User talk:Una Smith/2008.02 - 2008.04

The Horsemen's Voice

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Horsemen's Voice, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of The Horsemen's Voice. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Choristoma

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Choristoma, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bitless bridle

I have made an attempt at cleaning up the article. Instead of doing it "live" and creating issues with editors that have been active on the page I have placed it here: User:Gtstricky/Sandbox. I tried to remove items that seemed to have POV issues as well as some comments that were missing citations. I also tried to simplify it a bit. I know nothing about horses but I do not think I changed the heart of the article. I would appreciate some feedback. Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

POV fork?

Hey, I really have to take issue with you calling the Hackamore article a "POV fork" -- if you followed your own advice and looked at the article history, you would notice that it was started in 2005 by someone other than me. I expanded it quite a bit about a year ago and it has been stable for a long time until recent edit warring. (Fewer edits in three years than Bitless bridle has had in two weeks) "Bitless bridle" was created on Feb 14 of this year. I don't think you meant to start a personal attack, but it did feel that way (but then, you've sometimes felt I insulted you, so let's just call it square and both try to be more careful). I would appreciate it if you assume good faith and don't stereotype me into any one pigeonhole - I've done a lot of different things. You've implied that I don't understand trail riding, but I did trail riding before I set foot in a show ring. Others have assumed that, being from Montana I am a "yee haw" cowgirl, though I have competed in Dressage but have never competed in a rodeo (nor care to). I can't rope anything and have little interest in chasing cans(!) So just assume good faith and ask for sources. OK?

As for the "bitless bridle" issue, you do not appear to understand that hackamore/jaquima is a word that came from the Arabs ("Hakma" or something like that) to the Spanish vaquero tradition as modified in the USA by the Great Basin "buckaroo" tradition that gave rise to the core concepts of what today gets called "Natural Horsemanship" (like that's some new thing.) And from there it spread. Australian horsemanship clearly shows influences from both European and Western USA traditions as modified by geography, so what I hope I can explain without all the emotionality is that the techniques of the hackamore reinsman started the whole modern "bitless" thing (though, obviously, hackamores were the first headgear used to control horses, see domestication of the horse, and both nose rings and bits were subsequent developments). Ironically, the goal of the vaquero was the creation of the "straight up bridle horse," meaning, to over-simplify, a horse that worked in a spade bit. To source all this, I not only have to get some old books from the library, possibly some via interlibrary loan, but also browse back issues of Western Horseman for things I remember reading, and I may not have all the issues any more because I give away a lot of magazines. Bottom line is that my goal is not POV-pushing, it is accuracy. And, I'm a fourth-generation Westerner, and horse person (don't know what great-grandpa - generation 1 - did in Germany before he emigrated, but he was a horseman here. ) So, though I try very hard to be able to always verify and source my edits to NPOV standards, and I am, on occasion mistaken about things (like anyone), there are also things I know in my gut from a lifetime with horses, and even if I don't always put them correctly the first time, my goal is accuracy.

So can we have a truce here? Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

On the riding in a halter thing, we may have to agree to disagree. A lot of people ride with just an old stable halter with a rope rein on each side of the cheekpieces, even I've done it (but never in the open, mostly just cooling down hot horses). I still don't think it's safe. Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

archive link

Hi Una. I noticed that the link to your archive was not appearing above, so I changed {{archive box collapsible}} by adding the auto parameter, giving: {{archive box collapsible|auto=yes}} Regards, cygnis insignis 00:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Food for thought

Not appreciating your veiled personal attacks and snarky comments. You are feeding fat to the fire here, and I would appreciate it if you would stop. You have been here long enough to know better. We have different perspectives, we can discuss them with a bit more civility, I think. Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Diffs would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them? Well, maybe you are slamming other people too, and at the moment you are trying to help Aeron understand wiki (which is a GOOD thing), just please realize that you and I may disagree rather strongly, but I am not your enemy. Maybe you don't mean to come across as harsh and arrogant, even though you do (I truly try not to sound as snarky as I do, the written word is a problem that way) This hackamore and bitless bridle thing is something I need to stay with until it is settled, but it has been very difficult, emotional and frankly, needs to get settled down one way or the other. Aeron is starting to attack other articles I have been involved with in ways that are not constructive and if you are her friend, can you at least try and get her to cool her jets? Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Sourcing

Hi Una. I have a question about sourcing: what happens if you have different/incompatible information from different verifiable sources? Do certain sources 'trump' other sources? Majority rule? For example, if the OED says one thing, but three other verifiable sources say something else, how is it determined which is 'stronger?' Just curious, thanks. --AeronM (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In these cases, the article should describe the contradictory points of view. --Una Smith (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. PS I have added a short section ("Origins") to the top of Bitless bridle. Would like to know what you think. Thanks.--AeronM (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I agree with Una on this, you describe both sides in as neutral and fair a manner as possible. I call it the "some people say this, but other people say that" approach. Montanabw^(talk) 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cancer and Flouride

Hi again. I noticed on your talk page that you edit pages concerning cancer and children. Just curious if you have come across articles in your research on Flouride and osteosarcoma (aside from the famous Harvard study and equally famous cover-up!). I am going to attempt to clean up the controversial and (IMO) unnecessary Water fluoridation controversy page. --AeronM (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you need a medical literature search? Do you know how to search PubMed? I recommend checking in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Some of the regulars there are very helpful. --Una Smith (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --AeronM (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, if/when you post a request for help there, I may respond, but I may also give someone else a chance to respond first. Some days, some weeks even, I cannot face any more pediatric cancer than I already do. When I can face it, I do; when I cannot, I ignore everything having to do with it, and sometimes that means I ignore WikiProject Medicine too. --Una Smith (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely. --AeronM (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we both need to chill

Una, I am troubled by your comments on my talk page, you are threatening to get me blocked or banned, and given that some of the things you accuse me of doing aren't even things I did, I am understandably a little concerned. I am particularly troubled that you make assumptions about me or attribute motives to me, because most of those statements aren't things you can verify and are, in fact, just plain wrong. Yes, I could source some material better, so could you. Yes, I get a little snarky, but if you don't think you don't say some very hurtful and mean things, then let me assure you, you do. I suppose we all sometimes come across other than as intended when we write. In putting together WikiProject Equine, I just ignored your tone, though I found it off-putting, because you were correct and doing good work. In articles where I think you are not correct (or not entirely correct), I am going to call you on it. So why don't we just assume good faith on both sides, acknowledge that we rub each other the wrong way, be better about citation, use fact tags as needed, and just get back to editing articles? Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Riding Halter AfD

Thanks for your note. I was happy to move the comment but didn't get around to it before the closure. The AfD outcome (merge and redirect) seems commonsense to me, thanks for putting it forward and for helping reconcile the various views. Euryalus (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandals and vandalism

You wrote [1]. This double standard is one of the many, many reasons I would never, ever want to be a Wikipedia admin. You claim it's wrong for Montanabw to revert an edit that contains a ridiculous part and an unsourced part, but you are willing to castigate her for posting good-faith material before providing a source.

Vandalism doesn't occur in a vacuum. It is perpetrated by vandals. Vandals come in all flavors, and some of them can easily be turned into editors. (If you had bothered to look at my recent activities rather than criticizing my wording, you'd see a recent case where I've engaged productively with a person who has been blocked twice for incivility. And that isn't the first time I've worked to turn a vandal into a productive member of the community.) But anons are structurally incompatible with that approach until one of the people who (1) used the IP address, and (2) carried out vandalism, chooses to register. Anon vandalism can be insidious, things like minor changes to numbers. Imagine two edits that make minor changes to numbers, one by a registered user, with an informative edit summary, and the other by an anon with no edit summary. Perhaps it is due diligence to either look up the correct value or leave both changes, but probability tells me that the anon change is much more likely to be vandalism, and that if it isn't, the anon will at least provide some evidence or at least an edit summary when re-entering it (my summary is often something like "rv change of numbers by anon. Could be true, could be vandalism. Please provide citation if you change back.").

And fixing vandalism vs. fighting vandals seems too much like rescuing dogs (been there, done that) vs. stopping puppy mills. Except that it's a lot harder to stop puppy mills, because, unlike Wikipedia vandalism, there isn't a community consensus against them.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, she often reverts and deletes others' good faith contributions for lack of sources, and castigates for same, so in this I am holding her to her own standard. --Una Smith (talk) 05:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

To what standards should one hold a vandal (this is not intended to be sarcastic or rhetorical)?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. If I revert something that is disputed, then you just put it back in and we discuss sourcing issues. Nothing personal. A good dust-up over content usually ends up with a very good article. As for Aeron, well, she's unique. The rest of the stuff you jumped on me about included a number of things I didn't even do, plus reverts of blatently wrong info. (No, the bull rider does NOT get points in the PBR when they get bucked off! Sheesh!) Really, can we just edit articles now and end this personal stuff? Montanabw^(talk) 08:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[text deleted, per the contributor's request --Una Smith (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)]

Montanabw, please just skip the revert and go straight to talk. If you spend a little more of your time up front, you will waste less of other editors' time and you might get into fewer "fights". Also, please keep content disputes where they belong, on article talk pages. Finally, please note this thread is not about you. --Una Smith (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, good question; I am thinking how to answer. --Una Smith (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Long thought, short answer. Most Wikipedia vandals are the equivalent of toddlers who scribble in inappropriate places. That's my standard. Often, such behavior is best ignored, and the scribbles erased without fuss. Other kinds of disruptive editors are trolls. Often, their behavior is best ignored. Re this edit, I would say the contributor is neither a vandal nor a troll, but a newbie. The contribution is relevant to the page and has some kernels of truth, but has inappropriate tone. This is one kind of contribution I welcome, because it points to problems in the article; such contributions I leave for later, or rewrite to express the contributor's apparent intent in a more appropriate tone. I think the most damaging behavior on Wikipedia is incivility, because it drives away productive editors, and without productive editors Wikipedia is just one very big sandbox. --Una Smith (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Examining the history behind that diff, I can see now that it was added on top of a lot of vandalism that had only partly been reverted. These are always difficult situations; in cases more complex than this one, it can take quite a while to sort out the valid edits from the vandalism. Not that I'm defending Montanabw, but sometimes one has to decide between reverting valid edits, leaving obvious vandalism, or leaving it all and hoping some other editor has time to sort it all out.

I certainly understand the problem with driving away productive editors. One of the more prolific and careful recent plant editors left because she kept getting in spats with other editors, and another because he ran headlong into the anti-homeopathy crowd when trying to restore referenced homeopathic uses to a plant article.

When I leave, it will of course not be a loss of a productive editor.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

New Stub

Hi Una. If you get a chance, I have started a stub on the fluoride controversy. There is a Fluoride Page, a Water fluoridation page, and a Water fluoridation controversy page, so naturally I took it upon myself to start the Fluoride Controversy page(!) Would appreciate some feedback. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, nevermind. The page has been deleted by Orlady. There goes 6 hours of painstaking research.... --AeronM (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was not deleted; it was changed to a redirect. Your entire contribution, with sources, remains in the history. Nothing is lost. --Una Smith (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I need to explain... At the moment Fluoride Controversy redirects to Water fluoridation controversy, so if you click a link to Fluoride Controversy you see Water fluoridation controversy but there is a link at the very top back to Fluoride Controversy. Once you get to Fluoride Controversy, you will see links to its history and talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's worth fighting to have it separated, although I think it should be. I have jumped into another very heated debate, only the fluoride editors make the bitless bridle editors look like pussycats! --AeronM (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Small aside

If you talk about me on your talk page, you should not be surprised that I answer on your talk page. If you weren't talking about me, then, given who you were chatting with, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption to make. As for my edits, sometimes only get online once per day at the moment (though for a long block); often a back and forth chat would mean it would be three days before I could add anything. I would think that the edits can stand on their own merits, based on sourcing, consistency and so on. See WP:BB and WP:OWN. Per these policies, I see no reason to ask permission, particularly from you, before editing. Montanabw^(talk) 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK,'my bad this time

I actually have trouble with the Wiki clock, which doesn't correspond to my own. (A) Im not used to a 24-hour clock, and (B) it's several hours off from my time zone, anyway) I noticed you had changed the article, I didn't pick up that you were actively working on it. So I DO apologize for that. However, in the future, can you be so kind as to "fact" tag anything you don't like in there, rather than just deleting it? We can throw it all in and then sort it out. I am interested in the south american stuff, but I wonder if it really belongs in bosal, which is just about the noseband. I personally think the frentera and fiador stuff belongs in hackamore because that article discusses the entire headgear. Montanabw^(talk) 07:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki stalking

Una, it seems my biggest fan here has taken it upon herself to follow a link from my talk page to an editor who is working on another article with me. Seeing that the other editor and I were not seeing eye to eye on the talk page of the other article, she left this message on his talk page:

"Hi, saw your comments on a certain member's talk page. Welcome to the club, glad to have some new members to take the heat off of me and my topic of interest! (grin) (name removed) 06:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)"

So she is now following me around to all my other articles and buddying up with editors with whom I am trying to work. I would consider this stalking, or at least against some wiki policy or other. Any thing I can do? Thanks, --AeronM (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems the two of them have started a little club. Just found this on WP:POVN —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeronM (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aeron, all of wikipedia is public. And because you do in fact talk about me on other people's talk pages, I have a few things watchlisted as a precaution. That's part of the wikipedia world. I don't have the time to track you everywhere you go, however, just the obvious (like when people warn you on your talk page). Sorry to hijack your page on this, Una. Montanabw^(talk) 03:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, instead of being sorry, please just don't do it in the first place. --Una Smith (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But Aeron has to understand that I haven't started a club with anyone, I just noticed some fellow sufferers out there and wanted to extend a helping hand. Will "just go away" per your request now. At least for the time being, though of course if my ears start buzzing, I may return. Montanabw^(talk) 06:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Montanabw, this does not belong on my user talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Toss it all if you want, I'm outta here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Confused

By your two comments here. Which is it? It's no skin of my nose to notify her, but I thought (a) the RFC was to determine the course of action, not the validity of her actions (b) she'd read it anyway. I apologized for not notifying her, but on reading your second (bottom) comment, I'm puzzled. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rifleman 82, I think the ultimate source of the confusion lies in your not making a clear distinction between content dispute and user conduct. A content dispute is not personal and thus does not merit naming an individual editor on the RFC, yet you did name an individual editor. --Una Smith (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

... I see no point in quoting diffs and making references to a person's conduct ... [2] I believe it was more than clear I was talking about content, not conduct. In any case, perhaps this conversation, and this very conversation are making a mountain out of a molehill. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why make reference to (not) making references to a person's conduct? Anyway, you refer to AeronM by name here. Maybe you would like to correct that? --Una Smith (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I factually mentioned the user's actions, not the conduct. Since she has been notified, and since the references to her are relevant, I decline refactoring my comments. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair. --Una Smith (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh?

...Cavalcade (parade) seemed a perfectly valid article. That's why I marked it as 'patrolled'. Any reason I shouldn't have? DS (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Tschüs, Una!

....bis wir uns weider treffen. Vielen Dank. (Mehr auf meiner Seite).  : ) --AeronM (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cavallo da ricerca e salvataggio

There was a deletion request, and nobody opposed. Something about MSAR was added on it:Ricerca e salvataggio --(Y) 15:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I know. I don't go there much, so missed the window. I want to expand the article, and would like to start from what was there before. --Una Smith (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar?

Doug, some time ago you asked for a "barn" star for an agriculture-oriented Wikipedia barnstar. Do you want a barnstar or a star anchor? (Re your banner at the top of this page, please just reply here. Thanks.) --Una Smith (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar and Star anchor now have images with barn contexts. Cheers. --Una Smith (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I didn't get back to you on this. Where do I find these?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The source images are on Commons. Find them via the Wikipedia articles I linked above. --Una Smith (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Fortnight

NCurse _work 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Category mayhem

Will try to join in later tonight. Let me know where you need to me to chop. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Category:Types of horses gathers leftovers, so lets clean it out (and delete it?). --Una Smith (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a place for that category, for things like "cob" "destirer" and other true types. Also for "Draft horse" or "pony". It does tend to attract a large chunk of addness though. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do with Bronco and Feral horse? How about changing the types category to "Non-breed types of horses"? Or, why not just put all stray articles in Category:Horses? There used to be an American registry and stud book for polo ponies; it was intended as a performance registry that might someday be closed to become a breed registry, as happened with thoroughbreds. And even without a breed registry, there are common selective traits for polo ponies and favored pedigrees. So polo pony could go under Category:Horse breeds. That might motivate some editing to explain to what extent polo ponies are or are not a breed. --Una Smith (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferals are a type, at least to me. I'm hesitant to put articles in Category:Horses because at the top it says "It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories" which means we probably should have something like "Non-breed types of horses" or the like. We need somewhere to put the articles on Foal Mare Stallion etc. too. Can't be "terminology" either, as that will probably get shot down because Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Ideas on that? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, "feral" is an adjective. They are not one type, in the sense that cobs are. I looked at Category:Dogs and see they have Category:Dog types and it is the same sort of mishmash as Category:Types of horses. Do any animal category schemes approach this differently? --Una Smith (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The advisory on Category:Horses says to use subcategories when appropriate, and too large is relative. --Una Smith (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Equids has many articles without WPEQ tags. --Una Smith (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone is going in right behind me and reverting my changes. What a waste of time. --Una Smith (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled

I'm puzzled by this. Having never seen the article before, I went to check it out. I know it is uncharitable of me to suspect wikistalking, but what I found is even more puzzling--there is no evidence that you edited the article at all, even including the revert you said you made, unless you are also 208.124.62.68 (and that IP had never edited until after Montanabw posted).--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling indeed. I was logged in at the time. But why do you suspect me of wikistalking? If anyone looks like a wikistalker here it is Montanabw, who seems to follow me around reverting my edits. Eg this and this and this and this, all within a few minutes' span, together with this comment. --Una Smith (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish you'd both give it a rest. (No need to post this to Montanbw's page; I'm sure she'll see it here. In fact, I'll point her to it.) How about if you both start out by promising never to revert or immediately modify an edit made by the other on an article that you've never edited before. That pretty much eliminates any basis for wikistalking.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, please tell her to give it a rest on her talk page, and leave me out of it. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you to give it a rest here. I'll be happy to tell you on her talk page as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This diff, both before and after, is not what I would call leaving me out of it. --Una Smith (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking the history on Foraging, none of the 3 edits there by 208.124.62.68 on 15 March 2008 are mine. One of those edits fixed what I tried to fix, but not the way I tried to fix it. Dunno what happened there. Anyway, 208.124.62.68 is not me. --Una Smith (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

fiador

Done. I am sincerely requesting a source for your statement that a "fiador" connects the throatlatch to a noseband, I really have truly never heard that term used on anything but rope equipment. I realize that South American designs may be different, but this is English wikipedia, and I wonder if a separate article on south american bridles would be a good idea, as there are several design variations seen south of the border that are rarely if ever used in the USA or Canada (or other English speaking nations). Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to have to do this, but see Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#User:Dreadstar. --Una Smith (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite alright. I wasn't involved in the dispute and was protecting the page from your edit warring, asking you to work it out on the talk page instead. But apparently, you'd rather attack me than try to work it out with the editor you're in a dispute with, even though you expressed your support for my actions at the time: [3]. I'd suggest again that you work it out with Montana on the talk page, edit warring is unacceptable, as are personal attacks against another editor, both of which you were engaging in and were the reasons why I was asked to intervene. Dreadstar † 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to make certain you understand what constitutes edit warring, I've provided a link to what edit warring is, as well as these examples of your participation in such behavior: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Dreadstar † 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to review WP:3RR. Dreadstar † 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is sincere and in good faith

Given your Spanish language interest, there are several horse articles on wikipedia that are a real mess and where you may be able to help a great deal (and I would not be terribly involved because I have no particular interest or background). Also, Spanish wikipedia may have related articles that you might be able to translate and add text (and who knows, they may have decent photos useful elsewhere, too) I am letting you know they are there if you happen to be interested in looking at them:

• Criollo (horse)
• Chilean rodeo
• Chilean Horse

Chaps

We're discussing the final version of the pronunciation draft; if you'd like to participate you're more than welcome. Dreadstar † 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Holy moly, I go snowboarding in Vail for a mere week and see how much I have missed! I will try to get caught up in the next few days......! --AeronM (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Flying (Lead) Change and Tempi Changes

Hi Una. Can you have a look at my suggestions here and tell me what you think? Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If we move Flying Change to Lead Change, does that mean we have to find all the wikilinks and change them? I'm learning this stuff bit by bit.... --AeronM (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia manual of style prefers lower case titles except in proper nouns, so it would be Lead change. And yes, moving a page requires fixing links to that page. That is not a big deal. --Una Smith (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

here are all the links to Flying change. On the left menu of every wikipedia page, in the toolbox pane, the link "What links here" shows you all wikipedia links to that page. --Una Smith (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --AeronM (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot Horse/Trim

When you get a chance, could you look over the barefoot horse page? I have been doing some work on it. Would this page qualify as a Project Equine page? Also, we are discussing the possibility of merging Barefoot Horse with Barefoot Trim here. ("Barefoot movement" currently redirects to Barefoot horse). Thanks. -AeronM (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ooops, I see it is already on the Project Equine list...  ! --AeronM (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot trim was not on the list; I have added it, and also applied "merge" tags per Wikipedia convention. --Una Smith (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! You are fast! --AeronM (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a Walk

JFW's talk page is on my watchlist, and I happened to see your note. Without wanting to prejudice any interaction there, I wanted to say that if you think I deserve a similar note some day, I hope you'll feel comfortable letting me know.

In addition to which, it's a gorgeous, sunny day here, and if I hadn't seen your note, I probably wouldn't be putting on my shoes and getting away from my computer screen. So -- although I realize it's an unintended consequence, thanks for the suggestion! WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and enjoy your walk. --Una Smith (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Excellent! I was going to suggest you do that very thing. You might want to consider adding User:C0pernicus, considering this earlier request. Dreadstar † 04:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

NNT

What was your opinion on the Business Week definition of the NNT for statins? I found it useful and clear, and in plain English. It was banished to a footnote, then the footnote was expurgated of the quote. The NNT article in Wikipedia is written by statistics guys for other statistics guys. The BW definition is very clear to me. Maybe its too clear. Its like when the bible was translated into English. When everyone could read it and understand it, it was bad for the established experts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Otago Cavalcade

Hi Una - I've added a little info under your query here. AFAIK it's the only cavalcade of its type in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 10:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

New article

I have started an article on the Upperville Colt & Horse Show (the oldest show in America, and founded by my greatx3 grandfather, Colonel Richard Henry Dulany). Would it qualify as a Project Equine article? --AeronM (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Una. Regarding spelling, what is the guideline for spelling words such as practice (US) / practise (UK) in these articles? I am working on the foxhunting page and notice the british version is employed there. Just curious. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For that, consult Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. --Una Smith (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

References > Citing sources

Hold on there partner!

RE: Your contributions to Valle Grande, please add a source (or two) for these additions and format sources correctly.

Learning to format your references; add author if available, title, original source, date, publication, hosting site if applicable, etc.

How to cite sources:

Wikipedia:Citing sources and also Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style

See also: Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:ISBN, and Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes

SEE: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles (This is a good one!)

Please and thank you...

Titles

Book, album, movie, TV show, titles are Italicized not put quotes.

Proper names

Peoples names, like David Halberstam, Republican, and Groucho Marx should almost NEVER be put in quotes.

I think I'll have to revert your entire edit until you can learn to do it properly.

Example Book

EXAMPLE.

References

WikiDon (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

THANKS for your fast response! Carry on.... WikiDon (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Los Alamos, New Mexico. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That was an automated edit summary. For details please see Help:Edit summary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)