User talk:JackieLL007

Parelli Natural Horsemanship
Hi, I see you are working on the PNH article. Just a note to be careful about how much detail and promo stuff you add; we have to maintain neutrality and are also not a how-to manual, but a brief overview of each game and level is fine. If you're interested in learning the guidelines for horse articles, you can join WP:WikiProject Equine. You can also ask on my talk (neigh) page if you are having trouble. For an example of what we strive for in the horse/horse people articles, you can see the following articles, which have all reached WP:GA or WP:FA status: It's best not to include too much personal testimony unless it comes from a well-known person, like a national champion rider. If you have questions, please let me know. White Arabian Filly ( Neigh ) 23:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thoroughbred
 * Rocky Mountain Horse
 * Appaloosa
 * Ahmed Zayat

Discussion
It's probably easier to discuss WP editing on your page than my rather busy one. While anyone can edit wikipedia, anyone else can also alter, delete, or otherwise change what you write. I'd like to see if you are willing to work within the standards of wikipedia and if so, both myself and would be willing to guide you along. To reply, you can just click the "edit" tab and open the entire page if the section editing link isn't visible to you; I am sincere in being willing to help you learn to edit WP; I am equally sincere that WP is not a platform for a single-issue writer who only wants to use this site to "preach the gospel." It's your call, we are all volunteers here. Montanabw (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) The first problem you are running into is that you clearly have only one article you are interested in, and you wrote in a very promotional tone, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, where we have neutral tone and a balanced view.
 * 2) Next, you are making your case by arguing that you have extensive expertise (with the implication that the rest of us are stupid, which is not winning you any friends). This has two problems.  The first is we don't allow original research or any kind of copyight infringement, we have to source information to outside, reliable sources, usually secondary sources.  The second problem is that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog; many people come around here trying to argue that they should be listened to because they are experts.  Sometime they are and sometimes they aren't; but the rules apply to both. (We get a lot of hoaxers and scammers trying to edit wikipedia) You have to make your case and not spend your time attacking other people about how they don't understand.
 * 3) Finally, we all have our viewpoints as to various schools of thought; they can be discussed at talk, but promotional tone doesn't belong in the articles themselves. My view is that there are a lot of people out there training who are more talented horsemen than Parelli, and I provided two popular examples.  (I forgot to mention Buck Brannaman, who actually learned from Ray Hunt and has the closest connections to the people who started the NH movement; he's probably the most talented of the entire bunch)  I do think that Parelli must be acknowledged as the most "savvy" marketing specialist, and quite the entertainer, particularly since he married Linda.  But don't waste your time posting videos of people playing the seven games... I'm quite familiar with how it's done, and am not interested in becoming a Savvy Club member, thank you.

Montanabw,

Whom did I attack? And why can't I edit just one article, especially to start with? And what it the world is wrong with edu-tainment? There's a lot of "edu" in what is taught in PNH. Is it a blemish that it's also interesting?

Next, being a novice isn't tantamount to being stupid. One of the first things I did was admit to being a novice on WP, for gosh sakes. In response to that, you tagged me with "talk page stalker" because I wasn't sure how to reply to a message correctly. Was that nice?

Moreover, having expertise isn't the same as being "smart." It simply means you've put in quality time developing understanding of/facility with something. The article that I initially encountered did not have anything resembling any depth of understanding of PNH. One would hope that those editing articles would have familiarity with the subject.

I didn't "preach the gospel." I described the 7 Games briefly. I described the four savvys briefly. Why were these deleted? If there were parts that had an overly positive slant, those could have been clipped, instead of the entirety of my contribution being jammed in the trash can.

You mention "neutral tone and a balanced view." How is it balanced to have 1 sentence of barely positive perspective followed by 7 *paragraphs* of blasting PNH?

I appreciate that WP means a lot to you and that you want it to be neutral. I would point out that your bias against Parelli is interfering with a balanced presentation.

JackieLL007 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In the controversy/criticism section, we have to teach the controversy. Meaning, we have to simply list the criticism and then the response in an unemotional tone. This has to be done on all the articles about topics that multiple people have criticized. But if you can find where somebody like Dr. Robert M. Miller wrote an article in support, we can definitely cite that and make it neutral. Also, if you're making money training horses or people using the Parelli methods, you should create your userpage and disclose it there to avoid COI allegations. White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 19:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

WAF,

Thanks. That sounds reasonable. I'm willing to put in controversy as long as rebuttal can be included as well. As for COI, I don't make any money training horses or people on PNH.

JackieLL007 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, the "talk page stalker" thing was not referring to you; it was Montanabw referring to herself. Talk page stalkers are people who check out others' talk pages to read or contribute to discussions that interest them. I would have replied, but I was outside feeding animals at the time you posted the message. White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 20:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The controversies are pretty much already noting the rebuttals, but we can look at additional content. Miller is a big Parelli fan, but we have to put it in perspective, not as a simple endorsement. We can't be hagiographic here.   Montanabw (talk)  04:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can find a newer training book from somebody who is not particularly into PNH but is experienced in their methods to cite and give a brief overview of the program. I may look on Google books later or tomorrow. I have a brand-new article and a couple of drafts, but I'll try to help out here too. And maybe give a little background on Parelli himself...? White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 23:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rick Lamb and Robert Miler's "Revolution in Horsemanship" has a big Parelli section. A bit too uncritical and hagiographic and a little dated, but actually, we need a stand-alone biography of Pat Parelli separate from the PNH article and this would be a good RS for his early years. The bios of the other people also would be good sources for their assorted bios too.  .  I was delighted that this book had a section on Monte Foreman, who also needs and article.  Montanabw (talk)  05:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can probably unredirect Pat Parelli to make his stand-alone article later today, maybe this afternoon. Surely there are newspaper sources on him too, even if they're just "PNH demo at the town arena tonight" things, they usually give a little background. White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 17:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I made him a separate article. Linda may or may not be notable herself, but I did add a personal life section with a little of her background. White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Linda is tricky; on on hand, she's probably the better rider of the two, and definitely his career went from good to mega after they married, on the other hand, WP discourages articles on people who are famous mostly due to their spouse. I suppose we could do Pat and Linda Parelli, sort of like I did Ken and Sarah Ramsey. But I don't want to hijack Jackie's talk page here...  Montanabw (talk)  09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

After deleting essentially the entirety of my additions on the Parelli NH page, you (inter alia) offered your help. I asked some questions and, while you have commented since on this page, you largely ignored my questions.

Will you answer them, please?

JackieLL007 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To help answer some of your questions, you can read this essay I'm writing: User:White Arabian Filly/Editing horse articles. I'm still working on it, but it gives you a brief overview of our style here.
 * You said Montanabw didn't like Parelli and that was affecting her edits of the article. We all have things we dislike in the horse world: trainers, breeds, gear, etc. That's irrelevant to our Wiki editing. I've never done Parelli, but I do know the games and some of the philosophy behind it. I don't do it because my horse (Mustang x Quarter Horse) doesn't fit any of the Horsenality types.
 * Your most recent edits, from earlier today, were fine, although I did add a reference and changed some of it (minorly) to reflect a more encyclopedic tone (changed her to their, thing to object). White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 22:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jackie, the only thing I think is needed here is to explain to you that wikipedia policy has "five pillars" of core policy, and you ran into two of them: Neutral point of view and verifiability from reliabl sources. We also have to avoid "how to" style (that's for wikihow and other wikis, not this one).  Liking or disliking something is irrelevant, the article itself needs to read in such a way that a reader has a complete picture of both the plusses and minuses. The Parellis are widely admired (or criticized) for their marketing and branding skills, everyone gives a nod to their immense commercial success; However, their horsemanship is, at best, average, and their marketing is premium-priced.  Their "science" of "horsenality" is completely unproven and properly dismissed as a hypothesis at best; there is no independent scientific study to support their claims that I know of (any more than the people who believe in hair whorls or facial bone structure as guides to horse personality). The comparisons to other cult of personality programs is apt; they've clearly borrowed from the best.   Montanabw (talk)  03:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

I’m sorry that this is your approach to new contributors to Wikipedia.

Let me address your response to my questions by way of analogy:


 * A prosecutor walks into a grand-jury room and asks the grand jury to indict Defendant for theft.
 * Prosecutor: Theft is wrong! Everyone knows it’s wrong.  It’s also illegal under Sections xx-xx and xx-xy of our state code.  Please indict Defendant.
 * Grand jury: What did Defendant steal? When?  From whom?
 * Prosecutor: The only thing I think is needed here is to explain to you that Defendant committed theft by violating two laws, xx-xx and xx-xy and should be indicted for those crimes.

What I’m saying is this: evidence matters. If you can’t support your assertions, don’t make them.

About a week ago, I made my FIRST-EVER edit to a WP page, which took a couple of hours to write. Two days later, you apparently deleted the entirety of it. You also threw quite a few unsupported - and untrue - accusations my way. I asked what you meant, as in “please provide a factual basis for your assertions.” You didn’t bother to answer, instead resorting to more general statements about policy.

Next, in the same breath that you extol the principle of “neutral point of view” (which is unquestionably crucial to an encyclopedia), you also present as fact your opinion repeatedly, including, “the comparisons to other cult of personality programs is [sic] apt” and “their horsemanship is, at best, average.” You clearly believe those statements and, from your actions (deleting positive material while leaving uncited negative material intact), I suspect you would like the WP page to reflect your bias.

Finally, I would like to point out three other WP links with which you may be familiar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Respond to this if you must but my impression is that you fancy yourself the “old guard” and therefore superior in right to any newcomer, especially one with whom you disagree so fervently. I came here for “writing and citing” not “writing, citing, biting, inciting and fighting” and, thus, I cannot assume that further conclusory unpleasantness will warrant a response from me.

JackieLL007 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NPA and re-read WP:COI. If you feel that I "bit" you, then also read WP:SOAP. We get people coming by wikipedia all the time hoping to use it for free advertising or uncritical promotion of a commercial product. Our WP:NOADS is policy.   If you are merely an enthusiastic volunteer and aren't making money as a paid certified Parelli instructor, then I apologize for accusing you of being a paid editor.  But beyond that, you still have a clear Conflict of Interest and need to learn how to edit wikipedia -- anyone can edit and anyone can change what you edit. Just as ignorance of the law doesn't get you out of a speeding ticket, being a newbie doesn't excuse you from following the policies and guideline of wikipedia.  You can ask  about the "right way" to handle oneself as a new editor, she's doing a fantastic job and I have developed a lot of respect for her.  She also has a lot of patience with fellow newbies and you would do well to listen to her advice.   Montanabw (talk)  19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If by "old guard" do you mean have I studied all forms of horsemanship for decades? Then yes.  But your credentials or mine are irrelevant (see On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. FWIW, I've even read Parelli's book and took a serious look at what he is trying to do, which is why I noticed that one of the big problems with the Parelli program is that they give a very quick head nod to the Dorrances and Ray Hunt, but then go on to classify almost all "traditional" training techniques as inferior to theirs, which is nonsense; and their acolytes are even more of a problem in this department than the Parellis themselves.  One of my biggest criticisms of the Parellis and their acolytes is that they set up straw man arguments.  One example is what you added to the article about the "circle game" being different from longeing, and demonstrated by it that the source doesn't really understand longeing as a training technique.  They merely take an example how how some people abusively use longeing and then attack that. As I have said, you have to give a nod to the Parellis' brilliance in marketing and self-promotion. But most of what they do is not particularly new or innovative, just repackaged, and much of what might be somewhat new (their fondness for leadrope shaking, as an example) is really not a real improvement on classic techniques of humane horsemanship.  (I don't see a single rope halter or carrot stick at the Spanish Riding School, just to take one example)   Montanabw (talk)  19:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having your first efforts reverted or critisized happens to virtually every new editor. Many of my first edits were reverted and the first 5 or 6 articles I created were proposed for deletion. The thing to do is carry on and learn the ropes, and it'll stop.  White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 20:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw,

When I used the term "old guard," I contrasted it with term "newcomer." As I have already stated that I have significant horse experience covering many years, I would have expected it to be clear that I was again referring to my status as a newcomer to WP.

I notice that my questions remain unanswered.

In other news, I have the afternoon off. I'm going to go play with my mare. Have a nice day.

JackieLL007 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WAF,

Thank you. I'll keep on keepin' on. :)

JackieLL007 (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jackie, I've said what I am going to say in response to you, I do not engage in tendentious, fruitless, arguments. As for being a newcomer, like anyplace else, there are right ways and wrong ways to approach things.  We have explained here where you went wrong; it is your decision how to address constructive criticism.   Montanabw (talk)  05:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Montanabw, For someone who edits an encyclopedia, you are startlingly and conspicuously unwilling to discuss any factual basis for your unpleasant assertions. Instead, it is apparent to me that my grievous error consisted merely of posting facts (documented, cited, basic and *undisputed*facts*) about a training program that you obviously hold in contempt.  I agree that discussions with you are pointless.  As for constructive criticism, I believe that I addressed it just fine when I thanked WhiteArabianFilly -- twice -- for her constructive input.


 * Next time you consider deleting in toto paragraphs of new, solid material just because it doesn't agree with your personal view of the world, I suggest you think twice.
 * JackieLL007 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:SOAP and WP:NOADS. Your material was not at all "solid," it was mostly promotionalism.  You've stated your case. The content you proposed was reverted, discussed and some of it was re-added to the article with better sourcing and formatting:  There is now an overview of the "four savvys" and the "seven games" that was not in there before, and the sourcing has been improved.  Your work proved a motivating factor, and the article is better than it was, even if not quite in the manner you preferred. Also, the Pat Parelli article was created, which is also an improvement to the encyclopedia.  That's how it works here; we call it be bold, revert, discuss.  We did.   Montanabw (talk)  22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Montanabw,


 * You said, "Your material was not at all 'solid,' it was mostly promotionalism."


 * That's utter baloney and I think -- and genuinely hope -- that you know that. My guess is supported by the fact that you repeatedly and completely refused -- despite my repeated requests -- to be courteous enough to cite any SPECIFICS at all to support your accusations. Why didn't you?  You couldn't. There weren't any.


 * Instead, you just provided link after link to WP policies. I don't have any problem with WP's rules.  If, however, you're going to accuse me of breaking rule after rule -- well, it would be helpful if you could list a single example, and especially an example of conduct worthy of a multiple-paragraph deletion.


 * However, it's now a moot point. But, because you like citing WP policies, I will share this one with you from WP's BRD page:


 * The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus.... Care and diplomacy should be exercised....Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting.... When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary."


 * I certainly do hope you are done insulting my work and impugning my character. I suggest we both go back to doing something constructive.


 * JackieLL007 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing with you more here, I shall compare your edits against the sources cited and remove promotional tone and inaccuracies.  Montanabw (talk)  23:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That’s fine. If you decide you’d like to disagree constructively without being disagreeable, you’re welcome back anytime.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ref tags
Thanks for adding to the Parelli page, but when you add a website as a reference you can use ref tags like this:. Then they can be filled in later with the Refill tool. Just don't use the nowiki tags, those are for demo purposes only. The ref tags make the reference appear within the body of text as the little blue number in brackets. It appears fully in the reflist at the bottom of the article. White Arabian Filly ( Neigh ) 16:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, WAF! I kept trying to use the cite box but sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.  (Maybe because I use IE?)  I'll be sure to add the and < / ref > (without the spaces) in the future.  I appreciate the help!
 * JackieLL007 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know about what could make it not work. My only internet access is off a smartphone, so I use mobile view where the add a cite template feature is not there. I manually type the ref tags and then paste the url between them. Some people complain about bare urls but you can always run the Refill tool later and take care of that. White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 20:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi,WAF. I think the issue may have been the use of the "edit" tab vs. the "edit source" tab.  It was easier to add material in the former but I needed to use the latter to add references because the "cite" function showed up on the screen but didn't seem to be supported in my browser.  I guess that just means I'll probably  wind up adding in one edit and then sourcing in a second edit.  JackieLL007 (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note
Just a note that when you make a new section header, use two equal signs (=) on either end of a word--it makes it a more manageable size and is the standard. Some of the history/humanitarian stuff you put at PNH could also go in the Pat Parelli article. (If close to half of it gets to be about Linda, it'll probably be moved to Pat and Linda Parelli.) Also, where it said "Craig Johnson (disambiguation needed)" that meant that we have an article on a non-horsey CJ (hockey player, I think) and need an article on the horsey one. Thanks for your edits. White Arabian Filly ( Neigh ) 00:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Maybe I'll add a Craig Johnson article one o' these days, too (although I'll need to figure out how to do that!).  I checked the all-the-Craig Johnsons page and, oddly enough, TWO of them are hockey players.  Go figure.  :)  Thanks again for the help!JackieLL007 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I create new pages by redlinking them on my userpage (here and then just clicking on it. If I think I can't get them into good shape within an hour or two I put them in userspace first by typing something like User:White Arabian Filly/article title . In userspace you can work on them for as long as you need to before launching them. I have two in userspace right now that I'm trying to expand before I move them to mainspace. One I started that way that is now in mainspace is the Racking Horse World Celebration. (I'm hoping to get it to Did you know?; I've already had 3 on the mainpage. It is awaiting the final approval of the reviewer.) White Arabian Filly  ( Neigh ) 22:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Try Craig Johnson (horse trainer) or User:JackieLL007/Craig Johnson (horse trainer).  Montanabw (talk)  23:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parelli Natural Horsemanship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Johnson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

An extended welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. It looks like Cordless Larry left you a helpful welcome message. I like to use a more detailed one that gives more detail and can serve as a reference: The more detailed welcome is here for reference

I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ronz. It's always nice to have a friendly welcome.JackieLL007 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Parelli Natural Horsemanship‎. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

You need to stop easing unfavorable material and inserting overly promotional material, WP:NPOV is clear that wikipedia is not an advertising platform Montanabw (talk)  05:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have reverted my PNH material more often -- and, in the process, reverted more than three times as much of my text as I have of yours. Your admitted (and virulent) anti-PNH POV is reflected in nearly every substantive edit you make.  Nonetheless, your accusation of POV pushing and edit warring will be given all due consideration.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:COI. I am keeping the article balanced and keeping it from being a promotional platform and puff piece for Parelli (he likes to talk like that, if I recall.)  You cannot be taken seriously when all you do is add promotional material to the article.  The rest of us have actually expanded the article a great deal, in part thanks to your efforts. You cannot make this an advertisement.   Montanabw (talk)  07:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read it, along with many or all of the other rules you have so superciliously demanded that I read. I have violated none of WP's rules, neither (inadvertently) before nor (purposely) after reading them.  You say the right things about balance on the Parelli article...and you do the wrong things.  You have lost most, if not all, of your credibility with me.JackieLL007 (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't try templating me, and I really do not care what you think of me; you are a clear COI editor who has not established any willingness to actually edit this project. ( also read WP:SOAP.) You need to make a decision that you will either work to improve articles with a neutral point of view, or you can go promote the Parelli program elsewhere.   Montanabw (talk)  17:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You say, "you are a clear COI editor." That is 1) an ad hominem, 2) unsubstantiated and, unsurprisingly so because it is, 3) false.  Have you actually read the COI page?


 * You say, "You need to make a decision that you will either work to improve articles with a neutral point of view." That is precisely the balance -- overall neutrality of the article -- that I am seeking.  You, in contrast, obviously want the page to be a smear piece.


 * If you have something further to say, take it to the PNH talk page.JackieLL007 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not attribute my motives. (FWIW I've read Parelli's book cover to cover and Miller's too, I am not unfamiliar with their material) There are other editors now reviewing the article who are completely neutral and from their work, I think you will see that I bent over backwards to try and accommodate some of the material you wanted to add. Just because you claim that you are not being paid to edit the article does not free you from being on a soapbox that prevents you from objective editing. I am not "smearing" Parelli, I have only pointed out that there are some uncomfortable truths about his program. Montanabw (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I will rephrase. From your behavior, repeated unerringly over the course of years, I infer that you want the page to be a smear piece.  (I will also note that you have no compunction about authoritatively assigning to others your notion of their motives -- from me to Craig Johnson to others who have tried in the past to edit the PNH page.)


 * As far as you bending over backwards, I will ask this: please explain why you deleted a positive excerpt (inadvertently miscited) from a book entirely about natural horsemanship written by an equine veterinarian and behaviorist who has his own WP page and has for years...but you repeatedly insert or revert material verbatim -- including the slur "cult" -- from a random person who wrote a book that is far more about farming, forestry and fishing than horses (let alone the natural-horsemanship subsection of the topic...or the PNH subsection of that topic)...instead of simply adding the cite that you looked up?JackieLL007 (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You "infer" wrong. I seek accuracy. WP:NPOV is policy and that means the good and the bad. See, for example, Scintology; it is not flattering, but it is meticulously accurate.  (And are you claiming that Craig Johnson has tried to edit the wikipedia page?  Now that IS COI).  I also am ready to have you do things correctly, I've worked my butt off cleaning up your messes (plus WAF and I started the Pat Parelli article in addition to the work on PHN) and am tired of it.  I also stated at article talk that if you want to put the Miller bit back in as a direct quote from Miller, but do it right, with a proper URl and citation to the correct page, I won't remove that (might clean it up and no idea what other editors might do, but I'm OK with it).  As for "cult," even supporters joke that they are in "the cult.".


 * I don't know how much more clear I can be about this. I try to be polite and I usually succeed.  But you don't seem to be getting it, no matter how many times I repeat myself.  I'll give it a shot in bold.  Maybe that will do the trick.


 * I understand that not everyone likes PNH. I agree that negative material must be included on Wikipedia.  I delete or rephrase negative material if it misrepresents material from the source (as has been on more than one occasion).  I delete if a link is irretrievably broken.  I deleted a slur and replaced it with a meaningful description.  I delete inflammatory, unsupported and untrue language.  I delete weasel words like "mainstream."  None of this is improper.


 * Your deletion and reversion behavior, in contrast, seems to be guided by a simple principle: if it's positive, try to find a pretext to delete it. Your repeated disruptive editing is inappropriate, even if you have worked any of your various body parts off to do it.


 * Finally, regarding Craig Johnson: I was referring to your comment proclaiming his motivations (i.e., listing Parelli as one of his influences) as merely something he did for SEO purposes. I've never met the man myself, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume he's dishonest.JackieLL007 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow! Please do stop making assumptions, there is a difference between COI and "dishonesty."  You may view yourself as polite, but you make all sorts of accusations like your above remark, and that is really quite rude; you write walls of text and demand answers, no, that is not polite, either. I have kept a great deal of the positive material in the article and I really think you can't se that balance and part of neutrality means you take the good with the bad.  You are getting good advice from others below and I suggest you listen to it.   Montanabw (talk)  03:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You say, that I make "all sorts of accusations." I reply: my issue with you is primarily this: POV editing on the PNH page.  Your lack of civility and refusal to have substantive discussions is perhaps merely an approach to facilitating that POV pushing.


 * You say, "you write walls of text and demand answers." I reply: I am trying to have a discussion.  Why?  You delete WP-appropriate positive material like it was going out of style.  You leave in (and/or add) negative text that is inappropriate (e.g., materially misrepresents sources, factually incorrect).  You repeatedly accuse me, among other things, of COI, POV editing, copyright infringement as well as the general thick-headedness you must assume I possess to warrant you repeatedly saying things like "I really think you can't se [sic] that balance and part of neutrality means you take the good with the bad" despite that I have repeatedly said the opposite (i.e., "I understand that not everyone likes PNH.  I agree that negative material must be included on Wikipedia.).  I ask for specifics and clarification.  You ignore the substance of my comments and inquiries (repeatedly) in favor of more WP invective (e.g., COI).

I appreciate it when others give me specifics. If you would like to give me some specifics (again, which I have requested numerous times), I will be happy to discuss them. The "I really don't think you see" comments, without specifics, only leads to more of the aforementioned "walls of text" and questions about just what in the blue blazes you're talking about.

Finally, a summary of the above: SPECIFICS, PLEASE.JackieLL007 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, JackieLL007. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Parelli Natural Horsemanship, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am a customer/student of PNH. That's it and all it's ever been.JackieLL007 (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which clearly means you have a conflict of interest, it would be advisable to propose changes on the talk pages rather than directly editing yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The WP COI page says this: "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."


 * So, "Any external relationship...can trigger a COI....But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest." I have thousands of hours of study of PNH as well as thousands more of practice.  I don't have any financial conflict of interest. You may not think I'm welcome to contribute, but WP disagrees.JackieLL007 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I think where we are going off the tracks is the distinction between paid editing and a single purpose account. You have single-purpose account (explained at WP:SPA). Perhaps Wikipedia:Advocacy will explain further. Although I initially thought you were a paid editor, I actually do believe you when you say you are not. However, your behavior is still not acceptable and I don't know how to get you to step back and see that. Perhaps try editing additional articles in an area where you have knowledge but less strong emotions and see how that goes and if you can recognize how NPOV works. Your actions so far fit those of editors who are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to simply use it as a platform to advance a cause. If you want to promote Parelli, I suggest you start a blog or something. If you want to build an encyclopedia that is verifiable and with a neutral point of view, then learn how it works. You are welcome to contribute usable content that is within policy and fits the guidelines. Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk) 03:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I came to WP with the idea of editing several articles in areas in which I have expertise. So far, I have edited three such articles (and one quick edit of another page).  I don't have all day, every day to edit WP.  I can either spread myself out to try to do "everything" at once or I can focus on one article for the time being.  The SPA page says "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest."  With respect to PNH, that's me.  If you have trouble with any of my specific edits, please let me know.  I'm happy -- more than happy -- to discuss specific edits.  But I am really and truly tired of you implying that my adding true and relevant material somehow leads to the conclusion that I am not here to improve WP.JackieLL007 (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll meet you halfway. You may be here to improve wikipedia.  Believe it or not, I actually hope that is true.  However, your "adding true and relevant material" is what we call soapboxing.  A niche interest on wikipedia is something like horses, or anime, or railroads, or whatever.  You are a bit narrower than that, which is why I am suggesting you look at topics within you knowledge but outside your niche (for example, I don't just edit horse articles, I also occasionally work on other things like this.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  04:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If this is a genuine attempt to mend fences, I thank you for the olive branch. However, given that you literally swore at me on the PNH talk page a few hours before posting here on my talk page, and given that your meet-you-halfway offer consists of you suggesting that I leave the PNH editing to you, I hope you forgive my skepticism.JackieLL007 (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The skepticism is mutual, and I wasn't swearing at you, I was just expressing general frustration that you were implying something I did not say or intend. And this is another example of you taking what I say and assuming I meant something much harsher than I intended I would like to see if you can edit anything other than the Parelli article in any way that is helpful to the general encyclopedia.  Some people who arrive here with a single-issue agenda expand their horizons, others don't.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  08:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If "general frustration" were my criterion for swearing on WP, my replies to you might well consist of as much swearing as constructive language. Let's not do that.

This is an unpleasant situation. Perhaps you think I created it. In turn, I believe that it is your persistent POV editing and attitude of ownership towards the PNH page that has caused it. You are free to think that Pat Parelli is a "huckster" and a "flimflam artist" (your words), but you should not be editing Wikipedia to reflect your views.

As for "assuming," so far you have assumed:


 * that I'm "sad" (note: disgusted is not the same thing as sad),
 * that I "still feel[] that [you] are 'slandering' a great man," and (repeatedly).
 * that I have a COI, despite my honest assertions (over and over) that I do not.

As for editing anything other than the PNH article, 1) that is not a requirement, 2) I already have, 3) I would have spent more time doing useful editing had I not been subjected to ongoing and unwarranted nastiness from you and 4) you might "like to see if [I] can edit anything other than the Parelli article"; in contrast, I would like to see if you could cease editing with a marked negative slant and/or modify your years-long ownership behavior at the PNH article.JackieLL007 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You may honestly assert that you have no conflict of interest but as you state above "I am a customer/student of PNH" you clearly DO have a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * From the WP "conflict of interest" page:


 * How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse."


 * PNH advertises that it has "hundreds of thousands of students across the globe." I am merely one of them.  Are you seriously saying that, in your estimation, no PNH student should be allowed to edit the PNH page?  In other words, "if you've ever studied this particular topic, don't you dare add anything you've learned to WP"...is that your position?JackieLL007 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No that is not my position but given your combative editing history, it might be advisable for a collegiate Wikipedia if you made suggestions on the talk page first and let others who are not connected in any way to Parelli, consider them. Wikipedia is not interested in "anything you've learned' it is only concerned with what the reliable secondary sources say about a subject.Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding a "combative editing history," we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I would truly love to be an affable Wikipedian.  However, my experiences to date with a few others here have made that less likely.  It would also be very nice if everyone could have a friendly chat about points of disagreement instead of deleting, casting aspersions (e.g., COI) and suggesting that other editors not edit.


 * Regarding "primary sources," here is WP policy:


 * Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.


 * Finally, I noticed that you changed "Parelli Professional" to "Parelli Instructor," claiming that "that was what the source says." First, no it wasn't what Lauren Barwick's site said.  It says "Parelli Professional" right on the page in several places.  It does so because "Parelli Professional" is the term they use.  What was there was accurate; changing it was incorrect.  Regardless, potato/potahto.  I changed "Instructor" to "instructor" so it will properly appear that "Parelli instructor" is a description, not a title.


 * If you wish to discuss specific edits, let me know.JackieLL007 (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source here  does actually call her a "Parelli instructor", the term  "Parelli Professional" maybe what Parelli call them? Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The other source referred to her as a "Parelli Professional." (To answer your question, yes, that's what PNH calls them). So, while PP is perhaps the better term, Parelli instructor works about as well.JackieLL007 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Per all of the above, the most applicable policy/guideline here at this point is WP:SOAP. Until you get off the Parelli soapbox, Jackie, you are not going to be taken seriously by anyone.  Multiple editors have been wasting a lot of bandwidth trying to explain your problematic edits to you; you prefer to respond as if you think we are out to get you.  No.  You are petty much digging your own hole here.  Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  18:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Which of the WP:SOAP policies do you think I am violating? Unless you provide specifics, we can't have a meaningful discussion and, thus, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.  I am happy to discuss specific edits with you or anyone else.JackieLL007 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Been there, done that. You ask for specifics and then argue about them.  I've explained the problems to you over and over again and you are choosing not to listen. I'm done beating my head against the wall. Others can try to educate you, at this point, as far as I am concerned, I am done trying to teach a brick wall. You can either edit properly or get reverted.  You can make unwarranted assumptions about other people and twist what they say or you can grow up.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  03:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You say "[y]ou ask for specifics." Yes, I do. That's what we're supposed to be discussing -- the edits. Usually, I don't get specifics from you. If you want an example of what I mean by "specifics," I would refer you to some of Bishonen's comments to me, e.g., that "currently" shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia. It was a good point. So, I removed the two instances of "currently" that I found.

You add "and then argue about them." Most of the arguing has been over you inundating me with untrue assertions of COI (along with SPA, POV pushing, copyright infringement, and such -- and, perhaps notably, you calling something I added a "flat-out lie" despite that it was taken directly and accurately from a mainstream publication.) One of the few times that you have done me the courtesy of specifics -- "first university of its kind" and "university status" -- I have researched your assertions and concluded that both pieces of text were better omitted, as you wanted. I did this despite that both assertions were taken directly from a mainstream publication.

You say, "I've explained the problems to you over and over again and you are choosing not to listen." I reply: I have listened. I have read the articles to which you directed me. I understand and agree to Wikipedia's policies. I simply do not agree with your interpretations of them, most particularly whichever ones you are citing to support your demand that I quit editing the PNH article. There's a big difference.

You say, "You can make unwarranted assumptions about other people and twist what they say." I reply: I made one assumption. It was that your negative opinions stemmed from your reading of Pat Parelli's book. It was 1) reasonable. You had mentioned several times that you had read the book.  It was also 2) substantively irrelevant. Who cares why you have the opinions that you do? It's irrelevant to editing. (And, to that point, even though I mentioned it in passing to orient Bishonen to the dispute and the backgrounds of the parties, it probably could have gone unmentioned.)

As for "twisting" what others say, I have not done that. The book reference above aside, I don't recall having made any assumptions. On the other hand, in addition to the unwarranted and incorrect accusations you make loudly and repeatedly about my motivations, you have rather snidely characterized me as "sad" about your bad behavior (don't presume to know what I'm thinking) and, also rather snidely, stated that I "still feel[] that we are 'slandering' a great man" (as I've said -- I don't much care what you say about either of the Parellis). Interestingly enough, the second comment is two assumptions in one -- 1) that I felt before like you were slandering him before and 2) that I still felt that way.

Finally, you end with, "I'm done beating my head against the wall. Others can try to educate you, at this point, as far as I am concerned, I am done trying to teach a brick wall. You can either edit properly or get reverted. You can make unwarranted assumptions about other people and twist what they say or you can grow up." There are so many things wrong with that insulting statement that -- other than to say that I heartily welcome civilly stated pointers from experienced Wikipedians -- I don't even know where to start. So, I won't.JackieLL007 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)