Talk:Competitive trail riding/Archive 1

Edits

FYI, made some edits to your EXCELLENT additions to this article in order to bring it into line with wikipedia style. Thank you for all your work. If you have any photographs that can be uploaded with a public domain or GDFL (i.e. free) license, (not too many!, maybe 2-3)they would be very helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 02:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

1. The additions are lifted from NATRC, so may be a copyright violation. Also, Wikipedia requires the contributor to license free redistribution and other uses. Has NATRC approved this? If so, someone can lift every detail and use it to duplicate NATRC's rides in every detail with impunity. --Una Smith 17:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Be kind, I think it was a couple of kids who wrote this, look at the last version before I began my edits. I did all my rewrites without referencing a source, and busted my butt for about four hours last night starting the cleanup on their version. I didn't change a lot of text where it wasn't a total disaster, but please do compare what was to what is and be part of the solution rather than just whining about things. Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Did more cleanup today, tossed a bunch of "how to" material and tried to eliminate everything that was redundant. I'm done for now, but it would be good if people sourced some of this material. I do think the article is still a bit too long and too "how-to," it may still be redundant in places and might benefit from further reorganization, but these kids must have put all day into expanding the original article from a stub and should be encouraged. Remember: Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers (at least, not too hard) I think it has been salvaged from a barrage of tags, though it isn't close to GA yet. Montanabw^(talk) 21:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a NATRC copyright violation. This article was written by the president of NATRC Region 4 several years ago as a public service to newbies in the sport. Her only request is that her name be included somewhere. I'm not sure why Una is so upset. I wish some other folks from other CTR organizations would add their info to the page. I did put in all the links to all the CTR organizations that I know about. NATRC marketing told me to edit and upload the article as a place to get started to get more exposure, so yes, they know it's going on. Neither of us are kids, but I admit that I don't know much about writing in this style. I was told not to make a ton of changes in the article at first to let the dust settle on what should stay and what should go. The organization has been tossing the idea of a wikipedia page around for a long time, I just happened to be the one with the initiative. Ayovich 03:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not "whining" and I am not "so upset". We have an obligation to ensure that text we know to be copied here from elsewhere is copied with the consent of the copyright holder, or delete it. Ayovich, do you represent NATRC? --Una Smith 13:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As a new member, I logged on only to monitor this page, I would like to introduce myself. I'm not sure how this works, but here goes. I am Jean Green, one of the Region Four NATRC Directors. Ayovich is one of our members who has done us all a service by uploading and editing this article written by Paula Riley, another Region Four member and NATRC Presidents Cup winner. I think it is wonderful that you all take the time to edit this article to fit Wikipedia's guideline. I signed up to help make sure that the information here is accurate. Jeaninok 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

So can you tell us, User:Jeaninok: has Paula Riley consented to licensing her work under the terms that Wikipedia requires? --Una Smith 20:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you that Ayovich had permission from Paula to use the information on Wikipedia. I don't know the terms that Wikipedia requires, so I cannot answer that. It appears to me that anybody can do anything, since the article has been repeatedly changed by third parties already.Jeaninok 21:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Una Smith 00:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Paula's material is not copywritten. It was personally written and is used by permission. Besides, it has now been edited and re-written enough that it barely resembles the original material. Ayovich 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As explained on Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, permission for use is not sufficient; the copyright holder must license the text so that it can be not only used on Wikipedia but also used elsewhere (including commercial use), edited, modified, etc. Sorry to be such a stickler, but under the circumstances I think we need to be really clear about this. --Una Smith 17:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This material is NOT copy written material. It was an informal article written by the president of region 4 and permission has been granted. Besides that fact, it has been so altered that it doesn't even resemble the original article anymore.Ayovich 01:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In the United States since 1989 copyright is automatic; see Copyright#Obtaining_and_enforcing_copyright. I'll grant the point is approaching moot due to rewrites. --Una Smith 12:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Authorship

Ayovich wrote "Her only request is that her name be included somewhere." There is no one author of a wikipedia article, and individual authors of text contributed here are not entitled to bylines in the article. She may be identified on the talk page. --Una Smith 13:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam?

Also, the NATRC info verges on spamming this CTR page to promote NATRC above all others, by presuming CTR = NATRC. For that reason, it deserves an WP:POV flag. --Una Smith 17:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't do CTR, but I had never heard there was any organization other than NATRC. Just like the main horse show organization in the USA is USEF, and the endurance people have AERC, everything I have ever seen in any magazine or general interest publication is NATRC and nothing else...So, if there are other legitimate groups (and not just the five members who got ticked off at NATRC and took their marbles off to pout), rather than slap a POV tag on it (in the wrong place), why not add to the article and provide constructive materials? Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! The POV tag is to give readers and editors like you a heads up and focus attention on something that needs work; it is not derogatory. Most of the text under the NATRC heading is not specific to NATRC, so I have broken it out and subsumed NATRC under a heading with other CTR organisations. That will help. --Una Smith 13:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Ladies, please keep in mind WP:CIVIL and refrain from characterizing my contributions here as whining and upset etc. --Una Smith 13:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be uncivil. I'm just trying to figure out why the NATRC content seems to be offensive to you.I made an effort to include information about the other organizations that put on CTR. Most of them are regional in nature. I believe that NATRC is the only nationwide CTR organization. It is the largest and the oldest.Ayovich 16:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Whup and ride

For the record, the contentious phrase whup and ride' is not Wikipedia vandalism. The phrase was in a large block of text contributed by User:Ayovich here. --Una Smith 20:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I took this phrase out of the text since it was objected to by some NATRC members as being undesireable language.Ayovich 16:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NATRC cleanup

I am thinking of simply eliminating the NATRC-specific information altogether. It is not encyclopedia material. Any objections? The generic information is okay here, although it needs to be extended to encompass CTRs other than as conducted by NATRC. I have added external links to other CTR organizations, and a link to the relevant French wikipedia page. --Una Smith 13:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Every organization does things a little differently since NATRC is the most common type of CTR, isn't it a disservice to the readers to eliminate information about something in which they may be interested in participating?Ayovich 17:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This idea is why the Wikipedia help pages recommend you don't edit pages about yourself or your organisation. Anyway, can someone provide a reliable source (not original research!) to support the claim that NATRC is the most common type of CTR? --Una Smith 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just look at a map. Most of the other types of CTR are regionally based, east, southeast, etc. NATRC is the North American Trail Ride Conference and spans the entire United States including Alaska. Look at the ride schedules of the other organizations compared to NATRC and you find that there are far more locations used and rides held. Ayovich 04:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The way the ctr section is organized now seems just fine. There is the general discussion, a mention of different ctr organizations and then an article about one of them - NATRC. The other organzations can have their own articles when they see fit. To make it easy for themselves, they could just state how they are different from the largest organization NATRC.(BevR 17:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

It seems more fair to mention inline where the various organizations differ, rather than hold one of them as "the standard" against which all others are compared. --Una Smith 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Una, I've added BCCTRA to the North America Sanctioning Bodies. They are in Canada. Shall I add Canada to the first sentence under CTR Organizations, too? I don't know how to make it a quick link (like United States and Europe.(BevR 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

To make an internal link, just put double square brackets around the word Canada. Edit this page or this section to see how I did it. --Una Smith 11:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I started trying to generalize some of the info that is specific to NATRC. Not all CTR organizations judge horsemanship. Much of the info on P&Rs is specific to NATRC. I started generalizing, but got sleepy. I stopped after the first paragraph on P&Rs, where I left a hidden comment. I tried to answer some of Una's questions. Corrected a few typos and spelling errors. --Jeaninok 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Those hidden inline questions in the text are not mine. I prefer to use the talk page for questions. --Una Smith 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The wordsmith queen weighing in

Hi gang, I was the one who started the big rewrite on the article, I am sort of loosely what passes for a leader of the wikipedia horse training project and tend to police the horse articles generally. I am not a CTR person, just a horse person in general with a reasonably broad knowledge, so my axe to grind on this article is pretty much style and content, trying to take what people say and word it better (or, more accuately, in line with wikipedia guidelines and encyclopedic style).

I added the inline comments as a way to highlight areas where I think the article needs something added without starting a whole big discussion about it. The comment box often isn't big enough when there are multiple edits. It also is useful as a "note to self" to point out a place where some work needs to go. I removed several today.

Other than that, Una, your passion to quality is commendable, but you DID sound whiny. (grin) As for everyone else, a lot of you are making some real common mistakes made by wikipedia beginners, and that is all remediable. The biggest challenge when one starts is putting one's pride of authorship and ownership of content aside; it can be painful! (Been there!). However, this article is now coming together with the strength of the larger wikipedia community.

I DO recommend that other articles on NATRC and various organizations also be created and linked. See United States Equestrian Federation and American Quarter Horse Association for examples.

Good luck and good work, all! FYI everyone, I also created the stub article Judged trail ride as it has now been red linked in a couple places. Given that I have been on exactly one judged trail ride, and was a obstacle judge for exactly one other, I admit to basic cluelessness about how they operate in general, (do they all have a great barbeque at the end?) but that's why the article is marked as a stub - with room for improvement. Montanabw^(talk) 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem

I came back to do a minor edit on this page, 6 months after my previous edit, and I find this: Una, your passion to quality is commendable, but you DID sound whiny. (grin) I am offended to read yet another patronizing and insulting personal remark. --Una Smith (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, my passion to quality is also commendable and in its pursuit I frequently sound very snarky, obnoxious and at times yes, I suppose patronizing. You can call me those all you want, I won't be offended. I've been called everything from a Queen to a Grumpy Old Man (I am neither), nothing much offends me around here any more. But insulting, no that wasn't intended, that's why I added the parenthetical (grin) -- that meant that even though I was really annoyed at you at the time over whatever it was (I don't even remember), I was trying to blow off tension by mild teasing and meant no real harm. If you want, we can toss that bit and this as well, I don't care. I'm long over it. (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Tagged {{cleanup}}, {{tone}}, and {{wikify}}. Wikifying should come last, after cleanup and fixing the tone. Cleanup is needed because a lot of content is duplicated. Tone needs fixing because the article in places is prescriptive, rather than descriptive. --Una Smith (talk)

Not an issue, but wikification is best done as one goes along. As for cleanup and tone, no real argument there. Quite some time back, I spent hours chopping it down after someone practically cut and pasted the entire NATRC web site on here with extensive how-to, most of which is now gone. If you want to fix further, well, if I may make a sincere good faith comment, I've been watching the work you are doing over on Mounted Search and Rescue and on Frentera, which has been fine (you will note I have not edited either article in quite some time). I certainly do not have the energy to work on this one, so if you want to wordsmith and cut duplicative stuff, go for it. I'd only kindly suggest to just be sure to cite any new or changed material you may add so we don't run into OR problems. Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)