Talk:Shiloh Shepherd dog/Archive 2

message: This page is to discuss items of dispute in the article.
Since Wikipedia bases its articles on independant verifiable sources we should remember that.
I would like to engage in each topic in dispute at a time.
The first topic are the claims submitted by Tina Barber/ISSR that the Shiloh Shepherd is not a breed, rather a breed in development.
I am going to provide verifiable proof that since 1991 the Shiloh Shepherd has been accepted and is today accepted by many national and professional organizations.
1. The following National Magazines have been advertizine the Shiloh Shepherd as a Breed and even the Breed Standard for years. I know I placed my first ad with them in 1995.
Dogs USA, Puppies USA, Dog World, and Dog Fancy
verifiable proof: 
2. Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) has been certifying the hips of Shiloh Shepherds since at least 1994 and has the Shiloh Shepherd listed as a Breed.
3. National Eye certification Organization lists the Shiloh Shepherd as a Breed.
4. The follwing National Show organizations have recognized and judged the Shiloh Shepherd as a Breed, one since 1991. Some Shiloh Shepherds have placed within the top 10 All Breed dogs with these organizations.
ARBA   
Rarities  
Canadian  RBCSWO   
National Kennel Club  
International All Breed Canine Assoc   
All of the above companies and organizations have accepted the Shiloh Shepherd as a Breed of Dog and have listed as such in the web sites and publications.
With this amount of verifiable sources deeming the Shiloh Shepherd is a Breed of Dog, I feel it is only fair to question and ask for the change to the edit made by Tina Barber that the Shiloh Shepherd is just a breed in development. She may have this POV, but it is clear many respectible organization verify our position that these dogs are a Breed. There are many rare breed dogs that are not yet accepted by AKC, UKC, etc.
ShenandoahShilohs 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items of dispute in the Shiloh Shepherd article 

message: Hi Karen, you wrote that the trash talk that has gone on on this page and the edits that have been made to the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article are an embarrassment to these dogs and to any reasonable person.
In the spirit of finding a resolution to the endless edits I would like to ask you what if anything was embarrasing in the following edits that were made to be unbias and about the Shiloh Shepherd, not any one Club or Registry?
Under the History section:
The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under development by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. As the breed achieved wider recognition and popularity near the turn of the millennium other Registries were formed as well as a second Club for these Registries.The breed now has multiple registries, including, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA). There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs, the Shilohs Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA) and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC). For further information on all of the above Registries and Clubs please use the external links section of this article.
Under the Health section:
The main health issues in this breed are gastrointestinal problems (gastric torsion/bloat, bacterial overgrowth syndrome) and skeletal or bone disorders such as hip dysplasia, panosteitis and osteochondritis. The accepted organizations for health certifications are OFA, Penn HIP, 
and CERF. Most Shiloh Shepherd Breeders utilize these organizations to screen their breeding dogs. As giant breeds go, the Shiloh is arguably quite a healthy example.
This is basic information, still recognizing Tina as the founder, while maintaining a fair and unbias article. Each "group" has a link at the bottom of the page to thier web sites were they can promote thier POV on all issues relating to the Shiloh Shepherd Dog.
So again, in the spirit of resolving this ridiculous sparing please share what you find offensive in the above edits so we may try to reach an agreed upon article.
Thank you
ShenandoahShilohs 18:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Accusations 

message: PATTY PLEASE NOTE: YOUR VERSION
 
Under the History section:
The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under development by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. As the breed achieved wider recognition and popularity near the turn of the millennium other Registries were formed as well as a second Club for these Registries.The breed now has multiple registries, including, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA). There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs, the Shilohs Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA) and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC). For further information on all of the above Registries and Clubs please use the external links section of this article.
 
AYONE READING THIS WILL NATURALY ASSUME THAT THE ISSR IS JUST *ONE* OF THE MANY "REGISTRIES" INVOLVED WITH THE *DEVELOPMENT* OF THIS *BREED*
So let's take another GOOD look there!!  As I have been stating all along ... the Shiloh Shepherd is NOT a recognized *BREED* although it IS *still* under development!!!  Via the ISSR! 
Let's start with the Wikipedia;  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds  Please note;
 <<  Breeds listed here may be traditional breeds with long histories as registered breeds, rare breeds with their own registries, or new breeds that may still be under development. >>
I think this is a very good explanation, since there really is NO other way to put it!  If a dog "type" is under development, it should be called a "breed" even if it's a Munchkin!!  
I like the way that the Canada Dogs guide presented the issue, http://canadasguidetodogs.com/breedregistries.htm making it much clearer for the consumer to understand what they are dealing with.  After all, isn't that what the goal is here? To educate the public? Or are we just here to promote individual groups that are not breeding the SAME dog, but insist on using the same name??
 
In my web articles I have always tried to use a variety of links from various breeds, like http://www.ddbs.org/somanyregistries.html in order to help people get a better understanding of the issues.  As can be seen, due to the confusion that was created by the "Rare" "Breed" fads that were started near the turn of this millennium, and had a huge impact in deceiving many consumers, the AKC stood up to the challenge and started their FSS program!
  
Now let's try to get a better handle on "registries" http://www.wonderpuppy.net/kc.htm  As you can see, the AKC protects it's breeders by offering *limited* registrations, in order to prevent the owners of those dogs from breeding substandard stock.  Many single breed registries have always done likewise, but in nearly all of the cases where this can be investigated; splinter groups formed their *own* "clubs" and continued to mass produce inferior puppies.  It was for THAT reason that the FSS stood up to the challenge of helping these fledgling breeds get a solid foothold into the read world of dog breeds.
 
This is a very generic - unbiased info page that clearly explains the main objectives of the FSS, as well as other registries.   http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dog/registries.aspx
 
Another term that is used in the dog fancy is "Evolving Breed" ... I think this article explains it quite nicely!!  http://www.seppalasleddogs.com/evolbrd.htm  I am taking this quote from that article, just to show as an example.
 
<< 
BUT WHAT IS AN EVOLVING BREED? Quite simply, it is a population in process of developing into a "distinct breed," that is to say, a registered purebred breed recognised by Canada's Minister of Agriculture. Under the present Animal Pedigree Act and the present regulations of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, new animal breeds must meet several requirements in order to receive Ministerial recognition as purebreds.
They must have significant value. 
A population large enough to provide an adequate foundation for future breeding must exist. 
The animals must reproduce with adequate genetic stability. 
Furthermore, current regulations state that a new breed's foundation stock must be selected from the third filial generation (F3) or later of breeding within the evolving breed. That means that registered breed foundation stock must come from the great-grand-progeny (or later generation) of the parental generation that was first identified as the evolving breed. 
In general, 200 F3-generation animals of unique genotype are required as a minimum standard for Agriculture's recognition of a new distinct breed. 
These are technical animal husbandry requirements imposed by AAFC to ensure stability and consistency in registered animal breeds.   >>
 
My stock met those requirements in the late 90's and the ISSR  could have requested recognition via the AAFC Pedigree Act at that time, if not for the mass divisions that occurred within our clubs political structure!!  Please review http://www.shilohshepherds.info/siteMapSSDCALinks.htm Everything has been clearly documented, with copies of actual newsletters, etc.
 
Now lets take a moment to circle back to the FSS ... the Shiloh Shepherds best chance for recognition as A *breed* will depend on their desire to accept us. http://www.akc.org/reg/fss_details.cfm  Please take a moment to carefully note;
 
<< The AKC only considers adding new breeds to the FSS® or its registry upon request. The breed must be recognized by an acceptable foreign or domestic registry.
The FSS® is not open to "rare" breeds that are a variation of an AKC-registrable breed or the result of a combination of two AKC-recognized breeds. This includes and is not limited to differences such as size (over & under), coat type, coat colors, and coat colors and/or types that are disqualifications from Conformation Events by AKC breed standards.
  >>
 
What does this mean?  Very simply put; The Shiloh Shepherd is considered to be a *variant* of the GSD.  In other words, since so many GSD's have been added within the various "recent" registries (aka - OTX program) they are looked upon as nothing other then FAULTY dogs that would not be accepted within any of the GSD organizations as quality stock.  (aka un-papered mixes) These are not MY words, but terms that have been used by important officials of highly respected organizations!!
 
Another example of this problem can be seen within the White Shepherd fancy.  
 
 The White Shepherd consists of many selectively bred  AKC & CKC GSD's as well as FCI imports that have set a strong foundation, and have continued to breed true to the proper color and the ideal White Shepherd Breed Standard.  http://home.iprimus.com.au/whiteshepherdau/breedstandard.html  The IWSF has also worked very hard for full recognition & these dogs were accepted by the FCI as the Berger  Blanc Suisse  http://www.whiteshepherd.info/ 
 
The clubs in Canada & America have many dedicated individuals that have also sought separation for decades, and have finally achieved it via the UKC http://www.regalwise.com/wgshistory.html  
 
Nevertheless, this does NOT bring the Shiloh Shepherd any closer to full recognition!! Mostly due to the extreme discord among the various breeders that have continued to ignore the original guidelines set by the ISSR, and insist on breeding to GSD's that do not meet the criteria necessary to maintain, nor continue to develop,  the original breed type!!
 
Let's take a look at the *Olderhill* Shepherds http://www.olderhill.co.za/breeders.html These are VERY nice dogs, but they are NOT "Shiloh Shepherds!!  Neither are the  beautiful Long Haired GSD's that can be seen on various web sites!!
 
Another good example is the Altdeutscher Scheferhund!!
 http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/5093/oldgsd.html
 
http://witte-herder.startkabel.nl/k/witte-herder/index.php?nr=1 aka Witte Herder (another white version) that is very popular in the Netherlands! 
 
These dogs are well known, and loved, but not recognized as a distinct *separate* *breed* http://www.glassportal.com/herding/english.htm  
 
 
This website is an excellent source of information that everyone interested in GSD's should take a moment to read!!  http://www.dogstuff.info/gsd_balance.html  
 
  
Just for the record; there are MANY breeders of *Long Haired GSD's*  :-)
You can easily locate them via a quick web search, but I think this site says it all!!  http://showcase.netins.net/web/royalair/   As you can see, they have nearly a dozen reputable kennels listed, none of which have EVER claimed their dogs to be "Shiloh Shepherds!!  Why?? Maybe because they have legitimate AKC papers on their stock??  Maybe because they care about what they are trying to do??  Who knows ... maybe this page can explain their position?? http://showcase.netins.net/web/royalair/pasttopresent.htm
 
If you want to see a LOT more sites, why not take a look at the other ones listed on their WebRing?  http://h.webring.com/hub?ring=longhairedgerman  If you take the time to visit http://www.justshepherds.com/ you  should click on their large section devoted strictly to the Long Haired GSD .. aka LHGSD. 
 
This page tells it like it is!!  http://www.justshepherds.com/lhgsd.htm so please note that THIS notice is on the Home Page for the LHGSD!  << 
Note:  The long haired or coated German Shepherd is NOT a Shiloh Shepherd.  
The Shiloh Shepherd is a rare breed that was created by Tina Barber using the German Shepherd breed.  Ms. Barber began breeding German Shepherds at her Shiloh Kennel.  Later, she created the Shiloh Shepherd breed 
using the German Shepherd stock and other breed(s).
 
Since this has always been a highly respected -UNBIASED- web site, why aren't all of the *other* *registries* mentioned??  Maybe because the ONLY *credibility* they seem to have is in their *own* minds??
 NOW LET'S LOOK AT WHAT I FEEL IS A FACTUAL REPRESENTATION!
 
The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under development by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. [1]
As the breed achieved wider recognition and popularity near the turn of the millennium a new private breed club and many private registries arose, creating considerable confusion about the breed. The breed now has multiple self proclaimed registries, including The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA) all falling under The International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club. None of these have full documentation regarding the database, nor do they follow the rules of the official and true registry established by the breed founder, to document all LMX data for this breed while under development.
However, the breeds original registry, International Shiloh Shepherd Registry, Inc. (ISSR) continues to stand strong with over 4,000 carefully selected progeny registered since 1991, and over 45,000 ancestors in their database working with the original breed club - Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club of America, Inc. and Tina M. Barber, the breed founder.
For further information on all of the above Registries and Clubs please use the external links section of this article.
IT DOES LIST YOUR VARIOUS GROUPS, BUT IN THE PROPER LIGHT, STILL PROVIDING THE TRUE INFORMATION THAT EVERY POTENTIAL CONSUMER HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW!
Then if they choose to investigate further, this is highly encouraged!! Furthermore, I would like to see the Wikipedia moderators take a moment to add a link to sites that explain breed development, like the one that was written by the person that put this page up to begin with!! 
http://www.seppalasleddogs.com/evolbrd.htm
Tina M. Barber
http://shilohbuyersbeware.blogspot.com/
:*Let me see if I'm following this correctly -- one of you wants to exlude information about the ISSR from the article and the other would like to see it included?  Tina, I noticed the comments that you added in reference to the ISSR also cast a negative light on the other registries and the dogs produced by anyone not registered with the ISSR -- this appears to violate WP:NPOV and should be edited to be more neutral in tone.  However, I don't see any reason that the ISSR should be excluded and a neutral statement about the differences between it and the other registries could be noted.  Also, you might want to try putting in your signature by using ~~~~ -- it automatically signs your name and the time the comments were made.  If I'm not understanding the dispute correctly, can someone please clarify?  It would also be nice if we tried to focus on the content and not the other editors. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tina's reply 

message: Ms. Barber,
If you wish to bring closure to this discussion the answer is quite simple.  An unbiased article, with no POV, and the simple listing of what clubs & registries are avaialble. External links to be provided at the bottom to each club/registry location.
ISSDC participants have presented an unbiased/non-slanderous/nonPOV article for acceptance, yet it is being constantly changed without any discussion as to why.  This is not how mediation brings resolve.  Wording inserted such as "dissident/immitators/puppy millers" etc are unfounded and are delaying any resolution being reached.
Why you are even allowed to continue to participate in the discussion is honestly beyond comprehension after your actions taken against user Shiloh Lover, and your continued use of POV.  The arbitraiton committee and the appointed mediator should be noting this and be banning you from the Wikipedia community per Wiki policy.  At no time have you even attempted to answer the issue, although it has been raised multiple times by multiple users.
You continue to skirt questions, and rather than provide answers to validate your position you create a new question entirely.
It makes no difference to the ISSDC if you, or the ISSR users, wish to continue this discussion ad infinitum.  This has likely been very enlightening to many visitors, both ISSR and non-ISSR and luckily, this entire discussion will remain as public domain.  The information on the discussion page will shadow any information eventually agreed to on the Article itself.
You recently stated on the official Mediation page "I thought that the Wikipedia was about FACTS .. not POV foolishness!".  However, although you claim to know what Wikipedia is all about, you rarely follow it's governing rules.  During the last week+ of discussion you have made the following statements regarding this article:
Dec 7 - "In all honesty, they should not even be listed, unless just to warn the public regarding the various groups that *claim* to be "registries" that are selling their mutts as Shiloh Shepherds because the *name* is not trademarked at this time. Although I have been awarded "common law" rights to my name, as has been proven via court documentation!"
Dec 7 - "The puppy millers are only interested in making money by selling mutt puppies as *shiloh shepherds* and preventing me from exposing the truth!!"
Dec 9 - "On the contrary, the vandalism is being propagated by the "sliver" breeders, mostly "Shiloh Lover" aka cargodawg02 and posting from his WORK computer!" (User Tina M. Barber then states the users employer and threatens contact against Wiki policy - see "Comical" above or reference the breeders on personal forum who boasts about the attack)
Dec 10 - "THIS PAGE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS!! WITH LOTS OF DOCUMENTATION!! http://www.shilohshepherds.com/buyersBeware/shilohWallShame.htm"  Ahhh, the "Wall of Shame", sounds like a very official source being referenced.  Right there with Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks".
Dec 10 - "ALL OF THE VANDALISM OF POSTS PRESENTED BY HONEST PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST TRYING TO SHARE INFORMATION JUST PROVES WHAT THE SLIVERS ARE UP TO".  "Slivers", is that an official term, or just a derogatory one that the user created (along with other popular names like: "splinter" or the use of the term "oxymoron" although the user does not seem to know what the word means and just likes to see the term "moron" thrown around).
Dec 10 - "As I look at these pages it pains me to see the extreme's that some people choose to resort to in order to sell their mutt puppies!!".  Extremes like contacting employers, using the term puppy mills, creating labels such as "slivers"?  Those types of extremes?
Dec 11 - "If you call this making strides, then you must be blind or so brainwashed that you can't tell the difference between a horrible example of a mutt GSD/Husky mix, and a REAL Shiloh Shepherd"
Dec 13 - "Jeff put that page up for educational reasons, all you people have done is to keep editing it in order to sell your puppies".  And where did Jeff get his information about the Shiloh Shepherds?  Would it have been from you and the Wall of Shame?  The article is only as good as the source.  Additionally, did Jeff figure the use of the terms "dissidents" or "immitators" were valid?
Dec 14 - "I did contact the CERF org & was informed that our breed is not even listed there! Of course, some people like using "big sounding" initials to give them some sense of credibility ... however, I choose NOT to fool the public with such BS! Shiloh Shepherds do not need to have their eyes tested for "Collie eye".  With ISSR dogs even having been listed in the database wouldnt that appear in the GTF or in the ISSR database?  Odd.
Dec 14 - "I prefer not get into pis'n contests with skunks! I know who you are, and am aware of the game you are trying to play in order to sell your unpapered (or fake "home" papered) puppies, that's your problem, but I can assure you of ONE thing!!"
Dec 14 - "The ISSR people that have been reading this page are completely disgusted with what they have seen your friends posting! Your tirades only serve to reflect badly on all Shiloh Shepherd fanciers!! Why don't you keep your outbursts on your own forums, where some of your friends might agree with you! I highly doubt that any of the unbiased Wikipedia visitors, that may have read these pages, are impressed!" (that one was a personal favorite).  Reference above and below for "outbursts".
Dec 15 - "You may be able to fool some people with your silly acusations, but any real breeder can see right through your game!"
Dec 15 - "Those sites don't belong to me .. they belong to the hundreds of members of the SSDCA, Inc".  Really?  What percentage of the "hundreds of members" contribute to the articles that lie within those "community pages".  Possibly 3 or 4 out of "hundreds"?  So, really, less than 1%.  And of those that may contribute (eg Karen) they have already stated her that they are a supporter of you and therefore don't necessarily provide an unbiased opinion.  Obviously, anything posted or written on that site would be required to have your approval as SSDCA President.  Therefore, have a look at the Wiki policy on what is a "source".
Dec 15 - "yes, I have written most of those articles (not all) but that is because I know more about these dogs then anyone else!".  You fail to demonstrate that knowledge anywhere in these discussions.  What you have Tina is more POV about these dogs than anyone else, not more knowledge.
Dec 15 - And finally, the most summarizing statement you've made here to date: "I refuse to get into a major debate here".  Exactly, and therein lies the problem.  Debate Tina is how things are resolved in the world.  Point & counter point. With the hopeful outcome eventually being someone being able to substanciate their standpoint as being valid.
The basic definition of debate states "Debate is a formalized system of logical argument. Rules governing debate allow groups and individuals to discuss and decide issues and differences.".  The comments above do not support a debate process.
Rather than embrace debate, you attempt to hinder it.  Rather than counter a position you attempt to crush it (a la Shiloh Lover), or counter with a question rather than addressing the current position being made.
The above comments do no help this issue reach resolve, but only delay the proper processes.
And to Karen, with reference to the Puppy Mill comment, that appears to have been posted by your supporter "Sandra".
Shilohshepherd 20:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An option to end this once and for all.....  

message: Enough.  Both of you have been asked nicely a number of times to stop attacking each other.  Anything further will result in an immediate block. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this thing on?

message: Since Tina is concerned that the ISSR would be concidered just one of the many Registries I respectively submit this edit:
The Shiloh Shepherd Dog has been under development by breed founder Tina Barber of Shiloh Shepherds (Kennel) in New York state in a sustained effort over the last third of the 20th century. While the ISSR, formed and owned by Tina Barber, was the first Registry for the Shiloh Shepherd, as the breed achieved wider recognition and popularity near the turn of the millennium other Registries were formed .The breed now has multiple registries, including, The International Shiloh Shepherd Registry (ISSR), The Shiloh Shepherd Registry (TSSR), the National Shiloh Breeders Registry (NSBR), the Shiloh Shepherd Breed Association (SSBA). There are two Shiloh Shepherd Dog Clubs, the Shilohs Shepherd Dog Club of America (SSDCA) and the International Shiloh Shepherd Dog Club (ISSDC). For further information on all of the above Registries and Clubs please use the external links section of this article.
ShenandoahShilohs 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromised Edit 

message: Hello Jareth.  This pertains to your post of "Is this thing on?"  I do apologize if I crossed any forbidden lines.  You have not had to warn me before (I guess you were thinking of someone else), but I do take this warning seriously and try to be more careful of what I write.  Shilohshepherd 03:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jareth, my apologies 

message: JARETH WROTE;
 
<< 
Let me see if I'm following this correctly -- one of you wants to exlude information about the ISSR from the article and the other would like to see it included? Tina, I noticed the comments that you added in reference to the ISSR also cast a negative light on the other registries and the dogs produced by anyone not registered with the ISSR -- this appears to violate WP:NPOV and should be edited to be more neutral in tone. However, I don't see any reason that the ISSR should be excluded and a neutral statement about the differences between it and the other registries could be noted. Also, you might want to try putting in your signature by using Tina M. Barber 13:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISSR REPLY 

message: <personal information removed>
Jareth, this is not being argumentative or accusatory; it is merely stating facts as stated on their own websites.
Trillhill 18:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as a matter of fact, it is.  Please limit you discussions to the article.  This is not a forum to discuss editors. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSBR and TSSR 

message: You have stated that you need documentation from an unbiased independent source to validate data that is being presented/disputed on Wikipedia.
Please provide a clear definition for that statement since we have not easily been able to locate any other reference to this protocol on your website.
From reading this talk page it is very clear that Tina Barber (breed founder) is a very competent authority on the breed of dog she is developing.  After visiting the Shiloh Shepherd Learning Center (http://www.shilohshepherds.info) we were very impressed with the many educational articles she has written over the years and the documented validation that has been provided.  
The ISSR was started by Tina Barber as a legal incorporation and is operated by a legitimate independent data processing center (TCCP) that has been employed for over a decade to compile, validate and collate her breeder's books (from the mid 60's well into the 90's) as well as to maintain litter and individual data on every dog that qualifies to be called a Shiloh Shepherd as per the ISSR Rules and Regulations (http://www.shilohshepherds.info/issr.htm).  Exact registry reports clearly documenting every litter born can also be seen in the Learning Center.  
Why is this type of information not accepted as valid proof while others that claim to be registries for this breed are being accepted at their word only? 
The ISSR, Inc. has clearly shown that they can prove how many dogs have been registered as Shiloh Shepherds within their system.  The ISSR claims to have extensive data on over 4000 such dogs that have qualified, as well as access to over 45,000 ancestors documented within their Relationship Coefficient program as well as the capability to access additional ancestral data via the AKC, CKC and SV stud books.
If the multitudes of small privately owned registries would like to have equal billing on the Wikipedia, then may I request that they present exact proof of the data they have processed within each of their registries, without using/duplicating any dogs that are already in the AKC, CKC, ISSR stud books? I would like to see an accounting of the actual litters and progeny that each has recorded individually.  Since the owners of these registries have clearly been listing AKC German Shepherds as the breeding stock that they are using to register their puppies as Shiloh Shepherds, we feel that a public accounting is in order.
Every litter that was born within the ISSR between 1991 through 2004 is clearly listed on the Shiloh Shepherd Learning Center... http://www.shilohshepherds.info/littersandbreeders.htm
The Shiloh Shepherd (SSDCA) website has been on line since 1997; the Shiloh Shepherd Learning Center since 1998 and moved to its permanent home in 1999.    
A book about the development of the Shiloh Shepherd is currently being sold by Amazon. 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0977197816/qid=1134845461/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-2888807-5367859?n=507846&s=books&v=glance
65.37.31.237 19:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about sources can be found at WP:V, WP:CITE and finally WP:RS.  The concern with using the registries own websites as references is that the dispute is currently about those same registries.  Both have an opinion which they back up with pages on their site -- third-party references are necessary to support those opinions. For instance, I could put up a website claiming I had been registering Shiloh's for 7 years, had the only true genetic line etc -- would you just take my word for it, or would you want other sources to back up that claim? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: To help answer some of this, WP:RS covers the acceptable sources for citations in an article.  Personal publications, especially when they are those of someone involved in the dispute would not be acceptable and also probably violate WP:NPOV. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Material 

message: M Bush,
<comment about other editor removed>
I also have access to over 45,000 ancestors of the Shiloh Shepherds as these are AKC German Shepherds. If you compare one of my reports with one with the same number of generations as the ones printed by the TCCP, mine actually have more dogs. And as far as dogs that were born and registered with ISSR, http://www.shilohshepherds.info/littersandbreeders.htm, I believe most of the breedable dogs have left the ISSR, as this is one of the major complaints of Ms Shuele in an earlier post. Most of the breeders have left too, as per TB's own matrix.
Instead of asking for public accountings it may be more helpful to this article to keep to the subject as we've been asked to do by the mediator. Perhaps M Bush can show us how he/she would like the article to read and then explain to us why, as in keeping with Wiki's rules. Our compromise has been posted but I'm not sure what you do or don't specifically like about it.
Gloria 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: source material

message: <comments about other editors removed>
Jareth, this is not being argumentative or accusatory; it is merely stating facts as stated on their own websites.  
Trillhill 18:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this page is not for discussion of other editors, period. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NSBR - answer to Karen 

message: I have been employed at the same company for 30 years. A couple of years ago, I wrote a series of mammography technical tips that appear on my company's website.  The data was taken from original testing (research) that was done within my company's laboratories.
Does that mean that the tips are not from a verifiable source that could be quoted in Wikipedia? 
This despite the fact that they are used by FDA inspectors, customers, etc. when dealing with our mammo products? http://www.kodak.com/global/en/health/mammo/techTips/techTipArchive.jhtml?pq-path=5237
I was one of two editors (wrote/edited/evaluated data) for two other publications, originally published in 2002 and 2005.  Each book was over 100 pages in length; each went through several printings; one has been translated into Japanese and Chinese.  While both are currently out of print in the US, one is still available for download on Kodak's website and will be reprinted again in early 2006. 
Since they were written by two Kodak employees, published by Kodak about Kodak products based on Kodak testing, does that make the information presented any less reliable? Please let our customers, medicial physicists, the American College of Radiology, FDA and state inspectors know that this is so. All use these documents.  I have heard that even our competitors encourage their customers to read the books.  
Likewise, we have presented information about the Shiloh Shepherd, a breed created by Tina M. Barber, and verifiable data and documents on several  websites associated with her. Why should the information on these websites be any less acceptable?  Why should information from Tina about a dog that she created be less reliable than that from people who are actively opposed to her? 
Why would one go to another film manufacturer to learn about Kodak mammography film? Who can give you better information about it? The company who invented the product, tested it to see how it would react in all situations, or its competitors?  
Trillhill 03:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to discuss our policies on WP:NPOV and WP:RS, please go to the appropriate talk page of the policy you'd like to comment on.  And honestly, do you really believe that someone could not find reliable and probably a bit less POV information on Kodak elsewhere?  Our article on Kodak is well sourced, un-biased and a good example of an encyclopedia entry and yet it doesn't reference a single source from Kodak.  Its not that information from Kodak wouldn't be good, but if Kodak was producing documents that it created to try to change something in the article, and these documents didn't exist anywhere else, wouldn't that seem odd?  Its the same issue here -- two sides of an argument both produce their own websites as references -- neither Tina, nor her competitors websites would qualify in this case; third-party means that the reference in question has no relation to either side of the dispute.  Hope that helps clarify. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If we were disputing facts about the breed standards, genetics, lines, disqualifying faults etc. then yes, Tina's page would be the more logical place to look for verification.  This however, is not about the dogs themselves. Would I go to Kodak for information about their competitors or vice versa? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Material.... 

message: JARETH SAID
Its not that information from Kodak wouldn't be good, but if Kodak was producing documents that it created to try to change something in the article, and these documents didn't exist anywhere else, wouldn't that seem odd? Its the same issue here -- two sides of an argument both produce their own websites as references -- neither Tina, nor her competitors websites would qualify in this case; third-party means that the reference in question has no relation to either side of the dispute. Hope that helps clarify. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:46, 20 December 2005 
TINA REPLIES
First of all, we don't produce web sites to change anything!  The data that we have on the web consists of *factual* information about my dogs, and it's FULL of documentation taken from old Newsletters, and published articles that were presented in very acceptable magazines like the NASA NEWS, & the German Shepherd Quarterly!!  Much of that information was already published & read by thousands of people before any of the "newer" "registries" even knew what a Shiloh was!!! Some date as far back as 1978!!  Our club archives are loaded with them!
However, if you want unbiased data, then so be it ... although not much is available!!  After all, this is just a *type* of dog that I have been working on, like a painting .. and it's not even done yet!
1. However,  I did a major google search on the words "Shiloh Shepherd Dog" .. after checking over 100 sites (7 full pages worth) I clearly noticed that the pages all came back to our sites, or to breeders that belong to one of the clubs/registries.
2. The following links consist of all the "independent" sites I could find that were not put up by anyone associated with any of the "registries" that you deem as unreliable sources.
http://en.animals-online.info/dogs/sheepdogs/shiloh-shepherd/
http://www.caninecrib.com/dog/breeds/shilohdhepherddog/
http://www.propettransports.com/showbreed.php/139
http://www.rarebreed.com/breeds/shiloh/shiloh.html
http://www.dogsincanada.com/breeds/shiloh_shepherd.html
http://www.arba.org/ShilohShepherd1BS.htm
Please note, ever ARBA clearly states that they are using MY Breed Standard!!  If you would like to see copies of my official US copyright certificates, please advise.  Furthermore, please explain to me how anyone could be calling their dogs "Shiloh Shepherds" even when they do NOT have a breed standard (blueprint) that describes their "breed"??  It officially belongs to the ISSR .. and even ARBA says so!!
:I'm sure your website is a treasure trove of information on the breed and its traditions and history, but this dispute is about registries I believe -- that seems to be the information that keeps getting added/changed.  This doesn't excuse the text you keep adding in violation of WP:NPOV; you've been asked repeatedly to resolve your issues here and discontinue the constant re-insertion of disputed content.
:Lets try this angle.  Is there any documentation for how a breed registry is created?  For instance, can I form my own Rottwieler registry on a whim or is there a procedure to follow?  How does one become recognized as a parent registry?  Are there any requirements for being able to issue papers?  Is there any evidence to support the fact that the other registries were created because they didn't like the strict standards (if not, this fails WP:V)? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth or Fiction? 

message: Just as a point of reference, the most recent edit by User:Trevor.sawler of the article is a good start at a neutral point of view - this is what people should be striving for.  - Trysha (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trevor sawler's edit 

message: Jareth Said;
The concern with using the registries own websites as references is that the dispute is currently about those same registries. Both have an opinion which they back up with pages on their site -- third-party references are necessary to support those opinions. For instance, I could put up a website claiming I had been registering Shiloh's for 7 years, had the only true genetic line etc -- would you just take my word for it, or would you want other sources to back up that claim? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely understand your frustration and you obviously have every right to post your concerns on your website.  The issue here is that for statements to be included in Wikipedia, we must have a way of verifying them and they still need to be written in a neutral tone.  Since your website covers your position and the other registries have websites covering their position, it is very difficult for the average person to consider one more credible than the other.  That's why I suggested some kind of outside source, like a newspaper, court transcript, coverage in a magazine -- anything that could lend support and help resolve the dispute. I will try to do some research tonight and see if I can't find anything that would help.  .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility? 

message: Lets try this angle. Is there any documentation for how a breed registry is created? For instance, can I form my own Rottwieler registry on a whim or is there a procedure to follow? How does one become recognized as a parent registry? Are there any requirements for being able to issue papers? Is there any evidence to support the fact that the other registries were created because they didn't like the strict standards (if not, this fails WP:V)? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registries?? 

message: That's why I suggested some kind of outside source, like a newspaper, court transcript, coverage in a magazine -- anything that could lend support and help resolve the dispute. I will try to do some research tonight and see if I can't find anything that would help. .:.Jareth
I am glad that you want to find the answers .. maybe THIS will help .... http://www.shilohshepherds.com/letterToUKC.htm
It was a *real* letter to the UKC, stating our position regarding the "others" .... BTW .. "splinter" is a common term used among dog clubs!!!  If a 'splinter group' falls apart, those new groups are then called "slivers" ... slang, maybe, but a term that all 'dog' people are *very* familiar with!!
Tina M. Barber 22:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, definately third-party, but the court cases have no bearing on the registries that I can see. Dogbreeds.com does acknowledge the dispute, which appears to be exactly what we're having here.  So, the question again is, are any of the registries somehow accredited or acknowledged by an external organization? If none of them are, I'm not sure we can differentiate between them and we'll just have to list them. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research 

message: This information was taken from World Class Dogs ... not even in existence any longer!!  Will this work for "source" info??  http://web.archive.org/web/19990418095904/www.worldclassdogs.com/S.Breeds/ShilohShepherd/PlatinumKennels/Shiloh/ShilohShepherd.html  
Please note, this goes back to 1996!!
For more archived info (if you are doing some digging) what about these links?? 
2003
http://web.archive.org/web/20031210044359/www.shilohs.org/registry.htm
2004 changes
http://web.archive.org/web/20041015203229/www.shilohs.org/index.htm
2004, one month later
http://web.archive.org/web/20041114031628/http://www.shilohs.org/
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20020526212217/http://raidthewind.com/
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20020930030215/www.shilohshepherd.org/
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20020806212724/www.shilohshepherd.org/origins.html
 
http://web.archive.org/web/20010626005037/http://www.moonwillow.com/cjsvalleyview/
showing three years???
http://web.archive.org/web/19970629014454/http://www.pets4you.com/pages/packs.html
 
what happened to make me evil since Dec 2003?????
http://web.archive.org/web/20030409183005/pets4you.com/pages/packs5.html
 
I will be happy to give you lots more, but this gives you a bit of history .. from both sides!
Tina M. Barber 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm looking through these and probably missing their significance -- could you please explain what these links are showing?  Not trying to be difficult, sorry :( .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  old archives 

message: Ms. Barber said: "They are making claims about 'registering' these dogs ... yet if you actually researched their web sites, they are only using AKC dogs, and mixing them with what they claim to be Shilohs!!  Why??  It's just a money game!  If they can print off a paper that says the pup is a Shiloh, they get more money for that pup!"
Ms. Barber said: "Well, to start with, there are "recognized" registries, like the AKC, CKC, UKC, SV, UK and various other breed club registries recognized under the FCI."
Ms. Barber said: "Then there are the 'self' proclaimed "registries" that will issue a piece of paper to anyone that sends them some cash!  They are a BIG joke in the "official" dog world, and there is a lot of Internet verification regarding all of them!!"
Ms. Barber said: "I am sure that the TSSR, NSBR, SSBA, etc. have convinced themselves that they *are* registries, but I can also assure you that no other legitimate organization, like the UKC .. AKC .. FCI .. etc. would agree with them!! Just because someone says something (and it's not illegal) that does not *make* it so!!" 
Jareth: (see above) Ms. Barber has repeatedly and continuously made personal attacks about other registries and should be banned by you for doing so.  She should be subject to the same rules/restrictions to which the other contributors to this discussion have been held. Wiki has not allowed others to address Ms. Barber's questionable registry/club/breeding practices, so why is she being allowed to continue to do so? 
And, despite being the "first" registry, what independent, unbiased documentation has the ISSR provided to show that they are any "different" or more "recognized" than any other Shiloh registry, when it comes to accreditation by any outside organization. The fact of the matter is, the ISSR is no more "recognized" independently than any of the other Shiloh registries currently in operation.
Also, like the 'self' proclaimed registries Ms. Barber references, the ISSR also issues its own "pieces of paper" based on Ms. Barber's own determination and her registry charge for these "pieces of paper".  What Ms. Barber is claiming about other registries ("Just because someone says something [and it's not illegal] that does not *make* it so!!"), is true of her own, as she has repeatedly throughout this discussion failed to provide unbiased, independent corroboration (as you stipulated as a rule for the inclusion of information or contribution), that her organization should be give exclusive focus in this article, to the exclusion of other registries/clubs.
In addition, the article, as now changed again, with Ms. Barber's numerous links to her own registry's/club's website are again both self-promoting and an attempt to steer readers to her business and to hinder Wikipedia's policy of "neutrality" in its articles.  These links are not unbiased, factual, neutral information.  Readers wishing to pursue more information re: her club/registry have the link at the bottom of the article (along with the other registry/club links) they can access if they want to hear more from her.
At this stage, I think it is obvious that Ms. Barber has no intention of negotiating and compromising, in good faith and mutual respect, a "neutral", factual, independent, unbiased article. I commend you for your patience and efforts, thank you for your assistance and recommend this process move forward to the next step of arbitration. M.Dúfy
:I think at this point, Ms. Barber is doing a much better job of sticking to the dispute.  We have not had "puppymill" or other such references tossed about for a while, so lets try a bit of assuming good faith.  I know this is an emotional and frustrating dispute.  I would request again that none of the parties involved in the dispute add or remove information related to the dispute until such time as we have an agreement.  I will be posting an RfC on the article to invite outside views on the article. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To: Jareth

message: Patty said;
Wikipedia is basing its articles on verifiable source and neutral points of view which is a good thing.
They are trying to present only unbias facts, similar to what the Consumers Digest does. Most people do not believe every commercial on TV, or believe everything claimed on any companies web site as fact. Of course these companies are bias to what they are producing and only give the positives and thier point of view.
TINA REPLIES
If this is so, then why are all of the "other" "registries" being listed??
Please show me verifiable documentation that PROVES that these truly *are* "accredited" "registries"  and therefor should be recognized as such!
Without proper unbiased proof, they should NOT be listed as fact, because as per the Wiki, even their  existence should just be considered as a biased POV.
Tina M. Barber 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've asked before, what organization accredits registries?  If there is such an organization, we can edit the article to state which of the registries in question are accredited and which aren't. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Policy 

message: Ok, I'm looking through these and probably missing their significance -- could you please explain what these links are showing? Not trying to be difficult, sorry :( 
Those links consist of archived (old) web pages that clearly prove that the ISSR is the original *recognized* registry, via many sources, since 1991  They also clearly show that the "other" "registries" did not exist prior to 2002 (NSBR) and even the (TSSR has changed it's "structure" (rules/registrars/etc.) several times since it's inception in 2003. Even the (SSBA) is still under construction!!
If they are to be listed as legitimate representatives for this breed, shouldn't *their* history also be mentioned??  At this point, the "latest" *unbiased* page looks like we are ALL equal!!  :>(
Tina M. Barber 18:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We do state that your kennel initiated development of the breed and that ISSR was the first registry.  Since this page is an article on the breed and not on any one registry, discussion of any registries history would not be included unless it was significant to the history of the breed, such as being the first, or having registered the largest number of dogs etc. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: OK .. let's deal with some FACTS here ... I hope that we can all agree that the AKC would be a *reliable* source, right??  
http://www.akc.org/reg/fss_details.cfm
 
I am taking this quote from their web site .........
 
 
How Breeds Enter the FSS®
The American Kennel Club considers requests to enter FSS® from breed clubs or individual fanciers of a breed. Those wishing to pursue recording with FSS® must: 
Fill out a questionnaire for new breeds.
Provide a written breed history documenting the distinct breed over a period of many decades. The source of the historical information must also be provided.
Provide an official written breed standard, indicating the origin of that standard. If the standard differs from the official breed standard in the breed country of origin please specify those differences.
Provide photographs of the breed, including puppies and adults, as well as both dogs and bitches. If there are different accepted types in the breed, photographs of each should be included. 
The AKC only considers adding new breeds to the FSS® or its registry upon request. The breed must be recognized by an acceptable foreign or domestic registry.
The FSS® is not open to "rare" breeds that are a variation of an AKC-registrable breed or the result of a combination of two AKC-recognized breeds. This includes and is not limited to differences such as size (over & under), coat type, coat colors, and coat colors and/or types that are disqualifications from Conformation Events by AKC breed standards.
 
Please note;
 
THE BREED MUST BE RECOGNIZED BY AN ACCEPTABLE .......
 
I have inquired about this, and was told that  .... 
 
(A) the *registry* would have to prove no less then 3 generations of litter documentation on each dog entered.  this means that any dog "recognized" would have to show that his parents (1) grandparents (2) and great grand parents (3) came from litters that were documented via *THAT* registry!!  
In reality, since a dog has to be 2 years of age before being bred, this could NOT be accomplished in less then 8 years.  (if the dog was 2, the parents have to be 4, grandparents would by then be 6, and great grandparents would be 8 years old)  In other words, the "registry" would have had to be in existence since the late 90's in order to have this kind of documentation!!!  None of the ones being listed have been around for more then a few years, and they have not maintained dogs within ONE system ... for example; I can show proof of a dog that was ISSR registered, then later he went to the ISSDCR (no longer in existence) then he went to the SSBA, and then to the TSSR ... but it didn't stop there, I was told that NOW he is with the NSBR!  In other words, he has produced pups within a variety of "stud books" .. something the AKC highly frowns on! 
 
(B)The FSS® is not open to "rare" breeds that are a variation of an AKC-registrable breed or the result of a combination of two AKC-recognized breeds.
In other words, since the Shiloh originated from GSD's mixed with some Malamute, unless I can prove that there has been enough continuity in the program to assure them that we are not *just* a *mix* they won't consider our dogs for entry into the FSS ... therefor they do NOT recognize us as a *breed*!! I have a copy of an official letter from the FSS that clearly states that we are just considered as a VARIENT of the GSD, and therefor will *NOT* qualify for entry!
 
Of course I could challenge that stand, proving that we have NOT used AKC dogs in our program for over a decade (well past the 3 generation requirements) but that won't do me ANY good if the other "registries" are "recognized" via the Wiki,  because they HAVE been breeding to AKC dogs, and there are a LOT of (unbiased) web site pages that can prove this!! 
 
Even your Wiki article clearly states that a *real* breed club has only ONE goal ... to promote their chosen breed, and eventually gain FULL recognition!!
That is what the SSDCA, Inc. has been working towards for the past 15 years!!  The ISSR, Inc. has continued to maintain an intense database on every dog born within our system .. this now exceeds 4,000 such dogs (that were not born into the AKC - or any other *registry* - but ONLY recorded within the ISSR!  The "others" will issue a paper for any dog that wants it ... hardly the *same* thing :>(
Tina M. Barber 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But the AKC is just another registry, isn't it?  While they're large, organized and have a wonderful history, they certainly aren't the only registry, just a well-known and popular one.  I also don't think that breed recognition only means acceptance by the AKC, especially for clubs outside of the US.  I would also hope the AKC competant enough to research a breed lobbying for inclusion using something other than Wikipedia as its only resource.  So I guess in all, I'm not sure whether or not the AKC recognizes a breed makes any other registry more or less of a registry. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a *breed* anyway?? 

message: JARETH SAID
But the AKC is just another registry, isn't it? While they're large, organized and have a wonderful history, they certainly aren't the only registry, just a well-known and popular one. I also don't think that breed recognition only means acceptance by the AKC, especially for clubs outside of the US. I would also hope the AKC competant enough to research a breed lobbying for inclusion using something other than Wikipedia as its only resource. So I guess in all, I'm not sure whether or not the AKC recognizes a breed makes any other registry more or less of a registry. .:.Jareth.:. 
TINA REPLIES
The AKC is the *only* registry in the USA recognized by the FCI, in Canada they recognize the CKC, for a complete listing of "registries" that are recognized  the Federation Cynologique International, please click on  http://www.fci.be/  For more details, please visit
 http://realgsd.info/GSDinfo/Papers/SV/dogorg.htm
I know ... your going to say ... well, that's just one POV .. so lets look at a few more, unbiased sites that offer "registry" information http://www.doginfomat.com/dog10.htm#natl
In a nut shell http://www.gopetsamerica.com/dog/registries.aspx
Yes, I agree ... there are "lots" of "registries" out there, but this is my FAVORITE one!!! ;-)
http://www.wonderpuppy.net/ckci/
If you want serious data, please go to http://www.wonderpuppy.net/kc.htm
However, you realy *should* click on http://canadasguidetodogs.com/breedregistries.htm This site has the most comprehensive (researched) information about ALL of them!!  This site also has an entire page devoted to "breeds under development" and THAT is where they list the Shiloh Shepherd, along with info on *all* of the "registries" etc. http://canadasguidetodogs.com/newbreeds.htm
Tina M. Barber 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the FCI recognizes neither Canada nor the US as a member country and doesn't even recognize the GSD.  Many other national clubs are affiliated with them though -- even still, they are not a governing body or registrar. And again, while this is fantastic information about registries (I especially liked the wonderpuppy link), this doesn't really have anything to say about the specific registries in question.  Please look at the proposal by M. Dùfy above and give your thoughts on it.  .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Registries?