SuggestBot (talk | contribs) SuggestBot recommends these articles... |
Peter Isotalo (talk | contribs) →Concerning ownership: new section |
||
Line 617: | Line 617: | ||
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on [[User:SuggestBot/Requests|the SuggestBot request page]]. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 19:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on [[User:SuggestBot/Requests|the SuggestBot request page]]. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- [[User:SuggestBot|SuggestBot]] ([[User talk:SuggestBot|talk]]) 19:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Concerning ownership == |
|||
I'm back from my wikibreak now, and I'd like to continue where we left off at the AN/I tinitiated by [[User:Una Smith]]. The thread in its entirety [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&oldid=254390379 here]. I'm pasting the posts directly relevant to [[WP:OWN|ownership]] from that AN/I thread so that we have evidence to start from. The old posts are in italics and have diff links at the end. I'll pick up by replying to Montana's last post. I've invited [[User:Lar]], who expressed interest in acting as a mediator, to join in on the discussion. I've also notified [[User:Bwilkins]] since he was an outside party who commented the AN/I. |
|||
''I don't agree with the block request, but like I said, I'm not happy about Montana being presented as a virtually flawless contributor by herself and her co-editors. Ideally no RfC should be filed at all and both users should try to scrutinize their behavior closer. Much of the problem is that Montana is allowed to boss people around, even other high-level contributors, simply because she's so darned active. I've had a few interactions with her, and I've found them all rather troublesome.'' |
|||
*'''''[[horses in the Middle Ages]]''': I made an uncontroversial, albeit bold, move from [[medieval horses]] and got this testy reply.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHorses_in_the_Middle_Ages&diff=114829836&oldid=114761897]'' |
|||
*'''''[[mare]]''': Despite being argued against very convincingly by myself and other editors, Montana was more or less unilaterally deciding what was relevant or not in the etymology section. Everyone who disagreed were put on hold until she personally felt she was convinced. I still think that the etymology is one part relevant material and one part dictionary trivia, but I simply ran gave up because of Montana's zeal. This reply[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMare&diff=180519676&oldid=180402692] in particular is what put me off since it appeared as though Montana's voice was more relevant than that of other editors.'' |
|||
*'''''[[horses in warfare]]''': I had a crack at helping out in the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Horses in warfare/archive1|PR]] and tried to argue for what I believed was somewhat irrelevant sources and a somewhat Eurocentric tilt to the article. There was disagreement, but I tried to focus on details rather than mere policy interpretations. Montana asked me to summarize my position[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APeer_review%2FHorses_in_warfare%2Farchive1&diff=249288658&oldid=249274818], and in the next reply I was told to take it elsewhere[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APeer_review%2FHorses_in_warfare%2Farchive1&diff=249981439&oldid=249822225], even though other main contributors were partially agreeing. The discussion continued on the article talkpage, and again another editor agrees, but Montana defines the whole thing as irrelevant.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHorses_in_warfare&diff=252685458&oldid=252668186]'' |
|||
*''I was also auto-reverted on mere technicalities with the motivation "This was Ealdgyth's work, she has multiple FAs, please leave it alone, take this to talk."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horses_in_warfare&diff=249983648&oldid=249819548] When I complained, I only got this non sequitur as a final reply.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMontanabw&diff=250302460&oldid=250178821]'' |
|||
''The problem as I see it is that Montana is too keen on putting edits on hold for tedious consensus discussions whether they are actually controversial or not. She also acts like a kind of proxy guardian for the work of her colleagues, and appears to insinuate that only the original contributors are really qualified to change her/his work (see the reply to Gwinva at the bottom).[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHorses_in_warfare&diff=252684162&oldid=252668186] Whether or not her co-editors actually sympathize with this, I don't know, but the end result is nevertheless her guarding horse articles quite jealously. I think part of the solution might for members of WP:EQUINE to look a bit more critically on how she handles contributions and criticism that comes outside of her own clique. |
|||
''[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=253994315] |
|||
:''Small aside to Peter's new comments. Peter's not a bad egg; I believe he and I mostly just are two rather stubborn people who tend to dig in when we interact with one another, probably as much due to mutual tone than anything. His examples must be viewed in full context of each discussion, and also considered in light of this particular user's general pattern of interaction on other articles where I am not involved.([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Medieval_cuisine example]). I can provide a point by point explanation/rebuttal if requested, but I hope the full context of the discussions noted speak for themselves. BMW, what is the next step here? Do you weigh in?[[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=254117834] |
|||
''Rather than trying to dig up dirt on me, I'd like to hear why you so obviously went against several other editors over at [[mare]] and then called your decision consensus. No one agreed to your conclusions and your argumentation was entirely based on your own opinions. I would also like to hear why you consider yourself entitled to be so uncivil to me at [[talk:horses in warfare#Length/bias of the Europe section]]. I don't keep tellign you that you're not serious and the likes. And since you appear to have turned around completely[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horses_in_warfare&diff=254175957&oldid=254099709][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHorses_in_warfare&diff=254177372&oldid=252685458] concerning my suggestion on mounted archery, despite arguing fiercly against it, I get the feeling that you're arguing against me as a person, not my suggestions and criticisms. |
|||
''[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=254187753] |
|||
:''First Peter, I apologize if my growing frustration and impatience at arguing the same points with you over and over and over came across to you as uncivil. But second, please do not distort or misstate my positions here: I did not argue against the archery material in HIW, Peter. I acknowledged it. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Horses_in_warfare#Length.2Fbias_of_the_Europe_section here]. My exact reply to you on the issue was: " While I agree that if archery can be explained further, that would be nice, but If you have any recommendations, it would be much appreciated--we lack adequate source material." In the time since you mentioned it, as you were so gracious to demonstrate above, I responded to the critique, recalled some of the institutional history of the article,([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Horses_in_warfare#Horse_archers here]) found some material, and added it. If the admins want to review the issue at the mare article, which was 11 months ago, they can read the entire discussion <s>after the diff you provided</s>in it's complete form [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mare here], where my last comment to you was "Anyway, I was OK with your last set of edits, so if things are settled for now, I'll call it a day." which I think means I agreed with some of your work. I believe a compromise was reached, removing some linguistic OR material the other editors wanted out, but keeping some other definitions. The issue was further refined by other editors later, and the etymology section of the mare article has now been, er, "stable" (pardon the horse pun) for months. [[User:Montanabw|<font color="006600">Montanabw</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=254321611] |
|||
I didn't perceive your statement about archery as agreement. You told me in the very same post "that if you have something to actually contribute, please inform us with helpful tips and links to good sources" and the only set of edits you have so far allowed me to do are minor copyediting and tweaking the placement of images. In combination with your reverts, that's a rather unwelcoming statement. You also seem to get outright annoyed at issues I bring up eventhough you don't scold equine-interested colleagues when they express pretty much the same opinions.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APeer_review%2FHorses_in_warfare%2Farchive1&diff=248244403&oldid=248243008][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHorses_in_warfare&diff=252427201&oldid=252339440] |
|||
In [[mare]] you reverted me[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mare&diff=next&oldid=180402714] after I removed the material that only you found relevant. I don't know if you've actually realized it despite several rounds of debate, but you were very stubborn about keeping the section called "Etymology" filled with non-etymological information. I left the discussion not because I thought a satisfying compromise had been reached, but rather because I was frustrated with your unilateral actions. |
|||
My experience so far is that unless I wholeheartedly join WP:EQUINE, I'm not going to be allowed to do anything bolder than copyediting in horse articles without explicit talkpage permission from Montana. I don't consider myself anything like an expert, professional or amateur, when it comes to horses. However, I have a reasonably good grasp of history, military matters and I've written a fair share of GAs and FAs on various topics. I believe Montana should be more careful about trying to "protect" articles from editors like myself. |
|||
[[User:Peter Isotalo|Peter]] <sup>[[User talk:Peter Isotalo|Isotalo]]</sup> 12:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:50, 2 December 2008
Archives |
---|
If people want to talk to me here, do so:
I sometimes archive and/or delete old stuff.
Templates
No, I copy paste from this Wikipedia:Citation templates as well as from a cheat sheet I keep in the computer with the commonly used books already entered into the templates. I have an older version off my user space too: User:Ealdgyth/Horse References, which i need to update to the templates Ealdgyth | Talk 04:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I also find it really tedious to have to remember where the punctuation goes in the bibliographical entries, so I like the templates since it handles that for me. Template:Cite book and Template:Cite web have handy blank templates that you can copy and paste into your article. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Converting
It's Template:Convert to convert things between measurement systems. (grins) Ealdgyth | Talk 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting link/article
- Widespread Origins of Domestic Horse Lineages Might be worth trying to integrate into a few articles. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kathiawari horses Ealdgyth | Talk 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Genetics of Conformation Ealdgyth | Talk 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Racing Performances of Arabian horses Ealdgyth | Talk 20:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sport Horse breeding this one looks more like Countercanter's alley. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Iberian Origins of New World Horse Breeds THAT looks interesting (and useful) Ealdgyth | Talk 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Irish Draught Ealdgyth | Talk 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Iberian Horse origins Ealdgyth | Talk 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Pics
Well, from South America (Chile, in fact) I have these Image:Chileansaddlebeta.jpg and Image:Chileansaddlealpha.jpg. Still working on other culls. Spent a good four hours today pulling PVC fencing. Whee. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Cgoodwin (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Any time. And for future reference, this is proof I don't torture puppies and eat baby bunnies! (grin) Montanabw(talk) 05:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
On American wars
Talking of the differing viewpoints of the American wars, I came across this wonderful passage in The Times, 27 April, 1814. Concluding a report on the Battle of Toulouse (1814), and the winning of the Peninsular War, the editor turns to consideration of Spain and Britain's coming task in the ongoing War of 1812 (etc).
"Indeed, Spain is yet engaged in other hostilities. Not to speak of the unhappy dissensions of her colonies, she, as well as Britain, has an account to settle with the United States. Mr Madison's dirty, swindling manoevres in respect to Louisiana and the Floridas remain to be punished. We may, therefore, hope to hear, that the laurels which a Freyre or a Mendizabal have gathered in France will bloom with fresh verdure beyond the Atlantic."
Hope it amuses you as much as it does me. :) Gwinva (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Especially when you consider that Jefferson had earlier sent Madison off to con Napoleon out of the Louisiana Purchase for three cents an acre and all we really wanted was access from the ocean! LOL! Montanabw(talk) 02:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Peruvian Paso
I've watchlisted Peruvian Paso, and will keep an eye on it. Ambling breeds are definitely not my area of expertise, but I'll do what I can... I'm always for keeping sourced material...especially when they're reliable books as opposed to someone's blog! *grin* No problem on the Mustang article...I had watchlisted it a week or so ago when the latest round of editing started, and it seemed that the two of you were just going back and forth, so I decided to try to throw in another POV and see what happened. It appears to be working fairly well, and the guy is obviously willing to work with other editors (even though I really don't like his opinion on in-line external links, especially after just spending all that time combing them out of the Appaloosa article before it went GA!). Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help on either article.
Also, thanks for the backup on the Iranian horse prod tag question that was posted on my talk page! Dana boomer (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- If we have any thoughts on taking Mustang to FA or GA, the inline external links need to go. And personally, they are just ugly (ducks). I leave Tuesday morning to go home! No more ranch duties for me! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the external links need to go, per MOS and personal opinion. However, the guy at the Mustang article seems to have a different opinion, and is telling me that I don't know the difference between a reference and an external link. Perhaps you would like to chime in at the discussion over there, Ealdgyth? Dana boomer (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think Mustang should probably go on our list for GA work, it's of enough significance and general interest to the non-horse wiki population that it probably needs to be tackled. I did a TON of work on it several months ago, footnoted gobs of stuff (though not all). This recent guy seems to have settled down once Dana showed up, most of these edit spats I get into seem to cool down as soon as another WP:EQUINE member shows up. Ealdgyth, sounds like you are having one of those times about like I had in January-March of this year! LOL! Chin up, breathe in...breathe out...and good luck! Montanabw(talk) 04:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Footnoting
Hey Montana- for the Olympic Equestrian article, I've been getting all my information from one source, although there are a few other sources online that I could use. However, I don't know if it would be appropriate to footnote, since almost all of the article would be from the same book. I did put it down in the reference section. Would you still suggest footnoting? Should I footnote by the paragraph? Eventer (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Butting in here...you should probably at least footnote by paragraph, even if it's all the same book. The easiest thing to do is put the whole book cite in the "references" section, and then use the inline ref cites as "author, title, page(s)" to place the shortened cite in the "notes" section. If you want to see an example, look at Thoroughbred or Arabian horse. Since the article existed before you started working on it, I'm assuming that there's some stuff in there that you didn't add. Any of this that you can't find cites for, place fact tags (which are "cn" with double brackets on either end) at the end of the sentence or section, and cite everything else. This will make it easier for someone looking through the article at some point in the future to see what comes from your book and what information still needs to be cited. Also, the more different reliable, verifiable sources that you can use in the article, the better. When you start going for GA/FA, they tend to want lots of different sources. I tend to do a lot of the work on citation formatting, but Ealdgyth is the one to ask about reliability and verifiability.
- The work that you're doing on the article looks really nice. If at any point you decide that you want to take it to GA/FA, please let Montana, myself and Ealdgyth know, and we would be more than happy to help you. I have another book on Olympic Equestrianism, so after you throw in some cites and any fact tags, I might go through and do some more work that (hopefully) complements yours. Also, even if you don't want to do all the work for GA/FA, the work that you're doing now will make it easy for the rest of us to do some quick cleanup and expansion for an easy project in the future :).
- Hope this rather lengthy example of my sticking my nose into various places helps answer your question. *grin* Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Eventer, like Dana said...she and Ealdgyth are even making me look like I'm laid back and sloppy! (LOL!) What we are finding as we try to tune up articles is that some unreferenced material is REALLY hard to find and reference later, particularly when the original editors are long gone. And the wikigods are getting a lot more fussy about tagging stuff. (sigh). Thanks for answering, Dana! Montanabw(talk) 05:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Irish Sport Horse, breed or type ?
Could you tell me your definition of the Irish Sport Horse, i.e. do you think it is a "breed" or "type" ? and I will tell you what I think (know) it is. I would like the thoughts of your friends on Wiki (Dana b., Ealdgyth & Eventer) too. I'll reply here, but please keep it "short and sweet." - CulnacréannThe'FortySix'
- Actually, User:Countercanter may be your best ally here if you are thinking the way I think you are thinking (grin). IMHO, I think telling someone that their "FriesianWalkaLoosaVanner" isn't a "real" breed starts edit wars! LOL! I mean, I'm into Arabians-- so EVERYTHING else is a "crossbreed" as far as I'm concerned (grinning and ducking) But, therefore, I personally err on the side of caution and tend to be kinder than perhaps is necessary. If the "registry" exists, seems to have existed for at least a few horse generations, has more members than the customers of one stud farm, and seems to have some standards beyond "send us $20 and a picture of your horse and we'll send you a purty certificate," I'll at least hesitate to put on a prod tag. (grin) These newer crossbreds are really tricky for me. I guess these sport horses are sort of like labradoodles or something, they're sort of a breed and sort of not. Note Friesian Sporthorse and that it matters DEEPLY that we do not confuse them with the Friesian Sport Horse. On the other hand, no one has yet convinced me that the "Warlander" is anything more than a bunch of first generation crossbreds! My own personal irritant is the American Warmblood, but it will take a braver person than I to try and "that's not a breed" that one. I have enough trouble on my hands keeping the Puerto Rican and Columbian Paso Fino people off each other's throats. They really don't like being together in one article and appear to hate each other's horses too.
- I guess at the end of the day, the Irish Sport Horse is a least as much a breed as, say the Camarillo White Horse. OTOH, warmbloods or sport horses, or gaited horses or stock horses are clearly a type, sort of a grouping of several similar body type "breeds" or whatever-you-call-them, while the dozens of open stud book registries with studbook selection are, by the most techncal standards, perhaps not quite a breed by the fussiest definition, it's simpler to call them a breed, because they ARE more specific than a type. I can't personally really tell a Holsteiner (horse) from an Westphalian (horse), but if they want separate registries AND an open stud book, they can go for it. And the Trakehner does have a closed stud book, so it's a warmblood AND a "real" breed. For another example, the baroque horse is a type, the Lipizzaner and the Andalusian horse are CLEARLY breeds, with closed stud books and all. But what about the Appaloosa or American Quarter Horse, which are "breeds" by most people's definition, but which still does allow a limited number of crossbreds to be registered if they fit the breed standard?? Oh yes, and then there are the 8 "breeds" native to Indonesia, except they all sound like the same type of horse...(see Java Pony) ARRGH!?!
- I know that's not an answer, let's just call it food for thought. Where are you going with this? (smiles) And yes, everyone can hijack my talk page to discuss this further if you don't want to put it into WikiProject Equine and have a feeding frenzy... Montanabw(talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't know why the Irish Sport Horse is termed "type"? when the Dutch Warmblood is called a "bred"? The KWPN (has a lot more different breeds (different blood) included in it (Gelderland, Andalusian, Neapolitan, Norman, Norfolk Roadster, Holstein, Groningen, the Friesian, East Friesian, Alt-Oldenburger, and Holsteiner + Thoroughbred) than the Irish Sport Horse (although we in Ireland now have Holstein, KWPN, SF etc. continental warmbloods, coming in these last 10 - 15 years or so - personally I don't like KWPN, I perfer German blood, Holstein, Hanoverian, Oldenburg (in that order) - but as you know Thoroughbred blood is the greatest blood of all in a Sport Horse. Ireland's only Olympic Individual Gold medalist in show jumping, Ambassador (1972) ridden by Graziano Mancinelli (ITALY), was by a son of Nasrullah called Nordlys. Nordlys was a grey [1]. Well Nordlys, who stood with Maurice Phelan (whos son Eamonn is head stallion man at Coolmore Stud), outside Lemybrien, County Waterford, sired a lot of International winning showjumpers (Nelson Pessoa's (Rodrigo's father) Miss Moet who held the World Puissance record at 2.33m (7' 7.5") and Cruising's[2],[3] Dam, Mullacrew to name two). We had two International winning jumpers by Nordlys, the grey Barryville and the bay Monks Meadow, both won Puissance's. Nordlys has The Tetrarch blood on both sides. Take a look at the pic of him!![4] for colour? nicknamed, the 'Spotted Wounder', he traces back to the Byerley Turk.
- As I write this, Irish TV is showing racing from the Curragh and a piece on the Agh Khan. They are showing pics of Byerley Turk, Godolphin Arabian & Darley Arabian!!
- Where am I going with this? I just wanted your (and others views). I am going to "do some work" on the Irish Sport Horse article. Plus I'm going to the RDS Dublin Horse Show CSIO5*(1st week August), where I hope to take some photos to put up in Commons. I'll try a see the Connemara pony, Irish Draught, maybe Thoroughbred stallion classes. Diff. photo the International showjumpers and National show jumpers (4, 5 & 6 y.o.'s). My 17 y.o. cousin has qualified a horse, so I'll be taking some of him - - CulnacréannThe'FortySix'
- See how Irish Sport Horse is classed on list of horse breeds. That probably reflects wikipedia consensus. I think it's a "breed" there. You may also want to take a look at one of Countercanter's articles, heavy warmblood. Quite nicely done, I thought. Montanabw(talk) 02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Horses in warfare
Hi, I appreciate your concerns and I suggest the following course of action 1) Don't panic. Calm down and realise that no one wants to see the article delisted, only improved. 2) leave your comments (as I see you have done) at the GAR page and specifically request more time before a decision is reached. It will certainly be granted. 3) Remember that GAR is a consensus (which is why I took it there in the first place). If you explain your issues with the concerns raised its perfectly likely that people will agree with you or suggest alternative solutions. So in summary, don't worry. The article is in no danger of immediate delisting and if you ask, as much time as you need will be made avaliable. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that there is a reason to panic. Even if gets delisted, this is likely only a temporary measure and it will be listed soon again. While you're at it, take a look at the old Military history A-class review and also improve these issues. It brings you a lot closer to FA and makes it more unlikely that the article gets delisted when criteria get tougher. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just got your note, and of course I will help. I'm not sure how much time I'll have over the next few days (you caught me at a nutty time with work and family stuff), but I'll put as much work as I can into it. I haven't read all of the comments yet, but I noticed some of the concerns were with reference formatting, convert templates, and that sort of stuff. If you want to work on the actual prose (since you actually know what's going on with that), I can work on the picky formatting type stuff, since I know that's not your favorite area :) Thanks for the notes on the Haflinger article, btw. Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Dana, if you can properly format those cites, you will be owed a box of chocolate! Wandal, some of the stuff from the mili hist may have been addressed already (seems like sourcing was their biggest concern??), but if you want to flag anything that needs tweaking, go for it. As for the rest, I'll go back to the article talk page, but I really don't know what's even worth addressing because a few of the things were just silly. (No, we aren't going to cut the reenactments section, it's relevant) Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- evil cackle* The chocolate is MINE!!!!! Ok, sorry, I'm a little nuts from staring at citation formatting all day. But, the cites are done! I've also left a set of comments and updates on the talk page. Have fun editing tonight! Dana boomer (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Pale horses
Re: American_creme_and_white_horse_registry, I've had a go. I didn't manage to keep any of the original though (it was like five articles rolled into one, with added typos). If you have a chance, please have a read of it and see if it makes any sense. Should American White and American Creme horses get their own articles, or should they be dealt with in this one? Whatever, I'm not volunteering... :o) My head hurts... Bogbumper (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to my world! LOL!!! I think the "American Creme and White Horse Registry" is a single organization (they have a web site, though I think the organization is at least semi-defunct. In short, it used to be the American Albino Horse Registry until it dawned on people that there is no such thing as a living albino horse. Longer version is that "creme" horses are really just cremellos or other horses with two copies of the cream gene or another dilution gene like the pearl gene. White horses are more complicated, but see White (horse). Either way, it's a color breed registry of minimal importance, but given the romanticism people have with white horses, I think the topic is sufficiently notable to stay in, with cleanup. Thanks for taking a run at it. Maybe also see what the International Museum of the Horse web site has to say about these critters...there is also an American Cream Draft Horse (not sure how we list it in the list of horse breeds) that is a totally different bunch of animals...at any rate, hope this is your idea of fun! If it is, welcome to the club! :-D
Thanks! Just reverted/changed a few things. I've given up explaing "out of" to non-horse people. It's not worth the bother (grins). And I try to avoid using ()'s for definitions of words, rather use phrases, they just look better to me. I did manage to find the date of his induction, the AQHA finally put it up on their page (for years they didn't). Got the stakes information. Just not sure where to put the QH vs TB stuff that Ruhrfish is looking for. It's in a footnote right now, but I'd like it in the body, just can't figure out WHERE!
Horsie stuff... speaking of QHs... our broodmare. Well, she's saddle broke. Takes a rider fine. Has brakes. Just no steering. None. Nada. None. So she's staying in Texas for 30 days while she acquires a steering wheel. So her daughter gets to stay there too, so we only waste the gas ONCE going and getting them! Took pictures of the cowhorse today though ... in one of those fancy desert style halters. He was baffled at this whole "fancy halter" thing... but behaved. Score one for Khemosabi breeding! (Cancels out that Nabiel on the bottom, his dam is a Nabiel daughter...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Color testing queries
What is VGL doing then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adekloet (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. First time I've ever done this and we have a new Gray test that is the first of its kind. We also developed a coat color calculator that lets people perform genetic calculations with regards to equine color. Also the first of it’s kind.
UC Davis is all over the place and VGL Veterinary Genetics Laboratory which is where everything is referred back to is the largest commercial entity for equine color and genetic testing. They are everywhere something two or three times in one reference.
We are affiliated in a loose way with several universities including FSU and University of Utreght.
Sorry for the misunderstanding but it’s just not clear to me what we are able to put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adekloet (talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the point, the point is that they aren't used as a source for the article. See WP:V and WP:CITE. Short version is that you can put in material used as a source for the article, but random lists of handy external links are discouraged - usually the good stuff should be added to the text itself. External links are primarily for access to information of use in the article that can't be placed into the article for some reason, such as large pdf files of rule books, video clips of relevant content, etc... Hope that makes sense. Montanabw(talk) 00:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Horses in warfare
I really don't appreciate your attitude on this at all. I did not start this problem; you did by having a substandard article listed as a GA. As I said to Dana, I will provide a further review and give my opinion when I have the time but as I also mentioned, it is not my place to close the review - in fact to do so would be a pretty severe conflict of interest. As I think I mentioned to you at the start of this process, assuming an aggressive attitude and being impatient with other editors will get you nowhere.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Jacky, I've answered elsewhere. The lack of appreciation for attitude is mutual. And your personal attack here is unwarranted. The article was awarded GA status by the same process that all articles supposedly go through now. "Substandard" is really pretty over the top. To say that standards have tightened up is fine. Insulting the work of previous editors and GA reviewers is not. Montanabw(talk) 01:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Montanabw, I just reread the article. It looks good from an MoS and sourcing standpoint. I still think it's a bit unfocused in areas; however, those issues are not sufficient to remove the article's GA status. I reversed my delist so that another editor can close the review. Best, epicAdam (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Adam, you're a gem.
- From the GAR page history, it appears that User:Geometry guy is the main person who opens and closes reviews and discussions. I'm unsure as to weather or not users can close GARs on their own. Best, epicAdam (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the article was listed as a GA back in December 2006, when standards were different than they are now, they have tightened considerably. So while the article did need updating, calling it substandard is probably a bit of a stretch. It's more that the standards have improved (as they should, I personally believe). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Works for me. I have relatively few issues with tighter GA standards. But that aside, can we just close the GAR somehow, some way, any way? I just read WP:GAR and putting the article up for a community reassessment was an abuse of process in the first place. The GAR article says, "A community reassessment is used when there has been a breakdown in the processes of nomination, review and individual reassessment..." There never WAS communication about the article at all. The request for a community reassessment came like a blast out of the blue. I'm still pissed off about this, it was not very well handled. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Epicadam is going to close the review now I believe. These GA reassessments do come like a bolt out out of the blue, and they do need to be handled with some sensitivity. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I'm happy enough now. Yeah, an individual GA reassessment is sort of a jolt, but that's the way they have to be, I suppose. Nonetheless, now that I see what the GAR guidelines are, a community reassessment with no prior warning was pretty poor form. But now everything appears to be tucked in, I'm (mostly) over it. Montanabw(talk) 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- As the GAR has now been correctly closed as keep, let that be an end to this. Congratulations to everyone who put in hard work on this (including you Montana); the article is now vastly improved, not far indeed from FA standard. By the way, if you take a look at the top of the GAR you will see that I brought it to a community GAR because I felt the article was too long and complicated for me to personally decide in an individual reassessment whether it was good enough for GA. I therefore took it to community GAR, perfectly correctly, to generate wider community interest and comments. This has resulted in both increased interest in and large-scale improvements to the article, and was thus the correct procedure. I think it would be better if you and I avoided one another for the forseeable future.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Horse
As well as everything else, I've been working on the Horse article, and I'm down to the last few sections that need references. A couple of these appear to be your baby, and I'm wondering if you have the refs for them easily available.
The first is the "form to function" theory on the development of breeds. Although I can find references showing the general concept, none use this term specifically. Do you have one that does?
The second is the difference between feral and wild. None of the references that I have (dictionaries, other books, web searches) make a differentiation between the two terms. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just asking you to drop your source for the differentiation into the article.
I'd like to finish referencing the article over the next week or so. If you could help on these two sections, it would be fantastic.
Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- God, I'll look for sources, both are so common. I'l look in my conformation books for form to function, wish we could do electronic text searches of hardcopy works! LOL! I know that Ealdgyth doesn't like Marguerite Henry because she's a children's author, but her simple book actually does a nice job of explaining the wild/feral thing. Will you accept that as a preliminary source? Montanabw(talk) 02:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- We use Henry for a bunch of other stuff in the article, so why not? *grin* I'll say yes, for the moment, at least to get the article to GA. If in the process we find a bit more scholarly source for the stuff, we can toss it in, but for right now I just want to get the stuff cited with something reasonably reliable. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The sloth speaks
Sorry, I kept promising to look at Horses in warfare, but have not yet made it, despite your crisis. Are there still page nos and other refs outstanding, or have you sorted everything despite my slothfulness? Let me know if you still need anything, and be as rude to me as I deserve for not doing anything I promised. My mind's still on holiday, I think. Gwinva (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think we weathered the crisis and are finished, but if you see any "citation needed" tags or "needs page number" comments in there (do word search) and they are to one of your books, can you help? Also, check the stuff linked to the Keenan work; I have issues with some of it, but no ammo to back up my thoughts (basically on the development of light cavalry after the demise of the knight). Montanabw(talk) 02:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm,if you mean Keegan, then yes, I see your point re: firearms-armed infantry, especially where combined with pikemen, were able to counter cavalry with relative ease throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. – try telling that to the poor musket-armed infantry standing up to the cavalry during the napoleonic wars. The Infantry square was quite effective, but in line or column, the infantry were destroyed by cavalry. Thus, European cavalry moved from a central, "shock combat" role to a flanking role, used mainly to harry and to disrupt artillery from being deployed freely. – well, kinda true, but not the full story: plenty of effective mounted shock charges by cavalry well into the 20th century. Will have to have a think about that. I had heaps of Nap wars (plus some American and colonial wars) stuff floating around the house a while back, but most have found their way back to their respective libraries. So, something else to add to my "to do" list: Cavalry in the 18th & 19th C. Gwinva (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keegan, yes, Precisely. Having just survived GA review, I hate to bring this up over there now, but I think it needs to be fixed. When you have a chance to shoot me a bit of rewording, with citations, holler, or just put it over on the HIW talk page as something to add and we can play with it from that point on. By the way, I discovered that HiMA is missing a couple of page citations, found out the hard way when I swiped them for HIW. Montanabw(talk) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Haflingers and other Horses
Thanks for your work on the Haflinger article, your tweaks/additions are much appreciated! I agree that it's amazing how much easier it is to take criticism on someone else's work :) I did a bit more work on the article and made a bunch of replies to the reviewer, so hopefully the article gets passed tonight or tomorrow.
On to the Horse article: Thank you for the sourcing/wordsmithing work you've been doing over the past couple of days. I'm (probably ambitiously) wanting to get that in the GA pile in the next week or two, and your help is appreciated. I sincerely apologize for tossing the style stuff from the Riding and driving section - I didn't realize that was your baby! I would really appreciate it if you could toss in your sources and do whatever else you want to with it; I promise to leave it alone except for the inevitable OCD ref tweaking *grin*. Also, there are a few refs that don't have page numbers that I think are yours - Henry, Bennett and Budianski, as well as Barnett (Equine Opthamology), which I have no idea who put in. If you could get these numbers in there it would be absolutely wonderful :)
There are a few iffy websites that I'm going to work on re-sourcing in the next few days, and I want to draft up a quick section on "Intelligence and learning" as you suggested on the talk page a month or two ago (or if you get there before I do, that's fine too). As soon as I do a little more work on the article, I'm going to get Ealdgyth to go through the refs with a fine-tooth comb, looking for any GA/FA ref problems so that we can at least start working on fixes now. Articles on horses don't appear to hang around very long at GA (I think Haflinger was only there for four days or so), which is nice, but doesn't give us long to tweak once we put the article up for comment.
Anyways, I think that's all I have for tonight. Thanks again for your work on the Haflinger article! Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Wow, thanks for the barn star! I don't edit much in horse related areas (because I don't have much to add) but horses are a big part of my life and I like to keep my eye on some equestrian articles. I see all the work that you do and appreciate your expertise on all things related to horses. - Epousesquecido (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto what she said! Thanks for the barnstar, and thanks for all your hard work on WP. I'm so glad that this mess hasn't made you leave WP...the project would be much the worse with you gone. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Me too! A nice surprise when I logged in yesterday. Btw, if you get bored conversing with me in English, then try my Romanian page! Gwinva (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the collection of barnstars and other wiki-awards is very pretty, they are fun to select just the proper one for a person. (I'm still waiting for circumstances that will allow me to award the Surrealistic Barnstar! LOL!) They are kind of like Hallmark, only better. But Gwinva, so explain to the rest of us how one winds up with a Romanian page? LOL!! Montanabw(talk) 04:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Who knows? I discovered it by following a link in that very nice email from the Romanian Welcomebot. Not being all that familiar with Romanian (who is??) it took a little research to discover just what language it was! I occasionally follow article inter-language links in search of pictures and things (sizing up the opposition and all that: have you noticed that the Spanish Horses in warfare is a translation of ours? I wonder if we should let them know when we make changes....) and can only assume the welcomebot picked up my activity through the unified login. Gwinva (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the collection of barnstars and other wiki-awards is very pretty, they are fun to select just the proper one for a person. (I'm still waiting for circumstances that will allow me to award the Surrealistic Barnstar! LOL!) They are kind of like Hallmark, only better. But Gwinva, so explain to the rest of us how one winds up with a Romanian page? LOL!! Montanabw(talk) 04:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Pinto photo
Hi there Montana, I was searching Wiki (not Commons) for horse images and came across this Image:Pinto sport horse mare.jpg. Would it have a use for inclusion into 'any article'? It does not link to any pages or is in any Categories. - Culnacreann (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ooooh! That's a dandy! I'll see where we can put it. Good find! Montanabw(talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
American Warmblood (?)
Hi Montanabw, I was reading your comment on "breed or type?" and had a good chuckle over your thoughts about the "breed" American Warmblood. (BTW, that photo in the article is my little American Warmblood filly. :)) When someone asks me about her breed, I always say American Warmbloods are kind of the mutt of the warmblood breeds. - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- LOL! I try not to overdo it, I wish there were something like the American Kennel Club for horse breeds. Not that the AKC doesn't have its own politics, but it would be nice to have some guidelines for when a crossbred becomes a breed...after all, most if not all breeds were once crossbreds... Food for thought, Montanabw(talk) 05:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
O great copyeditor and general clean-uperer
Thanks for sorting the HiW stuff: the format is much better (I couldn't quite get my head around how it should go) and the prose flows a lot better too! Feel free to toss anything if you think I went overboard, or yell at me if I've neglected anything. Fully intend to fill in some of the holes, but I've also in the midst of a GA review for the 52nd Foot, so I'd better work on that too.
You're right about the euro-centrism (blame my books). I plan to do India, and some of the British colonies, but we also need a little more on America: war of independence, civil war etc to offset the British bias. Sounds like your area, Professor. (Oh, and apologies for the UK English take over: don't blame me. I even made a very painful sacrifice earlier, before the decision was made!) Gwinva (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- My thinking on the article is that we want to focus on major trends in tactics and technology rather than nations. (Though a spinoff of horses in 19th century European warfare would be cool as well!) Hence, the stuff added on horse artillery was much needed. For example, I'm not so much interested in horses in either of the big American wars other than in the context of whether there was anything new in how they were used, otherwise they can just be lumped in with the other stuff happening in the 18th and 19th centuries. Likewise, the stuff on American Indians and horses really needs little additional detail unless the Cheyenne, Comanche or whomever cooked up something new for use of horses by nomadic people on lightweight horses that was significantly different from what the Scythians were doing 3,000 years earlier, which I can look into. (What was remarkable about American Indians is how FAST they developed a horse culture after not having any at all for 10,000 years!) As for India, take a look at the India and China section of the existing article, which covers more early history, but maybe there is something more recent you can pop in there. (Like, how did they fight against elephants??) At least that's my thinking. Maybe we should run this past the rest of the gang on the article talk page too???Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't been at HiW the last day or so. As mentioned, I'm in the midst of a GA review. If you (O great copyeditor, etc) have a spare moment which you want to waste on my behalf, then you could look at the review comments (with particular attention to the concerns regarding the Peninsualr War section), and then the article, to see if I've met the concerns, or if it's still a confusing and poorly-written piece. (Oh, I know it's not scintillating prose, but I only want competent GA not super flashy FA at this stage.) Don't worry if you're busy, though. Gwinva (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- My thinking on the article is that we want to focus on major trends in tactics and technology rather than nations. (Though a spinoff of horses in 19th century European warfare would be cool as well!) Hence, the stuff added on horse artillery was much needed. For example, I'm not so much interested in horses in either of the big American wars other than in the context of whether there was anything new in how they were used, otherwise they can just be lumped in with the other stuff happening in the 18th and 19th centuries. Likewise, the stuff on American Indians and horses really needs little additional detail unless the Cheyenne, Comanche or whomever cooked up something new for use of horses by nomadic people on lightweight horses that was significantly different from what the Scythians were doing 3,000 years earlier, which I can look into. (What was remarkable about American Indians is how FAST they developed a horse culture after not having any at all for 10,000 years!) As for India, take a look at the India and China section of the existing article, which covers more early history, but maybe there is something more recent you can pop in there. (Like, how did they fight against elephants??) At least that's my thinking. Maybe we should run this past the rest of the gang on the article talk page too???Montanabw(talk) 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hand conversion
The template syntax allows for a "lk=in" to add a wikilink to Hand (length). For example: 14 hands (56.00 inches; 142.24 cm)*. Unfortunately, no way to make it link hand and not inch in this case... Also, at present, there is no way to use the traditional 14.2 format for either input or output. This may be a problem, but it beyond my wiki-abilities to make a number that looks like a decimal into not a decimal. (I also believe that the layperson has no idea that 14.2 means "14 hands and 2 inches" rather than "14 and 2/10ths hands". This format, while jarring to topic experts, is much more understandable for the general audience.) Feel free to revert, if you feel the articles were better off before. I can't think in hands and so I like to see the metric units and I think it makes the articles overall more understandable. There are downsides, especially with the non-traditional way that hands are written not being supported. JRP (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see if there's a way to only link hand and not inch, but I don't know of one. What I've done is follow the templates and the way converted numbers are written for all of the other conversion templates, rather than build a new one (which I couldn't do, frankly) for "hand". That means that the placement of parens, etc. is a little different than how you do it, plus the way they write out hands and inches. But I think in general what you suggest is doable. The documentation for Template:convert has a bunch more options that you can look at to see if there's something closer to your style... JRP (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- This most be a USA thing? Maybe you don't use centimetres daily. Just letting you know that in the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia too, 14.2 hh is ALWAYS rounded up to 148cm in measuring ponies. So none of your calculations to make it 147cm (actually its 1473mm or 147.3cm).[5] So here it is: 12.2hh = 128cm, 13.2hh = 138cm, 14.2hh = 148cm, 15.2hh = 158cm, 16.2hh = 168cm, 17.0hh = 173cm, so the height of horses and ponies is rounded up or down to these heights. And its always 'hh' when written down. 86.153.161.214 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think I understand, but let me reiterate what I know. 14.2 hands is 48 inches (14 * 4 + 2 = 48). Are these standard inches or is a special hand-inch used? The problem is that 48 inches is 147.32cm, but that there is a convention to always round-up in hands-to-cm conversion and so it's 148. The problem that I have with that is that the conversion template knows that it's 147.32 and so picks the right number of significant figures and says that 14.2 hands = 147cm. That tells me that hands isn't really being used a s true unit of measure here, or at least one that doesn't actually have three significant figures.
- With all that in mind, we can craft a conversion that uses the look-up instead of an actual decimal calculation. I don't know how to do that, but it can be done. I'll do some research. I suppose that having an almost-right metric conversion is better than none. JRP (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- LOL! Basically hands use normal inches, no problem there, and when fractional inches are involved, they are used. So the worst it gets with US inches is something like the Theodore O'Connor example where he was 14.1-3/4 hands. (i.e. almost a horse, but not quite). I'm not going to touch European conversions into cm if they deviate from standard rounding, as I don't have a clue. Perhaps the IP who pointed this out has a source, but for now I wouldn't sweat it, as we usually use the standard in|cm convert template in the horse articles. Montanabw(talk) 15:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Skunk tails
Were you looking for pics of the white hairs at the base of a tail? Picked some up while I was in Texas, if you want them. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's bascially one shot (grins), a nice close up of a lot of white hairs on a tail. We're home, btw, and the Noble Express filly would NOT load so she's coming home with a professional hauler later... gods, she's green! 20 minutes into it and she still wouldn't step foot on the ramp. (Yes, it's a ramp trailer, a very plush three horse slant with a nice rubber matted ramp... so it wasn't some rat trap!) With 16 hours of driving ahead of us, we just parked her back in the pasture and will hire someone to haul her up. I've got a couple of folks I've used, so it's not a crisis. Just annoying. When I started wanting to wring the filly's neck, that's when I knew it was time to quit! You'll have to wait until we get her here to get the belly spot pictures ... yes, she has one, a rather big one! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For your amusement...
Found at the Village Pump: Professor Wikipedia]. Gwinva (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
WHAAOE
A Nonpartisan Message from Governor Sarah Palin & Senator Hillary Clinton ! Gwinva (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh LOL! How many SNL skits get their own article? Thanks for that! Montanabw(talk) 03:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
GA review of Horse
Hi, Montanabw. I'll deal with this privately as I don't want to make the GA discussion any longer or prejudice the GA review. First, I think going for GA without getting the supporting articles in good shape is risky. The combination of biology / evolution and widespread, diverse and millenia-old human uses of horses makes it a very large subject, so it needs a few supporting articles to handle the details. A buddy and I came to a similar conclusion after my efforts on Cambrian explosion produced a result that was reasonably strong scientifically and not too difficult for non-specialists, but uncomfortably long. My buddy set up WP:CEX aiming to create a suitable package of supporting articles, and I'm the other active member. You may have to do the same with Horse.
I see what you mean about the Creationist nuisances. The dumb thing is that they are decades behind the more scientifically informed Creationiss, who realised 50 years ago that horse evolution was not easily attackable, and switched to other targets.
I'm sorry I can't offer to help with horse evolution, but I'm quite busy with other paleo topics, and my background knowledge of Cenozoic mammals (i.e. last 65 M years!) is very sketchy.
Re the limb design for cursorial animals, look for some refs by Googling for e.g. "biomechanics limb cursorial", using Google Scholar and Google Books. If you don't have full access to the text of articles in scientific papers, very often the abstracts tell you enough. And Google Books' previews have been very kind to me (saved me $000's!). Look out for the name R. McNeill Alexander, he's the dean of biomechanics and writes in a pretty accessible style. The basics of cursorial limb design are:
- digitigrade stance lengthens the stride by making the foot bones functionally part of the limb (see the leg diagram at Tyrannosaurus).
- the muscles are concentrated in the medial part of the limb (nearest the trunk) to minimise rotational inertia, especially when swinging the limb forward. That's the reason for chicken drumsticks, and you should see ostrich drumsticks (Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible recommends every-day analogies). As a result the lower part of the limb consists mainly of bones and tendons operated by the muscles at the top.
- Ungulates take this one step further (groan!) by moving on their finger- and toe-nails.
Feel free to annoy the Creationists by putting in a plug for convergent evolution. Good luck. -- Philcha (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Jumping in here... Although I agree that getting supporting articles in shape is nice, by looking at the horse article you will see that there are almost 50 supporting articles just linked through main/see also templates at the beginnings of sections. There are over 1800 articles under the WP:Equine umbrella, with over 180 being considered mid-importance or higher. Many of these are in fairly rough shape, due to lack of time on the part of WP:Equine members and lack of interest from other editors. If we waited until we had all of these cleaned up, it would be years before we took Horse to GA/FA!
- Also, as Montana told you on the GAN talk page, none of the current WP:Equine members have the background to know and really understand the evolution of the horse. We can toss in what we read in books, but none of us really have the depth of knowledge to know if what the book is saying is true or a load of horse-pucky.
- At some point, we will get around to cleaning up all of the 1800+ WP:Equine articles, and honest, we really do try to focus on the more important ones first. We are making progress...it's just slow and being made slower by some relatively nasty wikipolitics. However, due to the lack of expertise I cited above, Evolution of the horse will probably be nearer the bottom of the list than the top for the editors that are active at WP:Equine right now. If we suddenly gain a member who has a Ph.D. in paleontology and loves horses...well, then, things may change! Dana boomer (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Dana boomer. The approach I suggested is the most efficient way to create a package of articles, because doing the small, narrow-scope ones first gives you a stock of refs and often phrasing that you can use in the big, wide-scope articles. However if you're in a hurry to get Horse to GA and need help with paleontology I suggest you check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Participants - a few are explicitly interested in Cenozoic / Tertiary animals and may be able to help. -- Philcha (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Phil and Dana, my thinking here is to have an accurate and acceptable summary in the main article that is accurate and correct, as far as it goes, which inevitably must be superficial. You comment to ask the palentology crowd is welcomed, and as for the evolution article, like I say, the people who care seem to spat a lot over there, making us all duck and run! In the cosmic scheme of things, the Horse is rather a unique animal being a companion animal and a sporting animal as well as just a "critter," and could have been nominated under both biology and sport, so it's tough to know which focus to prioritize. In the meantime, we are taking the WPEQ articles on their individual merits, with several breed articles having passed GA and one having passed FA, along with a couple of biographical ones. Anyway, good discussion, appreciate knowing your thinking. Montanabw(talk) 23:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Horse edits and Airs
02-Oct-2008: Hello, Montanabw. Wikid77, here. I was wondering who was still active with the horse articles: I couldn't quite tell from the edit-histories (Looks like User:Eventer has slowed to 1 edit per month.). Once edits are made, then active users tend to make contact. Anyway, I've been thinking that "Airs above the ground" should be a full article, to better redirect "Capriole" (etc.). Plus, in article "Dressage", someone has separately quotemarked the subheader word "Airs" (as now: "Airs" above the ground), so any hyperlinks to "Dressage#Airs above the ground" would no longer match for the quoted "Airs" word. With a full article named "Airs above the ground" then the title word "Airs" is not likely to be so easily changed to a separately quotemarked word and thwart redirected titles. Also, following WP:GUIDE, I tend to put both sections named "Notes" and "References" on every article, especially to footnote the pronunciations (which typically require a whole sentence to explain). BTW, is Tarpan pronounced "Tar-pen" or "Tar-PAN" or either way depending on Victorian times? I would change the article "Tarpan" to include such a footnote on pronunciation in a Notes section. It's not just with horse terms: all across Wikipedia, there are a vast number of articles that assume readers implicitly know the pronunciations, such as for "Aeneas" or "Mardi Gras" (with French saying "Mare-dee" or Gulf Coast using "Marty"). Things to ponder... -Wikid77 (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Wikid, Yeah, I sort of took over, starting about two years ago, sort of when Eventer was starting to lose interest. She's a good editor and I miss having her around. However, the good news is that we now have WP:EQUINE and several other real active editors too. As for the issue of the Airs above the ground, feel free to tweak the heading title if it is messing up other links, tossing the Quotation marks is not a big deal in the cosmic scheme of things. But as for the separate article, this is the tip of the iceberg. There is also the problem of the split off of Classical Dressage from Dressage (arrived at via a consensus that predates me but I am loathe to mess with it), plus separate articles on Lipizzans and the Spanish Riding School, all of which have good arguments for being separate. Plus, some of the airs have separate articles, others do not. Add to this that the Haute Ecole includes other components besides the Airs. (i.e. Piaffe, Passage, "Onesies," Pirhouettes, etc...) I guess the short version of what is starting to be a long answer is that you may be right, but I hesitate to break it out willy-nilly without taking a good overall look at the dressage articles in general. All of those articles need a general review and fumigation.
- As to the pronunciation issue, the easiest solution that I see on many articles is just to have an IPA pronunciation, with alternatives included, if any. See, for example, the first paragraph of chaps, where we took the pronunciation issue clear to mediation, but what is there now is probably as perfect in format as wikipedia can be! LOL!
- On the notes and refs issue, Ealdgyth is the goddess of WP:MOS on WP:EQUINE, and whatever she wants, the rest of us just nod agreeable and go along with her, because she's the one who has done her homework, plus dozens of FA reviews. Technically you are right as to the ultimate appearance of an article, but my only point is that it makes no sense to break out notes and references on a start class article when there ARE no footnotes yet. It also is a problem to dump a reference into an external links section when it's the source of the article, and NOT a "further info" link.
Lusitano
Good job! What a mess this article was. I gave up somewhere in the middle of it, after working on it for two hours. I removed the Cleanup tag.
Bluee Mountain (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Montana! I've been working on the Suffolk Punch article, and I think it's about ready for GA. Would you mind looking it over and seeing if there's anything I've completely missed? I know, it's not anything that's going to get into Ver 0.7, but I got a little tired of Wiki-politics after the Horse debacle, and so decided to play with a horse article not many people cared about *grin*. Let me know what you think - I'm off now to help you out a bit in your quest to get nice difs for all the horse articles that are going on the release. Feel free to let me know if there are any specific tasks you'd like me to work on for that. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Update: I've done some work on the Tarpan tonight, so it's a bit better than it was an hour ago. I would say that it's probably be good to go (after your wonderful wordsmithing, of course!). Also, Fox hunting is probably fairly close to ready. Again, let me know if there's anything specific you need. Dana boomer (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Dana. I'll look over Suffolk Punch and Tarpan and reply on respective talk pages if needed. My overall thinking on the Ver 0.7 articles is that once they don't totally suck, toss a stable version URL on that page where they have the list (as I did on the others). It means we have to update the list sometimes, but also means we track which ones we've looked over. There is simply no time to get them all to GA, but some are rather horrifying. Others, like Zebra and Fox Hunting, I am simply avoiding because either I feel I lack expertise (Zebra), or while I might have some knowledge, I don't have the time to review them properly (Fox Hunting). Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
trotting over there...
Yep, I'll eventually get around to trotting over and adding some mounted infantry and speeds stuff (one day, possibly). I had a little in the general text about mounted infantry, but I'll get something more specific. Haven't had much time online recently, but perhaps next week...? Gwinva (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Driving horses and oxen (camels, reindeer...)
Yes, you're right, it's Driving (horse). I suppose what I was thinking is that the article is wrongly titled... As it is, we have a Driving (horse), but anything else must go in a Driving (camel), Driving (donkey), Driving (heffalump) etc. These would be full of duplication. Would it perhaps be better to have Driving (animal) covering the subject as a whole, then subsidiary paragraphs (or articles) where the various animals differ? What do you think? The oxen stuff ought to go somewhere. I don't think it justifies a whole article at the moment, but I think it's more relevant to driving generally than to ox. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
*Insert appreciation here*
Thanks so much for such an in-depth review of the Banker Horse sources. I appreciate all of your efforts in my (somewhat still struggling, although definitely improved) attempts at wikipedia source selecting. Not only am I rejecting sources written by people named "Cowboy Frank" (for real...) but, I am also venturing into the public library for really really really really really credible references! --Yohmom (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- When I get back from going to Arabian Nationals this week, I'll scan in and mail you the three-four pages from the Encyclopedia of Endangered Livestock breeds so you can source that in also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- LOL! Glad we can help. Oh yeah, I found "Cowboy Frank" quite a while back. On occasion that site finds good material and sometimes does not. Problem is you have no idea what the sources for any of it are. It's a case in point of why the WP:V standard is what it is. (Full disclusure (blush): I have been known to use stuff from Cowboy Frank, but usually as a placeholder until something better comes along!) In short, I wish more horse stuff was better researched in general, it can be a real challenge to get from "what everyone knows" - which often isn't - and an oral tradition to sourced, verifiable material. Montanabw(talk) 00:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
White horse pic
I'm aware that it isn't technically a white horse in the sense that horse breeders would use it, but I prefer the old photo for two reasons:
- The change of caption was my attempt to bring humor into the article. The earlier picture is of a horse that, to me, looks very upset about something. The new one looks pretty neutral.
- The original sense of "white horse" being discussed in the article is not the same as the modern taxonomic one; in other words, it would be correct to call that horse a white horse in ancient China. Moreover, most lay people who don't know much about horse breeds would also call it a white horse. Earlier, I considered not linking white horse to the white horse article for that reason, but figured nobody would complain. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Campdraft
Why are you letting Cgoodwin over take the article with 3 of the images are theirs and they have been trying anything to get an photograph which is valid to the article take out? FYI Biggenden Campdraft is a fundraiser for charity and not an advert. Most campdrafts are used as fundraisers in QLD theses days. Bidgee (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Senior Stallion class... nationals...
(drools) Just... drool. Dakharo, Odessey, Major Jamaal, JD Pistal, Brandon Bey JCA. And Eden C in the Futurity. Our friends yearling colt made Top Ten. And her 3/4s filly went top ten. And our trainers western bred half-arabian filly went top ten. AND we found a trainer to do an evaluation on our Noble Express filly... Been a good show! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- And I am SOOOOO freaking jealous! (grinning, ducking and running)! Keep the reports coming in. I can't get the stupid live show cam to work on my computer... Montanabw(talk) 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- *joining in the drool fest* Yes, I know I'm stalking, but honestly, wow! I'm so jealous...wish I could have been there! Congrats on finding the trainer: good ones are always hard to get, and congrats to your friends as well on their successes. Good luck with your filly! Dana boomer (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. My. God. Shaddofax. My Noble Express filly. To die for trot. Watched the three-five stallion class. Valentino won it, but Shaddofax wowed the crowd with a astounding trot. Like... park horse trot. Otherwise, well... the usual issues with halter classes. The usual names winning. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Heh. My transmission decided to try to die in Amarillo. Lucky me. Hopefully they'll get it fixed tomorrow but we might be stuck here until Monday. Lovely. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your tale of automobile woe is making the Asleep at the Wheel version of "Amarillo by Morning" go through my brain (not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing)...hope all goes well. What did you think of the Tulsa site for the nationals? Montanabw(talk) 02:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the new halter scoring system is going to survive. Lots of unhappy folks, because it isn't much more "sane" than the old system. And all the halter classes were done by noon Thursday, so most of the "big" names packed up and left. Byatt, Gallun, Jade Creek, etc. were gone by Friday morning, with like a stall drape left up. A lot of others packed mostly up and left one or two horses for the "presentations" on Friday and Saturday night, but all the big boys are gone. One reason we left, because there wasn't much point staying around. A mare a friend bred won the purebred cutting, which was cool. The sire of that mare is the horse we're going to photograph (if we ever get out of Amarillo) and is the sire of two of our horses also. The sire of our two coming foals had a top ten halter mare, so that was good too. I bought some more halters, the "desert style" ones, as well as some other stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- So is the problem with the halter scoring system that something with sickle hocks, calf knees and tied-in bone is still getting a 20 for legs if it's led by the right handler, or is it that no one has a clue how to do math? (And wasn't this supposed to be based on the system used for decades in Europe??) (Maybe answer that question via email, eh?? (grin)). I know that the little people won the attempt by the AZ assn to repeal it, so there is the grassroots support, but the grassroots isn't showing halter. Oh gawd, horse politics... :-P Montanabw(talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, nothing is getting 20s for legs, but it's that the judges aren't all on the same card, so to speak. One judge gives a horse 15s, the other gives them 18s. And somehow the horses that get the high scores always seem to be led by the "big" names, while the non-big names that might have nice horses don't get the benefit of the doubt. Some of the scores were SO over the top it had people calling "corrupt judging" in the stands. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, at least now we have proof! LOL! I think the goal of the scorecard was to increase objectivity of halter judging, sounds like it isn't there yet, but it does sound like we have a nice little battle brewing between the BNTs and the grassroots. I'm going to buy popcorn and keep watching this show, should continue to be very entertaining! (Note: you'd never guess I have issues with current halter trends...and that I decided not to pursue a judge's card due to my dislike of breed politics! LOL! ) By the way, if you are online, does this mean you are still stranded in Amarillo? Montanabw(talk) 23:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. Car wasn't ready when the shop closed at 3 yesterday, so no work today, they are hoping noon tomorrow. UGH. We've exhausted the photography possibilities of Amarillo, at least they got us a loaner car (even if it is powered by gerbils). Luckily, when we drive we travel with the Xbox, so we have amusement. And books. Just annoying becaue we were planning on hitting Zion NP to photograph, and probably won't make it now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, "Powered by Gerbils" -- You know you just made me squirt coffee out my nose with that one! :-D Bummer about missing Zion, but hope they get the car fixed soon!
Please check Colt (horse)== when you have time. It needs a makeover? Cgoodwin (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, it's horrifyingly bad. I fixed the worst of it for now, still a long way to go. Montanabw(talk) 23:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Your deleting content
Hi. Please stop removing content on Lead (leg) without prior discussion. Your claim (original research?) that the horse has a degenerative neurological condition is not relevant. The horse is undeniably cantering disunited (rotatory), as the caption says. --Una Smith (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Issues...
I'm in Moab, and not sure I'll be able to reply to the stuff on HIW, since my hotel's network isn't letting me edit... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Equestrianism - Handling
Well, I am a bit embarrassed, as I am not a native English speaking guy, just a Hungarian.
- So I tried to look up the meaning of equestrianism, and found the following link: [6]
where I found the handling listed in the definition.
- You wrote that:
“Leading a horse around is "management," not "equestrianism," though it does require skill”- I inserted “handling” and not leading.
- In the Wikipedia the “Horse management” is redirected to “Horse care”, where is no mention about leading,
and it is not mentioned in the category “Horse management” either.
- E.g. the 4-H Horsemanship Assessment Tools at the following URL:[7]
starts with the DISMOUNTED SKILLS which includes things like catching, haltering, leading a horse safely:[8] - I also had the feeling that the concept of Horsemanship (redirected to Equestrianism) should involve the establishment of the relationship with the horse, which starts on the ground.
Could you please clarify, why the inclusion of “handling” would be inappropriate there?
HorsemansWiki (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly because the article is primarily about riding. It was originally titled "Horseback riding." Not that this consensus cannot be changed, but you basically just stumbled into a bigger issue. Maybe take it to the talk page or WP:EQUINE and see what people say. We eventually need to do a major rewrite on the article, sometime. You aren't wrong that one aspect of horsemanship is ground handling (god knows I've had to rehab horses with bad ground manners more than bad habits under saddle), but another aspect is driving, and the infoplease definition omits it as well, so as such insufficiently encompasses all aspects of dealing with horses. I guess that to me you cannot call yourself an equestrian if you cannot either ride or drive a horse. If all you do is handle it from the ground, you are a groom, maybe a trainer's assistant, but nothing more. Sort of like knowing how to change the oil on a car doesn't make you a driver, different skill set. This maybe isn't a great answer, but it's my thinking on the matter. I think the bigger issue is one for the article talk page.Montanabw(talk) 17:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
HiW
I've emailed a couple of thoughts. Feel free to forward on to D & E: I've no objection to them knowing my id/address. Gwinva (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! I know this is well outside the realm of what I usually ask for your help on, but I'm involved in a rather knotty GAR on Attachment therapy, which can be found at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1. I dropped the full story on Ealdgyth's page, so you've probably seen it there already. I know you don't usually work on GA/FA assessment-type stuff, but it would be great if we could get outside minds into this. If you don't want to get involved, then I understand completely...I know you're busy with everything else you do on WP. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Answered on the assessment page. Lucky you, I happen to know a bit about this. Montanabw(talk) 04:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments! It's good to have some other people weigh in about this, and bring specific (and relevant) complaints to the review. Thanks again! Dana boomer (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Concerning reverts
You're expressing what looks like ownership by proxy at horses in warfare even though I just tweaked the format used in the article for consistency and logic (compare with notes 3), and simple grammar (singular "note" instead of "notes 1", etc). The latter has even been pointed out by the latest person commenting the PR. And now you're telling me to shut up and go away one post after you asked me to summarize my position, and after I explicitly explained that I'm not discussing general reference policy.
Peter Isotalo 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with "note" rather than "notes" but I've changed the referencing format back to superscript footnotes to match the rest of the article, for consistency at FAC. Let's just drop this, please, and agree to disagree. Montana wants to see more outside eyes, which is fine, and Peter just wants to improve the article, which is also fine. Let's all work towards that goal, hm? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- This belongs on the HIW talk page. Given that Ealdgyth created the notes setup, I felt it odd to change the name to not even match the title of the section, particularly when Peter has argued vigorously for eliminating the whole split in the first place. It should have been discussed. Montanabw(talk) 23:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. There's a considerable deal of editorial action that appears to require expressed approval in order not to be instantly reverted or verbally discouraged in that article. If a piffling technicality tweak like changing "notes" to "note" requires a consensus discussion, then I'm definitely done with this one.
- Peter Isotalo 02:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:LipizzanAnimated.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:LipizzanAnimated.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Attachment therapy and HiW
Thanks for the input on AT. No problem with the monkey wrench...it's always great to have more input from other editors :) I've taken a look at the new HiW info, and it looks good. The citations are perfect...nice job! Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Whooo!
Gelding showed dressage today. Scores of 61.9 in First Level Test 2, 64.6 in Training Test 2, and 66.0 in Training Test 4. Second show showing dressage, 8 achievement points! WHOO! Tomorrow is Sporthorse Under Saddle and Western too. We're thinking of entering him in the liberty class too... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm jealous, but in a good way. You rock! If you have pics, send email, I wanna see! Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Ring bit
Montanabw, in Template:Bits I moved Ring bit back where it was before. I think you are confusing it with so-called "3 ring snaffle" bits. On Talk:Ring bit I have added a link to a photo of a ring bit. Please talk before editing templates. --Una Smith (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I know exactly what a ring bit is. They are illegal in the show ring because of what a strong effect they have on a horse's mouth. Further discussion on the talk page. Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You and me
Here you complain that I didn't seek consensus before editing, and that you have better things to do. My reply is: (1) I do exactly what you do: I edit boldly. (2) You waste your time, not me. I have told you before that the huge watchlist you say you have is the root of your problem. I think you spend most of your time on Wikipedia "fixing" other editors' fresh edits as if we were all vandals. How should I know what you think needs to be discussed? If you want to discuss something, discuss it. I think almost nothing needs to be discussed; most issues can be resolved without any discussion in a few iterations of editing the article. I like having you (or any other editor) read my edits and make (or try to make) improvements. Montanabw, many times you do not "get" it, and that helps me write it better the second time. Many times what I write is outside your knowledge and you shout "OR", "source it", etc.; that helps me spot exactly where I need to add sources. In good time. I do resent your deleting brand new content because it isn't sourced yet; that is foul play. If I did the same to you, I think I would delete 90% of what you contribute here. I am neither your friend nor your enemy. It saddens me that you characterize the hours I gift you, improving articles with you, as "edit warring". --Una Smith (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Reply on your talk page. But I must say that this is a new leaf, given past history. Montanabw(talk) 08:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want to consolidate this discussion back on my talk page, you can paste this back over, but figured you'd want the message banner. I will take your latest message at face value and as a good faith olive branch, finally accepting my repeated offers to you for truce, fair dealing, and so on. However, after your history with me (the wikiquette incident, for example), and especially your recent escapade that nearly derailed the Horse article's GA review, you will understand if I am a little wary. But if this is a handshake from you and a promise of good faith dealings, then I am delighted to let bygones be bygones.
If you want to keep the discussion on the topic of improving horse articles, I also think it wise if we ceased to give one another advice on how to run our wiki life. I care deeply about the quality of wikipedia, as I am sure you do. We will each manage that in our own way.
We probably CAN reach a consensus on at least some articles, sooner or later, if we continue to keep mostly to the issues. If you want to edit with hidden text comments within the article explaining your thoughts rather than talk page discussion, that's fine, but when there are major philosophical issues at stake, the talk page is the place things need to go. But, especially when you start doing stuff as program-wide as creating a template, that IS an issue for the larger group of WPEQ, not only me, but others. Naturally, you don't have to ask permission, this is wikipedia, but you also should not be surprised if you are then heavily edited if you do not check with other editors. Boldness is good, but it has its limits.
As for knowledge, you must understand that wikipedia requires that we ALL provide source material when requested. And then use these sources properly in context. Several other editors will tell you that I am able to be convinced by a solid argument backed by good sources, properly used. Polo is outside my area of expertise, (and they way, so IS a polo tail braid done up the same way as a mud tail or not?) but when you got onto the curb bit diagram and confused a lip strap with a curb chain, you didn't exactly come across as a real guru yourself, eh? All I ask is to be cautious about things that are outside your area of expertise -- you don't really know cowboys, I don't know squat about polo. You don't know saddle seat, I don't speak Spanish. If horse people use terms that violate the known laws of leverage mechanics, you can't rewrite the tack books and change the terms of art (nor can I), but if you want, you CAN wikilink to the right article about levers. And we both appear to want to figure out what "sweet iron" actually is.
So if you are offering a truce, then truce. I'm good with it. Shake? Montanabw(talk) 09:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Moved from my talk here. I have asked you before to stay off my talk page. No one has to use a template on any article page. Montanabw, I think you need a mentor. Please ask for one. --Una Smith (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Una Smith: I don't think it's at all appropriate that you suggest that Montanabw needs a mentor. She is very highly regarded by other members of the Horse project for her knowledge, for her high quality, well referenced writing, and for her general ability to get along with others and work collegially and cooperatively with them. Recall if you will from the WQA that everyone except you concluded the problem in your interactions did not lie primarily with Montanabw. Montanabw is trying to figure out how to work together with you in a positive way. You on the other hand seem to be unjustly slighting her approach and abilities. If you cannot work with Montanabw and the other members of the horse project, perhaps it is you that should turn your attention elsewhere and leave them to their good work. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. I don't recall Una previously telling me to stay off her talk page forever and ever, but it's going to be very difficult if I cannot reply or defend myself. Anyone want to tell her I and some others have replied to her comments here? I do find Una's "mentor" comment amusing, given that I have been on wiki longer than she has. I do hope the personal attacks on me will now cease? Montanabw(talk) 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
GA reform redux
I've recently had a chat with a couple of the contributors, and we think it may be worth revisiting the GA reform proposal put together by the working party during the Summer. Since you contributed to the proposal's development, I was wondering if you'd care to comment? I've left a brief recap at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/Reform#GA reform redux; your input would be much appreciated. Thank you, EyeSerenetalk 13:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Monty Roberts
Hi and thanks for responding on User talk:Lllmrpvk. The reason I tagged it for COI was because the first time Lllmrpvk edited on the page, he/she recreated virtually the same material the user who confirmed she was Roberts' daughter: User:Debbie Roberts Loucks, User:Debbie loucks, and User:Deborah Loucks. Then there is the similar but not same username that I just noticed. But mostly, it was the daughter contributions issue that at one point scrubbed it of controversy and kept reinserting the same material. Myself, I have no opinion on Roberts himself, but came across it when someone a long time ago asked me to look at it for neutrality. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Horsey articles
Thanks for the heads up on both of those. I was peripherally aware of them, but hadn't really read through them yet. I did a PR on Banker, and took a look through CC's article. Nice articles, both of them... Hopefully Yohmom decides to stick around the project after her (?) class ends, as she appears to be a great editor who's willing to learn...and has good spelling and proper grammar, which is always a benefit! I've watchlisted the Banker article and PR, and let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to do with it. Dana boomer (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
white horse genetics re mythology
Hi Montanabw, you mentioned on the talk page of white horse (mythology) that you could help with sourcing the genetics stuff. That would be great! Julia Rossi and I have discussed it a bit on our talk pages here and here as well as on the article talk page. I thought the sentence added to the lede covered the idea well enough, because it makes clear that this article includes technically grey horses as well as technically white horses. But as Julia suggests, maybe expanding into a paragraph explaining the distinction would be helpful. Whatever you can do – I appreciate the changes you made already. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just pop in what you need on the article talk page and I'll see what I can do. Also feel free to read Gray (horse) and steal anything from there that you want. Montanabw(talk) 00:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm not sure what is needed 'cos I don't really understand the explanations. Just perhaps something that makes clear that white horses in mythology aren't defined as strictly as genetics defines them? I think? Maybe the paragraph you wrote on the talk page could just go straight into the article :) WikiJedits (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Hello, Montanabw. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Una Smith (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Concerning ownership
I'm back from my wikibreak now, and I'd like to continue where we left off at the AN/I tinitiated by User:Una Smith. The thread in its entirety . I'm pasting the posts directly relevant to ownership from that AN/I thread so that we have evidence to start from. The old posts are in italics and have diff links at the end. I'll pick up by replying to Montana's last post. I've invited User:Lar, who expressed interest in acting as a mediator, to join in on the discussion. I've also notified User:Bwilkins since he was an outside party who commented the AN/I.
I don't agree with the block request, but like I said, I'm not happy about Montana being presented as a virtually flawless contributor by herself and her co-editors. Ideally no RfC should be filed at all and both users should try to scrutinize their behavior closer. Much of the problem is that Montana is allowed to boss people around, even other high-level contributors, simply because she's so darned active. I've had a few interactions with her, and I've found them all rather troublesome.
- horses in the Middle Ages: I made an uncontroversial, albeit bold, move from medieval horses and got this testy reply.[9]
- mare: Despite being argued against very convincingly by myself and other editors, Montana was more or less unilaterally deciding what was relevant or not in the etymology section. Everyone who disagreed were put on hold until she personally felt she was convinced. I still think that the etymology is one part relevant material and one part dictionary trivia, but I simply ran gave up because of Montana's zeal. This reply[10] in particular is what put me off since it appeared as though Montana's voice was more relevant than that of other editors.
- horses in warfare: I had a crack at helping out in the PR and tried to argue for what I believed was somewhat irrelevant sources and a somewhat Eurocentric tilt to the article. There was disagreement, but I tried to focus on details rather than mere policy interpretations. Montana asked me to summarize my position[11], and in the next reply I was told to take it elsewhere[12], even though other main contributors were partially agreeing. The discussion continued on the article talkpage, and again another editor agrees, but Montana defines the whole thing as irrelevant.[13]
- I was also auto-reverted on mere technicalities with the motivation "This was Ealdgyth's work, she has multiple FAs, please leave it alone, take this to talk."[14] When I complained, I only got this non sequitur as a final reply.[15]
The problem as I see it is that Montana is too keen on putting edits on hold for tedious consensus discussions whether they are actually controversial or not. She also acts like a kind of proxy guardian for the work of her colleagues, and appears to insinuate that only the original contributors are really qualified to change her/his work (see the reply to Gwinva at the bottom).[16] Whether or not her co-editors actually sympathize with this, I don't know, but the end result is nevertheless her guarding horse articles quite jealously. I think part of the solution might for members of WP:EQUINE to look a bit more critically on how she handles contributions and criticism that comes outside of her own clique. Peter Isotalo 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[17]
- Small aside to Peter's new comments. Peter's not a bad egg; I believe he and I mostly just are two rather stubborn people who tend to dig in when we interact with one another, probably as much due to mutual tone than anything. His examples must be viewed in full context of each discussion, and also considered in light of this particular user's general pattern of interaction on other articles where I am not involved.(example). I can provide a point by point explanation/rebuttal if requested, but I hope the full context of the discussions noted speak for themselves. BMW, what is the next step here? Do you weigh in?Montanabw(talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[18]
Rather than trying to dig up dirt on me, I'd like to hear why you so obviously went against several other editors over at mare and then called your decision consensus. No one agreed to your conclusions and your argumentation was entirely based on your own opinions. I would also like to hear why you consider yourself entitled to be so uncivil to me at talk:horses in warfare#Length/bias of the Europe section. I don't keep tellign you that you're not serious and the likes. And since you appear to have turned around completely[19][20] concerning my suggestion on mounted archery, despite arguing fiercly against it, I get the feeling that you're arguing against me as a person, not my suggestions and criticisms. Peter Isotalo 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[21]
- First Peter, I apologize if my growing frustration and impatience at arguing the same points with you over and over and over came across to you as uncivil. But second, please do not distort or misstate my positions here: I did not argue against the archery material in HIW, Peter. I acknowledged it. See here. My exact reply to you on the issue was: " While I agree that if archery can be explained further, that would be nice, but If you have any recommendations, it would be much appreciated--we lack adequate source material." In the time since you mentioned it, as you were so gracious to demonstrate above, I responded to the critique, recalled some of the institutional history of the article,(here) found some material, and added it. If the admins want to review the issue at the mare article, which was 11 months ago, they can read the entire discussion
after the diff you providedin it's complete form here, where my last comment to you was "Anyway, I was OK with your last set of edits, so if things are settled for now, I'll call it a day." which I think means I agreed with some of your work. I believe a compromise was reached, removing some linguistic OR material the other editors wanted out, but keeping some other definitions. The issue was further refined by other editors later, and the etymology section of the mare article has now been, er, "stable" (pardon the horse pun) for months. Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[22]
I didn't perceive your statement about archery as agreement. You told me in the very same post "that if you have something to actually contribute, please inform us with helpful tips and links to good sources" and the only set of edits you have so far allowed me to do are minor copyediting and tweaking the placement of images. In combination with your reverts, that's a rather unwelcoming statement. You also seem to get outright annoyed at issues I bring up eventhough you don't scold equine-interested colleagues when they express pretty much the same opinions.[23][24]
In mare you reverted me[25] after I removed the material that only you found relevant. I don't know if you've actually realized it despite several rounds of debate, but you were very stubborn about keeping the section called "Etymology" filled with non-etymological information. I left the discussion not because I thought a satisfying compromise had been reached, but rather because I was frustrated with your unilateral actions.
My experience so far is that unless I wholeheartedly join WP:EQUINE, I'm not going to be allowed to do anything bolder than copyediting in horse articles without explicit talkpage permission from Montana. I don't consider myself anything like an expert, professional or amateur, when it comes to horses. However, I have a reasonably good grasp of history, military matters and I've written a fair share of GAs and FAs on various topics. I believe Montana should be more careful about trying to "protect" articles from editors like myself.