User talk:Rectorvp

Hi, you must be a friend of Adagen and the "VP" in your user name suggests to me that you must be another person associated with the Pintabian registry. As I told Adagen, you need to learn to edit wikipedia properly if you want to put material here, especially when you have a potential conflict of interest or commercial interest. I have few objections to your actual facts that you are putting into the article, it's your writing style and tone that's the problem. You also need to provide Reliable sources for your material, not just internal self-promotional materials, and you need to not remove material other people have sited and sourced without discussing it. Also, you must be very careful NOT to copy material word-for-word from another source because that would be a copyright violation -- even if you are the owner of the material, your contributions here are part of wikipedia, which has tougher standards. I suggest you both take your concerns to Talk:Pintabian and we can further discuss what you need to do. The biggest problem is proof -- other than from press releases or self-promotional statements -- that you have a trademark right to the name. Montanabw (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

nice work
Nice work on the update, and much better. I did a light copyedit to keep it a bit more with wikipedia style, and also added a section about other half-Arabians, plus a bit comparing the Pintabian to the Shagya Arabian, another breed that is probably close to 99% Arab (and thus, arguably could be viewed as more "purebred" than some purebred Arabs, but I won't go there on WP, LOL). I DID notice that when I searched for the trademark, here, http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:gbapec.2.1, it shows that the trademark is deemed "abandoned." You might want to alert folks at the registry to look into that... Montanabw (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Rectorvp, I took another whack at your edits. Basically, you have to be careful of two things:  Copying verbatim from the registry's web site, especially when it has bad phrasing (a horse IS an equine, no need to say both in the same sentence, bad phrasing); and making claims beyond what is verifiable; Pintabian may well be an enforcable trademark owned by the registry, but TESS shows it as "abandoned" as of 1996, so you can't use it as a source to say it is "owned," only that it was registered, and when.  The language I used to reword that bit should be able to stay on that topic without getting into the issue of "ownership," which can be a minefield (I can recall when Claude Montana tried to copyright the word Montana for his products; the state took objection - and won! LOL!)  It's clear the registry is a bit obsessed about this issue, but that stuff doesn't need to go here; it's already quite clear that the registry decides what is and is not a Pintabian, but to beat people over the head with it (the way their web site does) is unduly confrontational and off-putting.  This is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. (smile)  Montanabw (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Follow up
Hi Rectorvp, I keep changing some of your edits for two reasons; one is that the citation to the old magazine article is a weak, unverifiable citation when compared to the web site of the US Government. I presume it was some sort of press release, but as the magazine is not accessible online, no one knows what it says (the citation is also incomplete in terms of article title, page number, etc., things that might allow someone to contact the magazine and verify what was in there). The other reason not to keep some of your language is that it is simply awkward; I realize this may be tangled up with the trademark issue, but absent a discussion, it just sounds better to phrase things a bit differently. Feel free to discuss here or at the article talk page and explain what your thinking is here, I am willing to work with you to be both accurate and in line with WP's rules of style and verifiability. Montanabw (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)