User talk:Montanabw/Archive 2

Greetings!

Montana, I appreciate your contributions to the horse topics here. Yours is a practical voice of reason, free of guru-worship. Lil 18:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Have considered becoming my own guru and worshiping myself! <Grin> Montanabw 22:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your user page

And that you wanted to create an article on the silver dapple gene. Just to let you know, it has been created under the name Silver dapple gene Eventer

Your GA nomination of Horses in warfare

The article Horses in warfare you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Horses in warfare for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Shimeru 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Was reading your message on jumping position, responded there. But saw you mentioned la jineta and la brida seats. Just wondering if you would do an article on them... I'd be very interested. Eventer 04:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

More questions

Me again. I've been reading through the Horse gait articles, trying to understand the subject a bit more, but am still confused. It seems medieval horses were frequently defined by their gait. Rounceys, palfreys, jennets and hackneys could be amblers or trotters (ok so far, although one book I have here says ambling is a natural gait and they had to be trained to trot, which runs counter to what the Wikipedia articles say). The destrier and courser were both runners ('courser' comes from Latin cursus, or 'run'). What sort of gait would that be? Sources suggest warhorses didn't trot (hard to do in armour), so what pace would they keep when not running? ie. not actually charging. I remember reading in a non-academic book a comment about destriers being kept to a slow walk so they didn't tire, which struck me as being the most ridiculous attribute for a highly-prized warhorse so I've never believed it. Thanks for always answering my questions!Gwinva 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou!! Just when I start taking your constant info/advice for granted, you write me such a detailed answer, I start smiling again at your generosity. My questions and edits seem to take up much of your time at the moment; it does not go unappreciated. Thankyou!! Gwinva 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a question, this time! I was just looking at Palfrey, to see what is salvagable from the existing article. Most of it concerns gait, so I was hoping you'd glance at it sometime to see if it's all sensible stuff. I can look for references but I'm no good on the actual horse stuff! (smile) Begs the question why I'm here... I only strayed onto your warhorse page, trying to discover which horses were used for mounted raids. That'll teach me for leaving notes on article talk pages! (grin). And I still haven't found an answer...Gwinva

21:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Equestrianism

Now, why would you not want to write a nice, long article about beet pulp? ;)

As far as I know, we do not have any page related to "History of Equestrianism." I think its a good idea, I'm wondering how we are going to break it up. Discuss the different seats/styles of riding and how they emerged? Would we mention any sports? And would we begin with the "evolution" of riding (i.e. from the first person to sit on a horse), or from a specific time period? Eventer 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Stirrup

So I was looking at the stirrup article and saw you made lots of changes. Most I agree with, but I have to say I really think a shorter stirrup provides more security, and I have several sources that also indicate this fact. The best explanation I found was that shortening the stirrups closes the hip and knee angles, which therefore lowers the rider's center of gravity closer to the lower leg. This has the same effect as if you squat (which is just what people tend to do when losing their balance, say, ice skating). End result: more security. Secondly, when a rider is jumping off a bank, shorter stirrups provide a great deal more security (ask me how I know!), because the rider may use them to maintain the shouler-hip-heel allignment. If shortening the stirrup was only to help the horse, riders wouldnt be cranking their stirrups up for cross-country. Even on the lower level courses, where fences may only be 3'6" or less, stirrups go up not only because the horse must gallop, but also because if the horse does stumble, the rider can brace against the stirrup to maintain balance. Obviously not ideal, but riding cross country hardly ever gives you an ideal ride. Also, when riders jump with longer stirrups (than ideal) you tend to see their leg slip back, even if they keep their center of gravity correctly over their horse's. Eventer 03:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'll look into getting some stable vices stuff together. We have 3 cribbers in our barn (they were like that before they came here, I promise), so it shouldnt be that hard to get a picture if I can get my digital camera to work.

So I've thought about it a bit. I think with beginners, shorter stirrups feel more secure because they haven't lengthened their legs yet. I dont know if its tight muscles or there is physical stretching of the ligaments, but it does take time to develop a longer leg. I know I have a longer leg than I did a few years ago. I ride with a stirrup length a hole or two longer--a length I would have had to reach for before, and a length which would have been insecure had I tried to ride with it before I was physically ready. I still dont have the super long leg of say, Anky van Grunsven, but not bad.

I think shorter stirrups provide a sense of security because they allow a rider to 1) get in a chair seat and push forward against them (therefore they enable a rider to have a lower skill level and still stay on) or 2) if the rider is correctly positioned, but still has not ridden long enough to develop that nice, long leg, they provide the correct length for the rider at that time, which gives their tight leg the support it needs.

I also find that galloping in my dressage saddle is not comfortable, nor is it very secure. I have trouble getting my butt out of the saddle, and the pommel usually starts hitting my crotch. I also feel like I have to put more weight on the balls of my feet, rather than my heel, because it helps me get my butt up without resorting to a straight-as-a-board leg. Of course, this results in less security. I also have trouble leaning forward, which I need to do to stay with the movement, but which also forces me to push my leg a bit forward to stay centered. The long stirrups are a hindrance to me, and if I raise them 2 holes (or drop them entirely and physically raise my foot up slightly) I am able to stay perfectly balanced, keep my butt out of the saddle, and lean forward to stay with the motion.

I'm going to think more about this, since obviously in a western saddle it is easy to gallop with a longer stirrup length. But I dont know enough about the differences in saddle design to figure out why. I imagine the cantle of the saddle has something to do with it. The cantle of my dressage saddle is much more upright and high compared to that of my jumping saddle. Eventer 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

More stuff on stirrups

Hummm... well I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Maybe I have a different definition of "security." In my mind, if I'm jumping a huge oxer, and my stirrup length hinders my performance (because it is too long) this stirrup is not secure. So long stirrups are not appropriate for galloping or jumping: they decrease the chance that I will stay on my horse if something were to go wrong and they do not help me even if things are going right. Therefore, they are less secure in that situation than shorter stirrups.

So maybe its situationally-based?

Anyway, I'm off to Rolex tomorrow :) Hopefully I'll get a chance to take some pictures, to upload on to wikipedia. But first I must find my camera... Eventer 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Next Good Article candidate?

So what's the next article you want to work up to GA status? I actually LIKE writing footnotes, and finding sources for stuff. I enjoyed finding citations and sources for the stuff in the Horse article last night. Might as well add my services to whatever you're working on next... Ealdgyth | Talk 22:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, given your area of interest, why not American Quarter Horse? Dlh-Stablelignts has been doing some tremendously good work on Gelding also, and so while the veterinary sections are pretty good, the rest of it could benefit from some additional sourcing, though I did a lot of updating and fixing of what was there originally. That might be another possibility. Morgan horse could get there with some SERIOUS work. Have you looked over the criteria yet? Montanabw 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, I looked them over. I recall that they need lots of citations, in depth and with enough pictures/diagrams to make things easy to understand for the non-initiate. I'm sure there is a lot more. I've got books on the vet or training side of things, but not as many as on horse bloodlines and breed history. You've obviously been working hard on things with the horses, and I figured I'd rather work with you, than have everyone sorta scattered all over working on sixteen different articles. Concentrating on a couple would probably make the work easier and quicker, I would think. Of course, I'm still new at this, but I know my editing is helped when someone else checks over it. Quarter horse might be a bit TOO much, honestly. I'd have to fight hard to not put in all sorts of tidbits on the older horses from before the registry formed... and the history of the controversies behind the registry, and .. well you get the idea. Oddly enough, given my Quarter horse interests, I own Arabians (grins) so I'd love to see the Arabian article make Featured.... but I'm scared to ask how much work that would take! Anyway, now that I've babbled, I'm more than happy to watch you work and help however I can. Certainly don't want to work at cross-purposes. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The internet is my friend on a lot of breed stuff, most "generic" horse books actually are quite poor sources with huge inaccuracies. The breed registry web sites are often much better (though they aren't above POV, at least four different breeds claim to be the descendants of Bucephalus, which is a wholly unverifiable claim! <grin>. You want an easy job, go to List of horse breeds and take a red link to make a new article. Most in there are stubs, and need expansion, some are red links that aren't even real breeds (For example, you don't want to see the can of whoopa-- I open when people start claiming that the "Egyptian Arabian" is a different breed, BTW(grin)) so checking the horse stubs is always a way to find new mischief. (Somehow I got drug into editing on Marwari horse, don't ask me how.) I got [{Arabian horse]] pretty much to GA status singlehandedly, but it took awhile, editing it from a disaster of anti-Arabian POV to GA status over a period of several months, learning all the way. My panic about putting it up for FA (I actually think it's almost there) is more the vandalism patrolling it will entail and the things that the wider world of wiki editors might take issue with (for example, the controversies section, almost all parts of it were inserted to settle some kind of edit war or POV discussion. It's needed.). I'm not sure I am ready to put the energy into watchdogging it so that some idiot doesn't totally screw it up or, worse yet, restart battles that were settled a long time ago. Equine nutrition is one I started from scratch, and after an initial panic when an admin felt I overdid the copy and paste and slapped a copyviol on it without warning (which gave me a really bad couple of days scrambling to get it finished), I basically had it ready for GA in about a week, with a few contributions from some other editors like User:Eventer. All a question of what kind of real life you also want to maintain. You may want to take a middle tier article you feel comfortable digging into and see what you can to to improve it. Saddle might be one. I wrote most of horse training with an eye to making it a simple, basic article with links to articles with more detail on specific techniques, but if you want a real mess to fix, try horse breaking, it's been written by people who really have no clue what they are doing and is such a mess that I don't even know where to start! Plenty to do, that's for sure! Montanabw 04:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Equine Exertional Rhabdomyolysis

Is this the same as Equine polysaccharide storage myopathy, or is one a subset of the other? Neither article makes any mention of the other, so I guess they are duplicating information and should be merged. Before I added merge tags I wanted to check with you and dlh, as I am not too familiar with these conditions. --Joelmills 18:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Grey Fjord horse

If fjord horses are never grey, what do you call this horse, the father of the filly on the picture? The filly bears her foalcolt on the picture, but her black mule (black mule characterize the grey fjording) and her stained gleam reveal she is a grey fjording. This is the same filly with less foalcolt in her face. You can also see her legs are getting darker. Do you really mean that this filly is not grey? Whether or not what the gene says, on the technical language we call it grey. If the filly looked pink and it was called grey, it would still say grey under the picture. And I think you got things a little wrong. Gray fjords are born light and become darker with age.

Here is the filly's brother, a brown dun colt. Do you see the different between a brown dun and a grey fjord? Here are them both on the same picture. You can also see the eartips and stripe on the filly's back are black, not brown like the fjord horses with other colors have.

One more thing:
Filly = female foal
Colt = male foal

GoogleMe 11:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer is on your talk page, the rest of the world calls these grullas. Montanabw^(talk) 17:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Grey Fjord horse 2

I understand what you mean about the Lipizzan, but you can't compare the grey fjording with the Lipizzan since the Lipizzan literally change to another color with age. The grey fjording is born with a "stained" foalcoat and three-four months after its birth it is either steel grey, the same color the father of the filly on the picture has - the original and most liked grey color, or light grey. I don't know much about the Fjord horse gene and color combination, but whether you like it or not the grey fjording looks grey in color and it is called grey. Perhaps the I-know-everything-about-horses-users and visitors on Wikipedia will be confused, but I doubt it since you several times in the text point out that grey Fjord horse is not really grey.

Is it really necessary with all the quotation marks in the text when you outstanding explain the real thing with the """""grey"""" fjording? Why not through quotation marks all over the text where it stands horse, since the Fjord horse really is a pony. Is it okey for me to edit grey filly under the picture again or do I need to use "grey" this time?

As said, I don't know much about gene and stuff that you do, but if two uls fjords (c(cr)) mate it is 25% chance the offspring gets blue eyes.

EDIT: Real brown dun fjords are really rare these times. I'm not sure they live any longer. If they had lived you would easily see the difference between a brown dun and a grey fjording. Nowadays we call brown dun for light brown dun (lysbrunblakk). If this fjording was darker in his coat and mane it would probably be called brown dun.

GoogleMe 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Full Answer on your talk page. Yes, this is very confusing and must be handled with some consideration.Montanabw^(talk)

Grey Fjord horse 3

As you know we call the Fjord horse for a horse, but we refer the Fjord horse as a pony (though its height has grown a lot the last years). For example: In competitions the Fjord horse always participate in the pony-classes. In shows a Fjord horse over 148 centimeters will be drawn in his overall impression-grade because it has lost it's pony-character and are no longer a "real" fjording.

I really can't give you an answer when it comes to gene and red eyes. I have no clue. But I can assure you the breeding with the different colors is inoffensive and it is not used to achieve something that is not non-typical for a Fjord horse.

You have explained the blue dun and grulla to me before. I know the grey fjording is not a real grey-colored horse. I only wanted you to remove the quotation marks when you explained the real deal about the color in the text. Call it blue dun or grulla or whatever you want, but the headline or the paragraph should start with grey, without quotation marks, because it's the Fjord horse's official name. In Norwegian we call the grey fjording for "grå" (meaning grey) and sometimes it's called "gråblakk" (meaning grey dun), but the last one ("gråblakk") is used ignorantly. Don't ask me why, that's just the rules.

The picture of the mare and here filly are mine, but the picture is not. Actually this is not my profile either. I'm just borrowing it to answer you. I didn't know it would be so much fuss just because writing "grey filly". I thought it was normal to indicate the color and sex of the animal.

GoogleMe 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Gelding

Would you be able to drop over to Gelding - I reckon it's pretty much up to GA standard, what do you think?
Dlh-stablelights 22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, long time no see! Hope things are going well (other than Gelding, I mean)...

I sorta agree with what the reviewer said, but agree with you that it should have been put on hold rather than quick-failed:

• The WP:LEDE definitely needs to be beefed up to make it a summary of the article. That should take a good fifteen minutes (or less, if you're faster/smarter than I am ;-) ). It's just a matter of copy/pasting the current lede to a Notepad doc, copy/pasting key sentences (you know, intros and/or conclusions) from each existing section of the article onto the same doc, then kinda smoothing it all out and making it "read pretty."
• You definitely need a section about what PETA-type people would say about castration, to comply with WP:NPOV. That might take a while, but if you're dedicated, you can get it done in under a week (hence my belief it should have been put on hold). If you're feeling particularly brave, you might ask them to provide their POV in a responsible manner.
• There are many punctuation probs. I might fix those, unless my better half calls me away from the computer ;-)
• Some of the shtuff reads a little like it might be too-nearly verbatim, e.g. "Geldings were once prized by classical steppe warriors for their silence; without mating urges, they were less prone to call out to other horses, easier to keep in groups, and less likely to fight with one another." Go through every sentence with a fine-toothed comb to look for that particular no-no. That might take a couple hours.
• I dislike the formatting of the references... seems incomplete & inconsistent. I "might could" help with that too, at the same time as I fix the punctuation (since the punct. probs are all with the refs).. if it's OK with you...
• Personally, I might consider changing the "Possible complications" section to read less like a list and more like prose, but it might actually be acceptable just as it is.. re-read Wikipedia:Embedded list and see what you think..
• I think the pictures are gross, too. Is that actually a problem? I dunno, but I think I know who to ask. I'll do so, and get back to you.
• Later Ling.Nut 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:TimVickers said the images are OK & left a message on the reviewer's talk regarding this (don't go there & add more comments)... :-) I fixed some punct/spelling errors. You really need to make sure the references are complete and consistent. I always use {{Harvrefcol}} templates. OH I AM NOT SURE about using "who" instead of "that" for horses; seems questionable to me. You gotta grammar guide nearby? Ling.Nut 20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't wanna interrupt your love-fest with the editor from Bryn Mawr, but there's lotsa stuff going on re gelding.. can I change the format of all the references (see reference #15 for example)? Ling.Nut 20:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

do you want this?

• The 'Forfex' of the 'Veterinarius' Virilis (Vindolanda Inv. No. 86/470) and Ancient Methods of Castrating Horses
• J. N. Adams
• Britannia, Vol. 21. (1990), pp. 267-271.
• If so then email me so I can reply & send it to you.
• Ling.Nut 03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Can't send attachments via the wikipedia email page. You'll have to email me (see link above); then I'll respond and attach the file.
• The article is a little dense (but brief) and a little bit difficult to follow, but in later pages it describes some historical castration procedures.
• Actually, the whole thing is fascinating.. not the castration part, but the Roman part. If I had time, I would write the stuff for you.
• Ling.Nut 21:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject horse training

I will lend a hand in what ever little way I can. But I was going to ask you about the WikiProject relating to the Horse. 1. There is a Dog, Cat, Fishes etc WikiProject but no Horse project?!! 2. I was thinking there should be a WikiProject for the Sports horse as there is for the Thoroughbred (Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and Wikipedia:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing) - Culnacréann 15:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Related to this topic, I am back from my short trip, and picked up some used books that will be helpful with trying to sort out the references on the Horse Training WikiProject. Just need to rest some ... still recovering from some sort of crud I picked up. Also picked up a really odd little book on the Caspian Horse, and a copy of Connell's Hackamore Reinsman, along with the usual pile of history related books. Will try to get stuff organized tomorrow. Ealdgyth | Talk 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is thoroughbred a proper noun?

Why is thoroughbred, or should I say "Thoroughbred", a proper noun? Just curious. WinterSpw 23:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a proper noun referring to a breed of horse, just like Morgan, Appaloosa, etc... My citation on this is the article on Thoroughbreds at the International museum of the horse: http://www.imh.org/museum/breeds.php?pageid=8&breed=94&alpha=Five Note the name is ALWAYS capitalized. It is incorrect to refer to a purebred animal as a "thoroughbred" [sic], the term is only to be used to describe the Thoroughbred horse. Very common error, though, especially among non-horse people. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahh but just be cautious when the term is used as a non-proper noun. When I looked up "thoroughbred" in dictionary.com, I saw that the term can be used in its lowercase form. Well thanks for the info. WinterSpw 23:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, any use related to horses must be capitalized...a "throughbred Morgan" is a horse that is half Morgan, half Thoroughbred, NOT a purebred Morgan. Misuse of "thoroughbred" is one of those many examples of sloppy language becoming so commonplace that no one remembers what is correct. But, I will also note that the Thoroughbred breed was one of the first written Breed registries in the world, so it is understandable that the term "Thoroughbred" instead of "purebred" has sort of gotten to be like "Kleenex" for "facial tissue" This dictionary link explains it: http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=RA3-PA905&lpg=RA3-PA905&dq=purebred+of+thoroughbred&source=web&ots=nXyQjlv408&sig=ReocOrbnIwJ8ZyJV-z9rivrLD5U

Nice work with maintaining the article, keep it up! =P WinterSpw 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Tersk

I have no idea, which is why I left that particular entry alone, but a quick search of Russian sources returns Tersky Horse Breeding Plant #169 in the settlement of Novotersk, Mineralovodsky District, Stavropol Krai. Many other links I found point to the same place (here is even a picture of the place). Does that help? I can do a more thorough search if this is not sufficient; just let me know what kind of additional information you are looking for. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Khemo's up

Khemosabi is up, finally. Ealdgyth | Talk 23:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You rock, man!  :) Montanabw^(talk) 03:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And for your pleasure - Indraff as well as some bit source citations. Gotta do something while I wait to see how my gelding does at Nationals... working cowhorse semi-finals are Saturday afternoon, and I may just go bonkers waiting to see if he makes the cut. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck and did you get any pictures? Montanabw^(talk) 04:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing of any dude ranches, at least not anything that didn't look just like any other ranch on the face of the planet. Have the one grab shot of the trail ride in the distance, which I'll eventually get cleaned up enough to use. Just might end up selling it as a stock photo instead of giving it for free to Wikipedia. Taking photos of people requires model releases to use their likeness for anything but personal use, so getting pictures of people I don't know trail riding is a pain in the behind, since you have to ask them for model releases, etc etc. For that matter, you have to have a property release for any property that is 'idenitifable and unique', at least to be safe. Being a photographer isn't all that much fun from a legal standpoint at times! On the other hand, the lastest farm shoot finally ordered their prints, so I know what photos are culls from that shoot, so I can now use some of those on Wikipedia! Just have to ... get them up (ducks). But now, it's time for bed, been a long day, had the farrier out for the gelding that's here with me, and he managed to find something to cut his foot on in the pasture ... how the heck do they do that? So I smell of ointment and hoof fillings. Blech. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a heads up when you add 'em. As for photos, it is indeed always tougher to be a pro than an amateur in that respect. Luckily there is an exception for people who are participants at public events, is there not? Also, I wonder how the issue is handled when people on Flickr post photos with a release under cc-2.0 or public domain? Luckily most of what I take is snapshot quality at best and wiki is the ONLY place that would take my stuff! (grins) Montanabw^(talk) 04:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The public events exception is purely for journalistic usage, and doesn't cover any other use, like advertising or such-like. Some of the stuff on Wikipedia would cover that, but some wouldn't. Big crowd shots are also an exception, as long as the shot is still a 'crowd' shot, and you don't isolate someone out from the crowd. As far as Flickr, there is a case from last month where a camp counselor put up shots of some campers on Flickr under cc-2.0 and one photo was used by one of the cell phone companies in a world-wide ad. The camper is now suing the company (not the photographer, which I find odd, but whatever) for using their likeness without permission. Pretty clearly, the photographer didn't have the right to release the photograph under cc2.0, but we'll see what happens when this hits the courts. Do you need more photos? Weather for outside shots will be decent here for a few days, and I can get to the studio too, so let me know what you might need, and I can attempt to take it if I have it. Have to go to the feed store tomorrow anyway, stupid gelding used up the last of my Corona oinment....Ealdgyth | Talk 04:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that wikipedia has some specific info on that around here someplace. As for photos...hmmm. Look in horse care and stable vices. Maybe you will get some ideas. Also barn and stable are both pretty lightweight articles that could use some help. Horse blanket is off to an OK start, but a horse in a big heavy winter blanket would be a good addition (the Budweiser Clydesdales are not my preferred image there, but they were the only regular-blanket blanketed horses I could find free on the web). Maybe check out the assorted saddle, bridle, bit (horse) and other horse tack articles. Halter (horse show), maybe, oh lordy there are Sooooo many articles! Oh yes and Horse harness. I would almost KILL for a diagram of the parts of a harness, if you REALLY have time on your hands... hmmm, if you can fin a twisted-wire snaffle anywhere, there is no image of that in bit or [[bit mouthpiece] (Eventer started a TON of articles). I wish there were better images in longeing and martingale. Oh heck, I'll just stop now! Montanabw^(talk) 05:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, poopy. Gelding didn't make the cut. (sighs) That's the last try on working cowhorse for me, he likes the cows, but it's just a moneypit for little return. I adore the guy I have him with, and all that, but to keep a gelding in that sort of training you gotta have a passion for the sport, and I just don't. So home he comes and we'll have fun trail riding on him! Anyway, that means more time to devote to pictures tomorrow, since I won't be worrying about the horse. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 01:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Tersk

I have no idea, which is why I left that particular entry alone, but a quick search of Russian sources returns Tersky Horse Breeding Plant #169 in the settlement of Novotersk, Mineralovodsky District, Stavropol Krai. Many other links I found point to the same place (here is even a picture of the place). Does that help? I can do a more thorough search if this is not sufficient; just let me know what kind of additional information you are looking for. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

revisions continued

1.You said "you can't cite your own stuff here."According to Wikipedia rules, I can, I just have to maintain a neutral POV and keep in the 3rd person:

Citing oneself Policy shortcut: WP:COS This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy.

2.You also said that "tooting your horn too much about your own credentials is sort of frowned upon"--I was presenting my credentials, not bragging about them. In most venues where strangers meet to work together on a job that requires authoritative knowledge, presenting credentials is a non-threatening way to let the other people know that you're qualified. Particularly in this electronic world where I'm not sure we're even supposed to know our co-editors' real names. I meant to reassure, not to offend.

3.While I have a pretty thick skin, "defies all biological sense" and "full of shit" are editorial comments that, even if not directed specifically at me, are designed to exclude and insult rather than help. Some of the explanations you have given for your edits in the sections ahead, that I have not yet worked on, seem to me to be unsourced personal opinions that are contradicted by published data. For example, you insisted that there must have been wild horses in the lowland Near East because the 4-Foundations breed theory requires it--that doesn't change the fact that there are no horse bones or pictures of horses from the lowland Near East dated before the Akkadian period, or about 2300 BC, with the exception of a disputed find in Israel. If you're going to say that wild horses did live in the lowland Near East before they were imported from the Anatolian and Iranian uplands about 2300 BC, show me the evidence. I haven't seen it. Also I don't see how my citation of the Blackfeet magpie story is "loopy" , "offensive", or "likely to start an editing war". It makes the point that what WE regard as control over breeding might be different from what OTHER CULTURES regarded as control over breeding. John C. Ewers's 1955 classic study of horsekeeping among the Blackfeet is not "outdated"; it is regarded as the deepest and most thorough study of horsekeeping among Plains Indians ever published, and the fact that the field work was done in the early 1940s meant that he spoke with people who personally remembered their grandfathers talking about the old days. Shorter but equally informative classic monographs by Frank Secoy (1953) and Bernard Mishkin (1940) are even older. I have never found a comparable book-length analysis or detailed ethnography of horsekeeping in the old days among the Comanche or the Nez Perces, although, as you say, they were better riders and had more horses. But it's unreasonable to arbitrarly demand that references to Plains Indians horsekeeping cite Comanche or Nez Perces customs rather than Blackfeet, particularly when the Blackfeet source material is richer. This page REALLY needs changing. I'm volunteering. I don't object to heavy edits, but I want the facts to be straight. Let's be civil and reasonable and considerate.

The Tarpan was up on view as an invalid taxon for less than a day. I changed it myself. Its validity has been questioned since at least 1912, but the majority opinion accepts the Tarpan, so I'm happy to put it back in.

Gohs 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize for snarky editing comments, but don't take them too personally. I just get crabby, and the stuff that gets the most snarkiness is unsourced speculation that, sourced or otherwise, is just plain incorrect. However, please don't blank material you don't like, just add a "fact" tag to things you question (my edits or anyone else's) and I will see if they can be sourced. I see no reason to argue or have "expertise duels," when the real point is if we can find valid, third-party information. I would have no way of knowing if something is yours, as, after all, we stay anonymous. That was just a heads up about not promoting your own theories in most cases (yes, there are exceptions, but Wiki says to be very careful about it). For example, did you see the one about the guy who did his own research and thinks horses were domesticated over 10,000 years ago? That was the last edit war I had over there. (sigh) There really ARE some theories that are pretty much unsupportable.

Please understand that just because someone interviewed people with direct memories doesn't mean that they didn't slap their ethnic and cultural bias on top of it, especially in the 40s and 50s! And anyway, that whole magpie thing was irrelevant as to domestication anyway. I just happen live just a few hours from the Blackfeet reservation, I DO know a little bit about what folks up there tend to view as offensive, and it is important to be cognizant of living people's legitimate concerns. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Photos, again and other stuff

Dropped some bit photos up on Commons, as well as some old photos from a 1906 or so textbook on agriculture. Still hunting for a harness diagram. Plan to hit the stable (not literally) later and get pictures of my wooly mammoth in his winter blankie. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem on the Arabian stuff. It was sourced statements, so it was pretty easy to just revert the change. Easiest thing to do is to not make a big deal about it, sometimes people are just looking for a rise. I'm in a good mood today, have TWO horses at home! the cowhorse is home for a year, he came off the hauler's trailer like a champ, happy as a clam and settled down to his new stall. I'm sure he's now out pestering the other horses in the pasture, trying to convince them they are cows, and not horses. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bask (grins) and thanks for American Paint Horse Association I should get to it within the week, going to be busy with some stuff until Sunday, I think. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC) You know, i have no idea how I got that pedigree wrong (grins). It's correct in my books, it's correct in All Breed, and somehow I flubbed it. I always get tripped up by Polish names, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Expanded American Paint Horse Association and added some to Working cow horse. Threw some citations at Bosal. We're off to Indiana tomorrow and Friday. Try to keep the horse articles standing! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi Montana! Thanks for the note, let me give you some links, and just run down the major parts, you can read the rest when you have time. WP:MOS#Images, and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, have most of the information. Basically a few things should be done, and others not done, to allow everyone to see the page as intended. Keeping in mind that not everyone uses the same screen resolution, or font size, images can cause display errors for those readers with visual problems who have to use very large fonts. First, an article should start with a right-aligned image. Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. It is not recommended to place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is also not recommended: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). Forcing oversizing over-rides the user's preferences, and especially with those using large fonts, can cause an image to end up being nearly half the width (or more) of an article's page, and can cause the text to display behind the image, making it unreadable. The exceptions to this are a first image, that can be slightly oversized to convey the meaning of the article, or some diagrams or maps, or panoramic views. For the majority of articles, using the default is preferred, and right-alignment is best to avoid display issues. Some longer articles (like some of the featured articles) stagger right-left alignment, but they need to be mindful of where to place the left-aligned images, so there are no display issues for visually impaired readers. There is a WikiProject designed for the accessibility needs of these users, if you're interested, which also details other aspects, such as tables, etc., but basically what I did with the Arabian article was to fix these issues, and make the page more visually balanced, and accessible to all readers. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions! (And sorry for such a long reply, lol) Ariel♥Gold 03:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You can test how text displays by forcing your text to be huge, (in Firefox, hold ctrl, and press + repeatedly) or reducing your resolution, but yeah, it is just for second level headings, the ones without the horizontal line, (===) that the issues arise. The image size doesn't change with font size, but the font size does, and what can happen is you have an image on the right, over half the width of the article for someone using an 800x600 resolution, and then another image across from it, on the left, maybe above or below slightly, and the text either has no room, or only one or two words can fit between them, and sometimes it ends up being displayed behind the image when images are forced to be oversized.

You can move the Darly one, it didn't seem at first glance to be associated with anything when I read the caption, that's why I moved it, so feel free to move it back. The issue was that there was a staggering of R-L-R, but then four images all on the right. I'm actually inclined to think in this case, all right-aligned may work better for the article, especially if some images need to be placed in specific sections for illustration of a passage. But as you know, images aren't decoration, they are there to convey something that text otherwise couldn't (for the most part), so yes, there are some articles, animal articles quite often, or cities, that seem to be just "galleries" of pictures of people's pets, homes, etc., lol. That's an issue at times, and if you remove images, it is a good idea to make a talk page note explaining why. I don't think the article is FA quality yet, but possibly soon. It might be a good idea to get some really good editors on it to work on it with that goal, though! Here is the Manual of Style on accessibility issues: Wikipedia:Accessibility. Feel free to ask anything else, although remember guidelines aren't a hard and fast rule. I just like them, because I think standardization in the majority of articles is a good idea. Obviously, there are articles that don't go by these guidelines, due to the subject matter, and that's okay too! Hope that helped! Ariel♥Gold 05:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Appaloosas and Uveitis Frequency... Documentation?

I followed the footnotes regaridng uveitis in Appaloosas you provided to support the statement that Appaloosas are eight times more likely to get uveitis and four times more likely to go blind from it.....One was http://www.cvm.umn.edu/img/assets/9582/Summer%20Scholars%20Faculty%20projects%2007.pdf and quoted, in Mark Rutherford's faculty research project-- "Appaloosas are eight times more likely to develop uveitis and four times more likely to develop blindness compared to other breeds." The other link, to http://www.blindappaloosas.org/current-research.html quoted the same statement from Mark Rutherford. What I cannot find on either site, or any other site, is the actual RESEARCH or published work which Mark Rutherford is getting these %'s from-- do you have that source? From these links, all I see is one person stating these things in his faculty profile, unsupported by peer-evaluated formal research......?? Getspotted (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Will dig a bit, though the blind appaloosas site has more citations, mostly to print journals that I do not have access to. However, I can verify things a bit. Almost every breed has its genetic problems, and virtually every breed registry puts its head in the sand about it. Some quarter horse people are still in denial about HYPP, even. Floors me, but I guess it's human nature. Dog breeds have a lot of similar problems. It's the flip side of breeding purebred stock, homozygousity of traits sometimes brings in the bad with the good. But I will see what I can find to support the material a bit more. Montanabw^(talk) 01:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Found more material at blindappaloosas, citing peer-reviewed journals. Will add the link to the page. Montanabw^(talk) 01:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will go check it out-- I am not denying that there is an increased frequency in Appaloosas, and I agree that most associations are ignoring or at least delaying addressing the concern. (appears to be changing BTW as the ApHC's Appaloosa Journal will run an article/interview with Dr. Lynn Sandmeyer regarding the Appaloosa Project's research on the connection with nightblindness and appaloosa coloration in Dec 2007). I just wanted to know where Rutherford got such specific %'s because I was unaware of any published/documented studies that had been done that had such specific %'s/conclusions. Getspotted (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It can be a challenge to find peer-reviewed journals, at least for free. I think the one in eight number is in Equine Opthamology, from what the web site text says. I dropped about fifty bucks just on interlibrary loan fees plus various online access charges to obtain all the documentation for another article I helped edit, on cerebellar abiotrophy in Arabians. Probably the quickest way to get info, frankly, is a call to U Minn. You can also email the blindappaloosas guy, his email is on the web site. He may have the figures at his fingertips. Cute username, by the way! Montanabw^(talk) 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

LFS and SCID

Wow. There is a dearth of peer reviewed articles on LFS. I'm sure you ran across PMID 17186871, but I can't access it. I hope you don't mind a low importance rating, but the Merck Veterinary Manual doesn't even cover it. More to come in a few minutes on SCID. --Joelmills (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You can see my comment on the talk page at Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (non-human), in which I agree with you to keep it all in one article. Besides the SCID mouse, SCID is really only well described in Arabians and dogs. --Joelmills (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tchernomor

Did some checking on the Tchernomor, as requested. There was nothing to be found on it as a breed in any of the websites/books I checked out (including the IMH/KY Horse Park site). The only place the breed seems to be mentioned (generally as Chernomor or occasionally Cherkassky) is in the ancestry of the Budyonny breed, and it seems to be basically the same couple sentances of info, repeated over and over... The most complete summary I found (including going fairly deep into Google), was about half a paragraph here: [1]. I don't know...possibly something Budyonny breeders dreamed up? There doesn't seem to be anything out there that says it's actually a real breed. What would be your suggestion for the next step?Dana boomer (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit more editing on the Budyonny site...if you want to check it out and see if there's anything else you would suggest doing. Thanks!Dana boomer (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)