User talk:Lookoo

Battle of Washita River-related user conduct RfCs

As you're an editor who has had interest in the article Battle of Washita River (which has been under full protection for over a month now due to edit warring and ongoing disputes), I want to inform you of the two related user-conduct Requests for Comment that have now been certified:

Best wishes. --Yksin 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a related article RfC has been initiated at Talk:Battle of Washita River#Request for comment. We could really use statements from people who have been involved with the article. Thanks. --Yksin 02:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you

Good to see you again on Talk:Battle of Washita River. I didn't get involved with all the @(*#@ until after your last edit there, but I always hoped you'd come back, esp. as your edits show knowledgeability about the Cheyenne. Best wishes. --Yksin 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I hope you've still got those books & have time to help improve the article. It helps a lot to have several people who are knowledgeable about the events active in working on the article. Custerwest seems to have given up (no edits since August 1 anyway), & won't be able to overrule the consensus we've been building even if he reappears, but at the moment the only person who really knows the material is me, based on my having read like crazy since end of June -- before then I knew very little. Murderbike has read some of Hoig, but he seems to be enveloped in real-life concerns at the moment.

Please consider also weighing in on Custerwest's & HanzoHattori's RfCs (links above). Thanks! --Yksin 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Black Kettle, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 03:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]