User talk:Pitke/archive2009

Obi (sash)

Hi, I noticed you were looking for peer reviews for Obi (sash), and though I didn't have time to do a proper review, I've taken a quick look. I would've added these comments there, but didn't want to create a section, as it always seems to mess things up with the transclusion.

I added a gallery; this might not help immediately, but I found some images from flickr, which I believe may help illustrate points.

The main suggestion I have is, that the martial arts belt information be moved to a separate article. I suggest a short paragraph noting the use of 'obi' in this sense, and a {{main}} tag.

Some of the pictures would therefore go; you could consider moving others into the gallery.

The language needs some proof-reading; I will try to do that if I can find the time.

Also, the references aren't well cited; I suggest using one of the tools in WP:CITE to get the information filled in.

My edits were part of the ten article campaign.

Regards, --  Chzz  ►  23:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your trouble! It was a lot of help!

• gallery > will employ (also helped to find uncategorised pictures on Commons)
• martial arts belt > did the chopping
• language > a kind soul has already done something
• ref citing > done

Pitke (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work; looks much better. I won't monitor this page, so shout me on my talk if I can help more. --  Chzz  ►  16:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Could you possibly add a comment to the feedback in user:chzz/10? I'm trying to get the 'campaign' started. Thanks! --  Chzz  ►  16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

WPEQ

Hi Pitke, Noticed you've edited a few horse articles. If you'd like, feel welcome to join WikiProject Equine. Montanabw^(talk) 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll join. Pitke (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

White horses

Pitke, good work on the Finnhorse article and the Luokki article. However, be a little careful with the editing of material on white horses. Between language stuff and recent genetic studies, the terminology being used in these articles is often carefully chosen. For example, no one knowlegable about horses in the English-speaking world says "white-gray," it's just "gray," or if one must be specific, then "completely grayed out" means a horse with all white hair. And lethality in true is an issue with both frame overo and dominant white; dead foals are not a mere "American obsession," they are genetically linked to specific colors (dominant white seems to just pop up as a mutation from time to time and then is almost always found to result in a non-viable fetus if homozygous; frame being common in Spanish-descended breeds, particularly those popular in America). And champagne gene is a completely different dilution gene from cream, you totally messed up on that article. Any other comments on the talk pages in question. Montanabw^(talk) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was feling nervour about saying "white-gray" too... felt it'd be shorter that "completely greyed" of something though, but, well. And calling LWO foals an "American obsession" might be harsh, but Frame (not to say, dominant white) are rare or non-existent in almost any given breed (save the minis perhaps), and I daresay most of the world would not understand why, for example, a random spotting article would suddenly have a line of this spotting pattern is completely different from frame overo and dominant white genetics-wise and will not produce lethal white foals even when homozugous. A person reading such an article, not knowing much anything about horse colours, might even come to think that lethal white foals are a very common problem connected to many patterns (and colours), and while this is plain speculation, it's true that after a paragraph of genetics behind the given colour or pattern, saying (in bold yet) that it's genetically different from Frame, and that it will not produce lethal white foals, gives the impression of patronising. I see this is completely plausible when it isn't too far-fetched to believe that a breeder in a situation of an unexpected white (double dilute cream, mixed double dilute, dominant white, double SB1 etc.) foal would grab her rifle, but we still need to make sense to the random reader as well. Thus, IMHO, sentences like dominant white foals are born white or nearly white, and for that reason are sometimes mistaken for the so-called Lethal White Overo foals, which [explanation]. However, [explanation] would be better than just saying that this isn't connected, don't you worry. Pitke (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agreed with the un-bolding, actually. But otherwise, yes, some people would sometimes euthanize a sabino-white or a cremello if they caught the sniffles, or even at birth, figuring they'd die anyway. It is a real "thing," and there is a lot of misinformation out there that still needs correcting (go to any message board, people still don't understand genetic recessives, they say "my mare had two foals and they were both OK, so she must not be a carrier." ARRGH!!!) I'll not comment on what this says about the dismal state of American science education in the secondary grades, but we are also the land where 45% of the population doesn't believe in evolution. (Don't get me started on that, either).

As for US focus, frame overo is somehow linked to some Spanish Colonial Horses, so also probably a concern in South America, and will be a concern in Europe to the extent that the Quarter Horse and Paint breeds grow in popularity there (Germany in particular seems to love things western, note where half of our "western riding" photos originate! LOL!) I agree that some perspective is needed, so that point IS taken, but the bottom line is that lethal white is an EXTREMELY big deal in the US, especially the western US, (think California and Texas, which each have more horses than a lot of European nations!) to the point that for decades, many American breed registries would not register a horse with body white, even if Sabino or even cremello. No one understood the genetics, we only knew that a lot of white foals from apparently non-white parents died. (It also didn't help that the Paint association was in denial about it for decades, and still is...they make the very disingenuous statement that not all "overo" foals are lethal white. Which is true, technically, if you consider that they put splash and Sabino as "overo," meaning, "everything that isn't tobiano." (Grrrr) Even I bought that one for awhile. I remember the first equine genetics class I took (this was in the mid-1980s, I confess) we were actually taught -- in a university with a pre-vet program (!) -- that Palomino was a cross of "chestnut" on "albino" and that 25% of the foals would be "lethal albino," even though we now know that not to be true. So in a way, I agree with you, but we also have some myths to counter too... Montanabw^(talk) 03:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Which reminds me, could we by any means get rid of overo when not discussing the paint horse association division of patterns? The whole concept of overo (to English language I think) comes from the paint horse association I believe, and there is no reason to universally call "everything but tobiano" a collective name as there obviously is nothing to make them a pattern family. And actually, splashed white (when not crossed with, say, sabino) actually seems to be a non-ovecico pattern in that the "lines" are more or less straight as with tobiano... I know Wikipedia is not a hammer on the heads of the ignorant, but not calling every non-tobiano pattern overo might help people to understand that sabino and frame patterns are genetically about as near relatives as tobiano and frame, and thus, maybe just Maybe help ease the LWO thing... Pitke (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'd say no. For one thing, the APHA is probably the largest color breed registry in the world and unquestionably the largest registry of horses with the "overo" family of color patterns. Not to say the overo article can't be improved somewhat, but until the entire classification parlance is replaced by more genetically specific terms (which I suspect will occur within a decade or so, but we ain't there yet), I really think we venture into the realm of OR to toss it. It also isn't just paints; in the old days, the term "overo" was used across multiple breeds (mustangs, gaited horse breeds, etc...) to describe the "anything that we can't call tobiano" situation. I don't know how far back it goes, but I can personally attest to the terminology split dating at least to the late 1960s--the frame/splash/sabino thing is, I think, newer, and while the terms still predate modern DNA testing, they were considered subdivisions of "overo" for a very long time -- the original "overo" description basically describes frame, and the rest became sort of tagged on for lack of somewhere else to put them. So to toss overo would be like saying, "let's just ignore the standards of the NBA because they're kind of illogical and apply just to the Americans, after all, people play basketball all over the world" (LOL!) FYI, Splash is genetically distinct, also, and in true splash overos, there is a genetic link to deafness. (The APHA is still in denial about that one too, just like the Appaloosa registry has its head in the sand about blindness tied to the leopard complex, the Peruvian Pasos want to pretend their breed doesn't have a genetically-based stifle problem, etc...genetic horse diseases is sort of my thing...how that got me interested in color genetics, I'm not quite sure...but...) And yeah, it is really weird how all of them appear linked to the KIT gene. Along with the discussions I've had with Countercanter on the white, dominant white, and cream pages, also note the sandbox off my talk page. We've been hashing this stuff over for about a year. It's quite fascinating. I'd say even my own views have changed quite a bit from where I was, say, three years ago. Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

But at least we can talk less about "sabino overos" and more about "sabinos" no? I've heard that specific Australian families carrying the splashed white pattern also seem to carry deafness linked to the pattern, and I've read about the leopard complex being connected to a type of night/dim blindness, not "real" blindness. Pitke (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sabino already has its own article and I think (hope) is only called "Sabino overo" on the overo page. I agree that can be tweaked. Indeed, only the Paint crowd calls Sabino an "overo" color, all other breeds run screaming from that designation. But what "Australian families?" Of what breed? Leopard complex, well, read what we have in Appaloosa and Leopard complex. Basically, there are two different blindness conditions, the night blindness you mention and actual real blindness, both of which occur in Appaloosas at a higher incidence than other breeds and there appears to be a color link...there is a horse refuge not far from where I live that takes in completely blind appies. It's a real thing. Problem is, the genetics don't get studied until there's money to study them, and as long as a breed association is in total denial that they have a problem, they don't put up the money to get the research done (Grrr...) I do applaud APHA for putting up the $$$ to get the test developed for lethal white. And in the process they linked it to frame only, which I think played a BIG role in the other breeds relaxing their "white rules", particularly in the breed that prohibited sabino body spotted horses from being registered (a fear of lethal white was behind some of that...) Montanabw^(talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As for what families in what breed, I cannot possibly say since this information comes from a book that does not say. It only mentions a study by the author and the year. As for blindness, I just recently translated the Leopard complex article into Finnish so I was kind of surprised that there is a real blindness condition linked to it, but the Appaloosa article now just clarified it. Recurrent uveitis -> possible blindness, that makes sense. The Leopard complex article said nothing about that... Well, now I'll have to run and update those Appaloosa and Leopard complex articles in the fi version :D Also, I'm excited to see how Quarter horse will look like in, say, thirty years from now. I believe they've relaxed the colour rules so that they now accept any colour horse as long as it's otherwise ok and is proven fullblooded? Pitke (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, AQHA repealed the "white rule" and now allow horses that are cremello, blue-eyed, or have pinto spotting to be registered if they a) are otherwise eligible for registration verified by DNA testing for proper parentage or b) If they are APHA registered Paints that can trace in every line back to horses eligible for AQHA registry -- essentially, APHA was founded by people who were tired of their cropout horses being denied AQHA registration because of body spots; a registered Paint has trace to either Quarter horse or Thoroughbred ancestry. I don't know if any Appaloosas would meed that criteria, though there are some QH foundation sires in the Appy breed and they allow them as an outcross on registered appies, but there is breeding other than QH and TB in the Appy, including Arabians, Mustangs and assorted cow ponies of unknown ancestry. (Of course, some of the same could be said of early Quarter horses too, but they don't like to be reminded of that! LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cremes

Pitke, I think you might (?) be having issues with light colored palominos. I must explain. Palominos have a white or near-white mane and a body of varying shades of gold, but dark skin, dark eyes (unless under white markings or something). The very light palominos--like that foal, who is clearly a palomino of quarter horse type, used to be sometimes called "cremello," "champagne," or, in Europe, "Isabelline." However, they are single-cream dilute palominos, nothing more. Champagne dilution also includes skin mottling and light eyes, pearl dilution includes light eyes and in single dilution is more of a peach. If you mix cream and another dilution gene, the light eyes are the tell-tale giveaway. As for "chocolate palominos," the various palomino color breed registries might take them, but they are not palominos genetically (one palomino registry even takes chestnut Arabians with flaxen manes and talls, for pete's sake, they nave NO interest in genetics, I think they are just interested in getting people to send them money!) I'm all for making the articles clear to people and building bridges between popular understandings and the rapidly-evolving world of equine color genetics, but we have to be careful not to go in reverse; some of your edits suggest that you currently are where I was at 2-3 years ago before Countercanter started beating me over the head about some of this stuff! (And I still argue with her about the sabino issues! LOL!) Maybe take your assorted concerns to the talk pages of the respective articles and we can hash out how to improve them. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The light palominos bit is actually right since I've grown with the general idea that a palomino (meaning a single cream dilute chestnut) is more or less yellow; light, golden or strong. The lightest palominos I've ever seen are the ones I've recently spotted on the net. That one quarter buddy is a recognisable light palomino, hands down, but anything that registers in my brain as "cream" rather than "butter" makes me instantly think "ok someone's desperate about registration". It's only been recently since I've been realising that yes, VERY sooted palominos are possible (—› "chocolate palominos" are possible), and yes, VERY light palominos are possible (I know a quarter horse in Finland who is as light a buckskin that he constantly confuses people as a pseudo grey)... I try to remind myself that those porridge-coloured Fjord horses probably would have the lightest imaginable bay coloration if not for the dun gene. With the term chocolate palomino I have (while trying to refrain from ever calling flaxen chetnuts palomino) tried to bend into the vocabulary apparently widely used in English as the term is used in here but also over the Commons as well. I and Kersti have tried to get the category system working but have also been working the accuracy of single colors identifications.

I have to thank you for your constant support and impressive patience with my stumbles into the en.wikipedia with my somewhat, well, different, and admittably at times erraneous views and hasty conclusions >_>

As for accepting palomino-like chestnuts in palomino registries... I guess the nicest way to think about is that taking in such clear shades of flaxen chestnut makes it possible to pair up cremellos and such chestnuts, resulting in nice lovely golden palominos. Viitanen discusses in her recent book that the shade of the base chestnut color directly affects the shade the palomino will be. Thus palomino-like chestnuts and cremellos of ordinary palomino parentage would result in clear light golden or platinum shades. But that doesn't change the fact that insisting on calling flaxen chestnuts palominos is plain stupid :P

As for using the talk pages... I'll try and refrain from making "obvious" edits. Chances are we'll still be discussing thing like these after years though... :P Pitke (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! As far as I can tell, ALL Fjords are some variation of dun, and it gets interesting because there clearly is a cream gene in some of them too. Great place to study a dun/cream double dilute. (and then what you get with a cream/dun on a cream/dun...I think they call it something like a "white dun" -- but in Norwegian) Check out the article Fjord horse, I completely ripped my hair out figuring out their color terminology, which is completely unique to everyone else's! (This one gal just kept yelling at me that a Fjord wasn't a grullo, it was a "gray" not "gray dun," just "gray" (sigh) --took me a month to settle that war! If you try editing that one in the color section, I'll warn you now that you do so at your own risk!! I sweated blood on it! LOL!) And not all silver dapples get dapples --we have a few where they just go kind of chocolate or golden. It appears to basically be just a dilution that acts only on black hair-- it's masked on a chestnut, for example. And "sooty" palominos aren't "chocolate," (see sooty (gene), where there is a great example) the color is not uniformly distributed. I pretty much think that "chocolate" palominos are genetically just dark chestnuts with flaxen, or the occasional silver dapple.

Essentially, either a horse has one copy of the cream gene on a chestnut base coat or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it's not a palomino. The golden champagnes are interesting, but the eyes and mottling are will be a dead giveaway, plus both champagne and pearl are actually pretty rare (and pearl doesn't seem to create a gold coat, more of an apricot one, and only if homozygous...weird!) If a horse has the cream gene and other things, it may get into double dilute territory in some ways, but then really isn't a palomino either, again the eyes usually tell the tale. In the pre-DNA days, people had sort of a gut instinct about this, for example even when the AQHA had their "white rule" that excluded blue-eyed cremellos, if a very light horse had dark skin and dark eyes, they'd let it in as a palomino, sometimes people would informally call it "cremello" though... Montanabw^(talk) 07:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Now this next is in the OR realm, but My family or I have owned three palominos over the course of my life, and, living in Quarter Horse country, I've certainly seen a ton more palominos and buckskins, they are quite common here. One we had when I was a kid, a quarter horse, was very light, and after we sold her, she was crossed on a fairly dark, non-flaxen, chestnut Arabian, and threw a palomino foal even lighter than she was! (People often called this foal a "cremello," even though she wasn't) And the foal grew up to be much bigger than both parents...) I've witnessed the other two, both rich gold "classic" palominos in the summer -- become very light, creamy palominos in the winter, then shed out dark gold again the following spring. The palomino illustrating Bend-Or spots is the one I have now, she is also a bit sooty on the legs and face, which also ebbs and flows with the seasons -- right now you wouldn't think she had any sootiness, but in the spring she'll look like her legs need washing! Montanabw^(talk) 07:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I may have to beg to differ with Viitanen, (I presume this to be a Finnish author?) to the degree that the shade of gold is not necessarily influenced by the shade of chestnut of a parent; I've seen two flaxens throw a boring red horse and boring red horses throw lovely flaxen. And on that note, take a look at a famous flaxen chestnut Arabian here in the USA who got accepted by the Palomino registry: here and the ranch stands two cremello studs of other breeds to cross on Arab mares, these are some of their animals: sales list, I note they have a generous definition of both "palomino" (one foal sure looks chestnut to me) and "black" (looks like a bay to me...!). So there are so many variables. All food for thought. And things changing so fast, it's a challenge to keep up. Montanabw^(talk) 07:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Viitanen (yes she's a Finnish author on horse colours) actually only suggests that it's the horse's own base colour that affects the shade the palomino color will be. This base colour of course has to be inherited from the parents. At a different point in her book she explains how complex the heritance of colour shades (say, flaxen or any given shade of sorrel or liver) seems to be. I don't remember if the speculates of sites someone else when she suggests that shades are determined by multiple factors, which would explain why two bright red sorrels might produce a faint dusty offspring and so on. Pitke (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. You know, I don't know if they've actually found "flaxen" gene yet...but at any rate, simple Mendelian genetics of recessive genes can easily explain how a lot of apparently weird things can happen. Then add things like imcomplete dominants and gene complexes and you have a real fascinating mess. Montanabw^(talk) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fjords & stuff

Oh dear, I mentioned an article! Oh dear. You do a good job of spotting problem areas, though I may not always agree with your solutions Some future tips:

1. all "modifiers" (for lack of a better term) exist in all horses, though some, like computer binary (1 and 0) are simply switched off. Let's take a chestnut. A Chestnut is ee, aa, gg, dd, cr/cr, to/to, etc... all modifiers are there, and all are "shut off." A black is Ee or EE and aa, gg, dd, cr/cr, etc... One modifier is turned "on." A bay is Ee or EE and AA or Aa and gg, dd, cr/cr... hence, two modifiers are turned "on." and so on. Therefore, a "palomino-based dun" is just as easily a "dun with palomino traits". In fact, given that dun, when present, is dominant, and the "wildtype" horse color (the color of the original undomesticated ancestral form) is in fact dun, "dun with cream dilution" is probably more accurate (we have the proverbial chicken or egg question here.)
2. Photos should have something to do with the text; i.e. a butt shot under "breed characteristics" doesn't illustrate much in the way of breed characteristics. LOL! We have found that we also generally avoid using the forced image size any more (no "200px") because everyone can set their image preferences, and forced sizes then make some people's pages look absolutely bizarre. User: Ealdgyth has sorted out the image sizing stuff better than the rest of us...
3. English wiki is getting tighter and tighter on sourcing. The horse articles in general are a bit weak, but our GA and FA articles are quite good and make good examples of what we're up to. Look at User:Dana boomer's work on her GAs: Haflinger horse, Cleveland Bay (which she is currently taking to FA, whatever you do, don't go in and edit that one!) or our one coat color GA, Countercanter's Dominant white. Or a joint WPEQ GA project, Appaloosa.
4. So be careful if you wing it. We may have already been there, done that. May want to take your thoughts to the talk page. (Maybe create a talk page mini-gallery of some images you think would be worth adding to an article too!) But, on the other hand, you DO represent a knowledgable horse person with a standard level of interest, who has read some good books, so to the extent that we have gone off to the cutting edge and aren't understandable or user-friendly, I really DO think you have a lot to offer by pointing out where we are not getting material across in an understandable way. Montanabw^(talk) 04:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No article will be safe from me now... If I haven't already gone and edited it it's either really good or I haven't just found it, or I'm just busy expanding related fi.stubs... But onto the point. I decided to word it as palomino-based dun instead of a load of other possibilities (including the horror that is dunalino) because it is as correct as it would be the other way around, and not as clumsy as "chestnut with dun and single allele cream dilutions" and to top it, consistent with the whole list of X-based dun. Judging from the multitude of horse colour synonyms, there really are no consistent rules to how a modified colour should be written out, if not that spotting patterns come last. Finnish has a set order for most of the modifiers, with just one or two exceptions for terms that are grandfathered in and override a few others. Generally, I an nowhere near done with the Fjord horse article so don't worry, I will be finding references and tweaking the illustrations as well. As a side note, I'm beginning to think the major colour gene articles should be promoted to Mid importance since almost every breed and colour article could link to them, and they are a topic that is not easily understood without studying the matter. Pitke (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe if you want to up the major color articles to mid, it would be OK, but why not ask over on the WPEQ talk page? As for the rest, there are things that we are just stuck with. The horse world is just loaded with English colloquialisms and we keep adding them at a rapid rate! LOL! "Dunalino" is one of them, but luckily its use seems to be confined to the stock horse breeds. You'll note I try to avoid it, though to ignore it completely is OR just as much as it would be OR to claim that it's the universal term! A horse with a cream and a dun gene is a horse with a cream and a dun gene. I am guessing that in the USA, the geneticists actually DO have an order the modifiers are listed, and it may be the same as the Finnish one (science tends to be a bit more international than other fields), but we'd need to ask Countercanter or someone. I don't know off the top of my head. And for things like "blue dun" or "mouse dun," there is what will work at commons, where many languages have to be considered (hence "mouse dun" to avoid a fight), and what will work at English Wikipedia (where "blue dun" is more common) In en wiki, we are a people separated by a common language--all we have to do is fight over UK vs US English, with substantial input from the Aussies! (And whines from the Irish, the New Zealanders, the South Africans and everyone else who feels left out) Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But more to the point, I hope you can avoid being angry at me, or feeling bad about yourself, as that is not my intent, but the problem here is that you need to respect that there are other people here who have been busting their butts for years on this stuff. (Not just me). When you dive into an article on English wiki, at least most of the horse ones that aren't stubs, you are entering a community. I remember when I started on English wiki, the horse articles were wide open, most were poorly done, there was one other dedicated editor, I found lonely orphaned articles all over the place and could be very, very bold and no one would even notice. But that was three years ago. Sounds like Finnish wiki is sort of there now; I get the impression that you have a very free rein to edit there, and boldness is needed. Here, the place is much busier with a neighborhood of horse enthusiasts working in a number of areas. And we have put hours and weeks and months into working on articles not just once but multiple times. Fjord has had two major rewrites and what it needs now is probably a GA push, for which we probably need Dana boomer to weigh in, because as it sits now, it's nowhere close. But GA is very exacting, and the challenge for the article is that the best sources on the unique information to Fjords are things like the promotional groups, which aren't ideal in the eyes of the editors who live in GA land. Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the specific articles, in some cases, you are all but making things up because they feel right to you. In other cases, I think you are writing down a translation of terms or phrasing that may well reflect conventional wisdom or tradition in the Baltics, but is not accepted as such in English-speaking countries. But in some situations you are also just simply inserting things that aren't accurate, sourceable or even conventional terms of art in English. What you or I think might be "logical" is not really relevant; on English wiki, it's what is sourceable to verifiable sources (see WP:V). And for that which isn't sourced yet, rather than shredding an article by removing promising content, that what our extensive collection of tags is for: {{citation needed}}, {{dubious}}, {{refimprove}}, etc... --to bring problems to the attention of a lead editor if there is one, and to alert those who like to work on such things. To just go in and madly edit against consensus isn't being bold, it's making other people spend hours cleaning up the mess. And you are a very promising editor, but you will do better to work cooperatively here...the more you do and the better you get as a writer, the more you become trusted by the community. I am to the point now where if a certain editor has an article edit on my watchlist, I don't even need to check it because I know they do a good job of cleanup and such. Others, I go "oh oh, another article totally screwed up." You aren't yet in either category, but it would be really great if we can add you to the "regulars" of WPEQ who can work together. But when you say things like "the pearl gene makes pearl horses", it's pretty obvious that you didn't even read pearl gene, let alone any outside sources, like the University of California, Davis' site where they found the gene and described its action. Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going on a bit here, so shall stop. But my point is simple: I like your energy and enthusiasm, I think you are a promising new-to-English-wiki editor, but you are entering a world here with active editors who have been working hard and have created some areas of consensus and culture. We are asking that you work cooperatively and respect the knowledge base that is already here. Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Please pardon the next few deep whines... I'll try and keep them where they will serve the purpose of making things clearer. I'm utterly discouraged by the English wiki. (Actually, yes. This is why I don't edit more, and why I tend to choose the shorter, simpler, and often seemingly backwards ways to express myself.) The user inferface is not the one I'm used to (fi version has, for example, buttons for citation and {{checkthis}}-type templates; the English ones more numerous and complex) and it has a cost. I find myself very confident in creative writing, but the scientific language is still something I must improve, and a lot. There is language interference, and thinking pattern interference. The pearl gene example is perfect to illustrate the issue. I say "Pearl gene makes pearl horses, not palomino ones" and mean "What pearl gene is able to do is only the pearl phenotype (when it actually is activated); it alone cannot be responsible for palomino phenotypes", and am understood as (if I got this right) "Pearl gene will always produce a pearl phenotype, never a palomino one". Even when discussing things in the article talk with people who seem knowledgeable, or here with you, I feel I cannot say anything in a short and effective way, and need to explain everything in a genetically-politically correct way, and in unnecessary depth, simply to make sure I'm not thought of as unknowing, and replied to as I were such. It feels like I was expected to always include disclaimers saying "I know I don't know everything but I also know I know something, please consider the possibility that I didn't express myself in the clearest possible way", and it makes keeping to the point of things quite a task. Chances are there still is a word that gets picked up and worked over, and that the discussion either fully digresses or is bloated. Explaining everything and keeping confirming things also interferes with the culture I've grown in - we tend to ask "what do you mean with this" if there's something not quite clear, or something seems like a mistake. Effective expression is valued. (I notice this often, since I tend to ramble in English in a way I would never in Finnish. Always.) (Q.E.D.) Pitke (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a bold editor, and yes, fi.wikipedia has only two active editors on equine articles, and yes, I can do almost whatever I want there. I do realise that en.wikipedia is lightyears from other versions in both general quality and coverage, but also in what is expected of editors. I do realise that I need to slow down, but this is something that I will not be able to do smoothly in a flash. If there is a clear NPOV breach I tend to jump at it... The same goes with anything that should bear checkme-templates (cite this, dubious, etc.) - I guess it must be the experience from fi.wikipedia. Those templates have a strong flavour of "I don't know anything about this topic and/or cannot be bothered to find references for this, but I have a hunch this just miiiight not be just like it claims" there. The idea there is "if you can do something about it, for Pete's sake, don't just tag it!". Also, the great demand of references and ref tags for almost any claim in here reads to me as "if you can't prove it don't bother with it". Thus the deleting of stuff instead of tagging it with a ton of stuff. Pitke (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I could write an essay about the POV and attitude of English-language Wikipedia too. But let's not get there. Pitke (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I could also write an essay about my total frustration with the [highly biased personal opinions]content I really don't need to spell out[/highly biased personal opinions] ...colour terminology of the English tongue. BUT I'm not getting there. It's the terminology I'll need to use in any case. Pitke (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not angry at you or feeling bad about myself and rest assured, one would need to try hard to manage that. Keep doing whatever that needs to be done to get me on the tracks, or to reach a mutual understanding. I can take it. Be bold. You can also use less words... (: Pitke (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A random question: is it generally an unwritten guideline that unless the article is a stub, you can't have breaks in making major adjustments to an article? Pitke (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep it short. I sympathize. But the color genetics are a science topic and we have to source them. And color stuff is changing dramatically. AND English horse lingo has a lot of weird terms of art (some derived from Spanish, it that helps...) You need sources, you question material, that's what the fact tag is for. The guidelines are not unwritten; there is a balance between boldness and working cooperatively with others, plus respecting consensus. You'll get there. I'm reasonably impressed with your command of English as a second language and give you kudos for plunging in and trying. I liked that you posted the images in Palomino, good consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying. Pitke (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your last round of edits are quite workable. You're getting it. The tone of your edit summaries are still scaring me, though! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 04:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lol, do you mean "tweaks, removing read hidden notes, fixing spelling" or maybe? "I feel the need to all but redo this section." :D Pitke (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yours. "I feel the need to all but redo this section" sounded a LOT scarier than it was! I thought "oh no, another hour of reviewing the edits line by line to determine what to keep and what needs correcting. But then you actually had very sound edits, for the most part. I was immensely relieved! LOL! (That said, long ago I was smacked soundly, and rightly so, for excessive sarcasm in my edit summaries. So call it the voice of experience...) Montanabw^(talk) 20:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You need these

<received with gratitude>

more, and then some, too :D Pitke (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Finnish wiki should be VERY appreciative of your efforts! As you translate, if you notice articles that seem outdated here or just plain wrong (plenty are, WPEQ has tagged something like 2,100 articles for the project, so we can't keep up with all of them) let me know or drop a message at the WPEQ talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas to you! Montanabw^(talk) 05:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Pitke (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)