User talk:Klvankampen

Welcome!

Hello, Klvankampen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Andalusian horse. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andalusian horse

Hi! You obviously put in a lot of work on the Andalusian horse article, and, I imagine, may have been surprised or even displeased to see your edits instantly reverted with a cursory explanation. I in turn am surprised to find that no longer explanation has been posted here. So I thought I'd try quickly to explain the situation. That article is a featured article, which means, on the good side, that it has been brought to a certain level and subjected to a kind of peer review in order to achieve this status; unfortunately, it also means that the editors who got it there tend to defend the existing text, sometimes almost unthinkingly. It also means – rightly, in my view – that any change or addition to the article, even apparently minor, needs to be supported with proper and reliable references. It is my guess that you have professional or expert knowledge of this breed (am I right?), and thus may also have access to many valuable relevant sources. If you would like to make additions to the article, I'd be pleased to offer what inexpert help I can. One way of approaching it would be to propose changes on the talkpage of the article; another is to make successive small changes, each accompanied by appropriate references. Any large-scale rewrite is likely to trigger another defence reaction. This project desperately needs expert editors; I hope you will decide to stay. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What JLAN means with "featured, which means, on the good side" should be read more like "featured, which means, completely sourced and painstakingly copyedited". While you should never replace sourced material (=followed by ref tags) without providing superior sources, additions or removals on Featured Articles should normally be discussed first. I do hope you can help us make Andalusian horse even better though, and I'll welcome you to join the discussion. Pitke (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing to understand is that when there are "political" issues surrounding an article, as exists here, the text of the article may well reflect a carefully crafted compromise or may reflect an accurate discussion of an uncomfortable or inconvenient truth about a topic. This is another reason that major changes need to be discussed thoughtfully and with accurate sources provided. Montanabw^(talk) 17:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My apologies for making changes in poor format. I will be updating the page again with someone who is more familiar with protocol. My concern is that there are problems with nomenclature in the existing article, and much information about organizations is outdated. Be assured that there are good and neutral sources to cite, and all organizations have the right to represent themselves correctly, but not to misrepresent the other groups. Thank you for your help and I will keep working on this.Klvankampen (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please put any proposals on the talk page of the article first so we can review and discuss them. This article has been dealing with the various controversies for quite some time, and we here on wiki are also accustomed to developing accurate articles, even when they state inconvenient truths that the breed associations would like to ignore (For example, we have ongoing problems because we mention the soring of Tennessee Walking Horses and the genetic diseases that plague several breeds) We have updated the page a bit, but the political issues within the Andalusian/PRE world are being observed with the strictest standards of neutrality per WP:NPOV. We will strive to explain the views of each faction accurately, but one group cannot dictate the terms of this article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second discussion

Dear Editor, I am clearly writing from one of the “camps” as I am current President of USPRE—which should give me something of a platform as the same time that it raises red flags. I respect your efforts to represent all interests fairly and perhaps I can add to your perspective. If you feel that you are in a position to be more neutral than I, I am happy to supply you with the information and corrections—and relevant sources—for you to consider for revision of this article.

1. The nomenclature for this horse is perhaps its most controversial feature at the moment, and so it is very important that the editors of this article be very careful to be accurate. There is no horse breed named “Andalusian”. The word “Andalusian” is not part of the name of any formal breed from that region nor the name of any studbook anywhere, but is a common name used to describe a type or race of horse with certain characteristics from the region. You’ve said this in some ways throughout the article, but the first sentence is incorrect as are other references to the Andalusian as a breed. I suggest that you look at the Wikipedia article for “Warmblood Horse” for guidance, as the two terms—Andalusian and Warmblood—are similar in that they describe a family of breeds or a type of horse, but are not breed names in themselves (see also the Warmblood article’s definition of “Breed”). The current article states that the name “Andalusian” is synonymous with PRE, and this is incorrect. The majority of the members of IALHA would take issue with this comparison, as they register many non-PREs as Andalusians, and the article itself notes that ANCCE differentiates between PRE and Andalusian. Indeed, the Spanish do not consider Andalusian the name for their breed. For this reason among many I believe that my re-write of the first few sentences of the paragraph is better, in that it reflects the historical and correct use of the term “Andalusian”. (Remember, historically, Andalusia encompassed what is now Spain and Portugal.) 2. The first breeding program using native Andalusian horses was initiated in the 16th Century under King Phillip II by Royal Decree—not the 15th Century as is stated throughout this article. My version corrected this error. All of the stated sources, as well as mine which I add at the bottom of this page, contain the date of 1567 as the date of the Royal Decree in Spain and the start of the West’s first controlled animal breeding project and the establishment of the PRE Horse breed. 3. The modern PRE and Lusitano Studbooks were established in the 20th Century—1911 and 1942. This is important information that is excluded in the present version. 4. It would be nice to have updated information regarding numbers of registered Andalusian horses. For this you will need to have updated census figures from all the registering organizations—ANCCE, Lusitano Studbooks for Portugal and Brazil, PRE Mundial, IALHA (the American registry for Iberian and Andalusian horses, plus crosses), and any other corresponding organizations in Europe and the Americas. As this is a daunting task, I suggest you remove the last sentence of the first paragraph until you have more accurate figures. 5. To the existing paragraph about registries (and studbooks?), I added language describing the relationship between the Government of Spain and ANCCE, the organization that is overseeing the management of the PRE Studbook. This language comes directly from ANCCE literature, sourced below. 6. Lawsuits: If you think you need to include this information in the article, then you will need to be following the developments of the various suits closely and updating often. My suggestion is to wait to report on a lawsuit when one has obtained a successful ruling in the courts. Otherwise you are reporting only what you are reading on one or another website and the risk of inaccurate and non-neutral reporting is high. (See my point 13.) At the same time and since the editors seem to want to include legal news in this article… perhaps you should include my paragraph about PRE Trademark status, as this is easily documented and currently practiced in the European Union. 7. Also under the paragraph of registries, you fail to mention several other important organizations that are operating with membership in the US--the United States PRE Association (2007), which assists the registration of American-bred PREs in the Spanish studbook and which is the only officially ANCCE-endorsed US association, and ERAHC—the Eastern Region Andalusian Horse Club, which has been registering members and holding shows, clinics and seminars since 1992. There are many other smaller and newer groups that may warrant inclusion in this articles including the regional Andalusian Horse Associations and Alliances, and Iberian Horse clubs, etc. 8. Again I recommend the thorough and fascinating research of Juan Carlos Altamirano on the origins of the Lusitano, which addresses the misconceptions about the commonality of the two breeds. See sources below. 9. I modernized some of the text under characteristics, particularly in the area of coat colors. You may want to use more informed language in that section. 10. Under Dissemination and the following sections, you have some minor historical errors. If you care to correct them you can refer to my version or sources. 11. Under Naming and Registration, I made corrections only to the first paragraph, to clarify what is stated above, that there is no official breed name of “Andalusian”, but that the two countries from where Andalusian horses are derived have formalized their studbooks under the breed names PRE and Lusitano. I refer to Andalusian as a “generic” name—perhaps you might call that “POV”--but by definition of generic, Andalusian is a blanket name for a type of horse with distinct features, and you must use the proper national names when you refer to breeds. As for the penultimate paragraph in this section, the language is mis-leading as it appears to pit two organizations against the other. This portrayal is inaccurate on an organizational level since ANCCE and IALHA maintain friendly collaboration, and so I think this part should be re-written. The landscape has changed in the United States, with now two studbooks operating offices in the United States (PRE Mundial, ANCCE) and one Registry (IALHA). There is published conflict between ANCCE and PRE Mundial, and if you choose to represent this issue, it is probably better done in the next section entitled Pure Spanish Horse (as I’ve done in my re-write, see below). 12. I have made my suggested changes to the section entitled “Pure Spanish Horse” as to accurately represent the current issue over nomenclature between ANCCE and PRE Mundial. The existing description of ANCCE is correct, however you call USPRE a registry and this is incorrect. USPRE registers no horses, but assists its members in the process of adding their horses to the Spanish Studbook. I have not altered your description of PRE Mundial except to add that the registry is only operative in the United States, which they state on their website. 13. You mention again the lawsuit in Europe. In the interests of neutrality, you must not derive your information about this suit from the Foundation for the Pure Spanish Horse (PRE Mundial) website, as reflected in repeated citations in your footnotes, because the Foundation is closely associated with the plaintiffs if not party to the suit. On the Foundation website, much of the legal details have been misrepresented and mis-translated. In the interest of fairness, you must be prepared to present and interpret the original Spanish documentation if you are going to report on this issue. 14. Under Uses, you absolutely must update with the outstanding Dressage success of Fuego de Cardenas, finishing Fifth in the world at the World Equestrian Games in Kentucky, 2010. 15. Finally, please humor me and capitalize the word “Horse” in the title—must be another of my English teacher fetishes, but titles should be in caps….

Sources:

In general, be careful not to only cite English or American sources when discussing breed history, development and studbook issues, without an appropriate representation of the Spanish and Portuguese literature on the subject—unless this article only refers to Andalusian Horses outside of their native countries. American breed publications, even as high up as the United States Equestrian Federation, have shown a dismal ability to translate from the Spanish and Portuguese and have relied on elementary IALHA (non-scholarly) promotional publications for sources.

Altamirano, Juan Carlos. The Lusitano Horse: Origin and History,(El Caballo 2009, Author-Editor, Part of the Series Ediciones Ecuestres, ASIN B003ZN9EEW (Available on Amazon) In fact, the entire Altamirano Series should be cited, for a complete scholarly history of the Spanish and Lusitano Horse. --History and Origin of the Spanish Horse --Las Rutas del Caballo en Andalucia --La Yeguada Del Bocado: De La Fantasia a la Realidad --The Military Stud Farm --The Royal Andalusian School of Equestrian Art --The Bocado Stud Farm --The Spanish Horse Under the Bourbon Kings --The Royal Stables of Cordoba --The Spanish Horse --The History of the Carthusian Horses --The Purebred Spanish Horse: the Living Legend

All of these imprints are recommended reading on the Foundation for the Pure Spanish Horse website, and JC Altamirano is considered the leading historian of the PRE at ANNCE as well as USPRE, and so there is no better “neutral author” from your standpoint. Additional information and many pertinent articles about the history of the PRE Horse and the Lusitano authored by Altamirano are published in every edition of El Caballo Magazine and translated into English. Much of Sandra Loch’s and Juan Llamas’ information is updated by Altamirano, which makes him a must-read author for anyone claiming to have expertise in this field.

For nomenclature—especially the correct uses for the terms PRE and Andalusian, based on historical documentation--,see “The Name of the Breed”, Juan Carlos Altamirano, El Caballo Magazine, no. 190, March-April 2009.

Also, for additional help with terminology, I suggest Altamirano’s Diccionario Ecuestre Espanol…Here you will see the difference between how the Spanish translate “Raza” (a sub-group of a species) and the English word “Breed” (to produce offspring in a controlled and organized way). Also see Andaluz, defined as a region that produced many races of horses.

The PRE Horse Book, Asociacion Nacional de Criadores de Caballos de Pura Raza Espanola, 2008, ISBN 978-84-691-7372-5. This is the most recent imprint on the breed. Translated into English. Discusses at length the role of ANCCE as appointed manager of the PRE Studbook by Spain.

PRE Tradmark Status with the European Union, sourced as a certificate, published at http://usprea.com/pre-horse/2011/05/30/p-r-e-trademarked/

You need to give fair representation to citing www.usprea.com, especially to the articles there regarding the definition of PRE Horse as it applies to the situation in the United States, and also reportage on the law suits, since you give inordinate authority to the Foundation website as a reliable source for reporting on these issues without mention of their business interest in re-defining PRE Horse according to their wishes, the ANCCE (Spanish Government’s) reaction to their registry, and their interest in the law suit. On the www.usprea.com website you will find archived translations of ANCCE’s statements on the suits and their opinions on the use of the name PRE for a registry that is, according to ANCCE, un-recognized by the parent studbook. Klvankampen (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name issue is forever. The current view in Wikipedia, I suppose, is that the name of the breed in English just happens to be "Andalusian Horse", and it's not meant to challenge the breed's actual origins or pureness in any way. It's a matter of convention really. Pitke (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klvan, and thanks for your comprehensive explanation and also kudos to you for your honesty and forthright self-disclosure. Your clear passion for the breed is helped by your understanding of the "political" issues from an inside perspective. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. For some of your date corrections, we probably can make those in fairly short order if you can give us a full biographical citation to the information -- not only title, author, publisher, etc., but also-- most importantly -- the page number of the text and if it is online, a URL link to the text or an abstract that could access the full text. It is helpful to back up anything published by an organization with a secondary source to a third party and presumably neutral source, such as a scholarly journal (for historical things) if one exists. (Sometimes, with the horse stuff, it doesn't). The main thing with simple changes is sourcing. See wikipedia's citation and verifiability guidelines. Because this particular article is a "featured article" we have to be particularly careful with having precise, comprehensive sources (as in, pretty much every sentence if needed!) Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Other than the "easy" fixes, we are bound, to some degree, by Wikipedia's rules and conventions -- for example, neutral point of view is one of the "pillars" of wikipedia and we must be very careful to respect that. On the other hand there are a lot of unwritten conventions that we also hold to because they are simply too big a battle to fight about in a single article -- for example, there is a big ongoing debate over capitalizing article titles with title case or sentence case, at the moment, sentence case has won, but in a couple years, I bet title case will be "in" again and someone will run a bot through 10,000 articles and change them all from "horse" to "Horse" again (-- sigh). Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. For the complex issues, such as describing the different organizations and the nomenclature debate, we try to present each side's views as carefully as possible without taking sides unless there is a clear mainstream consensus and a clear "fringe" view. But there often isn't one single "right" answer, just multiple strongly held opinions. The PRE/Andalusian issue is one of them. Pitke is right, the PRE is commonly called an "Andalusian" in English, even amongst non-PRE horse people, and the PRE label itself is akin to the "TPR" title used for a breed called the Italian Heavy Draft in English; you use a term and no one but the insiders know what you are talking about! Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. The problem with any Spanish language source is, of course, the verifiability problem for those of us who do not read Spanish, and thus, when we use these, we try to either jointly link to an English source that supports the same information, or, as Pitke did with Pitke's truly brilliant labor of love that is Finnhorse, provide appropriate translations with the citation itself (in that case, because few people are fluent in Finnish other than Finns!). Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. As for the rest, we will sometimes undoubtably upset certain sacred cows in any breed article if third-party studies do not mesh with the claims of an organization; for example, when we were working on Sorraia, we had extensive discussion explaining why the evidence showed they were in fact a domesticated breed and not a "wild horse" breed. Some American Quarter Horse people would prefer we didn't mention HYPP. Here, ANCCE may feel quite strongly that it is their right to be the only arbiter of what is a properly registered animal, but if there are other views, those other views will be discussed. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klvan, and thanks for your willingness to discuss this. All of what Pitke and Montanabw say above is true. However, I'd like to ask for clarification on a few of your comments. You say in point 9 that you "modernized" the language in the characteristics section. However, when I look at the changes that you made, it looks like you also removed a significant amount of information and sources. Why? In point 14, you say that we "absolutely must include" the 5th place finish of a PRE at the WEG. Why? We already provide examples of the Andalusian/PREs success in dressage, though their winning silver and bronze medals. We don't need to include every success that they've had, and a 5th place finish is not as impressive as a 2nd or 3rd place finish. Also in your changes, you removed all mention of the court case. This is unacceptable, as the court case has played a major role in breed politics over the past few years. Do you consider the facts reported in this paragraph to be incorrect? We have tried to make it as neutral as possible, stating the reason for the lawsuit and the response of the court as well as the response of the Spanish government. As far as I can see, there is no assumption that either side is right, just a simple stating of the facts. If you can provide evidence that the facts as stated are incorrect, I would appreciate seeing these sources. With regards to mentioning the various registries and associations, regional clubs are generally not included in breed articles (especially for large breeds with many such clubs) because there are just so many of them. If there is an overarching national or international "Iberian Horse Club" then this could certainly be mentioned, but in general, only national and international organizations are discussed. As far as the name goes, "Andalusian" is the common name for this breed of horse in the English-speaking world. "PRE" is used by breed specialists, but say "PRE" or "Pura Raza Espanola" to the general public or even the general horse public in English-speaking countries and they would have no idea what you were talking about. Dana boomer (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third discussion

Dear Dana, Montanabw, and Pitke, Thank you for your careful reading of my suggestions for changes to this article. I will attempt to answer all of your questions and most of those raised above: -- In speaking about coat colors, we have returned to the issue of studbook rules and regulations again. Prior to 2002, certain colors were prohibited from the PRE studbook. Starting in 2003, all coat colors are accepted in the studbook, and because of this certain coat colors are enjoying a renaissance--especially black, chestnut and the diluted coats Pearl, Buckskin, Cremello, etc. Many breeders in Spain and in the US are breeding solely for color now, and this changes the percentage of gray horses to colored horses. This is the point that needs to be updated, since the statistic quoted predates these changes. --I removed the section about Carthusian breed characteristics because this part needs to be re-worked. Many Spanish horses have these characteristics and recent scholarship does not support the Carthusian theory. --As for the success of the PRE Horse Fuego at the World Equestrian Games in 2010, this is the first time a PRE has ranked within the top five horses in a world championship (ie, the Olympics or the WEG). The Spanish Team has earned Silver and Bronze, but the team consists of warmbloods as well as PREs and Lusitanos, and never before nor since has an "Andalusian" horse ranked among the top five horses in the world in a sport. --The lawsuit between UCCE and the Government of Spain was not gone on for years as you suggest, only since 2010, so maybe we aren't speaking about the same lawsuit? My point for this suit is that the only source for information cited in this article is one of the parties in the suit. This is not balanced or neutral representation of the issues. Spain has issued a number of press releases about this suit which have not been reproduced here but which can be found on the websites that I have cited. -- Thank you for the clarification on the regional groups. I agree that either all or none should be included, although it would be nice to list them somewhere for the benefit of the reader. -- As for clarification of the name "Andalusian", our goal should be accuracy and not convention, correct? The breed world is now fully aware of the difference between Andalusian and PRE and Lusitano. This article should not propagate antiquated terminology. There is no politics here. --For the editor(s), I am happy to provide you with quotes, page numbers, and web links, as I attempted to do in my revision. I am under the impression that this editor, or group of editors, would prefer to do the revisions themselves, and so I have provided the issues and the corresponding sources that would need to be investigated for authority and neutrality. I am hesitant to do yet another rewrite and have it simply deleted again. If you are unable to review this material on your own, my suggestion is that you send me the information for which you need sources, and I will provide this to you in greater detail. Do you really need page numbers for historical data, as no sources are cited in the article for the incorrect historical information that is there in its current form? In fact, the first three paragraphs have no citation at all in the current version...

At this point, it seems that the burden is on this editor to investigate the matters that have been raised and provide all of us with a reasoned revision of the current article, and not just a defense of it in its current form. This article has many strong points, and many have worked very hard to present the topic in a clear and balanced fashion. Nevertheless, as I've pointed out with numerous sources, there is dated and incorrect material here--regardless of the messenger.Klvankampen (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the colour thing, it would be interesting to have a section on it. "Traditionally, X and Y were considered inelegant colourations for a horse, and thus... Z was discouraged due to superstitions concerning... By the ABC0s, F-coloured stallion Whatnow was widely influential in the Justplace population due to his... Thus F quickly became the prevalent colour in the breed. In CDEF, colours Y and Z were banned from the breed, disallowing such coloured stallions from being accepted for breeding. Mares were exempt from the rule, provided that... The colouration of the breed was most uniform in 19xx, when F made up **% of the breed, with only *% of X and *% of Y remaining. From 2003, Some Breed Society recognised all existing colours of the breed as legitimate." and then we get into recent breeding for colour and fresh statistics. Pitke (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klvan. The way is works in wikipedia is that the "burden" is on the person wanting to change or add material, so yes, there is a tendency to defend existing material here, but that can be changed quite simply by producing good, solid, neutral sources. We are more than willing to update the outdated sections, but we need sources WE can see -- so can you provide appropriate URL links for us to verify your information? Or if they are hardcopy books that are difficult to obtain (makes little sense to pay interlibrary loan fees to work for free on wiki), the book owner can provide (short) direct quotes with page numbers, full bibliographic info and, where needed, English translations (For example, the Bourbon book is in Spanish) You have given us a list of things, but without enough context to be useful. Even though you are probably who you say you are, we still can't just take your word for it; see WP's original research guidelines.

2. I agree with Pitke that explaining the color situation would be helpful -- I recall clearly working on the article when source material stated that dilutions were not allowed, and was puzzled to see the change. It is good to clarify these things, particularly when older horse breed "encyclopedias" often contain older material. All we need are sources and it can be done!

3. The PRE Mundial site clearly has a bias, but so does USPRE and ANCCE-- Mundial has the most updated factual info on the lawsuit that we can currently locate, and they post actual documents example here and here. In a perfect world, we'd love to see actual official EU sites like this, but sometimes that material is not online. We are up for finding the best sources, but here balance is a challenge because ANCCE seems to pretend either that there is no lawsuit or to basically post statements that are of no help, such as this. I'm sympathetic to the existence of a dispute and the strong feelings on both sides, but wikipedia routinely has to deal with these things (for example, abortion or climate change) and that's why we have the guidelines and policies we have. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanabw: This exercise is starting to become cyclical. You don't allow others to make editorial changes, and you don't want to do them yourself. I've already both composed and suggested the changes that need to be made, with references and sources including links to documents and a wealth of relevant information, and you have deleted them or are choosing to disregarded the most recent discourse on all the topics in question. There is information stated as fact in your article that can only be interpreted as irresponsible or amateurish, even down to the basic historical data. (You've admitted that you are at least 8 years out of date with the color issue alone!) I have offered to be a resource, but it appears that the resident experts are happy with things the way they are. Please feel free to write me directly if you are serious about improving this article--I will work with any writer to provide a serious revision in the areas where its needed, with all references. You may contact me through the USPRE website. I have extensive experience with academic writing and I am happy to work with you on editing this article to professional standards.Klvankampen (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to propose all the edits you want on the talk page of the article. So far you have not, and I encourage you to do so! You may also notice that we made a couple small changes to the article already, based on this conversation. However, WP is not a place for uncritical acceptance of inadequately sourced information. We do upset people when we don't take their contributions wholesale and I'm sorry if this troubles you. However, personally attacking me as an individual is not going to get you any place (A lot of people do this to me, I routinely annoy people by taking the time to explain why I am not going to accept their statements at face value. So you will do better to just listen to my suggestions and address the issues. I welcome good faith discussion) I explained why your sourcing is inadequate as proposed per [{WP:CITE]] and no, I did not "admit" that I was 8 years out of date, I "admitted" that I noticed the change in policy and that it is a good example of what needs further clarification. You can't just put up a list of books written in Spanish and tell us all to go read them ... if you have these works and have read them yourself, then please do as Pitke did with his Finnish sources and work them up for English readers. If you are experienced with academic writing, then you know the importance of sourcing and how to provide proper references. (If you need formatting help with WP syntax, that we can easily help you with given any proper citation with full bibliographical information or a good Worldcat cite) In fact, we would like this level of verifiability and encourage you to do so. You may also contact any of us via email using the "email this user" link at our individual talk pages. Montanabw^(talk) 04:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention at AN/I

Hi, kl, this is just to let you know that your name has been mentioned at AN/I, I hope and trust only in a neutral or positive light. Sorry about this, best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]