User talk:D mentias

The article Murray River Curly Coated Retriever has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable variety of Curly Coated Retriever

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TKK ^{bark !} 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murray River Curly Coated Retriever is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murray River Curly Coated Retriever until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TKK ^{bark !} 00:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Murray River Curly coated Retriever has recently been DNA tested to demostrate that it is a unique and diverse breed worth preserving. The MRCCR falls into the gundog breeds but is not closely related to the CCR as suggested here. The breed has existed as a seperate breed in Australia since at least the 1840s and survived without breed clubs until recently. They were a working or meat dog who earnt their keep. I am updating the wiki article to reflect recent research. D mentias (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mentions of them in any secondary sources. The only sources I could find discussing the dog are on websites belonging to breeders, which are not secondary sources. There's just no mentions of them, at all, which means that they aren't notable and information on them can't be verified. It's nice that they had a DNA test, but that doesn't help their notability at all. --TKK ^{bark !} 01:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should sign your talk page/afd posts with a series of four tildes '~' or hit the little pen icon in the editing bar. It helps us know who we're talking to in case the bot misses a post. You can also use : to indent your posts and 'thread' your conversations,

Like this.

And this is a reply to that.

And this is a reply to that. And so on. I'm just personally having a difficult time following your conversations haha. --TKK ^{bark !} 04:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have corrected the heading format for 'Formal breed description' and moved the reference for the author you added to the end. However, I have concerns about the copyright of that section. Is this just a cut and paste of Ruth Bell's work? I did wonder yesterday when I formatted all the headings within it as it appeared it might have been copied. Wikipedia has a very strict policy about copyright so if this is the case, it will have to be changed very quickly. I sincerely apologise if I'm incorrect about this but even if you have Ruth Bell's permission, it could then only be done under a special licence.

I do appreciate you are finding it hard to work around the formatting and policies and you are also finding the present AfD very difficult, so I apologise for possibly adding to your worries. I do hope you are managing to access this talk page! SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am not sure how these talk things work and I did try to author of the work at the end. Initially I just had Ms Bell's name on it but it is reproduced with her full permission and her suggestion to include it. I was surprised it was dated as 2008 as I did not see it until last year. :It possibly needs fine tuning too. Then today we received news that Dogs Victora is supportung our application to become a recognized sporting breed. It is also only a matter of time before a book is written on the breed, Copies of the breed description can be found on the FB and Yahoo groups. D mentias (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I'm glad you are managing to access your talk page! Ruth Bell will have to give permission to Wikipedia for her work to be used - if you click this link it will take you to a page that explains and gives instructions about it. An alternative would be to change all of the wording of that section, which I'm sorry I don't have time to be able to help you do. I'm afraid it is something which needs to be addressed very quickly or you may find someone will just remove the whole section.

At least you have received good news about your application to become a recognised breed, so that is one step closer. However, as much as I dislike saying it, I think it still may not make your breed notable enough at the moment but you may find the consensus at the AfD allows the page to remain - that's the way Wikipedia works.

By the way, I have adjusted the format of your comment above slightly - when you type a reply you put a colon (:) at the start of the paragraph to indent it, then anyone giving a further response types one more colon (for instance, I'm typing two colons at the start of each new paragraph in this comment). I suspect you have been replying by typing a space instead of a colon, which is why your comments on talk pages and the AfD page are not formatting correctly? The colon isn't needed when editing articles but don't start new paragraphs by hitting the space bar as that knocks the formatting out; I think maybe you've sometimes done that? Another tip is to use the 'preview' button to double check what your edit looks like before saving the change - it's right beside the 'save page' button.

Wikipedia can be very daunting but I'm sure you'll soon pick up all the little idiosyncrasies. The Teahouse is an excellent place to ask any questions you may have - the editors over there are all exceptionally patient and helpful. Questions there are also answered extremely quickly, so don't be afraid to ask them for any help about anything to do with Wikipedia. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]