User talk:Adagen

Adgen, your edits to the Pintabian article are well-intentioned, but are also appear to be a Conflict of interest. There is a breed and there is a breed registry, the two are not necessarily identical, and it is important to remember that wikipedia frowns upon apparent self-promotion or advertising. Please take your proposed edits to talk, as I think the line is being crossed a bit. Montanabw (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Pintabian horse was developed, the breed established, the term defined and the registry formed by the founders of the Pintabian Horse Registry. I do not promote myself, but speak the truth, with twenty years of documentation to cite and trademark law to back it up.  Your insistence on changing the definition of the word "Pintabian" violates trademark law.  As long as you continue to edit this page, I will continue to correct it with the truth.


 * You need to calm down and read the articles I linked above. I have no problem with accurate information, but the registry is relatively new actually, being only 20 years old. And I cannot find evidence that the word is trademarked,  though if you can provide a link to a reliable source (the Pintabian web site is not reliable for proving that the name is trademarked) such as the name appearing on a government list of trademarked words, that can be added with a proper cite attibution.  However, my main concern was adding the business name about every three sentences, which is very poor writing and makes you look like you are just commercially promoting the organization.  There are also plenty of pinto part-Arabians registered with PtHA and this needs to be acknowledged unless you are closing your stud book to all outside horses -- how else will you get new outcrosses?  And please don't make threats about trademark law here, the goal is to have a proper article that is balanced and accurate, not a promotional brochure controlled by the registry. What you can provide citation for is great, but what you don't want to hear is still going to be in there if it can be sourced.    Montanabw (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was looking up the trademark information, here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:gbapec.2.1  And it is listed as recorded in 1992, but then "abandoned."  You might want to alert the folks at the registry to look into this.   Montanabw (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)