Jump to content

Talk:Rodeo: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by Spacecowboy420 (talk) to last version by Montanabw
→User:Spacecowboy420 WP:VANDAL: section heading more appropriate to discussion
Line 115: Line 115:
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 20:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 20:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


== Removal of sourced material ==
== [[User:Spacecowboy420]] [[WP:VANDAL]] ==


You followed me from a talk page debate to this article and reverted me. Stop stalking me, it's creepy. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You followed me from a talk page debate to this article and reverted me. Stop stalking me, it's creepy. [[User:Spacecowboy420|Spacecowboy420]] ([[User talk:Spacecowboy420|talk]]) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:03, 6 May 2016

Template:Vital article

Archive
Archives

Rodeo cattle

Proposing that the new article Rodeo cattle be merged into Rodeo. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really any information worth merging? - Josette (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much, but there sure isn't enough information for its own article. :-) Tim Pierce (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. ;) - Josette (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there's been a consensus to merge the article, but nothing has been done. I'll go ahead and be bold now... Steven Walling 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barrel-Racing-Szmurlo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Barrel-Racing-Szmurlo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

Montana, posting here after seeing the post at ANI. References such as http://www.collegerodeo.com/ (NIRA) and Animal Welfare: Animals in Rodeo (among others) are still bare URLs because they provide nothing but a URL and (maybe) a title. In order to allow people to rescue these references in case the reference goes dead, at minimum an access date, date of publication (if available), and publisher/host should be included. I agree with Lisa about the inconsistent citations as well, partially because of the numerous BURLs mixed with well-formatted citation templates, but also because the article mixes SFN with citation in the #References; all books should be in the "Sources" section, in my opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are issues and inconsistencies. This is an older article that has had a lot of different people working on it over the years, and it has had periodic problems with being a controversial topic and contains a few carefully crafted compromises that ended some nasty edit wars (It was also the article that busted the ItsLassieTime sock farm). However, this will take a LOT of hours to clean up and mad drive-by tagging and a partial fix of bits and pieces just creates more confusion. I told that editor to take this to talk at least three times in edit summaries and she instead chose to go to ANI, so I'm not in the best mood at the moment. I also am not in the mood to drop all my other projects and work on this article just because someone noticed it needs to be cleaned up. If they want to clean it up, great, I'm all for it if they do it right. But it is not helpful to do it partway, tags at the top aren't going to help, and it's especially problematic to toss out links to google books, as we are still using those online sources as the article gets worked on -- an IAR situation. If a team wants to work on actually fixing this stuff, great; but do it right and do it with consensus... sigh... Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. I'll see if I can do a bit later (at least move the books into the Sources section)... but, as you know, this is well outside my normal subject area. Thus, I may make mistakes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll keep an eyeball on the subject matter, always glad for technical help. I ran reflinks again and it finally decided to fix more of the BURLS. BTW, on the topic, just reread [1], [2] [3], and [4] and in the google books listed in this article, so far this article is in flux and it is helpful to have the link to the entire book. I would not want them removed - where multiple pages are cited, it is klunky to ref each page with a url when the book is online and all pages cited are in the scan, at least. And, I think, some of these books haven't yet been worked into the text yet anyway. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got you started here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated, but now it looks like a source or two got unhooked from footnotes when made into a sfn, can someone dig that one out and put it back? This is one of those "every damn things needs to be sourced because some idiot will claim it's controversial" articles.  :-P . And your country knowledge is just fine, we still see pickups with that very bumper sticker! I simply choose to avoid certain topics ... LOL! Montanabw(talk) 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw: Here is a couple of problems with your latest revert.
1. You said above, to Crisco 1492 about hooking source in the article. But then, you remove "Move page to footnotes" comments. Make your decision: Do you or do you not want them hooked into the article? Or are you assume I mean "cut the page number and put in some place random"? Well, I don't.
2. A carriage return between two * characters breaks the list into two lists. That gives you HTML problem on some browsers with source hooking. (Scroll Into View API.) That's why I broke $lt;-- and --> between the two lines and no carriage returns before and after them. (If you have good eyes, you could see the list inflating between edits.) If you are using one the five major web browser, inspect the syntax with Developer Tool.
3. When I added "incomplete data" note, I do mean that it can be completed to the extent that it exists. I just need to hunt them down. Although it wouldn't help if I instead have to write this message.
4. Your comment removal was unclean. There are leftovers.
Oh, and by the way, I am curious: Is there some literary figure in your conversation above that I don't understand, or are you guys just being macho?
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lisa, I didn't "revert" a damn thing, I edited. Learn the difference. Also watch your own assumptions and assume good faith yourself next time will you? Yes, I am female. And you just pissed me off again with your assumptions, particularly given I am a feminist and have a lot of dedication to the elimination of systemic bias on wiki. Yes, Crisco and I were making some gentle jokes about country music and joking about rodeo stereotypes (I'm a fourth-generation Montanan and at least a fourth-generation horse-person, I can joke about such things) Criminy... and once again, just quit it with the "I am going to tell you what you did wrong in a condescending tone" thing. Just fix it or take a look at the final edit, maybe I fixed it after I commented here. and...
  1. I removed the ":move page to footnotes" comment where the footnote already contained the page number. It was not needed, as the fix was made. Obvious
  2. Yes, I left over some hidden text, I figured you needed it for some reason, I deleted the empty comments with nothing in them. Looked fine in my browser, you don't need consensus for futher minor cleanup.
  3. And just keep shoveling! Do you know how insulting your remark ""If you have good eyes" is to me? GOOD GOD! Actually, GUESS WHAT!!!! YES!!! My eyesight is actually quite poor, I am legally blind and have a surgically repaired detached retina, due to which I am now developing a cataract! THank you SOOOOO Much for pointing that out! Shall I just stop editing wikipedia now and have them trundle me off in a wheelchair? I'm over 50 also, want me declared senile to boot! Please, just keep laying on the insults and bad faith. Or grow up. Montanabw(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi
1. Irrelevant. Re-read my message again.
2. That wasn't what I was referring to. You have left < and > at the end of some sentence.
3. "If you have good eyes" is a very common expression used to attract the attention to a fine detail that requires attention more than good eye sight. Apart from that, I don't have good eyes too. Aberrant astigmatism, corneal transplant on left eye when I was a teen. Can't use glasses; contact lens is the only solution. 80% of human population has eye problems. So, they could very well use a conditional "if you have good eyes".
Although I do not comment on the contributors in discussions, this time it is becoming necessary: You are not female. You said it once and I didn't buy it. Women may weaponize their femininity, but never their gender. They do not fail to (or feign failure to) recognize an Orwellian allegory of stale metaphor. They do not feign stupidity, because unlike men, they never consider brute force an option. In addition, all you have done so far in your communications was argumentum ad hominem. From the very beginning, it was obvious that you do not care for a discussion at all. That's why I went to WP:ANI. If you don't want my help, fine. I'll stand down, wait till the article go to FAC, then I mention these problems there. Enjoy.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, man. He is on his own. I am separating my way. Unwatching this page. If you need me, you know where you can find me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Rodeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rodeo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced material

You followed me from a talk page debate to this article and reverted me. Stop stalking me, it's creepy. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the reference to Dr. Miller's book? The pro rodeo site may not meet RS, but that did. Also, the stuff cited to the pro rodeo site could easily be found in a newspaper or some secondary source. It's better to find an independent source than remove facts. White Arabian Filly Neigh 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Spacecowboy420: When you remove relevant, reliably sourced information from an article, you are guilty of vandalism. It is normal for editors to review other editor's contributions when they leave the diffs to show them. Accusing me of stalking or hounding is a personal attack and leaves you open to sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This editor who removed the material appears to be a troll who has never edited this article. WP:DENY may be the best approach. Thank you RexxS and WAF for your help. Montanabw(talk) 22:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rodeo&oldid=718915167"