User talk:LynnWysong

Lamb Chop

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per your suggestion

You wished to bring any further discussion of your editing history and abilities to this page, so I am doing so. In short, I am not interested in your additions to the Wild Horse and Burro Act page because it is a GA-class article and you clearly don't understand what encyclopedic style for wikipedia is like, hence your suggested edits could cost that article its current GA standing. Your sources were not relevant and your "extrapolation" violated the WP policies on original research and your attempts to do things like put two sourced sentences together as if one correlated to the other when they did not is synthesis. According to your editing history, you have only done any serious work on WP articles since last fall, and you really don't know what you are doing. You made two edits in 2010, also, but nothing in-between, yet you claim to be a "very experienced" editor - either you possess an exaggerated sense of what "experience" is on-wiki, if this is your only account, or you have been editing under a different name. So which is it? Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Clarify

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reference errors on 24 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

DR/N Case

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)

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)

April 2015

Per your own admission RO and I both post from the western U.S. We both are obviously the same person., I will be blocking this account shortly, unless another admin. gets to it before I do. See: WP:BLOCK EVASION and per WP:ALTACCN, you should link the two accounts. I will likely also be extending the length of the block due to this (WP:SOCK). Also note, you are NOT allowed to edit while logged out either. I have a few things to do IRL, but will get to this later today. — Ched :  ?  17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I just went ahead and requested a checkuser at the SPI. You might want to wait until it's done. Lynn Wysong (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I found the post through your contribs. Due to you confirming that you and RO are the same account the block will be the same as your RO account. I won't extend the length of the block, but you need to connect the accounts per the link above.— Ched :  ?  23:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

LynnWysong (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No, I did not confirm anything. RO isn't even a user name.

Accept reason:

Unblocked despite this request, not because of it. It's obvious that "RO" in this context refers to User:Rationalobserver, and I was sorely tempted not to unblock you merely for playing dumb. (Besides, "RO" is a username, too, so your request wasn't even factually accurate.) Unlike Ched, I do see sarcasm in your original "I am a sock" comment, though. Huon (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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

No Beliebing for me :)

I'll stick to my tastes in music, hopefully I won't get punished for it in that witch hunt that is going on. I'm just concerned that just because I have similar music tastes, somehow I'll get trapped in this. I guess I'll just need to trust that other users have more common sense.

P.S. Try listening to The Incredible String Band, I promise I won't accuse you of being a sock puppet LOL. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

I will! I hope no one at Amazon is monitoring my IP! Lynn Wysong (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't be too sure, it seems like any irrelevant connection will get you condemned to that list. No one else seems willing to support my opinion that my music interests should not make me a suspect. Common sense is dead, I suppose. Hope you can get out of this unscathed though, at least someone innocent should. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Don't worry about it. Nothing on that list is going anywhere. Lynn Wysong (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: One of the best montages on TV EVER! Such an awesome tribute to 60's music! Don't let anyone get you down for liking it! Lynn (SLW) (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and I won't let them get me down. I know one day Montanabw will get a bit of her own medicine, so I will keep loving the music. If you wanted to listen to some more music, there are these lesser known groups called The Mystic Tide, The Music Machine, and The Growing Concern (no page, unfortunately). Just a few bands I know that deserve a little more credit than they got. Peace, friend. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015

LOL. I was a kid in San Francisco when this music was big. My Dad was a redneck from Jackson Hole, WY, and did NOT approve. But my mom had a cousin hanging out on Haight-Ashbury, (I actually lived on Haight Street for a time). This kind of music is part of my psyche. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Your username/sig

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

But back to the point; in the section below, I made a sincere offer to assist with images or other aspects of a potentially useful article you have sandboxed and refractored a comment I had made, making a good faith effort to dial things down a bit. You then come up here and dictate terms of a truce that basically demand that I unilaterally agree to things I didn't even do. Now you claim there is no truce possibly and make further accusations against me while continuing to be completely unable to see that your own behavior is pretty much creating the mess you find yourself in. I've tried to help you out now for almost two months, even in the face of your continued personal attacks. But at this point, I see no evidence that you are here to build the encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Ground Rules

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is sincere advice

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Album nomination

Perhaps you can weigh-in on this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Peanut Butter Conspiracy Is Spreading)? Be a big help to get reliable opinions on the discussion. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Done Lynn (SLW) (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated, it was a pretty obvious keep to me too. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Sorry to bug you again by this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twentieth Century Zoo (2nd nomination)) needs more discussion too. It has been difficult to find users willing to take the few moments to create an opinion. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Why is this CrazyAces489 running around nominating all these articles for deletion? Seriously what are they hurting? Does he have it in for you or does he just not have a life? Lynn (SLW) (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He has had it out for me awhile. He made this poorly-constructed article that I gave an honest opinion on, and ever since then he has placed unrelated tags, sent me to AN/I (unsuccessfully), and nominated, as of now, four of my articles for deletion (again, unsuccessfully). I just continue to defend them, he just looks bad in the process. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Yeah, CrazyAces sent me to AN/I. Third time, too. It's just ridiculous, but somehow asking for your opinion gets me in trouble. Oh well, maybe this can finally settle things. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Glad you got yourself out of that little mess. It's amazing what some people around here get away with, while others get hammered any time they step out of line. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it should all be over now. I didn't really want it to come to this, but the user retired from editing. I should be on alert for a few days just in case he plans to do something even more irrational, but I think now I can truly return to working on music articles without someone having a grudge against me. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2015

I definitely know the feeling of trying to work on something with someone breathing over your shoulder. Some of these older editors are really threatened by new people coming in and seem to spend most of their time trying to show their dominance by pissing on "their" turf, which is why a lot of "their" articles stink. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that seemed to be his problem. I gave an honest opinion, believing their article was not notable (the article was unanimously deleted) and I think because I was newer than the others who thought the same, the user targeted me. The only problem was he had no idea what he was doing when he attacked the music articles. Made him look foolish, which is why he probably left. Hopefully wiki is a little better of a place with one less user like him to worry about. Hope everything for you goes well, I don't want anyone else to have a similar uncomfortable situation. TheGracefulSlick (talk)

Article draft

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)