User talk:AeronM

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a question for you on Talk:Fiador knot (here). --Una Smith (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My question concerns this quote from the Ashley book of knots: "Cowboys have employed the knot as a hackamore or emergency bridle". Do you know about that? Is the basic tied rope halter an elaborated fiador knot? --Una Smith (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, no, I am not familiar with this.... how can one employ a knot as a hackamore, I wonder? The basic rope halter, as I know it, is comprised of one fiador knot under the chin, and 5 to 7 (or more) blood knots (or double overhand knots). It is my understanding that the fiador knot was used both for its good looks, as well as for its ability to stay in place despite pulling from different directions. --AeronM (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would be possible to tie a halter or emergency bridle with just a single knot, a fiador knot: one loop goes behind the poll, one goes around the muzzle, and there remains a third loop and 2 reins. Anyway, I just wondered if you knew of other reports of this use. --Una Smith (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

....back from vacation, and holy moly! I have missed a lot.... I will try to catch up over the next few days..... if anything needs my attention urgently, notify me here. I will start with the above two topics. --AeronM (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there is a poll re the chaps, shaps question, here: Talk:Chaps#Polling. --Una Smith (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Chaps I have filed a formal request for mediation here. Montanabw, Getwood, Dreadstar, and AeronM, to agree to mediation please go there and sign the Parties' agreement to mediate. If any of you do not agree to mediation, the request will be denied; of course, I hope all of you will agree. See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for details about the mediation process. --Una Smith (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You placed a tag on the image claiming you are the copyright holder, which is not correct. Dr. Cook is the copyright holder. We need an e-mail from Dr. Cook or from you detailing you communication with Dr. Cook about this and contact information for Dr. Cook (for verification). The e-mail needs to state specifically that he is releasing the image into the public domain. By releasing the image into the public domain, the image can be used by anybody for any purpose both commercial and non-commercial and the image can be modified at will. He needs to understand this and be okay with it. You can post that e-mail on my talk page or click the "e-mail this user" link to the left of my talk page and send it to me directly. It is a nice image and I would like to keep it. -Regards Nv8200p talk 14:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not place the tag... another editor who was helping me did that and told me it was the correct tag. I will follow up with Dr. Cook to see if it is ok to put the image in the public domain. --AeronM (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my first statement sounded like an accusation. It was just meant to be informative. I believe the proper tag would be {{PD-release}}. -Regards, Nv8200p talk 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. --AeronM (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For use on Wikipedia the image does not need to be public domain; if it is not public domain then it needs to be released by the copyright holder (Dr. Cook) under a license compatible with Wikipedia. I would seek help with this on Wikimedia Commons. --Una Smith (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks... I have read through it before but was not able to make heads or tails of it.... the 'under a license' part specifically... I have written permission from Dr. Cook to use the photo... he does not know about licenses, and neither do I, so I guess I need to figure out how to 'get' (?) a license in this case..... --AeronM (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the copyright holder picks one of several licenses that are acceptable on Wikipedia, and e-mails to Wikipedia a statement such as "I license this image under License X". The hard part is deciding which license to pick. For that, see this. From what you have said above, Aeron, Dr. Cook has granted you a private license, but Wikipedia requires a free license (see this) so that all Wikipedia editors can use the image. --Una Smith (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed him and and waiting for his reply to confirm that he is allowing total unrestricted use of his photo. His only concern was that it be properly attributed to the owner (him). Can I, using his written confirmation, then attribute a license to it, or does that have to come from him? I'm trying to make this easier for him and hate to keep bothering him.... Thanks.--AeronM (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image on a web site that Dr. Cook controls? If so, the easiest way may be for Dr. Cook to put a notice on a page displaying the image, stating that the image is licensed under GFDL. That satisfies the verification requirement. --Una Smith (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the creator's right of attribution is independent from the copyright. --Una Smith (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider this license or this one. You can submit the permission from him, but it needs to have some type of contact information for verification -Regards Nv8200p talk 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the first one is appropriate. How do I go about doing this? I can add all the contact info. Thanks for your help. --AeronM (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Put the image on Commons, not Wikipedia. Else someone will move it to Commons.

Wikimedia Commons? Or Creative Commons? --AeronM (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons. --Una Smith (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Forward Dr. Cook's permission e-mail to [email protected].

Done. --AeronM (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Upload the image and in the Permission field of the Summary tag reference the e-mail.

Hmmm... still working on this part.... --AeronM (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Details are here and an example e-mail is here. --Una Smith (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am learning so much.  : ) --AeronM (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the image on Wikipedia and have placed parts of the e-mail on the image talk page. When the OTRS ticket is posted, the e-mail can be removed from the talk page. I have tagged the image to be moved to Wikimedia Commons and it can be moved at anytime but you might want to wait for the OTRS ticket. -Regards Nv8200p talk 02:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What is an OTRS ticket? Just curious. --AeronM (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you sent Dr. Cook's e-mail to [email protected] you were sending it to the open ticket request system (OTRS). An editor with access to OTRS will then tag the image with an OTRS ticket providing evidence of the received e-mail and clearing the status of the item in question. -Nv8200p talk 01:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have email, from OTRS! Congrats on making it this far. :-) John Vandenberg (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need, as a rule, to respond to talk page comments that are more than two weeks old if the debate is not really active any longer. Just flags the watchlists unnecessarily. (Exceptions, of course, if it's extremely relevant or if the people making the comments usually only show up every two weeks, of course)Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I apologize for that... I realized after commenting that the discussion was an old one. --AeronM (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that I tossed the paragraph on your great-granddaddy's horse show from the horse show article not because I was being evil, but because the lists of horse shows has been in there and grew to gargantuan proportions, with people making claims for how their particular event is the mostest, bestest, etc...it just gets to be a PITA given how many thousands of shows there are worldwide. All you have to do to put your new article into wikiproject Equine is to just put in the template {{WPEQ|class= |importance= }} on the talk page. The article itself is probably start or stub class, and importance will be "low" (as are almost all articles on various events - other than maybe the Olympics, which might be "mid" - and horse associations). Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I realize that it would be pointless to list individual horse shows in the horse show article, this one in particular has historical significance in that it was the first one in the US. I plan to flesh out the history section a bit more so it's not just about this show, but about the history of horse shows in general, which is definitely relevant to the page. --AeronM (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page of article. And I am sincere that this isn't about you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Chaps. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 03:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Keilana. I've just accepted the aforementioned MedCom case. I've commented on the Mediation talk page, where mediation will take place. I hope that this mediation will be productive and satisfactory to all. I have asked all participants to make a statement, more details are on the talk page. Regards, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I've made a few changes to your edits on fox hunting, as it is against Wikipedia guidelines to just copy text from other sources without attribution, so i've changed them and given them citations as in the rest of the article. I've also commented on your talk page thoughts, and would be interested to hear which areas you feel we could remove from the article, without losing parts of the debate.

Thanks!

OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution was re-worded from the original and sourced. --AeronM (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this came across as acerbic, but i'm afraid that you wrote:

"the purpose is not to actually kill the animal but to enjoy the thrill of the chase.[14] A hunt may run two or more foxes in a day's hunting, but not have a kill in several years. Foxes that have 'gone to ground' are left undisturbed. American foxhunters frown on shooting, trapping or poisoning of foxes"

compared to the article text:

"the objective in America today being to chase them, not kill them. A hunt may run two or three foxes in a day's outing, but not have a kill in several years. Foxes that have "gone to ground" are left undisturbed. To ensure good hunting, foxhunters are ardent protectors of the natural habitat on which the fox depends, and frown on any shooting, trapping or poisoning of foxes."

Those paragraphs are nearly identical, and if, for example, they were submitted to an academic institution, they would be failed for plagiarism! I don't want to fall out over it, it was just a guidance comment, and I apologise if you think it was a bit harsh.

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are incorrect. Again. Please check the history before making erroneous comments.

2. Why are you afraid? --AeronM (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeron, try to chill. Owain is a long-term and respected wikipedia editor, been here longer than I have, I think. As you know, we old-timers get a little short at times, especially over an issue that is a repeat of something that was argued over and "settled" in the past. Don't take things too personally. By the way, you have really improved as a wikipedia editor recently, you are "getting" how to approach NPOV on various issues, and I for one would hate to see you revert back to the way you handled your first couple of weeks here or take the example of becoming excessively fussy and tenditious the way a certain mentor of yours has been. (and, for that matter, you also don't want to be as crabby as I get sometimes) Owain acted in good faith, just let it go. Montanabw^(talk) 22:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Montana, while I realize you cannot resist the temptation to add your two cents on issues with which you are not familiar, please resist. Also, please do not bash other editors. As far as your ongoing assessments of my editing, I can do without those as well. --AeronM (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aeron, you were the one who left a message on my talk page. So I come over here to reply and see something that troubles me, just as you have commented on things you have seen on my talk page or other project pages that has bugged you. And an honest caution is not a "bash." (And I have Fox Hunting watchlisted, I just choose not to edit there) And with that, I shall go away unless you choose to contact me again on my talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 07:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it, the whole issue is so two weeks ago. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your contribution to Barefoot horse. As you guessed, I'm not by now an active wiki contributor... I'm working otherwise into the web, mainly into Italian web forums, about horses. Sometime I come back to Barefoot horse, a very special article for me, because it was written in its first version by Marjorie Smith after a my suggestion... the beginning of a long trip. :-) --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mother has had a serious accident and is in the hospital. I am there around the clock, and will be offline for the indefinite future. --AeronM (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes for a speedy recovery for your mother. You'll be in our thoughts. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely, hope all goes well. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks for your good thoughts & wishes. My mother is getting better. She sustained a broken neck, broken sacrum, and severe head trauma with bleeding on the brain. (She was wearing a helmet, which saved her life). She is not paralyzed and is able to walk a few steps with a walker. She is in a brain injury rehabilitation hospital now, working on healing and regaining her strength. It is a miracle, but it looks like she may make a full recovery. She will be in the hospital for at least two more weeks, so I will be there every day. Thanks again and I hope to be rejoining the wiki projects again soon. Best, --AeronM (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aeron. I hope your mom's recovery continues apace. I doubt you need any Wikistress in your life; could I interest you in some cataloging on Wikimedia Commons? I have been doing a lot of that lately and it is quite satisfying. --Una Smith (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Una. Happy to report Mom is 100% recovered.... recently cleared to drive and etc. This year has been pretty stressful and just now getting back to 'life.' Right now most of my time is devoted to running my horse rescue operation and the Flip That Horse 'show', plus foxhunting, but I will check out Commons sometime. Hope you are well. AeronM (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic good news! --Una Smith (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very very good news about your mother, and welcome back! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With premiers of the movie BUCK this week and into July, the NH entry will have huge numbers of hits. Very glad it's here. I have a wee objection to the word "aversive" in the main article. Something about an "aversive stimulus" being equivalent to pressure. Most of what we ask of horses is not aversive in the lay sense. Pressure can be direct eye contact. I would like to see that word changed to...um...I can't think of a single word. Perhaps explain that pressure by definition is anything we ask of the horse, even by, say, a light touch on the rein. (Neck reining for example. Not aversive, but definitely a pressure.) Thanks for this article. LeadMare (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)LeadMare[reply]

Greetings. Did you manage to take some pictures of the Upperville Colt & Horse Show? Greatly appreciated.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Aeron Riding Halter 72.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

personal photo, out of project scope

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]