User talk:Dana boomer/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Thanks

<moved to barnstars page>

Thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Chateau Grand Traverse

Hey Dana! I started the Chateau Grand Traverse article and I can see some really good WP:DYK potential with it (1st Michigan ice wine, served at George H.W. Bush's inauguration, etc). It could possible even be a lead DYK selection if we can get a picture of a Chateau Grand Traverse ice wine. I don't know how close you are to the winery and how much of an inconvenience it would be, but if it is possible, any illustration to the article would be helpful. If not, no worries. :) Also, if you know of any relevant Michigan-related article that it could be linked to that would help make the article less of an WP:ORPHAN. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Agne! I'm not sure how well I'll be able to do with this request within the time frame of a DYK. I might be able to get some shots of their wines tomorrow, but I won't be able to get up to the vineyards before next weekend. Also, I'm not sure how available their ice wine is, and at $70 a bottle I don't really have enough disposable income to buy a bottle just to take a picture of it :) I will see what I can do with their other wines tomorrow, and will get to the vineyards ASAP - it is winter here, though, so the images will most likely be nothing but trellis... I realize this answer is a bit wishy-washy, but Michigan in January is not really the time and place for wine tours :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL...yeah don't buy a bottle of wine just for the picture (Though, my trick is often to take a picture with my iPhone of the wine at the store ;P ) Again, no worries and I hear you on the January part. Not many photo ops in the great Pacific Northwest either. :) Agne^Cheese/^Wine 00:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I think I'm going to go with a pic of Bush himself and see how that flies. :) Right now I just have some generic illustrations but I figure we can always improve them whenever better pics come on. Given how variable DYK can be, it might be featured in a couple days or over a week and half later. You never know. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 01:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RS question

Hey Dana, what's the official position on Helium.com as a reliable source. (generally and for horse articles specifically) We have a person from the Guild of Copy Editors doing some work on Tokara pony and I don't want to discourage the effort, but s/he put in a Helium footnote, so not sure that's OK or not so good. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 01:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, I think it's regarded as similar to about.com - it depends on the author (you can click on the author name and it takes you to their bio). In this case, I would say not reliable. The author's bio is "I am a stay at home Army wife with a bachelor's degree in English and master's degrees in social work and public health." which gives absolutely no reason that she should be considered a reliable, expert source on a rare Japanese pony breed, although I would be inclined to think any articles she wrote on public health and social work were good enough for at least a GA. I need to head to bed soon, so don't want to get involved in that article tonight. Could you post a note for the editor and I'll lurk and enter the discussion if needed? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bungled move...

Can I get you to move Forthere to Forthhere, where it should be according to the third edition of the Handbook of British Chronology? I just moved it to Forthere, but I typod. ARgh! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I just did that right...? First time I've done a move over redirect, so may have just made it worse. Let me know if I've managed to delete the main page or something... :) Dana boomer (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Something for you

<moved to barnstars page>

How unexpected! Thank you very much, Kirill! Dana boomer (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct–Dec 2010

<moved to barnstars page>

What a week for pretty things :) Thanks, Ian! Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dana boomer. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (embedded lists).
Message added 13:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This isn't canvassing. I've stated my opinion, but if you comment, I don't mind which way you go. I just want to see some consensus one way or the other :) Kudpung (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My Bad!

Hi Dana, I totally missed seeing the merge tag on Spanish Walk, but it wasn't suitable for a merge to horse gait because it isn't a gait, it's a circus trick. So I undid the merge. You can trout slap me if I was bad. Montanabw^(talk) 17:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

But it's not really suitable for its own article, either. Do you have a better place to merge it to? Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. In theory it would be expanded into its own article if someone wanted to add history, training techniques and such, sort of like the articles on the bad habits -- rear (horse) and bucking. I honestly don't know. We have trained gait variations like piaffe and Passage (dressage) with their own articles. The Spanish walk isn't really an alternative gait, it sort of belongs in circus tricks, if there was such an article. I suppose it could maybe be merged into dressage or classical dressage, except the dressage people would probably throw a fit because it isn't a dressage thing either, not really. Hm. Well, I guess if you think Piaffe and Passage are OK to be free-standing, maybe I can dig up enough stuff to expand Spanish walk, or we (me) could create some sort of new article incorporating several related concepts. Montanabw^(talk) 20:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that maybe one article incorporated several related comments would be the way to go. We want to make sure that the article(s) doesn't become a "how-to" manual with step by step training techniques. I always prefer slightly longer, comprehensive articles, though, to multiple stubby bits. Dana boomer (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree about avoiding a how to and I also favor comprehensive articles. (I'd love to merge flying change, and lead (leg).) But not sure where to go here because the thing doesn't fit into any other category very neatly ... the people who like it rank it as a dressage move, but the dressage purists call it trick riding. The Spanish Riding School doesn't use it, but it's part of the Spanish training tradition. Kinda, sorta... I think that once upon a time passage and piaffe got broken out from trot, though both are short articles. On the other hand, where once were a bunch of stubs on all the different airs above the ground and they were all merged back into classical dressage (Actually, I could even make a good argument to merge classical dressage and dressage, but doing so would involve a LOT of work). I guess there is probably enough material to expand the Spanish Walk article a little (I added another sentence or so). But I can't think of where to place a merge. Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I can see your point about there not being a good place to merge it to. However, if you'd like to toss merge tags onto flying change, piaffe and passage I would definitely back you up on those. Wow, the trot article needs some work... Dana boomer (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that and ever so many other articles...let's see, it can get in line behind vaquero, horse tack, equine conformation ... =:-O (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We are woefully underpaid, that's for sure. And I've gotten sucked into working on some of the TB stuff, since I may be one of the few people around with an extensive enough library to source out articles on the various stakes winning horses of the late 19th century. Whee. I'll be around until the end of Jan, and then MBW knows where I'll be... imitating good ole Willie-boy. Think after I get back we'll be ready to tackle ... (make ominous sounding music in the background) ... Horse? Or are we not that brave? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that we could tackle Horse after you get back. With all of our puttering over the past few years I think it should be getting close. I'd like to get Appaloosa up first, but we need to fix or replace the last two images with issues first... Other than that, I think it just needs a look-over by Malleus and it should be good to go. Anyone willing to help out on the last images? Pretty please? Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My two-bits-worth; The Spanish Walk isn't wholly artificial, some horses will use something very similar as a kind of 'warn-off' approach to a 'possible-predator' as an alternative to seriously striking down onto it. (My own pony, Sunny, won't tolerate aggressive dogs on the field, but he'll warn-off a 'borderline-aggressive' mutt by approaching it with something very much like a Spanish Walk before actually striking down onto it as a serious attack. It seems to be a kind of 'I'll strike you down in a minute if you don't back off' move. That's probably original research, though, but your thoughts on it not being entirely artificially-trained? (ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC))

Don't we call that "striking?"  ;-) The point is that the exhibition version isn't really any kind of natural gait, unlike, say, the piaffe and particularly the passage, which you do sometimes see with high-spirited horses that are in a playful mood! Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's really a 'threaten-to-strike-you' move - literally walking towards the pestersome mutt, and half-striking with each foreleg in turn. Very, very like a Spanish Walk - maybe it's the move that inspired someone to go teach it to their horse(s)? By the way, he does some powerful piaffe and passage-type stuff all off his own bat, too! Can't wait to have more time to bring him on under saddle!(ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC))

I once owned a horse who could perform a lovely passage while chasing the neighbor's Basset Hound out of the pasture! She'd trot with her nose two inches from the dog, who ran as fast as its stubby little legs could go. Her ears were up, she was having a grand time, the dog was terrified, (not realizing she was being "escorted off the property") we all laughed so hard watching that we almost lost bladder control! Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Review

Hi Dana. I realise you are probably very busy since we elected you to the dizzy height of admin, and that your work may have shifted focus, but I'm wondering if you would be interested in doing another GA review for the Wikiproject Worcestershire. You did a wonderful, but mercilessly strict review on Malvern, Worcestershire, maybe you could take a look at an article we have nominated a long time ago. Short and sweet, but may still have some minor issues, the article is Evesham. Best wishes for 2011, --Kudpung (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dana, thanks for having taken this on. We really appreciate it. I'll just point out that there was more to that 'dismissive', but nevertheless polite comment, than meets the eye. I and other editors and admins have, or have had issues elsewhere that may not be resolved. Best regards, --Kudpung (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

FAR concerns

Dana, have you been looking at the Featured Article review page lately? I think that some of them missed the talk page step. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Which ones specifically? Dana boomer (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Exploding whale. I think that's about it. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, Talk:Exploding whale has at least two sections stretching back to July 2009 questioning the FA status of this article. None of the comments got any response in the form of article improvement. Since pre-FAR notifications are aimed toward finding out if there are any editors willing to work on the article, I would say that the requirement has been fufilled by these previous posts, even if they are not by the same editor. The new requirements are not about adding increasing amounts of bureaucracy to the process, they are about trying to improve articles without the need for FAR. I hope this answers your question? Dana boomer (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, because of this, I could start an FAR without making another notification on the talk page. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As long as those issues have not been addressed, then yes, go ahead. Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

O.k. There's a review that didn't do step one. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Devil May Cry 2/archive1 GamerPro64 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of this. I have taken the appropriate steps. Dana boomer (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

King Vulture

It's listed here, I'll see what I can do, but I'm very busy in RL at present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and comment at the FAR. It's been posted several times (once when it was nominated, once by Cas and once by me) on the WP Birds page, but those postings haven't garnered any response. I was hoping that a personal appeal would get more of one, apparently that was a successful hope! Dana boomer (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Salsa music

Hey Dana can you close Salsa music now? The editor said that he was making a general statment and will not work on the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana FAR

Hi Dana, I have a rough start to the Legacy section on a user page and I hope to have it finished in a week. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You can view my progress here. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for keeping me updated! Dana boomer (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm done adding the missing pieces to the article now. Will be tweaking here and there a bit for a while, but the main work is complete now. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Sir Richardson and Jappalang have struck their own objections now, so that addresses all concerns listed in the FAR. Sorry the process took so long; I typically wind up FARs faster than that. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dana boomer. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Economy of India/archive2.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Japan FAR

Hey Dana, could you take another look at Japan and see if all the issues you raised in the FAR have been addressed to your satisfaction, and what remains to be done? Also, I've pinged Cirt about the Clarke FAR. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nikki - Thanks for taking the initiative in contacting Cirt. I will get to Japan as soon as I can, need to finish with Economy of India first... Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a few more comments to the Japan FAR. It looks better, but still needs some polishing. Dana boomer (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Argh. A lot of those extra images, including the gallery, were gone, but seem to have reappeared. Working on it now. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WT:MHCOORD

"Foot of snow"? Dana, I know you're American, so where do you live? There's only so many places in the US that get feet of snow at a time, and I'm in one of them. :-) (if you'd rather not answer, no worries) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail. Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Finnhorse in Peer Review

Hi, I'd be glad if you could help me out with the monster that is the Finnhorse -- it's now having a Peer Review, and any help at all will be appreciated. Pitke (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Question

What's that page that lists FAs that have maintenance tags on them? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Here if you want a complete list sortable by tag, number of tags, date of tags, etc. Here for a list by category. Dana boomer (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Evesham/GA1

Hi Dana. We seem to have addressed all of the points on the GA check list template - at any rate a lot of of work has been done with recasting, expansion, and sourcing. Could you please pop by and let us know what you think? Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

PTSD merge

Hi Dana, merged Lead change into Lead (leg). We now have a TON of fixing links to do. Maybe we should enlist WooHooKitty? Anyway, perhaps if we all could sort of plug away at the pile, not a crisis, but more links to titles like flying change than to the main article at this point. Just FYI. Also, in time, may need to verify all the links related to the sections on the "rotatory" gallop (aka cross-firing or disunited canter), as that was the area where the big disagreement hit in the article with much OR from that other editor. (And why I had to link to about 16 sections of the USEF rule book to "prove" that cross-firing is undesired) Also not a crisis, however. Montanabw^(talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

GA American Livestock Breeds Conservancy

I have placed the review on hold. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say nice job on an important article. :-) Steven Walling 22:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm tossing around the idea of a FAC run with it, so if you stumble across any independent sources I've missed, or see any holes in the coverage, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review for 1907 bombing

Are you sure that you fixed the issue because it is still there. Remember (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jutland (horse)

I've just finished the GA review and left a few minor things that could probably do with a looksee. I was tempted to just slap the little green sticker on it, but I thought you'd appreciate it more if I gave you a little bit of work to do. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I think I've taken care of everything on the review page. And maybe I'm crazy, but it always seems like more of an accomplishment if I have to actually work for the little green whatever-it-is. When a reviewer just passes the article without any comments it seems...anticlimactic. Dana boomer (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My own rather jaundiced view is that if a reviewer can't find anything to comment on then he or she hasn't done their job right, or hasn't read the article. I find it quite easy to find things to complain about, but that's probably just me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think some sort of record was set here! Montanabw^(talk) 23:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A good one I hope. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Um hum...(nodding). Speed, few problems, Dana has this mastered! These obscure breed articles are in excellent hands! (The more complex ones with existing sources are, however, a huge time-consuming pain in the butt. I'm dreading the day that we must tackle, say, Mustang... =:-O ) Montanabw^(talk) 19:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I keep agonising over articles I review, especially when they're as good as this one, and I'm a little troubled by this: "More horses from Jutland were imported to England". Are Jutlands from Jutland? The lead just says that they're from Denmark. And now I look at it again, it should obviously be "exported to England". What a bozo I am! Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Changed the imported/exported bit. Denmark makes up part of the Jutland Peninsula (some of the southern portion now belongs to Germany), but in the Middle Ages, which is what this sentence is describing, there were no borders of Denmark and Germany as we know them today. I could say something like "More horses from what is now Denmark were exported to England", if that would work better? Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Dear Dana boomer, You had reviewed the Good Article Nomination of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India some 9 months back. You have failed the article then and provided lots of valuable suggestions. Now the same article has improved a lot in substance and content. I am proposing to renominate the same article for Good Article Assessment now. But before I officially do that, I request you to review it and intimate me whether the article now possesses qualities of a Good Article. I am waiting for your reply at the earliest. R.Sivanesh ✆ 19:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Something you ought to see

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jutland (horse)/1 is something you ought to see, since the filer wasn't kind enough to leave you a note. Courcelles 12:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The king of micro-stubs is complaining that the article is too short! *Sigh*. Malleus Fatuorum 13:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries Dana I've tripled the number of sources and withdrawn the reassessement. I was concerned with the fact it only used 6 sources and was only 7.5kb. You use google books right? Naturally Malleus cannot take criticism of his reviewing which seems to pay no regard to sourcing..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I though you were criticising the article on the grounds of it not being comprehensive, but clearly it was just a personal thing, and you were really criticising me. Sad really. Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because I have time to waste stalking you Malleus and my sole purpose on wikipedia is to point out your errors. Get a grip!!! The article now has 17 references and is more comprehensive than when I opened up the reassessment.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one day you might like to invest a few of your oh so precious moments in actually reading the GA criteria, which do not even once mention the word "comprehensive". Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

According to current GA criteria then a "good article" could pass GA with a mere 2 references? Do you not think that a good article should be reasonably well researched, and contain a reasonable number of different sources? Of course for some very obscure/narrow topics it might not be possible to research over 10 sources but in the case of the nice Jutland horse it was possible... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to look at what information is, rather than mechanically count the number of references that a given article has. I can't see that any of the information that you added was information that would have failed the article on a "broad in its coverage" criteria. Yeah, for FAC, it would have perhaps been an issue, but most of the stuff you added to the article was information that is nice to have (such as on the history) but not anything that is "needed" for GA status. "broad" and "covers most major aspects" is not the same as "comprehensive", which is what most folks have been trying to get across to you in this whole episode. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys for jumping in on this and doing some cleanup. I'm currently going through and re-checking everything. I'm removing a few references that were added for no other reason than bulking up the number (the information was already in there and referenced, and new sources were tacked on after), and a few more copyedits. Dr. Blofield, although you did add some good information, the number of references doesn't matter - the criteria, as Ealdgyth said, is "broadness", not comprehensiveness or using every single ref that ever mentioned the topic. Malleus, thank you again for the (as always) wonderful review; Ealdgyth, thanks for helping with the cleanup; and Courcelles, thanks for the notification. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And Dr. Blofield, could you have please checked your sources more carefully? I just removed three that were talking about Jutland CATTLE, not horses, which I figured out within a few seconds. I welcome collaboration on articles that I work on, but adding sources just for the sake of adding sources and adding sources talking about the wrong topic is really not helpful. Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks Ealdgyth. I agree that the article doesn't need to be perfect and that advanced but it should surely be sound with plentiful sources. 6 sources really is very low and a 7.5 kb article is very short... The article is actually a lot better and resourceful than it originally appeared but I believe my edits have improved it, even if I picked up a few horses in Jutland rather than Jutland horse and probably needed minor copyedits. As for resourcefulness, Clint Eastwood is currently undergoing GA and has been put off passing for weeks because the reviewer thought it had to be more comprehensive and kept asking for it to be improved. There just seems to be an extreme difference in what GA reviewers expect for a good article does there not? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You just don't seem to be getting it. The number of citations is absolutely and utterly irrelevant. The overall size of the article is absolutely and utterly irrelevant. How much plainer can it be said? Of the information you added (ignoring the material you added about Jutland cattle because you didn't bother to check it properly) what in your opinion was sufficiently important to have failed this article's GAN according to the GA criteria? Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What amazes me is the notion that a GA is too short! Mine usually were criticized for being too LONG! Is this "derail all efforts and discourage everyone who does real work on wikipedia" week or something? Sheesh! Bulk for the sake of bulk is silly. This was a lovely little article. Montanabw^(talk) 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No different from any other week as far as I'm concerned. Wikipedia seems to have been deliberately engineered to be the most demotivating of environments. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes at times it can be a downer. I feel the same way at times, especially when people view my work as a content developer in a derogatory fashion and haven't an ounce of positivity towards the good work I do and me as a person. I want to make it very clear though that the last thing I want to do is to deter Dana or anybody else from improving the quality of articles and being rewarded for it with GAs. I don't expect a friendly response from you Malleus but you really have my intentions on wikipedia, and me as a person wrong. I generally praise fellow editors who improve content and stay away from bickering at ANI and elsewhere.... Ultimately we are here for the same thing and often a desire to see the best possible articles can lead to conflict and upset.... I have never taken an article to GA review before because I generally always support article promotions, even the vast majority of yours Malleus looking at your GA article bank. In all honesty Malleus's name and who he was really didn't ring a bell until he responded here initially and I took offence... In this circumstance it would have been better to address my concerns to Dana the article writer. OK so GA articles don't have to be comprehensive, have many sources or be over 10kb it seems but that doesn't stop me personally from believing content can be improved, or wanting to better the scope of wikipedia... Seeing the Jutland article for the first time, seeing it had two sections only and six sources had me wondering. I thought, maybe wrongly, that there would be sections of things like horse breeding, horse anatomy and breed variations, behavior, agricultural use, stage shows etc. It seems though that a summary of these within a few sentences is the norm with horse articles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Dana, I did a google search of the horse in Danish. I found a website seemingly dedicated to it! Hopefully this Danish editor can help!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the breed association. It's already referenced in the article and linked as an external link. Dana boomer (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's put this behind us Dr. Blofeld and move on. I've had articles I've reviewed taken to GAR before, but usually because I've failed them rather than passed them. In fact I think this might be the first time anyone has taken an article I passed to GAR. But in no case was the decision reversed, so although I may not be the best reviewer on the project I'm happy that I'm not the D-grade reviewer you believe me to be. Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we both have our qualities and our flaws. We are human after all. I've seen some very good reviews from you actually Malleus and some not so good ones. But its the same with me, I have produced very good articles and a lot of poor articles. But that's not because I don't care about the project or quality. I've always tried to meet our goals to "built an encyclopedia of the highest quality" and "the sum of all human knowledge" which has meant that the quality of my contributions has often differed dramatically as we only have a limited amount of time to get done what we want. Unfortunately in trying to get some mention of the thousands of topics I've started on wikipedia to work towards "the sum" this has affected article quality, often embarrasingly so but I can't accompliosh what I want to in the time I have, that's the problem... I would rather if every sub stub I'd created was created as a full length article first time of course... I think it comes down to viewpoint and whether you view wikipedia as an ongoing development which will be around for hundreds of years or an encyclopedia which should be slowly written an article at a time more fully... At times I share either one of these outlooks which is reflective in my writing and the time I spend on each article.... What upset me Malleus was that even before we'd really met and conversed you seemed to despise me and viewed me as a "bad egg". Maybe its because of my many stubs or I've done something in the past to hack you off in a public forum because of my view on something or other I don't know but I can assure that we are both here to improve wikipedia together... I think it is a good thing that you review so many articles and seem to genuinely want to improve our percentage of good articles. As you say, something motivates us to edit in what at times can be an exasperating and belligerent environment, its the love of knowledge and resourcefulness I think.. Anyway lets put this behind us as you say and in future should our paths cross I will try to show greater respect for each others work/efforts and hope that you would do the same... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

When have you seen a "not so good review" from me? Ah, forget it, we're clearly not going to agree, as we didn't yesterday, and no doubt still won't tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh we do agree.. But nobody is perfect of course...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be agreeing with what you think I said, but I'm not agreeing with you. Sure, nobody is perfect, but there are degrees of imperfection. You have yet to admit that you were wrong in your interpretation of the GA criteria, no if, no buts. Length and/or number of citations is immaterial. You were wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK guys, now everyone hold hands, we'll all sing Kum Ba Ya and now that the topic is more general than Dana's article, perhaps we need to all go hoist a Guinness somewhere and take this off Dana's talk page? Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Portal

Dana, I'd like to update the portal with new WPEQ GA and FA articles, but Im not sure how many are out there because quite a pile came in at once. Can you peek at the portal and tell me which ones; of yours need to be added? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that American Cream Draft and Jutland (horse) are the only two breed ones that are missing. Plus, do we want to add American Livestock Breeds Conservancy to the general spot? It's not exactly about horses, but is tangentially related. On that subject, I'm toying with taking ALBC to FAC at some point. If you stumble across any third-party sources that I've missed, would you please let me know? There are still a few spots that feel rather thin, but I'm running out of places to look... Dana boomer (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe surf Sponenberg's bio at the University web site (or elsewhere) for any peer-reviewed publications on the topic that might be listed in his curriculum vitae: [1] He's heavily involved with the group, so maybe a search on ALBC and Sponenberg would be fruitful? Montanabw^(talk) 00:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 1, 28 January 2011 This is the first issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program newsletter. Please read it! It has important information about the the current wave of classes, instructions and advice, and other news about the ambassador program. Classes get active, students requesting mentors First mentor responsibilities Other news Things you can do

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

The Remigius stuff is perfect and came through well. Now to find the time to deal with it. Today was ... strip all the stalls, fill them again, clean barn, etc. We're getting a huge winter storm, and needed to get that done before we hit blizzard conditions. Thanks again! (I gussied up Mechanical hackamore as partial payment the other day...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We just went from 50 above to 20 below here over the last couple of days. I didn't get the shelter cleaned out before it froze again! Not a lot of snow here, but it will be picking up a lot of moisture over then next 1000 miles, I hear! Brace for impact!  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A 70-degree drop in two days? Where the Hell do you live, Mars? Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Montana .. that's Montanabw that put that above comment. I've added the unsigned. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Proof (LOL): January 28 and last night - official, but it was 18 below at my house. So, OK, I rounded the low, but there was also a wind chill on top of it! And lest youthink I exaggerate, here's the forecast! But that's nothing. When a chinook wind is over, it's OVER. See Loma, Montana! Montanabw^(talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It was the drop from 50 above I didn't believe, and still don't. Maybe 5 above? Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you apparently need to spend some time in the northern midwestern US :) I've seen 30 degree drops in 4 hours, and close to 70 in two days, and I live near a big lake that regulates temperature better than they do in Montana. Dana boomer (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been to hot places in the world, and I know what 40 °C feels like, never mind 50 °C. I've got no problem with 20 below, it even gets down to that here sometimes, but I'm not swallowing 50 above in January. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah! I was discussing degrees fahrenheit! In Celsius, we had a high of 10 C ( =50 F) and a drop to -28.8 C as of last night (when our thermometer DID say 20 below, though the official low in town was a bit higher. Yeah, 50 C = 122 F, which is a bit toastier than even Montana in August most of the time! (though I do remember one summer in eastern Montana where it got scary close to 120 F.) What's weird is that while 20 and 30 below are different in C and F degrees, -40 C = -40 F. What's up with that? What we have out here is a continental climate and though wiki doesn't agree, we also have a Cold Semi-arid climate. We like to compare ourselves to Siberia, except we're tougher! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That would explain it; I automatically assumed Celsius, should have known better. We're still quite ambivalent about metric vs imperial units here in the UK. We talk about miles per gallon, but we can only buy fuel in litres, and our road signs all show miles. The Fahrenheit scale has pretty been dumped though, Celsius is so much more logical. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Dana,

I am doing a project for my Technical Editing class and was looking through mentors. I saw your horse picture and it caught my eye. I love horses and would like to have a mentor with similar interests. My project is on public policy and was hoping you would be willing to mentor me. Thank you so much!FeleciaQ (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My topic is Urban politics in the United States It is just a stub right now and there seems to be only one source on the page now.FeleciaQ (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Urban politics in the United States? (Just making sure I have the right link!). If so, it's a nice little article to start on. Even though there's only one source, it's a reliable souce, with all of the information needed - it even has page numbers! There are so many articles I come across that only have part of the information for the source - sometimes just a book title and author last name, or a deadlinked bare url for a webref - that I have come to really appreciate it when people give all of the information for a reference. I've watchlisted the page, so if you have questions specifically about the article you can ask them on its talk page and I will answer there. The wikify tag can be removed after adding some more relevant links to the text of the article, while the orphan tag can be removed after getting the article linked in at least three other articles. I'll see what I can do about the latter in a bit. This isn't a subject that I'm familiar with, so I doubt I'll be much help with finding sources and the like, but I can hopefully still be of help with questions on formatting, reliable sourcing, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Equine Color Genetics (Roan)

Hi Dana,

I'm a rank tyro at Wikipedia, so I do make mistakes (often, lol!)

I noticed you removed my content on the Roan (horse) page, and my little bit on the Equine Coat Color Genetics page also got removed. (I forgot to log in, which probably didn't help matters.)

I've been having some discussion with Banaticus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Banaticus#Equine_coat_color_genetics) on this one, as I do have some concerns about what I can best describe as false optimism on the lethal roan question. Could you possibly go to Banaticus' talk page and take a look?

Is there, in your opinion, anything Wiki-acceptable which could be done to advise caution here? Sorry to be a pain. (PippaRivers (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

Replied on Pippa's page. Dana boomer (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I weighed in there as well. Montanabw^(talk) 21:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fank yew! Both / all. Much appreciated. (PippaRivers (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Mentor 2

Hi, I am a junior at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. I am majoring in Media Arts and Design and Writing, Rhetoric and Technical Communication. This semester, I am in a Professional and Technical Editing class. We are working on the WikiProject United States Public Policy. I have yet to select that topic that I will be writing about, however I wanted to know if you would be willing to answer any questions that I may have. Will you be my mentor?

DsgnWrte (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Italian Heavy Draft GA nomination

[Insert lame joke about "hold your horses" here.] I've left some thoughts at the usual place for your reply in due course. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hooray for trains with free wireless access. All is fine and a GA pass it is. Yours, Bencherlite^Talk 20:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Quebec Expedition/GA1

Hi, I note you are experienced in both military articles and the GA/FA process. Is there any chance you could stop by Talk:Quebec Expedition/GA1 and express an opinion on the embedded list that appears in that article? My concern is that it appears to represent a level of detail disproportionate to the rest of the article, and that it's not analogous to naval battle articles where fleets are listed because here the fleet never saw battle. I would appreciate a second opinion from someone experienced in working with high quality military articles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the GA review page. Dana boomer (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

U.S. State Horses

Hi there,

Noticed on your user page that you're looking at getting the U.S. State Horses article up to FL. Well, let me know when you're doing it and I'll put together one of those maps like on U.S. State Dogs if you want it (I also did U.S. State Reptiles at the editors request, although that one is in a rather reptilian green!).

Regards, Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be awesome! I'm horrible at making maps, so it would be really helpful. When I get started on the list I'll let you know... Dana boomer (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Dana boomer. You have new messages at Talk:Evesham/GA1.
Message added 18:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you help me as mentor for Wiki project?

Hi, Dana boomer. We're working on Wiki project this semester. Could you please serve me as my mentor? Thank you very much in advance!Rocky.liu (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can serve as your mentor. Please let me know when you have chosen a subject, and in the meantime my talk page is always open if you have questions! Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just checked my e-mail and saw that one of your compatriots has already e-mailed me with your choice of subject. That sounds like a fascinating topic, and one that I will be glad to help on. I will watchlist the page, chip in on discussions/make suggestions when I see the opportunity, and answer any questions that you all may have. Dana boomer (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dole Gudbrandsdal

GA on hold, just a few points arising. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I go for the low-hanging fruit at GAN, clearly! Another green dot for your user page. Bencherlite^Talk 01:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: US state horse map

No worries, I'll get a map drawn up later.

Certainly when I did State Dogs, I went into google news and searched the archives for "official state dog" which brought up a whole bunch of articles from which I constructed the prose section at the top of the list. Miyagawa (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well one of the comments made on State Dogs was that the prose was actually a little long - so as long as it's cited, you may well have enough already for a FL nom. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Added template for SuggestBot

Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users!

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 1, 28 January 2011 This is the second issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Userboxes and profiles - Add an ambassador userbox to your page, and make sure you've added your mentor profile! Be a coordinating ambassador - Pick and class and make sure no students fall through the cracks. New screencasts - Short videos on watchlists and a number of other topics may be useful to students. Updates from Campus Ambassadors - Ambassadors are starting to report on classroom experiences, both on-wiki and on the Google Group. Other news - There's a new on-wiki application for being an Online Ambassador, and Editing Friday #2 is today! Things you can do - This is just a sample; if you're eager for something to do, there's plenty more.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Portal

Finally updated the portal! Check Portal:Horses/Selected article and Portal:Horses/Selected breed to make sure I added all your new ones! Montanabw^(talk) 05:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

about my talk page

Hi, Dana. In my project assignment there is one item about add the code to the top of your article's talk page. Could you help me to translate that? and how to do that? What is code? article's talk page or my talk page? I'm confusing. Rocky.liu (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure. I'm assuming it's supposed to be a code that you add to the top of the article's talk page that says the article is being worked on as part of the class. However, I can't find anything about the markup on the class page. I've posted a question on the class page, so hopefully we will get an answer soon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We've received an answer on the course talk page, and I've added the code to the top of your article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

marking mentees' userpages

Hey Dana! This is just a quick reminder: please be sure to add {{WAP student}} (for an example, see User:Sfofana) the user pages of your mentees. Cheers--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Evesham

Hi Dana, I have replied to your comment on the GA review. Unfortunately, there now appears to be an inaccurate slant on the reason for the delay. I've left a more detailed account here and I hope you'll appreciate the GF that is intended. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks as if our messages crossed in the post! Not to worry - I'll probably do the work and relist it when I get back to civilisation. --Kudpung (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Refs in lists

Hi again. To nunderstand this problem, you'll firt have to see the recent general message I posted at Talk:Malvern, Worcestershire, an article you GA reviewed for us a year or so ago. However, one user appears to be of the opinion that it might have been a mistake to pass this article. Good Article criteria states:

1. Factually accurate and verifiable:

• (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
• (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
• (c) it contains no original research.

I do not however see a mention in the policy that "The community generally wants all statements about living people, except for those that are both blindingly obvious and wholly benign, to be followed by an inline citation."

The items in question would have their notability already asserted in their own Wikipedia pages - or is this not a correct assumption? How can we resolve this, and how can we adapt our future preparation of, and reviewing of GAC, if in fact it is necessary? Kudpung (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP itself says that: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (Bolding in the original). Because of this, I see nothing wrong with the article retaining GA status with the level of referencing currently in the Notable people section - none of it as far as I can tell is contentious, challenged or likely to be challenged. "Blindingly obvious" and "wholly benign" go a bit above and beyond the actual policy, IMO. The three places with citation needed tags are probably fine for a GA, but would need to be sourced for FAC, and so could probably use sourcing anyway. And besides this, none of the tags relate to living people. You also may have trouble with the whole section when/if you go to FAC - they tend to be a bit less forgiving of lists and some reviewers may see it as trivia. I can see the points on both sides of this last argument, and am not telling you it has to be changed or people will laugh you out of the building, but just pointing out something to think about. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I understand BLP policy only too well - I helped craft some of it. That's why I was surprised at this adamant 'bindingly obvious' comment made here with the aspertion that the GA may have been incorrectly awarded. There is also an admin who seems to support those strange policy claims too. I don't think there is any danger of me (or you for that matter) being larfed out of the building  ;) --Kudpung (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you. I've been thinking of improving the Cape Mountain Zebra article but for now I'm gonna focus on certain mammals from other groups. LittleJerry (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 2 FAR

I think the FAR may need to be relisted, as there hasn't been any work done on the article for over a month now.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me - I had honestly forgotten about the review. I've reopened it now. Dana boomer (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Public Policy Project

Hi Dana,

I recently selected my topic for the Wikipedia Public Policy Project. It is the 1984 Cable Franchise and Communications Act. I believe that the title should be changed to Cable Communications Act of 1984, which is the proper name of the act according to the legal documents. I am not sure how to go about doing this or if it should be done at all. Please let me know what you think. Also, if you could take a look at my progress and provide me with any necessary feedback. I am slowly starting to write the articles from scratch. I am a bit confused about citing the sources. Should they be inline or on a separate page? Is there a way to cite that I am using the document as a reference instead of footnoting it constantly. Hope to hear from you sometime soon!

DsgnWrte (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi DsgnWrte - Sorry for the slow response. I am currently on vacation and will be home on Saturday. I took a quick look at the article and it looks like you're basically doing a good job. To quickly answer a couple of your questions - references should be inline, not on a seperate page. Sources that you're citing should be footnoted inline, although if you're using multiple pages from one reference (say a book or a long journal article) in different areas you can use a short format inline and give the full reference information in a seperate section. See Cleveland Bay for an example of the short/long formatting that I'm talking about - completely different subject, but same general idea. I'll have to take a look at the move history to answer your question on the move, and will do that when I get home. I hope this helps, and again, sorry for the delay - I hope it hasn't impeded your progress in class. More later, Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dana, thank you for the response. It is extremely helpful and answers some of my prominent questions. It took me quite sometime to realize that you responded, because I was expecting a notification to appear on my user page for some reason. I see what you are saying about not have citations in the introduction. Right now, I plan to add more content to other sections and return to the introduction later on. I will also work on fixing the citations by using the {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help) as you suggested. I took a look at the Cleveland Bay article for an example of the short/long formatting. It's a bit daunting to look at the vast amount of text and citations. Therefore, I want to clarify my understating with you. The first time the scholarly article is mentioned, it should include a full inline citations within the reference tag. Every other time, it should include just the reference name within the reference tag. The computer will automatically understand that it is another entry of the same kind and give it a letter (ex. a, b, and c). Is this correct?

Thanks again. I will let you know when I have additional questions. Feel free to provide any feedback when checking up on the article. DsgnWrte (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to give you a heads up that I went ahead and renamed the article. It is now under Cable Communications Act of 1984, which is the legislative document's legal title. I also marked the old article title and page for deletion, because it isn't very common and received minimal traffic. Every thing appears to be in working order, and it was much easier than expected with your help! Thanks. DsgnWrte (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Helferich Clarke

Hi Dana, I think you did the right thing to move it to FAC. I felt I could analyze the validity of the sources, but personally don't have enough experience of FAC reviewing to make a definitive judgement one way or another as whether it would pass by today's criteria. Apologies for not making that clear at the FAR. One problem is that the Rebecca Clarke Reader is now available in full-view at Google Books, and there are several scholarly articles in it (not just by Curtis) which probably should be used in the article, if it's to be an exhaustive treatment. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Cryptography

Thanks for re-opening the FAR on Cryptography...most admins would forget=P.Smallman12q (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It took me a while (the talk page notification normally only delays the review for a week or two), but I eventually remembered :) Dana boomer (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador Program

Please take a look at this project page and see if you can be a mentor to one of the many Areas of Study. If you can, please put your name in the "Online Mentor" area of the Area of Study of your choice and then contact the students you will be working with. As the Coordinating Online Ambassador for this project, please let me know if I can be of assistance. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Map

I've created the map for you for the Horse article. Sorry it took so long, I'd completely forgotten! Regards, Miyagawa (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the correction in Shannon talk. I often seem to get lost in these matters!Cgoodwin (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order

In December 2010, at Talk:Free_will#Work_needed you wrote "Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order"; as far as I can tell, there's been no progress on the issue, though other substantive issues have been discussed. As an IP, I'm not well situated to lead such a review or even assess if its time, but perhaps you could take another look. See Talk:Free_will#Cleanup needed due to excess information (since September 2010) for additional comments from me. Thanks. 67.101.7.21 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I will check back in on the article shortly, and if it looks like it still needs a FAR, then I will put it up for review. It looks like some editors are interested in working on the article, though, so that may not be needed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

TB TFA

Wonder why NONE of us were alerted that TB was going to go on the main page, most lead editors usually are notified, correct? That one toolserver gadget shows the lead editors are clearly Ealdgyth, you, me and CG. I'm mildly frustrated that we weren't alerted. Thoughts on why that happened? Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares? Nobody owns an article? The general lack of respect given to article writers? All of the above? Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I can explain it - Cas Liber requested the article go on the main page [2] (in the non-specific date category - e.g, any date would be fine). Shortly thereafter, I scheduled it for the next available slot [3], which was 36 hours later. user:Tbhotch manually notifies contributors when their articles go on the main page, but he was away March 9. Raul654 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That kind of courtesy ought not to depend on the availability of a single editor. Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm over it, but given that we had a heads up about some problematic statements in the lead and such, it sure would have been nice to have had the heads up. Oh well, at least it got there! Montanabw^(talk) 04:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ALBC

Hey, I think there's a few things about their work with some specific breeds that may be missing, so if we're going for FA-level comprehensiveness then I'll try to poke around and see what I can find. Otherwise it's looking great, so let me know if/when you take it FAC and I'll be happy to chime in! Steven Walling 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can find more info on work with specific breeds, that would be great - especially rabbits!! I've done quite a bit of digging, and what I found is in the article. One thing to keep in mind is that we're really supposed to keep citations to the organization itself to a minimum - I've been using 30% as a general landmark, although this is just my personal feeling. The more references we can get to outside organizations, especially for their specific breed work, the better. I plan to put it up for PR in the next few days, but it'll probably be at least a couple of weeks before it goes to FAC. Thanks in advance for anything you can find, Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole minimum of self-referenced material issue is limiting when it comes to talking about their specific conservation work, but thanks for the reminder. Steven Walling 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I added cites to two other good breeds books I own, as well as a few other edits. If you need any breed-specific info, let me know I might be able to help with those couple sources. Steven Walling 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to be a lot of help here, but if you are hunting for outside sources, I DO happen to have the entire collection of The Mother Earth News on CD-ROM, dating back to the first issue, so if you need something specific that's indexed online but not available in full text, I may have it. (Or to be precise, my spouse has the CD-ROMs, if we want to get technical...) I know "Mother" does a lot of articles on conservation agriculture in general and some articles on cool rare breeds. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Steven, thank you very much for the additional sources. Basically, any of the currently ALBC-cited information that can be moved to other sources would be fantastic, as would any information about breed-saving-programs that is not already in the article. Montana, all of the articles in MEN that I've found regarding the ALBC I've been able to access the full-text version of. However, there may have been some I missed. I can't seem to find a complete online index - does your CD have one? If so, and if there's anything I've missed (see the article, there's already a few cites from MEN there), I'd be very happy to see it. Thanks to both of you, Dana boomer (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what sort of indexing it has. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on

Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:

1. Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
2. If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
3. Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Map request

Added a new map here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_Horse_States_with_Pending.svg which has the pending states added in yellow - that way you've still got the old version if you need it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Dana boomer (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage notification did its job, now what?

Hi Dana Boomer, after some work on Association football following some talkpage discussion, the nominator (User:Hawkeye7) seems content with it. What happens to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Association football/archive1 now? Thanks, Woody (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted it as unnecessary. Thanks for letting me know, and for your work on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for dealing with it. Woody (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy Appies?

Hi Dana, now that Ealdgyth is back, shall we take Appaloosa to FA? (I'm also asking her) Montanabw^(talk) 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Replied on Ealdgyth's page, to keep everything together. Dana boomer (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

List of U.S. state horses PR

I think it looks much better - thanks. Please let me know when it is at FLC, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dana, an extremely minor thing, but if you can find a photo of a TB for the list that isn't one of the ones from the Japanese racetrack, that would be maybe a good idea (I can just see some smartass drive-by reviewer asking if they speak Japanese in Kentucky...) I know that all the good photos are those ones, but I know there is a photo of racing horses at Monmouth Park that was an old lead image for TB waaaay back that at least was taken in the USA. Just a thought, and I'm saying i here, not there, because Ruhrfisch isn't going to tell on us (right??) Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Caspian Horse

Hi Dana Thank you for your message. I would like some help if possible to get the editing correct on the Caspian Horse Page as I am unsure of the format, plus have added it as the Caspian Horse Society have asked me. So if you could help me correct this that would be super.

I also have some photos (all of which have the Wikepidia copyright template correctly filled in from the suppliers) but am unsure of how to upload and add the correct code for this.

I have also struggled to reply to your message so hope this is correct and I havent got too much wrong!!

Bathleyhills — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathleyhills (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 3, 21 March 2011 This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail. Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with {{WAP assignment}} on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active. Education portal in progress - Wikimedia staff have started work on an outreach portal for information about teaching with and about Wikipedia. Please help develop it! Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.) Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee. Editing Friday returns - This Friday, join fellow ambassadors and others real-time collaboration on Wainwright Building.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

GA nomination of Kathiawari.

Greetings, Dana boomer! Just letting you know that I'll be reviewing your GA nomination. Please remember to check up here in case I notice anything which needs addressing. Thanks! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Wilhelmina. I have the review page watchlisted and will keep an eye out there for comments. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Horses in World War I

Returned to re-read Horses in World War I and was pleased to see it ended up featured. In case you haven't been following it, I wanted to let you know that things have moved on quite a bit as regards the statement that the 'War Horse' book "may be adapted into a screenplay". Indeed, we now have an article on the film: War Horse (film). I should note it on the talk page, but thought I'd drop you a note first (I know I could add it myself), but I'm in a bit of a rush. Maybe you could get the article on the front page when the film comes out? Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've updated the article, but please feel free to tweak as necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Caroline of Ansbach GAN

I believe all your concerns have been dealt with. Please take a look (hopefully we can get this wrapped up before the GA drive ends!) Thanks for your help :) Ruby2010 talk 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Nomination of History of the horse in Britain

Montanabw suggested I ask you to look at History of the horse in Britain if nobody else picked up on it; any chance you could find time for it? Many thanks :o) Pesky (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pesky! I don't usually review horse articles, because of the possible COI, since it's an area that I work in often with editors that I collaborate with fairly regularly. There's also the issue that GAN is a good way to get outside opinions from non-horsey people, which is a thing that we often have problems with (they tend to spot jargon and technical language way better than we do!). However, there is a group of very good science and history editors out there that often pick up the horse articles. The article has only been up for a week, which is a fairly short waiting period at GAN (unfortunately, there's a fairly constant backlog there). If it's still there in another week with no sign of review, ping me again and I'll drop notes to a few people. Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :o) Pesky (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jan-Mar 2011

<moved to barnstars page>

Sunda slow loris GAN

Thanks for the review of the Sunda slow loris article, if you have time could you check if there are any outstanding issues with it? Much appreciated, Jack (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have responded there. Dana boomer (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Make sure that you are checking in on your students work for WP:USPP/C/11/PTE

Hey, just a happy reminder to make sure that you are regularly checking in on your mentees work for JMU'S Technical editing class, Sadads (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

RE:Possible FARs

Hey Dana. Thanks for asking me. I will do a FAR on TB later tonight. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

• 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
• 423 GA nominations passed.
• 72 GA nominations failed.
• 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Endangered breeds

Hi Dana, JLAN found this, it appears to be a cool source for international endangered breeds status, may be helpful to you! ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/x8750e/x8750e02.pdf Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your atheism comment

My response to your talk page comment is at the atheism talk page. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

March 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive award

<moved to barnstars page>

Since you asked

It was this edit. The real question is why the tags remained in place. There's supposed to be another bot IIRC which double checks the dead DOIs to deal with the "server temporarily down" issue. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. How annoying for those of us who aren't bots. Oh well, thanks anyways for answering my question. Dana boomer (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Far delegate appointment

See this. Raul654 (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sunda slow loris

Sorry for the delays, but I believe the Sunda slow loris GA is ready to resume. Let me know if anything else is missing. As I said on the GAN discussion page, discussing each synonym would infringe upon WP:OR. I will be watching for your reply there. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 22 April 2011

The newsletter of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – Volume 4, 22 April 2011 This is the fourth issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed. Voting begins for steering committee - The voting phase for the Wikipedia Ambassador Steering Committee election started this week, and will continue through 27 April. Seeking more Regional Ambassadors in the US - We are still looking for Regional Ambassadors for the United States! The deadline has been extended to Friday, April 29th. India pilot being organized now - Plans are currently underway for a pilot expansion of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program – in India! Hisham Mundol and other Wikimedia staff have begun recruiting Campus Ambassador candidates for Pune. Document DYK, peer review and other milestone at the trophy case - If students you are working with (or any others you notice) are doing work that makes to DYK, is nominated for Good Article status, or is just solid content worth marking, then please help us document the students' success at the trophy case. Ambassador program at Wikimania - We're planning a set of Wikipedia Ambassador Program presentations for Wikimania 2011, in Haifa this August. Changes to mailing list - A new low-volume mailing list, [Ambassador-announce-l], is being created. It will be reserved for key announcements and news, which we'd like all ambassadors to be subscribed to.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken DOI

With regards to this DOI, I have reported it to CrossRef. Not only has it been down for a long time, but it is also linked from the PubMed record, so this is bad. JFW | T@lk 16:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. It's actually relatively (and unfortunately) common to have broken DOIs that are linked from PMID records, PDFs of the article, or other "official" sources. Dana boomer (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)