User talk:Montanabw

WikiStress level

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

Remember: WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA However, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia What Eddie Izzard thinks of Wikipedia: here What we are REALLY doing: Professor Wikipedia TPS count!

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

Sandbox invite

"[The] readers will not be privy to the massive undercurrents of dross that underpins WP. They require well written, well sourced, encyclopaedic material that can inform, enlighten and satisfy their interest."

—User:Leaky caldron to User:ThatPeskyCommoner

Those interested may play in my sandboxes, in the archive list above, if they promise to behave. This means:

• No kicking sand
• No hitting other people over the head with toys
• No pooping, even if you are a cat and neatly cover it up!
• It's my sandbox, so I can throw you out if you misbehave!  :-)

Happy Montanabw's Day!

User:Montanabw has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Montanabw's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Montanabw! Peace, Rlevse 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Awww, gee! That was really super nice! Thank you! Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Precious

	galopping support
	Thank you for your tireless support and teamwork and for your wonderful sandbox rules for a better world, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at Worm That Turned's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 21:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And another one. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hey there Montanabw, I noticed a conversation that you had with Sandy recently, and I wanted to note something. I'm not sure where I stand with her (SandyG) specifically, other than the fact that we both disagree on the merits of having PumpkinSky editing here (as you likely know, I agree with you on that point), and we did agree on a recent issue in regards to Malleus. The "Point of order" that I wanted to mention was the "cut and run" comments. While I can understand that "cut and run" view in regards to Rlevse (even thought I completely understand the why), I have to strongly disagree in the case of PumpkinSky. I am fully aware they are both the same person, BUT - Pumpkinsky NEVER "cut and run" - he posted his desire to be unblocked. He posted a whole ton of conditions he was willing to adhere to. He tried to respond to questions and criticizers at the drama thread. He asked to be allowed back, and he said he would work on whatever sourcing/plag/copy-vio issues people thought there were. It was simply that all those with a grudge toward him (be it the FA disagreements, or past sanctions he imposed as admin/arb) made sure there was not a consensus to unblock. I just wanted to mention that. No offense intended, just a note. — Ched :  ?  12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I hear you. I was mostly thinking that bailing when you know you are in front of a kangaroo court is usually the wisest option. And trying to help Sandy understand my views, which doesn't seem to be happening. ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 16:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Diving Horses Edit

You completely removed my addition to the Diving Horses article yesterday, but from what I can tell it appears that your explanation is that "Facebook isn't a source and the recent controversy doesn't need undue weight. It's mentioned, it doesn't need to be half the article." To start, I am new, so I will defer to more experienced opinion. That said, I would like to understand better.

The FB page wasn't meant to be a source, but to point to the meeting place of the activists to lend credibility to discussing the effort that changed the path of having Diving Horses. Is that not permissible? Also, why would you eliminate the petition that garnered over 55,000 signatures on the issue?

The only reason I edited to begin with is the quote from the HSUS appears to be related to the effort that ended the notion of bringing back the Diving Horses. The Catanoso's called it off specifically because they received notice of the petition and the FB page members who would attend the Board Meeting. The HSUS quote is merely a response. The effort was not created by an organization, but by individuals, and I feel that should be a part of the history of the Diving Horses. It should be noted that individuals created the change to prevent the return.

I am not arguing for these things, simply trying to find out if/where my opinion has a place amidst the article. Thank you in advance.

KateBristow (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically, FB is not a source in most cases. A newspaper article stating that a facebook petition was responsible for a change might be. So if you have a Reliable source that explains this, we could add that. BUT, given that this is simply a recent event, it cannot go on and on to the point it dominates the article (see WP:UNDUE) Maybe a sentence or so, though, not several paragraphs. And be very careful not to copy the source verbatim. Montanabw^(talk) 01:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! :o)

About this, and whether to include titles like "King" in wikilinks, I'm sure I remember someone on WP indicating that I shouldn't, but I'm enough of an old duffer to be remembering that wrong! ;o) Hunting around just now, I found this, which says "Avoid making links longer than necessary: write "president [[George Washington]]", not "[[George Washington|president George Washington]]"; and, "King Edward III" is linked that way later in the same sentence as King John, where handily Edward III's link doesn't need a pipe, just like George Washington. Thoughts? That's a genuine question, I'm keen to know what you think: historically(!) I've shown more interest in kings than horses and, apart from anything else, this question of linking is the kind of thing I dither over anyway, and now I'm likely to get into a dither-loop! :o) Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My take is "do what doesn't look weird." I think it looks weird to have half a titled name linked. I also have poor vision and it's easier for me to see a longer word or phrase when wikilinked, also easier to click the link with my laptop's touchpad; especially when, like John, the word is short. So I tend to pipe link an entire name so that it jumps out easier. Put differently, I'd agree with MOS on Washington, but not on Edward III -- though I too would solve the problem and omit the word "King" in that particular instance (whereas John should be preceded with the title, as the word can have so many meanings...). But it's not a moral issue, either way. Montanabw^(talk) 18:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense– I'd tend to agree with doing what doesn't look weird! And, I see what you mean about why you'd deviate from MOS on this, I'll try to remember that. For now, I'll go and make "King Edward III" into just "Edward III", we know that we're already talking about kings there. Ta! :o) Nortonius (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		For your your good heartedness, fairness, courage and just plain common sense in dealing with the Pumpkin Sky/Rlevse issues. olive (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

A belated thanks to you, Olive! Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Montanabw. I have a question. I add External links to topic Wild horses and sombody deleted them. Meybe, it was you. I want to aks why. Backbreeding of new European Wild Horse is one of the most important event in Wild Horses theme. And links was to well known, respcect organization or interesting articles. I don´t unterestend, why they was deleted. Thank you for answer. Danny (talk)

I can't recall the specific edit, but my guess is probably adding incorrect or inaccurate information, or information without sourcing, or external links that were not relevant to the article for some reason. Or maybe just really bad spelling, not sure. The edit summary may have had a brief explanation. But if you want to post on the talk page of the article in question, this can be further discussed there. Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Isn't this the edit Danny is referring to? Jesse V. (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah that. Yeah, two irrelevant links (we already have stuff on Tarpans in the article and the breeding back movement is mentioned already with the weight it deserves) The yahoo one best taken to the talk page as the cave painting stuff is a whole new thing that probably does need a new section, but needs to be linked to better sources. Random external links need to be inserted per WP:EL. But again, further discussion is best taken to the talk page of the article in question. Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sssssshhhh, don't look now ...

... you're being followed ;P I commented on it. Pesky (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken your name in vain

over here. This guy has just got into a stew over at AN/I; he's a newbie, probably got a ton of good stuff to offer, and I've recommended you as a bloody good teacher for when the dust has settled a bit. He jumped head-first into a civility spat and got a load of people's backs up, but I can see his point and why it ended up like that. Adding: I've emailed him with a bit of damage-limitation advice, and given him an open invitation to my talk as well. What he needs is a couple of highly-experienced WikiTeachers, and he should get on OK. Pesky (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that ...

Germans liked CAPS.? Is that what makes them tired? Do "caps/CAPS" make everyone tired? These are the reasons that I read Wikipedia, I'm always learning something new. — Ched :  ?  13:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Noun forms in German tend toward Capitals, just skim de. wiki, even if you don't speak German, you will see the structure. And, as Sherlock Holmes once said, "only a German would so abuse his verbs." (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, but they do come up with some wonderful constructions which don't quite have any simple synonyms in English, though. Losgelassenheit is one of my favourites. To illustrate, that link is basically an entire page of explaining what one word in German actually means! Pesky (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Re Iberian Horse

Hi. I'm the author of the last changes to the article and wanted to disscus a few things about your edits. My take, as i signaled is still a Work In Progress, so perhaps you've been a bit too fast ...

I did hide some of the information with references which you have restored. It is either redundant with the list or plainly wrong (the Retuertas vs Sorraia association, f.i.) It contains, though some valuable references, i did not want to delete so soon

The Column Type may not be not very standard, but it had a purpose. Historically the bulk of the horse stock in Spain has had a few very distinctive features:

• The lack of cold bloods /heavy draft horses from native stocks
• The economical priority of mule breeding over horse. Most ewes were turned to this breeding
• The bulk of of the stock (until the mid XX century) were pony C-D sized horses (12-14 some hands), what we call jacas. And most of the listed breeds are simply the survivors ... with the criollos of South America.

Having a column pointing to the size (and separating the pony sized in to groups -the jaca and the small pony) would give a casual reader a better insight in this caracteristic, specially when the general image of the iberian horse is that of the Andalusian/Lusitano/Lippizaner type

Most of this I hope will make into the article, properly sourced

If you find a proper title, i think the information available in that column was valuable and should be restored --Wllacer (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)