For those that came here from the talk page where I was accused by an editor of being "a sockpuppet account trolling this page", I assure you that it isn't true. Apparently, I was accused of this by that same editor, with whom I've been in conflict for the past several days. Lynn Wysong ( talk) 14:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMustang&type=revision&diff=649809814&oldid=649798651
You wished to bring any further discussion of your editing history and abilities to this page, so I am doing so. In short, I am not interested in your additions to the Wild Horse and Burro Act page because it is a GA-class article and you clearly don't understand what encyclopedic style for wikipedia is like, hence your suggested edits could cost that article its current GA standing. Your sources were not relevant and your "extrapolation" violated the WP policies on original research and your attempts to do things like put two sourced sentences together as if one correlated to the other when they did not is synthesis. According to your editing history, you have only done any serious work on WP articles since last fall, and you really don't know what you are doing. You made two edits in 2010, also, but nothing in-between, yet you claim to be a "very experienced" editor - either you possess an exaggerated sense of what "experience" is on-wiki, if this is your only account, or you have been editing under a different name. So which is it? Montanabw (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I really have no clue what you even want in the Mustang and related articles any longer, other than to quote long passages from 50 year old books. I am really quite done with these endless discussions over nothing. I am going to suggest that where you have incremental, specific suggestions, we can try to continue to see if we can reach consensus, as we are attempting to do on the Taylor Grazing Act bit. That said, your suggestions really make little sense to me, you make vague comments about neutrality but fail to explain what is or is not neutral; you suggest long quotations, which are not appropriate encyclopedic style for wikipedia, yet seem unwilling to do basic analysis and summary. Frankly, the written word sometimes does fail to facilitate communication, but if you are actually interested in communication (as opposed to simply generating drama and changing everything so it's your way), I am willing to take a step back, take a deep breath and try again to work with you. But I think the philosophical debates between the two of us are better off here at your talk rather than cluttering up the articles. So I'm here. Let's start with neutrality: do you think these articles are too pro-wild horse, too anti-wild horse, what? Montanabw (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey. I'm sorry for things ended up at the DRN, I thought we would be able to reach a compromise but eventually it seemed like a lost cause and I felt I had no option but to close it. What I neglected to mention in my opening statements was that this was the first case I had ever moderated, and perhaps it showed. Regardless, I hope it works out all right for everybody and you'll be able to reach some sort of common ground. Kharkiv07 Talk 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Per your own admission RO and I both post from the western U.S. We both are obviously the same person., I will be blocking this account shortly, unless another admin. gets to it before I do. See: WP:BLOCK EVASION and per WP:ALTACCN, you should link the two accounts. I will likely also be extending the length of the block due to this ( WP:SOCK). Also note, you are NOT allowed to edit while logged out either. I have a few things to do IRL, but will get to this later today. — Ched : ? 17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I just went ahead and requested a checkuser at the SPI. You might want to wait until it's done. Lynn Wysong ( talk) 19:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I found the post through your contribs. Due to you confirming that you and RO are the same account the block will be the same as your RO account. I won't extend the length of the block, but you need to connect the accounts per the link above.—
Ched :
? 23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's just wait until I've actually confirmed it. Lynn Wysong ( talk) 23:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
LynnWysong ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
No, I did not confirm anything. RO isn't even a user name.
Accept reason:
Unblocked despite this request, not because of it. It's obvious that "RO" in this context refers to User:Rationalobserver, and I was sorely tempted not to unblock you merely for playing dumb. (Besides, "RO" is a username, too, so your request wasn't even factually accurate.) Unlike Ched, I do see sarcasm in your original "I am a sock" comment, though. Huon ( talk) 00:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
T'anks, Huon. 'nuff said Lynn Wysong ( talk) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll stick to my tastes in music, hopefully I won't get punished for it in that witch hunt that is going on. I'm just concerned that just because I have similar music tastes, somehow I'll get trapped in this. I guess I'll just need to trust that other users have more common sense.
P.S. Try listening to The Incredible String Band, I promise I won't accuse you of being a sock puppet LOL. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
I will! I hope no one at Amazon is monitoring my IP! Lynn Wysong ( talk) 05:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't be too sure, it seems like any irrelevant connection will get you condemned to that list. No one else seems willing to support my opinion that my music interests should not make me a suspect. Common sense is dead, I suppose. Hope you can get out of this unscathed though, at least someone innocent should. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Don't worry about it. Nothing on that list is going anywhere. Lynn Wysong ( talk) 11:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@ TheGracefulSlick: One of the best montages on TV EVER! Such an awesome tribute to 60's music! Don't let anyone get you down for liking it! Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 00:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and I won't let them get me down. I know one day Montanabw will get a bit of her own medicine, so I will keep loving the music. If you wanted to listen to some more music, there are these lesser known groups called The Mystic Tide, The Music Machine, and The Growing Concern (no page, unfortunately). Just a few bands I know that deserve a little more credit than they got. Peace, friend. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015
LOL. I was a kid in San Francisco when this music was big. My Dad was a redneck from Jackson Hole, WY, and did NOT approve. But my mom had a cousin hanging out on Haight-Ashbury, (I actually lived on Haight Street for a time). This kind of music is part of my psyche. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Since it is a bit confusing for some that your signature name and your username do not match, you might think about going to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and asking for your account name to be changed to LynnWysong. I changed my username and it is a pretty simple process if there is no existing editor with that username. Just a suggestion on an action that might lessen the heat on you, but it's your choice. Liz Read! Talk! 15:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Lynn I would just ignore it, she has your name multiple times on her duck list with things such as "Fascinating commentary" while describing your edits. Wikipedia is a big place just edit in other areas or else an WP:IBAN may be on the horizon. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
But back to the point; in the section below, I made a sincere offer to assist with images or other aspects of a potentially useful article you have sandboxed and refractored a comment I had made, making a good faith effort to dial things down a bit. You then come up here and dictate terms of a truce that basically demand that I unilaterally agree to things I didn't even do. Now you claim there is no truce possibly and make further accusations against me while continuing to be completely unable to see that your own behavior is pretty much creating the mess you find yourself in. I've tried to help you out now for almost two months, even in the face of your continued personal attacks. But at this point, I see no evidence that you are here to build the encyclopedia. Montanabw (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You guys just need to grow up and stop this bickering. Lynn it appears, despite how annoying some people can be, Montanabw is making a good offer to you. Even with the past wrongs she has, if you two can make better articles, then just do it. Improvements are so much more worthy of both of your time than this. I, ironically, would support you just calling a truce. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015
To be honest, it seemed like an innocent request, not an accusation. User:Montanabw is trying her best to work with you, just try to listen to them sometimes. I admit, I don't know much about horse breeds (although it looks interesting) but it looks like they know a great deal, to say the least. Combine with their numerous edits, I think it's best to accept their ideas on occasions like this if you truly want to better the article. I really don't want more drama so just think about it. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 21:59, 23 April 2015
Comment from here (Littleolive removed her quoted comment, saying "If you want to respond do so on the article talk page where I posted". No, I'm not going to in accordance with this policy: Civility: Different Places, Different Atmospheres. Her comment should have been posted here on my talk page in the first place.)
It doesn't matter what your reasoning is you do not have the right to move my comments, place them here, and then continue on some kind of discussion as if I were here discussing this with you. Please do not do not do so again. Thanks. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
Comment from [1]: You're of course free to think what you wish. However, I find your automatic assumption of bad faith disturbing and contrary to collaboration. I've been involved in breed discussions before, mainly on the Comanche article where people persist on claiming that Comanche was a Morgan when in fact he was most likely a mustang of some variety. As a result of that, I've looked at this article and watched it on occasion. And I remain opposed to discussions which impact the content of articles in possibly major ways being moved to private gardens.
Lynn can't you just let this one slide? Like seriously, I'm sure anything negative toward you was unintentional and the editors involved just want to improve the article. However, constantly taking things too much to heart will only cause trouble as evident by this long this of comments we got going on here. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:22, 24 April 2015
I'm looking at this realistically. There is nothing to deal with, but improving the article. No one is against you, no one is after you. If you plan to go rouge in your efforts on the page without collaboration of the users, thinks will turn in the wrong direction for you. And I, nor anyone else, will be able to defend your actions. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
I am going to make a couple of sincere suggestions. I have said this elsewhere, but they may have been missed in the back and forth. First: There are a bunch of wikipedia articles that need improvement and if you were to work on them in good faith with proper sourcing and in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines, you will have no trouble with me. Among them are Spanish Mustang (an actual breed with a registry), Wild horse preservation (which is just not a particularly great article, though a good topic independent of both Mustangs and the legislation surrounding them), and Taylor Grazing Act, which is rather incomplete. You have the ability to work on any of them and prove yourself to be here to build the encyclopedia. Second: You also could create articles on the various HMAs and herds, particularly those in Nevada that seem of great interest to you. (FWIW, examples are Pryor Mountain Mustang (a GA-class article) and its companion, Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range. Frankly, this is the kind of structural work that has to be done anyway before the Mustang article can be expanded; the different groups need to be researched and understood so that a comprehensive look can be taken with the "main" article. I am very sincere in saying that I'd like to offer you a truce if you indicate to me that you want to be of actual help to the project. Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you can weigh-in on this ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading)? Be a big help to get reliable opinions on the discussion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Done Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated, it was a pretty obvious keep to me too. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Sorry to bug you again by this ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twentieth Century Zoo (2nd nomination)) needs more discussion too. It has been difficult to find users willing to take the few moments to create an opinion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Why is this CrazyAces489 running around nominating all these articles for deletion? Seriously what are they hurting? Does he have it in for you or does he just not have a life? Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 20:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
He has had it out for me awhile. He made this poorly-constructed article that I gave an honest opinion on, and ever since then he has placed unrelated tags, sent me to AN/I (unsuccessfully), and nominated, as of now, four of my articles for deletion (again, unsuccessfully). I just continue to defend them, he just looks bad in the process. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Yeah, CrazyAces sent me to AN/I. Third time, too. It's just ridiculous, but somehow asking for your opinion gets me in trouble. Oh well, maybe this can finally settle things. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Glad you got yourself out of that little mess. It's amazing what some people around here get away with, while others get hammered any time they step out of line. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 01:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it should all be over now. I didn't really want it to come to this, but the user retired from editing. I should be on alert for a few days just in case he plans to do something even more irrational, but I think now I can truly return to working on music articles without someone having a grudge against me. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015
I definitely know the feeling of trying to work on something with someone breathing over your shoulder. Some of these older editors are really threatened by new people coming in and seem to spend most of their time trying to show their dominance by pissing on "their" turf, which is why a lot of "their" articles stink. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 11:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that seemed to be his problem. I gave an honest opinion, believing their article was not notable (the article was unanimously deleted) and I think because I was newer than the others who thought the same, the user targeted me. The only problem was he had no idea what he was doing when he attacked the music articles. Made him look foolish, which is why he probably left. Hopefully wiki is a little better of a place with one less user like him to worry about. Hope everything for you goes well, I don't want anyone else to have a similar uncomfortable situation. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
I read your work so far on Horse ecology and, for someone like me who only has a basic knowledge of horses, I found it interesting. Makes me want to read more about horses, so thanks. Can't wait until the article is finished so I can learn more. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I know how you feel, I have been working on Death of Freddie Gray, just to go outside my usual field of work. A lot of issues with users, but at least there are some good ones in the project too. I'm not sure if you have to deal with it as much, but people vandalize the page with the most ridiculous comments, even a notorious sock puppeteer was involved. It's good you are busy though the page you are working on also looks like something I should read more into. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Well...that was awkward. I don't think I should comment on Smith's sexuality, it's something I hardly know about. User:Montanabw not sure if this intrigues you, but there was a second sock puppet found on the Talk:Death of Freddie Gray page (Dracula913 and HydroFerocity). It's stuff like this that makes me appreciate your efforts to stop these guys. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Where the sourcing is solid, my own view is that it's a "teach the controversy" issue and I think fair to present each point of view. But if the sourcing is not solid per WP:RS, etc., then it's best to drop the stick until there is more scholarship out there. Even where the sourcing is solid, it's still a challenge and sometimes one has to choose one's battles. I had two thoughts looking at this particular issue. One, if you want to proceed, check out how this issue was handled for the possible homosexuality of James_Buchanan#Personal_life - multiple scholarly studies appear to exist. The debate from 2013 is still on the talk page. Interesting. But second, one must be careful and choose battles carefully. These are the kind of things that sometimes generate more heat than light and how edit wars start that get people blocked, sanctioned and otherwise embroiled in drama that goes nowhere. For example, there are also allegations of bisexuality for Abraham Lincoln, but it does not show up in the article anywhere, in spite of it being discussed repeatedly, and I know of at least one mainstream biography (Shenk, Lincoln's Melancholy) that discusses the issue quite extensively. Just FWIW. Montanabw (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There is obviously some heat between you two, it is a real spectacle sometimes. Can't we all just get along? Montanabw is actually a helpful person, and her comments seem like she just wants to help.
P.S. I saw your comment on her talk page. You are right, so much irony! Kinda didn't have to point it out to her though, it's not like she could have known. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
But at what gain? Wouldn't you rather say nothing than cause a little stir like you did below? Montanabw was working to fix the stupidity of ItsLassieTime's actions (honestly, the user is a total psycho), not the one EC was assimilated to, so it's understandable she wasn't aware of the user's signs of being a sock puppet. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well you could tell her to stay off your talk page, just saying. Technically, she is entitled to jump in on the thread until you say otherwise. Then she would be at fault and in a little trouble if she failed to comply, which I doubt she would do since she has had hardly any type of issues. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTGRAVEDANCING this edit summary is inappropriate, particularly because you yourself "an experienced editor," do not appear to have clean hands. Per WP:CLEANSTART you do have a "right to vanish," but you do not have a right to do so if you were blocked or banned, nor should you use a new account to engage in the same behavior that led to your loss (whether voluntary or involuntary) of the old one. When my duck box drama began, I settled it by creating the LTA page for ItsLassieTime. ILT was both a drama queen and did tremendous damage to the project with her mass copyviolations. Most blocked editors tend to fit this pattern. After that time sink, I decided that it was not worth my time to file an SPI on you because it was more relevant to focus on people's current behavior. Mattisse has her own page. Your behavior at the moment is no longer tendentious or disruptive. I hope that continues to be the case. Montanabw (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is what she met, and if she actually did, than I read her totally wrong. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 10:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that doesn't fix anything, but ok. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but if I made that mix-up of who you were talking about, I'm sure others would too. I hope things get better between you two, anyways. I'm not sure I want to talk to Montanabw anymore if she truly thinks we are up to no good. I can't work with someone who doesn't trust their partners. It's a shame too, I asked her a question and she shows she is very helpful, so I am losing a potential collaborator. It sucks for you more since you both like similar articles and, as of now, it's obvious she would not want to work with you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 14:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As indicated in the first post in the thread, once you'be been pegged as a sock, you'really only tolerated as long as your behavior is "acceptable". But the person that pegged you is never wrong, so feels free to constantly remind you of your status as a sock as an implicit threat any time she wants to bring you in line. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 00:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You have the right tact. Power can be a fleeting thing, especially when abused. It's only a matter of time before the concern will take care of itself. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 00:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
But it seemed consensus on the issue was met, so further editing to that regard is allowed to be reverted. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope. That's not right. There was never any consensus. All possible discussion that could lead to consensus devolved into accusations and personal attacks. Even in the DR. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 02:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you guys are getting along. I'm sorry for those drawn out conversations that charted into unneeded territory. I'll leave you alone now, sorry for disturbing you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Per closed discussion at [2], there are other appropriate venues for discussion Montanabw (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that we may actually be on the verge of collaboration on the Mustang article... we will no doubt agree to disagree on some things, but I think we are finding common ground to improve the article. On that note, I am going to reach out and trust you a bit and let you know about a new article I helped someone else start, Horses in the United States. I grabbed a lot of the evolution and history stuff from other articles (including Mustang and Evolution of the Horse) but also did some new research as well. It may be useful for the Mustang article. The Francis Haines cite, though from 1938, seems to pretty decisively trace the origin of how horses came to Native Americans via trade routes, and I suspect that was one major conduit for horses that became today's Mustangs to move north - horses clearly predated white settlement. Montanabw (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. I've told you before, I'm not going to try to collaborate if you devolve into uncivil behavior, and I meant it. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 23:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thought I'd bring this over here to respond. Montanabw: "No, the biggest problem are people who prefer drama to editing. I've got a GAN up, am working on a featured list, will be putting up another GAN in a week or so, just finished a FAC last month, had a featured article on the main page earlier this month, all while dealing with this nonsense drama. What have you done lately other than drama on your own talk page?"
For future reference, the best tool in all of wikipedia is refill: https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/
All you need to do is insert the raw url between ref tags and then after you save, just paste the article name into the box at refill and run. It will usually get almost all of your web sources and do the template for you. It has two bugs to note, one is to uncheck the "don't use access date" box (why they have that as the default escapes me, it's very much needed for web pages) and the other is that there will be some perfectly good sources refill won't parse (one of which is the New York Times, which is really bizarre). You still may have to use the preview window to refine the formatting or add parameters (sometimes it doesn't grab author names), but I couldn't have done the BLM HMA page without it. Montanabw (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll give that a try.
Am now reading De Steiguer, chapter 8... esp .starting p. 145...definitely worth the read! Also, take a peek at the 17th-18th century section now that it's been rewritten and expanded (again), I hope it works better now. Comment there, this is just an FYI ping that I'm done for now. Montanabw (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Just an FYI that I'll get to the Mustang sandbox in the next day or so; big windstorm here, we have tree branches all over the place and a broken window (luckily just one broken window) and I do have a day job, so kind of nuts IRL, but nothing terrible, just busy. Also am planning to take American Pharoah to FAC soon and want to tune up that one a bit, so a higher priority. Montanabw (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yow! Okay, I'll just keep plugging along.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Great Basin Desert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, this collaboration is working: Mustang#Land_use_controversies. We both are drawing conclusions from the research that we probably need to find sources to do for us, so I added some cn tags. :-P I think I see where you are going and if so, I do agree that the issues of range degradation and not harming wildlife habitat is a legitimate concern that has to be discussed in the article. The trick will be to tease out the threads of what is actually going on, or at least trying to present a NPOV discussion of each side's views. It may be an oversimplification, but would you agree that there are basically three factions here (each with individual advocates within them ranging from rabid to reasonable): 1) the wild horse preservation advocates, 2) the livestock industry, and the 3) wildlife/habitat/ecosystem preservation advocates (including but not limited to folks identifying as environmentalist)? I'm leaving out the natural resource industry, as they don't seem to get involved in wild horse disputes much, though they too have an impact on land management decisions. Montanabw (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The herds subject to the studies by Sponenberg and Cochran are of the most interest to me, just personally. I do think there is something to be said for " landrace" genetics as a resource; I have watched with a lot of disgust the ways that some horse breeds are just being destroyed by poor, unsustainable practices in the name of fad breeding, particularly for halter. (cough - HYPP - cough) One of these days, for example, the quarter horse just might to need to look back to its foundation bloodstock - the climate-adapted feral horse of the west. As for horsemeat, yeah, don't want to go near that with a 10-foot pole. If "wild horse" stuff has a lot of crazy on all sides, the slaughter issue has crazy times 10.
I ran a wikignoming edit on the Free-roaming horse management in North America article, I think we had an edit conflict, and I think I reconciled it. I'm done for now. My edits were not intended to change substantive content, just a few rephrases, some punctuation fixes, wikilinking and some hidden text where I saw a problem. You are doing a damn good job on that article, by the way. My kudos. Montanabw (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep plugging away on it. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 01:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
And unrelated to North America, but fascinating anyway: http://www.thehorse.com/articles/36342/exmoor-ponies-help-revamp-the-czech-republics-landscape
The first time I heard someone from the UK mention that they "had to" graze horses and cattle in certain areas to FIX the ecology of the area, I about fainted. But, thousands of years of doing so, hmm. Mind-boggling. Montanabw (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Just so you know, the article Fur trade in Montana was created by an expert in that field, and most of the edits are from well-established editors with featured article credits. So don't go in there and randomly change things, especially dates. If you see an actual error, take it to the talk page and show your sources. Montanabw (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, then, there's only 5999 articles you need to watchlist now. Maybe you'll have time to actually edit articles now, rather than trying to control how others do. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 10:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
nice. Yeah, Right. Pathetic attempt to justify
Yes, well, MBW is really good at throwing out accusations, but really poor about backing them up. Since I don't think I should be expected to answer to unsubstantiated allegations that I "freely admits that she's using WP as a place to put her own 'research'", I refuse to defend against them. It just allows the accuser to sidetrack the discussion away from their own behavior. So, I'm not going to go down that path here. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 15:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
...and any other articles you choose to work on. Good for you! Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative effort, and any edits I make are intended only to improve, based on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, not to rebuke or discourage another editor. WCCasey ( talk) 16:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Although I doubt this makes the least bit of difference to your opinion of me, I do think it is worth putting on the record for your benefit: I have mentioned in two places on-wiki today, once in response to a direct question, that I no longer believe that you and RationalObserver are socks of each other. Your styles are different, though your commonalities of interest (i.e. American southwest) and mutual antagonism toward me gave me reasonable cause at the time to suspect you were socks. Now that I have dealt with both of you for several months, the weight of the evidence has convinced me that you are not socks—of one another. You also do not behave the way that a sock of ItsLassieTime usually behaves, though again there was a superficial resemblance initially. So, at present, I do not think that you are simultaneously operating a separate account or attempting to evade scrutiny. Just so you know. I still do think you are either a returned user or edited a long time as an IP, but you have a right to a clean start, and I shall deal with you based solely on your behavior and edits under this user name. Montanabw (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Howdy, IMHO all Wikipedians are gender neutral. Therefore, I'm requesting that you move away from the gender bias theme, at the ANI discussion about RO :) GoodDay ( talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AEaldgyth&type=revision&diff=648293060&oldid=648030227
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You were warned about this in the past, and per WP:BRD this is an issue to take to the article talk page Montanabw (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If you and I can find commonality on any of these Mustang-related articles, at least to the extent that we can find enough middle ground to create stable articles able to pass GA or FA standard, that is actually what wikipedia is all about. It's the end result that counts, not the personalities or whether they like or trust each other. I'd like nothing more than to see the GA on Mustang, FA on the WFRHBA and maybe FL for the List of HMAs. You can shut all of that down or help make it happen. And I mean that. Poke at the sources and the tone all you want; do your damnedest to keep personalities and attribution of motive out of it and I agree to do my damnedest to do the same. (We probably can't be perfect, but if we both try, it's worth it) Montanabw (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"I am not concerned about my own reputation, and it is my responsibility anyway." And I am not your responsibility. So please dispense with the advice. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 01:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This is what I'm dealing with trying to collaborate:
Lynn: Beats head against wall.
Montanabw: Beats head against wall.
Please do not edit-war on articles while consensus is being discussed. Montanabw (talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lynn,
I see that you're involved in horsemanship-related editing. I'm having an ongoing dispute on the Parelli Natural Horsemanship page and would like to ask for your opinion. The specific issue is persistent deletion of positive material by an editor who clearly detests the Parelli program. I've tried to resolve it on the talk page to no avail.
I don't know if you're pro-PNH, anti-PNH or indifferent but your opinion about the appropriateness of the deletions would be welcome. :)
Thank you! JackieLL007 ( talk) 01:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
[4] NE Ent 20:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you NE Ent.
Hey, please, chill, OK? I wasn't incensed by your statement and wasn't even responding to that, but rather, the reply to you: "No there isn't. Someone made the site because they were interested in creating a database of graves. It's grown since then and undoubtedly Ancestry.com has been used by some to add info, but they are not associated.
" I haven't registered for WPO, which is why I didn't respond there. Maybe sometime I will; I've thought about it.
wbm1058 (
talk) 14:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding that the comment was directed at me, but still, it was silly to put your response on WP and characterize it as "spreading misinformation" like the person in question wasn't simply ignorant of the fact (as was I) that three years ago Ancestry.com had purchased the Find-a-Grave website, which had started out completely independent of Ancestry.com. Anyway, there seems to be some enigmatic context to both your statements on the template discussion, which is why I commented on them at WO. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 14:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
So, in a sense, it seems that Ancestry owns and operates find-a-grave in a similar manner to the way that the WMF owns and operates Wikipedia. Regards, wbm1058 ( talk) 15:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
And if you two can both question the relationship between Ancestry and Grave, I suppose others likely might as well. Hence, posting a citation for the relationship there isn't silly. wbm1058 ( talk) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, one more thing. Please don't equate me with the guy who wants $1 for every time... that's not my style at all. wbm1058 ( talk) 16:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Re the Blunt bio you wrote. I see what you're saying about using F-a-G as a reference. I understand that there are some here who would revert that. Sometimes it seems like we're more tolerant of totally uncited bios or bios where the only source is the website of the subject. Just noting "From Marla Daily" listed as the source; just wondering if that's a site contributor, or an old newspaper ("Maryland Daily"). It reads like it was lifted from an obituary. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I just noticed WP:TPW. Thought you might find it interesting. (no, this page is not on my watchlist;) wbm1058 ( talk) 19:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Joseph R. Walker. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Please find somebody else to troll. I won't be responding to your attempts to get a raise out of me, so kindly keep off my talkpage in future. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
A policy reminder now that the page has been unprotected. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Lynn, I don't want to leave the impression that I'm being intentionally rude and ignoring you in the Rationalobserver block appeal thread. Neither do I wish to contribute further tangents to it. I understand your objection to Courcelles's statement and recognize your interpretation of that statement is at least as valid as mine, I merely do not share that interpretation. I don't think it helps you, me, Rationalobserver, Courcelles, ArbCom, or anyone else for me to continue debating such interpretations with you there. Best wishes and thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Just letting you know I saw your message. I dont have traditional Internet access so I cant really do large edits requiring research. The short answer is downsloping but that is a better explanation for the whole Mountain West rather than individual stations. Cody seems to have two weather stations, one right by the reservoir and one further away ... the one near the reservoir is warmer in winter and cooler in summer, but it's mostly winter that stands out, so that might be part of the explanation as well. I'd like to write information in mainspace but it's difficult, and may be impossible, to find WP:RS information to explain phenomena that we can only infer from patterns. Thanks for your interest, — Soap — 17:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Actually, it was User:QEDK whho made the "wildly" comment. wbm1058 ( talk) 02:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
you operated other accounts in past? Were you involved with GGTF et al, at any point of time? ∯WBG converse 12:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, re: this. If you have evidence of socking/abuse of CLEANSTART the best thing to do is to file an SPI rather than make comments about it at an RfA. Not meant as yelling at you or anything (I’m aware I can come off gruff sometimes), but in situations where someone has established an account (new or otherwise) an SPI with diffs is the way to go. Comments elsewhere could be viewed as personal attacks. Anyway, all the best :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like you and I actually agree on the issues on this topic, so this one is yours, all yours. Montanabw (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Natalis soli invicto! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
Hello, LynnWysong
You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
For those that came here from the talk page where I was accused by an editor of being "a sockpuppet account trolling this page", I assure you that it isn't true. Apparently, I was accused of this by that same editor, with whom I've been in conflict for the past several days. Lynn Wysong ( talk) 14:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3AMustang&type=revision&diff=649809814&oldid=649798651
You wished to bring any further discussion of your editing history and abilities to this page, so I am doing so. In short, I am not interested in your additions to the Wild Horse and Burro Act page because it is a GA-class article and you clearly don't understand what encyclopedic style for wikipedia is like, hence your suggested edits could cost that article its current GA standing. Your sources were not relevant and your "extrapolation" violated the WP policies on original research and your attempts to do things like put two sourced sentences together as if one correlated to the other when they did not is synthesis. According to your editing history, you have only done any serious work on WP articles since last fall, and you really don't know what you are doing. You made two edits in 2010, also, but nothing in-between, yet you claim to be a "very experienced" editor - either you possess an exaggerated sense of what "experience" is on-wiki, if this is your only account, or you have been editing under a different name. So which is it? Montanabw (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I really have no clue what you even want in the Mustang and related articles any longer, other than to quote long passages from 50 year old books. I am really quite done with these endless discussions over nothing. I am going to suggest that where you have incremental, specific suggestions, we can try to continue to see if we can reach consensus, as we are attempting to do on the Taylor Grazing Act bit. That said, your suggestions really make little sense to me, you make vague comments about neutrality but fail to explain what is or is not neutral; you suggest long quotations, which are not appropriate encyclopedic style for wikipedia, yet seem unwilling to do basic analysis and summary. Frankly, the written word sometimes does fail to facilitate communication, but if you are actually interested in communication (as opposed to simply generating drama and changing everything so it's your way), I am willing to take a step back, take a deep breath and try again to work with you. But I think the philosophical debates between the two of us are better off here at your talk rather than cluttering up the articles. So I'm here. Let's start with neutrality: do you think these articles are too pro-wild horse, too anti-wild horse, what? Montanabw (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey. I'm sorry for things ended up at the DRN, I thought we would be able to reach a compromise but eventually it seemed like a lost cause and I felt I had no option but to close it. What I neglected to mention in my opening statements was that this was the first case I had ever moderated, and perhaps it showed. Regardless, I hope it works out all right for everybody and you'll be able to reach some sort of common ground. Kharkiv07 Talk 04:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Per your own admission RO and I both post from the western U.S. We both are obviously the same person., I will be blocking this account shortly, unless another admin. gets to it before I do. See: WP:BLOCK EVASION and per WP:ALTACCN, you should link the two accounts. I will likely also be extending the length of the block due to this ( WP:SOCK). Also note, you are NOT allowed to edit while logged out either. I have a few things to do IRL, but will get to this later today. — Ched : ? 17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I just went ahead and requested a checkuser at the SPI. You might want to wait until it's done. Lynn Wysong ( talk) 19:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I found the post through your contribs. Due to you confirming that you and RO are the same account the block will be the same as your RO account. I won't extend the length of the block, but you need to connect the accounts per the link above.—
Ched :
? 23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Let's just wait until I've actually confirmed it. Lynn Wysong ( talk) 23:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
LynnWysong ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
No, I did not confirm anything. RO isn't even a user name.
Accept reason:
Unblocked despite this request, not because of it. It's obvious that "RO" in this context refers to User:Rationalobserver, and I was sorely tempted not to unblock you merely for playing dumb. (Besides, "RO" is a username, too, so your request wasn't even factually accurate.) Unlike Ched, I do see sarcasm in your original "I am a sock" comment, though. Huon ( talk) 00:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
T'anks, Huon. 'nuff said Lynn Wysong ( talk) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll stick to my tastes in music, hopefully I won't get punished for it in that witch hunt that is going on. I'm just concerned that just because I have similar music tastes, somehow I'll get trapped in this. I guess I'll just need to trust that other users have more common sense.
P.S. Try listening to The Incredible String Band, I promise I won't accuse you of being a sock puppet LOL. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
I will! I hope no one at Amazon is monitoring my IP! Lynn Wysong ( talk) 05:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Don't be too sure, it seems like any irrelevant connection will get you condemned to that list. No one else seems willing to support my opinion that my music interests should not make me a suspect. Common sense is dead, I suppose. Hope you can get out of this unscathed though, at least someone innocent should. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Don't worry about it. Nothing on that list is going anywhere. Lynn Wysong ( talk) 11:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@ TheGracefulSlick: One of the best montages on TV EVER! Such an awesome tribute to 60's music! Don't let anyone get you down for liking it! Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 00:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and I won't let them get me down. I know one day Montanabw will get a bit of her own medicine, so I will keep loving the music. If you wanted to listen to some more music, there are these lesser known groups called The Mystic Tide, The Music Machine, and The Growing Concern (no page, unfortunately). Just a few bands I know that deserve a little more credit than they got. Peace, friend. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015
LOL. I was a kid in San Francisco when this music was big. My Dad was a redneck from Jackson Hole, WY, and did NOT approve. But my mom had a cousin hanging out on Haight-Ashbury, (I actually lived on Haight Street for a time). This kind of music is part of my psyche. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Since it is a bit confusing for some that your signature name and your username do not match, you might think about going to Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and asking for your account name to be changed to LynnWysong. I changed my username and it is a pretty simple process if there is no existing editor with that username. Just a suggestion on an action that might lessen the heat on you, but it's your choice. Liz Read! Talk! 15:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Lynn I would just ignore it, she has your name multiple times on her duck list with things such as "Fascinating commentary" while describing your edits. Wikipedia is a big place just edit in other areas or else an WP:IBAN may be on the horizon. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
But back to the point; in the section below, I made a sincere offer to assist with images or other aspects of a potentially useful article you have sandboxed and refractored a comment I had made, making a good faith effort to dial things down a bit. You then come up here and dictate terms of a truce that basically demand that I unilaterally agree to things I didn't even do. Now you claim there is no truce possibly and make further accusations against me while continuing to be completely unable to see that your own behavior is pretty much creating the mess you find yourself in. I've tried to help you out now for almost two months, even in the face of your continued personal attacks. But at this point, I see no evidence that you are here to build the encyclopedia. Montanabw (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You guys just need to grow up and stop this bickering. Lynn it appears, despite how annoying some people can be, Montanabw is making a good offer to you. Even with the past wrongs she has, if you two can make better articles, then just do it. Improvements are so much more worthy of both of your time than this. I, ironically, would support you just calling a truce. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:31, 22 April 2015
To be honest, it seemed like an innocent request, not an accusation. User:Montanabw is trying her best to work with you, just try to listen to them sometimes. I admit, I don't know much about horse breeds (although it looks interesting) but it looks like they know a great deal, to say the least. Combine with their numerous edits, I think it's best to accept their ideas on occasions like this if you truly want to better the article. I really don't want more drama so just think about it. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 21:59, 23 April 2015
Comment from here (Littleolive removed her quoted comment, saying "If you want to respond do so on the article talk page where I posted". No, I'm not going to in accordance with this policy: Civility: Different Places, Different Atmospheres. Her comment should have been posted here on my talk page in the first place.)
It doesn't matter what your reasoning is you do not have the right to move my comments, place them here, and then continue on some kind of discussion as if I were here discussing this with you. Please do not do not do so again. Thanks. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC))
Comment from [1]: You're of course free to think what you wish. However, I find your automatic assumption of bad faith disturbing and contrary to collaboration. I've been involved in breed discussions before, mainly on the Comanche article where people persist on claiming that Comanche was a Morgan when in fact he was most likely a mustang of some variety. As a result of that, I've looked at this article and watched it on occasion. And I remain opposed to discussions which impact the content of articles in possibly major ways being moved to private gardens.
Lynn can't you just let this one slide? Like seriously, I'm sure anything negative toward you was unintentional and the editors involved just want to improve the article. However, constantly taking things too much to heart will only cause trouble as evident by this long this of comments we got going on here. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:22, 24 April 2015
I'm looking at this realistically. There is nothing to deal with, but improving the article. No one is against you, no one is after you. If you plan to go rouge in your efforts on the page without collaboration of the users, thinks will turn in the wrong direction for you. And I, nor anyone else, will be able to defend your actions. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
I am going to make a couple of sincere suggestions. I have said this elsewhere, but they may have been missed in the back and forth. First: There are a bunch of wikipedia articles that need improvement and if you were to work on them in good faith with proper sourcing and in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines, you will have no trouble with me. Among them are Spanish Mustang (an actual breed with a registry), Wild horse preservation (which is just not a particularly great article, though a good topic independent of both Mustangs and the legislation surrounding them), and Taylor Grazing Act, which is rather incomplete. You have the ability to work on any of them and prove yourself to be here to build the encyclopedia. Second: You also could create articles on the various HMAs and herds, particularly those in Nevada that seem of great interest to you. (FWIW, examples are Pryor Mountain Mustang (a GA-class article) and its companion, Pryor Mountains Wild Horse Range. Frankly, this is the kind of structural work that has to be done anyway before the Mustang article can be expanded; the different groups need to be researched and understood so that a comprehensive look can be taken with the "main" article. I am very sincere in saying that I'd like to offer you a truce if you indicate to me that you want to be of actual help to the project. Montanabw (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you can weigh-in on this ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading)? Be a big help to get reliable opinions on the discussion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Done Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Appreciated, it was a pretty obvious keep to me too. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Sorry to bug you again by this ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twentieth Century Zoo (2nd nomination)) needs more discussion too. It has been difficult to find users willing to take the few moments to create an opinion. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Why is this CrazyAces489 running around nominating all these articles for deletion? Seriously what are they hurting? Does he have it in for you or does he just not have a life? Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 20:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
He has had it out for me awhile. He made this poorly-constructed article that I gave an honest opinion on, and ever since then he has placed unrelated tags, sent me to AN/I (unsuccessfully), and nominated, as of now, four of my articles for deletion (again, unsuccessfully). I just continue to defend them, he just looks bad in the process. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Yeah, CrazyAces sent me to AN/I. Third time, too. It's just ridiculous, but somehow asking for your opinion gets me in trouble. Oh well, maybe this can finally settle things. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
Glad you got yourself out of that little mess. It's amazing what some people around here get away with, while others get hammered any time they step out of line. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 01:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it should all be over now. I didn't really want it to come to this, but the user retired from editing. I should be on alert for a few days just in case he plans to do something even more irrational, but I think now I can truly return to working on music articles without someone having a grudge against me. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015
I definitely know the feeling of trying to work on something with someone breathing over your shoulder. Some of these older editors are really threatened by new people coming in and seem to spend most of their time trying to show their dominance by pissing on "their" turf, which is why a lot of "their" articles stink. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 11:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that seemed to be his problem. I gave an honest opinion, believing their article was not notable (the article was unanimously deleted) and I think because I was newer than the others who thought the same, the user targeted me. The only problem was he had no idea what he was doing when he attacked the music articles. Made him look foolish, which is why he probably left. Hopefully wiki is a little better of a place with one less user like him to worry about. Hope everything for you goes well, I don't want anyone else to have a similar uncomfortable situation. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
I read your work so far on Horse ecology and, for someone like me who only has a basic knowledge of horses, I found it interesting. Makes me want to read more about horses, so thanks. Can't wait until the article is finished so I can learn more. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I know how you feel, I have been working on Death of Freddie Gray, just to go outside my usual field of work. A lot of issues with users, but at least there are some good ones in the project too. I'm not sure if you have to deal with it as much, but people vandalize the page with the most ridiculous comments, even a notorious sock puppeteer was involved. It's good you are busy though the page you are working on also looks like something I should read more into. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Well...that was awkward. I don't think I should comment on Smith's sexuality, it's something I hardly know about. User:Montanabw not sure if this intrigues you, but there was a second sock puppet found on the Talk:Death of Freddie Gray page (Dracula913 and HydroFerocity). It's stuff like this that makes me appreciate your efforts to stop these guys. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Where the sourcing is solid, my own view is that it's a "teach the controversy" issue and I think fair to present each point of view. But if the sourcing is not solid per WP:RS, etc., then it's best to drop the stick until there is more scholarship out there. Even where the sourcing is solid, it's still a challenge and sometimes one has to choose one's battles. I had two thoughts looking at this particular issue. One, if you want to proceed, check out how this issue was handled for the possible homosexuality of James_Buchanan#Personal_life - multiple scholarly studies appear to exist. The debate from 2013 is still on the talk page. Interesting. But second, one must be careful and choose battles carefully. These are the kind of things that sometimes generate more heat than light and how edit wars start that get people blocked, sanctioned and otherwise embroiled in drama that goes nowhere. For example, there are also allegations of bisexuality for Abraham Lincoln, but it does not show up in the article anywhere, in spite of it being discussed repeatedly, and I know of at least one mainstream biography (Shenk, Lincoln's Melancholy) that discusses the issue quite extensively. Just FWIW. Montanabw (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There is obviously some heat between you two, it is a real spectacle sometimes. Can't we all just get along? Montanabw is actually a helpful person, and her comments seem like she just wants to help.
P.S. I saw your comment on her talk page. You are right, so much irony! Kinda didn't have to point it out to her though, it's not like she could have known. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
But at what gain? Wouldn't you rather say nothing than cause a little stir like you did below? Montanabw was working to fix the stupidity of ItsLassieTime's actions (honestly, the user is a total psycho), not the one EC was assimilated to, so it's understandable she wasn't aware of the user's signs of being a sock puppet. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well you could tell her to stay off your talk page, just saying. Technically, she is entitled to jump in on the thread until you say otherwise. Then she would be at fault and in a little trouble if she failed to comply, which I doubt she would do since she has had hardly any type of issues. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTGRAVEDANCING this edit summary is inappropriate, particularly because you yourself "an experienced editor," do not appear to have clean hands. Per WP:CLEANSTART you do have a "right to vanish," but you do not have a right to do so if you were blocked or banned, nor should you use a new account to engage in the same behavior that led to your loss (whether voluntary or involuntary) of the old one. When my duck box drama began, I settled it by creating the LTA page for ItsLassieTime. ILT was both a drama queen and did tremendous damage to the project with her mass copyviolations. Most blocked editors tend to fit this pattern. After that time sink, I decided that it was not worth my time to file an SPI on you because it was more relevant to focus on people's current behavior. Mattisse has her own page. Your behavior at the moment is no longer tendentious or disruptive. I hope that continues to be the case. Montanabw (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is what she met, and if she actually did, than I read her totally wrong. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 10:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Well that doesn't fix anything, but ok. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but if I made that mix-up of who you were talking about, I'm sure others would too. I hope things get better between you two, anyways. I'm not sure I want to talk to Montanabw anymore if she truly thinks we are up to no good. I can't work with someone who doesn't trust their partners. It's a shame too, I asked her a question and she shows she is very helpful, so I am losing a potential collaborator. It sucks for you more since you both like similar articles and, as of now, it's obvious she would not want to work with you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 14:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
As indicated in the first post in the thread, once you'be been pegged as a sock, you'really only tolerated as long as your behavior is "acceptable". But the person that pegged you is never wrong, so feels free to constantly remind you of your status as a sock as an implicit threat any time she wants to bring you in line. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 00:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
You have the right tact. Power can be a fleeting thing, especially when abused. It's only a matter of time before the concern will take care of itself. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 00:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
But it seemed consensus on the issue was met, so further editing to that regard is allowed to be reverted. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 02:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Nope. That's not right. There was never any consensus. All possible discussion that could lead to consensus devolved into accusations and personal attacks. Even in the DR. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 02:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you guys are getting along. I'm sorry for those drawn out conversations that charted into unneeded territory. I'll leave you alone now, sorry for disturbing you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Per closed discussion at [2], there are other appropriate venues for discussion Montanabw (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that we may actually be on the verge of collaboration on the Mustang article... we will no doubt agree to disagree on some things, but I think we are finding common ground to improve the article. On that note, I am going to reach out and trust you a bit and let you know about a new article I helped someone else start, Horses in the United States. I grabbed a lot of the evolution and history stuff from other articles (including Mustang and Evolution of the Horse) but also did some new research as well. It may be useful for the Mustang article. The Francis Haines cite, though from 1938, seems to pretty decisively trace the origin of how horses came to Native Americans via trade routes, and I suspect that was one major conduit for horses that became today's Mustangs to move north - horses clearly predated white settlement. Montanabw (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. I've told you before, I'm not going to try to collaborate if you devolve into uncivil behavior, and I meant it. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 23:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thought I'd bring this over here to respond. Montanabw: "No, the biggest problem are people who prefer drama to editing. I've got a GAN up, am working on a featured list, will be putting up another GAN in a week or so, just finished a FAC last month, had a featured article on the main page earlier this month, all while dealing with this nonsense drama. What have you done lately other than drama on your own talk page?"
For future reference, the best tool in all of wikipedia is refill: https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/
All you need to do is insert the raw url between ref tags and then after you save, just paste the article name into the box at refill and run. It will usually get almost all of your web sources and do the template for you. It has two bugs to note, one is to uncheck the "don't use access date" box (why they have that as the default escapes me, it's very much needed for web pages) and the other is that there will be some perfectly good sources refill won't parse (one of which is the New York Times, which is really bizarre). You still may have to use the preview window to refine the formatting or add parameters (sometimes it doesn't grab author names), but I couldn't have done the BLM HMA page without it. Montanabw (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll give that a try.
Am now reading De Steiguer, chapter 8... esp .starting p. 145...definitely worth the read! Also, take a peek at the 17th-18th century section now that it's been rewritten and expanded (again), I hope it works better now. Comment there, this is just an FYI ping that I'm done for now. Montanabw (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Just an FYI that I'll get to the Mustang sandbox in the next day or so; big windstorm here, we have tree branches all over the place and a broken window (luckily just one broken window) and I do have a day job, so kind of nuts IRL, but nothing terrible, just busy. Also am planning to take American Pharoah to FAC soon and want to tune up that one a bit, so a higher priority. Montanabw (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yow! Okay, I'll just keep plugging along.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Great Basin Desert may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, this collaboration is working: Mustang#Land_use_controversies. We both are drawing conclusions from the research that we probably need to find sources to do for us, so I added some cn tags. :-P I think I see where you are going and if so, I do agree that the issues of range degradation and not harming wildlife habitat is a legitimate concern that has to be discussed in the article. The trick will be to tease out the threads of what is actually going on, or at least trying to present a NPOV discussion of each side's views. It may be an oversimplification, but would you agree that there are basically three factions here (each with individual advocates within them ranging from rabid to reasonable): 1) the wild horse preservation advocates, 2) the livestock industry, and the 3) wildlife/habitat/ecosystem preservation advocates (including but not limited to folks identifying as environmentalist)? I'm leaving out the natural resource industry, as they don't seem to get involved in wild horse disputes much, though they too have an impact on land management decisions. Montanabw (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The herds subject to the studies by Sponenberg and Cochran are of the most interest to me, just personally. I do think there is something to be said for " landrace" genetics as a resource; I have watched with a lot of disgust the ways that some horse breeds are just being destroyed by poor, unsustainable practices in the name of fad breeding, particularly for halter. (cough - HYPP - cough) One of these days, for example, the quarter horse just might to need to look back to its foundation bloodstock - the climate-adapted feral horse of the west. As for horsemeat, yeah, don't want to go near that with a 10-foot pole. If "wild horse" stuff has a lot of crazy on all sides, the slaughter issue has crazy times 10.
I ran a wikignoming edit on the Free-roaming horse management in North America article, I think we had an edit conflict, and I think I reconciled it. I'm done for now. My edits were not intended to change substantive content, just a few rephrases, some punctuation fixes, wikilinking and some hidden text where I saw a problem. You are doing a damn good job on that article, by the way. My kudos. Montanabw (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll keep plugging away on it. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 01:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
And unrelated to North America, but fascinating anyway: http://www.thehorse.com/articles/36342/exmoor-ponies-help-revamp-the-czech-republics-landscape
The first time I heard someone from the UK mention that they "had to" graze horses and cattle in certain areas to FIX the ecology of the area, I about fainted. But, thousands of years of doing so, hmm. Mind-boggling. Montanabw (talk) 08:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Just so you know, the article Fur trade in Montana was created by an expert in that field, and most of the edits are from well-established editors with featured article credits. So don't go in there and randomly change things, especially dates. If you see an actual error, take it to the talk page and show your sources. Montanabw (talk) 15:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, then, there's only 5999 articles you need to watchlist now. Maybe you'll have time to actually edit articles now, rather than trying to control how others do. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 10:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
nice. Yeah, Right. Pathetic attempt to justify
Yes, well, MBW is really good at throwing out accusations, but really poor about backing them up. Since I don't think I should be expected to answer to unsubstantiated allegations that I "freely admits that she's using WP as a place to put her own 'research'", I refuse to defend against them. It just allows the accuser to sidetrack the discussion away from their own behavior. So, I'm not going to go down that path here. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 15:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
...and any other articles you choose to work on. Good for you! Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative effort, and any edits I make are intended only to improve, based on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, not to rebuke or discourage another editor. WCCasey ( talk) 16:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Although I doubt this makes the least bit of difference to your opinion of me, I do think it is worth putting on the record for your benefit: I have mentioned in two places on-wiki today, once in response to a direct question, that I no longer believe that you and RationalObserver are socks of each other. Your styles are different, though your commonalities of interest (i.e. American southwest) and mutual antagonism toward me gave me reasonable cause at the time to suspect you were socks. Now that I have dealt with both of you for several months, the weight of the evidence has convinced me that you are not socks—of one another. You also do not behave the way that a sock of ItsLassieTime usually behaves, though again there was a superficial resemblance initially. So, at present, I do not think that you are simultaneously operating a separate account or attempting to evade scrutiny. Just so you know. I still do think you are either a returned user or edited a long time as an IP, but you have a right to a clean start, and I shall deal with you based solely on your behavior and edits under this user name. Montanabw (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Howdy, IMHO all Wikipedians are gender neutral. Therefore, I'm requesting that you move away from the gender bias theme, at the ANI discussion about RO :) GoodDay ( talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AEaldgyth&type=revision&diff=648293060&oldid=648030227
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You were warned about this in the past, and per WP:BRD this is an issue to take to the article talk page Montanabw (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If you and I can find commonality on any of these Mustang-related articles, at least to the extent that we can find enough middle ground to create stable articles able to pass GA or FA standard, that is actually what wikipedia is all about. It's the end result that counts, not the personalities or whether they like or trust each other. I'd like nothing more than to see the GA on Mustang, FA on the WFRHBA and maybe FL for the List of HMAs. You can shut all of that down or help make it happen. And I mean that. Poke at the sources and the tone all you want; do your damnedest to keep personalities and attribution of motive out of it and I agree to do my damnedest to do the same. (We probably can't be perfect, but if we both try, it's worth it) Montanabw (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
"I am not concerned about my own reputation, and it is my responsibility anyway." And I am not your responsibility. So please dispense with the advice. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 01:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
This is what I'm dealing with trying to collaborate:
Lynn: Beats head against wall.
Montanabw: Beats head against wall.
Please do not edit-war on articles while consensus is being discussed. Montanabw (talk)|GO THUNDER! 20:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Lynn,
I see that you're involved in horsemanship-related editing. I'm having an ongoing dispute on the Parelli Natural Horsemanship page and would like to ask for your opinion. The specific issue is persistent deletion of positive material by an editor who clearly detests the Parelli program. I've tried to resolve it on the talk page to no avail.
I don't know if you're pro-PNH, anti-PNH or indifferent but your opinion about the appropriateness of the deletions would be welcome. :)
Thank you! JackieLL007 ( talk) 01:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
[4] NE Ent 20:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you NE Ent.
Hey, please, chill, OK? I wasn't incensed by your statement and wasn't even responding to that, but rather, the reply to you: "No there isn't. Someone made the site because they were interested in creating a database of graves. It's grown since then and undoubtedly Ancestry.com has been used by some to add info, but they are not associated.
" I haven't registered for WPO, which is why I didn't respond there. Maybe sometime I will; I've thought about it.
wbm1058 (
talk) 14:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding that the comment was directed at me, but still, it was silly to put your response on WP and characterize it as "spreading misinformation" like the person in question wasn't simply ignorant of the fact (as was I) that three years ago Ancestry.com had purchased the Find-a-Grave website, which had started out completely independent of Ancestry.com. Anyway, there seems to be some enigmatic context to both your statements on the template discussion, which is why I commented on them at WO. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 14:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
So, in a sense, it seems that Ancestry owns and operates find-a-grave in a similar manner to the way that the WMF owns and operates Wikipedia. Regards, wbm1058 ( talk) 15:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
And if you two can both question the relationship between Ancestry and Grave, I suppose others likely might as well. Hence, posting a citation for the relationship there isn't silly. wbm1058 ( talk) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, one more thing. Please don't equate me with the guy who wants $1 for every time... that's not my style at all. wbm1058 ( talk) 16:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Re the Blunt bio you wrote. I see what you're saying about using F-a-G as a reference. I understand that there are some here who would revert that. Sometimes it seems like we're more tolerant of totally uncited bios or bios where the only source is the website of the subject. Just noting "From Marla Daily" listed as the source; just wondering if that's a site contributor, or an old newspaper ("Maryland Daily"). It reads like it was lifted from an obituary. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I just noticed WP:TPW. Thought you might find it interesting. (no, this page is not on my watchlist;) wbm1058 ( talk) 19:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Lynn (SLW) ( talk) 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Joseph R. Walker. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 23:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Please find somebody else to troll. I won't be responding to your attempts to get a raise out of me, so kindly keep off my talkpage in future. -- RexxS ( talk) 16:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as " edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
A policy reminder now that the page has been unprotected. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Lynn, I don't want to leave the impression that I'm being intentionally rude and ignoring you in the Rationalobserver block appeal thread. Neither do I wish to contribute further tangents to it. I understand your objection to Courcelles's statement and recognize your interpretation of that statement is at least as valid as mine, I merely do not share that interpretation. I don't think it helps you, me, Rationalobserver, Courcelles, ArbCom, or anyone else for me to continue debating such interpretations with you there. Best wishes and thank you for your time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Just letting you know I saw your message. I dont have traditional Internet access so I cant really do large edits requiring research. The short answer is downsloping but that is a better explanation for the whole Mountain West rather than individual stations. Cody seems to have two weather stations, one right by the reservoir and one further away ... the one near the reservoir is warmer in winter and cooler in summer, but it's mostly winter that stands out, so that might be part of the explanation as well. I'd like to write information in mainspace but it's difficult, and may be impossible, to find WP:RS information to explain phenomena that we can only infer from patterns. Thanks for your interest, — Soap — 17:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Happy Saturnalia | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
Actually, it was User:QEDK whho made the "wildly" comment. wbm1058 ( talk) 02:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
you operated other accounts in past? Were you involved with GGTF et al, at any point of time? ∯WBG converse 12:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, re: this. If you have evidence of socking/abuse of CLEANSTART the best thing to do is to file an SPI rather than make comments about it at an RfA. Not meant as yelling at you or anything (I’m aware I can come off gruff sometimes), but in situations where someone has established an account (new or otherwise) an SPI with diffs is the way to go. Comments elsewhere could be viewed as personal attacks. Anyway, all the best :) TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like you and I actually agree on the issues on this topic, so this one is yours, all yours. Montanabw (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Natalis soli invicto! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC) |
Io, Saturnalia! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth ( talk) 15:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC) |
Happy New Year! | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth ( talk) 13:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
Hello, LynnWysong
You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)