Open main menu

User page Talk page Barnstars DYK Roundup Resources  

Contents

Happy New Year, Dawnleelynn!Edit

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

Davey2010 Happy New Years to you too! I still have almost two hours to go. Thanks for the posting. dawnleelynn(talk) 05:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of J.W. Harris (bull rider)Edit

  Hello! Your submission of J.W. Harris (bull rider) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a sourceEdit

Hi Dawnleelynn . I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for biographical information in User:Dawnleelynn/Christopher O'Shea. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). Articlebio.com is similarly unreliable. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, that link is to a userspace draft. So it's under construction. If you would like to be part of the solution and help find better sources or recommend them, that's great but a userspace draft is still in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH territory. So as these articles are not yet in mainspace, how about providing useful sources instead of just criticizing? Montanabw(talk) 17:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Ronz, This topic relates to my talk page and sandbox. I see no reason for bringing the discussion to montanabw's talk page. Besides, she did give you a suggestion here. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
What is your concern with my comment? --Ronz (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Ronz I thought I made my concerns clear, but once again, they are:
  1. Userspace drafts are people's own idea banks and sandboxes. Unless there is a serious policy violation— such as copy and paste per WP:COPYVIO or a serious BLP violation (an attack page, for example), it is very rude to go nosing into these and making critical comments absent a serious problem. It the article moved to mainspace with these sources, then your comments would be useful and fair game, but prior to that, they have a chilling effect on people's work.
  2. If you cannot help yourself and think you must comment, then don't just complain, help solve the problem while still in workspace; offer a better source, give a tip where the same material might be sourced more reliably, and so on.

So in conclusion, on the surface, your comment's tone was not the problem, it was the time and place if was made—about a userspace draft. WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is a nice guideline for you to review on this. Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me...helpful collaboration is always the best option. It's the glue that binds and keeps us volunteering our time. Apologies, but I can't help much beyond gravesight dates, or possibly birth/death records in newspapapers.com - oh, I also read that we do have dob/dod that we tend to ignore unless someone challenges it. Atsme📞📧 23:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Dawnleelynn, if you agree with any of the others' comments above, let me know and I'll address them here. Do note that BLP applies to draft articles. I didn't touch the draft as a courtesy to you. --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Well deserved recognition for your work organizing the PBR articles. You are doing such a great job, dawnleelynn!! Keep up the good work!! Atsme📞📧 03:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

These little notices in the forms of awards are so special, thank you so much Atsme (talk · contribs)! Your contributions to this project were just as important, though. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


DYK nomination of J.W. Harris (bull rider)Edit

  Hello! Your submission of J.W. Harris (bull rider) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm checking out now, so I'll review your changes tomorrow. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure thing, I just finished but one day won't make any difference. Thanks so much! dawnleelynn(talk) 22:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for J.W. Harris (bull rider)Edit

 On 4 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article J.W. Harris (bull rider), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that four-time Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association World Champion Bull Rider J.W. Harris suffered five concussions in 2008? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/J.W. Harris (bull rider). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, J.W. Harris (bull rider)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Guy AllenEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Guy Allen at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Kosack (talk) 07:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI, the article was passed review yesterday. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Today, it was nominated. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled grantedEdit

Hi Dawnleelynn, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex Shih (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

One you might be interested in....Edit

I recently created Buster Welch...fascinating story, incredible horseman, and one of the original founders of the NCHA and NCHA Futurity. Take a look at it...he wasn't what I'd call a "rodeo star" - he rode broncs to get better at being an all-around horseman. His love was cutting horses and cattle. I'll help guide you...but because I've known Buster for a long time, it's best to get editors involved who don't know him at all, that way you can simply use what the sources say. Let me know. Atsme📞📧 20:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • @Atsme: Hi there, thanks for thinking of me. I've looked at the articles and the skimmed all of the sources' content. Are you just looking to expand the article some more and/or also add some more content about his bronc riding? Are you thinking good article down the road? And obviously, avoid any COI. I've recently done two articles on my own about rodeo performers so I've branched out from doing just bucking bulls, a couple horses, and non-human/animal articles. I really enjoyed it. Let's do it. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking to expand...DYK...GA...possibly FA...it will be an adventure. No need to expand on the rodeo stuff. He's a cutting horse legend. Tom's article in Texas Monthly is embellished with his style of writer lingo so you'll have to skip over all that to find the meat and potatoes, but there are plenty of other RS to gather material. Buster lost his son, Greg, his granddaughter Whitney (hit by a drunk driver), and his wife, Sheila. Should probably have a section on Marriage and family considering the notability of their deaths. Atsme📞📧 21:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've worked my buns off all day on an article Eternal Sun that I've been co-authoring with White Arabian Filly so I can hand it off to her for a bit (long story). We're going to try for GA again. Anyway, the point is now I have some time for Welch. I'll communicate on the article talk page from now on. I only have one other article draft to work on on the side which is very close to finished. We all multi-task I'm sure. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Atsme Oh, I just recalled that I wanted to ask you one thing, because of your rodeo background. The Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame has inducted seven bulls. Five of them have articles now; I have either created them or rewritten existing ones. I wanted all seven to have articles but I have given up trying to find enough sources on the remaining two. I have tried searching the Internet, the library, and the Newspaper Archive. (I got a membership just for rodeo.) The hall of fame bulls are all old school these days. The two remaining are Old Spec/Speck from Harry Vold and Crooked Nose from Beutler Brothers. I looked at Vold's web site but there is not enough information. Same for Beutler, who has different incarnations due to name changes and partner changes, etc. I was able to do Oscar because I found an article in an issue of a magazine on issuu.com. I did Red Rock because everybody loves Lane and Red Rock and there's lot of source. Same for the infamous Bodacious, lots of sites. Skoal Pacific Bell had enough sites for a decent article. Even Tornado, from so long ago, I managed to find a few sites. Well, I do have a few sites for both missing bulls, maybe enough for stubs. If you know of anything offhand, great. But don't spend a lot of time; I know you can't spend a lot of time on it. It's all good, just a quick question and if you have quick thoughts great, if not don't worry about it. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Check Newspapers.com for write-ups on those 2 bulls. I'm far more versed in the cutting horse industry although I still have a few connections in PBR. I found the following articles that may or may not help regarding Crooked nose: Crooked nose, Sports Illustrated on Crooked-nose, more, more, LOT 43. Didn't have much luck with "Old Spec". Just a quick FYI - I've been using Citer for citing references in articles - it does all the work for you. Not sure how you've been citing sources but a significant number of editors are using the quick and easy formats. Give it a try if you haven't already. If you don't, you'll wear yourself out trying to change all the citations. Happy editing!! Atsme📞📧 20:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Thanks for the reply. I don't have a subscription to newspapers.com, just the newspaper archive. I can't afford newspapers.com. The bulls are PRCA not PBR, but maybe that's what you meant. They are from before there was PBR. I'm really thinking from your context that you meant PRCA and that was just a typo. Thanks for the links, I'll look those through tomorrow. I had a busy late afternoon. Yeah, I'm not surprised there is not much on "Old Spec." I use Cite > Templates on the Source Editor window to create citations since the beginning. I tried the Visual Source Editor a little bit, but it puts in several empty attributes and some cause issues. The problem earlier was me not seeing all of the way the existing citations were formatted the first time around, not the citation method. They still aren't perfect yet, but I will fix them. I have some more time to work on the article today. And tomorrow definitely some time. Let me know anything that is an issue please. Thanks! Oh, yes I will try your citation tool too. Never know what is better until you try it. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason I mentioned PBR is because bull riders typically know all the bull's (legends) regardless of who hosts the circuit/event, and could possibly point me to a book or magazine article that could be researched. PRCA is more of a fishing expedition for me trying to remember who all rides bulls because of all the ropers, bronc riders, bulldoggers, etc. Anyway, regarding Newspaper.com go to the WikiLibrary and snoop around. I think you're eligible to get access to the newspaperarchive.com - you don't have to pay anything. Keep up the good work!! Atsme📞📧 23:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
It took me about six months to get that free access to the Newspaper Archive, and I even had to wait while they moved the registration page from Wikipedia to their own web site too. Yes, that is free. I thought they were separate though, those two newspaper entities. Owned by the same entity but separate access. Newspapers.com cost money to subscribe but I got free access to the Newspaper Archive--that's how I thought it worked. Anyway, I did lots of searching for those two old bulls in the Newspaper Archive when I finally got that access user name and password. I even got free access to Ancestry but I don't really need that.
Ok, I understand about the PRCA and the PBR now. And that makes sense. I read an article written by J.W. Harris (I did an article on him recently) where he said "I’m a history buff and idolized Harry Vold for as long as I could remember." Got himself invited to Harry Void's ranch once and spent the day with him. Saw Crooked Nose and 777 mounted on the wall. I assume he means their heads. [1]. Great article. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A Little Help, PleaseEdit

Hello there, Dawn. I recently Added the sports infobox to the Championship Bull Riding Page, but I struggled to add the association’s logo to it. I also tried to do the same with the International Professional Rodeo Association page, but that one gave me more trouble, so I pulled out of that one altogether. I was hoping you could add the CBR logo and add the IPRA Infobox if you have the chance. Since you are more experienced, this is hopefully less troublesome for you. Thank You Very Much. Uricarrillo94 (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Uricarrillo94 Hi there, long time no talk! It's all taken care of. Note that you can't use external files in the articles. I grabbed the logos from the organizations' web sites and created logo files that could be uploaded, they need to be a certain size and lesser resolution than the originals. According to fair use, we can use a logo one time in one article as long as we can make a case for the use. I've been pretty much copying the same information (and modifying the names) from the Professional Bull Riders logo (File:Professional Bull Riders logo.jpg) since I have seen one of the copyright editors okay that file. You'll have to fill in the most recent champion in the IRPA infobox because I don't know who that is. You can look that infobox over to make sure the data is correct. Happy to help. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank You Very Much, Dawn. I really appreciate it. I’ll be sure to add the most recent champion of the IPRA. Other than that, it looks very good. By the way, I saw the work you did for the PRCA world champions page. I’m impressed. I think I can speak for a lot of rodeo fans when I say thank you for adding it to Wikipedia! Uricarrillo94 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Uricarrillo94 (talk · contribs) You are welcome! Also, I'm glad you like the list article of PRCA world champions article. I still have a few minor things to do to improve the page, but the meat is there. I am also thinking about what other items from the ProRodeo Media Guide might be worth adding to articles in Wikipedia. Anyway, I think it is useful. It's much easier to use than the Media Guide for quick look-ups. I'm glad that that we have that now for both the PRCA and the PBR. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Guy AllenEdit

 On 30 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Guy Allen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ProRodeo Hall of Fame steer roper Guy Allen's record of 11 consecutive world titles was broken by another steer roper named Buster Record? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Guy Allen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Guy Allen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Another Finishing TouchEdit

Hello there, Dawn. I just added the info box to the Women’s Professional Rodeo Association page. I was hoping you could add the organization’s logo when you had the chance. Uricarrillo94 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Uricarrillo94 (talk · contribs) The logo is uploaded and added to the article. I'm glad we are getting all of the rodeo organizations done. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 22:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A bit of an issueEdit

I'm only able to edit spotty - went to Ophthamologist today because straight lines and text is wavey in the center and sometimes I can't see all the letters. Come to find out, I have a Macular_hole on my left eye. Going to retina specialist tomorrow. Vision is still cloudy from all the crazy drops they put in my eye today. So sorry I couldn't get to the issues you asked me to do. Won't know what's going to happen until after 1:00 PM tomorrow. Atsme📞📧 19:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme Oh my goodness, I read the article and the two articles on solutions that can be tried. Don't even worry about the rodeo article at all, forget it exists. Take care of you. I will add you to my prayers. Don't worry about updating your status until you feel up to it. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, dawnleelynn - sorry it has taken so long to get back to you...(unfortunately) I've gotten myself involved in a few political articles with my one-eyed handicap, and forgot all about your request because of all the drama over there and the drama with my sight. I'm also working on & off with the Terence Hogan bio which requires some heavy research (there's not much about him as the robber who got away) so I took a little break from that to see how you were doing and if you got your issues resolved? (ps: I've graduated to 30 min facedown and 30 min normal every hour - better than the :50/:10 last week but annoying nonetheless - eye is healing as it should - but now I have back and neck issues. *lol*) Atsme📞📧 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Atsme It's okay, thanks for getting back to me now. There were a few questions in the talk page of Buster Welch, but that one is under your time frame. I haven't worked on it in awhile, but I'm willing to do more work on it if you like. Weirdly enough, the other issue that I requested your input on involved the 2017 Media Guide on the PRCA web site. And it went down a couple days after you posted your message to me that you had your health issue. And it stayed down until this weekend. So annoying. You would not have been able to work on that article for me even if you had been completely healthy. And now, I cannot even find the message where I described to you what I wished you to take a quick look at in my article. Knowing rodeo as well as you do, it probably will not take you long to do this. But it can wait until you are at a place where you feel healthy and have time. I did say before it wasn't a rush. The article is a List article. It's the List of Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Champions. I just hoped you could verify that you thought each list belonged in the article (was notable enough). That you thought the title of each list was correct. And glance through the Media Guide to see if I missed any (I skipped Specialty Act of the Year for example) (each section is it's own Flip Book but you could probably skip some sections like the Justin Boots Playoff, Wrangler Million Dollar Tour, etc. Just focus on the sections with Champions and Livestock awards. Also, do you feel that Circuit champs are notable? I am thinking not. That is just way too many people. That's it. This info. can sit here for as long as needed. Here's the link to the Media Guide: dawnleelynn(talk) 17:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
http://www.prorodeo.com/prorodeo/media/2017-prca-media-guide
Atsme I ran across where we first talked about a review to the article. It's on the article's talk page, where better to discuss it right? Just for future reference, it's here: Talk:List of Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Champions at the "Article review notability and other" section. It's not a long talk page. It does mention a few items that I didn't recall here in this discussion. For when you do get to it. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Help pleaseEdit

Sorry to bother you. I have a requested move at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Requested_move_20_April_2018. Could you please comment on my move request? Thanks. Brian Everlasting (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What Are Your Thoughts?Edit

Hello, Dawn. I just wanted to know your thoughts on something. I feel that since you’ve contributed the most to the bull riding and rodeo articles on Wikipedia, and since you’re a knowledgeable fan, you may have some thoughts on this. Do you think it would be wise to call bull riding “bucking bull riding” from now on? The sport has come a long way from when those who participated in it thought any bull would buck hard. Nowadays, with breeding programs, stock contractors are able to pick which bulls are able to buck to a certain degree and are able to participate in rodeos and futurity events. Not only that, but bulls used for said events are of very specific breeds and mixes of certain breeds, hence we have the bucking bull breed. What are your thoughts? Uricarrillo94 (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Uricarrillo94 (talk · contribs) Hello Uricarrillo94, I just happened to be online when your message came through. Kind of a bummer day with Pearl Harbor passing away yesterday. Only 6 years old. Anyway, I would suggest you read the article I wrote on the American Bucking Bull first and also check out their web site first: www.americanbuckingbull.com if you haven't already. I also have some bookmarks saved for updating the bucking bull article with more history on how bulls like Bodacious and Oscar and their owners changed the breeding of bulls, oh and Cotton Rosser too, changing the breeding of bulls to get us where we are today. You are right, it's very different now. I've talked on Facebook messenger to the breeder of Smooth Operator a couple of times, and he refers to him as a Heinz 57. He messaged me because he noticed how much I post messages whenever Chad Berger posts pictures of Smooth Operator on Facebook and he saw I was a big fan of the bull. Anyway, check that out and we can talk some more. I might also ask my mentor who I've known since I started editing here. She might not write as much in rodeo, but she is very knowledgeable enough about it. She oversees them. I know some other editors who are knowledgeable about rodeo too. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, Dawn. I also came across the PBR article regarding Pearl Harbor’s passing. I was disappointed and saddened, but his legacy will surely live on. Now that I can think about it, modifying the sport’s name is probably out of the question, since simply “bull riding” is deeply ingrained into the brains of those around it. I will say, however, that I am thankful for the PBR and other organizations for putting articles into their websites explaining the welfare and bull selection for their events. People who have never been exposed to the sport, especially animal rights activists, often times assume that random people pick random bulls and force them to buck, when we know that is not the case. Uricarrillo94 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Uricarrillo94 (talk · contribs) Yes, the term bull riding is very ingrained after about 120 years or so. But it is okay to talk about the American Bucking Bull breed when you know that is the bull's official breed. Bushwacker, Smooth Operator, Code Blue, Shepherd Hills Tested, etc., are all that breed. The PBR put out a new article a little while ago about Pearl Harbor, one that does him more justice and is much classier, just fyi. Also, I know what you mean about people who have no real knowledge about the sport or have fake knowledge like AR activists. I consider myself an animal welfare person. There's a big difference. Anyone who thinks you can make a bull buck should study physics. Anyway, after reading this new article about Pearl Harbor they make a good case for his notability; I'm trying to decide if he is notable enough for an article, even though he never won a championship. Thoughts? :) dawnleelynn(talk) 04:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I consider myself an animal welfare person myself. As far as an article for Pearl Harbor, I would say he is definitely worthy of one. He was a world championship contender for years and admired for his ability. There are many bucking bulls from the past who never won a world title, and yet are considered legends like Hollywood, Locomotive Breath, Blueberry Wine, Crossfire Hurricane, Scene of the Crash, Smackdown, Mick E Mouse, etc. Articles for bucking bulls do them justice as animal athletes. Uricarrillo94 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Uricarrillo94 (talk · contribs) That's a good point. Mick E. Mouse still has a huge fan base to this day. And don't forget Air Time. He was listed in a list of the ten greatest PBR bulls ever which came out before he retired. Moraes said he considers Air Time one of the greatest ever. I had always planned an article for Pearl Harbor because I always believed he would win the title at least once before he retired. I even redlinked his name whenever I used it in articles. But there is still some criteria in the notability guidelines for Wikipedia that has to be met. If the subject has a lot of sources, that is usually very helpful in establishing notability. A lot of PBR sources is good, but some other sources would be good too. Some of the bulls you mention might have less sources than others. I recall Smackdown just passed recently, so that might have stirred up some sources for him. But sometimes even extremely notable subjects have little sources. For example, the ProRodeo Hall of Fame bulls, Crooked Nose and Old Speck (or Spec), have very little sources. And that has kept me from finishing all of the bulls in the Hall of Fame. Anyway, notability at its basest definition is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:GNG So, it's just a matter of finding enough sources that claim the bull is/was notable. dawnleelynn(talk) 06:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Bull ridingEdit

About the Global Cup article, some rules or competition description would be nice. How are the winners decided, two judges give out points? How many competitors, why 14? How are competitors competing to each other - do they take turns, how many rides, do all team members compete or are some of them "in reserve"? What does "Bulls Ridden Ratio" mean? "The hosting country does retain a competitive advantage." - what advantage? Money is also mentioned in the article, if it's important how are the amounts decided? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Pelmeen10 First of all, thanks for all you've done and contributed. Sorry to get back to you so long, it's been a busy day. I had some DYK issues to resolve earlier and real life butted in, LOL. However, this weekend I'm going to spend some time on the PBR Global Cup article. I had some of those same questions you've asked and you also asked some good ones I had not thought of. I still have several sources I haven't used yet, so I hope all of the answers are in them. I do know that many of them are. I will ping you when there is something to look at again. I also saw what you did to the article with linking the team members world champion titles, and I have never done it that way, but I like it. I shall start doing that from now on. I love learning cool new things on WP. Thanks a lot. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Pelmeen10 I made significant content additions to the article yesterday. I made significant headway in answering the questions you posed. Some of the questions I just don't have access to specific answers, such as does the PBR decide how much money goes to each team. They don't tell us that for the regular PBR events either. Anyway, you can check it out at the same link, PBR Global Cup. I do believe there is a lot more information about the competition format now. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mary BurgerEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Mary Burger at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soaper1234 - talk 21:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bruiser (bull)Edit

  Hello! Your submission of Bruiser (bull) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Bruiser (bull)Edit

 On 27 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bruiser (bull), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bruiser and Bodacious are the only two bulls to win both the Professional Bull Riders World Champion Bull and the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Bull of the Year titles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bruiser (bull). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bruiser (bull)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Women in Red June EditathonsEdit

Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons.



New: WiR Loves Pride

New: Singers and Songwriters

New: Women in GLAM

New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Vital Articles horsesEdit

Arkle is the highest rated timeform steeplechaser at 212. He is considered by many to be the greatest steeplechaser of all time. Arkle has won the Cheltenham Gold Cup three times. Only Golden Miller has won the Cheltenham Gold Cup more. Arkle also won the Irish Grand National at top weight. The current handicap system was developed because of Arkle. PS Golden Miller is the only horse to win the the Cheltenham Gold Cup and Grand National in the same year (1934). There was no timeform ratings when Golden Miller was racing. Either horse could replace Jay Trump or be added to the vital articles. Mobile mundo (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Mobile mundo Hi, thank you for the information very much. I assume you saw my posting on one of the WikiHorse projects? I will share with my mentor and equine expert, Montanabw, and add the appropriate information to the Vital Articles. There is still room for additional horses or replacements could be made, as whichever makes more sense, as you suggest. I will let you know the outcome. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Mobile mundo Hi again. We had added Red Rum to the Vital Articles list earlier. How do think he compares with the two you mentioned? According to his article, he has the greatest success at the Grand National. At this point, we will probably keep him and another 1-2 steeplechasers though. Jay Trump will probably get removed. Keep in mind that the list at Vital Articles is just in a suggestion phase right now. Nothing is final until they get to the point where they decide to finalize and vote on them. That may be awhile. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Tough question. The Cheltenham Gold Cup wasn't always the most important race at the Cheltenham Festival. I'm not sure when it became the most important race at the Festival. The Grand National would usually get more viewers. I would say Arkle would be the best of the 3 mentioned. Red Rum would probably the most well known of the 3 although Arkle would be close. Information on Golden Miller would be difficult as his success was covered by radio while the other 2 had their success televised. (Mobile mundo (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC))

Where are Horse Trainers on vital articles listEdit

Sorry I can't find any Horse Trainers on the vital articles list. Mobile mundo (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Mobile mundo I will look into this and get back to you. I haven't thought about until you mentioned it, though. I don't know if there are any. However, I think it is important to have some trainers. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Mobile mundo Apparently, there is a category called "Equestrianism" in the Level 5 Sports People area here: [2] They have a hard quota in the sports people area for some reason. They initially had only 1 in the quota for rodeo but montanabw and I were able to persuade them to raise it to 4 people. Anyway, this Equestrianism category is composed of 4 jockeys and one dressage. This is ideally where trainers would go. I will ask the appropriate person about trainers. If you are going to include race horses, you should also include their trainers. However, we may only get 1 or 2 in the quota if I can persuade them to include any. I will get back to you. I believe the trainer role was unintentionally overlooked. They should have included at least one. This might take longer to get back to you than today. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Mobile mundo Hi, I did post in the Level 5 talk page even though I knew who would probably answer me. Here's where the answer is and it's a positive response. I will posting a message to poll the horseracing wikiproject again, this time about trainers, jockeys, etc., as mentioned in the response from GuzzyG. See this link for the response: [3]. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Driving by to comment... I answered at the Vital Articles talkpage, but trainers of racehorses are kind of like the coach of a sports team, whereas jockeys and other riders are like the team players. And once we get into "horse trainers" generally, we open up a big can of worms because it's not just racehorse trainers, we also have about 3000 years of equestrian masters of the art of horse training (starting with Kikkuli and Xenophon. If there's a "notable personages" or "coaches" type of category, then I think it useful to try and come up with some names, but we don't want to displace the riders. I'd actually make a case for Horse racing and rodeo to be treated as totally different sports from Equestrianism in general. Just because they all involve animals, well, most team sports all involve a ball... Montanabw(talk) 20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Mary BurgerEdit

 On 4 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Burger, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that having won a world title in 2016 at the age of 68, professional barrel racer Mary Burger became the oldest rodeo world champion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Burger. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mary Burger), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

My sandbox for the PRCA champions articleEdit

Atsme Sorry about that, but you had one row with an extra cell in it. Some of the entries were in the wrong cells due to that as well. The cell was sticking out into another column on the right side of the table all by itself, and it was throwing all of the alignment off. I wasn't going to do anything else. It should be good now, and I leave it all to you now for the rest of the afternoon and early evening. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn(talk) 21:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and fix what needs fixing - my bad - just can't do it one-eyed as the lines run together. Atsme📞📧 21:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

ReservedEdit

In the equestrian section it says 5/10 with 1-5 named and 6-10 reserved. I'm not sure what that means. I also saw User:GuzzyG/Sandbox 9 have 16/20 in the equestrian section and am a bit confused. Mobile mundo (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Mobile mundo The quota was just raised for many categories in Level 5. Sports Figures was one of them, and it's the most tightly controlled category. GuzzyG is guarding the extra spaces that were added so someone else doesn't add entries there until he is ready to add his. I can see that what he is doing in his sandbox is playing around with the category trying to decide which ones to add in as there were many suggestions from montanabw in the Level 5 talk page message and all those suggestions to my post in the WikiProject Horse racing talk page. I did just add a message that Tony McCoy seems to be the only steeplechase jockey that was suggested. Hope this helps. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Tony McCoy has the record for most British jump racing Champion Jockey titles (20) and has also won the Grand National, Cheltenham Gold Cup, Champion Hurdle and been top jockey at the Cheltenham Festival. Ruby Walsh has the record for most Irish jump racing Champion Jockey titles (12) and has also won the Grand National, Cheltenham Gold Cup, Champion Hurdle and been top jockey at the Cheltenham Festival. Ruby Walsh has more wins than any other jockey at the Cheltenham Festival. Tony McCoy is probably a better candidate as he is retired and Ruby Walsh is still active (currently injured). (Mobile mundo (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC))
Mobile mundo Yes, they are trying to select people who have finished making the mark in their field for the most part. Unless they have already had an extraodinary career. For example, Tiger Woods was chosen as a Level 4 figure even though he's not done with his career. But it should be obvious why he is already extraordinary. I think some might agree that Bob Baffert could be included now that Justify has won; that's two TC horses for him. I know he's not the first TC winner, he's the second. But add in the rest of what's he is done and he possibly could be considered exceptional before finishing his career. Anyway, I agree that McCoy would probably be the one to select in this case. I will let Guzzy know there is more weight attached to his notability from the wikiproject Horse racing. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes Bob Baffert is the dominant North American trainer. What happens when GuzzyG gets 20/20 in the equestrian section? I am guessing there is a vote but I am not familiar with the process. I looked for it in the frequently asked questions page but could not find it.(Mobile mundo (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC))
Mobile mundo Yes, there is a vote ultimately. Though Guzzy will certainly tell them that these selections came from a polling of the wikiproject. There will not be a vote any time soon. There are still many categories that need their quota filled. I know there is no place to read about it. I may ask another editor about it. I have learned much, but there is still much to learn. Oh, thanks for posting that Arkle was added to the category. I should have done that. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

SandboxEdit

Thanks for creating the sandbox. What is the quota? Just letting you know I moved the stallions into the other section and put in Golden Millers win total and his start total. Mobile mundo (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Mobile mundo Yes, any edits to the horse information is highly welcome. Thank you. I believe the editor I spoke with about the quota is one of the ones in charge. They told me some time ago to put in at least 20 and that there would be time later to add more. However, it was been awhile, and I think I can add more now. The entire quota for animals is not even close to being met. I think we can safely add a total of 30-35 right now. Dogs is at 41, and I have talked that category over with another editor. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
My bad, dog breeds are 41, that's different. This is not breeds. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Mobile mundo Hey, since you seem to know a lot about steeplechase, can I ask you about a horse? Have you seen or are you aware of the CBS 60 Minutes Special horse, Senior Senator? I never knew about timber racing until I watched it. I became a bit of a fan of the horse after seeing that episode. So I know he has won the Grand National and Maryland Hunt Cup here in Maryland twice now. I watched the video of the race this year. Shame about that accident he had last year. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest here on Wikipedia about timber racing, although I know Jay Trump and Ben Nevis have articles. There has been some talk about taking Senior Senator to England if he keeps it up, though. At some point, he should be notable enough for an article. Perhaps if he wins three Maryland Hunt Cups. Another flat race horse with issues becoming a great jumps horse, it's interesting. [4] dawnleelynn(talk) 20:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of him. The link you sent was a good read. The vet done a good job with the broken neck. He does have potential to become notable enough for an article.(Mobile mundo (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC))
Mobile mundo I know it's been quite awhile. But the level 5 articles are still a long ways from being finalized. They are still working on Level 4. I recently finalized the selections in my horse sandbox, and then updated the Vital Articles list of individual horses today. You are welcome to take a look; and comments or corrections are welcome. I really do think we have a good mix of types of racing, breeds, countries, etc. now. And, I included all four horses you mentioned to me from steeplechase. Now we will have to see if a certain editor reverts the edit based on his preference for having all of the Triple Crown winners in the list. I replied to his comments in the Wikiproject Horse racing months ago, but never got an answer back. Of course, he wanted the answer in the Vital Articles talk page. But I felt the answer belonged in the place where it started and where the "fish" were. In fact, that very day a new editor added a message; Ealdgyth. And now we added two horses in the list due to her: Hambletonian 10 and Morgan horse. Here's the link to the Vital Records Animals - Individual Horses list: [5]. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk page templatesEdit

Hi Dawn, please don't add {{Talk header}} almost everywhere ... it's only for very high-traffic talk pages like Talk:Donald Trump, per its documentation. Also please don't use {{WikiProject banner shell}} when there are less than three WikiProjects, or to hide non-WikiProject tags, again per its documentation. I have undone or partially undone many of your talk page edits for this reason. Graham87 02:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Graham87 (talk · contribs) One fixed example of an article I created and a warning so I could have made the changes would have been optimal. Changing articles I didn't author to your heart's content is fine. Searching out all of my articles to change only irritated me the way most other administrators have who I have run across and have forced their changes and perceptions of the rules on me in the past. The help for the banner shell says "generally three or more" wiki projects; it's not a cut and dry 3. Thus, your legalistic enforcement of there must be three is not warranted. I can use it for two projects if I want and it's no big deal if I do. So who cares if I use the banner shell feature or not. It is a small matter and does not inconvenience anyone. As for the talk header, again, I am just taking my time to learn more about regarding your perception of how it should be used. I would have liked to do that before having all of my articles changed. Again, changing other articles that I didn't author was fine; I did do quite a bit of that while I was adding the Vital Articles Template to them yesterday and today. I don't want an edit war on my own articles; please refrain from editing my articles any further as these are trivial matters and let me finish my understanding of the policy and consult my mentor on them. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 06:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC) p.s. I want to archive some content on one article's talk page. I need the header for the search archive feature, btw.

Graham87 (talk · contribs) Hi, I wanted to apologize for my little rant. That was not necessary. I could have just asked nicely. I took a look at Template:Talk header today. It all makes sense except for one thing: "attract commentary from inexperienced editors". Not really sure that would make much difference there. I'm going to remove any talk headers I have on my articles as I come across them. I was going to archive some content on Eternal Sun's talk page, but I haven't figured out how to use that yet. I know how to manually archive my own talk page, but I wanted to try a different method on the horse's page. Anyway, I know you had good intentions, so thank you that I learned it now before I did too much damage out there on other articles. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries, apology accepted. Re the phrasing about attracting commentary from inexperienced editors, I imagine it refers to making it easier to post new sections and to learn the conventions of posting (e.g. signing messages, etc.) Re archiving, see example 2 of User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo for how to set it up. The only small problem with that archiving system (which is the easiest to use) is that it requires each section to have at least one signature. While making sure of that on the "Eternal Sun" talk page, I went and set up archiving on it anyway ... hope you don't mind. It's a little smaller than the size of normal pages that are archived, but adding archives is probably OK too. I've also added {{Archive box}} to the page instead of the talk header. Graham87 03:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Graham87 (talk · contribs) That is super awesome! Everything you said and did I mean. Thank you for accepting my apology. It seems in these modern times, forgiveness is sometimes harder to come by. I appreciate you taking the initiative on the talk page. Yes, it may seem there is not quite enough there yet. However, I am co-authoring the page with another user. We went through one GA nomination and it failed due to an issue we did not foresee. We are working on updating the article using a new source brought to our attention which is why it failed. At any rate, we will be doing more of the chit chat back and forth on the talk page. And we will be doing another GA attempt. And hopefully, someday an FA attempt. And so forth...so greater need will arise for archiving....plus I want to try it out for my first attempt. So anyway, long story short, talk page good now. LOL. Please let me know if I can every do anything for you. I assume it's okay to ping you if I have questions trying to use it. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
No probs; glad I could assist. Feel free to ping me or message me if you need help with talk page archiving or anything else on Wikipedia. Happy editing! Graham87 04:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Mary Walker (rodeo)Edit

Hi, Dawnleelynn, I just came by to promote your hook at DYK. I made a few minor tweaks to the article, but I wanted to say that all in all, you did a great job. The writing is encyclopedic and the quotes are suitable and not ubiquitous. Keep up the good work! Yoninah (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah Hi Yoninah, thanks for the message. I appreciate it. I liked the adjective you picked to describe her childhood as I was having trouble finding a neutral word for it. All of your edits were very helpful. Glad the article tone was better. Of course, it was not a PBR article. But I am still gratified to hear that it was an improvement.dawnleelynn(talk) 17:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah Hi Yoninah, well the Mary Walker article has really gone through some major changes since we last talked. So, I wanted to tell you I saw your edits earlier today, and it was nice to have someone come in and work on the copy edit type stuff. They were all great improvements, so thank you very much. I did this article for Women in Red, so I'm really pleased it has finally come together and made it to prep again. It was touch and go there for a time. Thanks again. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah I thought you had removed the text regarding the hall of fame because it was not encyclopedic. Now I see it was because I didn't source it below in the body. I took care of that, but I am not 100% pleased with the text I added regarding why the hall inducted her, which I am basing on content from her induction page. This is the type of writing I am still working on to get better. Thanks for catching that! dawnleelynn(talk) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the source doesn't say it gave her the award because of her struggles and accomplishment. The award page is just a short bio. I think you should revert the lead to the way I wrote it, which is more encyclopedic. Yoninah (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah I took a refresher through WP:TONE again. Regardless of the induction paragraph content, I am trusting you are right, as well as finding support in that Wiki page and others that adding that type of content is, well, something the article should let the reader draw their own conclusions on after being presented with the facts. I changed it back to the version that just states she was inducted. I guess it also looks like fansite style writing too. So, here I am willing to learn. Thanks for helping. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Anytime you can be dispassionate and state "just the facts, ma'am", you'll be writing encyclopedically. Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah Was away for awhile. Thanks for catching those other instances I forgot about in the article. Ay-ya-ya. LOL. And that reference to Dragnet. I'm giving my age away if I say I remember my parents watching the series revival 67-70 when I was a young girl...lol. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Racehorse dates and countriesEdit

Feel free to delete or find a place in the horse sandbox for the list below:

  1. Byerley Turk (Middle east) (1680 – 1706)
  2. Darley Arabian (Middle east) (1700 – ???)
  3. Godolphin Arabian (Middle east) (1724 – 1753)
  4. Eclipse (GB) (1764 – 1789)
  5. Man o' War (USA) (1917 – 1947)
  6. Seabiscuit (USA) (1933 – 1947)
  7. Citation (USA) (1945 – 1970)
  8. Phar Lap (New Zealand) (1926 – 1932)
  9. Kelso (USA) (1957 – 1983)
  10. Secretariat (USA) (1970 – 1989)
  11. Red Rum (Ireland) (1965 – 1995)
  12. Arkle (Ireland) (1957 – 1970)

The country refers to where the horse was born. The first 3 on the list are deliberately vague because I'm not sure what the national boundaries were back then. For the dates it is year of birth and year of death. Mobile mundo (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mobile mundo: Hey, sorry for the delay! I had an issue with my articles. Thanks for this compilation. I will get it incorporated into the sandbox soon. I appreciate it. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobile mundo (talkcontribs)
@Mobile mundo: Okay, I've added the list to the sandbox. I hope more editors will vote eventually. But there really is still plenty of time. They aren't voting any time soon. They just increased quotas, so more work to do to fill them. Anyway, I'm sure the information will be helpful. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 03:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. I added the other horses and note explaining what is in the brackets. Feel free to play around with it or delete if you want. The first horse on the other list I think was born in Greece but I am not 100% sure. For the second horse there are multiple claims. (Mobile mundo (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC))

Incomplete DYK nominationEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Walker (rodeo) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 at Women in RedEdit

Hello again from Women in Red!


July 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock
Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed!


Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Regarding rewritesEdit

Nikkimaria A few things about some of my articles. And hey yes, it would have been nice to get a heads up of what you were doing in the beginning.

  • Bodacious - I would appreciate it if you would take an extra light and judicious hand to this article or let me do it. I have been working on this article since I started editing on Wikipedia with another editor. We actually WP:TNT'd it a few months ago. This bull is from the end of the 20th century and is considered by many to be the greatest bucking bull ever. So this article is very important and will become an FA. It easy to get the citations mixed up in here.
Hi Nikkimaria I had no need to even worry. Your rewrite of Bodacious was awesome. I appreciate that you changed descriptions of bull rides and bull movements back into quotes, among others. I think I said before that it is is very difficult to paraphrase bull rides and such unless you are very proficient in the sport's terminology. I'm not going to do it anymore, regardless of who asks me to paraphrase such a quote. I'll take it out rather than try to paraphrase (or comment it out like you suggested). Any way, thank you so much. I believe you fixed some things that myself and the other writer have been trying to fix but couldn't get a solid handle on. We can hope the lead stays that way, but other editors keep adding content there. And so he's the most famous bull and one of, if not the greatest, so it's an important article. In fact, he was a question on Jeopardy a few months ago. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Charmayne James - This is a Good Article about a barrel racer which editor Atsme helped me bring to that status. In fact, most of the writing is hers. I'd appreciate if you left this article alone due to that. She did a lot of hard work on it and she is a GA writer and reviewer many times over. She also knows rodeo better than me and was a barrel racer.
Hi Nikkimaria Atsme wanted me to tell you that if you reworked this GA article to the point where you felt it needed reassessed, would you please ping her first? It would be much appreciated. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Atsme: and Dawnleelynn, I'm wondering if some of the references in this article may have gotten split from the content - for example, some of the details attributed to the HoFa source do not appear in it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: and @Atsme: I recently discovered that the WPRA changed their web site and all of their web links need fixed. Could that be it? I will look at this tomorrow. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I fixed the HoFa one already. Hi, NM!! How's life treating you? Atsme📞📧 01:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Pretty good thanks ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: and @Atsme: I ran Checklinks on James just now. There are no more broken links on this article. Thanks for fixing that Atsme. Thanks for the copy edit Nikkimaria. I'm glad the article looked pretty good, and didn't end up requiring reassessment. Thanks all! [6] dawnleelynn(talk) 03:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Bruiser Bruiser is an article I worked on a for long time. He is an actively bucking bull who is in the top 5 bulls that ever bucked. Which means this is a very important article to rodeo. It's also a very long article. I moved him into mainspace on May 1 after working on him in my userspace for about 6 months. I had to go through some reviews on him when I put him through DYK. When you work with the Professional Bull Riders press releases and feature articles, you will come to see that most of them are 50 percent or more quotations. People always wonder why I have so many quotes in my bull articles. (I also wrote one article on a PBR bull rider so far.) I usually eel pressured in a DYK doing a review, because they usually ask me to delete most of them or paraphrase them. Then I am ending up with these former quotes that now exist as comments and maybe not paraphrased as well as I could have due to the pressure. I also find that reviewers feel I have too many comments in the articles as well. So I try to strip them as out. I end up unhappy with my article because, like I said, I put a lot of work into it, 6 months for Bruiser. So, I am not saying this to complain. But, rather to make you aware before you start rewriting more PBR articles, especially the more current ones such as Bruiser, J.W. Harris, Code Blue, Shepherd Hills Tested, etc., to make you aware that I want to find a better way to approach these articles when I start writing them, a way that makes everyone happy. I mean, perhaps you could look at some source for a PBR subject and tell me how you would proceed. I mean, you say, you want me to learn how to proceed better in the future. Also, I would be happy to fix Bruiser and J.W. Harris. They are both very long articles and I am very familiar with them and you are not. I could also fix Mary Burger.
  • Eternal Sun - This is an article I am co-authoring with White Arabian Filly, and we are in the middle of it. I'd rather you let her continue her leadership role in this article, especially since the majority of the source is a hard copy book. We agreed I would work on it with the hard copy book source.
  • Cheyenne Frontier Days Hi, Nikkimaria, this is in my in progress list, but it's been there for a year. It's something I wrote a bit of, but at least half or more I did not write, but simply reorganized it. It badly needs redoing. And I can say that because I live here. Anyway, anything at all would be an improvement. I was hoping sometime to borrow the books (there's three at the library on it) and make it nice like the FA for Calgary Stampede. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add any new issues here as they arise. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A passing comment: I think your articles are tooooo long and detailed. If you are extracting every last detail from your sources, you are almost bound to get into close paraphrasing territory. In Bruiser for example, the 2015 season occupies 7kB of text, only just shorter than the entire article on Desert Orchid, considered by some people to be the best National Hunt horse of all time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth Here's an example I created for Yoninah in Bruiser's talk page. I agree most bull articles should not be that long. Bruiser is the equivalent of a great horse, like American Pharaoh or California Chrome. He's in the top five of the best bulls ever and he's not done with his career. Actually, California Chrome may be too long also. Bruiser falls in the middle of these examples. Although I agree, he probably does not warrant quite the length unless he was an FA. Also, steeplechase racing is far from as popular as thoroughbred racing. But bull riding is becoming more popular all the time. Bushwacker reached $1 million in value at the top of his career in 2014. And that's race horse values. He's been compared to the Secretariat or Seabiscuit of bulls and Bruiser is not far behind him in greatness or value. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
"We’ll never, ever see another Bruiser,” Lambert said. “We’re among greatness right now, and we better enjoy it and appreciate it because it won't last long."
Bruiser 85,907
Hi dawnleelynn. After MBW and CWM objected to my filing a CCI, I offered to go through all your edits and do that sort of comprehensive review myself, and withdraw the filing. I'm happy to do that still, but it does mean all edits. If an article has these sorts of issues and they aren't addressed, that presents a problem with regards to GA or possible FA status. I also agree with Cwmhiraeth's comment immediately above. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria With Bruiser (and Harris), I was thinking more along the lines of I know where the text is that was quotes and I could more easily turn them back into quotes. You could still go over it after that. Charmayne James is already GA so how does it present a problem with GA? With Bodacious, you have my request to take extra care with it so I'll leave it there. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Both GAs and FAs can be reassessed after receiving that status - see WP:GAR and WP:FAR. As to your offer, what would be most helpful is if you can go through sources that are offline or subscription-only. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria You are the one doing these edits and donating your time, so of course I defer to you on how. But when I mentioned Bruiser, I was thinking of the six months I had the article in my user space working on it. Well, he is still actively bucking, so some of that was just keeping the page updated with current activity. They are on hiatus now. I do realize you are giving up a lot of your own time, be sure I appreciate that.
I also saw that some of those older articles didn't really have that much close paraphrasing in them. Skoal Pacific Bell had one sentence where the first quote was not in the right spot, and that was it. I also checked an article for myself, Wyoming Pioneer Association, and found no close paraphrasing. Not saying you shouldn't check it, but I was curious. Also, I noticed that one of the wording issues you fixed in Dillinger was actually written by another editor. And also, when I first authored or expanded those articles, I would have been upset about content being deleted, would have a hard time seeing it as puffery. But to show you that I have grown in the time I've been here, I recognize that the rewriting you're doing is improving the articles. I mean where you are making the wording better, removing puffery, and unnecessary comments. And yes, even in Red Rock, my first article and favorite bull ever, it's better now. I was super touchy about it when I started. I have a todo list where I was always going to go back to them, but I just never seem to have time. And yes, I always knew that those huge lists of quotes in Dillinger and Little Yellow Jacket would have to go someday.
Oh, back to the point. Did you read my mind, I just starting to think what to do next was to work on Eternal Sun because so much of that article is sourced from a hard copy book and it's in a construction state anyway. So we agree on that then, good. And I don't feel entirely useless now. LOL Thank you, so yes I'll be working in that article. I'll let you know when you can review it for the content that is sourced online. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
───────────────────────── Nikkimaria I just remembered that Oscar and V-61 both have content that is cited from offline sources, so if you could add them to your list with Eternal Sun to wait until I review them, then I'll let you know so you can review the parts that are from online sources. These are older bulls w/ very few sources actually. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding: if in a DYK or other review you feel pressured to have fewer quotes, and you don't want to simply take the quotes out entirely, I'd suggest a good starting point would be to simply comment them out - this would allow you to come back at some later point and rework more completely. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Great idea, thanks. This way I don't have to give up doing DYKs. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I was looking through your last batch of rewrites, and this was kind of on my mind before too. You made copyedits and other changes to Alice Greenough Orr even though the only changes I ever made to that article was cleanup of code and category changes. Are you going to cleanup every article I ever touched in the slightest way? Cause that could take a really long time? Just asking...not questioning your authority in this matter. You removed her son's name. I know we do that for privacy of minors when they are young, but I don't see why at this point as he is an adult by now. Just curious about too about removing details about her other child. I am just asking so I understand the policies. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm ignoring articles to which your only edit was adding a category, but am at least looking at all others. In that particular case my edit wasn't to do with your work on the article, just what I noticed when looking at it. Regarding the names, both BLPNAME and the infobox documentation advise against including names of non-notable children, regardless of their age; and see also MOS:SURVIVEDBY for the body text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Yes, I thought you were just doing general cleanup in Orr, nothing to do w/ my edits, thanks for letting me know for sure. I was familiar with BLPNAME but SURVIVEDBY was new to me and my understanding needed some more clarification. I added that to my tips list that I keep. Appreciate that information, thanks.
In recalling that you edited MakeItDo, I remembered a bit ago, that last year I did a project to fix some broken links and some links that were pointed to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (but had perfectly good live links) for all of the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame horses. Courtesy of the IA Bot which sometimes is helpful only to a point. Two of those horses have crossover to rodeo, one of which was MakeItDo, I would expect you to need to go over; the other is Baby Doll Combs. But the rest are almost all Ealdgyth's. Since I know you know my mentor montanabw and you were once an Admin, it's pretty likely that you know her good friend Ealdgyth too, who is an Admin and is also pretty particular about her Quarter Horse articles. And a lot of them are Good Articles and Feature Articles. So, just a friendly warning to take care when coming upon those articles. I'm sure you know as well as I do about editing FA articles for good reasons. I mean this in the nicest way possible. I ticked her off myself back then by making changes to articles without telling her first. She wants things to be done in a certain way. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

National Hunt horsesEdit

Cwmhiraeth I was thinking it was odd that you mentioned Desert Orchid. So coincidental because I've been working in the Vital Articles project starting a few weeks ago. I've been getting the horse racing project editors involved by polling them in that project's talk page. All through my relationship with equine editor montanabw of course. They picked Arkle as the No. 1 National Hunt horse. Red Rum was a close second. But another editor did make a point of throwing Desert Orchid in the bunch as well. And also Golden Miller. The list is supposed to be all of the best horses from many types of racing, eras, and countries, and so it's hard to capture them all. But it's quite interesting. I was wondering how you were familiar with Desert Orchid? See [7], dawnleelynn(talk) 03:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, the name of all the horses you mention are familiar to me as being mentioned in the media as the "best" in various ways, and I only used Desert Orchid as an example because the length of its article illustrated the point I was trying to make. Are you familiar with novels by Dick Francis? I really enjoy them and they represent my greatest link with the equine world. I am much more familiar with bovines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth Well, should I open mouth, insert foot? You are familiar with bovines? Does that include bucking bulls? There I went, sounding off like an expert about Bruiser and thoroughbreds and notability, not even thinking to establish if you were already familiar with the topic. But I have been thinking about the fact that three editors have now said the article is too long. And since he is not finished with his career, there will be more to write. So I am seriously considering making the article more concise.
Regarding the writer, Dick Francis, I had not heard of him. I did go over and read his Wikipedia page, though, as it piqued my curiosity. No wonder you have learned so much about that type of racing. It sounds pretty interesting. I do borrow books from the library to read from time to time, mostly science fiction. But I run of things to read there as I have been reading that genre for so long. This is something I put on my list to check out. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 16:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Walker (rodeo)Edit

 On 4 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Walker (rodeo), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mary Walker overcame a tragedy and a serious injury to win the 2012 World Barrel Racing Championship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Walker (rodeo). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mary Walker (rodeo)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

PreciousEdit

barrel racing and bull riding

Thank you for quality articles around barrel racing and bull riding, especially its brave women such as Charmayne James and Mary Walker (rodeo), for Code Blue (bull) and Scamper (horse), written based on knowledge, with enthusiasm, diligence and in team spirit, - Dawn, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

My greatest award to date. Thank you Gerda Arendt, I will treasure this. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The goldEdit

Just an FYI - it wasn't as notable an event as her other accomplishments. Also, please see this article which confirms that it was a one-time event, therefore not notable. Atsme📞📧 21:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Atsme Thanks, consider it history. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 at Women in RedEdit

An exciting new month for Women in Red!


August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10
Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
Notable women, broadly-construed!



For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Invitation to participate in studyEdit

Hello,

I am E. Whittaker, I am working with Wikimedia’s Scoring Team to create a labeled dataset, and potentially a tool, to help editors deal with incivility when they encounter it on talk pages. A full write-up of the study can be found here: m:Research:Civil_Behavior_Interviews. We are currently recruiting editors to be interviewed about their experiences with incivility on talk pages. Would you be interested in being interviewed? I am contacting you because of your involvement in Wikipedia’s Women in Red project. The interviews should take ~1 hour, and will be conducted over BlueJeans (which does allow interviews to be recorded). If, so, please email me at ewhit@umich.edu in order to schedule an interview.

Thank you Ewitch51 (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

New inductees being honored Saturday August 4 2018.Edit

Hello Dawnleelynn, Not being a programmer, I just introduce ideas. The Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame in Colorado Springs, Co. has introduced their 2018 Hall of Fame inductees. They will be honored August 4th. Would you consider tackling the project? I'd be happy to research, dig, find photos for you. I just got notification that the ceremony will be broadcast on The Wrangler Network live Saturday also. Let me know if I can help if you decide on the job. Bullfighter Leon Coffee, Walt Garrison among this year's winners Marti Moser-Seddon Seddon Western Stunts MartiSeddon (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi MartiSeddon. Thanks for your message. Yes, another year of inductees coming up. I've read through your message, yet I'm not clear on what it is exactly you are asking me to do? I do write articles on rodeo performers from time to time. And I saw your thanks on the article that lists all of the ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees. I will be adding all of the 2018 inductees to that article now that their inductee pages are available. The last time that I checked the hall of fame site, they were not. But I see now that they are up. Please clarify what you are looking for, thanks so much. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Rodeo redlistEdit

Hi! I took a look at the Rodeo redlist and I think it looks super! Thanks for taking the time to add the new names. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl Ok, great and thanks! The next step is to find out if the Barrel Racing NFR Average winners are notable. And then, much harder, to find women rodeo performers back in the day when they were still performing the other events. Currently, women only perform in barrel racing at the top level, and it's men only in the other 7 events like bull riding, roping, and such. For example, I am writing on Wanda Harper Bush right now, she has 2 barrel racing championships. But she also competed in many other events, even beating out men. Onward ho! Oh, I was also wondering if I could put together some kind of resource for anyone who wanted to get into the sport to write. I know all the ropes... :)) dawnleelynn(talk) 20:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea to create a guide for people writing about rodeo. Most of us don't know the "ropes." ;) You can create an essay, like we did here. We started the essay in our User space. BTW, do you have access to Newspapers.com? When I wrote about Fern Sawyer, I found a lot of resources from Newspapers.com. If you don't have access, you can request it here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl Well, that's cool there is already a place to put a guide. I will definitely do that. And, about newspapers.com, I already have a membership to newspapers.com as well as newspapers archive.Those are great resources I will use in my search as well as seeing if my mentor montanabw has any ideas. She has done some article work in that time period. Regarding Fern Sawyer, I have seen that article before when doing rodeo category work. It mentions that she has done rodeo performing, but gives no events. Cutting, according to our resident expert, Atsme, is not a rodeo sport, but it is a cowgirl sport of course. That's why the article is in the generic "Rodeo performers" category. If you know which events she performed in rodeo, there are categories for all 8 events, like bronc riding, barrel racing, roping, etc. There are also categories for trick riding and pole bending and other "women" events. Anyway, thanks for the great ideas. :) dawnleelynn(talk) 20:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl I finished my first draft of User:Dawnleelynn/Creating Rodeo Biographies. Could you glance at it to see that it makes sense? Or is there someone else I should ask? Am I supposed to move it to the same place as the others at Help Essays? Or locate it in my userspace? I should put a sentence in the redlist with a link to it when it's ready? Thanks! My first time and all that. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the draft looks really good. You may want to also post a link with a request for review on the WiR talk page, especially so that people involved in sports can eyeball it, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
😊 Atsme✍🏻📧 12:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 at Women in RedEdit

September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons!



New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative

  • All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
  • It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September.
  • Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October 2018 at Women in RedEdit

Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!



New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
I am so glad that you are here and doing so much to improve articles on rodeo and the American west! Montanabw(talk) 18:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Montanabw (talk · contribs)Thank you, what a lovely thought for today. I appreciate it very much! dawnleelynn(talk) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Get ready for November with Women in Red!Edit

Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives



New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canadian Professional Rodeo Association has been acceptedEdit

Canadian Professional Rodeo Association, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation formattingEdit

Hi, Dawn. I saw this edit on my watchlist and wanted to comment on it. The underlying source being used there is the magazine article itself, with the SI Vault page serving as a convenience link that makes verifying the content much easier. If that link and the previous one went dead and there were no archives, there could still be a valid citation to the original magazine. With that being the case, the magazine would be the correct publisher, not the Vault website. The same is true if you use a link to Google Books. The link is merely a convenience link to the original publication, and Google Books shouldn't be included as a publisher. The instructions at WP:CITEHOW support this approach, as the guidelines says that journal articles should have the name of the journal itself as the publisher. Per that guideline, I intend on changing that publisher back to SI the print magazine when I get a chance, although I'll try to make to clearer that the magazine is what is being cited. Hopefully this is all right and the guideline page helps in your editing, though I acknowledge that it's a bit overwhelming at first glance (as Wikipedia guideline pages tend to be). Cheers. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Giants2008, regarding [8] thank you for taking the time to address this issue and point me to the citation policy. I understand the policy and what it says about formatting the main source of a link.
However, the link I provided in the edit summary [9] establishes the SI Vault page as no mere convenience link. It says "the magazine’s new VAULT web site, which serves up virtually every story, cover, photograph or ad that has ever appeared in the magazine–with some new additions." It also says, that "SI VAULT, a free and comprehensive digitized history of the modern sports era since the birth of Sports Illustrated in 1954, is now live." And especially distinguishing: "The new site unlocks sports history with new search capabilities that link video clips (powered by Truveo), blogs and user-generated content (Wikipedia sports encyclopedia) — as well as collectibles and memorabilia from across the Web via eBay." Also, "SI editors will curate the site daily..." and lastly, "A Wikipedia component." There's more, but I think that's a good start. So, SI Vault was created to provide free access to magazines from the 1950s to the 2010s, which are not available from the main URL but only available in the Vault and its Archives: [10] and [11]. It even has its own editors working on its content. I think you might find it hard to retrieve the story in question from Linderman's article in SI's main site. The story in the main web site is a broken link. It was moved to SI's Vault - The Archives. That's the reason I found it in The Archives and created a new citation in the first place to replace the Wayback Machine archive link. So I'm not sure why you are saying there could still be a "valid citation to the original magazine." We know there is not, and that it was removed. Hence the broken link in the main SI site, and a copy of it in the SI Vault - The Archives. It's no convenience link-it's the only place you can find it now except for the Wayback Machine. I think Wikipedia Sports editors who don't know about the Vault may be missing out on some good sources. dawnleelynn(talk) 05:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It says specifically in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT that you don't "have to give credit to any search engines, websites, libraries, library catalogs, archives, subscription services, bibliographies, or other sources that led you to" a given source. I'm confident that my interpretation of this guidelines is correct. and that the magazine article itself is what should be sourced. Regardless, this article implies that SI brought the Vault in-house at some point (it says the Vault was redesigned "ahead of the rest of the site"). Giants2008 (Talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to two sources or websites, etc., that are not associated with each other. It's moot. The SI Vault is part of Sports Illustrated; it's not a separate entity. Regarding the deadspin article, regardless of how the website was authored or put together, it's what is there now that counts. Are you saying that the citation should reference the print article? Cause I don't get that at all. In WP:CITEHOW there are a lot more parameters that are supposed to be filled in for a print reference than what we have. I don't see how it is the same as Google Books, they only give previews. These articles in the Vault are the entire magazines, which can be read just like a book page to page, so to speak. Anyway, it's called the SI Vault or the Sports Illustrated Vault, which is what I put in the title; I wasn't advocating removing the "Sport Illustrated" from the title. Since the article was removed from the front page site, I believed the citation should come from the SI Vault article. But this is obviously not going to be resolved, so I'm politely dropping out. It's not that big of a deal. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC) p.s. I didn't mean that about it not being a big deal. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
My take is that where the original source was online, the best link to locate the online source should be provided (like we do with PMID identifiers for scientific articles; they might only go to the abstract, but at least you get a full citation and a possible access point.) Not a hill to die on, but just a comment. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Stampede CorralEdit

Your edits will continue to be reverted until you provide a reasonable explanation as to why you are purposely removing validate twice within the text of the article and on the venue's website.2601:280:C300:7A0:1543:9B8D:CB2A:F26D (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

2601:280:C300:7A0:1543:9B8D:CB2A:F26D Your intent to continue reverting sounds like you will edit war, and did not help your case. Regardless, I investigated your other contributions and have determined that you are actually acting in good faith. I am sorry for my mistake. I have said this on your talk page too. I wish you success in your continued editing. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

BodaciousEdit

FYI, I requested temporary semi-protection to either slow down the IP or force them to make an account. I didn't realize there were even more IP edits prior to where I reverted to, but I decided to leave it there since it looks like other editors were involved there. I can't say I'd be handy enough to track down sources on it, but it's good to see people wanting to keep on developing the page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Kingofaces43 Hi, thank you for that on Bodacious. It did not occur to me to request semi-protection. I was focused on using the templates on their talk page. It's been really strange because I am familiar with this user, who comes around now and then, I recognize them even when they change their address. They are actually a knowledgeable editor on this subject matter. However, they refuse to cite or be a team player. They have never acted like this until today, though, where they went on a tear. Anyway, thanks for helping. I really felt alone in this. The other editor on this article is a friend, but is not good at conflicts. Not that I am much better! LOL. Thanks again. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ding dong!!!Edit

 
Trick or Treat!!!

Happy Halloween!
Why are demons and ghouls always together?
  • Because demons are a ghoul's best friend.

What happens when you goose a ghost?

  • You get a hand full of sheet.

Atsme✍🏻📧 01:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Dawnleelynn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about thatEdit

Hi,

Sorry about my edit here. I didn't realize that my change made it similar to the webpage and you had just rewritten that paragraph. I guess I should be paying closer attention to the revision history. Thank you for the helpful edit summary : ). 173.163.174.145 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

173.163.174.145 I can't ping you because you don't have a username. Thanks for the message; it's no big deal. I would have tried posting to Chaser's talk page next if there was anything else. I am just glad it helped: the edits and the policy link. I first saw Chaser on 60 Minutes and became fond of her. Feel free to contact me about policy anytime. I've been writing articles for awhile. Thanks again! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Got stretch?Edit

 
Whad'ya call a turkey on the run?
Fast food.

Wishing You A Happy Turkey Day!
Thanksgiving chuckles...

What smells best at a Thanksgiving dinner?
Your nose.
What did the turkey say to the computer?
Google, google, google.

😊🦃 Atsme✍🏻📧 21:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Tofurky DinnerEdit

 
How 'bout some tofurkey?


Right back atcha ☆ Bri (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 at Women in RedEdit

The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone.



New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I'

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)
--Rosiestep (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging



It's already here!!Edit


Happy Holidays!
Wishing you much joy & happiness now and every year!!
Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️

  • When does New Year’s Day come before Christmas Day?
Every year!
  • What do you call a bankrupt Santa?
Saint Nickel-less.

🎁⛄️🎅🏻Atsme✍🏻📧 20:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That was a lovely Christmas and season's greeting, Atsme, thank you.

Happy SaturnaliaEdit

  Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the lovely season greeting, Ealdgyth

Orphaned non-free image File:Wanda Harper Bush Barrel Racer.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Wanda Harper Bush Barrel Racer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019 at Women in RedEdit

January 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1, Numbers 104-108


Happy New Year from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

January events: Women of War and Peace Play!

January geofocus: Caucasus

New, year-long initiative: Suffrage

Continuing global initiative: #1day1woman2019

Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list
Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list
Image attribution: Nevit Dilmen (CC BY-SA 3.0)

--Rosiestep (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Merry Christmas and a Happy New YearEdit

 
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Dawnleelynn, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 Thank you for your Christmas and New Years wishes this year! dawnleelynn(talk) 17:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!Edit

CAPTAIN RAJU Thank you for spreading Christmas cheer here. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Dawnleelynn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you Fylindfotberserk for the kind holiday wishes. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

XmasEdit

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Bzuk, enjoy your holiday! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:32, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!Edit

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Dawnleelynn, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

And a Happy New YearEdit


Merry
Rexxmas
2018


DYK for Wanda Harper BushEdit

 On 29 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wanda Harper Bush, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that hall of fame barrel racer Wanda Harper Bush rode her horse 3 miles (4.8 km) to catch the bus for school? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wanda Harper Bush. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wanda Harper Bush), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Check this outEdit

Hemingway App. A collaborator that doesn't argue with you.   Atsme✍🏻📧 14:08, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Atsme Ah yes, I had done some searching for online editors and found this list [12] awhile ago. It includes the Hemingway App. I had forgotten about it, so I am glad you posted it today. I will try this one as it appears to be free, not all are free. I will let you know how it works out. Thanks a bunch! dawnleelynn(talk) 18:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
I've used it a tiny bit for local docs...good for basic reminders. Happy New Year, DLL!! 🥂🍾🎊🥳 Atsme✍🏻📧 21:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Atsme Happy New Year to you too! dawnleelynn(talk) 00:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...Edit

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi!
That is Welsh and translates to:
Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019!
Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia.

Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones Thank you for your good wishes for the holidays. I also wish you a peaceful 2019! Although, sadly, White Arabian Filly has been on the Missing Wikipedians since last April. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me.
Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the WeekEdit

  Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Atsme submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I like to point out to people in RL that are unfamiliar with WP that every article has a useful, informative talk page. The same is true for User talk pages. I direct you to Dawnleelynn's talk for an interesting view into the construction of substantial articles about the wonderful wide world of rodeos. Always a helpful collaborator Dawnlee writes and improves articles about horses, the American West, Barrel racing and what seems to be one of her favorite topics, the American Bucking Bull. She works tirelessly when presenting an article. An excellent example of her diligence and desire to get the article right is Charmayne James, an article she authored and helped promote to GA status. She is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. 60% of her 9000 edits are to Mainspace and she has dozens of DYK nominations. Check out Mossy Oak Mudslinger, Bodacious (bull). Red Rock (bull) or Bruiser (bull) for her articles about the elite of animal super stars and great examples of her prowess as an article writer that deserves to be Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
 
 
 
A Bucking Bull Rider
Dawnleelynn
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning January 6, 2019
Dawnlee constructs articles about the wonderful wide world of rodeos, horses, the American West, Barrel racing and the American Bucking Bull. Works tirelessly when presenting an article and is an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. See Charmayne James, an article she authored and helped promote to GA status. Has dozens of DYK nominations.
Recognized for
making substantial edits to Wikipedia
Notable work(s)
Mossy Oak Mudslinger, Bodacious (bull). Red Rock (bull) and Bruiser (bull)
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Atsme and Buster7 My heartfelt thanks for this honor. I shall try to be worthy of it. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Buster7 and Atsme Bodacious' picture has been commented out due to WP:NFCC#9. I have a bunch of pictures I uploaded to Commons though. But none are of the subjects of my articles except one tie down roper at CFD in 2017; and it's not a close-up. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the Bucking Bull rider silhouette is OK. If not we can go with the tie down roper. ―Buster7  01:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Buster7 Thank you very much for the replacement. It's excellent. I'll let you know if anything comes up. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
Hey, have a very merry christmas and a very happy new year!   By the way, it has been about two weeks since I have posted this comment!   Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Please take care with your selection of references, especially for BLP infoEdit

  Hello, I'm Ronz. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! [13] [14] [15] [16] --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And thefamouspeople.com isn't reliable either, though you didn't use it in a BLP. [17] --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ronz It's been a year of different editors driving by O'Shea's article and changing it so I have sort of given up on it actually. But these fake sources are getting this information from somewhere real. Eventually a real source will show up on the actor, right? I mean, he's getting more popular and more work. In the meantime, can you look at this source for me and tell me if it's reliable? I got the pending change reviewer permission a couple of days ago, and I'm being very careful with it. I'm trying to find a source for this BLP, and you seem very knowledgeable on BLP sources. Oh, and yes, thanks for pointing out the one on Chris LeDoux. Rodeo is my area, and it looked real. I'll be spending more time checking new sources from now on.
Here's the source on Ranveer Singh: [18].
It would be much appreciated...thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't use it, and if anyone has, they've been removed without a trace. There are a lot of these celebrity statistic websites, and they're typically unreliable, even when they aren't scraping other websites including Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Any interest in PC reviewer?Edit

Hey Dawnleelynn, I was wondering if you'd want the pending changes reviewer perm? It's not a big deal at all, but I thought it might be useful to you on the off chance you come upon any pending edits or pages that are PC protected. Feel free to peruse Wikipedia:Pending changes and let me know if it seems like something you might make use of. Cheers! ~ Amory (utc) 15:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amorymeltzer Thank you for your message. I read through the page you linked WP:PEND, albeit even though I've looked through it before. I also read the HELP:REVIEWING page. And I do come across pages that are protected. So, I feel we all should contribute to help the encyclopedia. It sounds like this is one where I can w/o a huge commitment, so it's right up my alley. Sign me up! I shall peruse the policies until they are more firmly established in my memory... dawnleelynn(talk) 17:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, glad to hear it. Let me know if you have any questions! ~ Amory (utc) 17:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Generic template with linksEdit

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

~ Amory (utc) 17:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer Thank you, that was fast! I will take a look at it in a bit. Just have some morning ritual stuff to catch up before doing wiki. :)) Have a great week! I also assume I can contact you if I have any questions. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer Hi, I have got a pending changes on an article here where a Bot is proposing to remove a protection. There are two pending revisions, and btw, I don't know how to accept one but not the other. It's the Musikbot trying to remove {{pp-vandalism|small=yes}} on this article: Soup. Well, it had been there over an hour in a long list. Someone just cut the list way down. So, if it is gone by the time you see this, I'd still like to know what I should have done. Thanks a bunch! I mean, there will be the History. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding right away — I was out of town for a few days! It's been resolved, as far as I can tell, but for multiple edits see Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes#Reviewing_edits_by_multiple_users. Basically, it's a pain in the ass and it sucks, but do it carefully one at a time. ~ Amory (utc) 11:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer I appreciate your reply, belated or not. Most everybody goes out of town once in awhile. It can be very cathartic. I will review the content, and try it. I know who to ping if I need more help. Thanks much and have a great week! dawnleelynn(talk) 16:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer Hi Amory, hope you are doing well. I've been doing the pending changes reviewing for awhile now. It's getting easier as time goes on, and I gain experience. I'm also sometimes making content changes to make the article better. You know, for example a Date article now requires a citation to prove it. Most editors let that slide and most reviewers do too, so I add citations whenever I see them missing for both parties. Anyway, I'm glad you asked me to do the reviewing. In fact, I wanted to ask if you would grant me rollback permission. Another editor said Twinkle is great; I've been using that for a long time, but there a few things that Rollback just does better. No big deal either way. I am also going to start studying the policies for new page reviewing, but I'm not ready yet. I will ping you when I'm ready for that. That is a lot more policy to know then pending changes reviewer. Ok, thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 04:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Glad you're finding it useful! Rollback only really makes sense if you're regularly doing concerted antivandalism work, which I don't really see in your contribution history. If you're interested in getting started, you might want to check out WP:RCP. Twinkle makes it easy to warn users, so I'd recommend giving it another go.
All that being said, I think NPP does seem more up your alley. We could always use more patrollers! ~ Amory (utc) 13:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer Ok, I trust your opinion on these matters very much. I will look at the policy you recommended. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 15:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer Hello again Amory. I thought about what you said, NPP being more up my alley. And also about my contribs history. I'm afraid I have filled up my recent contrib history with rating WikiProjects on talk pages. A lot of the rating tasks have to be paged through to get to the relevant tasks. I have created or expanded 55 articles. I do substantive articles, so I may not have created that many but they are lengthy articles. I have also done much wikignoming which includes adding content to articles and most every task that there is to do on existing articles. I was also a technical writer for 25 years. So, I think I could learn to do NPP well; but I wonder what you base your impression on? Were you able to browse past the rating tasks to see my relevant history? Also, I did take a look at recent changes; I'm understand how to do it but I'm not sure if it is right for me. I'll always do pending changes reviewing; it gets easier the more I do. Oh, yes I read the page about NPP you suggested. I'm going to read it again and all the pages it recommends. But I'm pretty sure now that I'd like to try it. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, was busy then kept putting this off... I've granted this, see the [#NPP_granted|template below]]. Make sure to double check all the policy pages linked there and remember to AGF! I've also added you to the mailing list. Cheers! ~ Amory (utc) 20:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer First of all, no worries about the delay. Yes, I plan to read the page you linked me earlier yet again and then veer off to all the pages it links to as well. Definitely taking on the mind set of professionalism here and AGF as you say. The page definitely emphasizes over and over again about how important it is to take care with newbies. Mailing list sounds good too. Thanks for the opportunity. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Amorymeltzer Just after you gave me the NPP permission, I had a super important legal matter I had to take care of for a week. I'm back & I stumbled on a new barrel racer article. It needed a tad work & wasn't reviewed. So I did & I marked it as reviewed today. It's my first article w/ NPP. I had to move the article title from the Early life section to the beginning and write a short intro. Now I will do more articles plus work on an article in my sandbox. If you want to check it for notability because it's not typical, please do, she hasn't been to the National Finals Rodeo let alone become a world champ; (which is in WP:NRODEO). Rather, she has special circumstances as she was in an accident and paralyzed and managed to ride again and is also a motivational speaker now. She's got lots of coverage out there when you search. Amberley Snyder Leaving you the option. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me! Sorry to hear about the issue, hope everything is okay! ~ Amory (utc) 00:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Amory, yes all is fine now. It's more like 2 weeks and I didn't want to you to see no NPP activity for that long and think I had changed my mind. I plan to do the reading of the main NPP page again and then read the offshoot pages. I thought to ask you about Snyder because I hadn't read all the notability pages yet; it was just a fluke to see an unreviewed page in the rodeo area where I work. Thanks a bunch; have a great weekend! :)) dawnleelynn(talk) 03:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free image File:Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association logo.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 at Women in RedEdit

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111


Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

February events: Social Workers Black Women

February geofocus: Ancient World

Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019

Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe

Join the conversations on our talkpage:


Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Horn Africa vandalismEdit

Hi, I'm informing you of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents for pushing a social agenda on a high traffic page, it's under What is Blackness and why Wikipedia administrators are pushing it on the Horn Africa page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.168.172.141 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 31.168.172.141 What are you talking about? I'm just a reviewer with pending change permission who either approved or disapproved a pending change. I didn't push anything. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you tell me what these trash blogs Why East African ignorance about the Horn hurts and Dear East-Africans, Don’t Hate And Deny Your Blackness have to do with the Horn of Africa? 31.168.172.141 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I had to step away from the computer for a bit. I went over and looked at the article. Also, another editor contacted me about the issue. It turns out I mistakenly accepted an edit that I meant to revert. I just went back and accepted the correction, and the unwanted content has been removed. Sorry about that. We all make mistakes. I am also new to using this pending changes permission this week. I will step up my guard from now on. Thanks for your patience. p.s. filing on the admin noticeboard was a bit overkill. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The ANI thread was closed by Black Kite with the rationale "Just disruption, and dealt with by pending changes." --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Horn of AfricaEdit

Hi Dawnleelynn, I am just a little confused by your revert and summary here? You wrote "Removing similar unconstructive edit. Citations don't follow style in article.", however, you were in fact restoring the content that the IP reverted, not 'removing' anything? Was this in error or am I missing something? I am genuinely curious. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor Yes, I can see why you are confused. I just got the pending changes review permission this week. I could have sworn I was getting rid of the unconstructive edit. My bad as I told the IP editor in the message just above this one. It was a genuine mistake. I have gone over and corrected it, getting rid of the unwanted content. I will step up my guard in future. And I am always available on my talk page for anything to do with this article regarding permissions. Thank you for letting me know so I can learn from my mistake. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification and for resolving this. I am always around if you ever have any questions or need any help  . --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
TheSandDoctor Thanks for understanding. I may take you up on that offer sometime. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn(talk) 04:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit

Congrats man. Keep up the good work.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fylindfotberserk A kitten, I love cats, thanks bud. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome brother. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Umm, sister who likes a lot of masculine sports and movies. :))



In response to your message: I am new to reviewing as well, so I'm not completely sure.Edit

Dolfinz1972 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Dolfinz1972 Thanks for responding. We will both just do the best we can then. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

ReassessmentEdit

Thank you for the assessment upgrade. Frankly, it felt like the stuffing had been knocked out when the stub class appeared. Maybe now I can get around to working on the references.Verne Equinox (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Verne Equinox I understand, really, like in actual experience. Normally an editor of your stature can self assess; I have been told by by mentor montanabw that I can self-assess and that was over a year ago. In this case, though, I think it just was better coming from someone else. Finish up the outstanding issues, maybe do a once over copyedit, and you can change it to a B-Class for sure. And then, Happy Trails! dawnleelynn(talk) 21:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

About horseEdit

Hi Dawnleelynn, Just stopping by to say hello. Finally visited your user page. So you like horses? I rode a horse for the first time ever for 4 hours in 2018 and I loved that old horse. It was so nice to me. I wished it was cheaper. Next time, I need to limit my riding time to 3 hours. :) SWP13 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi SWP13 Welcome and thanks for stopping by. I do like horses and bulls too. I've been writing about the rodeo. I've written a couple articles about horses. I haven't ridden a horse since I was a child though. Pretty expensive, as you say! I'm glad you can do it. My mentor here, montanabw, knows a lot about horses and owns a few herself. She has helped me with editing and the policies here since I started editing. I saw that post on your talk page about having articles deleted. That's no fun. If you need someone to help save an article that's in AfD again, you can ping me to stop by and see if there's anything I can do. Hope you go riding again. dawnleelynn(talk) 20:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

I don't know how my very small change to the psychopathy page could have been worded more transpersonally or impersonally. That is indeed how modern psychiatrists distinguish the one category from the other, and I am not sure why this small change was automatically erased. Any rationale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:6D5A:9490:5662:7E85 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am always happy to try resolve issues if I can with the pending changes. It was not automatically reverted; however, the page has protection. In the Psychopathy pending edit you submitted and I reverted I made a notation in the reversion that said "No source given." Your edit removed the source that was there in the previous revision and did not replace it with a new source. And there was no source at the end of your new content. If I missed something, please let me know? If you give me a source I'd be happy to accept it. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 22:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hailey KinselEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Hailey Kinsel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 at Women in RedEdit

March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113


Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:
March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen
Geofocus: Francophone Women
Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman


Other ways you can participate:
Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe
Join the conversations on our talkpage
Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred
Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Cary Grant and Orry-KellyEdit

I was confused why you reverted the edit I made regarding the relationship between Orry-Kelly and Cary Grant and deemed it non-constructive. This relationship not only confirm that Grant is bisexual (and thus eligible for several LGBT tag), lasted a substantial amount of time (1920s to early 1930s), but affect their interaction professionally (Kelly was the costume designer of several of movies starring Grant) as well as personally (Grant attending Kelly's funeral). This is especially puzzling since Grant's brief heterosexual relationships with Betty Hensel, Maureen Donaldson and Victoria Morgan are deemed important enough to be kept on the page. Not to mention, the edit I made also mention Grant's suicide attempt after married Virginia. If there's any problems with the exact information included, I would be willing to change or cut out, but reverting every mention of the relationship is puzzling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:8180:7010:6DDD:53F8:1FB7:A4FF (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. However, I am not one of the content editors of Cary Grant. I am a pending changes reviewer. I was following the consensus when determining what action to take on this pending change. As stated by the pending reviewer who came after me, you would be best served by taking your issue to the article talk page. Thanks... dawnleelynn(talk) 18:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attributionEdit

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rodeo into National Finals Rodeo. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa (talk · contribs) Thanks for the reminder, and I am glad you catch these things. I had problems with my computer. In fact, I just figured out that it was a device failure that was the issue. I should have done the attribution right away in the first place. There's actually two other articles that are affected, and I will make the copyright attribution in all of them shortly. I appreciate your diligence to copyright matters. I am also keen to tow the line in copyright matters. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Dawnleelyyn, and sorry about using a template rather than a personal note. I am super busy lately with copyright work. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Diannaa (talk · contribs) The template is okay; I don't mind a bit. I know how busy you get over there. I have done the copyright attribution in the Edit Summary of the other two articles as well. I considered doing it in the talk pages, but the Rodeo article Events section was done piecemeal, and there isn't one specific Diff I could point to. Thanks again. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hailey KinselEdit

 On 25 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hailey Kinsel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that professional world barrel-racing champion Hailey Kinsel won $433,333.33 in one day at the American Rodeo in February 2017? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hailey Kinsel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hailey Kinsel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thomas D Mangelsen in DYK move issueEdit

Yoninah (talk · contribs) Hi Yoninah. Another editor moved my article Thomas D Mangelsen to Thomas D. Mangelsen without notifying me or checking to see the status of the article (it's in the DYK queue). Now I cannot edit the nomination. And I have a feeling the DYKBot will try to leave credit to the old article name, not the new one once it runs. And that there will be other issues? Can you address my concerns? Does the move need to be reverted? Thank you if you can help. [19] dawnleelynn(talk) 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth I just recalled that Yoninah is usually offline by this time of day. I should have asked you in conjunction anyway regarding this matter above. Well, it's not urgent. But when someone has time for it, it would be nice to know. Thanks! Hope all is well with you all. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm still here. What's the problem? Was the page move correct? If so, we'll just tweak the nomination template to reflect the page move. Yoninah (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Yoninah The page move isn't necessarily incorrect, just someone else's preference. He added a period after the D. and didn't look at the talk page or anything else to see if the article was in any kind of process. I looked at policies and found none that state there must be a period. The policy he quoted MOS:INITIALS to say the period was required actually refers to the body of an article, not an article title. I pointed out that Wikipedia:Requested moves actually is the policy regarding article names. I could find no where in there that insists you use periods for initials. But, you obviously being here much longer than I probably know the policies better. My gut says you will probably say the move is appropriate and if so, go ahead and tweak the template. And the DKYUpdateBot will be able to follow the redirect as well, right? Thanks a bunch! I obviously trust you to do what is best... dawnleelynn(talk) 02:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's a logical move; the only time I've seen middle initials without periods is in British and Indian articles. I'm going to format the template now so the DYKbot will credit the correct page name. Best, Yoninah (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah Thanks so much. I've not been at my computer. I can now edit the nomination again. And it's good to know the bot will be able to credit the page correctly. I have recommended that the editor check the talk page in the future first before making major changes. The actual article name change was minor, the timing of the change was more of an issue. I knew you'd be able to adjust things. Thanks again, dawnleelynn(talk) 04:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK nominations for Thomas D. Mangelsen and Grizzly 399Edit

I have comleted two reviews at Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas D Mangelsen and noted some questions. Please respond there when you have time. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your pending changes review at MarketingEdit

Hello Dawnleelynn, thank you for helping out with pending changes reviewing. But when accepting this edit you possibly overlooked a few issues: the edit merely repeats already included definitions just above the added content, and it is ill-formatted and mostly unsourced. Direct quotations for instance should not be added without a sufficiently specific inline reference. Most problematic however: the edit was misused to hide spam for an essay writing site (domycreativewritings.com).

Of course occasional errors happen to everyone, including myself :) - not a big deal. Just wanted to offer some tips to look for possible issues more closely in future reviews. GermanJoe (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

GermanJoe Thank you for the feedback. I always welcome constructive criticism on reviews I make with pending changes. It's why I don't hide my name, which is an option. I haven't been doing it a super long time, and some types of content reviews are the most difficult. This one got past me like you said. I have some takeaways from your feedback and a reminder to take my time doing them. I can't look at the edits as they have since been removed. Thanks again, I will strive to be more diligent. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

No Country for Old MenEdit

Thank you for chipping back-in. Because the moral choices regarding the assessment, taking, and return of found property are a clear central plot device for the film "No Country for Old Men," it deserves mention. You understandably were bothered by the adding of a "See also section" which at that time was composed of topics that were vague or unjustified from any of the above text; as a tangent, they were understandably reverted. However, your last reversion did not pertain to the issue to which you ostensibly complained. Please justify your actions, or ameliorate any error. 71.9.232.163 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am responding to your message after doing a bit of research. I'm sorry you are upset. Pending changes reviewers are not content experts for the articles they review. Also including Braxton C. Womack as you pinged him too. Perhaps he can also help shed light on this matter. First of all, I would add that no matter what content you had provided in the theme section, you did not provide a source. Thus, your edit would not have been accepted in any case. Now, regarding the articles Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property and Finders, keepers being themes in this movie of lost or otherwise property, etc., neither of these articles mentioned the property being abandoned due to death. This is simply a case of property being found near murder victims and then taken by the protagonist. The ensuing pursuit is one of hunter and hunted. I read that bit about the hunting in the article. I can't find anything in the article that talks about the themes you mention or even in some other movie review sites. However, if you can find a source, I'm sure it should be added. The See Also would depend on that as well I assume. And, yes, I have seen the movie once. If it need be, we can contact a subject matter expert who edits the article regularly to assist. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your empathy. I'd generally think it prudent for all reviewers to selectively engage in material in which they are at least familiar; as the maxim goes, the uninformed voter is the worst. Regarding the substance of your reply, I think if you took a moment, you'd realize that you have assumed a lot, and are really splitting hairs. First, there is no reason to assume the true owner is dead as two people have hired competing hitmen to retrieve the property that was never exchanged when the deal went bad. I would not personally use the phrase "hunter and hunted," to entirely characterize the feud; one hitman wanted to strike a deal with the protagonist to end the pursuit, and the other seemed not a premeditated killer, but impetuously executed witnesses upon the callous whims of a coin-flip...but that is within discretion. The cat-and-mouse dynamics was a mechanism to continually force moral choice throughout the movie, but had the ancillary benefit of providing a guilty thrill to the children in the audience. I'd feel bad for anyone who saw a movie that won four Oscars, and only walked away with a cheap hunter-thriller.
As to splitting hairs, death is no distinction and is moot. According to common law regarding lost, mislaid, and abandoned property, the general principle that: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property, also applies specifically to the case of death. Needless to say, in the case of mislaid property the finder acquires no rights—and the ensuing probate, escheat, or asset forfeiture is none of the finder's literal business. Common sense ought to dictate that one does not get to keep the property of a dead person or neighbor they encounter! For the case of lost property, the finder is entitled to possession of the property against everyone except the true owner—who is dead. Nor does the property article need to explain that a dead person gets no special exception to have back long abandoned property—to even ask would be supernatural. In order to keep property and avoid the crime of theft by finding, a finder must exercise due diligence by taking steps to establish whether the object is genuinely abandoned, lost, or unattended. Applying this specific case, the protagonist needed to determine if or which of the two hitmen are representing the true owner, or if the mislaid property is the fruit of a crime. He chose to take the money away from the last surviving witness, and not place it in the interim care of the police or a bank and call a property attorney. Albeit, that would have resolved the issue, and we'd have a boring movie.
More to the profound core of thematic issue, is the law and realism in dealing with found property. On the one hand, many viewers strongly resonate with a reality that it is futile to try to return lost coins or a hundred dollar bill found in a parking lot to its true owner; but then there is the law. On the other hand, if you find 10 million in cash, you'd know there has to be an actively desperate owner—and there is also good cause to believe it was stolen. Add in the colliding cultural and legal mores across an international border, and a frontier that is functionally desolate of civil recourse. This central moral dilemma was deliberately written into the plot to make this a powerful multi-Academy Award winning movie. The protagonist could have given the money up to make the chase end, but he stands his ground to his ultimate death. As connecting as it was, this is not a new literary theme, finders, keepers is the subject of bestselling book Ship of Gold in the Deep Blue Sea and is actually the cause of the legendarily senseless Hatfield-McCoy feud. Does a lawless property feud in rural America also resonate because it sounds so familiar? Now what do you do when you fuel a hope that the true owner is deceased?
Your sources contention is a rabbit hole in this particular case; literary criticism and rhetorical analysis can be heavily philosophical. There is no objective answer. Some say art is up to the individual viewer to decide meaning, in such case authorial intent is irrelevant and is impossible to truly know anyway. What the author believes now, may not be what he or she meant when the work was made. Just look no farther than interpreting your own childhood diary. Under that philosophy, it is a fool's errand to look to the web to prove meaning or obtain citation authority, and yet we have. There are many approaches to literary theory—and what a critic writes is really a reflection of the philosophy they applied. I'm not a fan of the illusion of a proper reference. This is case where a rule prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, which justifies the policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This is not a bureaucracy and the rules are not the purpose of the community. That the movie depicts controversy arising from the possession of property is an obvious claim requiring no citation; it is no way exceptional or even controversial.
Hence, I think it should now be added to the thematic section of the article: The film depicts the grey areas, consequences, and realism in resolving misplaced property; the resulting feud from the protagonist's finders, keepers approach is a central plot device. 71.9.232.163 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
First of all, I can see that this issue is very important to you due to the length of your response. Please understand that pending change reviewers all have to review articles that are not perfectly in their wheelhouse at times. Otherwise, there would be horrible backlogs. Regarding my reply, it is solely based on the article, your proposed edit, and the two Wikipedia articles on lost property and finders-keepers that you mentioned before. All of this content you supplied in your last reply is not included in the previous Wikipedia articles nor is it included in new articles or other source, so my last reply was limited to that information.
Now, most importantly, you still have not included sources, as in inline citations, for the proposed content for the article. Everything is moot until you include sources. Just look at the article and see that there are inline citations for most of it, including the Themes section. Any way, even if there are some sections that are unsourced, that is not a basis for adding more unsourced work to the article, especially in a section that is already completely sourced. I have to say that I think this issue has gone above my pay grade; it is just up to me to see that you get the article sourced. Now I'm going to suggest that you post a message here: Talk:No Country for Old Men (film). An editor that works on the article regularly should respond. Direct them back to this message as well as talking to them there. Perhaps they can figure out how all of this information fits into and supports the proposed theme. Let me know if you don't get a response in a reasonable time frame. But I've got the article on my Watchlist. Thanks for your patience. dawnleelynn(talk) 00:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Will do. Because of the profound thought provoked by the film's high-stakes ownership of found property, the Wikilinks added to the "see also section" were entirely appropriate. It is also patently obvious that the movie depicts controversy arising from the possession of property. In any case, the rules are not the purpose of the community, and reviewers may be required to slow down and actually use the grey matter between their ears. I'm not sure we are better off doing a big job poorly. The cascading resources needed to defend a naive precedent do not save time. Haste makes waste, and discretion is the better part of valor. 71.9.232.163 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Writer's Barnstar
Thank you for accepting my contribution in the Popularity and impact of KPOP in the Philippines. It will help me pass my case analysis assignment. You're a lifesaver. Dhemiegoddess (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas D. MangelsenEdit

 On 10 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Thomas D. Mangelsen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that wildlife photographer Thomas D. Mangelsen took a photograph of Grizzly 399 which he dubbed "An Icon of Motherhood", making her the most famous mother grizzly in the world? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Thomas D. Mangelsen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Grizzly 399Edit

 On 10 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grizzly 399, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that wildlife photographer Thomas D. Mangelsen took a photograph of Grizzly 399 which he dubbed "An Icon of Motherhood", making her the most famous mother grizzly in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grizzly 399. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grizzly 399), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

NPP grantedEdit

Hi Dawnleelynn. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

  • Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
  • If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. ~ Amory (utc) 19:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17Edit

Hello Dawnleelynn,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.


Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019 at Women in RedEdit

April 2019, Volume 5, Issue 4, Numbers 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117


Hello and welcome to the April events of Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hero Fiennes Tiffin correctionEdit

Dear Dawn: I see you've been a (highly regarded) contributor / editor to the Wiki for Hero Fiennes Tiffin: thank you. I'm Hero's father, George Tiffin, and have been trying to figure out how to correct a small error in the name / title of the page in question. Hero's actual full name is Hero Beauregard Faulkner Fiennes Tiffin – with NO hyphen between the two last names. I realise that changing the title of the entry itself is more complex than merely editing the text it contains, and wondered if you could guide me - or, indeed, make the change yourself if you find time? I know Hero would be very grateful. If this edit requires a citation, you will find him correctly listed on his IMDb page (included in the current Wiki). With thanks and all best wishes, George Tiffin (I'm not sure why the four tildes are required for these comments, but am including them here just in case...) GT1963 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I understand your dilemma regarding the article on Hero Fiennes-Tiffin. As a pending changes permissions editor, I have edited a lot of articles. I see that I edited this article one time after resolving a pending changes issue because I happened to find a source for the subject's birthday. Other than that, I have no familiarity with the subject. If you can believe it , I have not even watched any of the Harry Potter movies or other movies mentioned. As you stated, there does have to be some proof of the name change being proposed, especially in the case of a biography of a living person. I will attempt to contact the editor(s) who are very familiar with the article regarding this matter. Also, IMDb is not considered a reliable source as anyone can edit it. Btw, the four tildes are how your message gets signed with your username. Thanks for your patience. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


May you join this month's editathons from WiR!Edit

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121


Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Avoding misunderstanding about WP:Notability in CfD nominationsEdit

  • Categories get nominated to CfD and need to be WP:DEFINING
  • Articles get nominated to AfD and need to be WP:NOTABLE
Thank you for the recent contributions to the Categories for Discussion (CfD). Even if we disagree on specific nominations or the WP:OCAWARD guideline, it still helps the encyclopedia to have more perspectives.
In the World Golf Hall of Fame discusion, you mistakenly indicated that I claimed WP:NOTABILITY in my rationale for deleting a category, I raised and withdrew concern, and you confirmed it was an honest error. No big deal, we all make mistakes and I thought we could go back to respectfully disagreeing on the category discussions.
But since then, with several other of the CfD nominations I initiated, your lenghthy replies involve notability of the the articles rather then WP:DEFINING of the categories. To me at least, this seems to imply that I'm either attempting to delete articles or that I am using WP:NOTABILITY as a rationale for deleting categories when neither one is my intent. I don't expect us to agree on categorizing awards but I'd love to interact more clearly and succintly.
Can I structure my nominations to be less confusing? Do you have some questions about my nomininations in general that would clear things up? Is there something I'm not thinking of to avoid confusion in CfD?
Thanks. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
RevelationDirect Just a note, I'm working through a few issues first before replying. I'm not ignoring you. I do want to work things out the best we can.dawnleelynn(talk) 21:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
RevelationDirect Ok, let's get started. We'll start with the notability basics:
  • In the golf discussion, the mistake I was admitting to was thinking that your paragraph laying out your reasoning for deleting the category was part of your rationale. I realized it was not after your message and let you know.
  • I never intended to imply that you were intending to delete articles at any time, so let's get that one out of the way.
  • Notability is about more than just creating or deleting articles.
  • Notability applies to all articles (not just the ones justified by GNG). WP:WHYN
  • For instance, did you know that the notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables? WP:NOTESAL WP:LISTN
  • Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. WP:ARTN
Regarding the subject of a hall of fame category:
  • In WP:DEFINING it mentions that "a defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having"
  • What are the reliable sources in your view for a hall of fame category?
  • What does the external hall of fame have to do with the category's definingness? I can't find anything in the category policies to support this except reliable sources...however...it just says that the reliable sources define the subject. It doesn't say anything about going through the sources and describing them and making judgments about the hall, such as the hall only echos fame, for example. And this is where I say you are making a case on something the policy never intended. The hall has been made into an article, so the subject is notable, and its sources are already reliable. (So this is where notability could play a part if this makes sense...probably the only place left that it could.)
  • For another example, what does the induction method of a hall of fame have to do with the definingness of the hall of fame category?
  • This question is on a different track, but I wonder. "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" - I see mentions of whether an induction is mentioned in the lead or not. However, this quote only mentions if it is appropriate or not, not if is there or not, is it in some other policy I missed?
General Thoughts:
  • The category system is a convoluted one, and many others beside me have voiced this opinion. I am doing my best to learn it. If I make a mistake, I will correct it. I will be fixing my lengthy messages in the CfD discussions soon. Yes, I went way overboard with the length. Sorry you thought I was indicating a different notability argument than I meant.
  • I have figured out some of the notability guidelines don't fit in there the way I thought they did. I already gave an example of this in the marine discussion. I now know that the induction is supposed to be mentioned in the inductee articles to be defining per the "Article" section under WP:CAT and that the notability guideline WP:NEXIST that says this same thing does not need to be done does not apply.
  • Yes, you mentioned that we don't agree about WP:OCAWARD. It is because it doesn't actually mention halls of fame. I did a search throughout that page's archives and only found one hall of fame mentioned ever.
  • My mentor montanabw and I had become concerned with the amount of halls that could be deleted, your talk page mentions a 90 percent figure. But I also want you know that I am not against any being deleted either. And I don't want spend all my time on CfD discussions, so I hope we can come to better understandings. Again, I'm sorry for the frustration my earlier messages caused, and I will strive to be more clear and concise in the future.
I hope all of this is clear. But if something is not clear, please ask first. It is all said with good intentions. And you don't have to reply to it all at once either. Take your time. Thanks, dawnleelynn(talk) 04:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'll give some additional thoughts later when I have more time but I did want to mention one thing about CFD etiquette now since you mentioned you were reviewing your earlier posts in CFD. Generally, when you change what you wrote--especially when others have already replied to it--the prefered method is to strikethru your comments (example) so that later readers can understand the flow without looking through the edit history. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Good thought about strikeout. I was actually having trouble finding it in source view yesterday which was weird. I did think of one more thing I forgot to mention. I do think that a hall of fame that is in a subject-specific notability guideline, which makes it able to give its inductees notability for an article might be more defining. However, there are awards that also give their subjects notability, which I would never consider making into a category, for instance, all of the world champions from the National Finals Rodeo and there are seven of those every year going back to 1929, one for each rodeo event...If you saw this list, I would probably not categorize anything in it: List of Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association Champions. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Overly wordy replyEdit

I meant to write a couple sentences but I got carried away:
  • Notability of Articles vs. Definingness of Categories: Sometimes it's easier to understand a concept if you look at extreme examples: We have notable, well sourced articles on Tourism in Paris and Car accidents because those topics are well sourced and likely to be of interest to readers. It would be preposterous though to have Category:People who have visited Paris or Category:People who survived car accidents. This misunderstanding comes up a lot: the editor who saw List of people who have been pied and created this deleted category was acting in good faith, but getting hit in the face with a pie isn't defining and it puts a bunch of people in the same category as Phyllis Schlafly and they all deserve better. (-; The vast majority of articles and list articles will not be WP:DEFINING enough to the other articles in a potential category.
  • Award Categories: In general awards are especially prone to this "I have a list and that automatically means it's time for a category" misunderstanding. The category clutter this creates is breathtaking: take a look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article and keep in mind CFD already cut that list about in half. We routinely look at why the award was issued to determine definingness, even those from countries. I consider awards to be clearly defining when they are a career capstone in that industry: Academy Award, Pullitzer, Olympic medal and, yes, Grammy Hall of Fame and Baseball Hall of Fame. Now I understand you think of halls of fame more a joining a museum organization than an award, but that just moves the issue from WP:OCAWARD to WP:OCASSOC which has traditionally been a much tougher subtype of WP:NONDEFINING.
  • Halls of Fame: The 90% figure was from another editor and I nominate halls of fame individually or in small categories because I go into each with an open mind and take a careful look at each one. That being said, I find that lifetime achievement awards (or lifetime achievement "associations") tend to be much less defining because they just reflect the earlier accomplishment for which the biography article is already categorized. For instance when an Canadian wins a medal at the Olympics, within minutes a proud Canadian will categorize them under Category:Olympic medalists for Canada. Inevitably adding them to the Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame a few years later (and it is inevitable) is redundant. I could do a better job in my nomination of calling out the WP:OVERLAPCAT guideline at play here though.
  • List Articles: Another thing I could better is how I talk about lists because I think this misunderstanding was my fault. Whenever I nominate a category under WP:OCAWARD, the first question those who *agree* with me is usually along the lines of "Pulling together all these names is a lot of work so how can we make sure we don't lose this information if there's not already a list article." So I pre-emptively say "the list is already here" or "I created the list" here. I never intended to imply that the presence of the list was a reason to delete or to keep a category per WP:CFL. I can see how it could read it that way.
I'll work on making my nominations clearer going forward on the last two points. Thanks so much for striking some of your CFD comments that may have misunderstood parts of my nomination! RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to ping me on my talk page or here and we can share more long posts. Then you can use what you learn to make a short knockout punch to one of my CFD nominations. (Editors there definitely favor brevity more than we do, haha.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Another wordy replyEdit

  • Long posts never bother me. You should see some of the ones in my talk page archive, especially when I was first learning to use Wikipedia and how to create articles. I started creating articles right away. I do have a tendency to be verbose, and I am constantly working on becoming more concise. I got a little zealous with this category issue in the beginning. Copy/Paste is dangerous for me!
  • I like your examples in the notability versus definingness of categories bullet point. And I absolutely agree with it. When montanabw and I were overhauling the Rodeo categories, we absolutely tried to keep it simple and concise. We both watch over those categories. I also have all of the Rodeo articles on my Watchlist. She has most of them too. We both are pretty stringent on creating more categories for the most part.
  • Ok, regarding the award categories bullet point. Yeah, that's definitely a crazy train wreck article on Eisenhower. I come across some too, but not quite that bad. Here's the rodeo article that is the largest category soup for us. Earl W. Bascom. He also is the most decorated cowboy in rodeo to date. He is notable for an article through one of those event world championships. Then there's a heap of HoFs. The hall of fame honor that makes him notable, though, is the Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame. I didn't create this article, but have updated it. I always try to mention the ProRodeo Hall of Fame and Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame in the lead, one or the other; otherwise they are notable by a world championship.
  • Regarding halls of fame that seem to just reward existing awards. I understand your example about the Canadian Olympic medalists. And I would even agree that might be true of some halls of fame. But that of itself doesn't immediately make them non-defining, although sometimes it would. I also know of halls of fame that choose inductees based on more than just a world championship for example. Maybe I'm spoiled in rodeo. But the rodeo HoFs are picky, there are no formulas, and they mostly look for more than just championships.
You might want to read this page on the Canadian Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame website: [20]
- Achievements WILL NOT allow a person to be inducted into the Hall of Fame in any category.
- In short, the person has become Legendary in his/her support, achievements and contributions to Canadian Pro Rodeo.
Example: using Earl Bascom again 1984 Earl Bascom
Now regarding the ProRodeo Hall of Fame. They are very selective, no formula. For example, there is a Bucking Bull of the Year award going back to 1974. :Yet the HoF has only inducted seven bulls, the last one in 2007. With horses in their various events, they are also very selective in their inductions. Same is true with people. But when they do induct, for instance with Charmayne James [21] it's not because she won world barrel racing championships. It's because she won 10 in a row. And the rest of her not awardable accomplishments are listed in her induction page.
And then is the PBR. In 2017, after a world champion bull contender named Pearl Harbor died without a title, they switched the bull they were going to give the Brand of Honor to and gave it to him. The bull w/o any awards now is notable. [22]
The PBR also honors other cowboys with the Ring of Honor who are not bull riders, but are rodeo cowboys.
  • List articles - Thanks for explaining. We are all good on this now.

Sorry it took so long to reply. There were so many more examples, but not to overwhelm you. I did want to respond on those CfDs first yesterday. And I needed to cut down on my wordiness here a lot. And I can only do the harder thought requiring tasks so long each day. But thanks because your reply was really so helpful! dawnleelynn(talk) 19:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello Dawnleelynn,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250


Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

June events with WIREdit

June 2019, Volume 5, Issue 6, Numbers 107, 108, 122, 123, 124, 125


Check out what's happening in June at Women in Red:

Virtual events:


Other ways you can participate:


Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for War Paint (horse)Edit

 On 23 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article War Paint (horse), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ProRodeo Hall of Fame bucking horse War Paint was insured for $10,000 with Lloyd's of London? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/War Paint (horse). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, War Paint (horse)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for responding to my query, guiding me, fixing my mistakes, reviewing my articles and generally going the extra mile. You are a diligent wikipedian, a patient teacher and an awesome human being. Keep rocking! Usedtobecool TALK 17:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: Are you sure you only used to be cool? You seem pretty cool to me now. I am happy to help, really. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mid-states Rodeo Association logo.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Mid-states Rodeo Association logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

SectionsEdit

Well done for updating all those AQHA Hall of Fame links! Just looking at some of the QH article I wonder if they might benefit from being divided into sections in a standardised way. With TB racehorses my default arrangement is BACKGROUND (everything that happened before the horse enters training), RACING CAREER (broken down into seasons) and RETIREMENT/ STUD RECORD/ BREEDING RECORD (everything that happened after the horse stopped racing). I wonder if we could break down the QH articles in a similar way. Obviously many top QH aren't racehorses but you could swap out "Racing career" for "Show career", "Rodeo career" etc. What do you think? Tigerboy1966  07:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, but I am working on the list alphabetically. So, I am on the letter M. I am hoping to finish this project today, or tomorrow at the latest. I am using the Checklinks tool and actually trying to fix all the broken links in the article. In the meantime, we could discuss this a bit.
I like your idea. I use similar sections in the bucking bull articles. Of course, some of the articles are stubs, so they would have to be expanded before sections would make sense there. Any articles that don't have infoboxes should have them added too.
Another thought I had is this is a good opportunity to add a mention of the halls of fame to the lead or move them there. The CfD is still live and that is one of the criteria for Wikipedia:Defining. Barbara L, Chicado V, and a few others are already sorted into these similar sections you have mentioned. Are you thinking all QH articles and not just the ones in the hall of fame? I would imagine you have a way of identifying them all. Anyway, these articles already sectioned can be good examples to follow. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Dawnleelynn".