User talk:Curtis Clark/Archive 3

Collateral damage in Manual of Style talk page

When you made an edit to the Manual of Style talk page, you made a change to this phrase:

Take care that the output, V, never exceeds 100 V!

The original version had a no-break space (decimal 160 in the Unicode character set) between 100'' and V, but after your edit, it changed to an ordinary space. Could you explain how you made your edit, so those of us interested in the use of this character can understand the problem better? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's totally weird. I made the edit using the out-of-the-box Javascript-enabled built-in Wikipedia editor, but there was an edit conflict, and so when I made the successful edit, it was of the entire article rather than just the section I intended to edit. My guess is that it had something to do with the edit conflict processing; it's hard to imagine that the Wikipedia editor converts no-break spaces, or someone would have noticed it by now. (I've been following the discussions about markup for nbsp but haven't had a strong enough opinion to vote.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. I suppose I could try to reproduce it in a sandbox by editing from two different browser instances. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Random discovery

Just found this and thought you'd get a kick out of it. Circeus (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Now I'd better go find a photo. Thanks for noticing!--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Boone and vandalism

I appreciate your restoring the missing bottom of the Daniel Boone article. As it happens, you and I were apparently working on doing the same thing at the same time--your edit happened just slightly before mine, so mine was redundant. I would like to point out, however, that I suspect that the cut wasn't vandalism. The Wikipedia article on vandalism says, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (emphasis is from the article). I suspect this was an unintentional error in a good faith edit. I point this out because calling someone a "vandal" or their work "vandalism" has been a part of many misunderstandings and hurt feelings here. But I assume your comment was also made in good faith. Take care! Wakedream (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps to be more precise, I could say "vandalism-induced": Any time an article is undergoing a lot of reversion (and vandalism is a chief reason, especially for a FA), pieces tend to go missing. I've seen these happen in other articles.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Asteracea poster.jpg

Hi, I thought you might want to take a look at the poster above, which I've just nominated in WP:FPC. It was also inserted in the Asteraceae article. It's a shame there aren't good pictutes available for the other Asteraceae subfamilies -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job! I think part of the issue is that some of the subfamilies photograph better from the side than head-on. And in some cases head-on photos would be striking, but that's not the way people ordinarily look at or photograph them.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Six revert?

"Six revert rule?" Is that a new wiki rule or a "Curtis-ism?" (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 05:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess that was obscure. Two of us times the three-revert rule gives six against the anon's three.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, but does that mean we're evil? (grin) Montanabw^(talk) 07:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Do you still beat your horse?" Seriously, I think of natural horsemanship as a way of training people: the legitimate practitioners train people to relate to horses, and the crooks train people to drop large amounts of money on DVDs and courses.

I didn't know about the Xenophon angle. I think that's what I'll call my school: The Xenophon Method: Lost Secrets of the Ancients.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in... (followed you home from the Bitless Bridle article) I highly recommend Top Horse Training Methods Explored by Anne Wilson. Goes over Roberts, Parelli, Loch, Pony Boy, Marks, Tellington-Jones, etc. Pretty fair and balanced, actually. Someday (in my dreams) I'll get some of it up on the whole Natural Horsemanship pile. Yeah.. I dream. Oh, and 'hi'! Ealdgyth | Talk 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just had it out with AeronM and reverted his recent edits. I'd much rather train a mule or a basset hound.

(Laughing!) Curtis, if you had taken the two seconds to read my user page, or really had looked at my website like you said, you would know that I am female. AeronM (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I did, shortly after that. Should I have refactored my entry? Does it matter to you that I know your sex? Does it matter to you that you know mine?--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the book. --Curtis Clark (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Miller's Revolution in Horsemanship is also good in that respect. He goes over a lot of the historical predcecessors, in antiquity and the renaissance plus the various "horse tamer" types in the 19th and early 20th century as well. (Remember Professer Beery? LOL!) My only gripe is that he gave short shift to the contributions of Monte Forman and I think he also omitted Charles O. Williamson entirely. But that's a nitpick. Don't get me started on the modern cults, er, I mean, movements... Want a project? Check out horse breaking and the three or four different articles out there on Monty Roberts. Oh and if you tackle horse breaking, note that horse training also exists, it's a much tighter article, and I patrol a rigid NPOV on that article with an iron fist! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Call for backup, you're it

The spat at bitless bridle is still ongoing, you, me and Ealdgyth versus the creator. I've been taking the heat for 2-3 days and trying to edit the article in an NPOV fashion. Need you back over to help if you can? Am thinking if you know a sympathetic admin, watchlisting may be in order. Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 04:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It was nice letting my blood pressure return to normal, but I guess there's work to be done. I'll check with some admins.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I can't see anything I can do. It appears from here to be a content POV dispute. There was a COI issue that made it more than that, but the discussion appears to have moved past that now. Possibly I'm missing the point because I'm not familiar with the subject matter. Sorry to disappoint.

If Montanabw's latest comment on the talk page is accurate, then the article should probably be taken to AfD with a view to merging it into Hackamore as a COI fork. Hesperian 23:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RE:A synopsis of WP:NPA

When you make negative characterizations about people you don't know, without any factual evidence to back them up, you have almost always violated WP:NPA.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I have done so... it's hard not to when you're at the receiving end of comments like: "I'm still not an opponent of bitless bridles, but I'll wrap a rawhide rope around my horse's lower jaw Native American style before I ever buy one of yours."--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a statement of fact, and it's about me, not you. I choose where I spend my money based on a lot of factors, most of which don't make any difference one way or another in Wikipedia. The point I was trying to make, and I should have been more explicit, is that your approach to the article is as likely to alienate customers as it is to garner them. Wikipedia is fundamentally a bad advertising venue, because other editors will call the advertiser out on it, and the advertiser may end up with more negative publicity than positive.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My point being: your comment reflected your personal opinion, which you are entitled to, but it did not belong on the bitless talk page. AeronM (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If that's a concern to you, I apologize; I should have put it on your talk page. Should we remove the rest of the personal opinion from the bitless talk page?--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And what was the purpose of this statement?: "AeronM, there are no special points for creating a page. Sorry." --Una Smith (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Was that constructive? Or sarcastic?

I'm not sure why you are addressing the comments of others on my user talk page, but I happen to agree with Una in this context. One of the big no-nos is Wikipedia is to think that you "own" a page, and being the creator of a page does indeed carry no special points. Your edits to the page, flying in the face of four other editors who all avow wanting to make the page more NPOV, could easily be construed as a claim of "ownership".--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

or how about: "...people who are zealous advocates of anything are so sadly similar..." (montanabw)

I think your criticism is fair. One of the things that bothers me about many schools of "natural horsemanship" is their ignoring of the fact that horses are individuals, and I think it's also unfair to do that to people. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that they are similar in their zealousness.

Nevertheless, I do have to say that your style of argumentation reminds me of the creationist Duane Gish, whom I've debated. You can take that however you want.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

and my favorite!: "And dear, no personal vendetta is involved. You are simply not that important." Montanabw

I actually thought that was a fair statement, although perhaps the wording could have been better. We all have lives outside Wikipedia, and no matter how upset we get about your POV-pushing, in the larger scheme of things you are unimportant in our lives, and I would hope that we are unimportant in yours.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You thought that was a 'fair statement?' Do you think it adheres to wiki's policy on civility? AeronM (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see why it might bother you on the face of it, but the way I read it, you accused Montanabw of having a personal vendetta, and she(?) assured you that was not the case. Is it uncivil to tell someone that she isn't important enough to you to have a vendetta against her?--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, I care about wikipedia being a high quality encyclopedia, and as correct as possible. That's my main issue. Personalities are irrelevant to me, content matters. Accuracy matters. People who have a commercial product to push need to push it somewhere else. If I have a POV, it's WP:WWIN, which is, I believe a policy statement that reflects the consensus of the community. Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Gish?!

You've tackled Gish and the creationists? Oh, you ARE a brave soul! Those are the world champs at pedantic. Don't even get me STARTED on that topic! I am upgrading you to "cousin!" LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It was an interesting experience. I had studied accounts of his previous debates, and knew of the things to avoid. I concentrated on the failure of the creationist research program of the 1700s and 1800s to adequately address the key question (for creationists) of what are the originally created kinds. Gish didn't even attempt to address what I was saying, but rather continued to argue with all the evolutionists he had debated in the past.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, where have I heard that technique used before? LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Counting stamens and florets

confusing and embarrasing
A. ovary
B. pappus
C. theca, the tube formed by the fused anthers (theca is also used to refer to the outer layers of an anther)
D. ligule
E. style with stamen stigmas

I have no problem admitting that I don't understand something -- and I really don't understand this one! This stuff is all very new to me. I would have to dig it out of the Hieracium stuff I think, but I am pretty sure that I read that each floret has one stamen and one petal and makes one seed. The photograph of this Hieracium seems to support that.

I have opted not to cite my source for what I thought (think); could you explain it and I will not ask you to cite a reference for it? -- carol (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you count from the center out? -- carol (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's explained in Asteraceae. Here are some graphics: this one shows the two-lobed stigma emerging from the tube formed of the five anthers; two of the anther appendages can be seen on either side. Here the Asteraceae are represented by the lower right flower. Here is a page about the Asteraceae.

Because the stamens are united by their anthers, it sometimes looks like a single stamen, but there are five separate filaments at the base.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer -- I am so confused. Probably I have been calling a ligule a petal. I read the stuff in the article Asteraceae, it didn't seem to look like the two genus I have been working with. http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilson/tfp/ast/astpage2.htm calls the ligule a corolla; it also makes sense of the difference between ray florets and disc florets. I am embarrassed by my first attempt to make an SVG (not counting some imported jpeg rendering that look like I used my elbows with finger paints to make) but more than that, I am concerned because I took the words from the article.

Then, earlier this evening I found [this photograph of a sunflower seed pericarp]! This looks nothing like what is left when the seeds have left a dandilion! Would it make sense to have separate definitions for ray floret pericarp and disc floret pericarp? Based on a poll taken earlier of one interested novice, the two pericarp do not seem to be related at all.

The pericarp is simply the fruit wall, which in the Asteraceae is a thin layer surrounding the seed. It has no intrinsic shape of its own, but rather takes on the shape of the underlying seed. Because cultivated sunflowers have been selected for large seeds, they will naturally look different from many other Asteraceae. They also lose their pappus prior to maturation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the questions and thanks for the help so far. -- carol (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I used to do this for a living, so it's fun to return to it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia

Curtis, you've mentioned a couple of times editor fatigue. I have been meaning to say something about that. In short: use your time here well. Many editors enjoy fighting vandals, seeking adminship, etc., and don't have much to contribute toward content. So, if anything you are doing here isn't fun for you, well, don't do it. --Una Smith (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Curtis, just a chin up from a fellow fatigued editor and fellow battler. Una, quality control isn't always fun, but I care about wikipedia so I do it anyway. Montanabw^(talk) 06:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on the wording stuff, I realize that what we have here is a scientific nomenclature issue versus a historical and etymological one. Taxonomy is irrelevant to horse tack, wherein we enter the realm of history (which is my perspective: History/Literature/Etymology/ and stuff like Law.) Didn't mean to jump on you with the "neologism, my ear?" remark! However, overall, I am just appalled at how much disintegration of horse terminology is out there these days, gray horses are called "white," (even had someone put a "fact" tag on that once), fetlocks are "ankles," bay horses are "brown," oh lordy, I feel like I really am holding back some kind of tide. Sort of scary, really. Will these things be forgotten in another 50 years? Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel your pain about things forgotten; knowledge of plants seems to be going through the same decline, at least in the US. But taxonomy (or more specifically, classification) is important to any field, and it has exactly the historical component you are looking for (biological taxonomy is one of the few areas in biology where the practitioners care about references more than 20 years old, for example). And I'm sure your study has shown that the names and the devices often have separate (although intertwined) histories. Terms will even bounce about between disciplines (check out martingale, for example).

The rules of scientific nomenclature were developed as an attempt to rein in (pun intended) the confusion, by establishing historical priority (you can't rename something just because you feel like it), clear connection of names to organisms (it would be like having a jaquima in a museum, that is the one item that will always be a jaquima, and you could compare other jaquima wannabes to it to see whether they matched), and a formalized system for making new names. History is at the root of the science.

No way would folks agree to a system of nomenclature for tack, or anatomy, or colors, but all the principles are still there, and they are the ones that you already use. (Una, this is fun!)--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How good are you on the animal taxonomy stuff? Evolution of the horse, equidae and some of the other articles seem to have some fairly fierce taxonomy wars at times and as I know little about the field I stay completely out of it, but seems a hand willing to source edits is needed...also Pzrewalski's horse equus caballus, equus ferus caballus, equus caballus caballus, I don't get any of it, but some folks are very intense on the matter... Montanabw^(talk) 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm so arrogant, I'll address the question without even looking at the articles. The Equus caballus whatever argument is about whether to recognize a domestic animal as a separate species from its closest wild relative. There's the same issues with dogs and cats: Canis familiaris, or Canis lupus familiaris; is it a separate species, or just a subspecies of wolf (people who go for the latter are blinded by genetics and not too cognizant of behavior). And then there's a priority issue, which is especially contentious since Equus caballus, Equus ferus (I think), Canis familiaris, and Canis lupus all go back to Linnaeus's Systema Naturae, which is the starting point of zoological nomenclature. If they were plants, I'd have a better idea of how to figure it out, but I'm less familiar with the zoological rules.

I'll take a look at the articles and see whether my story changes.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin help

Hi, was wondering if you might have a moment to help with some checking on some scientific name changes here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Latin_checks. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Shyamal (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, friendly fire

Hi Curtis,

Sorry that you got caught in the crossfire on the pronunciation thing, I know you are trying to figure all this stuff out without preconceived notions, and I do appreciate that a lot. You have a white hat on as far as I am concerned, and even when we don't quite have wires straight, I know you have good intentions! Montanabw^(talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I appreciate the kind words, they were much needed. But have you seen this? These people are scaring me. Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me start out, in light of the heat (snicker) that I have taken for my "mule and basset hound" remark, that I love and respect terriers, and that I mean this in the same sense of analogy that Aeron talks about with sculptors in clay vs sculptors in rock.

Terriers can be relentless. Terriers can focus on the goal at hand sometimes to the exclusion of all other stimuli. Even my Toy Fox Terrier is like this, and he is marginally a terrier (AKC groups them with the toy breeds). There is not a person alive who has the focus of your average terrier, but people differ in this respect, and some of them are closer to the terrier end of the spectrum. This is not intrinsically a bad thing; I'd prefer that the programmers on my staff be more like terriers than basset hounds, for example. When I'm plagued by toy foxes, I want the focus of a toy fox terrier. But if I'm a toy fox, my views will be very different.

Dogs all have their own "doganalities" (as Parelli might say). Imagine if they could post to Wikipedia! Stumbling upon a screed by a toy fox terrier could be enough to send any toy fox into apoplexy. But there's more to the foxie than the screed, just as there's more to you than your snarkiness, more to Una than her holding people's feet to the fire (I know Una from a context outside Wikipedia), and, I imagine, more to Aeron than her seeming need to be right and to have the last word. (And more to me than bad animal analogies.)

Sometimes it's best to be the old plough horse ("OMG, he's mixing his animal metaphors again!"), stand back from the fray, and remember that you do have a row to hoe.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm relieved to see that bad animal analogies have a place at Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No angry mastodons--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I love bad animal anaogies. Over the course of my life I have owned (or been owned by) two wire-haired fox terriers. Very smart, quirky critters. Have you ever noticed that thing with horse people and the Jack Russell Terrier breed? I don't quite know how it started, but a friend calls hers a "Jack Russell Terrorist" -- if they had opposible thumbs, they'd take over the planet! I think they issue one to every subscriber to Chronicle of the Horse.

I think there needs to be an Animal Planet special pitting Jacks against border collies. "Tonight we herd in Hell!"--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, per the spat about making hackamore into a disambiguation page (Una is for, I am against, we both are adamant), was this originally your idea? Montanabw^(talk) 06:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it was, based on the observation that the use of "hackamore" (in contrast to its original meaning) really needs disambiguation. If I'd realized that this was a match, and that was a pile of gasoline-soaked rags, I might not have advanced the idea.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Under attack

Curtis, Aeron is under attack elsewhere, and no doubt feeling defensive. KWIM? --Una Smith (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

KWIM? 104.9 FM in Window Rock?

From what I can see of her edits to some of those articles, she deserves to be "attacked", but I am unconcerned with those articles, I am no longer concerned with her, and I've lost interest in horse articles (plant articles have never been this contentious other than the controversy over the mere mention of homeopathic preparations).--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, I am sorry that you have lost interest in the horse articles. I hope it's temporary. These things will pass, I hope. I have felt pretty discouraged about wikipedia these last few weeks, myself. Almost two years of editing for me, and this spat has been a really unique situation. I've had some editing spats before, but usually everyone in the past has an assumption of goodwill, just a somewhat harsh writing style. Anyway, I feel bad that things got so contentious that you are stepping back, though I sure do support you doing what's best for you. Enjoy working on the plant articles, and speaking only for myself, I'm not going anywhere near the flouride issue! (smile). Montanabw^(talk) 06:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, reply

Per the debate you linked to on my talk page, I guess there's a line between being tongue in cheek and being mean, and I really do try not to cross it, though certainly at times I suppose I get frustrated and respond with more of a sarcastic edge than is ideal. But I have certainly dealt with my share of snarky editors and really, this comment, calling me a "My Little Ponyite," a creationist and a member of the "Mustang and burro cult" was pretty over the top (particularly in light of the recent spat, where I am accused of pretty much the opposite problem). But frankly, I am tired of dealing with the issue, wish the exaggerated accusations and quotes taken out of context would just lay off so I can get back to editing articles. I guess I have had my own feelings hurt on wikipedia many, many times and just got tough and realized that it goes with the territory. Montanabw^(talk) 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who misspells "species" twice is not a real biologist, but of course a REAL BIOLOGIST might be something different. Ironically, E. caballus may have priority over E. ferus; I'd need to check some references on zoological nomenclature. If that is true, it would be Equus caballus ferus rather than the other way around.

My point to you is that, inasmuch as Aeron can't see where her remarks could be insulting, perhaps that's true of you, too. There's not much you can do about her, but there's a lot you can do about you.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you DO know that Aeron published your most famously misunderstood comment on her personal web site? (grin) ( said tongue in cheek, ducking, grinning and running -- just in case I wasn't clear... ). Montanabw^(talk) 00:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I had intended to keep this between AeronM and me, but since she doesn't want to let it go (despite her claims to the contrary; maybe I'll look up diffs), then enjoy. Feel free to use any of these—remember that it is all GPDL.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's ironic that she has no evidence one way or the other of my stance on bits, or on bitless bridles other than my unwillingness to buy anything from her, since there is no evidence. She was careful not to identify me with any of the calumny in later paragraphs, but I think other editors might want to be aware that she disses Wikipedia editors outside of Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I am flattered that you two spend so much time talking about me! But, really, don't you have anything better to do? : ) --AeronM (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm appalled that you would diss me on your blog, but then you are perhaps the most disagreeable person I have ever "met", so I shouldn't be surprised. I was willing to let it go, but obviously you're not, which says a lot more about you than it does about me.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like she's boogied from wikipedia, check the talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 02:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidently not. I guess I'll still need to watch my back.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

She wrote "In my short time here, I have been subjected to more personal attacks and mean-spirited behavior than I could ever have imagined possible." Funny, in her short time here, I have been subjected to more personal attacks and mean-spirited behavior than I could ever have imagined possible, and it was all from her.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You and me both. My talk page even says Whacking with a Wet Trout is appropriate when I get too snarky, but somehow that part was skipped and I was fearing for my jugular. By the way, have you ever read this article? Puts the last two weeks into perspective.  ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 07:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I avoid diagnosing people online. (There's a DSM-IV in the bookcase, and I know how to use it just well enough to not get into trouble. I'm happy to rule out diagnoses, but not make them.) I'm certainly looking forward to moving on.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you are probably right. Sigh. Darn, and just when I was starting to enjoy wikipedia again. Montanabw^(talk) 08:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider her edits since she "left" (and keep in mind I have the wet trout in hand): If a new editor had made those edits, or if she had made those edits in the beginning rather than the ones she did, we'd all be thinking "Cool, another horse editor." If she had registered a new user name and had the old deleted, we would have suspected it was her because she is editing the same articles and pushing the same issues, but (so far) in a much less inflammatory way.

In my neck of the chaparral, one has to look a gift horse in the mouth, because you still have to buy hay, but if this is the new, improved AeronM, I'm still gonna be wary, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed (reply couldn't get any narrower). Clean start is always OK. Wariness also OK. As Reagan said to Gorbachev, "trust but verify." :-) Montanabw^(talk) 23:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done

I'm taking an indefinite break from horse articles and horse editors. Too many people who seem to enjoy edit wars (actually not that many, but it only takes a few). I'm taking them off my watchlist, along with the articles, so if any horse editors want to contact me, here's the place to do it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Curtis, Saw the stuff you put on my talk page. And I appreciate you alerting me to the conversation. I am so tired of this, all I can tell you is that Una has had a penchant for hitting articles already on my watchlist and then attacking edits that were originally my contributions, making this probably the worst month of my wiki-experience, considering that I have been here for two years now. It has been horrible and only sheer preseverance has kept me from quitting wikipedia altogether, which is what I think she wants me to do. So sorry that you got dragged into this and I appreciate your attempts to mediate or moderate. Montanabw^(talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea to trim the watchlist. I try to keep mine under 40 and I always avoid watching user pages. --Una Smith (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[Evidently she was watching mine...--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)]