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.

((collapsetop|off topic query by Talk Page Stalker and subsequent reply)) 

Thanks for the note. I have no idea about your history with Una and respect whatever you feel about that. I would just say that my interaction with her was quite positive, not in terms of (dis)agreement but in terms of improving wikipedia. That is what I felt about this story - that there were good faith (but perhaps clumsy) attempts to improve the article. We all make mistakes; I often get remarks on my blunders in materials science articles and am only glad when someone points me to them, not to mention if he/she patiently explains my wrongs :-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This article:

• Olsen, Sandra L. (2006). "Early Horse Domestication: Weighing the Evidence". In Olsen, Sandral L., Susan Grant, Alice M. Choyke, Laszlo Bartosiewics (ed.). Horses and Humans: The Evolution of Human-Equine Relationships. British Archaelogical Reports International Series 1560. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress. ISBN 1-84171-990-0. ((cite encyclopedia)): Text "pages81-113" ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can it be located on a paid database or only in hardcopy? You are correct, sounds like I do need a look-see. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardcopy only, looks like. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If the introduction to a list of studs farm is written in the present tense, it should refer to present-day countries. I see that you have no problem with mentions of, say, Germany and Hungary, which did not exist as countries at the time of their studs' founding either. I'm getting very tired of your transparent anti-Slovenian agenda regarding the Lipizzan and your blatant hypocrisy. Please take your original interpretations elsewhere. Good day.--WorldWide Update (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WorldWide Update, I have no idea why you are getting snarky at Montanabw. She's not the one who made the change that you are objecting to - it was another editor, see here. Also, please read WP:NPA - calling another editor hypocritical and accusing them of having an agenda is really uncalled for. Dana boomer (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I really have no agenda pro-or anti-Slovenia. And Dana is correct, a different editor (one who is well-respected for vandal patrol and an understanding of WP protocols, by the way) did the edits. What I do know is that Slovenia is not the only nation in the world, and everyone gets a fair shake. National pride is fine, and in some of these newly-independent republics, understandable from a psychological viewpoint, but not in line with WP's NPOV standard. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Lindenbauer

We should translate that as well! --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"We" huh? (grin). Montanabw^(talk) 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the Polak translation? --Andreas Hausberger (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more at your talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Great Job! Though I would suggest to rename it to "Federal Stud Piber", don't you think so? In german it's "Bundesgestüt Piber". Another question: I talked to people from Piber about the wiki-article "Lipizzan" and the photo showing a "typical" lipizzan. On this photo is a lipizzan from Monterotondo with a rider on. It's simply an ugly photo! I asked the Piber stuff for a better one and they said yes sure. So, if I upload one of these photos to commons what about the copyrights. Federal Stud Piber holds the rights and is willing to publish on Wikipedia.--Andreas Hausberger 19:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree the Lipizzan photo is not the best, only maybe the best of what we have. Unfortunately, "copyrighted but OK to use on Wikipedia" isn't a free license for wikimedia commons, a photo has to be basically free to anyone for anything. The easiest way to do this is to release a photo into the public domain--but doing so means that anyone can do anything with it and never pay royalties or give attribution or anything. (an example is this image: File:Dr_Cook_BB_Western.JPG). The other acceptable method is to release a photo under the GDFL and CC licenses -- which basically say that a photographer can get credit for taking the photo, but that the image has to be free to anyone to use for anything, even for someone else to make money from. The young gray Lipizzan that illustrates Gray (horse) may be more suitable if you'd prefer that one as an interim solution. The horse is very nice, but young, without the fully white hair coat. (Personally, I got so fed up with finding photos of some things that I wanted to illustrate that I just got out my own camera and started taking amateur photos that I could own and then release any way I wanted. Example would be this image: File:SaddleUnderside.jpg.) Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

On the second issue, German and English flip their word order a lot, while I would go with what what the official version from the facility is, in English, we always say "The XYZ stud" not "Stud XYZ" Also, at this site, the tab at the top does say "Piber Federal Stud" which is grammatically correct English. We could rename the whole article "Piber Federal Stud" so as to later make room for someone to do an article about the village of Piber, I suppose...? Montanabw^(talk) 00:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Piber Federal Stud" is great and another article on Piber (the village) can be donne later.--Andreas Hausberger 07:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversano Isabella (talk • contribs)

I am mildly confused. SHould I leave the article titled "Piber" or change its name now (as opposed to later) to "Piber Federal Stud?" Oh, and by the way, the article is in the "Did you know?" queue and will have a brief mention on the main page TOMORROW! (April 18)... they change them as the day goes on, but the queue says it will go up at 1:00 pm (13:00) London time...! Montanabw^(talk) 02:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK but maybe you can sort through my old ones too :-) Victuallers (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Suggest you might like to look at here. Poor translation but Looks interesting and may provide a good hook... Oh and you search for "victu" in here ? Victuallers (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow up press release on the topic here. Sounds like no real threat, more of a bluff to me...sort of like threatening to close the fire department if the local mill levy doesn't pass. (LOL) Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Think you got this one wrong. Moorhead does indeed exist and in fact the Spear Hills are shown on the Moorhead Quad map. Moorhead as a village shows clearly on the quad. Although Brodus is indeed north of the Spear Hills, it is a long way north compared to Moorhead.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Broadus has about 600 people in it, and it's the biggest town in the county, so it's the best reference. Given the relative lack of relief (some nice badlands country down there, though) any significant elevation will be visible from many miles off. Oh, and no one in Montana says "village" either. In Powder River County, there ARE a couple wide spots in the road that might have a bar. My point is that if a community does not appear on the Montana road map, then no one is going to have any clue how to find something. It may appear on a quad, but in real life there could just be a sign on the railroad tracks by a weathered shed... Note this map, http://www.mdt.mt.gov/travinfo/docs/hwymap_cond.pdf which shows the KNOWN wide spots in the road like Olive (population zero), Biddle and Powderville. No Moorhead. Given that Broadus is about 40 miles from the Wyoming border and the Spear Hills are roughly on the border, it isn't that far--it's probably a 20 minute drive the way a person drives in that part of the state... Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I wanted to ask your permission to publish your picture of a palomino wearing a bosal for an article on bits and bridles. The article is slated for the June issue of the Northwest Horse Source, a regional all-breed magazine the covers Wash., Ore., Idaho, and parts of Western Montana and Northern Calif.

I'd like to include a photo credit if you wish to furnish that. This will be the "lead-in" picture for the article.

I am at your mercy on this one, we don't have much of an editorial budget. But I would be interested in publishing your story, if that's something you feel could benefit you. I find your work with Wikipedia intriguing and news worthy.

Deadline is later this week, so please let me know before Thurs., April 29.

Sincerely,

Gavin Ehringer, editor

Northwest Horse Source Magazine

If you mean this picture, you can freely use the picture (as long as you include photo credit, as is necessitated by the licence). For further reference, all images as well as other files in Wikimedia Commons (See the Bosal bridle category for example, or Playing horses) are released under a free use license, or are Public Domain - that is, free to use. No permissions need to be asked. On the other hand, some files used in the English Wikipedia may be used under Fair Use circumstances; therefore you should check the licence of the picture if you wish to use it in the case you found it via a Wikipedia article instead of from the Commons. Pitke (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gavin, Pitke is correct that it is a free image with attribution per the license on the image. If you want to use my real name and such, (which would be very fun for me!) I avoid using my real name on wikipedia, so please click on the "E-mail this user" link to the left of this page and send me a message. Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your edit to the Hambletonian 10 page. I just wanted to let you know that "standardbred", and "thouroughbred", are types of horses, and not breed names. They are, as such, not capitalised. All the best-Mk5384 (User talk:Mk5384)

Wrong. These are horse breeds and are to be capitalized. At least as long as all the other horse breeds are capitalized. And if you think none of them should be, well, we have nearly 400 articles plus thousands of cross-references that would need to be changed. So please stop changing the capitalization on these articles. Montanabw^(talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Thoroughbred", and "standardbred", are not capitalised. You said yourself, dictionaries list "thoroughbred", and "purebred", as synonyms. Are dictionaries no longer reliable sources? I have fixed the articles, again. If you continue to revert me, I am not going to get into an edit war with you. I will, however, return with reliable sources, to show that these names are not to be capitalised.Mk5384 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are editing against consensus. This will be reported as vandalism if you continue. The Standardbred is a breed, the Thoroughbred is a breed. Please leave this be. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I reverted myself, asshole. Secondly, WHERE, WHERE, WHERE, is this "consensus" you keep claiming? Third, I don't give a flying fuck if you report me for vandalism, murder, or anything in between. Vandalism and murder have something in common; I've never comitted either. The fact that you would threaten me with something so childish speaks volumes. Fourth, whilst you are welcome at my talkpage, if you template me again, the entire message will be summarily removed, unread. Fifth, I will, very shortly, provide reliable sources that show that I am right about this.Mk5384 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to refractor the above uncivil comments and threats. I gave you the gentlest of template warnings. If you review the edit history of the Thoroughbred article and the FA review, as well as actually read the article itself and review the footnotes, you will see this issue has been long decided. Now please cases such attacks. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384, Montana is correct that your last post above goes beyond the bounds of common civility. She is also correct that Thoroughbred and Standardbred are the names of breeds, not types, and as such are capitalized. For past discussions, see Talk:Go Man Go#Capitlization and the FAC for the Thoroughbred article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thoroughbred, where capitalization of breed names are discussed. The Thoroughbred FAC resulted in the expansion of the Thoroughbred#Terminology section, which now includes (with extensive referencing to reliable sources) discussion on when the term is capitalized and when it is not. Dana boomer (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Webster, when used in reference to horses it's capitalized:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise that you were a woman. Under the circumstances, I should not have used such coarse language. That doesn't excuse the template or the baseless charge at ANI, mind you. But I make it a point not to use language like that in the presence of women.Mk5384 (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued at User talk:Mk5384. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot I could say in response to your post on my talk page. However, I find your desire for this to end commendable, and will therefore, restrain myself. Consider it ended. All the best-Mk5384 (It won't let me sign, for some reason.)

Sorry if my move caused you extra work. The name horse chestnut refers to the tree to which it now points. As some one who is interested in horse you will know that a horse's chestnut is next to never called a horse chestnut.

There is a WP:RM on talk:horse chestnut (disambiguation) which was ignored by user:BD2412 moved (s)he the page on 9 January 2010. This page is part of the fallout from the flora guideline which until Feb this year was worded so that botanists could justify imposing Latin names on all plants. It seems that some of them want that to extend to redirects as well (perhaps the fear is that if the common name redirect to the tree then it undermines their case for using the Latin name, but that is only speculation as I have not asked them).

I can see from the that history of "chestnut (horse)" that it is a casualty of the flora wars because Una Smith had frequently used the flora guideline to support the move commonly named article (as used in reliable sources) to Latin names.

I see three possible solutions: (1) redirect as you have done -- the trouble is that it is subject to Una Smith or someone similar changing the redirect. (2) point the redirect to the dab page. (3) move the page Chestnut (horse anatomy) back to chestnut (horse). If you decide that 3 is the best option, I'll remove the history of chestnut (horse) so that you can do it. -- PBS (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

PBS has a long history of attributing problems to the flora guideline, but it seems to me in this case that Una was yet again following her own peculiar views on disambiguation, views that are rejected by many plant editors.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me as long as people can find the articles on Chestnut-colored horses and chestnuts on horse's legs, I CAN see someone typing "horse chestnut" instead of "chestnut horse" as a search term. I want to stay out of the disambig issues. I fixed a couple of dabs, I am of mixed feelings on Chestnut (horse)...arguably, it could be a dab to both chestnut horse articles, but there is probably a point at which dabs get out of control. I shall defer to the plant experts and the dab experts. Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I was amazed to discover there was no article on J.K. Ralson, so I wrote one this weekend and listed at DYK. See J. K. Ralston. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Nice job, too! Montanabw^(talk) 03:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic looking article, very nice indeed! Dreadstar ☥ 04:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Another I'd like to see, but have not yet found the time/motivation to do it myself is photographer L.A. Huffman (aka Laton Alton Huffman? I've also wanted to do one on Fannie Sperry Steele, but again, time, motivation, other fish to fry. Montanabw^(talk) 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Just checked out the new article on Varian, per your request. It looks really good! You've got a good batch of sources; if you took it to GAN some reviewers might complain about the number of them that are to Varian's website, but I think most of the stuff that is sourced there would be hard to find elsewhere, and from my quick read it didn't look too promotional. Don't think you should have any trouble from the new page patrollers on this one :) Nice work - Dana boomer (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dana. I was concerned about sounding too promotional. It's trickier than I thought to avoid it when there isn't really anything horribly controversial about someone and one is also a bit nervous doing a BLP because you ARE potentially far more accountable than when writing about other topics! =:-O I agree with the citing issue. When possible, I was/am trying to swap out footnotes from the Varian site if they had info I could find elsewhere (two of her "horse biographies" are actually verbatim from the Carpenter book, it would have saved me a lot of time had the webmaster on the site said as much... and I think some of the other articles are also reprints from magazine articles, I know one author is well-known for publishing in a certain magazine a lot...  :-P But it IS true that a lot of stuff is hard to find elsewhere, I mean, the site also has the full text of her acceptance speech at the Cowgirl Hall of Fame, and the Hall of Fame site itself positively SUCKS for having decent biographical material for her on its web site, I was rather frustrated. I have another hardcopy book I can check for info that might be able to replace a few more web site cites, and maybe when she returns from her trip Ealdgyth may also have some source material. I don't see this one ever getting to FA for a lot of reasons, but I might try to tackle a GA once it settles in a bit. It is in the DYK queue. Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologise to you for calling you an asshole. This goes beyond my apology for swearing at a woman; I apologise for doing it at all. As I discussed on Guy's talk page, I have been reflecting on things that have taken place here. I was following the very flawed logic that, "two wrongs make it even". Also, as I felt that you owed me an apology, I had decided that I would refrain from apologising to you, unless you would first offer an apology of your own. This too, is flawed thinking. I shouldn't have said that to you, and whether or not you apologise to me is irrevalant. I'm not sure why felt that you were "about to come under attack". I asked Guy to review the incident, not on the basis of having fodder to criticise, or attack you, should he side with me, but to illustrate my point to him that I feel I have (perhaps largely through my own doing) been unfairly characterised as "completely in the wrong about everything". Note that I only asked for his opinion, and said that I would do my best to consider it carefully, regardless of what he said. Also note that my request was irrespective of my intention to apologise. One other thing. As we know, when I realised that you were a woman, I apologised to you for my use of language. I seem to have caught more flack for this, than the original incident. I would just like to state, for the record, that this was not an attempt to be a condescending alpha male, but rather a genuine attempt to be a gentleman. Whilst I am obviously capable of swearing like a drunken sailor, I do attempt to observe custody of the tounge in the presence of women, and I certainly do not make a habit of directing said language at women. In any case, I will close as I began. I apologise for calling you an asshole.Mk5384 (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Apology for use of intemperate language accepted. I have been known to use intemperate language myself and on occasion, to fail to edit a comment prior to hitting "save" or "send", so your apology is gracious and accepted. The part of this mess I can easily acknowledge as an error on my part is that I paid no attention to your amount of prior editing before I slapped the template on your talk page. That said, it was intended to be the mildest possible template, though a newcomer template was not the best to use. I do wish that wikipedia had a trout slap template! (smile) As for the rest, the underlying issue was a simple disagreement over a fairly minor issue. My part in that which I am willing to acknowledge is that I was cranky and tired of dealing with that particular issue because I had already dealt with it several times in the past (with my view prevailing every time), so I may have deserved a trout slap myself for a lack of patience. I hope this clears the air. Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's chalk it up to a misunderstanding, and pick up where we left off, after we had both agreed to drop the issue. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As my user page states, I am open to being trout slapped. In an attempt to close an unplesant issue with a soupcon of levity, I have gone ahead and trout slapped myself.Mk5384 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And I found the trout slapping template! I don't know if it's relevant here, but I also ran across Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, which, given my area of interest, is somehow, oddly, appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight, that would have been hilarious.Mk5384 (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder why you would post a note to Jack Merridew that directs him to a 7 month old discussion that involved me and you and was responded to by Lar and is essentially a dead thread. What's the point? Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack's a good egg and I wasn't happy to see the ANI. The discussion I posted shows nothing more than your pattern when in disagreement with someone who is not involved in your current spat. It stands for what it says, however others wish to interpret it one way or the other. Montanabw^(talk) 16:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Terima kasih. I would have thought that "FYI of something you might be interested in seeing." was pretty clear. I do find it interesting; and useful. You ever read meatball:DefendEachOther? You're obviously familiar with the notion ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Others have lent me a hand sometimes when much needed. Actions speak for themselves, but wikipedia is a big place and hard to find all that is needed. I've spent a lot of time looking at my own triggers and issues, I find it useful to look at patterns. (My own pattern is revert first, discuss later, which occasionally gets too bitey, hence I have self-added the trout-slap option to my user page) Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But do you get trouted much? And if so, is it genuinely appropriate? fyi, AN/I just scuttled the mediation effort and moved things further towards real resolution. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

MBW is spot on as usual. So no, she doesn't get trouted much. ;) - Josette (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think once in four years and deservedly, if I recall! ;-) That said, usually the people who get really mad at me don't trout me, (which might be surprisingly successful if they but gave it a whirl) instead they claim that my willingness to be trouted is simply an evil ploy on my part that allows me to revert their edits and that I am actually the infamous Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet. But then, I think Jack gets that too. Sigh. Josette, I like the way you recently were so very reticent to offer your true feelings on a particular matter!  :-) Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, we have bigger "fish" these days. And I don't eat the evil kittens, I eat the evil adult Pussies Cats ;) I gave your Sheila a poke; leveled-up, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any way to put a cute little icon next to the trout? Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure; just knock-off the usual template; which I made some adjustment to a while ago. I also did the version of the user box that pre-loads the trout to talk pages. I'm get to it; good idea. I made a user box last week: ((user wikipedia/WikiZombie)). No one seems to be up for using it, yet. It has a built-in resolution mechanism, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your friend is doing an excellent job, really, but could you suggest to him/her that they stop using the page source code as a forum. I actually came there to day to see if I could help out with a copyedit or two but I gave up when I opened the editing window. I think any suggestions to use the talk page for comments would be much better, and received in more GF, if they came from you - you're rather more tactful than I am.--Kudpung (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to cut down unnecessary edits by dropping additional info at points where I have a hunch Montanabw is going to ask things. It's true that some of the hidden commentaries have gone too far (like the warmblood thing, and some others about breeds) though... I'll remind myself to try and remember the talk page also exists :) If you care, it'd be helpful to have even one subsection checked over... Don't want to be mean or anything, but I feel kinda proud you gave up X3 Pitke (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. What we have here is an article that only had two people working on it for the past year or so and hence the use of quick little inline hidden text was a fast way to explain the various small changes going on without need for lengthy talk page discussions that require statements like "in the second sentence of the third paragraph of the fourth subsection..." to make any sense (grin). Usually, once the messages that are conversational have been read, they are tossed. Remaining hidden comments flag areas that still need more work and make them easier to locate. This may not be standard wiki protocol, but it's BOLD and it works extremely well when there is a big article improvement push; the same technique worked will for a 4 or 5 person team when we took Thoroughbred to GA. Perhaps what we could do here is to ask you to do a review for us when Pitke thinks it's ready for GA as what you spot will no doubt also be what a GA reviewer will comment upon. However, we aren't quite there yet, so your patience for now will be appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't want to sound picky. I guess that I tend now to find the faults with editors that people massacred me for when I first joined WP years ago. I don't have a huge edit count specifically because I spend hours working on very small details, but it doesn't mean I'm any less experienced or know less about the rules than a person who has sixty FAs, 200 GAs, and half a million edits. You're probably right about a peer review - because I know absolutely nothing about horses, I'm not distracted when I'm checking for prose, grammar, and structure. Let me know if and when you're ready.--Kudpung (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Never! But I guess the article has reaches most of its potential length now, not counting the missing breed section subsections of course. Pitke (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee Pitke, and here I thought only the Germans were that anal-retentive! Finns too? Oh dear! LOL! (being partially of German heritage, I can say that, by the way...) But it is sort of true that wikipedia is never really finished, is it?? Montanabw^(talk) 01:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Toweroflondonhorsemuzzle.jpg or File:Toweroflondonsaddlepossiblyorderofthedragon.jpg or File:Toweroflondonhorsebitprobablyhenryviii.jpg. Obviously I'm starting on the uploading of the thousands of shots I took in Europe... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Way cool...want to figure out a way to pop that bit photo into curb bit for us? Maybe also to Horses in the Middle Ages. Got more?? Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gods, yes. Lots and lots of stuff. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm, yummy! Can't wait! Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Very cool! Looking forward to seeing the rest... Dana boomer (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are going to be interspersed with all the bishop's tombs and other scenery that I took also. I did take a LOT of horse related photos (no actual horses, weirdly, just horse stuff). Some stuff from the Elgin Marbles, some stuff from the Pergamon Altar, some stuff from Assyria, lots of bits and bit parts, other fun stuff... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, organized a bit this morning, the relevant subpages will be horse stuff and horses and unorganized bits for now. I'll probably have a subpage for "horses in art" and "historical photos and prints of horses" later, once I get more motivated to organize more. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

great. Already added the stirrup pic to stirrup, it's perfect! Also, check the cats your horse photos got popped into, some may be iffy, the commons folks doing cat sorting are doing a pretty good job, but they are shooting about 80%. Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In the article on Equestrianism, you reversed my addition of "vaulters" to "riders and drivers", saying that "broadly speaking, vaulting IS a form of riding". This has actually been a source of a great deal of legal controversy (no kidding), and I think that the consensus is that vaulting is not riding.

The British Equestrian Vaulting society fought successfully on this point and Vaulting Canada fought unsuccessfully. I can't find any archived material from the BEV (I remember it from when the fight was going on), but there is stuff from VC (in a zipped file) at http://www.vaultcanada.org/downloads/More%20about%20Vaulting/helmets-all-files.zip?Cnw-Lang=English

The key point vaulters make is that the essence of riding is that the human is in control / trying to control / trying to influence the horse's movement (speed, gait, direction, etc), whereas the essence of vaulting is for the vaulter to do his / her stuff without effecting the horse (who is controlled by the lunger).

The reason it has been so controversial and ended up in courts is that in many countries, riders (especially young riders) are required to wear helmets, and vaulters generally don't want to do so. One way of avoiding the law is to argue that they are not riders.

If you have a good counter-argument, let me know. If not, I'll just restore my edit.

Equestrian1942 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So if the humans are in control of the horse, the humans wear helmets; but if the horse is in control of the humans, then the humans don't wear helmets??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Never let it be said that horsepeople are slaves to logic or rationality...

Equestrian1942 (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh LOL! I never even thought of that angle! Of course, where I live, there are no mandatory helmet laws other than rules of sanctioning organizations like the USEF. (I think only New York and Florida have helmet laws). Here's the question then: is vaulting even "Equestrianism?" I mean, yes, the FEI sanctions it, but...hmmm. The philosophical implications here are mind-boggling. When is a rider not a rider? This is sort of like When is a white horse not a horse? Ultimately, I suppose it is not a moral issue. My main beef with that Equestrian article is the once people start adding things, the laundry list just keeps growing and growing. If we consider vaulting a form of equestrianism (even though the vaulter doesn't control the horse...?) then I guess I can see either way. But as long as we can limit it to just adding vaulting and keep out everyone who wants to add the sub-disciplines... also, do we even have a section in there on vaulting? (We DO have equestrian vaulting, by the way...). Hmm. Let's discuss a bit more, my head will probably wrap around the best answer soon. Montanabw^(talk) 01:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I see enough people here in FL without a helmet, and even my instructor is not enforcing it, so I guess it is not here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's the Florida law: [2] Looks like it's limited to when people under 16 are riding on public land, doesn't apply to private land, and also has loopholes in it big enough to drive a truck through. In the land of lawsuits, though, which is everywhere, the state of the law is that pretty much anyone who doesn't put a helmet on a kid in the US is asking for trouble, even out here in cowboy land where we "don't got none of them sissy guvmint helmet laws." (LOL) Personally, I don't teach for pay any more, but I still won't even put a kid on a horse to lead them around the yard without a helmet. Of course, this is after I was the only other person on premises and first responder at a barn where someone got dumped sans helmet, was knocked unconscious, came to with convulsions, and ultimately was helicoptered from our local hospital to a unit with better facilities. I still am not 100% on my own noggin, and am a bit willing to let adults with informed consent risk their own necks, but I am totally paranoid about kids. =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in Florida, there is always a sign that warns you and after that, you are on your own and lawsuits are practically impossible.

Ah, yes, the south. Texas is now that way somewhat as well. Odd, in the northern plains, northern Rockies and especially the Pacific northwest, we have few or no signing requirements and a live-and-let-live attitude, but a very plaintiff-friendly environment. There's even a case out of Colorado where they ruled that a parent cannot sign away the right of a minor to sue for injuries sustained at a ski area. Kind of "it's your own fault unless it's someone else's fault." Odd juxtaposition, but then we westerners are kind of odd in general! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 02:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've started roughing out an article on the Remount Service. I can handle most of the Army history side of it, but would be grateful for any help regarding specific stallions and possibly some of the depots. I'll let you know when it gets to a decent shape if you'd like to have a look at it. Hit me on my talk page or something.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm working with a group developing a new "future students" web site for Cal Poly Pomona, and a question came up as part of campus history. During WWII, the Kellogg ranch was used as an army remount station. What exactly is a remount station? Pony Express usage seems pretty clear, but it always seems to me that cavalry need new mounts at locations and in situations far removed from remount stations (not that we used much cavalry in WWII). Some people also write "remounting station", which I assume is incorrect—that phrase reminds me of the mounting block in the arena for use when you fall off. Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide.—Curtis Clark (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent question. You may also want to check with User:Intothatdarkness, who is in the WP Mili Hist project, on this as well. (User:Ealdgyth may also know something, she does a bunch of work with Quarter Horses and Throroughbreds, some of which also had remount histories) I've been hoping "someone" would create an article on the U.S. Army Remount Service because it played a significant role for awhile. I haven't done a lot of research on this myself, but the short and oversimplified version is that the Army's Quartermaster Corps, wanting to have better cavalry horses (i.e. "remounts" -- new horses to replace dead or worn-out horses) and also good army mules, but not wanting to go to all the work of breeding them themselves, would stand stallions (and, I presume Jacks also) at various places, standing them to the general public (and in some cases, these government-owned stallions were also leased to private ranchers too). I think the main remount headquarters was Fort Robinson, Nebraska, (where you probably could write or email for yet more info) but then remount stations were established all over the place, especially in the west, such as at Kellogg's. One example of a remount stallion was the Arabian Witez II, who was captured from the Nazis by Patton's forces during WWII, brought to America, and posted to Kellogg's until the Remount was disbanded somewhere around 1949 or so. I believe that some places, like Kellogg's, also kept mares and had a breeding establishment, but the big deal was that they had good quality stallions. Morgans, Arabians and Thoroughbreds were used, I think, I'm not sure about other breeds, though Patton's people captured some Trakehners and Lipizzans at Hostau along with the TBs and Arabs. Also of note is that Arabian breeder W.R. Brown did some experiments with various breeds for endurance capability during the early 1900s, expressly to evaluate their use for the "modern" cavalry. Anyway, hope that helps! Found a couple web sites on Ft. Robinson, that in addition to the wiki article, may have info: [3], [4], [5] Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for horning into your talk page, but I'm still drafting the remount service article and hope to do one on the remount concept as well. Early on the Army decided that it was cost-prohibitive to maintain whole herds, so they used the remount stations to house selected stallions and then contracted out with local horse breeders to provide mares. Robinson was the main headquarters once the Remount Service really got organized (after World War I), but as Montanabw pointed out the majority of the actual stations were in the West. One thing the remount service is credited with (as it was only in operation on a large scale for about 20-25 years) was an overall improvement of the quality of horses in civilian service. This was because the Army didn't (and couldn't) buy all the animals produced by the program and the breeders were allowed to keep those that didn't meet standards or were otherwise unneeded.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, by my standard, Nebraska IS "the west" (LOL!) At least sort of... (grin). I'm also wondering if the remount had some standard where people could just keep a certain percentage of foals, not just the rejects. I know that the future owner of Witez II sent several mares to him while still at Kellogg's, I doubt he would have taken the chance that the army would claim the offspring, must have been a money-making deal too ... I happen to know that the very first Arabian stallion I ever saw, when I was about 4 years old, was a former (and elderly) remount purchased by a cattle rancher up here, seems like they said something to the effect that they had leased him originally, but cannot say with certainty (given that it was, um, well, I'm not telling you how long ago but I think the horse was close to 20) Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the source in front of me, but I'm pretty sure that part of the deal was that ranchers got to keep a certain percentage of the offspring, and it also varied depending on demand. The whole Remount Service came into being after the heavy drain on livestock caused by WW 1 and the raising of so many National Guard cavalry regiments to guard the Mexican border, and I'd wager that those two events played heavily in the thinking of those setting up the service. And they did sell off the older horses as part of the property disposal program (unlike the image in that POS movie that came out a few years back), so it wouldn't be unusual for someone to have purchased one of the stallions. Arabians were if memory serves the second-largest breed (numerically) included in the program, with Thoroughbreds being #1 by a wide margin. There were some interesting articles in turn-of-the-century issues of The Cavalry Journal talking about the ideal cavalry horse breed. Arabians came up often, followed by German warmbloods.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the information! So a remount station was to create remounts, not specifically to supply them as needed to active cavalry? I'm looking forward to the article. (Btw, I've been to Montana and Nebraska, and back in those days, Nebraska was generally SE of Montana. 'Course most of the country is "back east" for me now.)—Curtis Clark (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Remount stations were designed to do both, actually. Training of horses tended to be much more centralized (Fort Robinson did some, as did Fort Riley, but I'm sure there were other locations as well). Some locations acted as both, while others focused more on training. Regiments then put in requests for remounts and they were dispatched from the closest depot.Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, Nebraska is east of Montana, but you aren't really "back east" until you get to Minnesota! LOL! Now, there are some Montanans who claim Nebraska is the "midwest," But I do kind of find the Mississippi River (or at least the 96th meridian "wet/dry" line to be a better standard!  :-D Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent a few years in Kansas, and they claim Nebraska as Midwest, too. They can have it if they want it that badly....:-)Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Kansas has standing on that, since they're not in the Midwest either. Both Kansas and Nebraska are what I'd characterize as "Great Plains" states. The defining characteristic being that as you drive through one (hour after hour after hour), you're left thinking "Nice place but is it really necessary that there quite so MUCH of it?" ++Lar: t/c 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec Lar! I thought that was the description of North Dakota! (the state where the Interstate only has THREE turns in it, and two of them beacuse they had to route the Interstate around Bismarck instead of through it...) LOL!. Montanabw^(talk) 15:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Dakotas are Great Plains states in my view as well. BTW I think maybe there's a word missing in the above. ++Lar: t/c 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Western South Dakota does have some geographic relief and multiple turns on I-90, the Black Hills actually are like the mini-Rockies except for not being so high or spectacular. Actually, Theodore Roosevelt National Park in ND also has geographic relief, but it's north of I-94, and I think the third turn was where they routed the Interstate well away from anything that would be classified as "interesting." That said, I think there is, or at least was, a gigantic fiberglass bovine of some sort, I think a buffalo, stationed not far from Jamestown, North Dakota. Seems like there is a fiberglass Dairy Cow somewhere between Montana and Minneapolis too, (found it! Salem Sue) also the Paul Bunyan statue, but that's in Minnesota, after the road curves, finally ...when you ain't got mountains, ya gotta work with what ya have, I guess. Montanabw^(talk) 22:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They managed to align I-40 in Oklahoma so that it bypasses all the interesting parts of the state.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess a straight line IS the shortest distance between two points. I-15 is beautiful from Idaho through Great Falls, they have to route it through nice country! However, once you get past Great Falls, I-15 is a straight shot to Canada, absent much of interest; in fact, I think with really good binos you can see the border station from Conrad! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice job. I'm going to list this as a GA now as it easily meets the criteria. Only one thing that I think needs looking at is this sentence: "By 1961, Varian Arabians had a small number of mares, the most notable being the Witez II daughter Ronteza, who was out of the mare Ronna". I think that for FAC maybe some of the breeding nomenclature might need to be elaborated on, but that's about it as far as I can see. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I love your

Don't tag it fix it, or shut the Hell up. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! The original version of the above, which I swiped from someone else and forgot who, originally said "arsed to fix it," which I believe you would appreciate even more! Being a Yank, I had to Americanize it a bit, but... LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I may just produce a more Anglo-Saxon version then. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Do let me know when it's up!  :-D Montanabw^(talk) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

... Neat, isn't it? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Mega interesting! Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that eating a horse eating the paint off a car is not specifically cribbing, however in the episode of the Drunk tank concerned, Burnie Burns specifically mentions cribbing. He specifically describes the process of cribbing and also his experience of it involving the horse attempting to bite panels of the car in order to inhale air.

Burns specifically mentioned the term Cribbing and even referred listeners to the Wikipedia Article. Hence even if the context in which this topic has been mentioned is inaccurate, it is still one of the only mentions of this topic in popular culture and hence I think that the section is relevant to the topic. As you can see by the recent counts of vandalism, it is a very significant mention to the topic.

For reference please see The Drunk Tank, Episode 77: 00:24:13 to 00:25:32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuckyStarShine (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And I see absolutely no relevance in some minor celebrity having a reference in an article that is essentially on horse management. Zero, zilch, nada and zip. Popular culture references in general are, IMHO, largely a waste of time. However, if you disagree, you are welcome to bring it to the talk page of WikiProject Equine and ask around. Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Montanabw has it right here. See WP:TRIVIA, which discourages the inclusion of trivia sections altogether – it doesn't really matter whether we are talking A-list or Z-list celebrities (I've not heard of him either...) Richard New Forest (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know what is happening. I have written a comment on the 'talk' page, but it is difficult to know what can be done - or how it can be done - to fix things up now that the page has already been renamed :( All the best. Figaro (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

For now, I guess monitoring for future trouble is all that can be done. Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this problem. Do you think that we could/should rename the article, again, to the far more appropriate title of Australian stockman as yoiu suggested. All the best. Figaro (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it should go back to Stockman, with "Stockman (disambiguation)" for the rest. But that's just my opinion. I think folks like you and Cg ought to decide what would be best. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you folks decide, please remember to make your decision in compliance with broad WP consensus as it is reflected in policy and guidelines at WP:TITLE, WP:D, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, etc. Or, if you believe you have a good reason for an exception, be very clear about that, and why. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I am going to let others take the lead on this, but will help if it seems appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hiyah, just wanted to drop you a note that Finnhorse now includes subsections for all four breed sections. While there still are some "obvious" parts missing (like the studbook requirements for the riding section), I'm getting a feeling the article isn't missing any more central topics, and, in fact, if possible, would be ripe for a check. It would be great to hear if you think anything's missing or if there are passaged more suitable for other sections than they're currently located at, or if Murto 2306 should give way to twice Ravikuningatar B. Helmiina, hugely influential Eri-Aaroni, or a random cute bay. Or anything really. You're more than welcome to tag anyone else too. Because I'm kinda fried :) Pitke (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll peek at it. Maybe drop a line to Ealdgyth or Dana boomer to see if they want to do a review. The article is definitely ready for a GA run, though there will probably be some nitpicking about all the non-English sources, though I think you translated everything where needed. Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources shouldn't be a problem. I've got Trait du Nord at GAN right now, and it's mostly French sources - if there are no comparable English sources, then reviewers have no grounds to base sourcing complaints on. I can dig up the exact policy page if it becomes a problem at GAN. I'll try to take a look at the article in the next day or so. Dana boomer (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's Pitke's labor of love! Be kind but fair! LOL!  :-) (noogies to Pitke) Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The horse you have labeled as Morgan horse MODERN SHOW HORSE bay http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Morgan_horse_all_parked_out.jpg/250px-

It is a copyright image... in the Morgan Horse magazine owned by Bruce search for "Bruce Ekstrom", "Chantilly Lace" and "FCF Rhythm Nation". Bruce was removed from the AMHA as a member as was his horse Rhythm Nation his dam is a Saddlebred not a Morgan Horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.135.8.81 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, we'll go back to the more foundation-looking animal. And then we will also go back to all the people who sneak Saddlebreds into Morgan barns complaining that our little foundation horse isn't a "modern" Morgan. Sigh. (Will someone please upload some photo of a full body shot of a quality modern Morgan? We'd BEG for such a photo! Montanabw^(talk) 18:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, I did a little checking. The Bruce Ekstrom thing is real, see [6]. And Ekstrom is definitely on the USEF suspension list; [7]. So User 98, thanks for the heads up on this. I'll also tag the image at commons. What I cannot verify is the identity of the horse as Rhythm Nation in the photo linked above, or one of the other banned animals. The image has been deleted from Flickr. User 98.135, if you have a link to a different web site where this horse is identified, please do drop me a message here with the link. Montanabw^(talk) 03:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Waiting for you on my talk page. And the horse running behind the Wikipedia insignia is totally hilarious :):) Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I love fan mail! Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested an excellent image of a Japanese equestrian tack from the Kamakura period (1185-1333) here; compare graphic illustration here (scroll to bottom of page).

As general knowledge, you may also want to know about this:

• Deal, William E. (2007). "Sadlery," Handbook to life in medieval and early modern Japan, pp. 155-156., p. 155, at Google Books
• Images: A. image of saddle and harness, Japanese, 1812 (National Museums Liverpool, Lady Lever Art Gallery); B. Samurai armour and horse tack, (Powerhouse Museum)
• Equine tack expertise: Equine Museum of Japan (馬の博物館, Uma no Hakubutsukan); Equine Cultural Affairs Foundation

Thank you for suggesting that Bamse contact me with questions about equestrian National Treasures of Japan‎. --Tenmei (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tenmei! Can you also post this info over at the talk page of Wikiproject Equine so that all might have the references available? Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Found an article you might want, while I was filing. It's a Dec 2007 article from Western Horseman on SV. Email me if you want a photocopy. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do so, or as we say out here, okey dokey! Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate your views to my rationale on the talk page Talk:Jodhpurs. Regards. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Good job getting this off the ground. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Seemed to be a gap there. It's a spinoff from the article above about the horse breeder, this guy is her grandfather. Montanabw^(talk) 02:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Great work! I'm starting research on an article about his son Russell. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

EquiVet (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the coaching on the EIPH article Montanabw! Also the words of encouragement. This is the my first foray into Wikipedia, and I appreciate the help in formatting, as well as suggestions. I'll continue to work on that article - I couldn't do everything I wanted to all at once. And I'll see what else I can contribute to. Again - thank you!

Thanks for your contribution to the debate over the article about the Philadelphia Convention! DrStrangelove64 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

EquiVet (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC) I just made a minor edit to the EIPH article, but am not sure that I am handling the issue correctly. My edit was to insert "citation needed" at the end of the article where it mentions Equiwinner claims a 99% success rate. I know this to be a false claim (and have actual evidence of it), and also know that this product has never been clinically tested. What is the best way to handle this? My preference is to simply take this out of the article, but I'm not sure that's proper form, hence my citation. Do you have any advice?

Also, can you advise what the notation {[cn)) followed by italicized type means? I see that it is used at the end of that same paragraph in the article. I searched the help section of Wikipedia but couldn't find anything that explains that notation. Your help is greatly appreciated.

You handled it right. You pop in the tag, and if anyone really cares, they will either find a citation, or you can then go in and toss the dubious stuff in a few days if no one seems to care (more often than not, that's the case). "cn" does the same thing as the "citation needed" tag. It puts the tag into a template, and that way people who like to just clean up articles can find articles where additional citation is needed (probably thousands of them, I suspect! LOL!) and pick out one to work on. Over time, as you get more familiar with wikipedia and its articles, you'll get a sense of which ones have no one who babysits them (a poor-to-mediocre article with no edits for over a year other than vandalism reverts is a good sign) where you can just dive in and be bold versus which ones you should tag, wait, discuss, argue and then change! Caution is never a bad approach, though. (I routinely ignore my own advice in get into trouble for it at times, but I've been here over four years and sometimes I just get bored and don't mind getting yelled at! LOL!) Montanabw^(talk)

EquiVet (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the counsel, I appreciate it. I'll have more time to work on the article soon. My next step will be to properly attribute the sources throughout the text. I am learning.

You're doing GREAT! Please feel free to, um, trot over and join WIkiProject Equine (WPEQ). Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi all TPSers, see creation of User:Montanabw/Conformation sandbox above. It's for improving Equine conformation, or to be specific, redoing the whole article from scratch. Intended to be a group project like the WPEQ (successful!) Glossary of equestrian terms. Everyone have at it. I put in a very rough outline. The only thing I have to say is please cite everything, easier to to it now than later. Photos needed too. Photos with proper licensing. Put in a gallery to propose images for inclusion. Party on... Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

here. I'll get the pdf when I get to the library. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And ... this too. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool indeed! I saw the speed one summarized in The Horse but I hadn't known about the other, which is even more interesting. That is, if I read it with a genetics textbook in hand! Thanks for the heads up! BTW, didn't you say something a while back about having some old Western Horseman mags? FYI, if you know anyone with connections to WAAAAYYY back articles there, I'd be fascinated to see the stuff from there in the 30s on Appies that led to the creation of the registry. Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Horse Harnesses

This is with regard to the horse collar article, and I hope this is an appropriate place to put the comment. Thanks for cleaning up the edits I made with regard to doubt about Lefebvre des Noëttes's experiments (and for all your efforts in Wikipedia). I am concerned that the idea of ancient harnesses choking horses is pervasive in books and articles on history, and yet they all appear to reference Lefebvre's study. If the more recent work of Spruytte, Littauer, and Weller is more compelling, it would be a shame for Wikipedia to perpetuate a myth. Is there any other evidence or experiments on this subject? Regards, Jbear3 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Tricky to fix this stuff, we had similar problems with Horses in the Middle Ages debunking the "draft horses were destriers" myth. The main issue is getting the best material and then interpreting it correctly. Sometimes the myth debunkers also have their own agenda, too! Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

But better than never. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't I nice? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep! Lovely Quarab, she's going into the article. and Wow! IS that a clubfoot or is that a clubfoot? "High heeled" is an understatement! Wow! Even the mare I had wasn't that elevated! Scary! Montanabw^(talk) 06:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Same mare, but as I explained on the photo page, it's not genetic, she didn't have it as a baby or early in her yearling year, just developed it when it got real dry and no one checked her hooves. She likes to paw that front foot when she eats so she broke off the front in the dry weather and no one noticed until it was too late. We've got it under control, she's ridable and never has been unsound. Her baby is fine and no issues, so it's all good. Just means I can't show her halter... oh. Darn. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Montana, I am not worried about pissing off the Appaloose crowd because their focus is solely on the color. We are an encyclopedia, and if that means document something that is not appreciated, so be it. We are not saying they are a color breed.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL! We're already on thin ice to note that CSNB is linked to Leopard. The ApHC once officially declared that blindness was "caused by a wormer!" They also aren't going to be happy that Sponseller also thinks the "rat tail" is also part of Lp! LOL! Glad you are having fun! Montanabw^(talk) 19:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they are less bothered with the CSNB link as the appaloosa project obviously has shown that link. But here again, they do not dictate what we write. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're going to be fine either way as long as we stick to the source material. I'll take another whack at the language later today. I think Dana is right that some of the genetics detail stuff has to move over to Leopard Complex if it gets too complicated, particularly as Sponenberg 2003 points out that Lp acts the same no mater which breed it seems to appear in... Montanabw^(talk) 22:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice in the Brumby article, sorry if I came across as 'pushy'. I just can't help but cringe when I see badly written articles that need lots of fixing. I know I'm not a very experienced editor, but I try my best to make articles factual. Lets help improve it together as I do not think it passes GA status at all. Kelly2357 (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kelly, you need to discuss, not engage in edit wars. Now take this discussion to the talk page of the article. You are abusing the process and you are lucky that I don't recommend that you be blocked. Don't tempt me. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Montanabw. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

PS, if you and Dana ever decide to bring Secretariat up to some reasonable standard, come track me down. Courcelles 04:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hay Montanabw, ^_^

Seems like you are the editor of the fodder article.

I was the one fiddling in the article about fodder, changing hay to straw in the tag line of the roundball picture.

here's why I still think its straw and not bleached out hay.

Straw is harvested from residues of wheat production. and this is a wheat field. It is not clearly visible in the pic, but if you look carefully you can see on the floor that it is indeed a harvested wheat field the roundball is standing on. theres a lot of green, but that has actually grown afterwards, because the wheat field has been cleared. Some straw is sticking out of the ground.

And looking at the texture of the straw/hay ball: it's very coarse, hay is not that coarse. I mean that guy must be about 1.80m/6 foot tall. the straw stiking out is quite thick compared to the size of the ball.

I m very sure its straw, Ive seen them many times, my fathers a farmer.

Cheers, 213.180.171.166 (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)tschibr

Ref: ^[2]

PS: Hope I m doing this the right way, its the first time :) Thank you very much for your work on wiki.

You are doing things just fine. Keep editing! OK. Here's why it's hay: 1) Look at the surrounding land, it's not wheat country, it's pastureland. 2) When wheat or oats are harvested, the chaff comes out of the combine much shorter than the stems you see here. 3) Straw is much brighter than hay, this is dull yellow. Straw is bright yellow and stays that way until it starts to rot, at which point it begins to get kind of gray-brown, not this color. 4) There is no second cutting of wheat, when grain is cut, the stubble that remains is bright yellow until it fades to a sort-of gray after being sprayed. You don't see new green growth come up like this, and if you did, it would be WEEDS and you'd promptly move the round bales and spray them dead. 5) Notice the green stuff coming up is leafy, it's not a grain crop,it's probably alfalfa. 6) This is the color hay bleaches out to. For another example, see the bleached-out bale at hay. 7) The stems can be this coarse if the crop was lush and harvested late. The grass in my back pasture can get up to 5 feet tall (or more) on a field that I am resting, and so can a particularly pesky type of yellow clover I've been fighting with for the last two years! I've got some coarse, tall old stems of dried-out brome and yellow clover sitting out in my back pasture that make the stuff in that bale look like gossamer! (grin) 8) While photographers don't always know what they are talking about, the photographer DID identify the photo as of hay, and he/she was there at the time and probably knows what they were standing in. (LOL) and most of all....... 9) My dad was a farmer/rancher too. We raised both wheat and hay (and oats and barley and cattle too) I still live in a rural area where I have horses and deal with both hay and straw on a fairly regular basis. I also drive by fields and stacks with round bales in them every single day. So hope this settles the matter. Montanabw^(talk) 08:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My take is that it's an alfalfa field, that the bale is first-cut (which will have longer, but less woody, stems), and that the regrowth will be harvested again as second-cut. But I'm just a botanist and a horse owner, and my dad was a microbiologist. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with some of Montanabw's reasoning: the fields in the distance are pasture, but this field is arable; I don't think you'd necessarily see the chaff from corn (grain), especially once wound up into a round bale; the colour is perhaps a bit dull for straw, but I'm not sure that's conclusive; I've very often seen regrowth like this in a cereal crop, either from volunteer grain, or sown deliberately as an undercrop; photographers very often misidentify their subjects... (My dad was only an administrator, but he did show me the difference between hay and straw...)

However, I do agree with the conclusion... Although it's arable land, I agree that the regrowth looks like lucerne (alfafa). I think the scale of the stems fits lucerne or another fodder crop (these bales are commonly more like 1.4 m in diameter than 1.8); such fodder hay is usually very much coarser than grass hay, and the cut stems do look like corn stubbles.

It may be hay, but if it looks that similar to straw, I wonder if it is perhaps not the best photo to illustrate Hay? Can't we find a photo of some nice meadow hay? (I might even have one of my own.)

Montanabw: what is your yellow clover? Can't you just graze it or make it into hay? Or is it perhaps what I'd call melilot (which I think you call sweet clover) Melilotus sp. The two or three species of that we get commonly in the UK(officinalis, albus, altissimus) are tall, wiry, weedy species of waste ground and other disturbed land; I don't know if they're good forage or fodder. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, the photo is in fodder, not hay (different round bale photos there). The photo was taken in Australia, it appears. The land reminds me of areas in the American west. Because we have so much dry, flatter land, this sort of terrain is more often dedicated to hay than to grain here, not that it couldn't be used for both. Can't say for Au. I suppose in the UK, that's a plethora of space, but here, it's dinky, much easier to just let the grass grow and then hay it than to dry and maneuver a huge duckfoot around to get a few bushels of wheat. Oh, and what we call "chaff" in the American west is both the seed cover waste AND the chopped up stems -- all the junk that blows out the back of the combine.

Yep. I believe our "yellow clover" is in fact some form of melilotus, looks just like the drawing -- tall wiry, weedy. You got that right!  :'-( Pain in the butt, though the upside is that I think it squeezes out even worse stuff. The horses will eat it when it's tender, but they prefer the grass, so it's not consumed very fast. it gets totally out of control by about July and the horses lose interest in it. We don't hay the pasture, we buy our hay from the nice fellow down the road and let the horses do the "harvesting" on site. Basically our goal is to meed about 50% of our forage needs by managing our pasture carefully (We only have 5 acres total, about 3 ac is pasture. Flood irrigated). We try to avoid spraying, though hired a guy two years ago to spray the thistles, but all he managed to do was to just kill all the alfalfa and this stuff then took over, along with more Canadian thistles. We've been resting the pasture in thirds, and it's helping. We shall see what the third we kept mowed all last year does this year. But we may have to drag out the carcinogens (phooey). We're trying to rehab the pasture without having to plow under and reseed because we don't own a tractor and would have to hire someone. Previous owner we've nicknamed "Chemical Ali" (among other things) and have been trying to let the land reestablish its own equilibrium with fertilization, overseeding (both of which we can do with the little garden tractor) and very minimal chemical intervention, but the weeds, freed of a steady overdose of Hi-Dep, are throwing a party and inviting all their friends. Luckily, no knapweed in our pastures, which is the usual bane of Montana grazing, so that's a small blessing, but the neighbor's pasture is sending us some nice musk thistle seeds now too, which are also quite a literal thorn in our side. I've taken to calling them "the Satanic weed..." Tough to carve out even a semi-organic niche on a long, narrow strip of land when neighbors send weed seeds and overspray on both sides, with yet more of who knows what coming in via flood irrigation. (upstream neighbors tend to clear ditches with more Hi-Dep. They say it breaks down, but I'm dubious.) Email me thoughts on herbicides and weed control, eh? Out here, the organic advocates mostly argue for hand weeding on small plots and beneficial insects on bigger ones, but even a lot of them feel you have to just suck it up and spray when it comes to livestock pastures. (whine, whine) Montanabw^(talk) 19:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Trifolium dubium is sometimes called yellow clover, although I agree it's more likely Melilotus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I've seen T dubium that's "tall, wiry and weedy". Giant T micranthum...? Richard New Forest (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The drawing of melilotus looks more like what we have. Very sweet smell, one patch of it got so tall and thick it was almost over our heads, and in that area could be sickeningly sweet on a hot day. We DO have a neighbor with a mowing blade for his little hobby tractor...I may have to have a chat, it definitely was the worst year ever for the stuff. Not toxic to the horses, but they aren't all that fond of it, either, much preferring the red clover and the grass. Still irritated that the weedspray guy pretty much managed to ONLY kill off the alfalfa! Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, it is toxic to horses (and I've read that elsewhere). I think this is a good example of low palatability preventing it from becoming a problem in most cases. We have a similar problem in southern California with Heliotropium curassavicum, which is likely poisonous (other species of the genus are), but of very low palatability. --Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the clover mold situation. From the source (thanks Dana!) "As a forage crop, sweetclovers can be freely grazed, but feeding moldy sweetclover hay or silage is dangerous." We've got the white clover (melilotus alba) too. Both are a pain in the butt, but we've been dealing with them a couple of years, and as forage they have so far caused no problems. Montanabw^(talk) 07:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's good to know--it always puzzled me that they were toxic. Our common local species is Melilotus indicus.

One thing you might want to try for control is nitrogen fertilizer. Because the sweetclovers fix their own nitrogen, they will respond more slowly than the grass, which (we hope) would overgrow them. I think there's also evidence than exogenous nitrogen slows down nitrogen fixation (although I'm not sure how that would help, since there would be plenty of nitrogen at any rate). My inclination would be to go out in the spring right before regrowth, apply nitrogen to a small plot where the sweetclovers were common before, and see what happens.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Intriguing idea. I'll have to run it by the extension agent too. The previous owner of the property left behind a large pile of aged sheep manure that tests so hot for Nitrogen that five years later there is still nothing growing on it! May be just the trick, and if we're wrong, I could still spray. Montanabw^(talk) 20:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about the N thing in this case: it can work with sward clovers and vetches (ours would be Trifolium repens and Trifolium pratensis). However, weedy things such as this might not respond in the same way, and I suspect that in your climate the limiting factor for your competitive grasses might be water rather than N, in which case nothing much might happen. I would try one (or both) of two things with tall weeds: top them (roughly cut above sward height) once or twice a year, and graze with cattle (or perhaps goats). If you do use herbicide, weed-wiping tall weeds is better than spraying, because it leaves more desirable broadleaves undamaged in the sward: herbicides can cause enormous damage to grassland swards if sprayed indiscriminately. Or spot-spray each plant. Start with topping though: tall weeds don't like having their heads chopped off. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wishing you a very pleasant Christmas and a wonderful New Year. Cgoodwin (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You too! I'm a day late, but then, that International Date line thing...! Montanabw^(talk) 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. (The image, while not medieval or equine, is by one of my favorite poets and artists, William Blake.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs has given you a Christmas tree! Christmas trees promote WikiLove and are a great way to spread holiday cheer. Merry Christmas!

Spread the WikiLove by adding ((subst:User:The Utahraptor/Christmas tree)) to any editor's talk page with a friendly message.

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to your comments on my Talk page, on User talk:Notyourbroom, and formerly here (since redacted), firstly, I was away. To the points:

• My original concern, which I stand by, is inappropriate reversion on your part, as per WP:ROWN, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.

• My superseding concern has since become your response to attempts to address the issue, by myself and another editor. You rebuffed valid criticism and then dismissed reasoned support of such criticism.

• Instead, you reacted with self-justification, as wells as erroneous attributions of intent and references to things which did not occur, such as instigation or collusion or sock puppetry. These only cloud discussion and distract from the point, avoidance of which would seem underscored by your redaction here.

• I am further concerned by clearly antagonistic behavior, such as evidenced in your last comment, which even allowing for a misunderstanding about time cannot be found as an effort to be constructive.

I believe that these individually represent behavior counterproductive to the well-being of Wikipedia and collectively a problem apparently beyond self-regulation. ENeville (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to drop this entirely. I consider your behavior to constitute harassment. Consider this official notice to let it drop. Montanabw^(talk) 16:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)