User talk:VirginieLP

Wild horses addition: You cannot just copy and past text from other websites to wikipedia, as those websites have copyright on their text, and the text you added comes from http://www.wildhorsepreservation.com/resources/wild.html. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I control the copyright to that page. I give Wikipedia permission to use it on its site VirginieLP

Even then, you cannot just copy and paste it to Wikipedia. And I think you have to mention it at the website as well, because when you give wikipedia permission, you effectively licence it under the Gnu Free Documentation Licence, which effectivly is equal to giving up the rights worldwide for all purposes. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feral versus Wild

There is only one wild horse nowadays, and that is the prewalski horse. All other horses originate from domesticated horses and are feral. I know that they take up the place of the original wild horses, but that does not make them wild horses in the way biologist are using those terms. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So this is about censorship? You deleted a whole article because you disagree with it. Before simply deleting it, maybe you should have read the Kirkpatrick/Fazio article. You will see that some scientists disagree with your point of you on the topic. Federal law also refers to "wild free-roaming horses". The term "mustang" only applies to a small fraction of Spanish-blood hroses. Very few of them are left in the wild actually.

The "mustang" article is out of date and full of inaccuracies, by the way. I tried to correct it but I guess dogma is more important than facts to some people around here. Why remove the latest official population number? Why remove reference to federal law and a quote from Congress? Puzzling.

I know that some scientists disagree (I read the article), however, that is not changing the fact that they have been reintroduced here. If you change well-established terminology, expect resistance. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I change the terminology? They are a "reintroduced native wildlife species." I am glad we can agree on something.

That does not make them wild horses in the normal usage. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are referred to as "wild horses" in federal law. If that's not normal usage, I don't know what is. "Mustang" however is a completely inaccurate description for these horses, very few of them being pure descendants of the original conquistador horses. No one, not even the BLM, uses that terminology anymore. It is outdated. "reintroduced wildlife" = "wild" (at least, an argument can be made for that, unless only your point is allowed on this site.)

"reintroduced wildlife" can be "wild" if the species has not been domesticated in the meanwhile, which has happened with the horse, so it remains feral. That the federal law refers to them as "wild free-roaming" (not wild alone) is not relevant. If we would do that, evolution would be non-existing in some states at times becuase of laws passed in that regard. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per permission

I have made a rough copy of the page that you say is free under the GDFL, here: http://www.kimvdlinde.com/private/Mustang.html Thanks for the permission.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues again

For the new page to remain, you need to send an email to permissions AT wikimedia.org asserting that the content was created by you and that you are licensing it under a free, reusable license. Or you have to update your website with a copyright notice to that effect. Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website updated. No more copyright restrictions on the page in question. Do you need anything else?

What happened to the article? What a nightmare this is.

The article is still available, in the history. The copyright issue is now resolved. I saw that an other editor looked at the page, and I agree with him that the page needs serious work. When I am back and have more time (I am currently just doing some quick responses), I am willing to help you out to make it a decent page, that is within the quidelines and policies of Wikipedia. We can than also ealw ith the Mustang article. Often, just copying and pasting pages wfrom the internet is not working to well. (And on a personal note, I really appreciate the actions that you describe on your website). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

title and content

When you have sorted out the copyright position, there remain two matters:

Ridiculous titles: America's Free-Roaming horses (also commonly referred to as "wild horses") and Troubled History of America's Free-Roaming Horses (commonly referred to as 'wild horses'). A short title such as "Free-roaming horses in America" (note the lower case) would be sufficient.
The article is far from neutral (see WP:NPOV). It is a strongly biassed campaigning piece. Unless it is re-written in a neutral tone, it is likely to be rejected from Wikipedia.

-- RHaworth 08:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Well, it's a historical overview. The parenthetical was to accomodate another of your lovely reviewers. It is not a scientific piece, so how about "America's wild horses." It chronicles a disastrous policy over the years. Call it "biassed" (sic) if you want. Are articles alerting people to global warming deemed biased too?[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Canada_stallion.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Canada_stallion.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:NM-Forest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NM-Forest.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]