User talk:Getwood
Nice additions to the anatomy articles. Say, if you can, these articles also need a lot more citations if you happen to have a good text you can add as inline footnotes along the way. I have too many irons in the fire to tackle the anatomy articles, but am encouraging people to footnote whenever I notice that certain back-and-forth editing is starting to occur. (The atanomical terminology that laypeople like me interpret as 'above,' 'below' etc. has been a topic of recurrent edits, hence citations to a respected general anatomy text might end the constant changes...sigh). Keep up the good work. Note WP:CITE if you haven't found it yet. Montanabw(talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. I am still figuring things out. I want to do things properly, so I am hesitant at times. I see some blatant things, though, and I can't stop myself. As if I don't have other things I should be doing... I will see if I can get something done about anatomy citations and directional terminology.--Getwood (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even though I have recently obtained the reputation for being evil witch incarnate, I actually am glad to help new people figure out how to navigate wikiland. Your work is nicely done and - so far (grin) - you appear to know what you are talking about. I get snarky and sarcastic, just ignore me or, as I mention on my user page, give me a Whacking with a Wet Trout if my snarkiness level is getting excessive. Montanabw(talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Navicular
Um, if you don't watchlist Navicular disease, you might want to stroll over there. FYI... Montanabw(talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you want to edit on the navicular article further, the person who had the POV has now left wikipedia in a snit, so I think you are clear to fix anything that is bugging you there. Montanabw(talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Chaps, if you dare accept the mission
An admin has requested input on the shaps/chaps pronunciation issue, see bottom of Talk:Chaps. I suspect that input by any third party who isn't me or the other editor is going to carry some weight. If you care to comment, please do. Thanks Montanabw(talk) 06:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Help!
Bosal. and Hackamore. Nuff said. Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. It seems so simple. My dad has the best library of Arnold Rojas, Ernie Morris. Jo Mora and all the old copies of Western Horseman from way back. I would love to have access to them today. The definitive word is in those old-timers' work. Hackamore to me seems like it ought to not include other headgear. The article could cetainly link to other types of headgear. I think a disambiguation page on nosebands could easily cover redirection on Cavessons which are called by English riders...Cavessons. Using the term hackamore to describe other items is redefining the term, which has also been done with fiador (tack) and for Bridle too. And by the same editor... . I guess when the Californios speak of a bridle horse they must be confused. I tried, on fiador (tack), to not begin with an editing war, but the whole article should be rewritten. I think the whole thing is boiling down to this 'worldview' contention. By repurposing certain terms, everything ends up in a nice package, sanitized for our protection. I've got to get to real work now. I may have to Whack you for being instrumental in nurturing a new addiction... :) I can't even look at the laminitis page.--Getwood (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- LOL! Whack accepted! Yes, wiki can take over your life! Especially dangerous to those of us who, at least occasionally, have a real life. The back story on this can be found on the talk pages of bitless bridle and hackamore. Short version of a way too long story is that it all started with someone who made a wiki page for her own invention, I got snarky and she got mad, then there was a spat over what a bitless bridle was (as opposed to a hackamore) there was an attempt to remove the hackamore article and downgrade it to a few paragraphs in bitless bridle, and generally we had a big edit war over it. Somewhere in all this, "U" got involved and apparently thinks I'm evil, but the end of it is that much of the work I was trying to do to clean up these western equipment articles is now being challenged by "U" at every turn, mostly, I think on the grounds that somehow things are different in South America or something and since the spat over chaps started is now is basically screwing up every article on horse headgear that there is, reverting sourced edits, etc., and she really shows no evidence of having an understanding any of it. (Hi "U" - you are probably lurking...) None of which is your problem, but just so's ya knows what you could be stepping into. No escape from human foibles on wiki! (And yeah, I can't look at laminitis, either. Cleaning up the big articles can be a week's work!) Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and you haven't gotten a proper welcome! Here you go!
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
V.GW
Nicely done. Dreadstar † 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Npov, eh
Good reply on that issue. Your patience is greater than mine. Montanabw(talk) 00:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Laminitis
You bravely wade into a tough article that needs gobs of organizational work as well as fact cleanup and sourcing! What a champ! While you are at it, maybe review two articles I created a while back, easy keeper and hard keeper and tweak any errors. And better get out that wet trout again, because I also want you to know that there is Equine metabolic syndrome in desperate need of help! Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Cops needed
Calling on all assorted stock horse and western editors. May want to watchlist rodeo, calf roping, and steer wrestling. (Probably the saddle bronc article too, though it hasn't been hit yet). The PETA crowd is back and made POV edits on several articles. Rvv patrol may need activation. Have also alerted some admins. Last time this happened, it got very nasty. Montanabw(talk) 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- And by the way, have you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Equine yet? Consider this an invitation! Montanabw(talk) 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation
Re Chaps I have filed a formal request for mediation here. Montanabw, Getwood, Dreadstar, and AeronM, to agree to mediation please go there and sign the Parties' agreement to mediate. If any of you do not agree to mediation, the request will be denied; of course, I hope all of you will agree. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for details about the mediation process. --Una Smith (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chaps.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
MedCom Case
Hi, I'm Keilana. I've just accepted the aforementioned MedCom case. I've commented on the Mediation talk page, where mediation will take place. I hope that this mediation will be productive and satisfactory to all. I have asked all participants to make a statement, more details are on the talk page. Regards, Keilana|Parlez ici 03:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Gelding
Got any interest in putting Gelding up for WP:GA? I have long promised to find some more history stuff and refs to the cultural info, but if you're game to review the veterinary materials, I can clean up anything else. (I'm also asking YOU to do the GA nomination, because it's such fun to be the one to lead the charge. Sometimes...) Anyway, I think it was too quickly failed the last time, it's really almost there as is, and we now have our own dear Ealdgyth to do a review once we think it's ready, so not so scary as it once was. Whaddya think? Montanabw(talk) 05:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I think the article is getting close to GA status, but needs a bit of work first. Thanks for the vote of confidence... I should probably experience the GA process from the driver's seat some time, and this article seems close. I do, personally, have some concerns about the veterinary section, which I think need to be addressed. I am concerned that some editing scuffles could derail the GA process if started too soon. More on talk:gelding.--Getwood (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thoroughbred made GA tonight! Yay! Here's a little toy to put on your user page. {{User Good Articles|#}} and you put the number of GAs you've contributed to in place of the #. Thanks so much for the help! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Another one to fumigate
Check African horse sickness. Overall article may need help, also some recent edits I am not sure about and lack the time to research...you may spot errors immediately- or sooner than I. Montanabw(talk) 00:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahem
chaps and fiador. Nuff said. Ignore it if you wish. Montanabw(talk) 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts for other ways to keep you busy (heh)
Dana is probably going to merge forehand (horse) with equine forelimb anatomy, which I think can work OK, but the anatomy of the forehand overall may need some work. We also could stand to take a look at what there is on the hindquarters. We have Back (horse) already, which is fairly complete if not perfect (may want to eyeball it too). If any of this interests you, feel free to dive in. Montanabw(talk) 07:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Equids
Hi Getwood. Liked your change to Anatomical terms of location. It was better written than the original I changed. I only deleted it because horses (and "other" vertebrates) are largely irrelevant to the "medical" (human) nature of the section. However, your clarification definitely adds to the comparative nature of the article (which I was, long ago, trying to achieve). Cheers! Esseh (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and rostral can be synonymous with cranial - think lampreys, and not mammals ;-) Esseh (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI that Thoroughbred went up to FAC today with you as a co-nominator. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ealdgyth, both for including me in the nomination and for the rapid responses to the FAC suggestions. I tweaked two minor things and gave the lead change (no pun intended) a go. Great effort on this article. (and others of course...) Getwood (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Equids & stuff.
Hi Getwood! Thanks for the message. I agree - the anatomical terms of location article is looking pretty good. If you look back in the history, you'll see that I had a lot to do with that - it was in sad shape about a year ago, and I dedicated a lot of time to updating the first (primarily zoological) sections - all the figs and tables and stuff. Sorry if that makes me seem a bit defensive at times. I haven't been very active for about a year, and am still checking to see what's up. My only real beef with the ref to equids was that it was in the human section, but as I said, given the comparative tone I was trying to set way (way) back, that probably isn't such a bad thing. (Also, it seemed pretty specific - why not canids, or bovids, etc... Ah! Because of the horse I used for the Figs?) You are right, of course - rostral would be anterior to cranial in (I guess) all vertebrates - might be some exceptions amongst the inverts, though I can't really think of one, offhand (though "cranial" wouldn't normally be used for them). Though there are the synonyms, to avoid confusing things too much, (especially for those we're presumably trying to educate) I have tried to stick with A-P, D-V, and L-R (or M-L) as much as possible for the zoological, more for consistency within the article than for any other reason The human part is still suffering (I see) from lack of a volunteer to pose in the anatomical position (for a figure) and needs a lot of work, but the rest seems pretty good. I put out a lot of calls for the figure both here and in the Commons, and even contacted a number of listed photographers, but to no avail. Know anyone who might be willing? I could modify a basic photo to show axes, directions and planes of section (as I did with all the others). Anyway, I have rambled on enough. Keep up the good work, and don't worry about splitting a hair or two now and then. If we discuss stuff enough, we should end up with a pretty informative article. Cheers. Esseh (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again, and thanks for the note. I kinda figured you were an equine type. As it happens, I'm a biologist, and have taught invert, vert and human anatomy. Gives me a bit of a unique perspective on the confusion caused by terminology. I am strongly in favour of standardising terminology, and like AP, DV and LR as the basis for any bilaterally-symmetrical organism - but also realise that will not happen. That's why I've tried to use them as a "baseline", if you will - listing synonyms and using them where appropriate. It really helps having other perspectives, but overall, what I'm trying for most is to prevent (as much as possible) confusion amongst readers that are not familiar with the nuances of usage in the various disciplines. (Oh and equids do have long noses - cute, eh?) Cheers! Esseh (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Whooo!
Here's a pretty new toy for your user page:
 | This user helped promote Thoroughbred to featured article status. |