User talk:Mrhorseracer

Promise
mrhorseracer, Congratulations on successfully taking over the NGSD wiki page. Both matznick and the NGSDCS should be pleased too since by vandalizing our work, references and links, you have monopolized the page for them. Now if you can just get me kicked off wiki, you'll have completed your plan. Sadly, it won't work that way. As long as one of us lives and breathes we will fight to give credit to others who have contributed to NGSD and their conservation. We understand that fear drives you to exclude others and enthrone matznick and the society, and feel sorry for your insecurity, but hurting others isn't the answer. We could have lived side by side in peace, but you won't leave it alone. Very well then. Next let's ask an administrator to make some wiki decisions. Justice will be served.Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Promise Part III
Very gracious of you to give others permission to edit. The right is not yours to give. You came onto the article and vandalized the work of everyone who had already contributed. You continue to delete the link to NGSDI. What gives you that right? Why do you think suggested reading has to be published material? Is it because you have published material you want to promote? Another question for the administrator. Is wikipedia about promoting personal gain?Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Promise !V
Wow, so now you're exactly specifying what you will accept as though you actually do own the page. You are amazing. First you delete all our stuff and take over the article and now you set the rules. OK, let's play your game: Please define a peer reviewed article. Perhaps you could show us an example of it from your Conservation Society entries.Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Promise V
mrhorseracer, We also want to congratulate you on your tactic of placement of replies during our talks. By placing the replies in a random manner, they are out of order thus making it harder for an administrator to follow the string. Smart, very smart. BTW, the way you are hiding your idenity is curious. You'll notice I have made no attempt to hide mine.Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Promise III
mr, Responding to your reply regarding the facebook and the NGSDI links. I didn't post them. Please refer to history and respond to them not to me.Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Newcomer
mrh, In your last reply to oldsingerman you referred to me as Wendt. Therefore Matznick, bending the rules here will not be tolerated and your actions and history of edits will soon be referred to an administrator for review (see speedy deletion criteria). You have shown ZERO good faith here. While you pretend to police the NGSD page with a NPOV, please review the link to PADS and do the right thing. It offers no valid or practical data on the NGSD and therefore should be removed. Warmly, tomcue2 (aka horseracer)

Welcome Newcomer II
[edit] Per Your Latest Question I'll check PADS link - you might be right. Again, content of article must be verifiable, all editors have the right to question accuracy and verifiability of the content in a neutral point of view - here are two shortcuts you need to be familiar with to be a successful editor WP:RS and WP:NPOVMrhorseracer (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcue2"

Above I have copied your words to illustrate that you have the right to question things but the speedy removal of olsingerman20 (Don's) contributions is "out of line". Kindly return his work to the page and request verification if you wish like you did to the new editor tonight. It's both proper and shows a measure of etiquette. You cannot do things both ways and still claim to be neutral. FYI, I am very familiar with the WP:RS page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcue2 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I will repeat my statement. You have removed all of oldsingerman20's contributions. This is not the work of a successful editor. Put them back and ask for citation or proof like you are suppose to. tomcue2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcue2 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of Singers in captivity
mrhorseracer I had entered 200 as the number of Singers that I felt were in captivity. You deleted that number 2 times without so much as asking and I'd like to know why? I want to show the proper number. Please provide proof as to why the 200 number should have been changed to 300. I don't think there are 300 NGSD in the world's captive population. Show me where they are. If you can't substantiate the change, then I'm going back to 200. Two or three days should be enough time for you to offer up the proof.Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

6,000 years old
mrhorseracer, I am methodically going through your work matching what you say to your references. In other words, I am inspecting the validy of your writings. I figure if you felt you had to delete my work, what you replace it with should at least be accurate or as accurate as we can get it considering almost all your references are from more or less the same author. Anyone whose been in the Singer world for over 20 years like my wife and I knows Koler-Matznick has written about Singers. They also know she started the New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society. So when you quote one, you quote the other. They are, in our eyes one and the same. There's nothing wrong with that, but we still would like to know why you think your information is more valid than what was in the article prior to your complete deletion and rewrite. I disagree with the amount of time you say Singers have existed and I went the Society page to the New Guinea Singing Dog: Overview as listed in your references. It appears your reference to the Overview page is invalid. I found no reference on the Overview page matching 6,000 years. Please reword, rewrite with the proper reference citing 6,000 years or remove the 6,000 years altogether. I will allow 2-3 days for you to make the corrections before i edit. While reading on the overview page, I read that the captive population was estimated at 300 in 1997. That's 13 year old information. Can't you provide information that is more up-to-date? Thank you, oldsingerman20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference #3
mrh, We wanted to read reference #3 which is the New Guinea Singing Dog Forum but do not know where it is located. Is this a book, a newsletter, what? Please advise as to where it can be found. Thank you, Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Number in captivity
Your compromise of 300 in 1995 and 200 today is fair and accurate as far as we know. Thank you. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC).

A better way for vocalization and article construction
<<>>

Horsey, I can find you 100's of sites that contain 1 photo of a Singer which is what the PADS site has. Should I add all of those links? Answer: No. Fact is, there was no relevant information about the NGSD to be gained or learned at the site.

Re the vocalization files, no need to fix things for me. If we can agree I can fix things myself. Simply let me know how you would like them presented and I will be more then happy to park the a/v files on a diffrent server. I could also park some of my own quality audio files on a seperate server and link it. The audio file at your favorite website is not typical imo and I have been around to hear at least 50 different Singers vocalize live and up close. That is likely more then even Matznick herself. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re PADS, thin is an understatement. I admittedly am no expert but other Dr Brisbin who is? I have heard enough different Singer's in song to know what they typically sound like and my hearing is fine. Suggest you take a break (from abrasiveness) work on some spatless solutuion to the audio files that you have an issue with. Tomcue2 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I enjoy chatting with you and I'm glad to see that we have something in common. I am no expert either. I know all about the vocalization study and the NGSD's involved. Seems we rescued a few of those study dogs during that mess we cleaned up in MI. The mess that the "experts" turned their backs on. I should maybe thank them for the opportunity and the experience it afforded me. Although I have not reached my level of incompetence just yet, I learned much from the entended exposure to NGSD's in numbers. Btw, The Peter Principle is a real good read if you have not yet read it. Tomcue2 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

EF, you are confused. Folks with link envy will attempt to delete links of others even though they provide valid and relavant information to an article. I already mentioned that you should add valid info to the article be it a link or factual information. I waited patiently for you to respond to Wiki Editor Chrisrus's request to hear a Singer in song, but alas you dropped the ball. After weeks of waiting for your self proclaimed best and proper solution, I finally provided some sound and even added video yet it somehow does not sit well with you.

I myself am not real big on citations as referencing info from a written or published article doesn't necessarily make it true. I also prefer folks with hands on experience as opposed to a researcher that absorbed a bunch of info from others to form an opinion.

By all means pursue a better way and also be sure to send that Senior Wiki editor my way. I promose to let him or her know who I am and I am certain that you will do the same so that your NPOV will shine brightly.

Best of luck at Maywood. It's tough to handicap there but with your equine expertese, I am confident you will do just fine. Tomcue2 (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Revisions
I have undid your removal of the link I added. I initially added it per a Wiki members request (see talk page). Your arguement asking folks to search websites for a/v files is weak. I know that you have great concerns about duplication so would suggest that you focus on the links to your own organization. There are a total of 4. 1) Reference #2 mentions "Overview" yet it links to the "History" page. 2) Reference #4 mentions "Overview" and it does link to the home/overview page. 3) Reference #8 mentions "History" and it does link to the "History" page. 4) External link to the home/overview.

Looks like duplication to me but I am not rude/impolite enough to fix or remove your work. Kindly fix it yourself. Tomcue2 (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The link is back and will stay. I will not be as oblidging as Don. Do please refrain from removing my contributions claiming duplication so that I can refrain from your duplications. Tomcue2 (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As previously stated, fix your own errors before worrying about my work. Also consider having the courtesy of discussing an issue before removing someones contributions which you continue to do. It's common courtesy. You do not own the NGSD article and your organization gets plenty of recognition. If arbitration is what floats you, feel free. Tomcue2 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mrhorseracer – In your post two days ago, you threatened me with arbitration and now you want to try and reason with me? And lets go back to your arrival here where you completely and immediately decimated all of Mr Ehrlich's (oldsingerman20) contributions with no prior warning or discussion. Mr Ehrlich whom you know has as much knowledge of the NGSD as anyone on this planet and was caring for and learning about and studying the NGSD long before your leader knew a Singer from the sewing machine. You totally disrespected the man. You hide behind the published literature premise to reinforce your neutral point of view that you keep harping on. We are all well aware that only one person has extensive published info. Lastly, your organization is linked to 4 separate times on the page and incorrectly in one. If you want to go to one link for your organization I will be happy to oblige your request. I might even entertain one of your options if you will undo all of the work that you wiped off of the page on oldsingerman20. Do not waste any more of my time trying to convince me to leave 4 links to your organization with only 1 to ours. I'm not interested in your opinions or the NPOV that you see. I have not tinkered with one contribution of yours so my request of you is really quite simple. Have that same respect. Tomcue2 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You said: Cueball. Please respond to my suggestion.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I already did respond. Please read my prior response 4/21/10 at 19:14. Read it a few times. If it still is not clear, just read the last two sentences. I'm confident it will sink in. Tomcue2 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cueball. Please respond to my suggestion - simply pick an option or state none of the above and I'll pursue it from there. Also arbitration with an independent editor is not a threat - it is a way to develop a solution--Mrhorseracer (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Liz....I took your promise to get an arbitrator involved as a threat. You have now managed to attract a third person who does not agree with your deleting peoples work at the drop of a hat. Add a video file of your choosing in any manner that you see fit. You do not need my permission to do that as I am not the self proclaimed owner of the NGSD page nor am I the type to remove someone else's contributions. The external link I added stays as far as I am concerned. As you labeled me as one to wager, I would wager that Chrisrus, oldsingerman20 and Inugami-bargho will agree. It's what the external links are for which is to take you to a site outside of Wiki that provides relavant and accurate information. If you opt to start treating peoples contributions with a measure of respect, I will promise to let you be the one to edit the NGSD page and add details of an upcoming expedition to the PNG highlands to search for new bloodlines. If you are a writer or reporter, I will even let you be the one to write the article. This way you can reference your own work to validate your edit. Tomcue2 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw that you decided to just add your sound file as an added link. You even showed respect of others and did not delete their contributions. You are to be commended and are well on the road to an actual neutral point of view. Speaking of points of view, I need your opinion on something. It involves the NGSD Ethogram. Please review the list of 16 foundation Singers on page 4. Of the 16 only 14 have birth dates listed. Darkie only has his year of birth listed. That however is due to Taronga Zoo losing/destroying the records. In Morgan's case there is an ISIS # but no birth date at all. My question to you is, do you think it's a typo or an omission by design? If by design, theorize on the possible reasons for this. Tomcue2 (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Source of the sentence?
Hello, according to the history of NGSD, your replaced the old reference of this sentence with the current one: ''No confirmed specimens had been sighted for years, but recently at least one animal was seen by local guides at Lake Tawa. reference:Helgen, K.M. 2007. "A Taxonomic and Geographic Overview of the Mammals of Papua." Pp. in the Ecology of Papua (Ecology of Indonesia Series, Volume VI, Part One) (Marshall, A.J. and Beehler, B.M.) Periplus Editions''. Do you have that book and if yes can you check the exact wording?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have the book but will verify. Is there something troublesome to you?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I could find the book among googlebooks and while I couldn't see all of it it could show the page parts with the word dog and NGSD. However it could not find the word Tawa at all. Then the source for that sentence changed and I found that strange. At last just because somebody said that was a Singer doesn't mean it had to be one. Therefore I'm very carefull with such statements and want to know as much as possible about it from the referenced source. As you know, the coloration of the Singer is not exclusive to them so it might as well have been another dog.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My two cents here. Now that our organization has a presence in the NGSD world, we get folks claiming to have spotted Singers in PNG quite often. With hybrids(aka village dogs) on the island looking so much like a pure singer, an alleged sighting (especially in a populated or often traveled area) makes anyones claim a weak one. I would think that even you would agree mrh. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

NGSD Ethogram
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcue2" you wrote: I'll need to look, bit confused here. I hope this is a turning point for all of us, too. We can all get along now that we all understand the rules and how collaboration works. --Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It just may be the turning point for you and I. You are obviously a researcher whose goal is to get the facts and get them right. I do not believe you are going to figure out where I am heading asking for your opinion about the Ethogram. Your talk page (visible to the world) is not the place for me to elaborate. The only way to continue the subject will be outside of wiki. I already believe I know who you are but if you need to remain unknown to me, create an alias and contact me in private. tomcue2@hotmail.com Tomcue2 (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

mrh - How is the progress going regarding the Ethogram question I gave you? We need to get past this question before I present the next one to you. I promise that the next mystery will be much easier for you to solve. It will actually involve the vocalization study by Feinstein. I am not your enemy mrh. We have many of the same goals and we both want to see the NGSD thrive and be protected. I am at 3 Singers plus a foster here and counting. Osm20 and I choose not to follow the guided path that you have been sent on. We are not pet traders nor breed for profit folks either like you have been told. Thats your leaders way of cutting us down. You need to be enlightened about some things. I don't give a ratts butt who you really are but I assume that you might want the whole story. The researcher Inugami has presented the entire scientific story. Allow me to present the practical differences as seen thru NPOV eyes. Create your alias if you must and write to me privately. Tomcue2 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

mrh, I too believe we can work together. Inugami is no dummy and has found lots of good info about the Singer that carry the all important neutral point of view. From reading your notes to me privately, you obviously know me from the old Yahoo Group. Despite my abrasive behavior back then, it was never my intention to do anything other then to unite all NGSD owners. I have lots of energy and am willing to help the NGSD in any way possible. If you have kept up with our dealings, you already know that. I just could not fathom that all owners of undocumented Singers were just in it for the profits of breeding and today can safely tell you that my assumption was accurate. Please consider my suggestion to contact me. If you want both sides of the story you pretty much have to. I refuse to post my findings here for public view out of respect to those that deserve it. I say this again, "I am not your enemy". Once we chat, you will have a clear understanding why the new path was taken and I doubt that your ill feelings towards osm20 & I will continue. Tomcue2 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean?
Don't suggest doing it yet -may want to build consensus first. Looks like the group might even get be getting along finally now that we all know the rules--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the article or the pictures?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Rfc question for Entire Page Removal and Replacement
What is the accepted policy for R&R of an entire article? I thought the policy is/was that for an established article, that it should not happen unless all active editors agreed? In most cases, it is better to make wholesale changes slower? --Mrhorseracer (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The accepted policy is WP:BOLD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)



Matznick (aka jkoler & mrhorseracer)
I would think that the Wiki moderators would frown on multiple aliases. We can at least now scrap the idea of you figuring out why the dob omission on the Ethogram. No need for you to create an another alias for private email. You bragging about your most recent published paper was typical of previous posting errors from you. When switching from one alias to another always remember to delete your cookies first so that there is no chance of your computer popping out the wrong identity. As far as updating you on your breeding program errors, there is no need to inform you of that either. You should have an inkling why osm20 and his wife wanted their dog back. They will not tolerate falsified bloodlines. My advice to you would be to focus on keeping your captive audience (NGSDCS) in support of you rather then trying to convince the rest of the world that your scientific beliefs are correct. In a way, I actually hope that you are right. You need to start however by convincing a real scientist so that Inu can reference it on the NGSD page. Tomcue2 (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This woman really has guts. She has let this fiasco die down for a couple of weeks and is now trying to again become the dictator of the NGSD article. It's not gonna happen. osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
With regard to the origin of the New Guinea Singing dog, are you Papuan or Austronesian? Chrisrus (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)