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)[reply]

I've unblocked you; on further review of the editing history, it does not appear that you are indeed a sock of that particular editor. My apologies. Dreadstar ☥ 16:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All is good. I'm sorry that things got so out of hand the other night. I was truly perplexed over what was going on.Lynn Wysong (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, things can get crazy around here sometimes; but we can generally get things worked out in the end. Dreadstar ☥ 21:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to say that I'm now also keeping an eye on the situation too. Worm^TT(talk) 08:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example of how all this is being twisted, here's the latest accusation on the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro talk Page: "And you know that you admitted a while earlier that you were a 'very experienced' editor - who made two edits in 2010 and then magically reappears in fall of 2014, so what other accounts have you edited under to become so 'experienced', as you obviously have done so?" This is the actual discussion for which I am being quoted as admitting to be a "very experienced" editor: Other editor: "You are a new user, you don't understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia, we can't insert what has been omitted just because it seems logical..." Me: "I am not a new user, and I obviously have AS MUCH if not more knowledge base here as you do. You aren't even aware of an important source such as Amaral..." Obviously meaning, knowledge base as in subject matter, not trying to claim that I was a "very experienced" editor, just not a "new" one, since I had spent the past few months editing some biography pages and getting a feel for the process. As far as setting up the account in 2010, yes, I did. I was dabbling with the idea of putting on an article or two, so I set up the account-IN MY OWN NAME-played with it for a little while, then gave it up because I didn't really have the time to spend to get up to speed on how to set up new pages. Later on, I tried editing an existing article, and then decided I wanted to do it more extensively, and since I didn't want my IP on the edit history, I revived the account I had set up in 2010 and learned my way around, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a "very experienced" editor. No subterfuge, no other account, NO IDEA that any of that would seem suspicious, and that it would lead to the kinds of accusations, harrassment and hostility it has.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)[reply]

I've addressed what is relevant about this statement up above in the "Lambchop" thread. As far as your interests in my additions, I don't believe you own the page, and I will continue to participate in the editing.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to focus for now on your current behavior and current editing patterns. Your edits have to follow WP guidelines and policies, I'm just telling you what quality control is on wiki because you obviously don't know how to write to the proper standards with proper sourcing. Your penchant for copy-pasting long quotations from outdated historians and your willingness to synthesize material out of whole cloth is not going to pass muster with anyone. Your tendency to use only older books that cannot be accessed online is also problematic. You don't know what you are doing, you apparently have never written a GA-class article on WP and you have no idea what the Featured Article criteria is, either. I've been around here now for almost 9 years and just passed 70,000 edits. I've been a major contributor to a number of Featured articles and several dozen Good Articles. So know what I'm talking about and I really wish you'd just listen to me. Your "fixes" aren't "fixes." You probably would do better to just go out and create your own blog and write your own articles which can contain any theory you want; WP is not the place for you to promote your own personal views. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I still intend to continue to fix the inaccuracies and biases I see.Lynn Wysong (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles may benefit from updating, clarification and sourcing, but NPOV is a pillar of wikipedia and one that I vigorously uphold against POV-pushers from any direction. You do not clarify what "bias" these articles have, other than that they disagree with you. Montanabw^(talk) 01:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify in the good article reassessment.Lynn Wysong (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BOOMERANG before you do. Montanabw^(talk) 01:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not making any accusations, so, not relevant.Lynn Wysong (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAST. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oooookaaayyy...WhateverLynn Wysong (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think it's a matter of being pro-wild horse or anti-wild horse, it's a matter of accurately portraying the history to reduce the misconception of how the horse fits into the environment in which it is found today. That we basically have out on the Great Basin desert, tens of thousands of horses descended from horses that went feral, for the most part around 100 years ago. There was never "millions" of them there, and if there had been it would have been disastrous for both the horses and the desert environment. So, by being neutral, I mean, a history that makes it very clear that, when and if there was ever "millions" of wild horses in the West, it wasn't where they are found now. There is a lot of misconception that ranchers came and kicked the horses off the range with their cows. That may have happened in Texas, but not in the Great Basin. There were virtually no horses before the ranchers got there. I think that people need to have an accurate history to understand the issue. It's not a matter of being pro or anti cow either. We could kick every cow off the range, and we still would have to figure out how to manage the horses before they reproduced to the point that the range was totally overgrazed and ruined, they would begin starving and their numbers would crash, leaving an environmental mess behind them. Yes, Wild Horse Annie was right to protest how the horses were treated, but the ranchers weren't wrong in wanting to keep the numbers of horses in check. They are limited in the numbers of livestock they can graze and take them off the range for a period of time every year to prevent over-grazing. But feral horse numbers will grow and grow, and they are on the range year round.Lynn Wysong (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly am not arguing that there were "millions" of horses specifically in the Great Basin; the article does not make that assertion, either. I hope you understand that the American west is much larger than just the Great Basin and Texas; the entire Louisiana Purchase excludes most of Texas and the Great Basin. IF this whole debate is over the "millions" thing, we have Dobie's two million maximum estimate for the entire west, and even he admitted that was a guess. However, to properly "teach the controversy," we need to mention that particular figure because it is the one most popularly mentioned. I have no problem looking at various census material for all states; I've sometimes thought doing up a chart in the Mustang article that shows the various HMAs and population numbers would be a useful addition to the article. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, what is "accurate" is always flavored by a writer's bias; for example, you and I BOTH no doubt have a "bias" (said tongue in cheek) that the earth is round and that evolution really happened (and thus some subspecies of equus evolved in North America but died out here more or less 10,000 years ago). We think it's the "truth," but the Flat Earth Society would argue that it's just our opinion and they have the "truth." So to resolve such nonsense, what matters here is verifiability - that we cite to reliable third-party sources in an encyclopedic matter, using analytical ability that is appropriate for encyclopedic writing. WP does not require us to address "fringe" theories, but we need to create a balanced article without undue weight to either side. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have seemed to be very resistant to making it clear where the "millions" of horses were, leaving people to assume they were where the horses are now. Your paraphrasing does not accurately reflect what Dobie said, you refuse to quote him, and you refuse to put his statement in context. It is incorrect to try to make what he said cover both sides-it doesn't. If there is another side, it must actually be found and cited to instead of trying to make what he said ambiguous.Lynn Wysong (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would go better for you to stop questioning my motives and start digging up proper research references. You didn't get off on a good foot with me by "extrapolating", so if you feel resistance, it's because I am concerned that you still don't understand that you can't do original research and you cannot insert your own synthesis (you also can't copy and paste or too closely paraphrase a source; you also can't escape from close paraphrasing by overuse of quotations.) Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care about what kind of "foot" I got off on with you. Because, I don't have a lot of admiration for you either, in spite of the horn tooting you do to try to convince me I should. So, you might as well stop trying to tell me what I can and can't do. I know there's nothing wrong with close paraphrasing or accurately quoting. I know you like to say that in just about every other sentence that you write, but I think you're full of beans. I will look up my own Wiki policies, because I don't trust you to accurately portray them, since I've seen your inability to accurately paraphrase or even quote.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strive for NPOV in wikipedia articles by examining all sides and I write with an eye to the featured article criteria (and have collaborated now on more than 17 of them, so I know what I'm doing). But let me show you the difference between a strong wikipedia article and one that's weak: Donner Party is a featured article that was worked on by some of wikipedia's top editors (none of them me, by the way). In contrast, Rose-Baley Party has reached the GA standard because it's adequate, but it's boring, has over-reliance on experts (I think half the paragraphs begin "Udell said foo," or "According to Udell" - that's really poor writing), it has random images with no real purpose, lengthy paragraphs cited to a single source (which raises potential copyvio concerns), and it is far from featured article quality. Can you see the difference? Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to waste more bandwidth on minutae here, but don't you see that Dobie's two million comes into the article primarily because of the BLM's analysis of his "guess" - it is not my synthesis, it is their analysis. They note the popularity of the "two million wild horses" number, explain its origins and explain it. To quote Dobie's romantic "mournful to history" wording without analysis is just silly and unencyclopedic in tone. The BLM notes that it is the most popular estimate of early wild horse populations - but that it is not from a census, it's a "guess." Thus, we need to address the controversy. I'm all for finding more data - the stuff you wanted to put in about Nevada numbers in 1911 has an online source and would be great but not by itself - only in conjunction with whatever other census estimates we can find for other states - the 150K number from the BLM piece I cited to you earlier, for example, but we must do comprehensive research. I am sure there exist estimates from other states, even if not all of them. A statement like " few census number exist prior to year 19XX, however, limited records showed XX horses in Nevada, XX in Idaho, etc..." could be a start. Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know bad writing when I see it. That's why, I've been trying to fix both the Mustang and the WFRH&B page. And I'm sticking to my point, either accurately paraphrase Dobie or quote him. If you don't want to quote him, come up with something that accurately paraphrases what he says. Because, from what I'm seeing, the way you paraphrase is EVERY bit as bad as my extrapolation. If you think there are other POVs out there with credible sources, you need to be the one to find them. I don't think there are any...just a bunch of completely biased websites. Same with early census numbers for other states. I HAVE done comprehensive research; I'm not going on any wild goose chases looking for sources that I don't think exist.Lynn Wysong (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't "fixing" things, you are, by and large, making them worse with "extrapolation," original research, citations to outdated source material, and improper synthesis. I'm open to improving articles, but you suggest replacing material with long quotes taken out of context with no assessment. I suggest that if you think that every single source is biased (is that what you just said?) then what we do is to basically use the best and most credible from each "side" of the issue - the BLM versus Ryden, perhaps. Sponenberg (scientist) contrasted with Dobie (historian). But frankly, I think you want to use wikipedia as a vehicle for your own theories and that is not what wikipedia is for. Go write your own book. Then we can cite it on wikipedia... (lol) But seriously, if you have done "comprehensive research", then publish it - scholarly journals always need material and even popular magazines about western history can be credible if well-researched material is submitted. Frankly, I have no interest in trying to help you learn to edit wikipedia any longer. If you have a concrete suggestion for an edit, propose it at the article talk page. In the meantime, your sandbox changes too frequently to follow, which is your right because it is your sandbox. But you have also managed to complicate the suggestion that I could work with you on ONE paragraph into another hours-long waste of bandwidth. I'm not optimistic for your future on wikipedia. Montanabw^(talk) 05:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't come on my talk page any longer. I see no point in conversing with you.Lynn Wysong (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your effort. It shouldn't have been that hard to reach common ground, but it can actually only happen if all parties are REALLY coming to the table.Lynn Wysong (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's just wait until I've actually confirmed it. Lynn Wysong (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to any incoming admin. feel free to modify my actions without my consent. If there is some sort of sarcasm or humor in this situation, I will only say that it does not translate well in text. As a courtesy note to this account: see WP:UNBLOCK. — Ched :  ?  23:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

T'anks, Huon. 'nuff said Lynn Wysong (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've actually thought about doing that, but the way things are going, LynnWysong would be accused of being a sock of SheriWysong. Lynn Wysong (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the sock hunters. There are other editors who use a different name in their sig than in their username but it is discouraged as it is seen as confusing to others. Of course, a sig has no relation to being a sock but your sig is something that seems to be brought up every time some editors mention you so it might be easier to change. Just a thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn is actually just my middle name. Sheri Lynn Wysong. And, now that I can point to someone suggesting I change my username, I will. I just hesitated because I knew it would just be one more stupid thing a particular editor would point to as evidence of my deceptive practices. Thanks! Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are once again signing your name in a deceptive fashion by making it " Lynn (SLW) ". While there is not really a rule that says your signature has to match your username, the way you keep changing it suggests you are still somehow trying to evade scrutiny and appear like a new user. Just saying, though perhaps @Liz: may want to weigh in, as she doesn't have "history" with you. Montanabw^(talk) 22:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC) Never mind. I'd prefer to offer a truce; see below. Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Okay, If you want a truce, here's the deal. I don't care how many GA's and FAC's you've worked on. It does not give you license to respond to anyone's comments by calling them "nonsense" or being heavy handed with the (wp:) hammer. If you want to engage and collaborate, then really engage. Stop flitting around from article to article, popping in every so often to basically disrupt the flow of the collaboration because you aren't making the effort to really understand where it's going and so simply cause chaos as a means of control. Stop dictating, take out of your vocabulary terms like "I Would consider" or "I am open to" or just plain "NO!" when something is suggested that you don't like. And most of all, stop the personal attacks uncivil behavior. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, that's pretty much the advice I would give to YOU. But though you clearly still have a lot of hostility and distrust toward me, I am nonetheless willing to move forward and suggest that we attempt to work together where we can work together, and try to focus on content as much as possible. I guess we need to make it clear for the record that I view matters rather differently from you and want to be clear that you shall not "dictate" terms to me, including the above - I "am open" to a lot of ideas and changes, if you feel that is an unacceptable tone, I will point out that ANI is thataway. Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hostile, but you have pretty much earned my distrust and I see no reason to try to work with you unless you agree to those terms. "I am open" implies ownership on your part. It doesn't matter whether or not you are open; it isn't your article. You don't get to unilaterally decide if it should be changed. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now who is "dictating" terms and insisting on getting your own way at all costs? This isn't how wikipedia works. I have a proven track record of collaboration and cooperation with dozens, if not hundreds of other editors. You have (under this user name) worked on about six articles total (other than minor edits) and spent most of your time on drama. Quality work here means not making the kinds of mistakes you were making. I extended an olive branch to you, but if you have no interest in anything but getting your own way, making harsh accusations of other editors and attacking anyone who tries to explain the wikipedia environment and culture to you, then, as I said, ANI is thataway. Montanabw^(talk) 03:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I know. I was just confirming, (or, in this case confirming my instinct about) the authenticity of the supposed truce. A truce only works if the behaviors that caused the conflict cease. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, BTW Knowledgekid87, I appreciate your chivalry in coming to my defense at the AfD page. But, I'm really not all that upset by any of this, and any defense of me just seems to escalate the personal and uncivil attacks. Have to try to justify all the uncivil behavior, you know. As TheGracefulSlick, a teenager wise beyond hiser years implied, this will eventually boomerang. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"She"? TheGracefulSlick claims to be male, or did you miss that part? Montanabw^(talk) 19:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I did. Easily remedied. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, I think that was a sincere offer (as well as an acknowledgement of evidence that I AM here to build the encyclopedia). But, I don't think I was off-base on laying down some ground rules for further collaboration. But, I'm also willing to own up to my own shortfalls and try to do better. Show me some diffs of the personal attacks I've made on you, and I'll retract them. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, we'll see. I'm willing to try, but I'm just laying out the deal-breakers. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully it will work out. I tried to work with her, but she would hear nothing of it. Still suspects me of sock puppetry, which is really sad. But when she isn't wasting her time with that, she is one of the best editors I've seen, so collaborating with her is for the best. Best of luck, to the both of you. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 17:58, 22 April 2015

And, just as I figured, I was almost immediately the object of an accusation. So much for a truce. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I disagree. If she was truly interested in a truce, Monatanbw would have allowed Littleolive to respond to my criticism, rather than jump in and accuse me of attacking her. If Littleolive is such an experienced editor, she doesn't need anyone to intervene on her behalf. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't so much an intervention than it just being supportive of another respected user. I'm sure if it were constructive criticism, Montanabw would have had little to no response. If Montanabw was truly against a truce, she would not be associating herself in any of your discussions and just disregard them. Like I said, try listening to them, they know what they are doing. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2015

One of my ground rules for a truce was to not be "heavy handed with the (wp:) hammer". I don't care how much experience an editor has, you can't have a productive collaboration with one who injudiciously pounds it. So, I see no sense in trying if it's going to continue. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you wouldn't want them to follow wp guidelines. I don't know what you plan to do if you won't work with the people who edit on the same articles as you. This isn't going to go well. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 6:27, 24 April 2015

The key word here is "injudicious". We were having a discussion on the talk page, and I was told that what I written was synth. I (implicitly) agreed it might be, but that since this was just discussion on the talk page, the no synth rule didn't apply ( SYNTH is not directly applicable to talk pages). I was then told by the editor that I had suggested adding it to the article, so she was justified in pointing it out. At that point, yes I did get critical of her, because it was a baseless statement; I had not suggested adding it to the article. There's some history here, with this editor previously criticizing discussion as being synth, so maybe you can't see why I had little patience with it this time, but if all you do is unnecessarily discuss whether something is synth or not, or whether it's being suggested to go in the article or not, you can't have a productive collaboration. So, I asked her to please stop, then I was accused of attacking her. So, yes it was constructive criticism, which led to an accusation of attacking which is incivil behavior. Identifying incivility: 1. Direct rudeness, (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety. Truce broken. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

• No. that is not correct. My cmt was a response to you on the article talk page about a process for adding content to an article. That's where my cmt belonged and that's where I left it , and wanted it. You overstep your rights when you start moving editors' cmts around. Probably a good idea to leave editors' comments just where they are posted. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I wasn't about to get into a peeing match on the article talk page. You kept asserting that I was "suggesting content", even after I explicitly stated: "I have not suggested adding anything to the article yet". At that point, it was time to take it to another forum. Just like the link I quoted earlier. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

Well, I suggest that next time you preempt the need to copy (not move) your comments to an appropriate forum and just post them there yourself. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: There's a key word in the statement you are quoting. The word is "if". It was a hypothetical statement, based on what Montanabw stated she wanted to do which was to create "a table listing each HMA and discussing the populations therein." This was not my suggestion. I was merely pointing out what Montanabw's table would illustrate.

Maybe I was a little quick to criticize you, since you may not have been aware of the whole discussion, but I've requested in the past that the "synth" hammers get put away until it's actually confirmed there's synth in the works. Maybe what appears to be synth in discussion is simply a point that needs to be fleshed out better and have citations added to it. I think that your statement "There has been a problem on this article with synthesis" is based more on you've perceived to be potential synthesis, rather than an actual problem. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Intothatdarkness: I wouldn't characterize this as an "automatic assumption of bad faith". When the first time someone interacts with me is after someone with whom I've had extensive conflicts asks them to watchlist a page I'm editing, then makes their first response towards me a criticism, I think suspicions of WP:TAGTEAM aren't unreasonable. And, what "major way" do you anticipate this discussion will impact the article? Because, unless the outcome of the discussion is that we are going to totally disregard the synth or OR rules, I see it as off-topic to the discussion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 hear what you're saying TGS. But it's an ongoing problem. Even assuming good faith, unintentional bad behavior is still bad behavior. Believe me, everything I do wrong is pointed out to ME. So, yeah, I can let it go, but not before it's been addressed. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as it turns out, Montanabw doesn't seem to want to continue conversing on the issue in the Mustang talk page. I told you this kind of thing might happen. Be careful, and I will say one last time, listen and follow what they have to say. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015

I was prepared for that. And, sorry, but the only thing I have to abide by are the actual rules and policies, not what "they" say, because I'm finding more and more that the two are not the same. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn I think you have so much potential in projects like this. Apologies but these users know exactly what the rules are and how to follow them. I admit, some of our interactions with them were not the best, whether that was our fault or theirs. But right now, I side with them being the just party here, and your chance to be apart of that project is fading by causing unneeded drama. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Well, thank you for your input, but I think you are looking at all of this very simplistically. I know what I'm dealing with here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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'm not going to say what my plans are, but they aren't going to be to beat my head against a wall, which I could plainly see was pretty much as productive as trying to collaborate would be. Don't worry, I'll be fine. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reassurance does not comfort me. I fear you will do something you will regret. They won't take kindly to rouge behavior, I know I wouldn't. You shouldn't expect many users to go along with your actions if your plans include irrational results. I have been trying to support you thus far, but you cannot possibly expect me to defend you. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

What do you think I'm going to do? Create a dozen sock puppet accounts and cause mass vandalism? Really, I have a life, and a rational perspective on it. If Wikipedia is not a positive experience, I certainly don't need to frustrate myself. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never assumed or accused you of planning that type of action. It's just common for frustrated users to want payback in one way or the other. But for all I know, you will handle it well and nothing will come of this. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Nah. I don't need payback. I believe in Karma. Like you said, people get their own medicine. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what are your plans? If you are unwilling to collaborate with the users, what is left to be done? TheGracefulSlick (talk)

I never said I was unwilling to collaborate. I am simply making it plain that I won't try to do so unless the WP:CIVIL policies are followed. What is left to be done? Wait and see if Wikipedia is actually serious about it's project and deals with the issue. I've heard several laments about how the numbers of WP editors are down. I can see why. The Wikicliques just aren't worth dealing with. Look at the reasons editors give here for leaving. I believe the comment about Lord of the Flies is apt. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm not interested in working on those articles. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you want to take the Amaral one live, that would be cool as well. He does sound like an interesting person. Montanabw^(talk) 02:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a letter to his ex-wife to try to get a pic. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that doesn't pan out, I saw the back page dust cover of this book has an image. If he's deceased, it could be used (a better copy, ideally) with a "fair use" rationale. (See what I did for a fair use rationale for File:RussellVarian.jpg as an example) The trick with getting private images is getting the owner of the image to do the WP:OTRS approval and the copyright thing is a huge deal. The WP:IMAGE folks are quite strict. Montanabw^(talk) 04:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh thanks, but I can't take much credit for that. I copied over another article for a base and deleted most of it, planning to rework and add a lot more to what's left. But, I got side-tracked on Jedediah Smith. He figures prominently in a research article I've been getting ready to submit for publication. The article on him needed a fair amount of updating. Fortunately, the previous editors don't seem to have ownership issues, so it's been pretty quiet. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ugggh. I wouldn't touch that one. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already deeply involved, I like the change in pace. I definitely do not want to do something like this again for a while though, it can get stressful. Music articles seem to have less conflicts, which is probably a reason why I enjoy improving them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I expressed on the Jedediah Smith talk page that I think he was homosexual. The response was polite, but I could feel the implicit hostility in the reserved response. But, I've definitely had nastier encounters here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember, it isn't what you think, that's the famous WP:OR, it's what third party sources think per WP:V and WP:RS. If you can verify it, well, I'm just getting out my popcorn and going to watch that show (no interest in diving into that discussion, but be careful of self-inflicted injuries). You may be glad to know that verifiability is not truth exists. Montanabw^(talk) 01:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I gave you an opportunity to injudiciously pound your "wp:YOU CAN'T DO THAT!" hammers, but you'll have to find your entertainment elsewhere. The article has been neutralized, with no uncivil interactions. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No need to comment on Smith's sexuality. Just an observation on how different people behave when they are confronted with a possibility they never considered, and may be uncomfortable with. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, personally I'm not uncomfortable with anyone's sexuality because, honestly, who has a right to object to a person's choices regarding this issue. Just avoid the "show" Montanabw referred to on the discussion page, though if you have reliable sources I think you make a good case for its possible inclusion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no source that directly speculates that Smith was gay. I could make a good case for it, based on information compiled from three or four sources. But, that was never my intent. The article implied that Smith was celibate because he never consorted with Native American women. I was simply making the point that there may have been more to that than supposed. If anyone wants to hear my reasoning, I'd be happy to discuss it further here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Now eight hours after an attempted goading into starting a fight on the Jed Smith article, one of the editors is pushing the issue. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you just use what the sources say than that is ok. I don't think you can imply or state the theory of him being a homosexual if there is not a direct implication of it. Though I'm sure you can make a compelling case, so I cannot object to anything you research. Maybe the biographer you have been in contact with will support your theories, which can strengthen your argument. Hopefully, everything stays civilTheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not planning on getting into a debate about it. If someone is interested in why I think so, they can ask though. Other than that, I'm not going to push it. Bigger fish to fry, ya know. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have found that, even when the sourcing is solid, there are those that obstruct "teaching the controversy", if it doesn't meet with their paradigms. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's one reason they have WP:3O and WP:DR/N and WP:ANI and all those other good letters in the alphabet. Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for all the awesome input, But I think I'll stick with my original stance: Bigger fish to fry. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, I thought that was how it worked. Just pop in on someone's talk page and jump in on a convo to give some unsolicited advice or information. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but in these situations I feel we need to stick together and be more diligent. It may just be me, but I have seen much more sock puppets in recent days. Then again, it is the first time I have worked on a major page with others, so that is also a factor.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but crying wolf constantly is just as bad or not worse. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just an error in judgment. I read into the ItsLassieTime sock puppet case, and I can see why Montanabw doesn't want that guy around. Most of the time she knows who and who is not a sock puppet. Granted, I didn't like what she did to me and you a while back, but I moved past that because I know I am innocent. In the end, Montanabw, understandably, can not distinguish all the puppets, but that doesn't mean she isn't reliable or requires that somewhat rude comment. Just a thought as all.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Risk of sock hunting: Egg on your face if you run around and make indiscriminate accusations. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, it wasn't her finest hour when she accused us, but her results prove she finds the socks when it counts. I just don't want to see you punished for saying one too many comments that can be considered disrespectful.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not worried. Pointing out that someone's statement is ironic pales in comparison to other things that have been said. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't cause the stir. The stir was caused by the speculation to EChastain that RationalObserver was a sock of Mattisse, when, in fact, it was EChastain that was the sock of Mattisse. There would have been no irony without that speculation. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that the little comment has the potential to get you in trouble when it all could have been avoided. Like I said, Montanabw is more of an expert on the troublesome ItsLassieTime, which she suspected Rationalobserver of being. It's not like RO was a clean user, there was some history. When it's all said and done, when Montanabw finds an actual sock puppet, she will have them punished.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just agree to disagree. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I just wouldn't underestimate her abilities. She could be a quintessential partner in editing with you, but these careless squabbles accomplish nothing. In truth, I don't suspect you of being a sock puppet, I will give you the benefit of my trust. However, Montanabw will not treat you so kindly if there is more questionable activity with you. I don't want that to happen, I enjoy our conversations, but I have little say in the whole AN/I system.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not worried. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is part of the issue, your not worried of any consequences. Just try and play nice with her or, if it has to come to it, leave her alone. Let your positive editing speak for itself.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's what I was doing before she jumped in on this thread. Didn't work, did it? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, I did that already. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...well you could probably report it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Not worth it. It'll take care of itself eventually, Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whatever. Feel free to file all the SPI's you want. Those folks have nothing better to do than let you waste their time confirming that this is the only account I've ever had. But, since you consider me to be an experienced editor, I'm sure you realize you don't need to come onto my talk page and offer unsolicited input any longer. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, I shall add my usual caveat in response your uncivil statements, this time at your implication that my behavior was "tendentious or disruptive". That's your side: I have mine. I just choose to not run around and say such things on people's talk pages. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am choosing to respond to your post on my talk page at your talk page, which has little traffic, as opposed to my talk page where there are over 250 talk page watchers. But I have made my opinion clear and you have made yours clear, so that's all I have for now. Montanabw^(talk) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokey. Although, I'm not as worried about the 250 watchers as you seem to be. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was your post at my talk that started this thread. Perhaps you should consider staying off my talk page and stop talking to yourself. Montanabw^(talk) 03:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I have no intent of hanging out there. But, just like you said in your edit summary when you barged on here: "couldn't resist a comment".

But, so now, you're thinking TheGracefulSlick and I are the same person? Here goes another fun turn of the merry-go-round at SPI. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What else could she have meant? How did this whole thing get started? Because of indiscriminate accusations and no seeming willingness to make any effort to stop. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is best to ignore her, especially since she has no proof. I don't want to get involved in this again, but, again, I really hope Montanabw knows better that I am not a sock, if that is what she was referring to.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just it. When there's no proof, there's always the tactic of constant accusations. And, the willingness to throw anyone handy under the bus. But Aesop had it right. Do it enough times, burn enough people, and pretty soon no one cares about what you say. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The two of you really need to solve this now. Go wherever this needs to go to settle things and move on. There are so much more worthwhile issues to work on. And, frankly, this has gone way too far, I don't care who is right or wrong as of now, just take it somewhere (I'm not 100% sure where) and end it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're seeing the beginning of the end. Wait and see. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? Could you explain?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It means, I'm just going to go back to editing, and not worry about it. Ain't worth it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that doesn't fix anything, but ok.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some things ain't fixable. You just have to wait it out. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, just don't get pushed around. I really hope Montanabw's comments were just an error in judgement because at this point it is just insane to think we are the same person. No connection can be found. I'm not concerned though, I will continue to edit as usual, hopefully you can get back to it too.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a drama queen for you. They refer to all their discussions as "drama" because that's what their conduct devolves it into. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would try not to say stuff like that, though I kinda have to agree with you. It's obvious she is watching your talk page, and you don't want to be involved in another long thread of unneeded grievances.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was just a general statement. Not talking about anyone in particular; ILT was referred to as a drama queen in the first paragraph of this thread. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's just move on, I don't see why we should just drag this on. Like I said, it's a shame how she may act sometimes, but she is a lot more powerful here. There is nothing we can really do, but continue to do a good job and not get much credit from her. Not that we need it anyways.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In relation to the power thing, did you know she is considering a bid at becoming an administrator? I won't express my opinion on the info, but I thought it was something you might want to know.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that she is referring to anyone that might oppose her being an admin as "trolls". That right there speaks volumes. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A little unfair I know, but I'm willing to give anyone a chance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your latest edit on an article, and personally I found it unwise. It seemed that issue was closed as the section below says. You don't want to get in trouble with admin, so I think it's best not to act on past disagreements between you and Montanabw, if that was the case.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The admin in question was desyopped and retired from wp. Not worried. I am allowed to edit the article. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We will see I suppose, don't expect me to go out on a limb for you, this maneuver was not a wise one. I'm not saying who is right or wrong, I just think it would have been better to avoid subjects where you would start conflict with Montanabw.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't get to dictate what articles I or anyone else edits. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I honestly cannot tell what is the truth anymore. Montanabw, an experienced user, accuses you of sock puppetry and of you doing this for revenge. While I have been wanting to believe your side, that this is just a case of an aggressive user going against you. I just want the straight up truth, so I need to reassess the situation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a Jack Nicholson moment coming on. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you swear to me that you are not a sock puppet? Can you promise me you are doing everything in your power to be a reasonable user here and trying to help the encyclopedia? I want nothing but the truth, so come clean here if you have anything to hide. I will believe you, if you are truly honest, but if I find out later that you have lied to me, it is something I can never forgive from you. This is your chance, I will not give you another, if honesty means anything to you, than please give me the truth. This is not meant to be offensive or accusatory, but rather my attempt to reassess the situation.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is too weird. Are you having private email convos, where "someone" is trying to convince you of my duplicity? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I have been trying to help you avoid trouble, and now you assume I am secretly talking with someone? I just asked those questions so I can have someone to trust, but if you cannot answer them than perhaps you are hiding something from me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a question, not stated an assumption. But, I'm getting a little weary of this. I've been trying to assume good faith because you are young. But, this is pushing it. Seriously, you want some kind of pledge from me? If you don't trust me, just go away; we'll probably never cross paths again. If you're so concerned about me getting into trouble, don't pursue these conversations. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are on your own now. I tried my best. Peace, sister.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not on my own. There are plenty of others who see things the way I do. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's all good. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The edit was legitimate. The article was edited in response Nuff said. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, but not in the Great Basin. If you look at the map in the Haines article, (which has been reprinted in several subsequent books) northward migration was both east and west of the Great Basin. Early white explorer of the Great Basin verified there were no horses there. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still do have to actually take a look at Amaral. I think I mentioned that I located a copy, reference-only, locally. Just have to make a special trip over to where it is kept when I have several hours free to use it there. I'm open to looking at historic accounts of how horses got to each area. The other real interesting stuff is the bit on how they wound up in the Pacific Northwest... a tale for another day. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Screwed up the ping at Mustang. I mentioned you favorably - you have a working familiarity with the general topic even if we have disagreements on sourcing and details. I hope with the arrival of Atsme, you can see why I'm so twitchy about that article - every time I have been on the verge of either having a potential collaborator or enough of my own momentum to improve it, these stupid dramas over not-an-issue occur. FWIW, I was on the team that brought Appaloosa and Thoroughbred up to featured article status - with an extensive history section, as most of the better breed articles do. Montanabw^(talk) 03:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a lot of your frustration is because you feel pulled in so many directions that you don't have the patience to work through this. When you start responding to threads with "Hell no" and are making uncivil comments, maybe you just need to step back, go back to editing what you really want to at the moment and let things run their course. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sunset.com/travel/wild-horses

I always love it when people who WP:BAIT others respond with "oh poor dear, you must be overworked so why don't you just quit?" Guess what, "hell no!" - I don't quit in a fight and I don't give up. I am very proud to say that in nine years of WP editing, I have never put up the "retired" box or stomped off in a huff. No, you won't be running me off ... I edit what I "really want to" ALL the time - it's the tendentious editors and the bullies on my favorite articles that lead me to "frustration." If this was, oh, hindgut fermentation, it would be very different. As for the Sunset article, well, it's Sunset magazine... Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just stop it with twisting my words and all the accusations. You're just trying to justify your uncivil behavior (being twitchy, as you so phrase it), on the articles you police (favorite articles as you so phrase it). You're not fooling anyone. I'm not going to condone your behavior just because you've decided to direct it at someone else besides me. The minute you start being uncivil and dictatorial, you aren't collaborating, you're obstructing collaboration. "Frustration" is no excuse. If you can't patiently try to work through difficult issues, then you need to disengage. Believe it or not, there are other editors out there that are perfectly capable. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you actually edited anything at all other than to create talk page drama (and not just at Mustang articles), maybe you'd have some legitimacy with me. I reached out to you in good faith, and you told me I am too busy and I should quit. The only thing I am "frustrated" with at the moment is your drama queen attitude. I took a chance to offer you a legitimate way to collaborate and you aren't interested. So, if you think I am an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet, then ANI is thataway. Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well that lasted long...you kinda did twist Lynn's words...like a lot ...(honestly, where did you say, "Montanabw, you should quit"?) but I guess that is none of my business. You two should have focused on Atsme's behavior instead of this, but it wasn't meant to be I suppose. Lynn, in this case, I think you actually tried to behave civilly and evidently did so. Perhaps whatever drama was going on (I don't care who started it!) just got to one of you, but like I said, at least you tried.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you meant "Montanabw did kinda of twist your words" since you were addressing the paragraph at me? Yes, she did, it wasn't just "kinda" and it was far from the first time she's done it. And yes, Atsme should have backed off. But, she (justifiably) had her hackles up from the previous go-round, and so she should have just been allowed to make the edits she wanted to so she could calm down then we could have all worked through it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I meant Montanabw, definitely not her finest hour. I was trying to be somewhat neutral so my words were not somehow twisted as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Take a wikibreak" is always intended to mean "go away." It's a veiled insult, but very uncivil, however veiled. It might be a bummer, but, wikipedia policies don't allow us to let people insert unsourced inaccurate material just to make them feel better. Wikipedia's standards are simple: Source it properly and get it right. Mystery solved. And actually write content. I've said this a dozen times, but if Wysong actually wrote article space content that was nicely done, she'd have more credibility. (With [fewer than 1/3 of all edits to articles, that profile suggests a preference for drama) I have pointed out multiple articles that appear to be within her areas of interest that could really use improvement and expansion and yet she neither says, "gee, thank you, I'll check that out, nor works anywhere else. Pot-stirring is not building an encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when you put something like in quotes, like "Take a wikibreak" you should be able to point to a source where it is actually written by the person you are supposedly quoting. And there's nothing like generating drama than harassing people by trying to claim that they really aren't editing by calling up reports. Especially since you are the one that has repeatedly forced me to defend myself from your accusations of being a sock, and have been the source of two ANIs and one MfD in which I, by the results of your actions, was involved. You are the major obstacle to my editing. You don't get to decide what articles I edit, but you are sure trying to control me by interfering in the editing I would like to do. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh scary, let's just get along! There is so much talk about you two doing wrongs to another or articles, but I don't see any actions to solve it. This is only going to get worse, so action from one or both of you is going to achieve a solution. Just please end the meanness, and love your fellow sister for God sakes!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, Grace. But "interfering in the editing I would like to do" is the problem - you can't insert edits and think you won't be asked to cite, explain validity and verify. On wikipedia, you always need to collaborate with others. (and I have done so - repeatedly. Most of the FA-class articles I've worked on have been collaborative efforts - all of them in some respects) WP is not a soapbox for a person's viewpoint, nor a place for people to publish their theories or original research. It's a very big wiki. I pointed out a number of related articles that really need help and Wysong can clearly find others on her own - I watchlist about 5,000. (This includes a lot of low-traffic stuff such as hindgut fermentation and so results in about 50 or 60 articles I day that I check, mostly to revert vandalism. I maybe have 3 or 4 where I'm actively working) I have been here nine years, and I KNOW Lynn is a returned user; I'm just tired of playing "hide the sock." I really don't care any more. Either edit or don't. Your decision. Not mine. Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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?"

Here's the deal, Cupcake. I have a life outside of Wikipedia. I know or am related to several people who are the subject of articles here, including a Nobel Prize winner. I am not impressed by long lists of GAs, FAs or whatever. I am not intimidated by someone who keeps trying to make me feel inadequate because of my lack of them. Especially not someone who behaves as you do. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we all have lives off of wikipedia, so why waste all your time on drama with me? It really is past time for you to grow up here. I have absolutely no intention to "make" you feel "inadequate" and I honestly don't care who you are - On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog - and no one cares who you are related to or whatever. I originally tried to offer you good, solid advice and all you do is get defensive, attack, take all olive branches I've offered and throw them back in my face, and make a lot of threats (on this page, mostly) about how I'm going to get my comeuppance. So if you want to keep going on that I'm some evil person and such, well, pretty much everyone that's tried that with me winds up shooting themselves in the foot, so carry on... ANI is thataway. No one cares who you are, what you do, it's the work itself that counts. You are either here or you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 16:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Montanabw's chest beating resonates all the way over here. Why do you keep bringing up AN/I? We still have other DR options that haven't been explored if your disruptions continue. The WP:OWN behavior has to stop. We are doing our best to AGF and simply write prose that belongs in the article but you refuse to turn loose with the drama and control. The diffs will provide all the necessary evidence if things do escalate as a result of your disruptive behavior. Keep in mind, neither Lynn nor I have attempted to make any edits since you started the chest beating. My laptop is still in the shop and it may be a week or so before I am even able to write prose. The antiquated iPad I'm forced to use now is not capable of doing the work. Lynn is certainly free to make her contributions to the article, but I can certainly understand why she or any other editor would be hesitant. My advice to you, Montanabw, is to stand down and stop the bullying, the chest beating, and WP:OWN behavior. Such behavior is noncompliant with WP:CIVILITY. --Atsme^📞📧 17:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, Lynn asked to move this conversation over here. You want to "improve" the article, propose an "improvement" that is a) correct b) on point, and c) not repeating what's already in the article only with inferior sources. I'd love a decent collaborator who actually knows what they are doing and is willing to actually WORK instead of whine on the talk page about how I'm such a big meanie. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's looking good! Hard to draw the line between too much detail and enough to really make the subject understandable, but electrons aren't as space consuming as dead trees, so I'm for erring on the latter. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yow! Okay, I'll just keep plugging along.

Back, sort of. Big backlog on my watchist that I'm slogging through. Made a quick post at the sandbox. Montanabw^(talk) 06:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Snake River Plain (ecoregion) | Snake River Plain]] ecoregions. That would correspond with the [http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm#Level%20II Level II ecoregion on this map.}} It
• Basin Desert as the high elevation desert that lacks Creosote Bush.''}}--versus the region(s) with <{{convert|10|in|mm|abbr=on}} annual precipitation. '''NOTE''': The term "Great Basin Desert" does

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, actually here's what I would like to see. I would like to take the Wild horse preservation article, rename it "Feral Horse Management" and discuss all this there. And yes, I agree, there are three factions, but the one operating with the highest level of ignorance is the wild horse preservationists. And, I know there are some real jackasses in the livestock industry--cough...Bundy...cough--but for the most part they are hard-working folk who are extremely frustrated with the feral horse situation and just want to see them managed in a realistic manner. You know, the Warm Creek Ranch, that Madeline Pickens bought? Almost 40 years ago, I went out and helped with their fall roundup. You can see in the BLM paper the modest house they lived in. It's a hardscrabble existence. These guys are now rich on paper because of the price of land, but unless they sell, they can barely make ends meet, and feral horses make it that much harder-most are willing to share the range, but expect Uncle Sam to keep up it's part of the deal. The environmentalists are usually well-educated, but don't always have the purest of motives. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on Bundy! :-P And I will admit that there are a lot of rather flaky people in the preservation movement who do not help the cause in the least. (People who know nothing about horses in general can get incredibly weird and overly romantic about them - the people who want to ban the carriage horses in New York City another case in point; and don't get me started on PETA...). We can discuss at the wild horse preservation article. I'm hesitant to move it without a solid discussion there (so anyone else watchlisting it can weigh in) as both titles have POV problems. (Perhaps "BLM Mustang management" is a more neutral title?) but, sure. We could also cross-link the Mustang article there and keep just a summary paragraph or two. As for ranchers, the issue of BLM leases being treated like a feudal fiefdom is also an issue, and I am willing to point out problematic attitudes in the ranch culture, too. No one has clean hands or pure motives. I do know about "rich on paper," my dad was forced to sell our family's Montana wheat farm/cattle ranch back in the 70s (long story and TMI, but being outbid by another operator on some leased land was part of it). Our house wasn't quite that modest, but it was a simple clrca 1900 frame farmhouse, pretty basic. At least it had Indoor plumbing, and they took out the wind charger when electricity lines finally arrived in the late 50s, so I grew up with all the modern conveniences - even two TV stations could come in if dad adjusted the aerial on the roof just so... Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind "wild horse preservation" is an oxymoron. Feral horses do not need to be preserved, if they are protected from human harassment, they do a very good job of preserving themselves, to the detriment of their surroundings. And, I think "Feral horse management" is totally neutral, it's just that POV pushing factions don't want a title that just lays reality out there. I think the whole article was written as an advocacy page for http://www.wildhorsepreservation.org/. It either needs to be removed, or have its title changed and be rewritten. AND, all the links in the Mustang page to Wild Horse Preservation need to be looked at very hard. It is in no way a reliable source.

I'm agreeing that we need to replace the links to the wildhorsepreservation pages; the domain no longer exists and the stuff at the wayback link is citing material from the 1980s and 1990s, some of which is more or less accurate, but all can be verified from other sources and should be. My take, though, it to not chop until we replace, but then rephrase as needed.

But I disagree that horses per se wreck everything, the problem is too many in too little space - population control and grazing management is the problem. We see that in every poorly-managed, knapweed-infested horse pasture in the domesticated world! (sigh) Why the BLM doesn't make more strategic use of fences and more contraceptive darts in the butt... and, frankly, focusing on leaving fewer mares on the range, people like geldings and all, but which have the foals? I can drive into areas with no wild horses and see range degradation from poor management of cattle, too. (Heck, even native stuff like Elk can cause problems if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong pattern of hunting them...) Montanabw^(talk) 01:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that horses wreck everything, or that there isn't problems with other types of livestock. But, what is going on is the push to remove other types of livestock to make more room for horses. So, as was done in this article, the view is slanted towards the idea there is no problem with an increase in the number of horses on the range. There's a BIG problem with that. The number of cows on the range is stable and easily manipulable to react to conditions such as drought. Since we eat cows, there's no problem with what to do with excess animals. Same with elk. And I have NO faith that contraceptive darting is going to be the answer (neither did the NAS). Just too logistically difficult to really make a difference. So, the feral horse population will keep growing unless we just bite the bullet and zero out most of the HMAs, just leaving the herds with unique genetics (in reality, most of them don't-they are nondescript mixed blooded horses that we as taxpayers are spending millions of dollars to compete with the struggling domestic market) whose excess can be absorbed in today's very limited adoption market. Really, all this discussion of which animal has the better gut or worse teeth and hooves is pointless when looking at the bigger picture. Because, regardless of what animal is causing the problem, if the bottom line solution is to just kill and eat it, you always have that option (you do with horses too, actually, but no sense going there).

Now, in the short term I can see removing cows and putting more horses out. When zeroing out, they could field sterilize all the animals (it sounds like they're getting close to having that technique perfected with laproscopy to tie the tubes of the mares, then there's the debate of whether to geld or vasectomize the stallions), and just turn them back out to live out their natural lives, and possibly put back out some that are in LTH. Certainly the ones that are in STH. Compensate the ranchers in the area who cannot use their full grazing privileges (with the caveat that the reduction may end up being permanent). Honestly, the rational entities out there, wildlife agencies and reasonable environmental groups all promote this option. The option I always laugh at is the one to put out more predators. Because it's made by the same folks who go nuts every time a horse is hurt or killed during a BLM roundup. Somehow, wolves ripping out the throat of a foal after its poor dam has tried to defend it and then starting to eat it while its still alive is a lot more palatable to them. But, regardless, the predator/prey dynamic is so sensitive that trying to create it artificially would probably lead to disastrous unforeseen (at least by those that advocate this) consequences. Like I keep saying, the ignorance on the side of the wild horse advocates is over the top. No rational thought, just pure emotion. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There is a reasonable argument that, due to natural selection, feral horses of any background are tougher and healthier and make better horses for real use, especially trail riding. Still the demand for such horses is pretty limited. I think that management has to be tightly linked to demand for the excess horses.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Kaimanawa horse particularly interesting. Unquestionably an introduced species in NZ, but so are sheep. Yet people want to keep them, but as this is also a highly regulated nation (you have to pretty much throw away even a candy bar with nuts and they'll want to irradiate your basket weave purse if you fly there) with a real small landbase and vulnerable ecosystem, it's just real interesting. The issue of demand is, of course, unquestionably a problem, even mainstream standardized breeds are seeing reduced numbers. You really don't want me to get started (grin) on how many women of a certain age think they need to buy a 17-hand warmblood that is far more than they can manage (no matter how expensive or well-trained) and they'd really be much happier on a Haflinger or a little Quarter horse - or a nice off-range Mustang that was well-trained. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the predator thing, well, I'm in Montana, we have the wolf issue - the level of crazy on both sideson that tops the level of crazy with Mustangs, I think. I sympathize with ranchers trying to make a living, but when they open hunts for wolves and all the hunters run into the Absarokas on the edge of the park instead of thinning out the packs that actually live in proximity to cattle... **headdesk** You want to see real crazy, though, surf the race horse fan pages on facebook and twitter. The idiots abound. Montanabw^(talk) 06:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Free-roaming horse management"? I'm putting the suggestion at the talk page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll discuss if further over there. Montanabw^(talk) 01:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just found this, added to Mustang article; it's 2013 and looks pretty neutral: [3]. Montanabw^(talk) 01:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the whole book can be downloaded here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13511/using-science-to-improve-the-blm-wild-horse-and-burro-program

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)[reply]

Thanks. I'll keep plugging away on it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.thehorse.com/articles/36365/blm-utah-proposes-wild-horse-and-burro-research-projects

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)[reply]

Thanks. At this time, I don't see much point in going the controversies of Horse vs Cow, or whether or not horses and/or cows are really harming the land. Right now, the AML is 26,000, and at a 20% reproduction rate, that would be about 5000 excess animals per year that need to be removed. About 2,000 animals a year can be adopted out. That leaves over 2000 horses a year that should by law either be sold "without limitations" or euthanized. Since the public will not tolerate that solution, now we (as a nation) are looking into not complying with the part of the FRWH&A that states: "All management activities shall be at the minimal feasible level". So we really don't have "wild" horses, just free-roaming untamed domestic horses that are routinely rounded up and subjected to sterilization procedures. Shit, I don't like seeing horses go to slaughter, but at this point, we're spending millions of dollars to maintain vast herds of nondescript horses, pretending to ourselves that they are some kind of icon. Talk about first-world problems. What if we were to send all the horses to slaughter, and send the meat and the money saved to the Syrian refugees?

End of rant. Anyway, I'm going to wrap up article on those lines. If someone else wants to go into some of this other stuff, such as this section of the Mustang article the article will be there for them, but as far as I'm concerned, it needs to be in an article on U. S. Public Rangeland Management or something. I agree with others that the Mustang article is too cluttered up with management discussion, and I don't want to try to tackle all the ins and out of rangeland management in this one. Currently, Rangeland management redirects to Conservation grazing, but I think it should be moved and focus on the unique challenges faced in the U.S; that most of our public rangeland ecosystems did not evolve while being grazed by large herbivores, so practices such as conservation grazing are not necessarily going to work. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did good work on the article. As far as rangeland management goes, indeed, conservation grazing is only one form of management, there is probably a need for an overview article (I wouldn't move the article, I'd un-redirect and start a new one at the redirect page, IMHO). While you and I do not entirely see eye to eye on the issues, I have come to respect that you are a "fellow" westerner and person familiar with the rural heritage of this region and this has been a perspective missing on WP. You might also want to take a look at open range and rangeland. Too many articles for me to keep up with... Montanabw^(talk) 20:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. And, to clarify, I am not either pro or anti cattle grazing. I have empathy for ranchers whose families have been using the public lands for generations, and are coming under fire from environmentalists and wild horse advocates. They are always pointing fingers at the BLM, saying the agency favors cows over horses and other resources, but really, they are favoring people over everything. It's hard to tell a rancher that he has no place to graze his cattle, forcing him to sell his herd. I think this article, is spot on; BLM employees, many of whom come from ranching families, don't want to face up to the problems. I have to give grudging credit to Western Watersheds for forcing them to do so. The ranchers are bitter, and some of them, like Cliven Bundy, are being belligerent, but it is what it is-grazing in a lot of areas needs to be cut back and a lot of ranchers can't survive that. That doesn't mean I think we should allow an increase the number of breeding horses out there though. They need to be cut back also. I just want for everyone to just stop pointing fingers, look at the issues objectively, and come up with good solutions. But before they can do that, they have to have good information. That's my goal here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the meat issue, they have plenty of horsemeat in Europe, it seems... but the taboos on horsemeat consumption for Muslims... well, not going there. But the real problem is reproduction, both feral and domestic... I won't start on my rant about what happens to the unsold yearlings at the average "production sale" at most big quarter horse ranches... because they think they have to breed everything with a uterus.... sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the horse industry needs to stop whining that the slaughter houses have been shut down, and start dealing with reality. Fewer and fewer people have the means to keep horses and the market is dying. Those quarter horse ranches would probably be better off leasing pasture to the BLM for long term holding.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don't care enough to bother. Let it be wrong. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you sincerely believe there is an error, provide sources, it is best to work toward accuracy. Montanabw^(talk) 16:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert it back, then leave me a message as to what you think needs to be sourced, if you're so sure the current source doesn't cover it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until the incorrect dates and wikilinks are fixed, I'm removing the link to it from the Jedediah Smith article. No sense in confusing people who wonder why WP articles are so inconsistent with each other. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Montanabw^(talk) 06:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest you take this a little more seriously. I wonder how many articles are out there with inaccurate information because people would rather just move on than try to get you to buy off on them being fixed. I know I have. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite your sources. Toole clearly said 1824 (and FWIW, I took his Montana and the West class not long before he died, I have tremendous respect for Toole). I've tried to explain to you before that you can't play fast and loose with sourcing. It's not nearly as personal as you are making it. You just have to do it right or do it over. If you want to separate the activity from the buyout, then split the source material properly. Also, the link to the rendezvous system was correct, you altered the link to something that was a specific event, not an overview concept. Finally, your use of parenthetical comments is an ongoing weakness in your writing style that I have tried to discuss with you before. And the remark you linked is from someone I now count as a friend; they learned. Do it right and you will have no problems with me. Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do it your interpretation of right, you mean. Your whole last statement is outrageous. Why don't you just say "Those that learn to do everything the way I want them to I consider my friends and I allow them to edit the 3500 articles I watchlist (under my strict supervision course)." I'm tired of playing the BRD game, which is supposed to be exercised with "Care and diplomacy", but is your standard tactic. And, yes, I do take it personally, because you well know that I'm very well versed in this subject of the fur trade. So, revert my changes back, and then we can discuss Toole's supposedly clear statement, which is the right WIKI link and whether or not my writing style should be an issue above accuracy and integrity in editing wikipedia. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, BTW, the other source for the paragraph, Malone, Roader and Lang, has the correct year, 1826, on page 51. And user:Softlavender just happened to pop by to put in some "citation needed" tags. Guess she didn't agree with you that the original version is okay as is. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make this personal; your editing was done improperly, you have a bad habit of writing with too many parentheticals, which is sloppy, and we've had the discussion about proper use of sources before. WP is not a place for your own WP:SELFPUB. If you want to use Malone, you needed to put the bit from Malone with the Malone citation. Instead, you just randomly changed the dates in the section citing Toole and added a parenthetical that was insufficient. You may have actual expertise for all I know, but you also have an obligation not to play fast and loose with WP:CITE. The reason for this is the adage On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. You, me and anyone else may know what we are talking about, but we still have to justify it with proper sources. The 1826 figure in Malone is only for the year Ashley retired, which isn't what you were getting at. (FWIW, I have nearly 6,000 pages on my watchlist, actually, 98% or so need no attention from me at any given time). You can write well enough and cite properly when your feet are held to the fire, so I cannot for the life of me figure out why you don't do so consistently. Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just.Stop.It. The mud you are so condescendingly slinging is coming out of the hole you're already in, and it's just getting deeper. The article already had problems with citing and poor writing, despite your assertion that it was so well written that I had to get your permission to edit it. I fixed an incorrect date, I IMPROVED the article, don't try to BS me with your nutty analysis of the citations, you just look ridiculous in light of this. That I didn't take the time (at that time) to make the fixes it really needed does not give you license to come on my talk page and harass me like this. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, call an employee of the Montana Historical Society incompetent. Not my circus. I pinged the people who are supposed to care. If they don't want to deal with a more thorough analysis, you are right, no sense staying where the slop is deep. Might get stuck there. Montanabw^(talk) 03:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I shall continue to monitor the fur trade article, though the mess you are making is really the work of others to clean up. You can also note for the record that I am choosing to avoid "your" Jedediah Smith article altogether. You do need to stop framing solid advice as trying to "control" articles - do stuff right and quit attacking anyone who disagrees with you, then you'd have fewer problems; for every editor with your approach, I can name multiple other newcomers who thank me for helping them out. You also are unwise to take potshots at my watchlist, given that I've worked on over 20 featured articles, over 40 Good articles and have created over 200 articles; frankly, it's keeping people from wrecking them with poor research and POV-pushing that is the bane of my WP editing experience. Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, revert away with your spite editing. Feel free to continue to stalk me as I improve articles that you can't come up with lame excuses to meddle with. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After you finish your first featured article, do ping me. I anxiously await evidence of your ability to collaborate with others and to accept their constructive criticism. Montanabw^(talk) 19:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read my user page. No interest in FA. But, I have no sense of ownership of the articles I'm interested in improving, so others are welcome to take them and run. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, my motivation for improving articles is irrelevant. If I improve them for my own purposes, all that matters is that I improve them. I'm not getting paid here, and I'm not putting up with any control-freak vested editors that breathe over my shoulder trying to make sure I do everything their way rather than spending their time improving articles themselves. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nice. Yeah, Right. Pathetic attempt to justify

Might as well top it off with admin shopping with false accusaations

• I am flattered that you are choosing to WP:STALK my edits. It warms my heart that I matter so much to you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad something can. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|Montanabw}} I have to say that the conduct I see in this thread from you is woefully short of what should be able to be expected. I am particularly appalled by your allegations of stalking above. You assert that you are an employee of the MHS. I can well believe that, but I am rather surprised that I have never seen such comments before from you. Also, I regret to say, that even the most reputable of scholarly sources can and sometimes do have serious COI problems. The National Geographic society certifying Robert Peary as the discoverer of the North Pole comes to mind as an example. It would be useful to know if the MHS has any financial ties to any of the sources involved, such as perhaps contracts or publications. And even locally where I live Robert Archibald and the Missouri Historical Society have been found to have behaved poorly in some instances. I am aware of at least a few reference sources relating to Montana and/or furriers, and there seems to exist some material on Google relating to the topic as well. I would point out that WP:EXPERT says, and I quote, "Experts do not have any privileges in resolving conflicts in their favor: in a content dispute between a (supposed) expert and a non-expert, it is not permissible for the expert to "pull rank" and declare victory." I regret to say that I see you doing that rather clearly above. I believe it would very much be in your own best interests to thoroughly review that page and its contents. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John, you missed a bracket on the ping, but here I am anyway. You need to read more carefully; I am NOT asserting that I am an employee at the Montana Historical Society, but the lead editor of the Fur Trade article IS, with full disclosure. (See his talk page, he publicly discloses this). And he is a very careful editor who has a sincere wish to produce quality material. You may recall from my RfA that even Rjensen referred to this editor as an "expert" on the topic. Plus, Mike Cline and I are both watchlisting the article, so you can put your fears of a problematic editor to rest; Mike is well-respected here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my "stalking" complaint is valid, see User_talk:Mike_Cline#Mop_watch. What has happened can easily be reviewed by looking at the history and talk page of the Fur Trade in Montana article, where Lynn totally disrupted the article by adding links to unreliable sources (some veterinarian's personal fur trade research page, etc.) and inserting her own WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on some issues. She has done this on other articles, too, which is an ongoing problem with this editor and she freely admits that she's using WP as a place to put her own "research". This isn't Google docs and it isn't a WP:SELFPUB site for her, either. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @John Carter:, please read the pages Montanabw has pointed you to. What is on this talk page is only the tip of the iceberg. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw:, you seem to lack any degree of control over your rather insistent condescension of others, per the first sentence of your response. You also seem to have a rather poor grasp of some policies and guidelines. First, I think it worth noting the rather gratuitous insult with which you started your comment serves no visible purpose other than being a put-down of others. But I regret to say that I have seen that before. Second, I note that you have apparently not read WP:EXPERT. If you had, you would know that it applies to whoever claims to be an expert. And I don't think any reasonable person would say a random comment in an RfA is proof positive that someone is both an expert and free from bias, which you seem to be implying above. In fact I don't think anyone familiar with the page would say that. I have known several editors who were clearly experts in their fields, up to and including publishing well received scholarly books and articles in journals, who have been banned for trying to hard to publicize those works in our content over other sources.

In response to Lynn, I think it worth reading WP:PILLARS. As per the first pillar, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What that basically means is that we do not include any original research, because, at least at this time, most encyclopedias limit their content to discussing previously discussed material. One of the things that means is that except in very rare cases, we will more or less limit our content and sources to those which are discussed in other works, and use sources which are used in other works. The WMF has other entities which can host such material, wikiversity comes to mind, but this site, which is more or less intended as a place where previously published information is summarized, is not one of them. It also tends to mean that we limit our content as per WP:WEIGHT to material which has either been deemed to be relevant to the topic by other published works, with occasional exceptions for cases where our guidelines allow for inclusion of more information. Our guidelines do allow for use of sources including local history society journals as proof of notability, and, honestly, in some Eastern states, that could indicate an overwhelming number of articles on such topics as convenience stories in Albany, New York. But, even then, we tend to use those journals as the sources, and the sources they cite and use.

There are rare cases when we use doctoral dissertations and masters theses as sources, most frequently when those documents are cited or referenced in other published sources. Otherwise, we cannot really serve as a free webhost for research material. That is because, unfortunately, we cannot be sure of the quality or reliability of all that material. That which is clearly reliable will be generally either cited or used in published works, or be perhaps too obscure to meet WEIGHT requirements in many articles here. But, again, other WMF sites, like wikiversity, have different rules, and such content is often acceptable in them. John Carter (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's because you did so here. You know precisely the concerns I have expressed you for months about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and you also know that your editing style is to make a dozen tiny edits to confuse the trail and make it very difficult to present evidence of your tendentious editing behavior. I am tired of you complaining that you are the victim here because you are being called out for misusing Wikipedia as a place to self-publish your own material. I have said before and will say again that I think you should publish your research in reliable, third-party publications and when you do, I shall be the first to insert a citation to such works on your behalf. Montanabw^(talk) 18:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, you have a box on your user page that says: "This user has a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree." You should know how to make a real defensible case. Just 'cause you say something over and over don't make it true. If it's such a problem, you should be able to provide difs. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have just outed me with that remark. I suggest that you remove it. Montanabw^(talk) 20:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it altogether from your talk page, please, don't just strike it. Doxxing you have seen because it appears on an off-wiki thread is not appropriate to be mentioned on-wiki. I only wish to disclose on-wiki what is in my userboxes and on my user page here. Montanabw^(talk) 20:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...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)[reply]

I didn't take your edit that way, but since you seemed interested in the edits I was doing, I thought I'd better reach out. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, it wasn't worth the note. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please keep the discussion of ROs ANI on the ANI page. Thank you. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was merely a request. You're free to comply or ignore it. I'll trouble you here, no further. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)[reply]

See here

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)[reply]

We're never going to get anywhere as long as you continue summarily reverting my edits and putting back in totally erroneous or irrelant information. Such as this: "There were strong disagreements over the nature of the horses. Many ranchers and hunters considered feral horses to be an invasive species, or at least an introduced species. While conceding that federal law protects the animals, these individuals also argued that economic needs, such as livestock grazing, should take precedence over the horses. But advocates for free-roaming horses argued that horses were native to North America and eliminated by paleolithic human beings, and as a native wild animal they should be protected like the grizzly bear or bald eagle. To test which definition applied to feral horses..." That is totally uncited, and for a good reason. It's BS. Total Synth. That's not the reason for that legal challenge. I've reverted back that whole section, since you also took all the legal challenges back out of chronological order. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That section was cited, if there isn't a citation in there now, tag it and we'll see what can be found. The statement is one argument made by wild horse advocates, though I don't think it was made in Kleppe. You make dozens of edits and it is truly impossible to figure out what you are doing, the last time I reviewed your edits it took me two hours just to go through the first half of the article and I hadn't gotten to the rest. Luckily WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. I'm still going through my watchlist from Jan 26th, it's going to take me a while to clean up the cruft and vandalism in other articles on my watchlist before I get to this. (I've trimmed my watchlist from about 6000 articles to just under 5000 articles as well) Montanabw^(talk) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"That section was cited" No it wasn't. "The last time I reviewed your edits it took me two hours just to go through the first half of the article and I hadn't gotten to the rest." That's because you choose to review in such an unproductive manner. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you mis-attibute sources, maybe you aren't falsifying sources deliberately, but you need to be sure that what you cite is direct to the source. (Without close paraphrasing, OR, SYNTH and so on). I do understand that this can be frustrating, but "you" comments don't help. Please focus on that, not on personalities. From the get-go, I have always been trying to teach you, and have always been willing to work in good faith with you whenever you have been cooperative. You don't appear to believe me and seem to be making choices to take things personally and attack me, but I would be quite pleased if you reformed your attitude and learned to cooperate. You may have noticed that you aren't gaining a lot of support around here, even from people who once appeared to support you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to make me believe this is all my fault. It's not like you have the greatest reputation around here. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At no point have I intended to attribute "fault". I simply have repeatedly attempted to explain my position and back it up with examples from wikipedia’s guidelines and policies. I've offered and recommended what I consider to be good advice that I most sincerely wish you would listen to. I am not concerned about my own reputation, and it is my responsibility anyway. I suggest that you work on making your own case; seek out opportunities to collaborate with other editors on other articles where your emotions are not so involved and show to the wikipedia and community that you are a person who can collaborate with others. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 00:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• If there is any way that I can help with this - please let me know. — Ched :  ?  01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ched, I'm fine. I'm used to dealing with stuff like this. Someone comes on my talk page, saying they are giving me "sincere advice" then implying I have all these problems I need to work on, as a means of deflecting attention from their own mistakes and shortcomings. But, if you think you have an answer for that rather than just not falling into the trap, I'm open to hearing it. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm dealing with trying to collaborate:

• Lynn: "Back to the material you returned that I quoted above. It is totally uncited, and for a good reason. It's BS. Total Synth. That's not the reason for that legal challenge. So, just try to focus on the accuracy and the quality of the article instead of what you think I've done wrong. I've reverted back that whole section, since you also took all the legal challenges back out of chronological order. Let's move forward with the attitude that we are both competent editors, and that misunderstandings and differences of opinions over edits are not ammunition....As you recall, you removed the other reference to that statement, implying that is was the Mountain States Legal Foundation that said it and not a Federal Judge. Yes, I agree it would be best to get the information from the underlying case, and all you need to do is say that, instead of removing it, chiding me for the results of your removing it, characterizing putting it in as "cherry picking" (which I disagree with) and generally trying to justify the implication that I can't be trusted. Also, whether or not the statement came from the losing side is completely irrelevant."

• Montanabw: "It takes me hours to review your edits every time you make them, and I AM finding sources where you cite something but the citation doesn't support what you have said. I have found this so many times that I have to check everything you do. You aren't legally trained, either, as a dissent is not a RS for a finding of fact in a legal case is merely the opinion of a judge on the losing side of a vote. Further, their comments, unless cited to the record, are not reliable for the facts, they are only an appellate judge's view of the facts."

• Lynn: "'You aren't legally trained, either, as a dissent is not a RS for a finding of fact in a legal case is merely the opinion of a judge on the losing side of a vote.' Well, I can certainly read, and no, it was not the judge's opinion. And, I would suggest you not make assumptions about my experience in the legal field.

• Montanabw: "I haven't the time to go through the case to find the underlying briefs, but my assumption is that the dissent probably referenced the brief of the Western States Legal Foundation, which undoubtably cherry-picked their sources....And because of past experience, I am reviewing every change you make one at a time,"

• Lynn: "You know, one of the reasons that lawyers are the most hated professionals is because they play dirty by constantly casting aspersions."

• Montanabw: "And why are you bringing lawyers into this? This debate was about using the dissent in a law case as a RS when it was not."

• Lynn: "I believe you brought up lawyers when you implied I wasn't capable of reading a legal brief because I'm not 'legally trained'."

• Montanabw: "It doesn't take a lawyer to tell the difference between the opinion and the dissent. They teach that in Government 101."

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)[reply]

• On the "breed" question, this book, pp. 14-16 is worth a read. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not come onto my talk page and criticize me for what you are participating in. If this book is a good source why haven't you been referencing it instead of participating in edit warring? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because I just found it. Please remember WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD puts the responibility on you to not edit-war. I have a number of discussions going over there, I tried to come up with a way to keep them threaded so that we can deal with things one at a time. Montanabw^(talk)|GO THUNDER! 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. I don't accept your interpretations of that policy/essay. Will respond on the CSH page. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Follow up...I see from your talk page that you're already familiar with Montanabw. I hope you're willing to provide an opinion regardless.... :I JackieLL007 (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big Parelli fan; I do think there's some truth to what Montanabw is saying about him being gimmicky and his followers being culty. That being said, the article reads like Equine Consumer Reports to me, so yeah, I would say there's POV problems. I think that, instead of trying to put more material in, criticism section should be slashed, with just a few points discussing how a lot of his techniques can be considered variations on old training methods and the criticism of the concept of horsenality. Bringing up all the other crap, about the merchandise, the helmets, the training video controversies shows obvious animosity towards the program. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I genuinely appreciate the impartial feedback, especially given that you're not a PNH fan. My approach has so far just been a top-down approach -- start at the top and work my way down. For example, when I showed up to start editing in late December, the page (which has been in existence since 2007) referenced but didn't even list the 7 games (i.e., the building blocks of the program).

I mostly haven't even gotten to the criticism section yet, although I did find and reword one section of text that was a significant mischaracterization -- to PNH's detriment -- of the original source. I also removed some of the obvious unpleasantness like the comment that a person can learn PNH "for a price." I hesitated to delete much of the criticism because I wanted to make sure "everyone was heard," but I agree that it is very unbalanced to include every piece of criticism in colorful detail (and from whatever source) while deleting references showing support that has been voiced by several Olympians and other equine-industry notables.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:JackieLL007 I see that now you are being accused of COI. When the going gets tough, certain editors start casting aspersions and engaging in unprofessional discourses such as this. Be careful not to take yourself down to that level. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lynn, I somehow never got pinged with regard to your comment above (at least I think I see a ping there...?). I actually came back to your page for another reason, namely to thank you for being one of the few who actually took the time to sort through some of the PNH nastiness and speak up. So, thank you. It was appreciated.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think you need to set up your user page. Doesn't have to be anything fancy, but it will help to legitimize your account. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had had some plans to do that at some point. I had come to WP intending to add to several personal-interest topics as well as several professional topics in my area of expertise (I have a doctorate). I thought, "I'll start with the easiest so I can get a feel for things on WP" and, with that, I started with PNH, as I am familiar enough with the basics to be able to darned near add that material in my sleep. No reason to jump right into the technical material.

I certainly did "get a feel for things" pretty quickly -- in the form of Montanabw. I certainly don't mind a good debate, as long as it's intellectually honest, informed and without an agenda. A modicum of friendliness goes a long way, too. I got none of that from her. Eventually, I tired of banging my head against her wall of unrelenting disingenuous nastiness and POV edits. The initial enthusiasm I had felt for contributing flagged and then disappeared entirely. Despite obvious errors on the page (e.g., I see that the program is now listed as offered in "...Australia and the erted [sic] Kingdom," although I don't know who introduced that error), I decided it simply wasn't worth the verbal onslaught I had fend off simply to edit a page to which she so obviously claimed ownership.

On the other hand, if Montanabw ever seeks administrator status, I would be much obliged if you would please drop me a note on my talk page (which will ping my e-mail account). I would very much like to add my 2c to that discussion. For example, did you know she appears to have been engaging in stealth reversions? While I have not watched her at her computer (obviously), it is truly the only reasonable explanation for her reintroduction of patent grammatical errors -- or the fact that she can make what appear to be manual changes, but those changes completely and utterly obliterate a multitude of others' interim edits. I suspect she clicks on the top-level "edit source," selects the entire article, copies the whole thing and pastes it into a text file. When someone performs subsequent edits she doesn't like, whether it's one or 50 or 500, she can revert to her heart's content by pasting her earlier version on top of the current version -- and, all the while, unless someone goes through and parses her changes, it simply looks like she made some changes manually. (For example, her supposed manual changes titled "Kept some changes, tossed some changes" on the PNH page did just that.) I will never be a long-term, knows-the-rules-backwards-and-forwards Wikipedian (my first exposure to WP saw to that), but I certainly assume that is against the rules.

Have a nice summer!JackieLL007 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do to revert several versions back is click on "view history" click on the date of your last preferred version, then click "edit". At that point you can make a few changes, click "save page". All interim edits except those you paste back in are obliterated. It's a means to piss on your turf appear to be collaborating while basically marginalizing the other editor. Other editors (myself included) consider it disruptive. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. That is presumably what she is doing. It's like a free-pass reversion -- a reversion for which the three-revert rule doesn't apply. Why am I not surprised that she found a loophole to a rule designed to discourage bad behavior? I agree that it's disruptive (as well as outright obnoxious).JackieLL007 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[4] NE Ent 20:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NE Ent.

I'm sorry you got caught in a bad block, but bringing an old incident with a former administrator who has not only been desysopped for cause, but is now dead ? Comes across as really petty. NE Ent 01:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone has died, nothing he/she did can be used as an example in a discussion of policy? I reject that premise. I'm not running around bad-mouthing the guy; if after it had been announced that he had died I had gone to his talk page and made a complaint about the block you would have a point that I was being petty, but in this context it's not. If I found issues with an article he created and changed it, saying that he had been wrong would you also consider that petty? Wikipedia, despite the behavior of many editors, is not a social website. Beyond common decency, we should not be expected walk on eggshells over the demise of an editor. I think there is some kind of collective guilt on the part of the community over Dreadstar; a realization that his erratic behavior (possibly including the block, I don't know about his record in that regard) leading to his being desysopped was due to a diagnosis with a terminal illness, but that's for those who were involved in driving him to that behavior to deal with. They need to turn their reflections inward on themselves, instead of outward on those with legitimate criticisms of his actions. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Misinformation is false or incorrect information, spread intentionally (without realizing it is untrue) or unintentionally. I didn't say anyone was intentionally spreading misinformation. He might have checked his facts before responding like a know-it-all. I don't know why he's calling me names, I have nothing against him. Seems to have a bad case of "assume-bad-faith" disease; I hope he eventually gets over it.

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)[reply]

Yes, he has a chip on his shoulder, and even though you say you have nothing against him, I sure get the feeling there's been some negative interaction between the two of you. Yes, I knew that Ancestry.com incorporates the Find-a-Grave database in its own database, and that when you type in name, often one of the hints that comes up is a Find-a-Grave entry. Ancestry.com can be addictive, but I'm not sure if it's worth the $20 a month to me. I've played around on my mother's account (no, I'm not a 30-year-old loser that hangs out in my mother's basement. I'm a middle-aged cheapskate.) Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-aged cheapskate. Yes, me too ;) Gotta watch your budget when you work for free. wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, that wasn't the silly part. "Spreading misinformation" was still, IMO, a poor choice of words, regardless how you parse them. Had you said "it appears from what I've read on another site that folks are misinformed, so I'm clarifying here..." I probably would not have commented on it. Usually best (I have decided after numerous incidents of shoving my foot in my mouth) to phrase things in a way to give yourself an out in case you are wrong. And, I still think your original comment about Ancestry.com is-interesting. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I probably said it that way because I was annoyed at K. We have had a few short interactions, and he generally keeps bringing his attitude, reflective, I assume, of some past baggage with which I am not very familiar. I'd like to help him if he's been unjustifiably wronged, but he doesn't seem to look at me that way.

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)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that. Just ranting about one of my pet peeves. I edited the post. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah! Might have been, and if I'm in the mood someday I'll look into it. My point is that the person who wrote it most assuredly didn't make it up, she made a good faith effort to find accurate info and put it on the site. So, if someone is really adamant that a more reliable source is needed, they should take the effort to find it, not just summarily dismiss the Find-a-Grave. It's not like there's some kind of horrible consequence to anyone should it be wrong. But there seems to be no sense of proportion on WP. Simon F. Blunt is an obscure historical figure that died over 160 years ago, yet there are some who consider using a marginal source that says he graduated from the Naval Academy is just as problematic as putting in a BLP that a notable person flunked out of the Naval Academy based on a blog post. Anal-retentiveness is not a productive trait for a wikipedia editor. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You mean like this?

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)[reply]

user:RexxS Let me get this straight...You butted into a dispute in which you had no vested interest by making retaliatory edits towards me, acted like more of a butt when I came onto your talk page to call you on it, come here and accusing ME of trolling, then run off demanding I not interact with you? If you don't want to interact with me, stop being a buttinsky. Any further retaliatory editing will be taken to ANI. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

EggishornThank you for making the effort to post here. I'm afraid it's all for naught anyway. I feel like I'm a Democrat at Trump campaign rally with him screaming "Lock her up" and everyone chiming into the hysteria. I guess WP follows the world. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn, I've already hatted most of your comments. I'm now going to revert your latest comment. You have nothing relevant to say in this discussion except make personal attacks and assume some injustice done to RO without any direct knowledge of the events. Don't comment any more at the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Bbb23, you came here to state that I have no "direct knowledge of the events" of RO's drama? I was dragged into all of it a long ago, when MBW was trying to prove we were socks, and she was taken to ANI for trying to out us by |attempting to tie us together geographically to IPs. Which, if is the kind of evidence that Diannaa is using to link RO to the IP edits, excuse me for being skeptical. Also, you have the audacity to accuse me of making a personal attack, when what I was doing was defending RO from a personal attack? The page I linked to states that a personal attack is: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." MBW made an accusation that RO had done things in the past that should preclude a Mutual IBAN. I asked MBW for evidence of doing so. MBW could not provide the evidence. She was the one who made a personal attack, and yet you came here, and completely overstepped your authority by telling me to stop commenting any more at discussion. And, you wonder why I think there was some injustice done to RO, when I am subject to this kind of behavior on the part of an admin?

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

Actually, it was User:QEDK whho made the "wildly" comment. wbm1058 (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and correct me. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is GGTF Gamergate? I've heard about it, but no, had no involvement. This is the only account I've ever had. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, I thought Lynn was a sock from the day she started editing, even to the point that I started a SPI at one point. But as investigation progressed, it was clear from her unique behavior that she was not the sockpuppet editor I thought she might have been. So, basically, since that time, I've decided to take her at her word that she did a lot of editing as an anon IP before she created an account. Montanabw^(talk) 19:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is so fucked. Go find a dif where I ever said I did a lot of editing as an IP before I created an account. Go check my first edits. They were as raw as they come. If you actually thought I was some kind of experienced sock, you really have piss poor judgement. And, you never started an SPI. You underhandedly went to an admin and convinced him to block me. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ∯WBG^converse 15:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

An SPI is only appropriate if the person was banned. The person I think this is was not. The only abuse is his implication that he's only been around for six months, and trying to intimidate me. If he wants to go after me for personal attacks, so be it. He pretty much admitted he's not a new user. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLEANSTART advises against returning to old disputes, so what you’re alleging would arguably be a violation of the socking policy, because it sounds like you’ve been in contentious discussions with the person you think it is before. Regardless, my point is that if you think it’s a policy violation, file an SPI with diffs, and it will be taken seriously and evaluated. If you don’t think it’s a violation, probably best not to mention it. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am disappointed that you chose not to assume good faith and are now back to your previous behavior.Montanabw^(talk) 00:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm fucking devastated by your disappointment. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also sad that you are now edit-warring and making false accusations about me because you can't get your way. I had hoped you have changed over the couple of years since we last had conflict. I truly believe that where we can find common ground we should work together, as different viewpoints are valuable and lead to making the best quality articles that are balanced, NPOV and reflect the best of Wikipedia. I sincerely hope you reconsider your ill-tempered remarks. I guess there's not much more I can say at this point. Montanabw^(talk) 17:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no control over your emotions. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors 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 20:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]