User talk:Sylvaen

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Tamaskan Dog has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://pickofthelitterblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/tamaskan/ (matching the regex rule \bwordpress\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NCSU Mascot
I'm just an NCSU alumni and I'm not familiar with dog breeding. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? The school says she (yes I knew it was female) is a Tamaskan. --ShadowRAM (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I hope my alma mater takes some time to get to the bottom of the issue and more importantly does the right thing. --ShadowRAM (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Forums are not reliable sources; membership in a forum is an even less reliable thread to hang a claim on. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Tamaskan Wolfdog
Hi

I know this, which is why I added several times the wolf content part. Didn't know how to get the site deleted so I wanted to make it more true :-) Nino Pilekvist (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is Not
What_Wikipedia_is_not

In particular please see #3 and #4. It might also be good to read the other sections located in the article. If you still do not agree there is a topic opened on the discussion page of Talk:Tamaskan_Dog. Thanks. PedanticSophist (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiking Dog
Hi. I've removed again your addition to Tamaskan Dog. For a dog to be a famous Tamaskan, that is, being notable and relevant to the Tamaskan Dog article, I would expect an article in a reliable source that not only mentions or names the dog individually, but also notes that it is a Tamaskan Dog. The article in the Huffington Post does neither, merely referring in passing to a number of unspecified dogs. So not only does it not appear that the individual dog is that notable, but we only have your word for it that this specific dog actually exists and is a Tamaskan. It's also the case that the Huffington Post blogs are user generated, and not the best of sources. Can you cite a better source that mentions this Tamaskan Dog? -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
Hello, Sylvaen. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Tamaskan Dog, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)