Talk:American Bucking Bull

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category removal[edit]

DferDaisy Hi there, in regards to the changes you made to the categorization of this article I recently created, I agree with the removal of the ranching categories. I even think I should probably remove the category American cattlemen. However, removal from the category Bulls does not make sense. The category is so small already and filled with pages of all different types of articles. If an article about a cattle breed and registry does not belong in a Bulls category, then I am really at a loss? Same argument for the Livestock category but more flexible on that one. But even more unfounded is the removal of the Cattle and Cattle:Breeding categories. The category Canadian Cattlemen's Association is in the Cattle category but American Bucking Bull is not relevant there? But on to the last category Cattle:Breeding. American Bucking Bull is a registered cattle breed. How is it not relevant in a category about cattle breeding?? I don't want to play around with edit reverting so I'm bringing this to a discussion. What say you? Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reply from editor so went ahead and added categories back. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Categorization dos and don'ts:
  • Use the most specific categories possible.
  • Categorize based on defining characteristics.
Let's review the categories currently on this page which do not meet these criteria:
Every page does not need to belong to all of the parent categories of which it is a subcategory. If all pages in every subcategory belonged to every parent category, then categorization would become meaningless. DferDaisy (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DferDaisy Hi, thanks for pointing out all of those things, I did not realize. I will remove all but one. Professional Bull Riders owns half of the organization American Bucking Bulls currently. Their first CEO, Randy Bernard, bought the registry from Buckers, Inc., and started the American Bucking Bull organization. I believe that is a defining characteristic. Besides the fact that the PBR also runs events in conjunction with the ABBI like the Classic Event at the PBR World Finals, where the ABBI World Champion Classic Bull is crowned. Also, ABBI bulls buck at PBR events and are awarded World Champion Bull, and also the Brand of Honor. It's what makes a bull notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. In fact, I will edit the article to make that Classic event at the PBR World Finals clearer. But I get your point about defining characteristics. I appreciate your efforts very much. And will pay more attention next time to make sure I'm not putting an article into a category and its sub-category. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of fair use images[edit]

Tigerboy1966 Thank you Tigerboy1996, for the idea of adding photographs to this article, it was a lovely thought. However, it's a whoops! Because the images are fair use only and the rules stated in their use say they can only be used once in the bull's article, we can't use them here. However, montanabw did provide a rationale for using Bodacious in the article, this one: Bodacious is deceased now, but he is the inspiration for the creation of the American bucking bull breed. As such, exemplifies the ideal for the cattle breed. I'm going to try it, and the editor who usually pulls the fair use images out of articles will either pull it out or let us use it. It's worth a try. There is an automated system that notifies editors who patrol fair use image usage. Thanks again, I'm also going to add a couple images from commons, including an image of a bull 909 Runaway Train, who I took a picture of myself at last year's Cheyenne Frontier Days when I was behind the chutes and maybe a photo from the bull or bucking bull articles. Thank you again. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for sorting that out. I'm not much good on image policy! Tigerboy1966  07:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Bucking Bull is a breed[edit]

Thanks, SMcCandlish I appreciate your thought in this edit, but I need to revert this edit because the American Bucking Bull actually is a registered cattle breed according to many sources:

  • Looking up the profiles of bucking bulls on sites like the Professional Bull Riders (PBR), most modern bucking bulls will show that their breed is the American Bucking Bull. ProBullStats.com shows their ABBI number. Here is Code Blue's profile as an example. [1]
  • The website of the American Bucking Bull says it is a breed: [2].
  • The PBR says in one of their feature articles (among many) that the American Bucking Bull is a breed: [3]. The PBR is a large, established organization whose events take place in 5 countries and are televised around the world.
  • Another website mentioning the breed: [[4]].

dawnleelynn(talk) 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split organization and breed[edit]

There's a WP:COATRACK here, where an animal breed article's content is basically hidden inside an article on an organization. This is not how we do things. The breed article should be split out to American Bucking Bull cattle, with {{Infobox cattle breed}} and the normal sections for a breed article, like "Breed characteristics", "History", "Genetics", or whatever we'll have the sources for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it. I have sources who are more intimately acquainted with cattle breeding. The two important topics that the organization handles are the breed and the registry.dawnleelynn(talk) 23:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article, I am unclear what part you think should be split out into the proposed "American Bucking Bull cattle" article. Please explain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense to split. Like many other newly-standardized animal breeds, the registry and the breed are very difficult to distinguish from one another. No need for a split here, as that is unnecessary "Balkanization" of the topic. One breed, one registry, better to have a single comprehensive article. Montanabw(talk) 16:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I see some of the concerns, the solution might be to have two infoboxes, one for the breed, and the corporate one a bit further down the page. The problem is that the two are pretty hard to separate, as one can see from the history. Montanabw(talk) 16:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From what I see, the breed and the organisation would be hard to separate, so why? Two infoboxes, and two bold mentionings in the lead would clarify enough, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that the article would be difficult to split. I agree that the two infoboxes and two bold mentionings in the lead would do it. But I could also revise the article a bit to make the breed clearer and more prominent. Both the breed and the registry are equally important--the breed is not more important than the registry as the editor quoting coatrack policy seems to imply. In fact, reading the history, the registry came first. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I only added the article to the Category:Cattle breeds category. It's not like I tried to add an entry to the List of cattle breeds article. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts - multiple breeds/mixed breeds comprise the American Bucking Bull Inc., which is a "DNA registry" dedicated less to establishing a breed, and more to the purpose of the registry which is basically to reproduce the best bucking stock with hopes of achieving inheritable conformity/consistency through genetics. They are breeding lineage with the desirable characteristics of bucking bulls, specifically bad tempers and a propensity to buck, and are utilizing science to do it; i.e., molecular techniques and genetic mapping. Without the registry, "American bucking bull" is a ubiquitous term better suited for Wiktionary rather than a WP article; therefore, I could see changing the name of the article (a move to American Bucking Bull Inc. or a section in this article that speaks to the registry) along with some copyediting here and there. I don't think a fork (or separate article) is necessary. Atsme📞📧 21:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could we get a draft page for the proposed breed article? It's unclear how much information exists for that. If it turns out to be extremely brief then I would support retaining the status quo but adding the breed infobox; if it turns out to be extensive then I would support splitting. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not actually a "breed". In an article in American Cattleman, a former exec of ABBI said, "“There’s no set breed, there’s just a lot of Heinz 57 sauce to make bucking bulls,” Simpson explained. “We don’t look for one set breed. We just look for the best cow and best bull to mate.” It's appears to be a privately held for-profit corporation with shareholders. The ABBI sponsors shows and doles out prize money, and are owned 50/50 by PBR and some stock contractors. It's a commercial enterprise working to maintain a healthy bottomline. Passing mention in the NYTimes said ABBI helps owners who are looking to breed potential bucking prospects: "the A.B.B.I. tracks the lineage of every premier dam and sire and the bucking success of their offspring." Hope that information helps. Atsme📞📧 04:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bri, per your suggestion, yesterday, I did a rough draft so short that I added it to a new section of the ABB article talk page right below this section. The ABB article is really missing most of the types of items that you would normally include in a cattle breed article though. See Angus cattle for an example cattle breed article. It's kind of like trying to describe the Mongrel as a dog breed or the Domestic short-haired cat as a cat breed. They are the largest percentage of cats and dogs in the country (these cats and dogs are also represented throughout the world), but are made up of multiple breeds (not mixed breeds). This is true for the ABB too, except not the largest breed part. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme Thanks for that, it has been a week with no activity. Fyi, it's still open at [5] under Consensus pending. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I self-reverted - will go about this a little differently. 😊 Atsme📞📧 20:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied discussion to proper venue[edit]

(moved from here) Hey, Mac - American Bucking Bull - re: your proposed split. The ABBI is a division of PBR (they own part of that private corporation along with a group of stock contractors), but the article is not ready for any content forks. They refer to it as a "breed" but that questionable at this point in time because there are multiple breeds involved - it's more like hoping the right genetic mix will create the desirable characteristics - so all they really have is a DNA database. I doubt it would pass WP:CORP as a standalone. I'm not familiar with the process at Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers#Proposed splits, so would it be easier if you withdraw it, or do can we proceed with a local close? Thx in advance.... Atsme📞📧 22:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Bears further research, and I'm out of wiki time for the nonce. I encourage you to post the gist of this at the article talk. It's looking more and more like the "breed" claim is bogus marketing noise and should just be removed from the article. It's like saying that illegal dog fighters who pick aggressive animals and breed them have created a new breed. They have not. They still have pit bulls and whatever other dogs they're breeding, just aggressive ones (and much of that, as with bulls, will be a matter of socialization (or lack thereof), "training" (antagonizing), etc., not provable heritability. Anyway, I cared because the page was categorized as a breed and it is not a breed article, but an organization one. Now I care that "this has something to do with breeding" is being mis-translated into "this is a breed", which is WP:OR and misleading. If you want, just copy-paste these comments to the article talk thread (I would now, but I'm not sure you want your comment relocated in its current form).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm going to first rebut the typical attitude that I get about my articles because they are "bull riding" and not important. E.g. "bogus marketing noise" for example.
  • PBR now draws more than 3 million fans over 100 global live events on an annual basis, with television broadcasts reaching more than half a billion households in 40 countries and territories around the world.
  • 35 million fans globally (top 10 in popularity among sports in the U.S.)
  • Drawing more than 34,935 fans over three-days, and a .8 overnight rating on CBS CBS -1.96% (tops in its time slot, beating out even Premier League Soccer), the distinctiveness of the event cannot be overstated.
  • Two biggest sponsors are Ford Motor Company and Monster Energy.
  • The 2015 Built Ford Tough Series PBR event in Tuscon drew 2.3 million viewers, more than that day’s NASCAR Sprint Cup Series race, and for a fraction of the brand's overall investment in the latter.
  • One of the 10 fastest growing sports in the U.S. All of this is from 2016; it's even bigger now and has been purchased by William Morris Endeavor.
  • [6] So, would you disrespect FIFA or NASCAR this way?
  • PBR is big business now, and so is the ABB. When then-CEO Randy Bernard purchased a registry in 2004 and renamed the ABB, he owned it all. He then sold shares to stock contractors. Now the PBR owns half of it and half is owned by serious stock contractors who run six digit figure worth PBR bulls, like Bruiser. This is big business. Bruiser is worth well over $500,000 and he's listed on this ABB page as having a breeders certificate. The ABBI has a certificate program.

[7] Is that finally good enough to show they are serious about breeding? They may be more, I'm still researching. How about Bushwacker who has a breeders certificate and was worth $1 million at the top of his bucking career in 2014. These are not games to the PBR and the stock contractors; this is serious business. There are many more bulls listed on that participants page who are champions or high level buckers worth six figures at the top of their careers, yes careers.

  • They publish a serious magazine about breeding and registering. Here's an example: [8] and their media guide too: [9] They have professional publications; it's not just noise.
  • I did some more searching and research and I found out where they keep the information about their breeders certificates. See here too: [10]. So let's hash out how this should be properly documented, it's time to take the PBR/ABBI seriously. dawnleelynn(talk) 04:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


ABBI Payouts
*Shepherd Hills Tested Bucking Bull of the Year earned $339,570 in ABB events including Classic Champion.
*Bushwacker (who has a breed certificate) earned $250,000 just for Classic Champion.
*Bruiser (also a breed certificate) holds the current record for the most earned in the ABB with $462,782, also won the Classic Champion.
Example breeding certificate use in real practice (besides the magazine). It costs more to get the certificate.
*Airtime - World champion bull contender several times.
*Who is Air Time? [11]
*http://www.thebuckingstockconnection.com/bsc_4043.html
Showtime - father to Long John world champion bucking bull and to Bruiser 2x world champion bucking bull and bucking bull of the year.
*http://www.thebuckingstockconnection.com/bsc_4040.html
Asteroid has a breeding certificate.
*http://www.thebuckingstockconnection.com/lotbsc_peterson07.html
Bushwacker earned $335,000 in PBR events in 2010 alone. Throughout each season, ABBI awards about $2 million to bulls aged 2 to 4 that perform well or win ABBI events. Last season, Bushwacker led PBR in merchandising and licensing sales, earning “in the $100,000 range,” said PBR chief Haworth.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Two Tons of Grit and Muscle: Celebrity Bulls Steal Spotlight". NBC News. Retrieved August 18, 2018.
Re: "I'm going to first rebut the typical attitude that I get about my articles because they are "bull riding" and not important." – No one suggested anything remotely like that. Hell, I'm mostly grew up in a cow-town in New Mexico; I know what these sports mean to people. That doesn't mean that marketing claims by one non-notable organization actually translate to establishment of a new breed, in any sense that an encyclopedia cares about. Maybe they actually have, but we don't have independent reliable sources proving it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was asked to comment here, so here are some thoughts for where to go once the copyvio problem is sorted:
    • SMcCandlish is surely right that the article blurs two different topics, a company and a "breed"
    • I don't think a split is the solution, as the company is most unlikely to meet WP:NCORP
    • almost all the references in the page are either to the company itself, or to reprints of its press-releases by associated organisations/publications; I don't see any independent reliable sources discussing either the company or the breed (have I missed one?), so notability is not established for either one
    • the draft breed article below is without a single reference
    • while it's apparently true that anyone in the USA can set up a registry and create a "breed", that is not what is meant by the word in other parts of the world, where in almost every case a breed is established only after it receives recognition as such from a local or national government body
    • is this bull recognised by the USDA?
    • is it the only rodeo bull registry in the USA?
    • if not, I suggest starting a generic article on rodeo bulls, which presumably should be at Rodeo bull, currently a redirect to Mechanical bull. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The USDA does not "recognize" breeds to speak of and has not done so for 100 years. They may keep some lists of some breeds just to make the EU happy, but that is almost entirely import/export driven and all a breed group has to do is fill out paperwork as far as I can tell. I think this is the only registry that records rodeo bulls in the USA and their use of DNA parentage testing is a big deal. We have the "generic" article at Bucking bull. Probably need to redirect the redirect. Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the USDA quibble, I think JLAN has the right idea here (though I have yet to wade through all the COPYVIO discussion below).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example breed article[edit]

American Bucking Bull
Conservation statusLeast Concern
Country of originUnited States
DistributionNorth America, South America, Europe, Australia
UseRodeo Bucking Bull
Traits
Weight
  • Male:
    Range 1,400 to 2,400
  • Female:
    Unknown
Skin colorMultiple
CoatMultiple
Horn statusPolled, Horned

The American Bucking Bull breed is a breed of cattle bred to buck for rodeo and bull riding circuits. It is an American breed tracked and registered by the American Bucking Bull, Inc., corporation. The breed is a mixture of several different breeds, selected for their ornery dispositions and propensity to buck. Bulls are many different coat colors and sizes. The breed can be polled or horned. Cattle that naturally do not have horns are referred to as polled, or muleys.

Through the registration of bull DNA, the American Bucking Bull, Inc., records and maintains the pedigrees of preeminent livestock. The organization provides services to assist with bull practices. By recording and registering bucking bulls and their progeny, the registry promotes the American Bucking Bull breed and encourages growth. The ABBI also produces many competitive events for bucking bulls, some in conjunction with the Professional Bull Riders (PBR).

Copyright problem[edit]

I've now blanked this page because of this. There's also a good deal of (relatively) minor copying and/or close following of several other sources. The whole text needs to be checked or rewritten from scratch. To create a rewrite page, please follow this link. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers Hi, I am not sure how you happened to check this particular article for copyright, i.e., did someone refer you? I know you are just doing your duty for Wikipedia though. Anyway, I've already been reported by Nikkimaria at CCI here [12]. She and I are working together to correct all of the violations in my articles. I hope that you will allow us to continue; I don't have that many articles that it takes more than one editor to complete this investigation. Thank you for finding the violation; I will address it and then have Nikkimaria look at it. I'm going to fix by going through source to source comparison. Then you can look at it of course. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, dawnleelynn! I looked at this article because I was asked to, by Atsme, on my talk-page – apparently to get my input on the proposed split. I checked it for copyright because the language used is not that of an encyclopaedia article, which often happens when material has, as here, been copied from elsewhere. And yes, I'm aware of the CCI request regarding your contributions, and will probably add this page to it in due course. Please do not even consider editing the blanked content of the page; if you want to work on a rewrite, please follow this link to do so (the hidden content can of course still be viewed through the page history, but should not be copied into the new page). If you don't, someone else will clean it up in a few weeks (in theory not more than one, in practice sometimes more). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Justlettersandnumbers Thanks for your reply. There was no intent of copying in content from any of the articles on purpose, just so you know. I did do some close paraphrasing also not on purpose. And I obviously rewrote some short pieces of text that came out to be word for word. But I did not just copy source in in an intent to plagiarize. Why is there always an assumption of malicious intent? Whatever your thoughts about "the writing style" signaling copying text just because I have trouble writing encyclopedically it does not always signal copyright issues either. Nikkimaria and I have discovered there are some articles with no issues. I have recently discussed with some others that I can't trust the Earwig tool, and that my idea of close paraphrasing needs some work, obviously. Anyway, thanks again for the temp space to fix the article. dawnleelynn(talk) 22:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t recall ever having an issue with Dawnleelynn over copyvio, and can’t even imagine she would intentionally do anything that would be considered noncompliant with WP:PAGs. If it’s a misunderstanding of paraphrasing, that’s something that can be easily remedied with a little tutoring/mentoring. I would have gladly volunteered to help because Dawnleelynn is such a pleasure to work with, but I’m on the road for a while and won’t be back until the end of the month. Atsme📞📧 01:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, Dawnleelynn, I see little value in discussing what the intent was here – let's just assume in good faith that mistakes have happened, and now need to be sorted out. But I'm afraid this isn't just a misunderstanding over close paraphrasing: with this edit on 22 December 2017, a large block of text (about 370 words) was copied directly from this source or another that carried the same content – see this comparison. The next edit added a paragraph copied directly from here:
Our article The source
Bodacious changed the way rodeo animals are bred. Before him, most bulls were a dubious commodity—worth more for beef than for bucking cowboys. A rancher might get a hundred dollars every time his bull was ridden, twice that much at big events. The riders made the real money—they were the ones that people came to see. Bodacious changed that equation. People who’d never heard of Tuff Hedeman knew the name of the bull who’d “rearranged his face,” as Hedeman’s wife later put it. Bodacious changed the way rodeo animals are bred. Before him, most bulls were a dubious commodity—worth more for beef than for bucking cowboys. A rancher might get a hundred dollars every time his bull was ridden, twice that much at big events. The riders made the real money—they were the ones that people came to see. Bodacious changed that equation. People who’d never heard of Tuff Hedeman knew the name of the bull who’d “rearranged his face,” as Hedeman’s wife later put it.
That is not close paraphrasing or something that just happened to come out word-for-word, it's copyright infringement, plain and simple, and for that reason I've blanked the page so that it can be dealt with in the normal way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dawnleelynn, did you happen to read what I wrote above: "the hidden content can of course still be viewed through the page history, but should not be copied into the new page"? Because by copying and slightly copy-editing the content here, you have not begun to resolve the problem; the page needs to be either rewritten from scratch in the temp page, without any content derived from copyright sources; or otherwise reverted to an early version before any copyvio was added (if one can be found). If you would like me to look into the latter option I can do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, thank you for overseeing the issues and for explaining to Dawnleelynn. Atsme📞📧 12:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers If you take a look at any version prior to montanabw's editing of it here [13], you will see that what I wrote is not a word for word copy but a paraphrase. montanabw changed it significantly in her edit. I wrote:
"Bodacious changed the way bucking bulls were bred. Before Bodacious, bulls were not worth much money for bucking. They were worth more for beef. A rancher was lucky if he received a hundred dollars each time his bull was ridden for a qualified ride. And he might get double that much at a big event. It was the riders who made the serious money and the riders were who the fans came to see. When Bodacious became notorious, he changed all of that. People who never heard Tuff Hedeman's name had heard of the bull who'd "rearranged his face," as his wife later said."
I did not copy it from the source word for word. Take a look at any edit below montanabw's, and you will see that I wrote the paragraph that I just copied in, not the one you are claiming. It is not completely a word for word copy from the source. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dawnleelynn, I have to admit that I find very concerning your inability to recognise and acknowledge past mistakes – if you can't see what was wrong with the edits I've detailed above, how can you know how to avoid the same errors in the future? It is quite simply untrue that you wrote "Bodacious changed the way bucking bulls were bred" (well, at first at least); what you wrote when you added that content – in Special:Diff/816562325 – was exactly what is in the left-hand box of the table above, "Bodacious changed the way rodeo animals are bred", which was copied precisely word-for-word from the New York Magazine article (the text in the right-hand box). Do you see that?
A question: do you have access to a book called Fried Twinkies, Buckle Bunnies, & Bull Riders? Have you copied content from there also? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers You could have made it clear you were referring to the copying that happened in my userdraft where I infrequently placed source so that I could write content below it. It is human nature to assume it's in the published article. I did not do this very often fortunately. I was very concerned thinking that I had might have had one or more paragraphs of straight copyright material on my article in mainspace. I'm glad to realize this is not the case. That is the only reason I was confused, not trying to avoid recognizing it. So now we are on the same page. Also, back at that time, I did not realize it was an issue in a userdraft...but as you said we will assume intent not malicious and move on. Regarding the book, there is a Google book preview source there that I used. But it does randomly change which pages you can access from time to time. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gave the diffs, perhaps you didn't look at them? Could you give a link to the version of the book with preview – I can only find one with snippet, which is next-to-useless. My question was this: did you at any time copy content from that book? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers The link is under the heading Source: It works for me and Nikkimaria. [14] However, the content I used for the article is not in the content that is currently available in the free preview. It may come around as it changes from time to time. Anyway, you'll have to forgive me during this period; I'm not completely well. I'm doing the best I can. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers Just a note saying I've been working on a new draft of the article in the temp space. I wasn't sure if I made it clear. You said it had to be done from scratch, that the one I fixed wasn't usable. I want to make you knew I was doing this as it states in the directions I am supposed to leave a note on the talk page. It is close to being completed, actually. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Justlettersandnumbers I have completed the new article rewrite on the temporary subpage as indicated by the template on the main article page. As I read it, an administrator or clerk will review it at the end of the listing period. Also, I have placed a comment at the top of the page stated what content I have reused from the original article, such as the infobox, the tables, etc. Let me know if there is anything I need to do. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Dawnleelynn, I know. But the page you created is substantially copied from the previous version, which contained the copyright violations or content derived from them, and so appears to risk being a derivative work. For that reason I don't feel able to recommend moving it into place over the previous version. I'll ask if someone else would make an evaluation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers I did not copy anything. I did not go to some draft that Atsme modified in the original article and copy from it. What the hell? I wrote content based on the sources and revised it over and over again. So I guess it might match content that was written before in some ways because they all came from the same source, that's all I can say. But I did NOT friggin copy anything from anyWHERE. I am not stupid enough to do that when I already got a copyright violation on the article. Nikkimaria looked the article over for me too. I don't even understand why those two older sources are being compared to each other. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers I worked my ass off rewriting this article from scratch, no copying. I wrote an article in about 1/8 of the time it takes me to write an article usually. I have a real life you know. I did everything you asked me to do. This is majorly unfair because whatever the tool is saying it's not accurate. You definitely need to find someone else to evaluate. I will appeal to someone else if you do not. This is ridiculous! dawnleelynn(talk) 21:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, it is not realistically possible that you could have achieved a 97.3% overlap with the previous content without copying some or all of it. Anyway, I'm stepping away from this page now; I've asked at WP:CP for someone else to review your rewrite. Good luck! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers Wow! That is the one I created to fix it first. Version 855929144, the first version is the one I thought I could use by just fixing the paraphrasing only. Then you said I could not fix it, I had to rewrite it. Now I am worried about your ability to see things clearly. Then you see that up from that Nikkimaria goes over it needlessly....Then up from that it says "(Beginning first draft of article from clean slate.)" That is where the rewrite starts from. There is no 97% match rewrite. Try reading the descriptions of the versions you are comparing. You gave me a good scare... dawnleelynn(talk) 22:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers Okay, both of your links to where I "copied content" are actually using History version 855929144. That is the version I created to be the draft of the document where I tried to "fix" the content and keep the article. Per your comment on the talk page, "The whole text needs to be checked or rewritten from scratch." I thought I could just check the whole text and fix it. But then no, you said I had to rewrite the article from the beginning. If you look at the edit summaries, Nikkimaria edits it for me twice and marchjuly removes non-free content. But then the next edit, I blank the page and start with a couple of small bits of content, and the edit summary says: (Beginning first draft of article from clean slate.) and that version is No. 856242868. Thus nothing before version 856242868 is pertinent. So you are comparing diffs on versions that do not count; they are versions that I had created to use for "fixing the original." as stated in the original document's talk page. Thus, the issue of any "substantial" copying using those diffs should be discarded. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers To you JLAN and any one else who comes to resolve the issue from the copyright problem page, please see the comment up above by JLAN, signed 09:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC). where the editor states "did you happen to read what I wrote above: "the hidden content can of course still be viewed through the page history, but should not be copied into the new page"? Because by copying and slightly copy-editing the content here, you have not begun to resolve the problem; the page needs to be either rewritten from scratch in the temp page, without any content derived from copyright sources; or otherwise reverted to an early version before any copyvio was added (if one can be found). If you would like me to look into the latter option I can do so."[reply]
Per this comment and link to version 855929144, JLAN had already given recognition to it as an attempt by me to take the original article and fix it up by removing the close paraphrasing. And then proceeding to tell me that will not work. I need to rewrite the article from scratch without any content derived from copyright sources, etc. So JLAN had already confessed to knowing that version 855929144 was not part of my rewrite; I don't know why then JLAN later tries to use it in comparing with my rewrite. It is not pertinent, like I stated in the copyright problem. This issue, then, was a mistake entirely created by JLAN and the differences used by JLAN that use version 855929144 should be immediately dismissed. Thank you. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick drive-by comment on all this drama. First off, by American standards, yes, this is a breed. Most American animal breeds have one national registry, and most national registries do promotion of the breed. So whether we go cattle breed or organization, ABBI will pass GNG. This is, I think the only organization that does record bucking bulls, and the big deal is that the verify parentage via DNA. In that sense, it's a open registry of sorts, but perfectly legitimate. Other than that, the stock contractors just name their string, but no independent records are kept. I suppose there's an argument for a generic "rodeo bull" article,but and we also already have bull riding, which talks about rodeo bulls. Also, a generic article would be 90% about ABBI bulls and 10% about stock contractors. Bottom line is that I think this conversation is getting bogged down in a discussion of HOW to rewrite, not WHAT to rewrite. My thinking is that all that matters now is what earwig says about the most current version, and if the most current version is about the best topic and right focus. Montanabw(talk) 20:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here is where JLAN finally recognizes what I am saying is correct and makes reparations to this issue so that my rewrite can become the new article. All I can say is thank goodness! See [[15]] for the entire issue resolution at the Copyright Problems page. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, we have bucking bull for the "generic"... I forgot about that. I'd say that we have a real breed here, if relatively new. Montanabw(talk) 21:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions to the article[edit]

Uricarrillo94 Hi, thanks for all the work you did on this article! dawnleelynn(talk) 00:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help when I can, Dawn. Uricarrillo94 (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Bucking_Bull&oldid=1204798038"