Talk:Standardbred

message: Could someone please explain this phrase from the 1st paragraph, "or whose get could race a mile in standard time or better"?  I'm guessing that 'get' means 'offspring'....   Can you rephrase this sentence to be intelligible to those not familiar with horse breeding?  ike9898 13:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'll give it a try:
Could someone please explain this phrase from the 1st paragraph, "or whose get could race a mile in standard time or better"? I'm guessing that 'get' means 'offspring'.... Can you rephrase this sentence to be intelligible to those not familiar with horse breeding? ike9898 13:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
"Standardbred" horses are so called because in the early years of the Trotting Registry, the standardbred stud book established in the United States in 1879 by the National Association of Trotting Horse Breeders, only those horses who could race a mile in a standard time or better, or whose offspring could race a mile in standard time or better, were entered in the book. 
I researched this further. Note that before being classified as a "standardbred" horse, these original horses had a Sire (father) and Dam (mother) that were "throughbred" horses (see Messenger).
What is standard time ? (Gnevin 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Offspring question

message: Is there a way to tell that the horse pulling the Amish buggy is a Standardbred?  Owning horses of a racing breed seems very un-Amish to me, and I'm told that in the Amish community in Geauga Co., Ohio (the only one I have any connection to), the most popular breed for buggies is the Haflinger, which is known for hardiness and draft use as well as a smooth gait.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 14:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a Google search suggests that the Amish do use Standardbreds as well, including those retired from racing, but they also use plenty of Haflingers.  I still think that if this picture is shown in the article, we should be sure that the horse is a Standardbred. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 14:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the horse sure as hell isn't a Haflinger- they are always a light chestnut with flaxen manes and tails, plus pangare.  The horse clearly meets the breed standard for a Standardbred in size, body type and so on.  Many retired Standardbreds become buggy horses for the Amish; that's part of what they were originally bred for - pulling buggies for ordinary people - think not a Ferrari so much as maybe a Camry; peppy enough to get people where they needed to be.  Haflingers may be used now, but they aren't buggy horses, they were originally light plow horses with energetic gaits, and they've only been in the USA a relatively short time.  The Amish also used to use a lot of Morgans, I think.    A review of images on Google with the search "Amish horse" shows a few Haflingers pulling plows (and a number of draft horses breeds as well, notably Belgians) but mostly Standardbred-looking animals with buggies; note also this.  Montanabw(talk) 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amish horse 

message: Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, my information could have been added to.  The section that I added about notable breeders that included Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. is relevant to this article.  If there was a concern that this section or information should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then such a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including the section I added about notable breeders.  Then, that section can be added to, as well.  Then, an appearance of "undue weight" would not be reflected.  This is an issue that could be presented here on the talk page prior to just deleting the information.  How is one supposed to build up an article if her/his attempts are deleted?  I go through this too much on Wikipedia where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it.  It is continually frustrating and disappointing when one's work is simply deleted without any attempts at adding to or improving it.   Daniellagreen (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See below.  Read WP:BRD, the burden is on the person who wishes to add to or chance the article.  Also read WP:UNDUE and please learn how to do citations.  You are making a bunch of work for me by adding a non-reliable source  and poorly formatting other citations, to boot.  Montanabw(talk) 22:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

text: (TPS) Got news for you...trying to turn this into gender bias won't work too well. From looking at the edits in question, I'd say that Montanabw's removal was proper, as were the reasons she provided for that removal. Now if Gernatt happened to be a major promoter of the breed (or the first major promoter), that's a different story. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. I could see him being a link from a list of notable owners/breeders, maybe, but he doesn't need a long section in this article. Intothatdarkness 18:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , like ITD just said,  I'm sure your great-grandpa or whoever this fellow was was a nice guy but he doesn't warrant a entry here absent something that makes him more notable than Hambletonian.  And don't even TRY to bring gender bias into this one, kiddo, I happen to be one of the women who rants on a regular basis against systemic bias toward women on wiki.  Your edit just was undue and inappropriate.  Deal with it.  As for attempts to improve this article, I see you made some changes that I now have to spend an hour of my time reviewing to see if they were any good or not, which I shall do. I just helped shepherd the Lipizzan article to GA last week, and have two others in the FA pipeline, so do NOT lecture me about how to edit wikipedia.  Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, I can see that you've been around Wiki for awhile.  I see that you've been making more deletions to the Standardbred article than additions for the past 7 years now.  So, if you want to make reverts to other editors' additions, it should be expected to accept the fallout that comes from it.  As for my "mistakes," you have not included dates of publication for your cites, only retrieval dates, so I consider that a mistake.  Regarding the manner in which I cite, you have been the first editor to take issue with it.  In fact, I was instructed to cite in that manner by a veteran editor who helps in the Tea Room.  And, the manner in which I cite generally provides more information than the more formal structure, so that is my preference, and one which I am entitled to use.  Getting back to the real issues, the article could have been improved without your deletion of my material.  It never sets a good tone when editors just delete without trying to improve. It looks to me like that has been happening for awhile with this article, and something needed to be said. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, its the men who make an excessive number of reverts, so I'm surprised that you are a woman.  As a more senior editor, I would have expected better from you in trying to de-escalate this matter. I also see you've already archived my initial comments from your talk page.  Also, this man is no relation to me and is not connected to me in any way, so I take offense with your passing judgment on me about that.  That is uncalled for.  My point is that my contributions are definitely something that could have been discussed on this talk page before making a sweeping revert of my contributions, without adding to and/or improving it.  That was my issue; that has still not been resolved, and I see that it won't be.  I'm not surprised. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To Intothatdarkness, The issue is that my contributions were reverted without any attempt at improving or adding to them, nor the issue first being discussed on the talk page.  If you look at the editor who made the revert, she has made more deletions than additions in her 7 years of editing this article.  Why?  Why not add to and/or improve what others are attempting to contribute?  As for Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., adding a section about notable breeders, I believe, is relevant to the article.  And, contrary to your comment, the section was not lengthy, but only two sentences.  I didn't even have a chance to add more to it before it was deleted.  Very sad, but not surprising. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden, per WP:BRD is on YOU to make edits worth keeping; you can edit, but you can be reverted, THEN you discuss. We are discussing.  No one here has any "obligation" to do your work for you. You strike me as very young (especially to have such black and white stereotyped thinking about male and female editors), so let me explain:  This is the real grown-up world and you don't get participation credit, an A for effort, or gold stars for just showing up.  Frankly, I just took an hour or so away from other projects today to fix your work and along the way improved some old stuff.  With almost 400 horse breed articles and few editors with expertise, it all can't be done at once and in the meantime I have no interest in seeing edits that someone else will just have to fix later go in.  See more detail below in the next section Montanabw(talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Your misjudgment is, again, uncalled for and I take offense to it.  I, also, am not interested in wasting my time with a superior editor as yourself who is not considerate toward other editors. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Montanabw, I can see that you've been around Wiki for awhile.  I see that you've been making more deletions to the Standardbred article than additions for the past 7 years now.  So, if you want to make reverts to other editors' additions, it should be expected to accept the fallout that comes from it.  As for my "mistakes," you have not included dates of publication for your cites, only retrieval dates, so I consider that a mistake.  Regarding the manner in which I cite, you have been the first editor to take issue with it.  In fact, I was instructed to cite in that manner by a veteran editor who helps in the Tea Room.  And, the manner in which I cite generally provides more information than the more formal structure, so that is my preference, and one which I am entitled to use.  Getting back to the real issues, the article could have been improved without your deletion of my material.  It never sets a good tone when editors just delete without trying to improve. It looks to me like that has been happening for awhile with this article, and something needed to be said. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm moving this discussion from my talk back over here where it belongs.  I revert poorly-done edits. You want to see how to do it right, see Thoroughbred, which is a WP:FA project that was collaboratively completed by about five editors at WikiProject Equine, including myself. In the current Standardbred article, you stated with an undue weight edit and then started randomly citing material from a commercial web site that fails WP:RS. I had to fix that with better material from a higher-quality source. You compare your edits with a false equivalence.  Making edits that will build for others is better than creating unsustainable content that other people just will have to rewrite or  undo later.  You probably have already stopped listening to what I have to say, but just in case, here goes:  First off, you put in a full cite for the Lynghaug book inline when it was already fully cited in the sources section and the inline cite was a page cite and properly done. (Have you ever written a proper term paper?) Second, publication dates are not always listed in online articles and I generally use reflinks to build the templates anyway, the automation does not always locate a publication date, but it's a parameter that can be filled in later where dates can be found.  Until the article is ready for a GA push, a "mistake" of a missing citation parameter is not equivalent to using what you did, which was to use a poor-quality source that will fail a GAN to cite previously existing material that wasn't very well done anyway. The citation templates format everything properly for you, and once you are used to them, they are a more accurate way to edit, particularly when wikipedia changes some of its preferred styles from time to time.  The use of reflinks is a quick way to get the citation templates in place, all you need are the raw URLs and it goes from there, you just have to make minor edits to correct a few things. In contrast, your method, while nominally acceptable, winds up being more time-consuming because we have to erase everything you did to run reflinks, and even if the cite templates are filled in manually, it's a bunch of copy and paste work, which is avoidable if you'd done it properly in the first place.  Montanabw(talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, While this information is helpful, and appears to be what I should have been initially instructed when I came on Wikipedia, it still fails to address the initial issues of my concern.  You appear to provide much information to support your actions of reverting people's contributions on this particular article.  On first making my attempted contributions to this article, I reviewed the history and knew what I was already up against in observing the revert history, most of which has been completed by yourself.  To me, that makes an appearance of exclusivity in an article.  If you had a concern, rather than make a complete delete of my contributions, again, it could have been first discussed here and a template could have been added to that section.  An example of an editor doing this can be found in the nuclear waste section of Cattaraugus Creek.  As for your statement about my being a "kiddo," I think that 30 years in the writing and editing business, including being a newspaper editor, myself, and teacher of writing for the past 16 years qualifies me as a seasoned writer and editor.  My observation was that you were unable to be considerate toward what I attempted to contribute.  You can state whatever reasons you like for your sweeping deletions of my contributions, however it remains that you have deleted all of my information and 6 of 7 of my references.  This article has been on Wikipedia for the past 11 years, but when I came along, it was still barely out of stub category.  There were 4 references attached to this article when I came to it, this article being identified as high in importance, but lacking in sourcing and therefore, in quality.  Repeated attempts by many other editors to contribute and/or improve the article have been erased by you; that is how it appears to me.  Other editors who may have good things to contribute have been driven away from doing so, as a result.  Reviewing the article's history, that is very obvious and cannot be disputed.  In your possible pursuit of perfection for this article, then, it appears to me to be quite imperfect, and exclusive to you.  While I have learned something about referencing, this has also been the article in which I have now had my worst experience on Wikipedia.  For those reasons, I will not be editing it in the future. Regarding this discussion, I will place it where I like.  You have evidenced that you can successfully police this article, but not my freedom regarding where to post my comments. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only "freedoms" you have at Wikipedia are freedom to fork and freedom to leave. Editors are expected to follow certain norms, which include discussing content-issues on the appropriate article-talk-pages where all editors interested in improving the article will see them. Someone explained this to you, and moved a discussion; your response is to throw your toys out of the pram, and threaten to "place the discussion where you like"? That's strange behavior for someone who claims to be so interested in improving this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Daniellagreen, you just. don't. get. it. Another user has stopped by to do a light copyedit that was perfectly reasonable and appropriate; you could learn from that example.  Please look in the mirror and read the above comment about people who cannot cope when they don't get their way, and also read psychological projection. Come back when you understand citation, research and collaboration.  If you want to. Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of my additions 

message: Instead of reverting and removing the information that I added to this article, why not add to it.  If you have a concern that this notable man, Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. should not be included simply because he was not an originator of the breed, then a section can be added to the article about that, as well as including notable breeders.  I go through this too much on Wikipedia where editors simply take out information, without trying to add to or improve it.  It is continually frustrating and disappointing.  Typically, then male editors remove information that the women editors have added.  This is another of those situations. Daniellagreen (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: (TPS) Got news for you...trying to turn this into gender bias won't work too well. From looking at the edits in question, I'd say that Montanabw's removal was proper, as were the reasons she provided for that removal. Now if Gernatt happened to be a major promoter of the breed (or the first major promoter), that's a different story. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. I could see him being a link from a list of notable owners/breeders, maybe, but he doesn't need a long section in this article. Intothatdarkness 18:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , like ITD just said,  I'm sure your great-grandpa or whoever this fellow was was a nice guy but he doesn't warrant a entry here absent something that makes him more notable than Hambletonian.  And don't even TRY to bring gender bias into this one, kiddo, I happen to be one of the women who rants on a regular basis against systemic bias toward women on wiki.  Your edit just was undue and inappropriate.  Deal with it.  As for attempts to improve this article, I see you made some changes that I now have to spend an hour of my time reviewing to see if they were any good or not, which I shall do. I just helped shepherd the Lipizzan article to GA last week, and have two others in the FA pipeline, so do NOT lecture me about how to edit wikipedia.  Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, I can see that you've been around Wiki for awhile.  I see that you've been making more deletions to the Standardbred article than additions for the past 7 years now.  So, if you want to make reverts to other editors' additions, it should be expected to accept the fallout that comes from it.  As for my "mistakes," you have not included dates of publication for your cites, only retrieval dates, so I consider that a mistake.  Regarding the manner in which I cite, you have been the first editor to take issue with it.  In fact, I was instructed to cite in that manner by a veteran editor who helps in the Tea Room.  And, the manner in which I cite generally provides more information than the more formal structure, so that is my preference, and one which I am entitled to use.  Getting back to the real issues, the article could have been improved without your deletion of my material.  It never sets a good tone when editors just delete without trying to improve. It looks to me like that has been happening for awhile with this article, and something needed to be said. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, its the men who make an excessive number of reverts, so I'm surprised that you are a woman.  As a more senior editor, I would have expected better from you in trying to de-escalate this matter. I also see you've already archived my initial comments from your talk page.  Also, this man is no relation to me and is not connected to me in any way, so I take offense with your passing judgment on me about that.  That is uncalled for.  My point is that my contributions are definitely something that could have been discussed on this talk page before making a sweeping revert of my contributions, without adding to and/or improving it.  That was my issue; that has still not been resolved, and I see that it won't be.  I'm not surprised. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To Intothatdarkness, The issue is that my contributions were reverted without any attempt at improving or adding to them, nor the issue first being discussed on the talk page.  If you look at the editor who made the revert, she has made more deletions than additions in her 7 years of editing this article.  Why?  Why not add to and/or improve what others are attempting to contribute?  As for Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., adding a section about notable breeders, I believe, is relevant to the article.  And, contrary to your comment, the section was not lengthy, but only two sentences.  I didn't even have a chance to add more to it before it was deleted.  Very sad, but not surprising. Daniellagreen (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden, per WP:BRD is on YOU to make edits worth keeping; you can edit, but you can be reverted, THEN you discuss. We are discussing.  No one here has any "obligation" to do your work for you. You strike me as very young (especially to have such black and white stereotyped thinking about male and female editors), so let me explain:  This is the real grown-up world and you don't get participation credit, an A for effort, or gold stars for just showing up.  Frankly, I just took an hour or so away from other projects today to fix your work and along the way improved some old stuff.  With almost 400 horse breed articles and few editors with expertise, it all can't be done at once and in the meantime I have no interest in seeing edits that someone else will just have to fix later go in.  See more detail below in the next section Montanabw(talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Your misjudgment is, again, uncalled for and I take offense to it.  I, also, am not interested in wasting my time with a superior editor as yourself who is not considerate toward other editors. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your revert of my additions to [[Standardbred]] 

message: :Montanabw, I can see that you've been around Wiki for awhile.  I see that you've been making more deletions to the Standardbred article than additions for the past 7 years now.  So, if you want to make reverts to other editors' additions, it should be expected to accept the fallout that comes from it.  As for my "mistakes," you have not included dates of publication for your cites, only retrieval dates, so I consider that a mistake.  Regarding the manner in which I cite, you have been the first editor to take issue with it.  In fact, I was instructed to cite in that manner by a veteran editor who helps in the Tea Room.  And, the manner in which I cite generally provides more information than the more formal structure, so that is my preference, and one which I am entitled to use.  Getting back to the real issues, the article could have been improved without your deletion of my material.  It never sets a good tone when editors just delete without trying to improve. It looks to me like that has been happening for awhile with this article, and something needed to be said. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm moving this discussion from my talk back over here where it belongs.  I revert poorly-done edits. You want to see how to do it right, see Thoroughbred, which is a WP:FA project that was collaboratively completed by about five editors at WikiProject Equine, including myself. In the current Standardbred article, you stated with an undue weight edit and then started randomly citing material from a commercial web site that fails WP:RS. I had to fix that with better material from a higher-quality source. You compare your edits with a false equivalence.  Making edits that will build for others is better than creating unsustainable content that other people just will have to rewrite or  undo later.  You probably have already stopped listening to what I have to say, but just in case, here goes:  First off, you put in a full cite for the Lynghaug book inline when it was already fully cited in the sources section and the inline cite was a page cite and properly done. (Have you ever written a proper term paper?) Second, publication dates are not always listed in online articles and I generally use reflinks to build the templates anyway, the automation does not always locate a publication date, but it's a parameter that can be filled in later where dates can be found.  Until the article is ready for a GA push, a "mistake" of a missing citation parameter is not equivalent to using what you did, which was to use a poor-quality source that will fail a GAN to cite previously existing material that wasn't very well done anyway. The citation templates format everything properly for you, and once you are used to them, they are a more accurate way to edit, particularly when wikipedia changes some of its preferred styles from time to time.  The use of reflinks is a quick way to get the citation templates in place, all you need are the raw URLs and it goes from there, you just have to make minor edits to correct a few things. In contrast, your method, while nominally acceptable, winds up being more time-consuming because we have to erase everything you did to run reflinks, and even if the cite templates are filled in manually, it's a bunch of copy and paste work, which is avoidable if you'd done it properly in the first place.  Montanabw(talk) 04:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Montanabw, While this information is helpful, and appears to be what I should have been initially instructed when I came on Wikipedia, it still fails to address the initial issues of my concern.  You appear to provide much information to support your actions of reverting people's contributions on this particular article.  On first making my attempted contributions to this article, I reviewed the history and knew what I was already up against in observing the revert history, most of which has been completed by yourself.  To me, that makes an appearance of exclusivity in an article.  If you had a concern, rather than make a complete delete of my contributions, again, it could have been first discussed here and a template could have been added to that section.  An example of an editor doing this can be found in the nuclear waste section of Cattaraugus Creek.  As for your statement about my being a "kiddo," I think that 30 years in the writing and editing business, including being a newspaper editor, myself, and teacher of writing for the past 16 years qualifies me as a seasoned writer and editor.  My observation was that you were unable to be considerate toward what I attempted to contribute.  You can state whatever reasons you like for your sweeping deletions of my contributions, however it remains that you have deleted all of my information and 6 of 7 of my references.  This article has been on Wikipedia for the past 11 years, but when I came along, it was still barely out of stub category.  There were 4 references attached to this article when I came to it, this article being identified as high in importance, but lacking in sourcing and therefore, in quality.  Repeated attempts by many other editors to contribute and/or improve the article have been erased by you; that is how it appears to me.  Other editors who may have good things to contribute have been driven away from doing so, as a result.  Reviewing the article's history, that is very obvious and cannot be disputed.  In your possible pursuit of perfection for this article, then, it appears to me to be quite imperfect, and exclusive to you.  While I have learned something about referencing, this has also been the article in which I have now had my worst experience on Wikipedia.  For those reasons, I will not be editing it in the future. Regarding this discussion, I will place it where I like.  You have evidenced that you can successfully police this article, but not my freedom regarding where to post my comments. Daniellagreen (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only "freedoms" you have at Wikipedia are freedom to fork and freedom to leave. Editors are expected to follow certain norms, which include discussing content-issues on the appropriate article-talk-pages where all editors interested in improving the article will see them. Someone explained this to you, and moved a discussion; your response is to throw your toys out of the pram, and threaten to "place the discussion where you like"? That's strange behavior for someone who claims to be so interested in improving this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow-up to your reverts on [[Standardbred]] 

message: This is for the record that Montanabw has threatened to report me for "harassment" regarding my commentary to her on this article.  It is unfortunate that when people don't get their way and/or are unable to cope with what they don't want to hear that they find it necessary to use intimidation, get ugly, and make threats.  This is definitely a poor reflection on Wikipedia and what it should be all about.  Daniellagreen (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Daniellagreen, you just. don't. get. it. Another user has stopped by to do a light copyedit that was perfectly reasonable and appropriate; you could learn from that example.  Please look in the mirror and read the above comment about people who cannot cope when they don't get their way, and also read psychological projection. Come back when you understand citation, research and collaboration.  If you want to. Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The treatment I've experienced

message: This is to inform that I have filed with dispute resolution regarding this matter in regard to User:Montanabw. Daniellagreen (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Standardbred. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613183631/http://www.thestallionplace.com/breed_info/standardbreds.htm to http://www.thestallionplace.com/breed_info/standardbreds.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified