User talk:Tomcue2

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
 * Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
 * The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'groups\.yahoo\.com' (link(s): http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/New_Guinea_Singing_Dog/) . 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 thorougly.	Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators 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).
 * 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) 18:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Not how it works
9ball - your not making any sense and I'm wasting my time with you on this. Take a break, I amMrhorseracer (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

A better way for vocalization and article construction
Cueball, you seems to have link envy. That not how Wiki works. Again, my point is that there are better ways to show Singers vocal files without having to add additional external links, just to your club's site. If we all did what you are doing, any Wiki article word quickly become cumbersome and poorly constructed. So I will be pursing a better way. Sorry you disagree. You might be seeing some new, experienced Senior Wiki editor activity. Oh,no response needed. I'm off to Maywood.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Cue, In order to avoid a spat, suggest that we reference the existing sites/links that have quality vocals and not add additional links like you did on 13 April. You are duplicating - I'll fix it for you. Second the PADS does have photos of Singers, which makes it a content relevant. This will be added back. Oh, use of "M", minor edits are typically for spelling and other non-controversial items. Some editors use minor edits in an attempt to hide content changes - this generally doesn't work. --Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cue, you make a good point on PADS and I'll be the first to admit it is thin on content, but it does provide visual context with other ancient breeds. Certainly not the best website. I'll think about your comment. Again, any editor can improve the article. Your last comment is irrelevant - quit trying to be an expert - you have no credentials.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cue, Hearing is easy, researching and understanding vocalization and documenting is a whole another animal that has only been thinly researched. Glad we had this discussion, I'll add the latest Singer vocalization study, some time from the additional experts that you are not aware of.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cue, Alas, you are confusing, the difference between a link and reference. If your website has acutal verifiable(preferably peer reviewed) content, by all means you should reference your independent and unique research. Again, putting multiple links (not a reference) to an existing website is poor technique - I'll improve the site your mistake--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

Cue, You got me thinking and I bet (you love to bet don't you?) you will agree with this solution. Why not put the sound file (you pick) in the common area of Wiki and link to it? Cleaner, simpler - just like the photos. Oh, and if you don't like this solution off to arbitration we go.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrhorseracer (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cueball. You failed to respond to my proposed solution that is much cleaner and certainly more neutral. So again, the following possible resolution to improve the article. Option 1. add a sound file to the common area and link to it. You can pick the sound file. Readers can hear a Singer without migrating out of Wiki to a website Option 2. We simply state (like I posted previously) where sound files reside (on the multiple websites) with no link to any particular site. Option 3, we gum up the entire site with redundant links to existing website that have sound files. My vote is option 1.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Cueball. Please respond to my suggestion.--Mrhorseracer (talk) 01:49, 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)

Thanks...
...for your help with the article New Guinea Singing Dog!

NGSD - Should I just do it?
Hy, I wanted your opinion on whether I should just go on and publish the new version. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Me again. At first: I have checked the article again and I think I have all wording and grammar quirks resolved. I also replaced the dog breed box with a taxobox since I couldn't get the familiaris out of it. The taxobox doesn't have the conservation status since I had no reliable data on their official status. Second: As for the pictures, you can either sent me them to orborot@web.de and I look as to which ones could be used or you choose. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I suggested before, you should put the existing article back and engage on Article Talk constructive dialog on how we can improve--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

NGSD Ethogram
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. The does need more content, but we should go slowly, build consensus. --Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with rules? Do you mean that you didn't know the rules of wikipedia when you started here?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I-B - Yes, rules and knowledge. For all editors there is a learning curve, you and me included. To make you a better editor, suggest consulting  Wp:Better and WP:Not and WP:SS. You'll find some suggestions to improve your editing.  Opportunity to learn for all--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * cue - have not looked at your question - been busy at work, but it is still on my to do list. I believe we can work together on this article to create a quality article - but we need to go slow and agree on content off article first.  I'll think about your other suggestion--Mrhorseracer (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Check for links
Hy could you please check whether the article now has the appropriate external links?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Singer Sightings -
cue -it is a tough call on whether to add this citation or not. In this case I would add, because of the source. This is just like confirming UFOs...Mrhorseracer (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer pictures?
Hy, I tried to contact you via E-Mail but I just got a returned message. Did you already manage to send the permission to Wikimedia Commons?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hy, on your answer: Well right now I would say the photos I choose would be good. If you know how to upload them in Wikimedia Commons upload them. Especially since OSM20 is complaining about some of the current ones. If you don't know Commons, just ask, I can explain and if you upload your own pictures it is always the easiest way. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

New c.l.dingos?
I was interested to read where you said

"Alan wilton himself told us that the dna markers of Dingo's and Singers are unique enough that he can differentiate them from being pure or hybrid. He stated that he could only tell us if a Au Dingo or singer have been hybridized with another dog breed. He further stated that the only mix he could not be certain of was a AU Dingo crossed with a Singer. That sounds like pretty strong evidence that the dna of the two dingo's are the same."

Can you get him to test Basenjis, Canaan Dogs, Telomians, and so on? Would he be able to tell if they are Canis lupus dingo or Canis lupus familiaris, and then publish the results? As far as I know, this has not been done yet, and if we had this information, we could sort all the dog breeds as familiaris or C.l.dingo if he would publish the results. This would be a great advance in the understanding of dogs, in my opinion, and would be as worthy as your plans to find more NGSDs, as well as quite a bit cheaper and easier! :) Chrisrus (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Chrisrus, We need to read Dr. Wilton's study in its complete form. I don't know if it's been published yet but it was to go into "Nature Journal" or some such.  We need to see what dogs and breeds were included in the study.  He couldn't have been more plain re the AU Dingo and NGSD sameness. It is a splendid and long awaited statement.  Plus the very fact that we can have NGSD tested in an accurate way is a tremendous and again, long awaited achievement.  There is one more step to go before the information and testing is actually useful and that is to be able to send dna samples to someone in the United States instead of to AU.  Sending to AU is not only expensive for the permits etc, but also a whole lot of red tape.  We're hoping Dr.W. has or will be willing to share his database with someone in the U.S. who can conduct the tests here. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great news and really wonderful. Is there a way to ask him directly if I he were sent a DNA sample from someone's Telomian if we could find someone to do it, if he could determine if it's familiaris or dingo?  There are several other primitive dog breeds that seem likely candidates for non-familiaris classification, and I could be wrong but it seems to me that no one has done this yet or published the results.  It sounds like Wilson could knock that out in an afternoon and get it published so I (we) could cite that and add that information to articles like Azawakh.  Boy, that'd be exciting, to me, but then I'm a nerd about stuff like that.  Chrisrus (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, Oh I know. It's the best news. we've been waiting for this for over 20 years. I'm going to see if I can obtain a hard copy of the full study.osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

NGSD Photos
Hi Tomcue, I was just wondering whether you might be able to make some changes in the photos in the NGSD article(the ones on the text page)? Sure would appreciate it. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Checking in
Wayyyy back in April, you embedded a comment on my user page that I never saw. I just found it and moved it to my talk page User_talk:Elf. Do you still have the vaguest memory, after all this time, of what you were going to ask? If so, you can respond under that note on my talk page. Elf | Talk 04:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
On the subject of the New Guinea Singing Dog's origin, are you a Papuan or Austronesian? Chrisrus (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I live in the states (IL) and was the co-founder of NGSDI with oldsingerman. We parted ways last December. I am specifically involved with the conservation of the NGSD and have the rights to the NGSDI website and it's contents. I have NGSD's with me constantly so have lots of hands on experience with them. Tomcue2 (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean, yes, that's nice to know about you and we should talk, but no, I was asking for your opinion on the matter of how they or their ancestor arrived on the Island, with the original Papuans, or later with te arrival there of the Austronesian people? Chrisrus (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not studied the history of the humans involved enough to form an opinion but have studied the Dingo some and believe that both the AU Dingo and the NGSD were at one time the same being. I formed this opinion based solely on the physical characteristics and traits of the two and before this latest paper by Dr. Alan Wilton was released where he now believes that the NGSD and Dingo pre-date the end of the ice age and back to the days when PNG and AU were land locked. The evolution of other species has shown that a smaller land mass nets a smaller animal which helps to explain the size difference between the Dingo and NGSD today. The dna markers of the two are nearly identicle and closer to the wolf than any other canid on earth. Tomcue2 (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If they arrived the same way that most dogs on New Guinea and many other places where Austronesians settled or made contact all over te region and very far beyond the region, if the NGSD or the NGSD's ancestors arrived there on NG aboard Austronesian boats, then they can't be more than two or three thousand years on New Guinea, and they must have recently evolved. If they arrived with the Papuans, then they arrived there much, much earlier, maybe ten times earlier, probably much more than that.  The evidence you quote, does it seem to you to be more consistant with a Papuan or an Austronesian origin? Chrisrus (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The NGSD Wars
I'm sorry to hear about your falling out with OSM. I regret now ever having asked about the Pennsylvania dogs and I suspect you wish I hadn't as well. We could delete the entire section on the topic on the NGSD discussion page on WP:NOTAFORUM grounds alone, but would you be ok with that? I wouldn't want to delete anyone's contribution there without their permission. Chrisrus (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem Chrisrus. I had no problem giving you an update and don't be afraid to ask questions in the future. Go ahead and remove the entire topic. I normally would just sit back in situations like this but OSM has a problem with ever being wrong and he goes out of his way to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with his opinions. Tomcue2 (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Understood. Sorry about that.  I guess that's why they wrote WP:NOTAFORUM. Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)