This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for the heads up on my rabicano photo. It was fun to be able to contribute to a subject that is so dear to me! Coreada 10:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the redirect on the (now former) fleabitten gray article. My question is: What did I do wrong there? I tried to make it redirect but it wouldn't go...how can I do a proper job next time? There are two other stubs out there that need to be somehow incorporated into the main article...Thanks! Montanabw 20:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason that redirect didn't work is it had a space (" ") before the "#". When there is a space at the beginning of a line on Wikipedia, the line gets put in that dotted box you may have seen and the redirect doesn't work. I see that you have been here a few months but no one has given you a welcome message with useful links, so I have put one below. If you have any questions about anything, I would be happy to help. —Centrx→talk • 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm one step of ahead of you, chap :-). I started it a few hours ago and will finish it soon. Thanks, Craigy (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it's at Judith Blunt-Lytton, 16th Baroness Wentworth. Craigy (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a peerage "expert" lol, but: Lady Anne was Judith and Noel's unmarried elder daughter and Lady Winifred was their youngest daughter who married Claude Tyron. Lady Anne Blunt's (Judith's mother) title passed to Judith as most baronies from the sixteenth century and before were created to allow them to pass to female heirs if their were no male ones. This was the case with Judith who was the eldest child of Lady Anne and Wilfrid, who didn't have any sons. When Judith died, the title passed to her son, by now the Earl of Lytton, as he was their eldest child. I hope I've explained that correctly for you. Thanks Craigy (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that's what was happening. I wonder what they expect to accomplish by erasing the references? They just get put right back. I don't remember why I have Tennessee Walker on my watchlist, but I'm glad I could help! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Gosh, I didn't see any request -- I don't often monitor RFPP. How often is this vandalism occurring? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you out working hard, and I thought I'd drop by with a nice glass of lemonade and say I'd seen you hard at work and that it is greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work you are doing, and if I can be of any help, please let me know. Essjay (Talk) 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The article Arabian horse is a nominee for Good Article status. I'd appreciate a look-see and any suggestions for improvements. I got some excellent suggestions by a reviewer for improvements, need to see if I hit what was needed. Will take a long time to get everything cited, but comments for the to do list always welcome. Any constructive suggestions on how to improve War horse also welcome--been a bit of a personality conflict over there. Created a sandbox titled Horses in Warfare to take it out back for awhile, but would like an outside, neutral look at the articles. They will eventually be merged. Montanabw 08:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the conflict on War horse, I'd suggest perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion or perhaps an informal mediation; I can't involve myself to far into the matter because of my role in dispute resolution, but that would be my starting advice. I took a glance over Arabian horse and it looks very good; I'll read it more in depth and let you know of anything I see, but I must admit, it's not really my area of expertise. :) Essjay (Talk) 08:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I'll look over Arabian horse for terms that should be linked to Wiktionary and/or Wikipedia.

As for "who should I cite as the source?": If there is an original source, as for example if a famous book or person was the first to say x, then the original source is preferred. If a term is so common in a field that finding the original source is problematic, then you can do one of two things: if many people say this is from y, then you can follow the crowd and cite y. If (as is probably the case here) no one ever says what the source of this is, then just find it explained or mentioned in the most highly-regarded and authoritative source you can think of, and cite the page number etc. In that case, you wouldn't say that that source originated the term, you would just put a citation there. The reader should understand it as an authoritative source.

To shorten that whole paragraph :-) : just use common sense, and use the best source you can find. :-)

Later --Ling.Nut 13:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

PS -- regarding common knowledge, and leaving it uncited.. there's a bit of a gray area here; it's a bit of a judgment call at times. Sometimes just a wikilink is OK; sometimes not.

I strongly suggest that you focus on the many historical details that you left uncited. Those are clear-cut cases where cites are needed. As for common-knowledge stuff, maybe the WP:FA process can help you with that one (after more than a little work on other areas).

Later --Ling.Nut 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded to your question on my talk page. :-) --Ling.Nut 19:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

Please drop me a line on my talk page whenever Arabian horse goes up for FA. I'm very interested in how that goes.

Cheers, --Ling.Nut 23:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'm from Italy - I work sometimes here too mainly about horses. I'm a barefoot movement member - I'm looking for some open-minded user of shod horses to discuss some NPOV issues about shoeing and barefoot horses movement. Horses and horsemanship are very difficult topics to cover with a honest NPOV - the only way is to work together in my opinion! Are you interested about?--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Montanabw 20:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think, Barefoot horse talk page is the best place to discuss this issue. I know the history of that article from its beginning... it's the very first "barefoot step" into wiki. In its first version, it has been written by Marjorie Smith, http://www.barefoothorse.com , after a suggestion from me! She wrote the article without any deep knowledge of wiki philosophy and tricks, and I tried sometimes to ameliorate it from a wiki point of view, but some more NPOV review is needed. And my English is rather poor...

Hironically, NO NPOV issues had been raised before that article, when ONLY the traditional point of view about horse shoes was mentioned into wiki just as a matter of fact...

See you into the talk page there!--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no training. There's nothing to do except read WP:WIAGA and maybe skim thru some of the archives of WP:GA/R. You may wanna ask Homestarmy, RelHistBuff or LuciferMorgan to take a look at your comments etc. but that is definitely not mandatory.

If you try to use anything resembling a reasonable quality standard, then the task is far less than thankless. It makes you a target for harsh, vituperative abuse/insults from people who should have "Can't you see I'm brilliant?" tattooed on their foreheads. It is quite discouraging. But care about Wikipedia; not about their cr*p.

Thanks for helping. :-) --Ling.Nut 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PS I asked Homestarmy to give you some input; he replied on my talk page. --Ling.Nut 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

PPS Sorry if I scared you away. :-) I have been under stress lately, and the yammerheads have definitely been getting under my skin. The yammerheads core dump their egos at WP:GA/R, not WP:GAC. If you wanna help with the backlog, then go ahead and review as many as you wish. If you don't pop in to WP:GA/R, you'll never see the yammerheads.

We could use all the help we can get. :-)

Thanks --Ling.Nut 16:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I've included a diagram if that helps. The red arrow shows the descent of the barony of Wentworth since 1745. Ada King-Milbanke (the 14th Baroness) was the granddaughter of Ada Lovelace and the neice of Lady Anne Blunt. As you rightly said, Lady Anne inherited the title in June 1917 but she died a few months later in December (which is why she isn't usually known as the 15th Baroness Wentworth as she only held the title for almost six months). As I said before, the barony was able to pass through the female line if there were no male heirs, which is why Judith (the 16th Baroness Wentworth), inherited the title that December. Craigy (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)