to take off the advocacy hat and put on the robe.  I used to run a model government program for teens and would teach my youth leaders, "You can have the gavel or you can have the floor, but you can't have both at the same time."  I'm a lawyer in real life, people who are judges have to be lawyers first; we learn to be strong, vigorous, argumentative advocates for a position first as attorneys, then we are asked to set aside advocacy in favor of being objective and neutral if we choose to join the judiciary.  I see no real difference on Wikipedia.  Can you (or anyone else following this thread) provide some enlightenment on this?   Montanabw (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Montana. I was one of the ones who opposed, but said that I'd be be inclined to support a future RfA if you went a whole year without the problems cited in the discussion. My objections were not so much that you would use your tools while involved but that, at the time, your temperament was not what I thought suitable for an administrator. On all occasions an administrator must refrain from partisanship and personalized aggression in defense of one's "friends"—where anyone who disagrees with one of them, no matter how civilly, is characterised as a "bully". and... er... promptly bullied. My "friend's" friend is my "friend". My friend's "enemy" is my "enemy" used to characterise a fair number of your interactions that I observed. At the RFA, you never really acknowledged that it clearly was an aspect of your behaviour and interaction with other editors or that it would present a problem even if you weren't "using the tools". You also had a real resistance, in general (not just the RFA) to admitting or even seeing when you were wrong in a particular dispute and battling on regardless. Having said that, I suppose you have tacitly acknowledged it because you seem to have refrained from those kinds of behaviour since then, at least as far as I can see. Unless someone brings up further instances of that behaviour in the last year at your next RFA, I would be inclined to support you. But there are also some positive signs I would expect from you in a new RFA. One thing I would look for is what you consider a "teaching moment" and why—with zero use of the minimizing rhetoric that characterised the last one. I would also look for the kinds of admins you admire and why, i.e. your role models. I must say that at the last RFA your choice in that area pretty much sealed my "oppose". Anyhow, them's my thoughts. Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you  (Also pinging ) for taking the time to make some thoughtful comments. I don't know if I can alleviate your concerns enough to get you to "support", as I suspect this  counts as new drama, but either way, I value sincere input and goodwill such as yours. I believe that any trait has both weakness and strengths, so the trick is to transform the trait so it becomes an asset instead of a liability.  That's what I'm working on. I will mull over your comments and respond more when I am not tired from a long couple of days  Montanabw (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that goofy ANI "drama" actually shows you in a good light, answering calmly and not resorting to personalised attacks on the instigator (although I must say, he/she comported him/herself very poorly). Dramas are inevitable. No long-term editor can avoid them completely. A word of advice about AfDs though, especially contentious ones or ones blessed with one or more badgering types, it's worth taking the time to write a very full answer. Spell out the sources which indicate passing GNG. Or, spell out the specific criteria for passing under an alternative guideline and provide good sources which support that. Make sure you have also done the legwork looking for sources and finding out as much as you can about the subject before opining. For example, !voting "keep" at this one on the basis that the person might be notable because they are asserted to have appeared in a number of films/TV shows (referenced solely to IMDB) is kind of pointless unless you can establish independently that these are major roles. Otherwise, it tends to annoy the nominators and gives the appearance of simply pro-forma participation. Voceditenore (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Good point, dramas are inevitable. Glad you felt this was "teh normal drahmahz."  I try to remember to think and preview before hitting send, but it's not always perfect, one does get tired.  What I found frustrating at AfD was that someone can go through and pro-forma nominate a dozen a day (or hour) without listing the steps they took to verify they completed WP:BEFORE, yet to justify keeping takes a lot of work...  I just wish that both sides would put in equal time... there is a lot of true cruft that needs to go, I get rather frustrated that so much bandwidth is spent of stuff in a gray area.  Sigh...  Montanabw (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, one could argue that if it wasn't for someone like MontanaBW offering a weak keep on articles like Amelda Brown because their judgement was that sources were likely to be found, those sort of articles might well be deleted before someone like you found the sources. The judgement of experienced content editors is an asset, not a problem. --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, what new rules? We are no longer as suspicious of "new accounts" popping up to vote as we used to be? It's now easier for relatively new users to become an admin? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * They changed the pass threshold from 75% to 70% and I believe have tightened up on who can !vote a bit. Other changes too, I don't recall all of them, but I think the drama at my RfA was actually an impetus for some of it... or at least I was the poster child/guinea pig...  Montanabw (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There were no changes made on who can vote. It was suggested that RfA should now be posted on RfC Cent. and on the watchlist notice. This has had the effect of dramatically increasing voter participation, but increasing the same old problems along with it. There was a limit imposed on the number of questions each participant can pose, ostensibly to reduce the overall number of questions, but that has also been negated by he increase in participants and hence their questions. The question remains: Were the reforms at all worthwhile? If they were designed to encourage more candidates to run for office, they've failed there too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Kudpung's very clear agenda is to eliminate all oppose votes at RfA, so when he rules the world you'll be quite safe. Eric   Corbett  13:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, in my case, I was at about 60-65% last time, so a world of no oppose votes? I'm in!  ;-)   Montanabw (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * RfA is still a thing? -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. And I'm dumb enough to be thinking about running again, in spite of the previous round, though I'm still in the preliminary stages. If nothing else, I'm volunteering to stress test the system.  Watch this space...  Montanabw (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't do it. Admiral Ackbar got it right in Return of the Jedi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't do it. Admiral Ackbar got it right in Return of the Jedi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't do it. Admiral Ackbar got it right in Return of the Jedi. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Harness racing comments
You had inserted comments into my conversation on my Talk page with User White Arabian Filly your with objections to our proposed new Infobox for Standardbred horses and I certainly welcome your input. As I understand contributions to Wikipedia, everything is based on proper, authentic and reliable reference sources. Given that, I twice asked you for reference links to assertions you made but after waiting two weeks, still have not had a reply. While I have no doubt your opposition was well-intentioned, there is no Wikipedia rule against creating a new Infobox for Standardbred horses which actually does serve a need and would be quite different than the one Wikipedians created & designed exclusively for Thoroughbred racing. (One note: with all due respect, I have to say that starting your input with "I hate to rain on the parade" is not dialog one expects here and in hindsight I have to believe you likely regret that drama.) Nonetheless, after not responding to my requests for references to the assertions you made, you then inserted a comment on the subject in question at User talk:White Arabian Filly in another attempt to dissuade her from finishing her good work in creating the new Standardbred infobox. From my few encounters with White Arabian Filly I have concluded she is a thoughtful, sincere and courteous contributor to Wikipedia. After your aforementioned actions on my Talk page, posting a relenting negative view on her page not only ignores my legitimate request for references on the subject but might be seen by some as intimidating, although I'm sure White Arabian Filly is too polite to ever suggest such a thing. Again, I think you might have a lot to offer on Standardbred racing and I very much welcome the input of someone with your many years contributing to Wikipedia. I hope that you will work to help us get harness racing articles, with their woeful lack of their own infobox(es), article stubs, categories and the like, up to the same high standards evident in your Thoroughbred articles. Thank you. Mateusz K (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll ping and  to explain to you why having 10,000 different infoboxes is a problem, .  (we have flat racing, we have harness racing, we have steeplechasing, where will it end?) I think that a "wrapper" can be created within infobox racehorse to address your concerns (such as to switch out "rider" with "driver"), but I don't know how to do it and the techie people do.  I think that some of 's design ideas would work well added to the existing box to improve its look and I think she'd have fun working with RexxS on an improved design.  I cannot remember where I responded in depth on this (might have been the horse racing project page), but I'd suggest that you lay off the personal attacks; I didn't even notice your post on your talk because you didn't ping me.  Now, you've been doing good work but you need to understand that this is a collaborative process. I'm not your enemy, I have defended the harness racing articles from deletionists and I was the one who proposed adding a harness racing task force to WP horse racing so we could tag the project box with a harness racing parameter to make them easier to find and work on.  Ask, he's been around longer and knows I am on your side.  Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me your adversary.   Montanabw (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I hate to rain on User:Mateusz K's parade, but Infobox consolidation explains why a new infobox is very likely not needed, and to result in it being deleted or merged onto another. toning down their "likely regret that drama" would also be a good idea. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm too long in the tooth to be polite like WAF is. So here's the deal: Following the brief discussion at your talk page, I went to the trouble of modifying Template:Infobox racehorse to allow you to add a collection of extra parameters in a "module". Although MontanaBW asked you to "work with RexxS to explain what is missing from Template:Infobox_racehorse", I'm still waiting two weeks later for your input on what might need to be added, so that I can show you how that could be done. Am I right to now assume you're not interested in adapting the existing infobox – whose documentation states "For use in articles that deal with named racehorses of any breed or racing discipline, including Thoroughbreds, Standardbreds, Flat racing, Harness racing, Steeplechasing and related areas" – and you wish to carry on making your own infobox just for harness racing? --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I never said or even remotely suggested you (Montanabw) were an "enemy" or an "adversary". Why on earth would you say such a provocative thing? On the contrary, I praised you as being "well-intention" and complimented you on your "high standards" in your articles. But, inferring my idea for a separate Standardbred infobox as wanting a "dozen different infoboxes" is hyperbole and calling my idea as "stupid" is degrading to me and my efforts and I have to feel certain, a violation of etiquette rules. However, I repeat what I said about your objections to a Standardbred infobox. I respect your opinions, but it is your opinion plus that of two other people. Others here who contribute to Harness Racing articles disagree with you. Too, editors still don't see any of the requested references/links to support the assertions you've made. I will proceed to have a proper box created and if the powers-that-be at Wikipedia wish to adopt a different policy then I/we would certainly comply. Of course, you can refer this to the proposed new and badly needed WikiProject Harness Horse racing (or whatever). As to "collaboration," that is very good but there has been a complete disregard of Harness Racing by those who suddenly want the actual contributors to do things the way they like. There are editors here who have tried to do good work on the subject of Harness Racing and I ask that you respect their sincere efforts and wishes and the work being done by me attempting quality as best I can on a scale that will certainly attract  new editors. Further, I note that in a direct contradiction of your stance here, neither you (Montanabw) nor Pigsonthewing, nor RexxS have not now done, nor before ever mentioned, merging the brown/green raceboxes for Thoroughbred races. Why not? If you don't, then someone should properly post it for a vote on the WikiProject Horse racing. And, before I came along, none of you three modified the Racehorse infobox which was created specifically for Thoroughbreds. In that same vein, no one bothered to ever fix the fact that someone promptly posts to a new Standardbred article's Talk page a picture of a jockey on a thoroughbred.

WikiProject Horse racing

As to the confrontational comments of Pigsonthewing I say that only "GOD" can rain on a parade. I prefer SHE give me the right amount for my hay crops. And, for you to repeat such language after I objected to it, is deliberately disrespectful and disdainful for any "collaborative" process. Plus, RexxS asserting that "I'm too long in the tooth to be polite" is an insult to everyone involved with Wikipedia.Mateusz K (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * {[u|Mateusz K}}, your apparent mishearing of what we are all trying to say to you is not helping. The horse racing project was renamed from "Thoroughbred racing" to "Horse racing" at my request to begin to make it more inclusive (there is, indeed, Harness racing -- for several different breeds, actually, plus steeplechasing and flat racing by multiple horse breeds). We are trying to be very polite to you, even though you are trying to restart a debate that is actually long settled.  You are also proposing a "Balkanization" of the horse racing project which really needs to be discussed there, and not at my talk page.  I have not called "your idea" stupid (I used the term "stupid" in reference to an example of creating different infoboxes where there was not a need), and in fact, I offered a reasonable compromise to you to address the infobox issue and have been actively suggesting ways that we can make the horse racing project more inclusive of harness racing. At this point, I suggest you read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and we take this whole discussion to the horse racing project.   Montanabw (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , the main parameters needed are for gait, driver as opposed to jockey, groom, mile record (how fast a horse can pace or trot a mile is pretty important in the harness world, and is where the name Standardbred comes from). I don't have the template editor thing and I can't edit the main infobox.
 * , I understand your frustration. The fact is that the horse racing project is made to support articles on all forms of horse racing, and a smaller project hasn't been created since it would probably die for lack of participants. However, we have discussed making a subproject, which would add something like, "this article is supported by the harness racing task force" to the template you linked above. I don't know why they chose the picture of the Thoroughbred for the photo: probably that was the first clear picture somebody found of a racehorse. It's like at WikiProject Equine, it doesn't matter if it's a champion saddle seat horse, rodeo bronc, or Olympic jumper, it has the talk page tagged with the picture of that black horse. All of those horses also are written about using the same infobox, infobox named horse. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You got it in one; projects are broad in scope, in part to have enough people to work them! WPEQ has about five or six relatively active editors, WP Horse racing maybe 10.  If we split them down further, there wouldn't be the (wait for it...) horses needed to pull the wagon.  I actually have been proposing a harness racing task force, (just as we have a horse breeding task force and a horse training task force at WPEQ) and the project is in favor of it, I just haven't had the time to figure out the tech to make it go. (RexxS?  Help?) Anyone else want to dive in, go for it!  Montanabw (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well this is stirring up quite a bit of tension. Sorry, had to bump in cause I wasn't stalking this page at all! (No sarcasm there either), as stated before, everyone on Wikipedia (or anyone who bothers to stay on anyway) never tries to hurt anyone else's feelings. I think the problem here is resolved though, or it should be as you didn't want to stir up drama in the first place, yes? Montanabw only referred to enemy as a pointing out that she doesn't want to be your enemy. Praising on the contrary does only its limits. Opinions are things that can't be backed up (holy I actually learned something at school today) while facts are things that can. Your opinion of "Others here who contribute to Harness racing articles disagree with you," is in fact an opinion. Ya'll see why we have talk and discussion pages? Horsegeek (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek

The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.


 * Use   to invite others using this template.
 * Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

Black Beauty
I see your point about Black Beauty not being just a cab horse, but I feel the sentence needs revision. Lots of "pony books" are about horses, not ponies, so that isn't actually the crucial difference between them and Black Beauty. It's a long time since I read Black Beauty, so I am not sure what would be best. Perhaps that it is about a horse's difficult life rather than the typical story of the relationship between a horse and its rider? Robina Fox (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

, I believe it could be about a horse's difficult life, as I read that book a couple years ago. Don't really remember any relationship Beauty had with any human. Horsegeek (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Horsegeek


 * Black Beauty is a classic work in children's literature, and though told from the horse's viewpoint, it is a hard-hitting plea for humane treatment of animals in general and horses in particular. As such, it is quite different from the over-romanticized genre story described in the pony book article. The main thing is to not over-clarify -- particularly where the word "pony" is sometimes used broadly to describe horses used for particular uses (such as polo pony or Pony club).  I am not really sure I'm particularly fond of the term "pony books" in general, as I am not finding a lot of RS for the term ... "pony story", yes... trying to figure out where there is a good scholarly description, though...  Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe call it "juvenile horse fiction"? I guess the Black Stallion would probably fall into the broad pony book category as well, although it and Marguerite Henry's books were a lot more accurate and better written than a lot of the modern ones. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What a brilliant solution to addressing this particular backlog, restricting the number of editors to those willing to go cap in hand and beg an admin for this new right. Which is in fact the removal of a right that we've all had if the truth be told. Eric   Corbett  19:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, glad to see you back! All this right got me was a little button that says "curate this page" and gives me a few more tools.  I think that editing, tagging and saving an edit will still do most of the same things other than, maybe, not remove the "mark as patrolled" tag.  My take is that if they keep unbundling enough tools, then all the admin mop will be for is access to the block button, which is not a priority for most of us who contribute content.   Montanabw (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't unbundling, it's bundling. How many user rights have you seen granted to completely incompetent admins in your time here? Eric   Corbett  19:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I would like to become an admin, eventually so not sure if I resemble that remark ... but in the meantime, things like the new page mover right have been very helpful to me, and the NPP right solved one problem, which was the stuff like people with compulsive tendencies going through and tagging hundreds of articles a day for deletion without adequate review. Of course, there now is a 14,000 article backlog... so ...  Montanabw (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Although the single worst offender for "drive-by tagging of new articles for deletion without due care" has already been granted this new userright (albeit as part of a huge batch so the reviewing admin was probably just approving everyone on autopilot), so I don't know what they actually expect this to change. &#8209; Iridescent 21:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It puts a stop to me occasionally helping out there, for one. I agree with Eric on this, though I don't know who you mean, Iridescent; not that it matters, I've seen that behaviour from several eager beavers. (And by the way I don't want the right; I don't use helper scripts and other widgets that require downloading.) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it rather frustrating that AfD is so easy to file, it can be done with a click of a button and a simple sentence that shows no evidence of WP:BEFORE. It is very difficult to make a case for keeping an article and where there are easily dozens of AfDs filed, with no obligation to alert wikiprojects, it is hard to have more than the people who haunt AfD weigh in.   Montanabw (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there anything I can do to help clear up the backlog? Do you think I should apply for the NPR right? I'm trying to not start too many new articles, but I also want to fill in the history of the Breeders' Cup Classic and Belmont Stakes so I expect I'll be doing a few new ones a week. Jlvsclrk (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Once you've created 25, you can apply for Autopatrolled, which will thus cut down the backlog a little bit. I think NPR must be different from NPP, though, because I don't have NPR and I am still getting the "mark this page as patrolled" tag. Update: Now I'm not. I guess I'll have to go ask for this right.  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The NPR is a new user right, the idea was to combine a couple of different tasks together to try and cut down on the problems (like drive-by tagging articles for deletion and the knee jerk rejection of drafts at AfC). That and the patrolling commercial spam articles as approved... all problems we don't often see in our little corner of the horsey world (though I've seen a few "Ima gunna rite an artikel about my pony" ones created from time to time... we had a rash of those 4-5 years ago) My take is that if a user meets the eligibility for a new tool and can use it responsibility, it's worth getting because it helps our own editing go smoother and it also puts more responsible people out there when the irresponsible ones show up...  and, I'll put in a good word for both of you if you need it. Montanabw (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just applied for NPR, although I doubt there'll be a problem because I was considered responsible enough for rollback. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

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

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016 at Women in Red
(To subscribe: Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Happy Thanksgiving
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To say thank you and talk bull
I have appreciated you since you first posted the welcome notice on my talk page, essentially creating it. You have made me feel welcome here with your messages and your thanks. And yes, with your edits too! The one on Little Yellow Jacket today-well, of course a sentence that can't be cited does not belong in a topic, so thanks for removing that. Earlier I wrote a note in the topic's talk page that I was working on an extensive expansion and that I would write in the talk page when I was done. Just so someone wouldn't spend too much time editing what wasn't concrete yet. Wasn't sure if you saw that so just letting you know-do you get the notice on the talk page like me? I'm pretty sure I will be done by the end of this week. Except for trying to get image(s)-not sure how long that will take. Then if someone wants to take a really close look at it, that would be a good time.. I realize that doesn't mean someone would be free. I'm following my favorite horse's topic, FA Secretariat as an example. I want to try to get a really good bucking bull topic together that I can base other bulls on...thanks so much! Dawnleelynn (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words! I can tell you are going to be a great contributor to Wikipedia and I want to encourage you in your efforts.  Basically, the articles I know you are working on are already on my watchlist (as I've already popped by and talked to you there), so I most likely will do a "drive by" on those whenever I am on Wiki (which is usually daily unless I get swamped with RL work or something). If you want to "ping" me, you can either do it by mentioning me in brackets (like this User:Montanabw ) or with a "ping" command like  or  .  To make the "ping" work, be sure to sign your post (with the four tildes: ~ )  That will send a little alert to me to take a peek at a particular page.  Also, if I am not around, feel free to post here anyway because I have a lot of "talk page stalkers" who will sometimes answer questions too.  The biggest thing I see with people who are moving to wikipedia writing style from other forms of writing is the need to keep an encyclopedic tone; WP:NPOV is policy and an important one.  It is especially important to avoid editorializing or writing anything that sounds like ad copy.  It's also important to avoid anything that smacks of a copypaste from the source or too-close paraphrasing.  With these rodeo bull articles, the existing ones are all in pretty poor shape, so anything you can do is all to the good, and using the race horse articles as a model is not a bad idea -- Secretariat might be pretty daunting as an example (though we are proud of the article!), but you might want to look at some of the newer horse "biographies" that are a bit shorter, usually at Good Article status, such as Beholder (horse), or  others that haven't been through the GA/FA gauntlet but are about B-class may be worth a look (e.g. Frosted (horse), Exaggerator, etc.).   Montanabw (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It's so nice to be encouraged. Words can't tell how much. I'm not working by choice right now. But having done tech writing in software industry for 20 years, I thought the writing style might be mostly compatible. And I could choose the topics to some degree unlike work. So I understand how important the tone needs to be encyclopedic. Tech writing needs to be neutral too. I still have to watch for small bits of "puffery" slipping in. :) I'm human. Right now, I'm trying to get used to writing and using with citations at the same time. They put a cramp in my style. It's much easier to be sure I'm not paraphrasing too closely when I don't have to use citations. But I'll get the hang of it. Yes, some of these rodeo topics just make me wish I could just start from scratch rather than have to rewrite them. How does that Chris Shivers topic not get deleted? It's basically just a long list of non-bulleted points. Thankfully Bushwacker (bull) is a short stub. I want to get to that before someone else takes a mind to make a big mess of it. He's only the most important bull ever (the Secretariat of bullriding). More has been written about him than any other bull in history. I will look at your topic suggestions, thanks for those. I'm planning to go over the LYJ article at the end of writing to see if I can make sure nothing sounds like it was copied or paraphrased too closely. You know, once all the content and citations have been added and I can just focus on wording alone. As far as Secretariat, I just meant I was trying to follow the structure mostly. But yeah, great article and you and everyone who got it to be a FA should be proud! I was a user reading that topic before an editor here. I really love the movie too. I grew up loving horses and read everything I could get my hands on. Thanks again! Talk later. Dawnleelynn (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I compare the writing style more to academic writing for peer-reviewed publications -- or legal writing, which requires constant citation to authority. By the way, you CAN rewrite an article from scratch if you want; create a sandbox in your own userspace (titled User:Dawnleelynn/any name here) and write the article and then do a wholesale replacement when it's ready to go (see WP:TNT) That said, doing so can create drama, so it's best to post on the relevant talk page with a message that says, diplomatically, "is anyone watchlisting this article and do they care about it?"  If someone pops up, discuss.  If no one appears after a week or two, then be bold and, as I like to say, Proceed until apprehended.   Montanabw (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood re writing style comparison, makes sense. Good advice re starting over on an article. I did have someone answer a question I asked you on my talk page earlier while you were on your absence, so that was nice. I'm going to start a rewrite of User:Dawnleelynn/Bodacious in a sandbox. Also want to start writing my first article which will be User:Dawnleelynn/Red Rock(bull) and I thought I would also start out doing that one in a sandbox too instead of in the new article feature at first. You are, of course, free at any time, to check out my sandboxes and make edits. Thanks for all, I think I have everything I need for awhile! :) Dawnleelynn (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Just a quick p.s. I forgot Bushwacker. I'll put a link to his sandbox a little later-not created yet. But you can get to all my sandboxes from my User page as well. Also, LYJ was almost totally uncited and looked like no one had done much with it so I decided to be bold and no one has protested. One ip user has added a small bit with no citation. Both Bodacious and Bushwacker are stubs and it doesn't appear anyone is doing much with them, but I'll put a message in their talk page just the same. Dawnleelynn (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for everything. I don't have what I need to do those fancy things yet. But the thought that counts. Have a blessed and wonderful holiday with you and yours. Hopefully, all is well and you are not overwhelmed with holiday todos! You and WAM are the only editors that I really talk with so far. And the only real reason I am a "bold editor." But like I told WAM, it's worth it if people come to learn or appreciate more about the subjects. Ok, see you on the flippity flip! Dawnleelynn (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

50,000 Challenge
Just an FYI: I'm working on Tower Rock State Park, and adding Tower Rock as a section -- so we can fill in the NHRP with the same article. :) - Tim1965 (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Annnnnnnnnnnnnddd.... I'm done! - Tim1965 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Suzuka Mambo
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Email
I sent you some email; I didn't use the "Email this user" feature here but went off an old thread; I can't remember if I've got the right address. If you haven't got it, shout. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge of Green Turf race infobox into Horseraces infobox
I have no idea how to do it so would you please organize the elimination of the unnecessary green stripe/brown stripe thing plus create the separate forum for Standardbred racing. Thanks. Mateusz K (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Horses in Kentucky
Hi again. I've been working on Kentucky agriculture-related topics a bit and unless I'm missing it, there doesn't seem to be anything on horserearing or horse business in KY. Just sayin' - Brianhe (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That is an idea ; the horse industry in Kentucky is probably the biggest, per capita, in the country. We have generic articles such as horse breeding, but not specific to the state.  I am sure their government offices have plenty of stats, as would the American Horse Council.  Also thehorse.com probably has articles.  I'll also ping, and , who both have an interest in Kentucky topics.   Montanabw (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to do articles for other states too. Tennessee has the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration and many other big shows and notable horse farms, including the Belle Mead Plantation which used to be a big racehorse breeding farm. Florida has a lot of big show jumping and dressage competitions, and polo ponies. California is also a major Thoroughbred racing and breeding state, with Santa Anita Park. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 16:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure about per capita or per breed but following are the top 5 head count horses per sq. mi (hpsm) and people per horse (pph) as determined by the 2005 AHCF :
 * TX 978,822 - #hpsm 3.7 - #pph 23.0
 * CA 698,345 - #hpsm 4.5 - #pph 51.4
 * FL 500,124 - #hpsm 9.3 - #pph 34.8
 * OK 326,134 - #hpsm 4.7 - #pph 10.8
 * KY 320,173 - #hpsm 8.0 - #pph 12.9
 * Just thought it was an interesting factoid. SMirC-palm.svg So are you making turkey dinner this year? 🦃<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 📞📧 21:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know agritourism was a thing until just now. Maybe it is a starting point? Sample of sources for KY horses: - Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to structure such an article but I can fill in the blanks once it gets underway. The BloodHorse publishes a fair bit on Thoroughbreds as business so should be able to find stuff there. As for agritourism, I know stud farm tours are becoming a bigger and bigger thing, especially with the Pharoah boom. (California Chrome is going to be crazy popular too methinks). Jlvsclrk (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Brianhe, Montanabw  and Jlvsclrk, I'm up for working on an article about the equine business in KY. Agree that there will be loads of sources. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrapping my head around the potential scope and novelty of this topic. Surprisingly we have no great model for this; Horse culture in Mongolia doesn't quite fit what I think we are heading towards. Meantime I found a bit on horse tourism at Moon Guide Kentucky.
 * I put up an outline at Draft:Horse farming in Kentucky. Maybe we should get some more skeleton together before starting to put muscle on it? - Brianhe (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can help with it, especially by adding some of the bigger farms, especially ones where a Kentucky Derby winner stood or stands at stud. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. I really don't have any significant expertise in this area, but I will support the effort in any way I can. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I popped over to the draft article and made some comments there. "Horse industry in foo" articles might be interesting... particularly for the big players.  (I never knew that China has the largest horse population in the world, but the impact of horses on their economy is really hard to suss out, for example.)   Montanabw (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have started a draft in my userspace about the horse industry in Tennessee. I already did the TWHNC article, and there are a lot of other articles I've done I can work in with that (I'm sort of afraid to mess with the Kentucky one, since it's going so good... And I also admit this Tennessee thing is a way for me to shamelessly promote my own articles 😉) White Arabian Filly  Neigh 20:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has edited the draft for a couple of days ... does this mean we're nearly done, or just exhausted from eating too many turkey leftovers? Brianhe (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging again, there has been exactly one character changed in the past week. Should the article go up? - Brianhe (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , sorry I've not been on-wiki a lot lately; yes, I think it's ready, I did a light copyedit and see no problems. That said, I DO think a different title is appropriate, perhaps "Kentucky horse industry'' or something -- in part because the article is about more than just the horse breeding farms.   Montanabw (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does seem to be about the Equine industry in Kentucky, and though I was really fond of the term horse farming I've copyedited the lede to reflect that. Will move to article space in a bit if nobody chips in here with second thoughts. - Brianhe (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see the first problem with 'horse industry' nomenclature: at least one equine hospital is in the category I created for it, Category:Equine industry in Kentucky. This is borderline. If there's something less 'industrial' in future, such as a research institution or facility, maybe a new container category...? Anyhow I'm not going to stress over it now. - Brianhe (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * People in the horse business LOOOOOOVE the phrase "horse industry," and equine hospitals count... so do universities that have equine studies programs (in fact, I think they coined the term) and so on.  Montanabw (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really like equine, so I didn't use it in the Tennessee article I wrote (which is about horses except for one short paragraph about mules and one mention of ponies). Equine hospitals treat horses, most of the time. A few people might take a sick mule to the hospital, but not many. Besides, I think even hospitals and vet schools are considered part of the industry. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * LOL! You missed the drama years ago with the mule people.  We also have at least one donkey aficionado at WPEQ.  But I'm mostly into using whatever term of art doesn't make us look like doofuses.  No made-up names, that's really all I ask...  Montanabw (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

OK gang, ( i.e., , you guys are outta control, so I started Horse industry. I'm building it in mainspace, but it's a quick-and dirty to crate the overview.  Have at it and add anything you want.   Montanabw (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey there!
Could you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force or the linked meta page? It seems to me that there should be some sort of reply or reaction to the Board's announcement. This could be a real opportunity. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Robert Cook (veterinarian)
Hello. I was looking at some of the old, unresolved NPOV templated pages and I came across Robert Cook (veterinarian), which you tagged in 2010. In 2015 you also removed a PROD tag with the comment "certainly notorious enough". I note that there isn't any "controversy" or similar section and neither information the talk page not an edit summary about why he is notorious. You are obviously a horseperson but it is decades since I had contact with that world and so I am puzzled. Is it because of the bitless bridles? Is there any other reason for his notoriety? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Cook has propounded various theories on bits, bridles, horseshoes and more. I don't have a lot of time right this week to address it all, but I'd be glad to discuss it later.  He's (in my view) a proponent of some pretty WP:FRINGE ideas, and quite the self-promoter. At the time, I didn't have the energy to deal with some of the partisans involved, but maybe now is a good time to do a more thorough bio.   Montanabw (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Every issue has its partisans, I suppose.  Maybe it's long enough since the article was created that their attention is elsewhere.  Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That kind of article seems to draw fans or haters, but if the creator was a COI or SPA, they're probably long gone. I agree with Montanabw on the guy himself. He's one of those people who stirs up hysteria among ignorsnt people by saying some extremely broad thing like, "Bits hurt a horse's mouth and keep it from breathing!" Bits can hurt a horse's mouth, if they're not the right size or shape or if the rider is heavy-handed, but a correctly fitted bit doesn't hurt any more than a correctly fitted shoe does. And on the breathing thing, horses don't breathe through their mouths to begin with!  White Arabian Filly  Neigh 19:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional input. I was able to do some further research on him, and I definitely see that this could easily be riddled with POV-pushing were it to be expanded.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

FAC
I've been told rather patronisingly by the boss of FA that I need mentoring. I need nothing of the sort. What I need is help getting a huge article I wrote through FA but where other users devised a unique sourcing system that would probably take me an estimated 100 hours or more to sort out and revert to accepted Wiki practice - even if I could understand it, and where other users have contributed small bits and pieces since the previous peer reviews. Because I know that it's far away from your sphere of interest, I'm not directly asking for your help on this, but if you've got any ideas please let me know. The article is here. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll take a peek and comment there, if that works.   Montanabw (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Piaffe Page
Hey, Montanabw! Just looking at the Piaffe page, and even you, on the talk page, did not like the animated illustration. It's pretty dismal. Is that something I could find for you? I was an upper level rider, and have a good eye for a better one.Soltera (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can find a better video that's copyright free, preferably one in a format similar to the animated GIF that's up (long videos on WP pages no one is going to watch, short is good) -- or convertible into one, that would be way cool.  Montanabw (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

NYPL digital library - race horses
The New York Public Library just published an enormous number of photos, some of which are of interest to horse racing articles. I was all set to upload new images of Man o' War and various other horses (link to the images classified as race horses here) but the digital rights confuse me and I was wondering if you had time to take a look. For example, here's the Man o' War image and the description includes a bit about rights saying "The copyright and related rights status of this item has been reviewed by The New York Public Library, but we were unable to make a conclusive determination as to the copyright status of the item. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use." I think this one in particular is fair game based on the date alone (must be either 1919 or 1920) but there are a bunch of others from their cigarette cards collection that don't have a rights statement at all so not a clue what to do with them. Sorry to bug you, but I'd love to add as many of these as are acceptable. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

, welcome to the world of complicated copyright law. (And CYA museum disclaimers, which basically mean "we think it's OK for us to publish this on the web, but just in case it's not, it's your ass, not ours") I'm going to ping  for help on this one. Also, this is a useful tutorial Basically, here's the quick and dirty version: My take is that images of Man o' War racing are almost all going to be OK because they were taken prior to 1923 and most likely were news images and such published prior to 1923. From there, some of the pre-1963 stuff is probably fine, as things like this show where they were published, and a series of what, basically look like the equine equivalent of baseball cards are most likely copyright not renewed (though UK law would apply). (the image might have been taken in 1924, so we'd need copyright-not-renewed, not PD) But to prove either of the above, you need to indicate time of first publication. If you can't, you can still use it local on Wikipedia with a fair use rationale. To give you an example of that: in Skowronek (horse), I have two images. The first one File:Skowronek22.jpg, is known to have been published in 1928, so I uploaded it as fair use because while it probably was not copyrighted in the UK and probably is OK, I don't have the time/motivation/ability to do the requisite digging. On the other hand, File:Skowronek1.jpg had to have been taken well before 1923 (as the horse was foaled in 1909 and he's clearly still graying out), but I can't find a date of publication, so I'm stuck with it as fair use until I can. If I could find something like "published in the Crabbet catelogue in 1920," I'd be golden. For the article Albert, Alfred and Chris Schlechten, I really hoped I could find examples of their work identified as postcards, because then I'd know they had been "published." But as it sat, I had to use File:Albert Schlechten1.jpg as fair use even though it was probably taken before 1923 because I could not find if it had been published or not, and the museum that holds the photos has made a claim of ownership. Montanabw (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Anything created prior to 1896, published, unpublished, found in gramma's attic, whatever, is public domain.
 * 2) Almost anything PUBLISHED (not taken, published) before 1923 is public domain
 * 3) Other things get complicated, some stuff before 1963 is OK, some stuff before 1978 is OK, etc... read the Commons link. It depends on copyright notice and all that.
 * Cigarette cards should be fine. The problem with just random pictures is that it's hard to show publication.  I've used the NYPL archives, but only for stuff where I can show publication, for example playbills and programs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox racehorse#Re Modules & WikiProject Harness Horse racing
I posted comments here on the Racehorse infobox modules for which you might want to provide some input. Also, I took your suggestion and created a draft User:Mateusz K/Wikipedia:WikiProject Harness Horse racing. Thanks. Mateusz K (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comanche (horse) and John C. H. Grabill
I thought of you for 2 reasons when I ran into this photo.
 * 1) Grabill has his own section of 188 photos at the Library of Congress. They've been uploaded to Commons recently, and he has a recent article.  Since the photos are all from the Dakota Territory, I figure that you have a better knowledge than most editors of where to place them.
 * 2) In background of the photo, there are several horses, all laying down. I've never seen anything quite like it.  The closest background horse (between Comanche and his handler) looks totally out of it, maybe even dead.  It's not at the battle site, it's 14 years later.  Is there something strange going on in the photo, or am I imagining things?

Any help appreciated.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the cavalry exercises included laying a horse down, and I think that's what's going on back there. I have a Old Western history book that talks about it and actually has a picture sort of like this, although I don't see any of the actual riders in this picture; they may be behind the horses. It was some kind of trust exercise or else they used the horses as forts if necessary, I really can't remember which. Bottom line, I don't think the horse is dead because of that training and the fact it still has a saddle on, although it could have gone to sleep like that. (They sometimes do, and often look dead, probably because horses rarely sleep like that.) White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That IS fascinating... I see they have tepees up in the background too, but soldiers in uniform also visible, randomly standing around -- it's like there was bad staging or something. Be fascinating to know the provenance of the photo!  As for the Battle of the Little Bighorn (which was a big deal in Montana history, yes) Comanche was not actually the only survivor -- other cavalry horses survived, but were probably taken as prizes of war. I believe that he was left because he was too injured to be run off by the Sioux. Maybe ping  and see what he can find out.   Montanabw (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox horseracing personality
Not entirely sure how to fix it, but your recent edit seems to have transcluded onto pages that use this particular template -- see for example Garrett K. Gomez. Just a heads up... Connormah (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put the See also section into <noinclude ></noinclude>, so that should fix the problem you saw (you may need to flush your cache now). Is there any reason why that section shouldn't be on the documentation page? --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put the See also section into <noinclude ></noinclude>, so that should fix the problem you saw (you may need to flush your cache now). Is there any reason why that section shouldn't be on the documentation page? --RexxS (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Yo Ho Ho
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Christmas & Horses
You're not only a fine editor, you're one heck of fine person. Happy New Year, Montanabw.

Hi there
Say Montana could you take a look at the Women's March on Washington? It seems that there are several new users and a little help from an experienced editor would sure help. Wishing you the best for the new year and hoping that all is well with you. My life goes on as usual and I am happy for my advantages as I watch so much turmoil in the world. Gandydancer (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Will do, and you might also want to ping the Women's wikiprojects and possibly as if she'd be able to help too.   Montanabw (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, I will look at it. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)