User talk:Keesiewonder/Dogs 1

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs

By all means add your name to the project page. We would be more than happy to have you join the project. The more, the merrier! Badbilltucker 01:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dogs Portal Did You Know's

I looked and didn't see any specific criteria on the portal's DYK page. Generally, the DYK's are short sentences containing some of the more interesting items in articles related to the subject. What the specific criteria for inclusion in this portal aren't specified anywhere I can see. User:Rfrisbie is the editor who maintains the portal, and you might want to contact him to find out what he wants the selection criteria to be. I have no doubt he will welcome any help. Badbilltucker 16:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Tamaskan dialogue

To Tubezone:

Hi! You know, I hate to mention it, but I wonder if the article on Eurohound is as un-noteworthy as the one on Tamaskan Dog. You're much more experienced in all things Wiki than me; what do you think? Happy Thanksgiving!!! Keesiewonder 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

From Tubezone:

It's obscure (700 ghits minus Wiki mirrors), but I don't see it as unnoteworthy as Tamaskan dog. I do find it curious that the photo of a Eurohound was lifted from this page. I would say barely noteworthy, notable mainly because they are used in notable sled racing events.

Let's do a little comparison here:

Eurohound

Has multiple breeders. The breed is a cross of two specific pure breeds, so what it is can be defined. Names of users are public knowledge and are independent of the originators of the breed (and some apparently fairly well known as sled racers), so there's no COI problem. The ghits are spread among a number of unrelated sources. IOW, we can turn up independent sources for information, so it's possible to verify that the breed exists and that it's accepted as a separate breed. There are no breeder links or self-promotion in the Eurohound article, so it's not spam.

Tamaskan

Has one breeder who advertises under multiple names. The true sources of the bloodline of the dog are fuzzy at best, some folks say it's just another Utonagan and even the originator is not real specific about sources. Tamaskan owners all seem to be related in one fashion or another to the same guy who owns the registry and the only kennel that breeds the dog (that's a COI, I think), seems like everything that's known about Tamaskans (including the WP article) comes from the primary source. Most of the Google hits for Tamaskan seem to eminate from two sources: WP and spam by the author of the Tamaskan article. (In some cases the spam is stealthy, like innocent looking blog and BBS questions, eg: one I saw from Wales looking for a "Tamaskan rescue"). The dog breeding community acceptance of this dog as a separate breed is what I would describe as skeptical at best to outright hostile at worst. So the Tamaskan article has problems with WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:NOTE.

It seems to me that it usually takes a decade or more to establish a new breed (not just a cross) to the point where even the developer(s) consider it notable enough to start announcing it to the breeding community, but this breed seems to have just popped up out of thin air. I find that implausible and it seems like folks who know more about dogs than I do agree.

So that's what I think, hope it helps. Tubezone 16:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

To Tubezone:

• Excellent! Thank you for your thorough reply, and it does help me understand. I'll follow your lead on this. Regards, Keesiewonder 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

From Blufawn: I would just like to stick up for the Tamaskan people here and say how very wrong you are and you should really check the facts before you write such damaging and libel things. Firstly this breed is not another Utonagan and anyone who knows dogs can see that by looking at the photographs of the two seperate breeds. I don't believe for one second that all Tamaskan owners are related thats a very ignorant thing to write. The Tamaskan Register is run by a committee not 'some guy' and there are breeders in Finland, USA and UK so they can't all be the same guy can they?? Of course all the information comes from only a few sources, its a rare breed thats not recognised how many websites do you expect. I wish for you to remove these idiotic comments from this page. Blufawn

To Blufawn from Tubezone: I know I should reply on Ms. Blufawn on her talk page, but as the whole conversation is here:

I think my analysis was by and large correct. A long period of time went by where this article was up, then an AfD was posted, and none of the issues raised were adequately addressed, and still haven't, your contentions aren't convincing to me at least. Also, a long thread on this subject at dogsey.com was deleted, (which, IMA, was started by a very innocuous looking posting) that might have turned up other objections. From what I can tell, there just weren't any mentions of this breed prior to this year at all, no one has brought any up, either.

There are lots of odd breeds out there, while there's plenty of debate on dog breeds, (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alopekis for an example) few seem to have generated the general hostility this one has. Also, especially on odd and rare breeds of dogs, the visual characteristics often don't seem to be standardized to the point where one can say "This and this dog are different because they look different", which may be why people would ask for 5 generation verified pedigrees on purebred dogs... There may be people out there who have such a thing for "Tamaskans", but I have not seen anyone claim or advertise that. Tubezone 06:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

From Keesiewonder to Tubezone: I see your note to Blufawn on my talk page. I haven't decided whether I'll paste it for her to see. The reason the entire discussion is there is because, surprise ... she deletes dialogue on her talk page after she is finished with it. I decided to keep a copy of it around since you never know when it may come in handy. Saturday, after she resurrected this mess on my talk page, she blanked the AfD, which was quickly returned by someone else (maybe the nominator of the AfD). About 12 hours later, an administrator deleted the AfD discussion, probably at her request. I managed to get him to restore it provided I'd agree to clean it up. So, I'm waiting for instruction from him on the mechanics of doing that w/o making more enemies. i.e. the Afd clearly states do not edit the AfD, and I've been asked to do so by an administrator, so ... Anyway, I, obviously, do not support this idea of having heated discussions and then having them deleted by appealing to the authorities so when you run Google on your topic, the heated discussions do not show. Interestingly, in the private copy I have of the AfD, where I've drafted deletions to make it "cleaner," it appears that most of what needs to be taken out was written by Blufawn. Ugh! Thanks for listening. Keesiewonder 12:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To Blufawn:

Regarding the following, which you placed on my talk page ...

I would just like to stick up for the Tamaskan people here and say how very wrong you are and you should really check the facts before you write such damaging and libel things. ... I wish for you to remove these idiotic comments from this page. Blufawn

... Please be sure you know who is writing what, and respond to the proper author.

So, two people were having a conversation on their individual talk pages. If you don't like what one of them wrote, I think the one you're struggling with is Tubezone, not me. And, that aside, asking a user to remove idiotic comments from their talk page seems, well, to use your words, a bit idiotic. Why were you visiting my talk page? Also, remember we're not talking about an article on the Tamaskan dog or rare breeds or anything as well visited and read as you seem to be assuming. We're talking about talk pages. I am more than entitled to think about the topic without ill placed "feedback" from you, don't you think? Please consider an apology, and contacting Tubezone yourself if you don't like our dialogue. If you read carefully, you will see that I had very little to do with the content. Regards, Keesiewonder 17:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From Blufawn:

I apologise Keesiewonder I didn't notice it was Tubezone until I re-read the comments, I am very sorry. I typed Tamaskan into google and this page was in my search so it is very noticeable even if it is on a talk page. Would you mind removing perhaps the more libel things from Tubezones comments? Thank You Blufawn (equivalent to 80.223.126.199)

To Blufawn: Thank you for the apology. I feel the conversation can stay where it is. Before you asked, I too thought to remove any wiki-links to Tamaskan that I could find that I had placed. If you search again on Tamaskan, I believe you'll see that you now find fewer references. Keesiewonder 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Archive

work on the Dogs project

		The Fauna Barnstar
		You've done admirable work with WikiProject Dogs since it's inception, and it wouldn't be anywhere near what it is without your invaluable work. Thanks for all you have done, and all I hope that you plan to do in the future. Badbilltucker 17:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD page

I can restore the page, but would you be then so kind as to clean it up afterwards? There's some nasty language there. David.Monniaux 14:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Schnauzer

I just left the newbie a message on his talk page; with any luck, he won't try this sort of thing again. Regarding the move, go ahead. I'll check to see if you did anything wrong, but I think you've got the procedure down. I'll check to see if you make any mistakes, but I doubt you will. :) Badbilltucker 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Tamaskan Dog

I am regrettably as in the dark about this particular process as you are, having never been involved in anything like this before. I think that what he's asking for is just eliminating or improving some of the more objectionable language from the various parties, but I've never dealt with anything specifically like ex post facto adjustment of official wikipedia records, so I don't want to stick my neck out too far here. My best guess is to just ask the admin in question if he can either clarify what s/he means or point toward an example of the kind of cleanup being requested. Sorry I couldn't be of more help here, but I am way out of my depth on this one. Badbilltucker 19:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful work on finding out about it. I guess that such a thing has come up before, but in all honesty I'm surprised that it has come to the point of creating an established procedure for it. Thanks for the info. :) Badbilltucker 15:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wolfdog

I did some cleaning up on this page, straightening out some NPOV statements (eg: about whether wolfdogs are hybrids or not) and added references to the DEFRA page and the DEFRA - RSPCA wolfdog report. Please take a look at it. Tubezone 09:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I found out how to combine references in an article. See Tosa (dog) for an example. Also, I think leaving the USDA article in as an external link as well as a reference: it's an easy read, it goes into more detail, and it's an essay (albeit a well referenced an authoritative one), essays can't go into WP. I think I'll save a copy in case the USDA ever takes the link down, and try to incorporate the most important factual points into the WP article. Tubezone 11:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Winston Olde English Bulldogge

I picked up your name from the Wiki dog project page, would you please chime in on this Winston Olde English Bulldogge debate and cast a vote. thank you Headphonos 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You can vote to Overturn at the link provided above, and please state your reasons. Thank you. Headphonos 02:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, they have deletion votes for the Wilkinson Bulldog and Olde English Bulldogge Headphonos 03:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For working with this editor. I'm backing out of the discussion, because I'm not as knowledgable as you are on it. The content of the article in question (now that I've read it on the mirror site), was gorgeously written and fascinating to me. I had a pure-bred Olde English Sheepdog as a child, so that's my "dog in the race" (lol).

There's got to be something he wants to do - I hate to see an editor like this so discouraged. It would truly suck if my first article got deleted. He also writes far better than myself. On a side note, I'm really hoping that the extinct breeds are covered more on Wikipedia some day. I find the topic of extinct animals and plants fascinating, but I also understand why they aren't covered right now. Sincerely, Nina Odell 14:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have clarified that I'm not knowledgeable at all. I just advocate for new users getting into the appropriate Wikiproject or projects that fit their interests. Headphonos posted his message on Jimbo Wales talk page, which I patrol occasionally (until I'm thoroughly annoyed, then I remove it - lol) so I thought I'd help him out. But really, this is our fork in the road. I do want to say I think you're a fine member of Wikipedia, and I'm glad our paths crossed. I appreciate your kindness and civility. Sincerely, Nina Odell 23:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Bulldogs

Personally, I need to understand the distinction between extinction and recreation of a breed better. If I remember correctly, the article that was deleted was about a recreation effort (Winston Olde English Bulldogge). Before I champion for the breed and the breed's article, I need to be absolutely certain it is not akin to something like the Keesiwonder's Olde English Bulldogge, for example. Even if 30 people have one of these dogs in 10 different countries, that still does not immediately mean to me that WP should have an article about them.

(The following note was copied by Keesiewonder from another user's talk page since they were not really part of the dog content part of the conversation.)

Hello Keesiewonder, does the Wilkinson Bulldog article have enough external links and reference book citations for you to vote to "keep"? If not, then it reaffirms my conversation with Anon that hundreds of additional articles on the List of dog breeds can be successfully deleted. IMHO rare and extinct breeds should be allowed at wikipedia not only the one's recognized by the major Category:Kennel clubs and/or the FCI. The establisment of organizations such as ARBA or the ARF recognize these issues. If members of the Wiki dog project aren't online with these statements, then the project is doomed to be dramatically downsized, with some editors, myself included calling it a wiki failure. In regard to the Old Winston Bulldogge article that was deleted by an adminstrator without even a vote being called here is nice piece of history on the breed OWB. I like the aluminum street sign Winston Olde English Bulldogge STREET SIGN best myself -:) Headphonos 15:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Headphonos. My approach with this is to do one thing at a time. Right now, I am focused on getting the speedy delete of Winston Olde English Bulldogge overturned. Regardless of what I might say in an AfD on that article, I do not like the fact that from what I can tell, it was speedy deleted inappropriately. I am interested in this issue in part because I want to better understand the "powers" and "privileges" of admins. Most of my books are in storage right now, which is very frustrating for me. So, I just came back from a trip to a local Borders. One book I bought was an encyclopedia-like book on dogs. Stay tuned, keep the faith, and be patient! :-) Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 20:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I tagged a comment of my own on to the original note I saw from you about the 1800 breeds that would have to be deleted if ... I asked for the list in good faith. You could email it to me, also in good faith. Keesiewonder 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok ... one thing that needs to be straightened out is if you would like to see some changes implemented at either of the two major dog projects at Wikipedia, your best approach would be to contact them directly on their project pages. You may certainly say that you and I have corresponded. But, I do not want to try to represent the project in full on individual user talk pages. Let's move this conversation to one or both of the dog related projects, if you feel there are some serious changes that should be made. I am probably one of the most recent members of each project, so to single me out as the one to talk with may not be the best approach.

Also, you may want to be careful about implying that the project members are not on board with certain issues and/or statements. Especially if you have not been participating on the project talk pages. (I don't know whether you have, or have not.) But when I first read your notes, I felt like you were making all kinds of assumptions that I hadn't heard about or seen substantiation for ... at least not yet. It is a pretty loaded statement, isn't it, to project that the dog projects are doomed to be downsized and deemed a wiki-failure if they don't do what you are suggesting? How long have you been a editor on Wikipedia? How long have you worked with the dog project members? Do you think that even if several dog project editors were willing to work with you on your visions for the projects that significant changes like an overhaul of dog related categories would happen within, say, even a week's time? Let's assume good faith here, all the way around, and find a way to work together, please. I have seen some good points in some of your posts, and would be more than happy to try to flush them out with you. But, we need to collaborate. Keesiewonder 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Q: does the Wilkinson Bulldog article have enough external links and reference book citations for you to vote to "keep"?
A: For me, it is not about the number of external links and/or book citations. Not quantity, but quality. These two may be wonderful; I don't have them on my desk, but since they are easy to find in the places I like to check, they seem fine. I would like to see some additional ones from a different publisher. Also, while there are two books listed at the end of the article, not a single statement is cited within the article. If you'd like, I could pass through it lending my opinion on where a citation is necessary. Keesiewonder 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement: If not, then it reaffirms my conversation with Anon that hundreds of additional articles on the List of dog breeds can be successfully deleted.

Response: Please don't try to bully me in to an answer one way or another. I assure you I will consider our topic carefully, but, if not allowed to think for and to express myself on the issue you brought to my attention, then, we may not work well together. Also, I would like to know what the 1,800 articles are that you feel violate current policy per the dog projects on Wikipedia. I have asked for this multiple times (but only today, I know), but, have yet to receive clarification from you on this. I'll be patient, but will take notice if you don't respond within, say, a week, or, if I see you posting lots of material, but not responding to what I have asked.

Statement: IMHO rare and extinct breeds should be allowed at wikipedia.

Response: That sounds fair. Can you give me, say, 6 significant and completely different examples where you see this has not happened?

Statement: Keesiewonder will be the first to admin she is confused about all the different kinds of Bulldogs. When she is asked about Bulldog A, and provides answers pertaining to Bulldog A, questions come back about "Bulldog B", "Bulldog C" and "A Bulldog that Sounds like Bulldog A but Might Not Always be Bulldog A." Could you make a nice list for me of what is going on here? Here's what I've seen, just on WP. How are all of these related? Which ones are equivalent, if any?

List of Bulldog (Bull Dog, Bull Terrier, Pit Bull) Breeds on Wikipedia

• Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog (ABBB), Otto
  
• American Bulldog, Old Country Bulldog. (There are generally two types of American Bulldog: the John D. Johnson type and the Allen Scott type, or, respectively the Classic (Bully) type and Standard (Performance) type.)
  
• American Pit Bull Terrier
  
• Australian Bulldog
  

Aylestone Bulldog
Bulldog, British Bulldog
Bull and Terrier
Bullenbeisser
British Bulldogge
Continental Bulldog
Dorset Old Tyme Bulldog
English Bulldog
French Bulldog
Old English Bulldog
Old Winston Bulldogge
Olde English Bulldogge
Olde English Bulldogge Kennel Club
Olde Englishe Bulldogge
Toy Bulldog
Renaissance Bulldog
Renascence Bulldogge
Victorian Bulldog
Wilkinson Bulldog
Winston Olde English Bulldogge
WInston Olde English Bulldogge

A lone voice in the wilderness...

I hate to say it, lady, but I think you might have seen how inactive the projects are. Very few people will respond to anything, as most of them are primarily interested in their own favorite breeds, and know little if anything about anything else. The one I knew who might have helped, Blufawn, understandably begged off because of what happened to the Tamaskan Dog article, although she did respond to my talk page. I did however change my own opinion after her comment accordingly. Also, unfortunately, few people have the ready access to information that you do, and often can't respond with any real knowledge about the subject. Right now, you are probably carrying a lot of the dog work on your own shoulders, and I sincerely wish we could get others to help more often. I wish it were otherwise, but... Also, we can be hopeful and say that they are all really, really, really busy today. I know I'm tied up elsewhere right now, but I will try to respond when I know something about the subject myself. Unfortunately, I regret to say, that really ain't that often. I know that this is probably very small consolation, but I just wanted you to know that someone did see your notices. Badbilltucker 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You can always try "spamming" (whatever, contacting) each individual member on their talk pages, or via email. That's what I intend to do with Sexuality and Sexology, as well as Wikiproject Psychology:). NinaOdell | Talk 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for your perspective. Mass mailing/contacting is really not my style. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing. I believe in my "work" here and my message ... eventually it'll all come together. Regards, Keesiewonder 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Olde English Bulldog 3RR

The policy explicitly calls for 3 reversions within 24 hours, and I'm not sure where I see that. Having said that, however, I do think that it would certainly be possible to call in one of the Mediation Cabal if you would be so inclined. Badbilltucker 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right; it was not 3 in 24 hours.

• 1/20 19:22 - some other edit
• 1/21 6:34 - removed 'unreferenced' tag w/o adding anything
• 1/21 22:01 - removed 'disputed' and 'too short' tags w/o adding anything

I guess I'm thinking I saw some guideline somewhere where if one editor thinks something is unreferenced, disputed or too short, then the material should be enhanced and/or discussed on talk. That's not exactly what is taking place here. Oh well ... I'll keep part of one eye on it ... Keesiewonder ^talk 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Important Questions

Please write me out a list of important questions you would like answered and I will try and answer them as honestly as possible on my user page. I don't want this debate about the breed to continue. I would rather have the article deleted than have damage come to the breed. I am willing to cooperate with changing my article to make it better, but without deleting every single resource that I have written. We do have more articles being written for us by other websites (not publish yourself ones) and in magazines (in USA, so in English) and I will continue to add them as they appear. I may delete the other resources that you don't approve of once I have these. But for now they are all I have and I believe all a lot of dog articles have are links to clubs and breeders sites. I can email you the other newspaper article but it is in Finnish and do you trust me enough to translate it for you? It does however have a picture of the breed and mention the name quite a few times throughout the article (its the same name as in english so easy to spot. Blufawn

How about you start the sub-user page, and I'll rewrite my questions there? Note I am suggesting this as a sub-user page, not a user page. They are not the same thing. If you don't know what I'm talking about, let me know what you would like your sub-user page to be called (Dogs makes sense to me, since you appear to be interested in several kinds) and I believe I can make it for you.

Regarding articles in Finnish, you don't need to take the time to translate it. If I find an electronic copy, I can find a third person to translate it for me. It's not that I don't trust you to translate it accurately. It is that having a third person will make it's content even more verifiable ... i.e. the article's author plus the translator plus then you as a reader and then me as a reader. That's 4 people, who will all have the opportunity to get on the same page about the same information. That's a lot stronger than you just translating the article for me, asking me to first believe that the article exists, even though I have not been able to find it yet on my own, and second, to believe that you've translated it with 100% accuracy. Hope that helps. Let me know if you'd like help creating your new SUB user page. Keesiewonder ^talk 12:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your right I have no idea what a sub user page is?? I would like you very much to help me though. I can't seem to find an Electronic version of the article either. I can however take a photograph of the newpaper at 100% and then zoom in on the article for you to read?? Does this make sense to you? Blufawn

Ok. I love helping!

1) For the Our Dogs article, I think I saw that this weekly has a one week free trial to their journal, so, I may be able to get the article printed by them that way. I'll give it a try later today or tomorrow.

2) For the Finnish article, for starters, can you look to see if the journal it comes from has an ISSN? If I remember correctly, you provided one of these numbers for Our Dogs (which I think I then changed, once I found the journal on-line).

Do you have access to a scanner that is attached to a computer? Often times when you scan a document, if it is connected to a computer or some other kind of computer network, it is possible to scan such that you create a .pdf file. If you were able to do that, then you could post this article on one of the many web sites that you manage, and I could access it there. Or you could email it to me as an attachment. Or you could make it available as a link of of either the WP article on the breed or as a link available off of your soon to be created sub user page. If you don't have access to a scanner, then we can pursue your idea of taking a picture with a digital camera (I assume) ... or ... go back to the fax idea or use the good ole postal mail. (I am a stamp collector, with a particular fondness for Scandinavian stamps - Finland has wonderful stamps; Iceland is my favorite though.)

3) I'll fiddle around with creating a sub user page for you now, and will let you know when it is done. I will call it "Tamaskan dog" to align nicely with the current WP article, and in hopes of things being less confusing as you learn more of this WP stuff. One of my sub user pages is this, for example, since I have been doing editing on that article. I think the only thing to be careful of is to not assign your (sub)user page to categories, or the folks that maintain categories get upset (for good reasons).

Keesiewonder ^talk 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, you should see a red link to Tamaskan Dog on your user page ... I think you can now go to the main article, copy whatever version you want as a baseline from its edit history, and paste it on your new sub-page. Then remove the category listings from your sub-page (or ask me to). BTW, your sub-page has it's own talk page, so, once it makes sense to you, we can relocate there for this discussion.Keesiewonder ^talk 16:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good subpage, I vaguely remember watching a film about Martin Luther not so long ago. I do actually have quite an interest in religion myself, but not so much that I consider myself to actually know much about it (if you understand my meaning).

I do not actually own a very good scanner, you tend not to be able to read the writing, my photo camera is much better. Perhaps I could do both for you?? I did look for an ISSN number but I could not find one, it is a newspaper not a journal, should it have one??? Blufawn

ok done, thanks, I feel like I can fiddle around with it more now and add loads more pictures of my own doggy. Blufawn

Well, I most certainly did not write that sub-page. It is a copy of the main article on Martin Luther. I was working on some tricky formatting thing ... and wanted to experiment with the whole article, but not in the "live" environment.

Sure, do which-ever one is easier first. Is it a newspaper or a newsletter? I think if it has a paid subscription base, it should have an ISSN. I'll have to think about this a bit more and get back to you. Perhaps when you're providing the article, you can include an extra page for the "mast head." This is the part of the publication that tells you who the editors are, who to contact for this or that, who holds the copyright, etc. Keesiewonder ^talk 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with website sourcing

Sourcing notices are being continually moved from the bull dog type breeds. Such as Bully Kutta, Gull Dong and Gull Terr. Headphonos suggests that the website molosserdogs is a reliable one, I was under the impression that it was not a reliable source. Can you give me your opinion on this please? Ensyc18:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Preceding note left at 11:15 February 11, 2007

Gull Dong

Would like your opinion on this one. Ensyc14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Preceding note left at 07:41 on February 13, 2007

Thanks Keesiewonder, do you think I should do anything about this, or just ignore it?? Not sure what happened with my date there, think its working now! 10:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Post by Ensyc.

Nope obviously not!! i.e. date corrected from 15 to 14 in previous post by 80.223.126.199

Wow I didn't know that I wasn't the only one having problems with headphonos. Well hopefully it will get sorted now though. At least more people are getting involved on the talk page so it won't look like its all me!

My computer has been doing strange things recently, I think it may have a virus, I don't know if that would affect my time and date though?? Ensyc11:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ensyc = 80.223.126.199

Your note to my talk page

Thanks for the heads-up, your history is nicely documented. FWIW, User talk:Chrislk02 is an admin and has been involved with our friend, feel free to contact him directly. Akradecki 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

Just to let you know. I changed my mind about that source after researching the website. If you look at the talk page of the disputed article, I gave some reasoning behind it. Thanks again for being so civil. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

*This is regarding the Bully Kutta article if I remember correctly. Keesiewonder ^talk 21:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)