User talk:Chrisrus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here rather than on your talk page, unless you indicate otherwise. Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there.


Beyond Taxonomy[edit]

Taxonomy is in there with the Dewey Decimal System and so on. It's just a system for knowing where to put things on shelves. Or drawers or a certain corner of the museum basement or display case or whatever in the case of taxonomic specimens. Each book in the library and each jar or box or photograph or description gets a sticker or some label with an identification code on it. It's absolutely indispensable to have such a system of putting names on things, but when you do, you put a distinct dividing line between things, but that's not real, in nature, because going back down branches on the tree of life there must always have been at least for a geological moment a creature that was part thing one and part thing two. Each taxon on Wikipedia gets an article and rightly so. But articles too are boxes and many problems are caused by looking at living things and talking about living things as if there couldn't be found tomorrow a specimen that is neither here nor there. Cladistics is a great article, and everyone should as early in life as possible walk through the forth floor of the American Museum of Natural History, where:

"...On the 77th street side of the Museum the visitor begins in the Orientation Center and follows a carefully marked path, which takes the visitor along an evolutionary tree of life. As the tree "branches" the visitor is presented with the familial relationships among vertebrates. This evolutionary pathway is known as a cladogram..." Chrisrus (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi. I have read your comment you left on my talk page and the article "Nureongi" you created. I believe the article is a fine contribution to discussions on Korean culture and dog breeds. I have made some edition of my own to the article; Please revise anything if it is problematic. I've also noticed that the user Melonbarmonster2 has been messing with the article. This user has been reverting my edits on other articles too, without any reliable sources. I will make efforts to stop this user's disruptive behavior and make some contributions to the "Nureongi" article. Hkwon (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Chrisrus![edit]

Hello Chrisrus! I'm a recently new user and need assistance in creating articles. I am a member in the Wikiproject Cats. Help me at Wikipedia, please! I have a nice userpage. I welcome you there! Regards,--Sainsf<^> (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have a specific question, I could try to point you in the right direction. Chrisrus (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Noam Chomsky[edit]

All right, I see what you're getting at with the section heading. But there's a problem here, because the kind of criticisms that the GS people leveled at Chomsky were technical in nature, whereas the kinds of criticism that people like me, Shalom Lappin and David Johnson, Geoff Pullum, Gerald Gazdar, Paul Postal and others direct at his work is based rather on its intellectual shoddiness and dishonesty. Let me give you a clear example of the contrast involved:

(i) back in the day, Chomsky argued that generative semantics' 'global rule' mechanism permitted an explosive growth in the number of possible grammars for natural language, and was thus inferior to the strictly boolean conditions on analyzablility that he assumed for constraints on derivations via transformations. But as Postal and others noted, the use of persistent features in syntactic derivations made a hash of this claim, because you could use strictly boolean conditions on analyzability and still implement the effect of a global rule, simply by introducing a dummy feature at one stage of the derivation which would then be carried through later stages, eventually triggering some transformational operation in a purely local fashion which nonetheless reflected a configurational state of affairs from much earlier in the derivation---exactly the kind of thing that global rules did, but in a much more transparent way. That was a technical critique, pure and simple---that a claim of Chomsky's about formal restrictiveness was just so much hot air, because his own approach incorporated ways of effecting precisely the kind of effect that he was criticizing in GS. No one claimed that this was intellectually dishonest---a bit thick on NC's part, maybe; but that sort of argumentation ('What X fails to notice is that by her own assumptions, it is possible to show that Y necessarily follows, which she criticizes me for advocating'---the usual story) is a part of every academic's arsenal.

So, Chomsky said something that you and others claim was wrong. It was a technical critique that can be summarized by saying that Chomsky's assumptions, something follows that Chomsky criticizes others for advocating. Is this correct? Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(ii) In his 1982 book, Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Chomsky pisses all over Elisabet Engdahl's brilliant discussion of parasitic gaps, which she argued had to be treated as a special case of extraction, unrelated to any other phenomenon in the theory of transformations. He announced that poor old EE had got it all wrong, and that on the basis of certain assumptions (what was then called the functional determination of empty categories), you could show that certain components of the then new Government and Binding framework predicted exactly the parasitic gap phenomenon. Except... it turned out that the functional determination of empty category was an untenable idea, shown to be so by people in Chomsky's own inner circle (well, the outer part of the inner circle){who?}}. And guess what? In Chomsky's next monograph, Barriers, published in 1986, Chomsky gets parasitic gaps by a mechanism called Chain Composion, which has to be treated as a special condition on extraction, unrelated to any other phenomenon in the theory of transformations. Oops. ... but never a word, anywhere, in anything he wrote then or subsequently, that Engdahl had been right and he had been wrong. The contortions that MIT syntacticians went through after that to get parasitic gaps to 'fall out' of general principles look like something from the Peking acrobats---and they *still* haven't gotten a good story. And yet at no time did Chomsky ever say that his sneering, condescending cracks about Engdahl in Concepts and Consequences were out of line, that he was wrong in attacking her on the basis of his own failed model of single filler/multiple gap phenomena. On the contrary, he has repeatedly maintained that he was always right, and important rival grammarians always wrong, or, at best, on the right track but missing the crucial point. His worst sins in this respect might be his abusive treatment of Haj Ross, a far greater syntactician than Chomsky, whose case Postal and I discussed at length in our paper; but there are many, many others of the same sort.

So, Chomsky said that Engdahl was wrong about something called "parasitic gaps" in a way that embarrassed her; hurt her reputation. Then, later on, he claimed to have found a phenomenon called chain composition to be true. But there is no important difference between parasitic gaps and chain composition, they are the same thing. So he didn't give her credit for this idea and didn't apologize for hurting her reputation. He claimed her idea as his own, which is sort of stealing and lying, and he never said he was sorry about defaming her idea. But there is no disagreement now about whether the parasitic gaps/chain composition idea is true. Is that correct?

(i) and (ii) are not the same sort of thing at all. It's very important that the reader who isn't part of the technical linguistic world, but who wants to understand Chomsky's intellectual offenses in this domain, understand clearly that cases such as (i) can happen to the very best of us. Cases such as (ii) on the other hand point to a flawed intellectual character, someone who lacks the integrity to acknowledge that he was wrong, and in effect calls other people names instead of answering their quite reasonable challenges, or attempts to deny them credit for their own work (as in the case of Engdahl, whose work on parasitic gaps was conducted at least as early as Taraldsen's---a fact that Taraldsen has never disputed---but which Chomsky has always explicitly referred to as coming *after* Taraldsen's, with the implication that it was really derivative. This last bit is regarded by many distinguished people in the field as fulfilling all of the necessary semantic requirements to qualify for the description "out and out lie".

So, on the one hand, i) Chomsky was wrong about something according to you and others, and he's still wrong about that. On the other hand, ii) Chomsky was wrong and then right about something, but instead of admitting he'd been wrong, claimed that he'd thought it up and acted like a jerk about it, making many angry at him. Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is just that the 'early GS criticism' section you want---which someone else is going to have to write---is going to be fundamentally different in nature from the later criticism. Everyone gets something wrong, everyone has someone who disagrees with him or her... that's just the way science is done. People were working out a lot of stuff they didn't really understand very well, on both sides of the GS/IS line. Many of the necessary technical tools to get a handle on the issues, e.g., model-theoretic semantics or typed data structures, hadn't come into existence yet, or weren't accessible outside very small circles of mathematical logicians and theoretical computer scientists. So the stuff under (i) isn't really what gets people worked up about Chomsky; that was really just a matter of it being early days in theoretical linguistics. It's the stuff under (ii) which makes people see red, and with good reason. People in the latter group who bring up Chomsky's unacknowledged adoption of many GS ideas---ideas he treated as transparently undesirable in the 1970s---did *not* necessarily endorse the GS position at any time, and currently *no one* does. What they do, rather, is note that Chomsky in effect took over many GS mechanisms and assumptions without ever once acknowledging that he was originally contemptuously dismissive of those very ideas. You can think (as I do and always did) that Generative Semantics was a crock, and still level the latter charge.

So, we should have one section called early "General Semantics", which explains that, while it is a discredited notion, it did have some ideas that were worked into the current understanding. Then we have another section where any criticism published by you and others about how he 1. took other people's ideas 2. didn't give people credit for these ideas 3. loudly said someone was totally wrong and then quietly said the same thing himself later without apologizing or admitting that she had been right. Can we cite all this?

Rdlevine (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Bob Levine

I was hoping someone like you might come along. Please if you could just help us have a section on the Early General Semantics section and then another about later critiques. Nothing should be original to the article, it must be summaries or overviews of each type of notable critiques made by famous people and published soemwhere. We don't want battling experts having it out on the page, we just need to report what the battle elsewhere is. Thanks for your help! Chrisrus (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus---OK, I can do something like that, but it'll take me a bit of time. The early criticism of Chomsky during the Linguistic War era involves a certain amount of excavation---a lot of issues that were live then have the same status now as arguments between the early Celtic and Roman churches about what the tonsures of monks should look like! There *is* good work out there---Fritz Newmeyer and Randy Harris have of course done a lot of the spadework (although Fritz' position is a bit partisan: originally a committed GSist, he had an epiphany at one point that led him to adopt a very uncompromising 'Principles and Parameters' view for a long time and much of his writing on the history of linguistics was done from that perspective---which he no longer holds, interestingly; the Parameters part of Principles and Parameters has never been able to be gotten to work, and Fritz has been one of the chief whistle-blowers on this particular point; he has a really outstanding book on the subject that came out a few years ago from Oxford. But his classic histories definitely had an agenda, which Harris, a very well-informed outsider, doesn't). There's also some excellent, very technical material by Geoff Pullum on the origins of transformational theory which bear on this question. So it'll be a bit of a project... but if you do think an entry covering the published work on that era would be useful, then yes, I can assemble the various perspectives and contributions that have been made along the lines you ask for. And I'll try to keep it concise... it just will take a bit of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdlevine (talkcontribs) 04:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!Chrisrus (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If, in the meantime, there are sections in which you can perceive that someone has been unfairly maligned in the section, we should remove it right away or fix it right away as it might be the sort of thing that the guidelines of "biographies of living people" are in place for: liable or slander against a person in a position to be harmed by those words. I'm sorry for reverting your edit, but I was just trying to get someone to do it right. Should I go re-instate them, or is there any chance you'll be teasing out one critique from the others anytime soon? I just worry that if I reinstate those edits, it'll just lie there un-dis-conflated and the problem won't be solved in any long term way. Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Koko bibliography[edit]

Nice job putting the bibliography together. The next step would be to sort and format the sources into the appropriate subsections, and see how many of these we can find online--and if we can--add URL's. Of course, we may have to rely on JSTOR and other archives. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: What does "native Hawaiian" mean?[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Perro de Presa Canario[edit]

Hey there, I see you readded some links and removed the box from the pressa article, I don't know if you have read wikipedias policy on external links, but briefly links to be included include:

  1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Cluttering up the article with a link farm at the end is not really the way to go. If you want to improve the article then using websites as sources is a great way to go. Have a look at some of the better dog articles on wikipedia (Beagle, German Shepherd Dog) and their external links. Anyway hope you have a read of Wikipedia:External links. I'm going to change it back, I'm kinda hoping to avoid an edit war though. let me know if you have any questions, Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You, Mr. Bungle, did not leave the links as in Beagle the first time, as a look at the history of the page proves. You left it blank at first, and then left it with one or two of the links but not equally valid links, giving faulty reasons, such as "wikipedia isn't just a collection of links" as if that's what the article was when it obviously wasn't. The way it is now has my approval, not the way you had been doing it. You should be here thanking me that I didn't let you do it wrong but forced you to do it right, not lecturing me with a bunch of irrelevant stuff. You didn't want it the way it is, you didn't want them at all or just this one or that one and didn't explain why this one and not that one, etc. You really made me angry and continue to do so. You should just apologize for not doing it right at first and thank me for making you do it right or just don't say anything and go forth having learned your lesson. Don't come to my talk page and lecure me as if I'd been the one doing something wrong.Chrisrus (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You are right, I did not want any external links, they are not needed. I initially trimmed them down and actually edited the article to cite the others. After all of them kept getting reinserted I left a couple in as they were not in the references and it seemed they were to reasonable sites. You could have discussed that they were "not equally valid links" on the talk page but did not, which is surprising as most of your edits to the encyclopedia are to talk pages. The most important thing is we are here to build an encyclopedia. Some of your comments, i.e.“If it's good enough for the references, must be good enough for the links”, “There is no reason to delete these contents, who want to read them should be free to do that”, made me think you had not been told about some of the rules. I did not mean to sound as though I was lecturing you, just trying to point you in the direction of the relevant policies. Wikipedia is not a big deal, it is not that important that you need to get angry about it, just relax, and good luck with editing in the future. Hopefully this is the last of this issue. Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Koko speech abilities[edit]

Hey there.

If you can convince me that your argument does not have a basis in anti-evolution it'll be easier to convince me that you're not being biased and Koko doesn't have speech abilities.

Because I have to tell you, I watched a lot of video of Koko and it seemed to me that she was speaking, and I think there are scientific journals which back her speaking abilities up.

I think we're both trying to improve the article.

If this goes back and forth for too long though, I think we should seek a third opinion. Philosophr (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it would take to assure you that my arguement does nto have a basis in anti-evolution, but I can assure you that it does not. Instead, it has a basis in evidence and reason.
You say you have seen videos in which it seemed to you that she was speaking. Yet nothing I have seen seemed that way to me. This is indeed interesting, and I would ask you to be more specific, but hesitate to, as I would recommend having a more critical look again at that tape and be sure you still feel that way before continuing.
I do assume good faith on your part. I would welcome any "third party" or other attention that you can bring to this matter. This issue brings a number of interesting issues to the fore. Chrisrus (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Catch dog[edit]

The article's going to have to improve quickly, or the deletionists will get it. The fundamental problem with it lies in the fact that it is almost entirely composed of WP:OR - so find some secondary sources quick while I hold them off! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

How's that? There was no particular reason that these websites were chosen; they just were the first bunch I found that use the term in context. All I want to prove is that this is in fact a word or term and that this is what it means. I've cited the dictionary and pointed out a bunch of sites that use the term in context and describe it. I don't understand why it would be deleted. Is it taking up space on the server or something? By the way, I reserched it, yes, but I didn't find out about it by checking research done by me. I don't do any "original research".Chrisrus (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
See? I told you! The article is filling up nicely.


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Koppas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Koppas (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


What do you mean? Biased towards one species? Not at all! But look at the version I undid. By all means reinstate the few parts of it that are no longer in the current version, but please first sort out the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If you see any typos or such, please feel free to either fix them or leave the article alone, as I or someone else will be along eventually to fix them. I appreciate your help but don't agree that I have to have everything letter perfect before doing things which improve the article. Chrisrus (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So far there are two editors who disagree with your idea of have an umbrella article for all animals coined mole. This is the time to stop reverting and start using the talk page. It was the main reason i tried to sort out the talk page as it was clear it was about to become needed to solve the dispute. Reverting to your preferred version is not going to help your argument and you will never win that kind oif dispute if you are the only one that favors that particular version. A well thought out rationale could well win the day though. David D. (Talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but thank you for the encouraging words. Chrisrus (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you know why are you still reverting? Just be careful because the more you go down that track the more you poison the well. David D. (Talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
So people can see what we're talking about. If we want to see how the article was, we can look at Talpidae, which is still mostly the old version of the article Mole (animal) which they keep reverting back to. Chrisrus (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and try to nudge things along. David D. (Talk) 03:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't feel I have enough background to make a call on this. If I had to make a call given the arguments thus far though, it would be on your side. LilHelpa (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at Mantis does this article not come down on your side?? See also List of mantis genera and species where it is stated that: "The insect Order Mantodea consists of approximately 2,000 species, of which a majority are in the Family Mantidae. Until recently, only this single family was recognized within the order." 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this! It's interesting. I haven't been able to figure it out for sure just yet, but at the moment, it appears that, whereas before the zoological term "mantid" was a full synonym for the English word "mantis", as in "praying mantis", now some mantises have been removed from the "mantid" group and set alongside them in two other groups. Chrisrus (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrew mole vs shrew-mole vs. mole-shrew vs. mole-shrew[edit]

Yes, very confusing! Happy to help out though. I have moved "shrew-mole" to shrew-mole (Neurotrichus) as you suggested and redirected "shrew-mole" to the disambiguation page at Shrew mole. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that generic names such as 'shrew mole' and 'mole shrew' (and variants of these) direct the reader to the disambiguation page at Shrew mole from where the reader is led to the article they want to read. For readers who go directly to an article, such as Aberdare Mole Shrew, we can add a hatnote at the top of the page to direct them to the disambiguation page. This would sort out the navigation issues, I think. It looks as though it is almost there. There are some double redirects to take care off but I'll look at these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
I like your idea, but here's what I was thinking:
One disambig for shrew mole, one for mole-shrew, with links to each other and some text about the other one on each. The text would say: "X" is often confused with "Y". One is a Y named after its similarity to X, and the other is an X named after its similarity to Y". As briefly an clearly as we can.
That way, if someone got the search right, he'd be able to choose the one he wants easily without so many species on the page, but if he got it reversed, he wouldn't find the one he wants on the page but rather an understanding of his mistake and a link to the disambig he or she really wants. Whew! Thanks for your help! Chrisrus (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Vultures and Whales[edit]

I think your suggestion on Vultures was correct. If you look at the original articles, the content was like this:

Vultures: Mainly information about Old World Vultures, with a bit about New World Vultures thrown in.

Old World Vultures: A brief article on Old World Vultures, lacking in detail.

New World Vultures: A detailed article on New World Vultures.

It is quite obvious that the article on Vultures (despite its title) was really an article about Old World Vultures.

The problem seems to have been caused by a strange skewing of people's mental maps. Despite the use of the term "vulture" for both groups of birds, there is, I suggest, an unconscious assumption that Old World Vultures are somehow "true" vultures. New World Vultures, on the other hand, got their own article because they were somehow a special class of their own, separate from "true" or "historic" vultures.

All I needed to do was move the material on Old World Vultures into that article and it largely fell into place. There are still a few messy edges. In particular, the article on Vultures has been gutted and either needs to be rewritten or reduced to a disambiguation page.

I find the definition of whales hard to understand, especially the interpolated explanation of dolphins as "members, in other words, of the families Delphinidae or Platanistoidae". However, I can see the problem. I personally would phrase it something like:

"Whales are large marine mammals belonging the order Cetacea. Two families of toothed whales -- the Delphinidae, conventionally called "dolphins", and Phocoenidae, conventionally called "porpoises" -- and the superfamily Platanistoidae (conventionally called "river dolphins") are excluded from the whales in normal usage. Several genera of what are technically dolphins are also conventionally called whales, namely the killer whales (genus Orca) and pilot whales (Globicephala)."

It's still a bit rough around the edges, but that is how I would approach it.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just done some work on Vultures and talk. Please have a look, and thank you for doing the work. I also included something about listing genea, up towards the middle of the discussions.
With regard to whales, don't you think we should mention some of the morphological details, like the dictionary entries I listed? You know, blowholes, broad heads, horizontal tails,..." These could distinguishe them from some early extinct large cetaceans. Chrisrus (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think some morphological details should be included in the introductory paragraph. What I wrote above was merely to convey the idea that certain groups of "toothless whales" are not called whales; similarly for river dolphins. If information can be added that will flesh out the depiction of whales it should be added. Much of this is already found at the article on Cetaceans, but could be repeated or adapted for use here.
As for the Quails, I believe that one reason the situation is less confusing there because people haven't allowed the shared name "quail" to muddy the waters so much. It would be possible to have an article on quails in general, but in the end you would just get a vague "quails refer to several unrelated families of small, squat birds that live in the grass". No doubt convergent evolution is at work here, too, but perhaps it's not as striking or remarkable as that of the vultures, so nobody has felt impelled to see a conspiracy in nature to come up with a pre-ordained category of "plump grass-dwelling birds". As opposed to vultures, which are "large carnivorous birds that fly around looking for carcases" :)
To state my thoughts on this, my feeling is that there are two factors at work in confusing cases like this. One is the "convergent evolution" view. That is, there are certain intrinsic, pre-ordained niches that need to be filled. The result is that nature "conspires" to come up with creatures that fill that niche, and they are inevitably quite similar. If specific ecological terrain didn't already have vultures or moles or quails, nature would have to invent 'em.
The second is human language itself. Due to historical circumstances, when people move to new places, they use old names for new animals that resemble animals where they came from. So we get New World Vultures, New World Quails, etc. That causes confusion, because when people write encyclopaedia articles they tend to regard the common names ("vulture", "quail", etc.) as a kind of naturally occurring category. If the people who went to the Americas had adopted a native name for the New World Vultures (for instance, using the term "condor" for all the New World vultures), encyclopaedia articles would not have to spend so much time explaining to readers that "although the name is the same, they are actually quite different families". Articles could get by with a simple statement that "Condors in the New World fill a similar niche to Vultures in the Old due to convergent evolution". (That is the case with "sugar gliders" and "flying squirrels", etc. Because they haven't been given a common name, nobody has felt impelled to write an article uniting the two, despite convergent evolution. If the flying squirrels of Europe had been given a name like, say, "flirrels", I'm sure the sugar gliders would have ended up being called "native flirrels", and Wikipedia would have an article on the different kind of "Flirrels", with long disclaimers to the effect that "although these animals are remarkably similar and share the same name, they actually belong to completely different families" :) )
Incidentally, I think the plural of "genus" is "genera".
Bathrobe (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. You seem to understand these things quite well, you can see the problem and what options there are in different cases. The way I see it, the choices are these:
1. A disambiguation page with links to the appropriate taxologically based articles.
2. An enhanced disambiguation page, with an explanation of the problem and then the internal links.
3. A full umbrella article with disambiguation links.

This should be based on how much there turns out to be to say about the referent of the common word. In a case like mole, there could be quite a bit to say. I don't know much about Quail, but so far it doesn't seem to me to be nearly as clearly defined a referent for that word. I mean, what could you say about quails that you can't say about ptarmigans or praire chickens? I could be wrong about that, though.

At this point, I see some more work, possibly to finish what you started at Vulture. I'm working on mole a tiny bit at a time as I've got to tread lightly there for complicated reasons. I'm closer to finished with Talpidae, which I'm pretty proud of in view of the fact that it was originally the same as the article mole, although I lost as many conflicts as I won in those debates. I'm very interested in what you would recommend with quail, and actually kind or hope you'll lead the way there if you see anything that would help. I'm pretty much finished with shrew mole/shrew-mole vs. mole shrew/mole shrew. Whew! That was a mess and I'm pretty proud of it.

I think there must be many more cases out there, and I find myself in the position of wanting to nomify these cases. Cases of what? Something along the lines of "non-taxo-parallel-bio-referants". I see this as a potentially large project that I haven't seen anyone else working on apart from you, who clearly seems to "get it".

Actually, I think the three quail articles are largely satisfactory the way they are, precisely because no attempt has been made to mix the three together. Anyone interested in Californian quails, say, who came to the article on quails would quickly click through to the New World quails (with an exclamation of "Oh, they're actually different critters! That's interesting") to find what they were looking for. I think that's the ideal situation -- gently helping enlighten people to differences they didn't realise existed.
Bathrobe (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in this one: Mistletoe.
Bathrobe (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm still in love with this one. So long as I have the article Mistletoe, no one can say that no article can be written about a thing as a gestalt of features rather than genetic relation. This article is quite precious to me, and I thank you for having pointed it out. Now, what do we do with mongoose?

My molosser edits[edit]

You may certainly put the Boston Terrier back into molosser, it indeed appears I made an error. Sincerest apologies! Thanks, --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphins are Whales[edit]

Hello. I saw your comments regarding the rather idiotic and opinionated first paragraph regarding the entry on Whales. And I totally agree with you. I found a few sites that will indeed show that Dolphins, Porpoises, Killer Whales, Pilot Whales, etc, are indeed whales. Here's another one I might have missed. I hope this and the one I left on the discussion page is helpful. PatrickLMT (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Malagasy Mongoose; actual mongoose or mistake? Malagasy Carnivore

Common People[edit]

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I've replied on Talk:Common People. I notice we also had a conversation there some time ago, about the references and what I perceived as a possible NPOV problem: I agree we need to think globally, but don't feel emphasising the cultural significance of the Pulp version in the UK is excessively parochial or outdated. I think more citations of specific reliable sources, maybe using a {{cite}} template would still help. --Cedderstk 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

species in philosophy of biology[edit]

Hi - saw your message on Philosophy of Biology. I agree that that section is not well-developed. See CHE (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for responding and for this link to this paper, which is interesting. Have you seen the list on my user page? What is the significance of this? Old world and new world porcupines are not related beyond being rodents, but it everyone seems to be ok with that. But when I try to include the Malagasy Mongooses, traditionally thought of as mongooses, in the article mongoose, I meet opposition. Why stop at the species level? Did you know that seem to want there to be one articles about whales, and another about dolphins, simply because there is no clear line between the beaked whales? What's the problem with ambiguity? The existence of shrew-moles and mole-shrews does not threaten the existences of moles and shrews, at least to my mind.
What some seem to fear is the fact that, if you take away the taxonomic definition, you are faced with the often difficult chore of actually saying out loud what it is that makes a mongoose a mongoose or a porcupine a porcupine or what makes us call this a whale and that a dolphin or when a beaked whale is an intermediate form. It comes down to shape, mostly, and would have to be defined mathematically, and I don't think that anyone has done that yet, or at least not in a way that it can be sited. If you ask a child to draw a whale, it'll probably be a rough approximation of a sperm whale. How do you write in words what that is? Words that have referents need articles, but it's easier said than done when current taxonomy doesn't match up with the referent of a long established concept and word. Chrisrus (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mother Teresa[edit]

I left a note on the talk page explaining why I removed the cat. Please reply why you disagree and reverted. Thanks. -SpacemanSpiff 02:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, sorry for the hasty message, I've just been cleaning up a lot of India related cats recently and get reverted quite often for no reason. -SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't see that you had explained. I have undone the undo. Chrisrus (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)



WikiProject Zoroastrianism

We invite you to join WikiProject Zoroastrianism. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Zoroastrianism related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the other participants or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other members.

Sorry, I just got involved to the extent of that had to do with the extent to which it is true to say that the famous singer Freddy Mercury was a Zoroastrain. I mean, there seemed to be a gray area around the concept, as we don't know if he actually went practiced the religion or believed in it. But on the other hand, in places like India, I understand that it's become an ethicitiy, something about one's self that you can't change no matter what you do or not do. So the only thing I think I can do for the project is to ask that this matter be clarified in the article(s) in such a way that a person like me, who comes to the article with little or no knowledge about your religion/ethnicity can understand. Chrisrus (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Koko anecdote[edit]

No, sorry. That edit was nearly 2 years ago and I dont remember where I got it from! Fig (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


In the off-chance that you missed my participation, I replied to your comment on the Lesbian talk page before you removed the sentence.

I need you to engage in a fruitful discussion with sound reasoning so we can reconcile these issues. You have participated in the talk page for about a year. I give more weight to your comments than first-time commentators on the talk page, who, I suspect, are putting up drive-by objections to material that they do not fully understand, have not fully read, and are motivated more by morals than intellect. I do not believe deleting the sentence was the right way to go about this, but I need you to explain your point, please. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I learned alot from this, to my mind, excellent article, but it has since become stagent. As a suggestion as to a way forward, I'd recommend dealing with matters that people like me (or at least like I had been, I've since read the article) who know little or nothing about the subject and are afraid to ask. For example, one thing I'd noticed was the correlation between lesbianism and sports. Could it be that there is some common cause for both phenomena being so hightly statistically coorelated? No where is the roles for one's hormones mentioned. My guess is, there might not be any citable research on this phonenon. People just don't want to go there, but inquiring minds want to know.
Similarly, but more mysterious, are the aparent statistical "overrepresentation" (no value judgement to the prefix "over" in the statistical definition) of lesbians in other fields. Animal-related professions and hobbies, such as horse and dog related professions. I've had many dog groomers in my life, and I was wondering if my perception would turn out to be correct, that these people tend to be good at working with dogs and more attracted to the jobs because I know that lesbians are a very small percentage of the general population but of the groomers I've had MOST of them have been lesbians. So I'm like, what's up with that? So I went on the internet to find out and there's nothing. Again, there's probably nothing you can do about it because there's probably been no citable research into this matter.
But that's not all. What about comedy? What percentage of women are lesbians, and what percentage of female comedians are? Why doesn't "Gender Studies" or "Womens Studies" or "Lesbian Studies" do some research about these obvious lacunas in our knowledge? It shouldn't be impossible to learn what the answers to these questions are and to get some respectable and informed speculation as to why this might be. That's not your/wikipedia's fault, but who knows? Maybe someone can find something.
On the other hand, I still think that this article, lesbian, deals with it's gray areas better than many other articles with broad gray areas around the central referent. It pretty clearly shows how an individual can be both X and not X or part X and part not X, and what are the factors that would fill in the "If by X, you mean Y, then, but another way to look at it which would be legitimate would be yadda yadda, and all that other brave confrontation with vague stuff that many other articles run from. Keep up the good work from the self-appointed "it-ain't-that-simple patrol", you get high marks from my criteria! Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Maned Wolf[edit]

Not sure what you were referring to here, but the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) is certainly a canid (Canidae) though not a member of the genus Canis.

In general, please do cite your sources when you write sections like the one at Canis. It's easy to stray into original research or new conjectures while writing such sections. Ucucha 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about this genus. Feel free to help. Chrisrus (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, how metaphorical do you consider the use of the word "wolf" to be when talking about Chryocyon brachyurus?
Sometimes I think that, now that Canis lupus refers as much or more to dogs as it does to wolves, the word "wolf" doesn't have any specific meaning but "big canid", and therefore this referent is covered by the word "wolf" as much as Canis lupus lupus. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Eastern wolf[edit]

I can't promise anything, but I'll give it a try sometime later. At the moment, I'm busy compiling facts on the Indian wolf.Mariomassone (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice, by the way, that statement about wolves not adapting to humans as well and many more parts of the article clearly refers to a referent which excludes domesticated subspecies. This is appropritate because the reader understands that "dogs" and "wolves" are separate in English. "Wolf", in turn, not synonymous with the Grey wolf, because even if one of the four subspecies that have been put forward as independant species turns out not to be Canis Lupus after all, surely you will agree that they will still be wolves. I'm not even sure how metaphorical the word "wolf" is when used for the maned wolf. So I'm thinking a person who searches for "wolf" and means "wolf (animal)" should learn in as clear and in an upfront a way as appropriate that while we may be assuming he or she is looking for the article Grey wolf, we are not trying to say that "wolf" = "Canis lupus". I was filling out the wolf (disambiguation)'s (animal) subsection. What do you think?Chrisrus (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The way I see it, this is a referent that is going to continue giving taxonomy, and even cladistics, a big headache. What I've learned about it seems to indicate that current thinking is that it, like the red wolf, is a population of coywolves that has speciated. When has biology ever included hibredization as a factor in evolution? How many other animals, other than dog breeds, have resulted from mixing two separate species? Have you ever seen an evolutionary tree or clade chart where any of the branches rejoined after having separated? Who knows where this could lead in the future! Chrisrus (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chrisrus, I don't edit wiki pages often so just saw your may talk edit to my page. I don't know that I have time to separate all of the debated facts for the eastern wolf but I think much of it is semantics. At least wikipedia wants to use one source for the text box, and I support writing the debate (either historical if it's done or currnet if not). There are several tests (mitochondrial DNA shows one piece of the puzzle and nuclear DNA shows another) so when different biologists use one and argue the other, it often feels like it's all for publications and exposure. Unless a new method fills in a gap in knowledge, we didn't learn anything. Many papers seem like that, especially when a paper tests DNA from the few remaining red wolves that we KNOW were bred from unknown individuals that somone decided was a wolf by measurements not DNA. Unless we have DNA samples from before the collapse of red wolves, we don't know anything more about their origins as a full species and instead have documented the effect of hybrids. The better result would not be that red wolves are just hybrids, but that they are extinct as a species and we have something new (then we could argue if it's new enough to warrant a new species designation, keep the old, or be wolfxcoyote that I'd choose). The editors of the wolf wiki articles just go back and forth supporting their favorites rather than summarize it all. Since I don't see it gettign resolved, I said my piece and moved on. Wish I had more time to follow some of this through more.

Good luck --Paddling bear (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


If we are talking about same thing and same edit, then see this. [1] You will understand... --Tadija (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Avs5221's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frugivore debate[edit]

Just so you know, it was I who directed Pearl999 to the Human talk page. The argument had been going on for quite a while on the Frugivore talk page, and then I was asked to join the debate after others had tired of it and bowed out. It looks like this user will beat this horse to glue, possibly in the hope that when she makes her desired changes, people will be too tired of fighting over it. Another potential motive is that this person is likely an animal rights activist. I hinted at it in one of my replies, and she more or less confirmed it by defending the animal rights sources she was using. Therefore, she may be either using the talk pages as a forum to debate with people (to push her views), or she may be trying to plant this material in the articles to give support to the animal rights movement. At some point, I think we're going to have to get some admins involved. She's already received several warnings and personally attacked one of my online Wiki friends (who is an admin). Anyway... just wanted to let you know. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New Guinea Singing Dog[edit]

Per your request, I have added several audio/video files. They can be accessed in the external links section. As I am a novice on Wiki, let me know if there is a better way to present them. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I thought it to be fitting to state my questions here and not in a seperate section since in affects the same article. I have updated the article on the New Guinea Singing Dog and the current version is on my page. Most notably I refused to use information from the New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society since there is no proof at all that they are peer reviewed and in case of non-peer reviewed I only use newspaper or magazine articles, if nothing better is available. I also used the info-box for dog-breeds due to the whole taxonomic issue. I had already published the original german version in the German wikipedia and no one critisized it so I think it must be ok. However, I have two problems:

  • I'm not a native speaker of English so I need someone who checks my grammar and wording.
  • I can't get the Canis lupus familiaris out of the Infobox.

Can you help me with that? --Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Chrisrus for undoing mrhorseracers latest deletion of oldsingerman20's contributions to the NGSD page. Tomcue2 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

my question to you is how does the new text fit with existing standard. Please site reference--Mrhorseracer (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You said:::: * I can't get the Canis lupus familiaris out of the Infobox. Can you help me with that? --Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2010 I recommend that you copy/use the infobox in the original NGSD article taken from the iucn site. It looks like someone has already corrected the NGSD's taxon to c.l. dingo. This is accurate and you can use ISIS to confirm. Tomcue2 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Chrisrus, I sincerely thank you for standing next to me in the name of science to help me refute the incorrect claims of Pearl999. To answer your question to her that I overread, humans evolved on the Savanna, not in a jungle where a "frugivorous" diet would be practical. With that being said, Homo sapiens speciated from Homo rhodesiensis on an omnivorous diet, and that makes us natural omnivores no matter what Pearl999 wants us to think. (The nature of an individual species is derived from its own speciation, not its distant ancestors.) I'm a Biology Major, so you can trust me on this one. In the name of science and truth, with the One who first set all that natural science describes in motion as our witness, thank you! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A belated "You're welcome" and and thanks to you, Mr. Willstro, for taking on the lion's share of the burden of setting Pearl straight. You did a fantastic job and I am glad to have helped. Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Guinea Singing Dog War[edit]

‎Chris... Let me try and make sense as to what has been going on with the NGSD page. In order for you to fully understand [Mrhorseracer]‘s motivations for deleting gobs of oldsingerman20's contributions' without asking for citations or having any measure of courtesy, some history needs to be provided. It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his contributions which you will better understand by the end of this long post. So grab as seat and let me begin.

You have my undivided attention!

20+ years ago, Senior Ecologist Dr I Lehr Brisbin along with oldsingerman and a couple others helped to retain a few of the ISIS listed Singing Dog population in the USA by taking in the Zoo specimens as they were being bouncing (Zookeeping term) by them. The cause of the zoo exodus had to do with the USDA's re-classification of the Singing Dog and Dingo to just another domestic dog breed. The Singing Dogs taxon was changed from hallstromi to familiaris. As far the zoos were concerned it made the Singing Dog an undesirable animal to house. The USDA guidelines at that time required a zoo that has domestics (Zookeeping term) care for them at a level that was not cost effective. A once a day feeding & watering no longer applied to Singers & Dingo's. **What else was required? (two feedings, leash walking & human interaction) Chrisrus (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)** After Bris (Dr Brisbin’s nickname) and friends gathered up a group of Singers, he obtained a research grant for the Singing Dog. In 1996 Bris formed the New Guinea Singing Dog Club of America and sat at the point. Bris had many irons in the fire, however, and not enough time for them so he sought out someone to do the research and produce documentation for on the NGSD. He found Janice Koler Matznick who was (at the time) a modestly successful dog behaviorist. Not certain what her education status is today, but she had no scientific or genetic credentials. Bris handed Janice a pair of female Singers **The names of these two dogs?** (Buna & Tufi re: to study and to produce the [[ethogram] ] on them. Janice then sought out a male to breed some litters, and to sell some Singers to supplement the grant monies. She found an undocumented intact male Singer at an exotic pet store **Dog’s name? (Kai) and documented it (via Bris's ISIS account) and started breeding. She volunteered to take over Bris's Club and renamed it the Conservation Society. She then built a board of directors at her choosing. From 1997 to the present, that board is primarily made up of folks who own singers that she produced the names of these dogs? (Manny, Marco Polo, Pan, Foldo, Junah) and had sold to what became her board members. With pretty much nobody else really caring about the Singing Dog, once Janice had completed [her writings|insert link here],, they were the only game in town; the one place to go for info**specify please** NGSDCS. Janice tried to further the recognition of the Singing Dog by making every possible effort to have the scientific world re-declare the Singer as a separate species. After meeting oldsingerman (a ontime supporter of the Society), I realized that he has both an understanding and a passion for the NGSD that would rival anyone in the world. He has not produced any documentation on them so technically speaking, he has no credentials. Oldsingerman & I eventually realized that we had the same feelings about the Society and it's goals. We decided to break off from the Society and form [our own organization] NGSDI and have done so. We are undoubtedly with less credentials, but on the net there is now [a 2nd option for casual researcher when it comes to learning about Singers]. We eventually decided to become Wiki members and add in some info and [a link or two] so that the folks with descendents of those Singers that left the zoos for the exotic world would have a place to go for help. The Society will be cordial to someone with an undocumented Singer, but will make little to no effort to trace down a bloodline for you unless you are part of the inner circle or on the Board itself. With all of the above now said, I can confidently tell you that mrhorseracer is a board member or actually board members (plural) for the Conservation Society. In fact, mrh is not even a mr but 1 to 3 different people that possibly include Janice Matznick herself. Google "youtube [tomcue2]" and you will see that one of my three passions is horseracing. mrh is (in essence) mocking me. That should also be evident by reviewing both mrh's and my talk pages. I undoubtedly and admittedly have bias as does mrh but the day is soon coming where our contributions to the Singing Dog world will become notable and documented.

    • I’m sorry, but you can’t publish your own research here. I sympathize, but there’s nothing I can do about it.**

Lastly, I will address the coloring issue. Until aprox 4yrs ago, there was only a handful of Singing Dogs that ever had the black & tan coloring. They were in Germany and the offspring of Singers captured by German explorers on the Irian Jaya Range of New Guinea **names?**. A sable colored Singer was in Canada** but he was not a true b & t. There is also one still in Germany **?**whose photo is seen on the page that User:Inugami-bargho is building. The Society spent in the neighborhood of 6k to import a relative of the pictured German Singer**named?**. It was believed to be a black & tan. What arrived was Benji (a sable colored singer)**nm?**. Meanwhile, some 4 years ago, an exotics friend at [a Canadian sanctuary] called to tell me that she had acquired [a pair of true black & tan Singers that were pure]. **After 3+ years of investigating the claim, we have finally been able to verify that the pair are indeed pure. **how?** I myself with help from oldsingerman20, obtained a 3rd black & tan that is related to the pair in Canada. [That 3rd black & tan Singer in North America]] and one of only [four known black & tan singers in the world] is lying on my bed behind me as I type this to you. mrh and her organization have been desperate to either obtain or produce the coloring. Until they do so, they refuse to admit that the color exists and unless one of these black Singers gets into Matznick's hands, it will never be admitted to any breeding program or acknowledged as pure. **Why can’t this be decisively proven by a gene test** We of course know better. The bottom line here is that although none of the information that oldsingerman has contributed to the NGSD page is fiction, there is little documentation other then [a website that we own] to back it up. The Society is making every effort to keep only their information accessible to the public. That's why all of the deleted info and why mrh is so taken back by [the external link that I added featuring the vocalization files]. It's a 2nd link to our website. As she is now threatening to arbitrate the issue, I have no interest in entertaining anything she suggests. Asking for citations I believe is a wki editors right. Simply deleting ones contributions out of jealousy or spite is just plain wrong imo. Tomcue2 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep improving your site. I’ll ask about using it as a reliable source. At the very least, I think you would win in arbitration that it can be added to the external links. Be careful that there is nothing in it that would disqualify it as a breeder’s site. Dog article guidelines, for good reasons you can imagine, discourage any links to breeder’s sites in the external links. I can then see about using it as a reference for citing statements in the article.
I’m putting a copy of this on my page. You may want to delete it, or at least the parts I indicated, from here.Chrisrus (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made some edits per your request and have removed any perceived negativity of the version of this post on the NGSD discussion page. I more wanted you to get a feel for what was going on with the edits then actually writing NGSD history. Ask questions if you have them. Tomcue2 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A belated thank-you and reply for this and your contribution to Wikipedia. I understand your motivations and appreciate the background information very much. Yes, I have some questions. If I may not know exactly with whom I am speaking, could you introduce yourself to me as you will with regard to the above? Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing???[edit]

You're not writing what the sources say, you write what you want and make terrible grammar mistakes. Your not improving the articles, your ruining them. You also come up with MSOW but in the end ignore what is written there. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop messing with articles!!![edit]

What is wrong with you? You're ruining both the NGSD as well as the Dingo-article. You´re not doing anybody a favour with it and you obviously can't even see it. Not even your "improvements" are performed right; they have the word "sloppy work" written all other it. I don't know what is going in your head and I don't care any longer. And one piece of advise: Its completely pointless to make a good article in "accordance" with a bad one. And stop claiming that it is in accordance with anything, it is only in accordance with your own views.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You should calm down. I understand you represent one side or faction with some kind of personal vested interest in certain facts being couched in a certain way, and seem to look at this as war. But I don't care about that and have no such agenda.
If you have a point, don't use emotion; use thought, evidence, and reason to make your point. Adopt a calm matter-of-fact tone so that, if you are right about something, I can hear it, as I gather you have something to contribute and I will hear you out. You will find that if you are civil with me I am actually intelligent and unbiased enough to listen to reason. I will not, however, be bullied, so quit trying; you will fail.
The article I am making things in accordance with is Subspecies of Canis Lupus, which directly from MSOW, so it's not really other articles that things should be in line with per se, but MSOW, or maybe my understanding of it in this case, which could be flawed, but you haven't shown how.
To understand me, please look, for example, at Himalayan Wolf. See that the taxobox says "Canis himalayensis", and compare that to the text of the article, some of which I changed, and the article Subspecies of Canis Lupus. You will see a problem, something has to give, don't you agree? I have it on my agenda to fix that, not because I know better but because I figure MSOW does. It's the same with these two subspecies.
According to MSOW, there is some question about whether the C.l.dingo and C.l.familaris should really be separate subspecies, but there is no indication of any doubt any more about whether the NGSD should be one. They just list it as a "synonym" of C.l.dingo, which I understand to mean that any reference I see to "hallstromi" is a C.l.dingo. If you are saying (and I still don't know what your position is) that there is such debate, I'll listen to why you think so, but it's not to be found at MSOW, which is odd, because if there is some serious doubt about it among them anymore, we should expect them to have noted it. As such, any mention of such disagreement has to come out of the lead and into the subsection on historical thought on the subject.
As they do note the provisional separation of C.l.dingo from C.l.familairis, the situation seems to be this: there is a clade between the familiar dog on the one hand, and the Aus dingo and some other SE Asian animals (including the NGSD) on the other. So there is a separation between the two that they had to think about before calling them separate subspecies, but there doesn't seem to be any doubt that it's there. The problem they have handed the English language now, it recently became clear to me as a result of this experience, is that the English word "dingo" and the technical term "C.l.dingo" don't line up as nicely as they had, now that many animals, including the NGSD, that had not been the referent of the word "dingo" are now grouped into C.l.dingo. Wikipedia may have ways that we can respond to this "problem" if it's a problem. I think the article "Dingo" has enough to deal with just dealing with its traditional referent without the additional burden of having to give equal time to all animals now being grouped in with them. This is just an idea, I'm not sure if or how Wikipedia could or should respond. What do you think?
Sorry if this was "sloppy", I've got to go now and will not be able to review it for typos. I trust you won't be a jerk about them.Chrisrus (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I alreay tried to be reasonable with you but everytime I reason with you, you simply seem to ignore the important parts. And to be honest it seams that you are lacking facts and you interpretating MSOW in a way the site doesn't give information on. Really if they don't mean that both dingo and familiaris are domestic dogs (simply two subspecies of domestic dog instead of just one) why do they call them both variants created by domestciation and artificial selection and the dingo only provisionally seperate, and why does the comment under lupus dingo only say domestic dog and not descended from domestic dogs then? As for your last "improvement" on the dingo article: you wrote that "Although the name "dingo" mostly refers to populations occurring in Australia, some animals in southeast Asia and the New Guinea Singing Dog are also classified under the term Canis lupus dingo, and as such, may be classified as dingoes." That is a contradiction in only one sentence. On the article on the subspecies of Canis lupus and referring to dingo and familiaris. The article doesn't simply use MSOW (in fact it lefts information out) as a source but other sources as well. The number of subspecies and synonyms seems to be based on MSOW but much of the rest is not. The entrance about the characteristics of the domestic dog (the skull, the tail, etc.) all apply to the dingo as well (as was written in the article in the description section), only the dingoes teeth are a little bit bigger, dingo males are usually fertile throughout the year something not found in wolves. Furthermore the article indicates that all domestic dogs have curved tails, but they do not. The article is misleading, after all according to it dingoes would not have curved tails, but one look at the dingo article will proof otherwise (look at the section beneath discription on the group of howling dingoes). Didn't you notice those contradictions? On the ignore topic: I already told you before that the dingo and the NGSD both have mtDNA-types that fell right in the main clade of domestic dog types and now you talk about that "there is a clade between the familiar dog on the one hand, and the Aus dingo and some other SE Asian animals (including the NGSD) on the other". MSOW doesn't state anything in that direction and the published scientific article on the dingo-origin (also referenced in my NGSD-article) says otherwise. As for the debate on NGSD status, just look at my article. You will find it there. And have you actually looked at your work in the NGSD article? You write something here and something there instead of finally giving it at least the right structure. I see all your work and now you want me to believe that you are not involuntarily messing with them? It's obvious that you don't mean, to since some of your info is accurate, but you nonetheless do. Or how would you interpret it if you see somebody working in such a way?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am responding to you in my own way, elsewhere, as you may have figured out by now. You will see this is not as it seemed to you when you wrote this. I cannot respond well to this post because it is addressed to someone who is saying something I'm not. If you change your mind about me, please post here on this page saying so. If not, I hope you will stay off my talk page.Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence supporting the separation of c.l. familiaris from c.l. dingo[edit]

Chrisrus, I really don't think Inu is familiar with the last DNA paper that Dr Wilton and like 37 other researchers have just published. It specifically states that AU Dingoes and NGSD are totally separated from domestic dogs. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MSW3 agree that familiar dogs and dingos are separate, because the list them as two separate subspecies. They don't show any sign that I can see of leaning toward separating them into two species, but they do unite them as subspecies under the heading "domestic dog" They did say that they'd be revisiting the separation. I bet this paper will be taken into consideration at that time.Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


Chrisrus, Please a couple of questions. How does a person attain a position as a "senior editor"? (Please don't think I have the energy, knowledge or desire to ever be one). Does Inugami have more power given him by wikipedia than say does mrhorseracer or are we all "equals"?? Just curious. It's important to understand the "rules of engagement". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there is any such thing as a "senior editor". No, they have no more power, but if they cite everything they say well and no one can disagree effectively, they will win. Please let me see your website, tell me the URL again. As an expert, even if you don't have a degree or have published anything in peer-reviewed journals, we can still cite your website as a reliable source if it's done right. There is very little published on the New Guinea Singing Dog, and much of that which has been published, I gather second-hand, has been discredited. As such, your website may be among the most reliable sources there is. Chrisrus (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, For our website information please email us at I will respond privately only. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, Some links for you to check out: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talkcontribs) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC) osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Orbits-framed.jpg[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:Orbits-framed.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help me. Chrisrus (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

UPLOAD FILE practice[edit]

Image courtesy of Copyright: Neanderthal reconstruction courtesy of

Essex (whaleship)[edit]

Thanks for your kind note. It was of great interest to share this research on the Essex. One imagines Melville being inspired by it as documented by Chase. Bests. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a well-written article and a gripping true story, even without the added dénouement/dramatic final twist of the fateful meeting of Melville and Chase! Keep up the good work. :)Chrisrus (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words. Dénouements are interesting literary devices. I hope you had a chance to see:
Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up about the PBS documentary. It was awesome!Chrisrus (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wolf (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi, I noticed your edits to Wolf (disambiguation). I hope you don't mind, but I made a few tweaks based on the style guide for disambiguation pages at MOS:DAB. Regards, --BelovedFreak 09:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all; in fact, I appreciate the help. Actually, could you help me with the formatting of the Animal section where it shows blank bullets before starting to list the other canids? I can't get rid of them. Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference List[edit]

Chrisrus, Are you or someone you know good at making the proper reference entries in the text and reference list for NGSD? I am totally bald regarding referencing.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm, do you mean re-referencing the same citation twice? Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean that if I go thru editing and mess something up in regard to a reference, can you fix it or add new references or delete old references no longer in use. I just don't have a clue as to this referencing methodology.. It's a terrible handicap. I know stuff and can write fairly well, but don't know the mechanics of referencing. For example, if I were to go through editing and took out all the text for a reference, I don't know what to do about the reference. Osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm...Is this what you want to know? Click on this little number here: [2] Is that what you want to know there? Chrisrus (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Reading this type of directions is worse than translating Greek.. My computer skills are so poor and they assume the reader knows things I've never heard of. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
" put a reference in the text, write<ref>, to start the reference, then when you're done typing the reference, type this: </ref> Chrisrus (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, and then if I edit a paragraph and take out all the material from a listed reference, then what do I do to the reference list?osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, if someone I wrote something and typed in a reference for it, and you delete the thing that I wrote, you have to also delete the stuff that I put between the reference markers. And by "reference markers", I mean the stuff between the <ref> and the </ref> . Is that helpful? Do you know how to cut and paste text? Chrisrus (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I cut and paste on other things all the time, but never have on wikipedi. I understand now about the reference deletion. I was going to put the "Further Reading" in alphabetical order, but didn't know how to do it. osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talkcontribs) 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, do you know how to select text with the mouse? You point at nothing and click and hold. Then you move the mouse while holding and sweep over the text you want to select. This will change the color of the text. Then you let go of everything and you have some selected text. If you don't like useing a mouse, you can also hold down control and use the arrow keys. Chrisrus (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nureongi[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Vipinhari || talk 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Chrisrus (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment posted on my talk page. You say that you are not the one who is going to be working on the (re-created) article. Who is, then? This is an encyclopedia which, of course, everyone can edit; and it is expected that articles will change and develop with time and with muktiple editor input. But it is not really usual for an editor to create a brief article containing, presumably, his/her total knowledge on the subject, with an expressed expectation that other editors will pitch in. I have left the article alone, to avoid any appearance of bias, but in my personal view it is, as it stands, only borderline notable at best. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 10:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You think that the special breed of dog which is bred to be eaten by Koreans is "borderline notable". Chrisrus (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do actually. Particularly as there appears to be some controversy as to whether it is a real breed, or just a "yellow" one. But, as I have daid, i will leave it to take its course. Whether this aricle is worth recruiting editors to, when we have over 3 million aricles here, is of course a further consideration.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just passing by, you don't have to thank me:) But I'm glad the article wasn't deleted, anyway. Good luck. ~ Katoa (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I uploaded three very nice images in the article, can you please tell me what breed could that dog be? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for this and all your contributions to the article dog. I don't know what breed it is, but it looks like a scent hound of some sort. The nose is larger and longer than in more primitive basal dogs, so it looks like it's been bred for tracking. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful! Chrisrus (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You've been more than helpful! Thanks a lot. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Chris, in the NGSD article, I wish we could have an easy way to do an "Also See" section so we could put in article references such as "Dingo", "Canaan Dog", "Pariah", "India Dingo" etc and make it so we can easily add or delete as new information comes to light. How can we do that? osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Like that? I just added dingo and pariah dog to the list. How about the article Evolution of the dog, which mentions the NGSD?

Yes on Evolution of the Dog and also the article Dog. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Shiba Inu; C.l.familiaris or C.l.dingo?[edit]

Chris, Is there a way to use a link as a reference? Could you check this out to see if I could use it? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is really intersting! I want to study this some more for my own interest, but right now to quickly answer your question directly, of course we could, but we should have our eyes on the same references that it uses, we could use some of them, definately. Have a look at its reference section! We can use this and its citations, among many other things, to convince them to change the taxon for in the box on the page Shiba Inu to Canis lupus dingo instead of Canis lupus familiaris. Eventually, if we can properly cite it, there will be so many universally recognized "dogs" that aren't familiaris that they would have to let us redefine the nature and scope of the article dog to either include C.l.dingo or to somehow carefully re-do itself to be about familiaris only and not about C.l.dingo. I think they'll find that the first option is the most doable. Chrisrus (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I thought about the reference list also, but not having experience writing on wiki I wanted you to evaluate its usefulness. The reference list ans actually the writeup itself are really neat. I was after it as a reference link for the name use of New Guinea dingo. If I put in a sentence about use of the name New Guinea dingo would you do the reference part of it so I can see how it's done? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, You could do it like this: The Shiba Inu is a kind of Canis lupus dingo [1]
I think we actually have found an excellent reference here. Dr. Holger Funk is well written. Has written extensively on the Shiba. Seems to me we could easily reference any of his articles. See, the Shiba Inu and NGSD are strikingly similar. If there were only two Singers left on earth we would breed one of them to an AU Dingo and the other to a Shiba Inu. There exist already some "closet" NGSD/Shiba Inu hybrids. The fact is, we have one such hybrid ourselves that we rescued from a kennel that was going defunct. I think Dr. Funk could also be a valuable resource for the Dingo article and probable other various "types" of dingoes. I would say Dr. Funk as a reference could replace some of the other references that are weak scientifically. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I just don't understand how to do these references. Could you please help out? In the article where it says Hallstom Dog, could you put in the Dr. Funk reference from up above here? It can replace the JKolerMatznick one which is currently listed as #1. We can add a bit of diversity by adding the Funk ref and discarding the Matznick ref. Could you do this one for me and then maybe I can learn. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, umm...So where exactly do you want exactly which reference? This one here, [2], to replace the citation number one? Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Coaster did part of it. Yes, I think what I need to ask you to do is to replace in the reference list the #1 citation. #1 citation in the reference list is a Matznick reference and I'd like to replace it with the Helgor Funk article. They both say the same thing and replacing her's with Funks would add some diversity to the reference list. I need to ask, how does a person type in the little red reference numbers enclosed in the brackets? And if a person edits and types a reference into a text edit, then will it also appear in the reference list or do you have to type it in both places? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added the Funk reference to article where the Matznick reference used to be located. As to your questions, the bracketed reference numbers will automatically appear in the article where you put the <ref> </ref> tags. Also, the refernce will automatically appear in the reference section of the article. I hope this helps.Coaster1983 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, that is so cool! Thanks ever so much for your help. Please watch my work, though, because I'm sure there will be errors. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My website[edit]

I removed the bulk of my material from the NGSD article as you requested. I had actually planned to reference it in due time after it had been duly edited and all the errors removed and so on, but apparently on wiki a person has to cite nearly every word as it's written. I think that tremendous need to cite is due to editors not knowing their subjects. It's almost a paranoid need, "the paranoid need to prove each word." Interesting phenomenon. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If stuff isn't well cited, it won't stand up well to a challenge, that's all. Someone can remove stuff that's not well cited, but they probably won't get away with removing stuff that's well cited. There's tons of uncited or poorly cited stuff, though. As one of the world's leading experts on this dog, if you provide a website that establishes why we should believe what you say, people will look at that and say "oh, he must know what he's talking about" and not challenge you. Or if they do, another can come along and say, "I don't agree with your challange. He seems to know what he's talking about." and then revert the challenge. The thing about breeders stems from a practice of people citing "the best Kentucky Hunting Hounds come from A1 Kentucky Hunting Dog Breeders" and then linking to the website. Also, there was a thing where the "external links" were added full of lots of breeders looking for free advertising. Again, it's just being reasonable. Everyone should be reasonable and no one should be unreasonable, that's all, and from this general principle comes lots of "rules" but there're not real rules. There are no real "rules", just about. Chrisrus (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying and your comments regarding my personal knowledge of Singing Dogs is greatly appreciated albeit embarrassing. Again, as I've found in the past, what you say makes sense and is logical. I hope to someday repay you for your help and kindness.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Levine[edit]

Hi Chrisrus----

I'm going to leave another copy of my reply in case you miss the first one---as I say, sure, you can remove my name from the page, and when my quarter and grading are done, I'll be able to pick up this N.C. criticism project.

cheers, Bob L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdlevine (talkcontribs) 19:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem! Chrisrus (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Just remember, nothing that hasn't already been published; sum it up and cited. Thank you for your help with this project; there is a huge amount of criticism of him and we're trying to collect it all in one place, get it all organized, and understandable to the lay reader. Chrisrus (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus---sure, that's fine with me. My quarter is just about over, my last class is this Thursday, I have minimum grading to do and I'll be able to pick up the 'Critique of N.C.' project once all that's out of the way.

cheers, Bob L.

Copyright problems with File:Orbits-framed.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Orbits-framed.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from As a copyright violation, File:Orbits-framed.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Orbits-framed.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

The CC-license is for Balserio's work (artwork of a gorilla-like Neantherdal) on that specific page (the one that states the license) and not of other works on that page or on other pages. Jappalang (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Chrisus, Could you tell me how to access the reference list on the NGSD article? I need to delete #15. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's under the Origin and taxonomic status section, right at the end of the first paragraph. Chrisrus (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


I'll be darned. There's the Thai dingo. Can the page be translated to English? Since there is no longer a Dingo article, don't you think each of these "Dingo" types articles need an "Also See" section? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)\\

Or is this the Thai Ridgeback? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

translation: osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm! Look at this: Phu Quoc ridgeback dog. Accoring to the translation, it's one of the three types of Asian Dingo.Chrisrus (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Darn it! There's not one reference on any of these articles at the Norwegian Wikipedia! I'll continue trying to track this down....Chrisrus (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I study this Dingo/Pariah/Ancient breed dog stuff, problems become more and more apparent. I really do believe there needs to be a "Dingo" wiki article in the English language just to point out and try to clarify some of the worldwide dingo information. . For sure the Au Dingo article needs an "Also see" section. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Dingo to Australian Dingo[edit]

I'm tolerating what you do on the English Wikipedia, but I won't accept the mess you've created in other language versions. You either pull that thru and fix the interwiki links (i.e. repair the links that point from articles on the subspecies to your article on the infrasubspecific form) or I'll revert the articles back to an acceptable version. -- Torben Schink (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, please take a different tone. You are coming across as arrogant an bossy.
Second, the other language versions seem to be, primarily at least, about the Australian Dingo, so it's not really a problem as I see it. But if the people at those languages' Wikipedias don't want to link to Australian Dingo anymore, they can do as they see fit; link to Canis lupus dingo (taxon), follow suit, or do whatever; that's their business and I can't do anything about it because I don't speak all their languages. Also, many Wikipedias have articles that don't correspond perfectly to all other articles in all other Wikipedias, and there is no rule that one language's Wikipedia can't make a move unless all languages' Wikipedias do so.
Third, this is how Canis lupus familiaris is organized in apparently all the languages, the German one I assume as well. You have one article for the taxon and one for each notable variety. Why not organize your German version in the same way? What would be your objection to doing so? It's just a suggestion; you Germans can do as you want, I don't care.
Fourth, you should check out the Norwegian way of doing things. They seem to be on the right track, and I'm hoping to get some help from them translating their article on the Asian Dingo, which is an article that neither English nor German Wikipedias seem to have. Chrisrus (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you trying to fool me? You want to have separate articles about the Dingo and the Australian Dingo but it is others who should do all the work? You have moved the article about the Dingo to Australian Dingo five days ago. You have done nothing about that article since. It still has the interwiki links in it which should be in the Dingo article, it still has the taxobox in it, it still contains all the info about non-Australian Dingos, and Dingo and Canis lupus dingo still link to that article. It is YOUR job to continue what you've begun. It is not up to others to fix the problems you're creating. -- Torben Schink (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "trying to fool you", and I would ask you to refrain from this kind of talk. Second, I can't tell if the interwiki links need changing or not, because I don't speak all those languages except a few. It's their business if they judge it to be the best link, even if it's not completely the same. Third, the taxobox should be removed, but I hesitate to do so personally for my own reasons. I am surprised that you haven't removed it. I can only assume you'd rather dominate than fix the problem yourself. Fifth, it doesn't seem inappropriate for the article to talk about non-Australian dingoes in that way in that section, even though the article is and has always been mostly about Australian Dingoes, it's not wrong for it to mention their place amoung the other dingoes in that section. I will take a look at it, and would ask that you do so as well if what you are trying to do is to help. Next, anyone who searches for "d-i-n-g-o" or "Canis lupus dingo" is probably looking for the Australian dingo, but an improvement to the hatnote might be in order, what would you suggest? Thinking about it, I think I'll redirect Canis lupus dingo to the article Canis lupus dingo (taxon) and have a hatnote sending them to the Aus. Dingo article if that's what they were looking for. So your criticisms are somewhat valid and I'll make a few adjustments as a result of them. You should feel free to help, and there is no need for you to act like a jerk. Chrisrus (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You are making a fool of yourself again, by not doing the work yourself, but as always you don't see it. Again you think that you are right and that time will prove it. And you re-word stuff as you see fit. You are so lucky that you don't live in the same country as I do. Because than you would have to face me in person.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to make any changes you see fit, or to use the discussion pages of the articles in question to calmly state your objections. If you continue to make personal attacks on me and to issue personal threats, you will be banned from Wikipedia. You may not believe this, but I actually welcome your participation if you would just calm down, take it easy, and be rational. If you cannot do these things, please stay off my talk page. Second, please concider the possility that I'm simply a guy that likes to sort the wolves and the dogs and other animals, enjoys figuring out puzzles where one thing runs into another and lines blur, and that nothing I do actually has anything to do with you. If you look at the history of my contributions you will see the evidience is consistant with this. I'm intrinsically interested in these things and not interested in you or out to get you. Even if you didn't exist, I would be doing this. Please calm down for a while before responding. I would like to work with you or someone like you in some ways because I can't do this properly without people who are like you in some ways. PEACE! Chrisrus (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
For what end? From all that I have seen of you, you do not even recognize when you make a mistake, no matter how obvious. And despite what you claim to be and to want, your actions do not prove it.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
There are several instances I could point out that when I made a mistake, sometimes obvious, and undone them. I ask you to what end do you go around to different people's pages making criticisms too general or unclear for anyone to do anything about? What point is there in paying attention to you if you do not clarify what you what you disagree with and why, consistantly violating Wikipedia guidelines about civility, not to mention good rhetoric and argumentation? Please either repect our rules or go violate them somewhere other than my talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"Undone" them and they were still incorrect. I did clarify several times: your interpretation of MSOW and stating things that it did not state, that you don't know how to write (you overlook coprrupted links, you make gross grammatical and letter errors despite the fact that english is your mother tongue), don't use sources for your statements to name the the three main groups. I did it so often, but you still didn't got it. You didn't even answer in many cases or all of a sudden stated that you meant something entirely different (e.g. the case of the MSOW entry on Canis lupus dingo, first you claimed that the synonyms were breeds or races/types and later you does barely list any references or sources and none on the different "Asiatic dingo" as they call it, so were is the basis for their work? You don't need to speak Norwegian to notice that. Basically it comes down to one thing: You show only evidence that you are a person who thinks what she is doing is correct, despite proof to the contrary. And stop claiming that you get insulted, If you cannot handle criticism, it is not our problem. Instead you should seriously rethink your work. If everything would be OK with it, no one would criticise you.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
All this betrays that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's cooperative, and you repeatedly show you think that one person has to have everything perfect before you hit "Save". It's not like that. A red link is there to show that something is missing, a lacuna that should be filled, maybe I'll get back to it some day or someone else will come along and do it. There is an army of editors and bots who come along in due time and fix little typos and whatnot, these things are not important to get something going. When all you have is an imperfect source or even no source, you go with the best you've got and then later you come back to it or someone else does and the thing gets better over time. I fully expect that article to be wholely different in the future, with maybe none of my text left at all in it, even, I don't care. I'm only doing it because no one else has. It's just standing there, filling a lacuna that needs to be filled - especially the Asian dingo section, which stands with the only thing I could find at the moment. If you or anyone else wants to take it over, be my guest; I would much rather read it than write it and would have if I could have but it didn't exist so I got it started. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that nothing should be done until everything is finished, by one person.
As to whether the synonyms are types or breeds, well, that's what some of them are. For example, your New Guinea Singing Dog, as you know, is not exactly the same as the Australian dingo, but they are the same as far as taxonomy is concerned, they are both Canis lupus dingo, so for taxonomy hallstromi is a synonym. If taxonomy didn't end at the subspecies level, there might be a taxon for each, but there it does, so what therefore are the Australian Dingo and the New Guinea Singing dog and the the rest? Go back and read again what I said before that you misunderstood. Please see that I've been saying the same thing all along.
I can handle criticism fine, but this type of emotional ad hominim stuff is way out of line, and the bit about what you would do if you lived near me borders on criminal harassment.
About the Norwegian stuff, again, it's just holding the space until a cooperative good Wipedian comes along and replaces that text with something better. There was nothing there, and that was the only thing I could find at the time and now there is something there to show what obviously needs to be done. I've been soliciting help with it, and if you have a copy of "The Dingo in Australian and in Asia" or some such, feel free to replace it. If your reaction is "That is your responsibity, Chris, you must do all of this yourself, I refuse to help you" then it just shows that you don't understand this website. Chrisrus (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Et cetera, et cetera. Always the same with you. I know you don't like it but you belong to those people that really ruin wikipedia. By the way, if you had followed your own rule I wouldn't even had typed this now. Farewell.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's odd, I was thinking the same thing about you. Wikipedia only works when people are cooperative. Others ruin everything. Chrisrus (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Pictures[edit]

Hi Chrisrus, I have been able to download several photos into wiki commons and would like to use a couple of them on the NGSD article. Could you refer me to the proper link so I can learn how to move them from commons to the article? I need to learn it myself rather than depending on others to do it for me. If you could point me in the right direction I'd be obliged. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too good at it either, but I'll try to help you. You have to type everything in double brackets, the same way that you do when you add an internal link. So first, you'll have to "open brackets" or however they're called, right next to the letter "p" on my keyboard. Then you type the word "Image", capitalized, and then put a colon. Then you type the name of the image that you uploaded, and then either close it with double brackets. That's all you have to do. Now, if you want more than a picture, you have to add a verticle line after the name of the image. The vertical line is the one above the enter key and below the backspace key on my keyboard, to the right of the brackets key. After that, you type the words you want the caption to say before the closing brackets. You can also write the word, left, center, or right between vertical lines between the name of the image and the caption text. You can make it standard "thumb" size by typing the word "thumb" before between vertical lines right after the image name and before the orientation word (left, right, or center. Open this section to edit this eror where I spelled that with one "r", and study this example.

One black chain and two white chains, their liberties shown with dots. Note that liberties are shared among all stones of a chain.

Hope this helps! Chrisrus (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks sooo much for your help again. I think I have photos figured out. Who says you can't teach old dogs new tricks. Awesome things these computers and software programs!! Thanks again, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

When is a wolf not a wolf?[edit]

Answer: when it's a dog. When is a dog not a dog? A: When it's a dingo. When is a dingo not a dingo? A:When it's an Asian dingo. When does a dingo become just a dog? A:No exact place.

Wolf article and taxonomy[edit]

Thank you for your kind words :)

Do you think it would be productive to simply write in the article's intro something to the effect of "although the binomial name of C. lupus encompasses the dingo and the domestic dog, this article's primary focus will be on non-domesticated variants of the species".

It is poorly worded at the moment, I know, but it does get to the point, and clearly establishes that the two aforementioned domestic lupi are the same species as the article's titular animal.

I'm not sure I entirely understand the reason for renaming the article simply "wolf". The "grey wolf" is not the only canid to bare the name; there are red wolves, ethiopian wolves, maned wolves and painted wolves (the last two being completely different geni). "Wolf" does not seem to encompass a true family, rather, it is more like jackal, a terminology encompassing different species which are not that closely related (see golden jackal for example). The point is, there is no generic "wolf", or a genus exclusive to animals termed "wolf". I think "grey wolf" conveniently distinguishes the species from the red, ethiopian, maned and painted varieties.

My own idea would be to have the wiki search engine redirect to the wolf disambiguation page whenever the single word "wolf" is typed in it. I think the word alone is too vague to refer principally to the "grey". But I stand to be corrected11:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question directly, yes, perhaps that is the best solution. It is quite similar to the example of domestic/wild horse.
You are right, the problem of my idea of moving the article to Wolf (animal) is the fact the purpose of the term "Gray Wolf" is to distinguish it from the Ethopian Wolf, etc.
However, if we can define "Gray Wolf" not as simply Canis lupus but rather "all subspecies of Canis lupus other than the domestic dog"; well then, there's your solution right there. The question is, can we cite that definition? You don't see it spelled out per se like that, do you? But even so, if you look at the way it is used in context, that is, in effect, what "Gray Wolf" means, so can we safely define it so? I mean, how many usages of the term "Gray Wolf" in context clearly do or do not clearly exclude the domestic dog?
I also liked your idea of having a separate article called "Canis lupus". In my view, such an article would not have to be very long. It would just tell the story of the taxon, and explain how it used to mean "Gray Wolf" and still does in some contexts but contrary to popular belief it doesn't mean "gray wolf" anymore but now means "Gray Wolf" + (Domestic Dog = Dingo + Dog), and sending the reader to the appropriate articles. It might not have to be much more than a disambiguation page. I don't know what else such an article would have to do, but that's ok. If an article can be completed in just a few sentences, I don't see what's wrong with that. Is there anything else you can see that such an article would have to do? Describe those things that are true of all Canis lupuses (lupi?) and which distinguish them from all other Canids? Every taxon should have an article of it's own, is that not a principle?
If we go that route, however, it may mean that the article Gray Wolf would have to lose it's taxobox, thereby effecting the overhaul, so we should decide quickly and make it happen. I can go ahead and set it up, but I'm too much of a big picture guy to write the article, or at least to cite it. If I go ahead and do it, will you help me cite it and write it? Anyway, if Gray Wolf loses it's taxobox, what sort of infobox do you use for a subspecies grouping? Would people get upset if we went without one, a la Dolphin? People get emotional about their taxoboxes, and I always hate to remove them myself. Chrisrus (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Canis lupus dingo var. "papauensis"[edit]

I hope my changes met with your approval. It was a kind of difficult and awkward section, but seemed to work out well in the end. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like it very much. You're right that there will probably be a way to improve it further, but that's very well done for now. Sorry about my typos and such and thanks for fixing them.

We still need to track down the origial paper, "Ramsay, 1879", which MSW3 sites as the original naming authority. There, we should be able to find a more detailed anatomical analysis. I've tried and tried with no success.

We still don't know what happened to it, although I doubt if either of us would revert the other if he came out and said that they seem to be no more, having likely been interbred out of existence with non-native dogs. We could, I suppose, both be wrong about that, so we should probably hold off. Do you know anyone in PNG who we could ask? For all I know, they may be wandering the streets of the capital to this day, right under everyone's noses. Stranger things have happened.

BTW, I saw my first Norwegian Elkhound today. Very interesting!

Back to "papauensis", if we added something to the var. "halistromi" section, we could say something less dramatic and more encyclopedic but still to the effect of "deep within the remote highland valleys, another...." Then that might relieve some of the pressure on the papauensis section to stave of an innocent reader's conflation. Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to track down his paper either although I'm sure an Australian museum has the original. My opinion is that I think the current version of the article is perfectly clear. I doubt anyone will be confused re the differences between Ramsey's observations and actual NGSD. I can describe his study specimens. They were a mixed dog, Greyhound almost looking animal with a long smooth tail and a lanky body. A fairly ugly cur dog. Ramsey was first and foremost an ornithologist so his research into dingo types is really questionable anyway. Norwegian Elkhounds are very special. osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at NativeForeigner's talk page.
Message added 15:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shadowing edits[edit]

Please stop shadowing my edits and do not leave troll comments on my talk page. That is behavior prohibited by WP:Stalk. If you continue to abuse wikipedia rules with such behavior, I will have to file an incident report with at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please understand I don't watch you. I watch the article Dog meat consumption in South Korea because I'm a contributor to it so it's on my watchlist. I hope that, now that you realize this, you will no longer believe that I am "shadowing" your edits, making you paranoid that I am "stalking" you or harbor any grudges against you. Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Over-driving[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Over-driving requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of this article has made Wikipedia poorer, and prevented a step toward progress. Chrisrus (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The article consisted of a definition of over-driving and a link to a newspaper article. Please read WP:CSD#A3: "Any article ... consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." That pretty much describes the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It didn't consist only of external links, catagory tags, and see also sections, or a rephrasing of the title. It didn't attempt to correspond with any person in the title. It didn't ask any question of a person or group named in the title, or a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks. It had no chat, tags, or images. Why do you say that this describes the article? Chrisrus (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The article consisted of a "rephrasing of the title" (the definition) and an external link (the newspaper article). If you disagree with my decision to delete the article, you may appeal it at WP:Deletion Review. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
@User:Malik Shabazz; Wikipedia still has no knowledge of the fact that there is still on the books in the UK and the US a crime called "over-driving". I'm sorry I could find out nothing about over-driving except that it is a crime and the definition explaining that it's a particular form of animal abuse that has its own parameters and such from other animal abuse crimes. But if that's the only contribution I could make than that's what I should have done because that was progress. And at least it would have been possible that others might have been able to find out more could have expanded it by now. It was not progress for Wikipedia to render it be totally ignorant about overdriving just because at first the article was minimal. Knowing little is better than knowing nothing. It's interesting and true and who knows maybe even important that over-driving is it's own separate crime and Wikipedia should know that fact. Chrisrus (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Pariah Dog Article[edit]

Chrisrus, The Pariah Dog article needs to either be deleted or totally redone. It's near terrible! osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talkcontribs) 22:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's kinda interesting. For one thing, as you might predict, I love the way it uses the terms Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris. I'm making sure I understand on the talk page, and then I'd like to try to clarify the article. It's probably going to have to do some disambiguation, as the meaning of the term seems to have changed quite a bit over time. Now, it seems mostly to be a generalized dog type by some kennel clubs as a place to put all the primitive dogs, from Besenjis to NGSDs to Shiba Inus to all the spitz-types to the Carolina Dog, and so on. I guess it is a term that lends itself well to the purposes of the dog show crowd, a sort of catch-all for the "breeds" that they didn't know what else to do with. Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The first task will be to define the term "pariah". As you say, it has become a dumping ground. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I think UKC is the only kennel club who uses the name "pariah". Do you find any other registry or kennel club using the name? The rest use "primitive" or "ancient". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

About ready to start contributing[edit]

Hi Chrisrus, I'm finally starting to formulate a couple of ideas so that instead of complaining, I may be able to actually contribute something constructive to some of these articles. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great!
By the way, I got that book that I told you about. In your "travels", how often do you see this name, Laurie Corbett? Plenty, I think. Is there a more repected expert on the subject of Dingoes? He seems to be everywhere. That's the first thing I'd like to say I learned, I, like you, assumed that he was female because of the name Laurie. Have you ever heard of a man with that name? Dr. Robin Fox I thought was a woman, but he's a man, too. I found that out the hard way. Anyway, I think you have him referred to by the wrong pronoun there in the NGSD article or somewhere, so I thought I'm mention that first.
Second, he has a pretty radical (for Wikipedia, anyway) map of historical and present areas of "pure dingoes". To see my description of that, go to the talk page of the article Canis lupus dingo.
Third, I saw a Kartvelian Bear Dog today. There's a program in Oregon I'd read about where professional park rangers use this dog's unique ability to chase away bears without getting killed to protect the bears there from getting into trouble and thereafter inevitably put down. A pretty amazing dog. But I'd never seen one before. It's owned by a guy who moved in up the street. I coudn't stop to ask because I was, as usual, with my spaniel Casey so I didn't want to get too close to a dog that takes on bears. But I recognized it right away and came home to learn about it on the internet and got involved with that topic recently. I'm hoping to meet the dog soon, very excited to meet such a rare breed. I want to ask the guy, who just recently moved in, how hard it is to keep such an animal in a small house with a small yard. I bet he needs plenty of walks and still gets antsy without having the job to do which he was born to do. Anyway, this got me trying to disambiguate the various "bear dogs" on Wikipedia.
Next, I got involved trying to mediate the Koreans on the meat dog issue. If you think the New Guinea Singing Dog wars were hot, you ought to check out that battle. Whew! Those guys hate each other with a passion. I'm trying to help them work it out, but I don't recommend you get involved. I don't know why I get into these things!
So, what are you looking forward to doing on Wikipedia? I enjoy talking to you! Chrisrus (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, Thank you for straightening me out on the Laurie Corbett mistake. A bear dog. Hummm, new one to me. Never had the pleasure of meeting one. That must be exciting. It's so blasted hot here the dogs just lie about in the shade as do we. I was going to work with the various articles that address dog stew, but if there are confrontational issues amoung editors I think I'll just let them fight it out. It's a tasteless job anyway! I'll review some articles and see where I want to land. Thank you for your kind support and comments. I enjoy working with you as well. You are always "sane" about things. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) One other thing, in some of the articles etc, there are little square boxes in place of letters of words. Inside the boxes are two sets of letters. Do you know what I mean? What are they?? Why are they there? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think what you are referring to is what happens when some computers don't recognize certain letters, usually foreign ones, such as Korean or some such. It used to happen on my old computer, but this new one understands the code for foreign letters and realizes them on my screen. The old one used to do that on letters with an accent or certain other diacritical marks such as umlauts, as well as Greek letters. There should be some way to fix this on your computer. It will depend on what program you are using to see the letters. If you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer, or Mozilla Firefox or some such. I wish I could help you more, but I don't know how. Chrisrus (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What you've said sounds logical. I normally use firfox, but I'll switch to IE and see if there's any difference. Some of these articles are mostly just little boxes. Thanks again for your help, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What I've learned from the Corbett book[edit]

This is what I've been learning from this book and the ways I think it might be useful for us on some of the articles that we work on. Let's see..., I already told you about his being a man called Laurie, about the map, (you have checked out that section in the C.l.dingo article, haven't you? I hope so and hope that you'll be motivated to talk about that there soon. The basic point is he conciders the "Inu" dogs, Nureongi, Caanan dogs, Carolina dogs, NGSDs, Telomians, and Besengis all to be Canis lupus dingo. This contradicts Wikipedia in many places because every article with a dog info box on Wikipedia comes pre-equipped with the taxon "Canis lupus familiaris" already pre-installed, so any article that fulfills Wikipedia Dog article guidelines and has one of thier common dog boxes in the lead proclaims them to be familiaris, even these dogs. Whereas Corbett says they're not. Tom the Norwegian's map, which we use, has been updated by him several times. Well, at least once, to include new information as he learns about it. This is the best map Wikipedia already has, and neither you nor I know how to make maps or get them onto wikipedia. For example, one time Tom learned that there was a confirmation of pure dingoes living along the Nepal/India border. I don't know how he learned about it, he must have seen a paper about research into this discovery and how it was confirmed in peer-review and it must have convinced him to add it to the map. After that, the map we use at Aus Dingo and C.l.dingo was updated by him. So I wonder if he'll do this again. I don't know why he wouldn't. I wonder if he will update it again, and would like to talk to him about it.

Geez, I wish I could share my copy of 'The Dingo in Australia and Asia' with you somehow. Have you thought about getting a copy? I got one used at for really cheap.

Ok, another thing I was psyched to learn from it is about the Thai dingo, the only dingo accpeted by Inu the German on his map, which is still in the commons. After I finish typing this I'll see if I'll post his below. The Thai dingo is the only non-Australian Dingo accepted by absolutely everyone that I can find, yet we didn't know anything about it beyond the uncited stuff in the C.l.dingo article that I took from the Norwegian Wikipedia to fill the void. Well, now we have something citable, are you excited to hear what Corbett has in his book about the Thai dingo? I'll keep you insuspense while I take Casey out to the shrubs for some "birding" (we use stuffed birds I toss up there and try to get tangled up good in there where it's a challenge for him to get them out. He needs this about three times a day. I say this to you should you ever run into someone who doesnt' understand what his Cocker Spaniel wants when he's looking at you the way Casey's looking at me now. He needs to go be a cocker spaniel for a bit, that's what's wrong with him!) B right bk. Chrisrus (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I'll see if I can buy a copy of his book. I downloaded the what, Google review of it and have found some very useful info. I don't agree with him completely but then.... I have a feeling he may have changed some of his ideas a bit as he's learned more too. We all do. I found a science talk show yesterday where several people were discussing dingoes and he was also on the show. You can read the transcript of the show. The link is: You should take a look at it. Also I found a website: that I've come to enjoy. You see, the AU Dingoes, well all the dingo type dogs are so similar, but AU Dingoes are mostly overgrown Singers. There are some social differences and so on, but basically they're a match. I never thought I'd say it, but if we thought Singers were going to go extinct the AU Dingo would be the one to hybridize with Singing Dogs, no doubt about it and Alan Wilton and other now seem to really have their DNA act together. I think the Thai Dingo is in the same class more or less as NGSD and AU Dingoes because of their isolation. The isolation is what has preserved and made those three unique. And the beauty of it is, and I know very little about Thai Dingoes, at least for NGSD and AU Dingoes, in their pure form, they are today as they have been for ages. They have not been altered by man, in fact, speaking for Singers, we have kept them unaltered, period. No selective breeding except to diversify their genes to avoid some of the proven pitfalls of intense inbreeding. It's a challenge when we're working with such a thin line of diversity. For years there were virtually no Singing Dogs bred because we were all doing what the "experts" asked us to do. It suddenely dawned on us that the "experts" were wrong by calling a moratorium on breeding and that because of their stupidity and our blind agreement with them, we were actually near extinction. Three years now have passed with a few litters in the US and Europe. This year we(my wife and I) will attempt to produce three selective litters at our facility. They will be the most genetically diverse litters possible in the world. They will be our first litters in nine years. We have vowed never to allow Singers to die out during our lifetimes. We have 14 adults right now and I'll just be happy as punch to whelp, raise up and train and socialize that many puppies, but it won't happen. We'll probably get about 10 puppies total and several of them are already spoken for. At any rate, I love looking at the AU Dingo pictures. I have an archival photo of two NGSD taken in, I don't know, 1962 or so of the original Singers at the San Diego Zoo. I've had the photo for many years. I should scan it, shouldn't I? It's a black and white. Remember what's been said about how animals in captivity seem to get smaller? I didn't know about any studies or anything, but many years ago, from comparing the San Diego Zoo photo to our own Singing Dogs, I developed my own theory about Singers getting smaller as time goes by. I called it the "Diminuation Factor". I didn't know others had already established it as fact. Anyway, I do think Singers have "shrunk" a bit in the captive population. Thai Dingoes are interesting. Not much about them. Your Cocker is a lucky dog!!!! Tell me what Corbett has to say about Thai Dingo. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Compare the Shiba and the Dingo at this link: osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How rare is rare?[edit]

Chrisrus, This evening something interesting happened. I was reading about rare dog breeds. There was a comment regarding how very rare Thai Ridgebacks have become. The person went on to say that they were so rare that only 100 litters were registered last year. I just about fell out of the chair laughing. How extremely funny. Last year there were six litters of New Guinea Singing Dogs produced. Now let's talk about rare. How funny!!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point! I bet you'll react similarly to this: Rare breed (dog). Chrisrus (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see there is also a wiki article about Landrace. I think the article Rare breed(dog) does a good job of defining the term but we have to remember that AU Dingoes and Singing Dogs and possible Thai dingoes are not landraces because landraces are by definition domesticated animals or plants. I'd still prefer to think that AU dingoes, Thai Dingoes and New Guinea dingoes match the literal definition of a "breed" in the scientific sense, albeit a very ancient breed designed by natural selection, not by humankind. Only a handful of "modern" breeds of dog have been developed from Thai dingoes and from AU dingoes. Not one single dog breed has been developed using NGSD as foundation stock. Not one! Those of us who really think through all the effects of this scenario have many issues on both the pro and the con sides ie whether basically to hybridize Singers. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)



From what I've read, dholes are classed as "more" social for these reasons;

  • They live in much larger groups than wolves do
  • Dominant animals do not assert themselves with acts of aggression. This is a behavioural trait much more specialised for social cohesion than that of wolves
  • You rarely find lone dholes, unlike wolves

Sorry if this seems cursory. If you have anymore questions, go ahead and ask Mariomassone (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thai Dingo Picture[edit]

Chrisrus, There is pretty darn nice picture of a Thai Dingo at this link: Also, I am in the process of contacting the author of the webpage. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Chrisrus, I received a mail return on this author. Now what?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Singerman. I'm sorry I hope you don't think I've been ignoring you. I just wrote a response, but I decided it should really go to talk page of Canis lupus dingo. I hope you will read it. Unfortunately, however, I could only talk about the picture and I haven't talked about the other information in the Corbett book. I will finish later, and then there are some other matters that I would like to talk with you about as well. But now, I've got to go to work, but I promise to finish because I've got a lot more to report, it's very interesting! Chrisrus (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[edit]

Go back and read it again. 1. Dog meat as a cultural behavior. ex. Korea 2. Dog meat as a desperation food. Ex. France, arctic explorer 3. Dog meat as an eccentric/crazy individual thing. ex, Three Swiss guys, some dude in Kentucky. Three Separate phenomena Chrisrus (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I did misunderstand what you wrote. I thought you were talking about the actual practice of eating dog as some sort of fringe activity, when I see now that you were commenting on the mess that is the current article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and I'm sorry that the post was poorly written, resulting at least partly in your misunderstanding being my fault. I am very happy with the initiative you are taking there and try to help to the limited extent that I am able , I'll try to find ways that I can be helpful. Finally, I'll probably repeat this same statement in another appropriate place. Chrisrus (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Chrisrus. Thanks for the nice note you put on my talk page. My contribution to Canis was really very small, but I'm grateful to know you welcomed it. By the way, I saw the Go diagram further up your talk page. Do you play it? --Stfg (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks again, every little bit helps.  :) Actually no, I was just using that as practice to help a friend with picture formatting. I had it open because I was researching all notable meanings and usages of the word "go" for an ESL class I teach, so I was reading that article at the time he asked for help getting pictures in. It looks like an interesting game, though! Chrisrus (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

For your advice re my talk page. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

re:dog meat[edit]

hi chrisrus, you're welcome. i was just curious about that article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that the lead there is a bit vague with regard to Mexico? Cause if you read the Mexico section below, it's really the ancient Aztecs who ate it. We have no evidence that it's any less taboo in Mexico than anywhere else! Chrisrus (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)



From what I've read, the problem with coyote and jackal hybrids is that they are born with a plethora of communication problems which are not apparent in wolf dogs. Wolf-dogs are able to interact without problem with wolves, dogs and other hybrids. Jackal and coyote hybrids on the other hand seem to behave in erratic manners consistent with genes in conflict with one another (eg. dog and wolf body language and vocalisations are almost identical, whereas those of jackals and coyotes differ significantly, hence the instability in hybrid behaviour).

Also, the jackal-dog hybrid article mentions a source stating that jackal hybrids are unable to breed with one another once they've been crossed after several generations.

Although members of Canis CAN interbreed, only the wolf and the dog can seemingly do so without producing mentally unstable pups with defficient social skills.

Hope that clears that up Mariomassone (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


I know that's been the thinking, but are you keeping up with all the new stuff? Look:

  1. "Past hybridization between the two species {lupus and latrans) in the south-central United States may account for the origin of the red wolf." [3]
  2. "...wolves from the Frontenac Axis...are hybrids between the coyote and the eastern wolf and represent the Ontario distribution of the eastern coyote," and "Central Ontario is inhabited by a mixture of wolf "types," and the area has been described as containing "Canis soup." Some of this complexity has been attributed to wolf hybridization with western coyotes, Canis latrans, which began colonizing Ontario in the early 1900s (Kolenosky and Standfield 1975)" [4]
  3. We suggest that hybridization with wolves in Canada introduced adaptive variation that contributed to larger size, which in turn allowed eastern coyotes to better hunt deer, allowing a more rapid colonization of new areas than coyotes without introgressed wolf genes. Thus, hybridization is a conduit by which genetic variation from an extirpated species has been reintroduced into northeastern USA, enabling northeastern coyotes to occupy a portion of the niche left vacant by wolves.

I could go on and on with more citations like this, because at the end of one there's always a link to another that cites it. But here's a suggestion: Google "Canis Soupus" and "Canis Soup". It's such an apt, easily graspable, catchy, and amusing term, I think it's really going to catch on as a term of art (of course never a real taxon...I don't think.... Let me know how many hits you get for it, is it up to two hundered yet? My guess is, sooner or later, Wikipedia will have an article by that name.

Well! Sorry, you said you "hope that clears that up" so I hate to cloudy it up, but that's the way things are going, everyone seems to be putting out papers about it. Canis is just a different kind of genus! Chrisrus (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I'd recommened that you google "Eastern Coyote", which, as you probably know, is not a recognized species or subspecies. Wikipedia needs an article called Eastern Coyote, but I hesitate to approve the term for this referent, look at the size of this one, for example . The word "coyote" might be better left in quotes in the term, as it's not really fully a Coyote, as you will learn when you Google it, if you don't already know all about it. Someone other than me should write the article, as I'm no expert. I do listen to what experts have to say about it, though, and it's pretty amazing. So someone else should write that article, and I know just the man for the job: you, Mario. I wish that you would write the article Eastern "Coyote", because it's high time someone did, and better you than anyone else I know on Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Sorry I didnt get back to you.

I'm afraid I don't have reference [5], nor have I read it first hand. I got the information second-hand from Inugharmi-Bargho [sp?], who, unlike me, can read German. He translates the info, I transcribe it in higher standard English. Perhaps he can provide an explanation. Are you on good terms with him these days? From what I have understood, wolf/coyote hybrids obviously have no congenital defects (quite the opposite it seems), but dog/coyote hybrids do. I am aware that modern taxonomists now class the dog and the wolf as the same species, but then again, the behaviour of dogs is do diverse, and the experiment described in the reference only used one breed of dog (poodles, which arent exactly reknowned for their social skills). That is just my theory, but I wouldnt publish it.

I've actually been thinking of re-writing the coyote article for quite a while now, and the Eastern coyote is an interesting challenge. However, as you may have noted from the wolf and spotted hyena article, I prefer to do so with a full bibliography, rather than a collection of websites. At the moment, all my books mentioning coyotes do not treat the topic exhaustively. HOWEVER, I assure you that I one day shall buy books such as Marc Bekoff's Coyotes: Biology, Behavior, and Management and Gerry Parker's Eastern Coyote, and when I do, the coyote article will taste the consequences(!). Perhaps I'll treat myself to them this Christmas.

Kind regards, and thank you for the encouragement! Mariomassone (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with the facts. I haven't researched much into coydogs, but chromosome number regardless, it has been found by at least two sources (Marie Jean Pierre Flourens and Doris Feddersen-Petersen) that jackal-dog hybrids become sterile after the third/fourfth generation, and can only be mated back to either parent species, but not with other hybrids. The Flourens reference identifies the jackals involved as the golden species and, so far, Inu (who has the Peterson reference) has not argued against me using his hybrid info for the golden jackal article. It seems similair chromosome number is not a foolproof way of producing consistently fertile hybrids.

I did not write anything on the canid hybrid save for the jackal hybrid section.Mariomassone (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dog News~[edit]

Wolf teeth[edit]

An 8 to 10-year-old North Pole wolf being studied by USGS scientists for patterns of dental wear to help indicate age. The front incisors are worn down without their lateral cusps present. One canine tip is broken.

Not sure if we have this already. Here is the source. I uploaded the smaller version. The big one is 4MB. I can't do that from my ISP. If you want, upload the newer, bigger version here. Might be good for at least one article. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


You, my friend, could do with a bit of archiving. Your talk page is lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnng. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. You, I like. But I think I like it better this way. I might go through and delete a few of them, or organize them or even archive a few. But thanks! :) Chrisrus (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


is there a particular reason you won't work in the userspace page I created for you? why do you keep recreating this article about a mythical device? -- Y not? 03:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

At least glance at, at least one of the references, then call it "mythical" no more. Yes, there is a reason. Go to the article's talk page if you want to talk about ways of improving the article.Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I put it up on AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-laser. -- Y not? 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Why? Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your input. See Talk:Human#Update -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing AfD Notice[edit]

There's no time limit to an AfD and you can't remove a notice of AfD until it is properly closed. I've replaced the notice on Anti-laser because of this.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It ran it's course and lost fair and square. Why was it re-listed? It was re-listed and no reason was given. You can't just re-list without some honest good faith reason. "It didn't go my way" doesn't count. This is a bad faith re-list. Chrisrus (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but that's a different issue. The AfD wasn't closed so it was inappropriate to remove the notice. Removing the notice doesn't close the AfD or stop the consequences when it is closed. It's against policy to remove an open AfD notice and it can be considered vandalism. You seem like a good contributor and I don't want you to fall in to behavior that could have consequences toward your continued editing on wikipedia. Just let this one slide and the AfD will run its course and be closed. Please be patient.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Fine. I agree Chrisrus (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, how might I open an investigation into a case of undue and unjustified re-listing, as well as stonewalling all queries as to why it was re-listed? I still want a reason. Chrisrus (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi. I am sorry you are getting reverted on Pig (disambiguation). Whether or not to open with a link to Domestic pig depends on the outcome of the requested move on Talk:Pig. Please make your case there, not on the disambiguation page! The disambiguation page opens with the genus because that is what is on Pig; no other reason. If Pig changes then so will the disambiguation page. (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at an ANI thread, regarding an issue with which you may have been involved, here. Thank you ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR notice board[edit]

Because of your excessive reverts of mostly my changes I've raised your recent editing of Pig (disambiguation) at the 3RR notice board: [5]--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the edit summary about you obviously not knowing the first thing about peccaries could have been misinterpreted as being uncivil. Please undestand that I meant it literally, it's literally the first thing, almost, that any expert wants to say about them - they are not true pigs. I thought that that to argue that whether "peccaries are not concidered true pigs by experts" is a subjective statement, this betrays he or she doesn't know the first thing about peccaries. That this argument was on the wrong track in this way was a necessary point to make, I thought. But please don't take it personally, most people don't know much of anything about peccaries. And there is absolutely nothing particularly wrong with knowing nothing much about peccaries, one needn't be ashamed of it or of having been caught arguing in a way that was flawed because of that, because people could be forgiven for thinking they were true pigs, as they do seem a very piggy bunch and in fact are considered pigs by non-experts. So I thought it wasn't being uncivil, this is good rhetoric. Nevertheless, I apologize because I should have realized that it does sting to have one's ignorance about anything exposed, even if it's the obscure fact that peccaries are not true pigs. So I should have found a gentler way to say it. Chrisrus (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Pig (disambiguation). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I hereby appeal this block by adding below this notice this text:

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Chrisrus (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

    1. . Reasoned, productive, good faith, and civil discussion was ongoing throughout the series of edits. Please investigate carefully.
    2. . Each "undo" was not the same. Many times, the text was changed to satisfy the reason given in the previous edit summary. Please investigate carefully.
  1. . NO LONGER NECESSARY because:
I thought that, if each edit was not exactly the same but instead responded to the objection in the previoius edit summary, while at the same time excellent discussion was ongoing on the talk page, I wouldn't have to keep count. I'll be more careful next time now that I know that I may be blocked despite anything else, based on a simple counting of who did what how many times and in what order, regardless of the extenuating circumstances.

Decline reason:

Sorry but starting a discussion is not a license to continue reverting and reverting different content is still reverting, so it's still edit warring. It's only a short block, so just take on the chin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Chrisrus (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


Chrisrus, re your comments addressed to User:Kevmin on article talk pages and Kevmin's talk page, not only are such personal remarks rude, but they approach personal attacks, for which you can be blocked. See Wikipedia:No personal remarks and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, I think you are over-interpreting those sources. All they seem to be saying is that a peccary group and a pig group, each defined by the source author, are sister groups rather than parent and child or child and parent. The only fact here is that this is a matter of debate in the literature. If this debate belongs in Wikipedia then it is content for Suina. Mention of "true pigs" does not belong on the disambiguation page. (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone says that whether peccaries are considered true pigs by experts is a matter of opinion or a subjective statement, that person must not know the first thing about peccaries. If you disagree with this, you must not know the first thing about peccaries either, and this is not to insult you. You are being far too sensitive. It is not rude to say that someone clearly doesn't know much about peccaries. Lot's of people don't know the first thing about peccaries and are not ashamed of this and readily admit it. There is no shame in not knowing anything about peccaries. Please don't be insulted because someone has pointed out that you clearly need to learn just a little bit about peccaries if you argue that whether they are true pigs or not is at all controversial among experts.
Please spend just a little time learning about peccaries. You will see that, no matter what expert on peccaries you find, if they are speaking to the general public, who can, as can anyone searching for p-i-g(s), be expected not to know anything about peccaries, the expert will tell them in a very upfront way that one of the first things to know about them is that they are not true pigs, contrary to popular belief. It had to do with their teeth and such at first, but more to the point has to do with the clades. It will not take long for you to convince yourself that experts do not consider peccaries to be true pigs. The statement that "peccaries are not considered true pigs by experts" is not a matter of opinion or a subjective statement. Please don't take this from me, look into it yourself. You will see unanimous consensus among experts that peccaries are not considered true pigs by experts.
A "p-i-g" disambiguation page user is highly likely to be looking for a page about honest-to-goodness pigs. He or she should be given the information that he or she needs to do this. We need to let them know that anything higher than Suidae isn't really about true pigs, but rather one about true pigs and peccaries, which are not true pigs. He or she might very well want an article only about real pigs, not peccaries, which are universally considered not to be true pigs by people who study such things. For this reason, letting them know that an article is about pigs and peccaries, and that peccaries are not really true pigs, that is likely to be helpful information for a "p-i-g" searcher to know. Why, without knowing that peccaries are not true pigs, a user might just choose the broadest taxon, thinking he or she wants the broadest perspective on real pigs, an article about all the pigs in general. Without this information, the user might accidentally arrive at an article about a referent that includes pigs and non-pigs at the same time, and then have to figure out the situation and then backtrack, needlessly complicating his or her search for an article which is about pigs, only. And he can pretty well be assumed to be wanting an article just about pigs, because they typed in "p-i-g(s)". Well, many if not most of them can be so assumed. Pity the poor searcher who simply wants an article about pigs being denied the information he or she needs to know to find one! For this reason, adding this information about peccaries to the disambiguation page is important. Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Remarks such as If you disagree with this, you must not know the first thing about peccaries are personal remarks and are not appropriate. (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyone who states that whether peccaries are considered by experts to be true pigs or not is a subjective statement or matter or opinion must not know the first thing about peccaries because whenever you read anything about peccaries written for the layman by an expert, the first thing they'll tell you is that they are not true pigs. So anyone who knows the first thing about peccaries should know that they are not true pigs. Therefore, one of the arguments against including the fact that they are not considered true pigs by experts on the disambiguation page, this arguement is best dealt with by the person making such an arguement going and learning just a tiny bit about peccaries. At that point, the person making such an arguement, if he or she is reasonable, will have to withdraw that arguement and either substitute another or concede.
If Wikipedia is to work, there will be debates. In some debates, one person will be wrong and the other right at times about different things. At such times, the person having been shown to be wrong may very well feel bad and angry and personally attacked, and so charge the other with being uncivil, but this does not mean that the person who has pointed out that they were wrong and why and how to prove it to themself has been uncivil. Nowhere in either of these links you have provided does it say "don't point out to other people that they are wrong and why and what information they are missing and how they can get it, because it's uncivil to do so". Of course, it is to tell someone such things in most contexts, but it's not uncivil or unduely personal in this context. You yourself tell people that they are wrong about this or that and why. In fact, ironically, that's what you've attempted to say to me here today. Probably we all do in one way or another at some time on Wikipedia. If you are so insulted by someone pointing out that you what you'd just said betrays that you don't know the first thing about peccaries and suggests that you google it or some such, you might consider a new hobby that does not involve debate. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the encouragement re: my edits in Bloop. I would be interested to see what Phil Lobel's comments were to you in email. If you would prefer to keep them private, I would be happy to supply you with a gmail address you can send them to. I hope the email exchange didn't get testy: I am hoping Phil Lobel might be a valuable source for analysis! :-) Kothog (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He never really responded, but I think he might if someone else also contacted him. I was able to Google up his address pretty quickly. The Biology Department at Boston University listed his email address at their [website |] where anyone can publicly see it, so there couldn't possibly be any harm for me to save you the trouble of clicking and just simply tell you here that it's "".

I wrote him this:

On Nov 11, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Chrisrus wrote:

Dear Professor Label;

To get right to the point, when you talked about the Bloop, what did you mean exactly?

I mean, by saying (words to the effect of) "not geological" and "consistent with biological" BUT "much louder than then loudest whale", did you mean "...therefore, it couldn't be biological either"?

I ask because I'm working on the article for Wikipedia, and the article makes it sound like you are saying "it must be biological and huge" instead of "it sounds biological, but it's too big to be biological", which together with the thought "not like any known geological" would result ipso facto "Evidence supports neither geological nor biological, i.e.: a total mystery."


Thank you for your kind attention,

ChrisRus Wikipedia Editor (a hobby).

As I say, he didn't really respond:

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Phil Lobel <> wrote:

I am just back from research travel and would be happy to talk to you my phone is below but I will be teaching and lecturing a lot in the next few weeks best time to reach me is between 0800 and 0930 or email and we can set up a time once I am back in the lab and know my schedule monday cheers

Phillip Lobel, PhD Professor of Biology Scientific Diving Officer

Biology Department Boston University

That was the end of it; I never wrote back. Should I? Or would it be better if you tried first? His reply made me think he didn't understand that talking to him on the phone wouldn't solve the problem. I want him to get himself quoted somewhere we can cite him saying whether or not, in his opinion, the biological explanation is at all likely vs. the more rational speculation that it might have something to do with currents or ice or some such; you know, like the wind can make biological-sounding noises at times. Or a rockslide from a distance might be taken for a lion roaring or a creaky door can sound like a bird. However he wants to put it; the thing is, if he would put the different forms of speculation in perspecitive.

I haven't Googled the bloop in a long time, is there anything new out there? For all I know, he's already done the above out there somewhere.

The other thing we might try is to contact Fox. I think he's also contradictory-sounding. In my opinion, these are probably a couple of nice fellows who are just trying to be nice to people who interview them and who want to wonder about biologial causes. I can't believe they take any biological cause seriously, but of course they can't strictly rule it out, but they can say: "Oh, please, that's not a serious hypothesis." because doing so would be rude, but it's important we don't give irrational speculation equal weight with the notable but irrational speculation; we seem to agree, no? We can then organize the article appropriately if we had such quotes from them. Chrisrus (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey dude; The hypotheses all appear to have originated from Dr. Fox and possibly Dr. Lobel was just confirmatory. I'll have to write back the NOAA types. I've been on-and-off lurking in some small bioacoustics lists and groups too that might yield some interesting bits and pieces. There is nothing new about Bloop as far as I can see. William Shatner featured Bloop on his Weird or What show, but his researchers didn't find squat. He did interview Dr. Fox in that show, but Dr. Fox said nothing new! On top of that, the physics of the episode were off: they used a weird decibel estimate which made absolutely no sense whatsoever. As a suggestion, we should refrain from challenging prior statements, and only request new material--like what the filename of the second datafile means; whether there was actually more than one recording; whether the second datafile is different from the one showcased on the NOAA site; if they've done any more thinking about the Bloop; if they've learned anything new that might apply; etc. It would be a shame to alienate them in a confrontational way: they are scientists, after all. :) Kothog (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, why don't you contact them next? You'll be more diplomatic, but I do think what I wrote is specifically what we want him to do: level with us and separate rational speculation from the shall we say less so. I'll see what I can google up and let you know here. Please request the dates and other data for the article and anything else you'd like to do; and just generally get ready for what's coming now that there's a market out there for Bloop TV programs. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Fox et al have been contacted, and written back. Their responses, and hopefully an actual update from the real NOAA themselves, should be posted somewhere and then this article can get some proper attention. I think, regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to get some proper movement in the article itself. Kothog (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Please don't keep me in suspense! What did they say? Chrisrus (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


Hallo. You've added a strange word socomorph to the article in this June. I can't find it in scientific literature. Did you mean soricomorph? Mithril (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have made a mistake. Chrisrus (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An explanation[edit]

Hello, Just wanted to explain why I haven't been on line with wiki. The organization I co-founded(NGSDI) is rehoming a hoard of about 80 New Guinea Singing Dogs in PA. It's a real deal, believe. There's a lot on the news about it. Sadly, the media has many prejudiced statements and false information. You might check it out anyway. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Singerman!
As you see it, what is going on in Pennsylvania?


  1. Hyenas are the animals of the family Hyaenidae
  2. Hyenas (Hyaenidae), are a family of carnivores.

Indian_pariah_dog article[edit]

Hi Chris,

I have edited the Indian pariah dog article, tried to clean it up. But the clean up message in the heading still seems to be there... any suggestions?

Chicken turtle[edit]

Can you expand on your comment on the articles talk page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problem! Thank you for your interest in this matter. Chrisrus (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fossil Records[edit]

Fossil records only indicate that humans have been denaturing meat by cooking them in order to eat it. I never contested this fact. But this doest take anything away from the fact that cooking meat releases PhIP, a carcinogen.

Since humans are herbivores, they lack the stomach and mouth acidity or intestine length to kill the bacteria and get rid of purifying meat fast. Like I wrote, and for this very reason, meat comes with warning More people die of meat bacteria than aids virus. Therefore, meat has to be radiated and cooked to get rid of the bacteria. But, cooking meat releases carcinogens.

Cancer is most frequent where carnivorous habits prevail. - Scientific American, 1892

if humans are really omnivores, this they dont need to go to all this length. Also, omnivores don't get atherosclerosis. Manuj Chandra (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Good information, didn't know that at all[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Chipmunkdavis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dog yet again[edit]

The "dog" article starts "The dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated form of the gray wolf". This means that the subject of the article is the domestic dog - while this may not be genetically different from the dingo, it is not appropriate to list canis lupus dingo as a classification of the domestic dog. Wrong end of the stick, it seems to me. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Any domestic animal is a domestic form of a wild animal, even if it has reverted to life in a wild state. Feral pigs, for example, are still domestic pigs, albeit ones that have reverted to life in the wild. But more to the point, if the sources call it a domestic dog, we should do so too no matter how you or I feel about it. The problem is, you (it seems), like many other people, have not noticed that this is what they do. Chrisrus (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Dog Synonyms[edit]

Accepted by MSW3:

(Linnaeus, 1758)

(Gmelin, 1792)

(C. E. H. Smith, 1839)

(Krumbiegel, 1950)

  • Canis hagenbecki or Chrysocyon hagenbecki Never existed. Humilliating mistake or hoax or some such. Was supposed to be a new species but he'd only been sold an old sheepdog skin from a shyster who convinced him it was a mysterious "Andian Wolf". Everyone would like to just forget it ever happened.


I don't think thats necessary. It was never considered a distinct species, just (previously) a subspecies of golden jackal (which IS still considered a jackal, albeit a very wolfy one)Mariomassone (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Lepidoptera[edit]

Your request has been complied with. See :

AshLin (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gray wolf - cannibalism[edit]

in the gray wolf article you're currently editing, please change the link to "cannibalism (zoology)" instead of the generic "cannibalism" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but in general, please feel free to do such things yourself. It is that you don't know how? I'd offer to help you if you said that was the case. We can always use more help on Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Navajo wolves[edit]

I'm not an expert on Navajo culture, but here's the whole page:

Other tribes, notably the Navajo, feared wolves as human witches in wolves' clothing. The Navajo word for wolf, mai-cob, is a synonym for witch. There is a good deal of witchcraft among the Navajo and belief in werewolves provides explanations for otherwise inexplicable (to them) phenomena. Witchcraft and werewolves are (the belief is current) more on the minds of some Navajos than others, specifically the more insecure, those who have many bad dreams or who suffer from a sickness or misfortune all out of proportion to those around them. Such people might be viewed by other Navajos as suffering the attention of werewolves.Mariomassone (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Shrew Mole Taxonomy[edit]

What I'm reading says Neurotrichus is one of the Urotrichini.

"... 3) the Urotrichini, containing Neurotrichus." -- Terry L. Yates and Ira F. Greenbaum, zoologists, Biochemical Systematics of North American Moles (Insectivora: Talpidae), Journal of Mammology, Volume 63, Number 3, Pages 368-374, Aug 1982

Yates, T.L., and Moore, D.W., Speciation and Evolution in the Family Talpidae (Mammalia: Insectivora), Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, Volume 335, Pages 1-22, 1990

"Yates and Greenbaum (1982) suggested that the morphological similarity between Neurotrichus and Urotrichus, found on the opposite side of the Pacific, in Japan, may be the result of convergence. Subsequently, however, Yates and Moore (1990) indicated that the chromosomal data support an earlier view that the two are more closely related to one another than either is to any other living genus." -- Robert M. Nowak, zoologist, Walker's Mammals of the World, Volume 2, Insectivora: Talipidae, 1999

"The Urotrichini (Urotrichus, Dymecodon and Neurotrichus)...." -- Masaharu Motokawa, zoologist, Phylogenetic Relationships Within the Family Talpidae (Mammalia: Insectivora), Journal of Zoology, Volume 263, Pages 147-157, May 2004

"Chinese (Scaptonyx), Japanese (Urotrichus and Dymecodon) and North American (Neurotrichus) shrew moles closely resemble each other in external appearance and habits (Allen, 1938; Reed, 1951). These diminutive animals commonly excavate shallow tunnel systems in the leaf mold of soft loamy soils and appear to occupy an ecological niche between those of the shrew-like and fossorial talpids." -- Akio Shinihara, zoologist, et al., Evolution and Biogeography of Talpid Moles from Continental East Asia and the Japanese Islands Inferred from Mitochondrial and Nuclear Gene Sequences, Zoological Science, Volume 21, Number 12, Pages 1177-1185, Dec 2004

"... the Urotrichini, including the Asian Urotrichus, Dymecodon, and the North American Neurotrichus (van Valen, '67; Hutchison, '68; Yates and Moore, '90)" -- F. David Carmona, zoologist, et al., The Evolution of Female Mole Ovotestes Evidences High Plasticity of Mammalian Gonad Development, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, Volume 310B, Issue 3, Pages 259–266, May 200876.216.196.209 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I may have a look at those papers, but as Wikipedians, we have no way to evalutate these papers, which can contadict each other. Even if, in real life, you are qualified to evaluate such things, as a wikipedian you aren't either because as a Wikipedian you are not you per se actually but just a random screenname, or maybe your teenage son logging on when you're out. And so the tendency is to look to some kind of august institution to have their conventions or whatver they do and have read all the published papers and debate them and then elect one of their own to write up the final decision plus notes and comments about any controvercies and doubts and whatever and then we go with that, at least as far as the taxobox and the lead sentences go. You will see that this is the only way things practically work out: we just need an authority on what taxon goes where at least till the next edition of MSW comes out, otherwise it's chaos and nothing gets done. So please let's just wait for them to to go over all these papers that you have there and make their decision to change it.
Having said that, I welcome the addtion of these excellent sources. We can use them in the taxonomy sections, below, and summarize the current debates. We should word it like this "Experticus J. Knowsstuff in The Journal of Serious Discussion has 'suggested that this taxonomy be changed in the following way yadda yadda, but the jury is still out as to whether he's right about that."
Thank you for your interest in these interesting animals and your contributions to these articles, but we can't have the lead and the taxobox and all the other articles contradicting each other. Please summarize the references that post-date MSW3 and let's keep the readers up-to-date with the latest expert thinking about these referents. This is a particularly vexing corner of mammology and I'm very excited to hear all about what these papers you have say. But until MSW3 or some even higher panel of experts makes the call, let's please keep it out of the leads and taxoboxes. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'More to ignore"?[edit]

Hey, Chrisrus. I noticed this edit summary when you posted it, but I didn't know what it meant. I assumed it was referring to your posting in the thread and there being no response. Is this accurate? --Moni3 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry, I shouldn't have written that "more to ignore". I understand why you didn't respond. I admire your hard work, dedication, and skill, and patience. What that section is trying to do is important and the topic is sensitive. Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


I reverted your edit at Entelodont, as, including it within Category:Pigs would mean also including peccaries within it, too. Entelodont (and all of its subordinate articles) are within Category:Entelodonts, which is already within Category:Suina, and that would be fine as is.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That, and Porky Pig is in the subcategory "Fictional Pigs," to be precise.
Fine, I don't mind. I knew it was a stretch. But please notice that, according to several articles on Wikipedia including Suina, neither the entelodonts nor the hippos are included in the Suinae anymore. Of course, I have no problem if we want to stick with the older alignment, but at least for the taxoboxes and the lead sentences all the articles should follow just one system, and as a user who navigates by taxobox alot I just want it to be one system and don't care too much which, but I realize for the project in general we're supposed to go with the most generally accepted by experts. At this point on the mammilian branch, it seems they aren't all of one mind, but isn't there some authority, such as MSW3 which we could look to to evaluate it all and make a decision that we all agree to go with? MSW3 doesn't deal with extinct species. Either Hell Pigs and Hippoes are in the Suina as far as Wikipedian taxoboxes are concerned or they are not until the international society of mammologists or some such has their next conference, looks it all over, has it out, and then publishes it, even if its "inserta cedis" or whatever, and have that be the way we organize things here until they meet again and switch it on us again. Chrisrus (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The placement is not settled yet and we havent gotten very good coverage of this in the appropriate articles here yet, so dont go by what the wiki articles say here. As shown by this 2008 paper placement in Suiforme (Suina) is still accepted. Im not sure if you meant Suinae in your comment but neither entelodonts nor the hippos have ever been placed as a pig subfamily that I know of. Often times in Taxonomy "one system" is very contentions and pov, and this is especially true of higher taxonomy in some mammal groups still. MSW3 is not an authority except for wikiproject mammals. The thing about MSW3 is that it is just a compilation of taxonomic opinions with no major revisions itself and was never considered a binding decision by mammal taxonomists. In fact it was contested by papers soon after it was published and has been growing more out of date each month with now papers revising opinions on taxonomy. I am strongly of the opinion that MSW3 should not be used as the default position on taxonomy due to its age and that it didnt cover any aspects of extinct taxa making it very spotty on accuracy to begin with. It all comes down to what the individual papers say and who had the most compelling opinions in a paper. Btw the term you were looking for was incertae sedis.--Kevmin § 20:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, we have to go with something in terms of the taxoboxes and leads, and it's very confusing to navigate by taxobox up and down the Tree of Life if you've got one or two articles that are still sticking with the old way of doing things and out of synch with everything else. It'd be chaos otherwise, we have to make some kind of decision, we can't have one article saying that this taxon goes here and another saying that it goes somewhere else. We have to go with some coherent system at least as far a taxoboxes go, and then in the body you can have the text say that it's contravertial and this expert or that has said it should be re-arranged in some manner that should be spelled out in as much detail as appropriate. The article Suina, the disambiguation page Pig (disambiguation), and other places should have the Hippoes and Hell Pigs re-installed into the Suina, or this page should take them out at least in the taxoboxes, one way or another. If I'm wrong about that, then all articles and taxoboxes should have both systems somehow incorporated into the taxoboxes and leads in as non-awkward a way as possible.
I am not in a position to evaluate this article you provide and to pass judgement on it. Neither are you, actually, because even if you are in real life here on Wikipedia you are just a screen name named Kevmin, maybe your teenage son logging on when you're out shopping or some such, not you, yourself, per se. What we need is some periodic publication of something with a name like "The International Commission on Mammalian Taxonomy" or some such to wade through it all and come down one way or the other or something in between and then we Wikipedians simply obay until they meet again and publish something we can use as a current taxonomy until they come around again. With extant species, rightly or wrongly, it's been MSW3, no matter how you or I feel about it, Wikipedia has settled on it. In this case, it doesn't seem to apply because hell pigs are extinct, so I'm calling for some kind of genearal consensus as to what to run with while the top experts argue such things out. Please agree that this if not ideal at least is practicable. And although I thank you for your intersting facts about MSW3, I still would ask you to suggest something else to use or else there's little we can do about the problems with them until and unless something better comes along.
Thank you for your interest in settling this problem and for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
At this point it will take looking at the scientific papers and finding out if, and only if, there is a stable view of the superordinal placement for entelodonts and hippos. At that point taxoboxes can be edited as needed. A publication is only good until the next publication is put out that addresses the same topic. MS3 was chosen for its wide coverage and relative recentness about 5 years ago by a group of wikieditors as the guide for taxonomy. There are known problems, such as lack of coverage and inaccuracies due to lack of extinct taxa (see the one genus, no subfamilies, Equidae). Also despite the editors of MS3 assertions otherwise, updates and corrections based on new papers have not been maintained in print or online editions of MSW.
But as I said there is no such thing as MSW3 in the way you are wanting it though, science and taxonomy does not work that way. There will never be an "The International Commission on Mammalian Taxonomy" which lays down the law as it were and says one way is correct. Its all based on different researchers proposing different ideas and the concepts being hashed out over time. Most taxonomics are never settled in all reality. The job of wikipedia is to reflect the current state of opinion that is held by the researchers, both majority and significant minority, In general the taxobox should reflect the current opinions while hte article covers the current plus background on the historical views. --Kevmin § 05:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again.
It seems to me that there are two topics we are discussing, one is about what to do when we have problems such as these. I'd like to drop that topic for the moment and talk about what should be done in this case. If it were up to you, what changes would you make, if any, to the taxoboxes and leads and such for the following articles and pages:
  1. Hell pigs
  2. Pig (disambiguation)
  3. Suina
  4. Hippo
There are probably more. I would like to see them reconciled somehow so they don't give contradictary information. Chrisrus (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here's another example, the article Artiodactyla. It says that there are three main types, the pigs and such, the camels and such, and the whippos. Having the hippoes and the whales in one group would imply that, seeing as how the hippoes aren't in with the pigs and such, that the hell pigs aren't either. Do you think it's safe to assume that any article that organizes the even-toeds with the hippoes not in the pigs-and-such groups wouldn't include the hell pigs either if it were listing extinct groups? It seems reasonable to me. Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: mixed-breed dog[edit]

No problem, I'm glad I could help out in some (tiny) fashion. I've been reading your talk page comments and agree that the article in its present state has some issues, and I may take a stab at improving it soon. It'd be great if it got up to FA status again, but I haven't even had my first GA submission reviewed yet :)

Do these "never-bred" dogs even belong in the article if they're not true mixed-breeds? Are there any specific types that exist that don't have articles? I do think the concept deserves more coverage, to be sure. – anna 09:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cambodian Razorback[edit]

Hi Chrisrus, Those CR are neat. I wonder how many are in Cambodia? I noticed they referred to their barking, not howling. All the southeastern Asia dogs are certainly cut from the same block of wood, but one can't help but wonder how modern domestics figure into the genetics. I would think there would have been an isolation factor involved in Southeast Asia. Lack of western influence. European influence though. If someone would do some dna sampling before they get all watered down?? that would be nice. How isolated has the Thai Dog or Dingo been? I don't mean the Thai Ridgeback. Is there a plain Cambodian Dog or Dingo. It talked about dogs along the coast. Where did the razorback of ridgebacvk genes come from? Why haven't any Singing Dogs or AU Dingoes exhibited razorbacks or ridgebacks? The Cambodian Ridgeback is such a big dog. Wonder why? Interesting. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The story of the Cambodian Razorback dog centers around one particular person, and a person who you know. His name is Christian Berger, this is his website:[7]. But you may know him as "Tbjornstad" the same Norwegian user who helped us translate the Norwegian article on the Thai Dingo for the article Canis lupus dingo subsection that we created and worked on together. He is also the author of the only article you will find if you search wikipedia for Cambodian Razorback Dog, which is only on the Norwegian encyclopedia. As I recall, (please read his website) he found these dogs in Cambodia, wandering around or something, and asked about them. The locals told him that one in every so many common dogs there have this feature, and shrugged it off, as locals so often do about extraordinary dogs right under their noses. He collected as many as he could and began a breeding program which he talks about on his website. If you Google Image "Cambodian Razorback Dog" there is one picture that appears multiple times on multiple sites which is clearly one of the most extraordinary individuals I have ever seen. This is no simple "ridgeback", it's a serious straight sharp rigid Mohawk many inches high. The closest thing I've seen to it is the razorback of the Striped Hyena, or the neck mane of a zebra or hourse. I wonder about it. the back of a dog is supposed to divide hair laying one way with one going the other, and that stripe could somehow come from a slight variation in how that normally works. The NGSD and Aus dingo probably share close common ancestors with this dog, but they come from genetic bottlenecks of just very few individuals, originally. I guess the chances of those dogs having that ridgeback, or even razorback gene, even if it existed at that time, would have been pretty small. The other mystery is the Rhodesian Ridgeback, did it evolve separately? They look alot alike aside from the ridge. I wonder if they were brought there by the same Austronesian peoples that populated some of New Guninea and all of Madagascar, but have never been proven to have landed on Africa. Some people think they are origianly from Africa, but I don't think so. Chrisrus (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Chrisrus. Just a courtesy note to let you know I've applied a hidden template to the thread you recently joined. I didn't feel right about removing or archiving it since you'd replied, but I think the question was deeply unconstructive and unlikely going to lead to anything good. Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Ok, that's fine. Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


I just noticed your edits to the genus article and wanted to clarify a few things: First, just to be sure that does not lead to any further confusion, it appears you believed my "hidden" comment was specifically aimed at you. That was not the case: Rather, I wanted to be sure people realized exactly what I requested the citation for (i.e., that the name "green toucanet" was in use). Although I do appreciate John Boyd's page when I just need a rough update on bird phylogeny, calling him an expert on toucans or for that matter Neotropical birds is questionable at best, and I have checked all the other citations you list; none of them use green toucanet (I guess you just copied them from Boyd's PDF because some of them don't even deal with Aulacorhynchus, but if you need the full citation feel free to ask and I'll provide them). I have worked with Neotropical birds for many years and probably have every single book that is directly related to this matter and has been published in the last few decades; I have yet to find one that uses "green toucanet" as a general name for Aulacorhynchus. However, Boyd, regardless of his level of expertise on toucans, is an external ref., and that's all I requested. I have therefore added his PDF as a citation.
The second matter: Yes, I did remove your edit from the taxonomic section, but the primary reason was that it, as I also said in my edit summary, included a fundamental misunderstanding (the basis are few species; the novel idea are the splits). Even if I had modified it to fit the realities better, that brief text would only provide info already present in the list (following standard format w. brackets to indicate taxa that can be treated as sp./ssp.; used widely in biology and also in many bird articles on wiki), i.e. it would essentially be a repeat. If you want to add a larger taxonomic section I hope you will consider reading the papers that have formed the basis for the splits, but if not familiar with this group please also check some of the background literature (mainly Haffer 1974, but also Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Short & Horne 2001, Short & Horne 2002), as especially the proposed Andean splits of the Emerald Toucanet complex include some serious problems (briefly dealt with in Emerald Toucanet, but I'll probably add more when I get the time). Finally, referring to other articles is pretty standard on wiki; we even have templates for it (WP:TMG#Section), and if we were to add everything that only is relevant to one species/species complex in the genus article we'd be content forking. I have removed the "hidden" text you placed under the taxonomic section, as I believe it only was aimed at me. In the future, please forward such personal messages to my talk page. Cheers, • Rabo³ • 06:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles about genera should explain important and interesting things about the genus, so please do so. That is the place for it, not sending them to all those other articles in order to piece it together. It's there in the list, yes, but see WP:PROSE; readers may need the list explained inn prose, at least for a start.
One could approach it chronologically, as in "this idea came first, and then this one came along and challenged it" and so on. Another approach would be "two legitimate ways of looking at it" approach, a la "there are these (two) ways of looking at it, one which sees it like this and other like that" Chronological may cause the reader to weigh the last one who spoke as the most probably correct, so this other way is more neutral and NPOV. However, if the new alignment is as it is simply because more knowledge has come to light, then the reader should lend more weight to the newer taxonomy and a balanced approach would cause "undue weight" on outdated ideas.
By the way, I know it's supposed to be a taxonomy section, but as you must know, and as the article Cladistics teaches, it is closer to the reality because it gets all the further branchings you can see as you fractal zoom on it into inter-taxonomic space. A drawing like Boyd's is easy to understand, and another showing the alternative branchings as there may be are easy for reader to "get the picture" may be a good idea. But sentences describing the "complexes" (a term not explained nor likely understood very well as it stands) as divisions along a branch as if you were describing such a picture can very clear even without the visual aid. If the reader gets the cladistics, the taxonomic debate becomes easy to understand and not just semantic debating about what to call something.
But might that be getting ahead of ourselves? Right now, all I ask is, could you please do as I was trying to and explain the information already in the article in the form of a list in prose? That would definately be some progress. Or barring that, if you don't do it, please the next time I try, please fix any problems you find with my attempt rather than just reverting the whole thing. That way, that section would be makeing progress. And if that's too much trouble, then please just tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it. "Cheers" back to you! Chrisrus (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a fair proposal. I'll leave a possible illustrations to someone else; cladistics is only really useful when we have good results to work from (some of the Aulacorhynchus branches have poor bootstrap support, part of "albivitta" falls into the atrogularis group, lautus remain unsampled, and only ND2 is available for huallagae; GenBank isn't of much help for these either, so we can't even check/update the consensus tree ourselves, but that would be WP:OR anyway). Additionally, most ornithological authorities follow the biological species concept where monophyly is not a requirement, and suggesting the phylogenetic species concept is closer to the reality than the BSC will land you right in the middle of the huge, ever-ongoing BSC/PSC discussions. Even in a strict interpretation of the PSC, people regularly make mistaken assumptions based on apparent mono/para/polyphyly (e.g., Funk & Omland 2003), and interpreting species trees as indicative of exact interspecific relationships is fundametally flawed (among birds perhaps best illustrated by the multiple studies by the Grant couple and others on Darwin's finches, a group with sympatric speciation and extensive hybridization). Regardless, I'll follow your suggestion and make a small update to the taxonomic text in the genus article within the following week, but should you feel tempted doing it first that should certainly not hold you back (if requested, full citations for all mentioned in my earlier comment can be provided). Cheers, • Rabo³ • 15:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi Chrisrus, I hope that this message finds you well. I figured it would be best for me to write this message here as a way to try and mend fences. While we may not see eye to eye on every single issue here on Wikipedia, the bickering that has been occurring on the Raniere discussion page in particular is not beneficial for us as editors, nor for the pages we are working on (I'm sure you agree here). I don't have any hard feelings about anything that has occurred, and I hope that you do not as well. With that said, I am simply asking that we move past that and work together to achieve consensus on the pages. Anyways, thanks for your time in reading this post. U21980 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Chrisrus (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I know it has been a while since we communicated directly, but I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for the change in attitude that I have sensed since I posted this back in June. I really appreciate your candor and willingness to discuss issues. Thanks! U21980 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

taxonmic synonyms for Homo sapiens[edit]

taxon = Homo sapiens authority = Linnaeus, 1758 subdivision_ranks = Subspecies subdivision = Homo sapiens idaltu Homo sapiens sapiens |synonyms = Species synonymy

Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 |americanus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 | arabicus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 |australasicus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 | cafer
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 | columbicus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 | hottentotus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 | hyperboreus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 |indicus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 |japeticus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 |melaninus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 | neptunianus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 | patagonus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 | scythicus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825 |sinicus
Bory de St. Vincent, 1825
Klaatsch & Hauser, 1910
Broom, 1917
Gregory, 1921 |grimaldiensis
Gregory, 1921
Kleinschmidt, 1931
(Sergi, 1911)
Lapouge, 1906 |priscus
Lapouge, 1899
| monstrosus
Linnaeus, 1758
McCown & Keith, 1932
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1915
Lapouge, 1899 | troglodytes
Linnaeus, 1758 |wadjakensis
Dubois, 1921

| bory de vincent's list

Fatal Dog Attack Page[edit]

Hey Chrisrus, I hope that this post finds you well. I am in the process of going through the edits and trying to find out who inserted that cocker-spaniel edit on the page. Assuming that I am able to track down that specific edit, I will let you know who was doing it and the date. There is a big possibility that this person also messed up the rest of the data, though I have not been working on the page long enough to know if other bad information was ever corrected. U21980 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! It's a vexing problem. Chrisrus (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


Europaeus albus

Americanus rubescens

Asiaticus fuscus

Africanus niger


You're welcome. I was busy adding various places to California's Wiki-repertoire, county by county, somewhat alphabetically until various matters occupied my time and interest following Mono County, now I'm carrying on where I had left off. Cheers, Carlos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • My philosophy on your question is how likely would a user end up at XXX, YYY County, State if s/he was looking for XXX, ZZZ County, State? My guess is almost never. Most wouldn't even know about the other XXX, so would likely enter a search term "XXX" or "XXX, State" and be brought to the disambiguation page at one level or another, only then realizing that there are 2 XXXs, and if the user were unsure in which county the XXX they want is, would likely try one and if it wasn't the one they were after,, try the other. They'd never get to the notice on XXX, YYY County, State until they either (a) had found the one they want and didn't need it; or (b) realized it wasn't the one they wanted but knew to go back to the other one anyway. In neither case would a hatdab really do much for someone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I find that logic very convincing. Hey, by the way, if you're interested, do you remember how I asked you about how common this situation is? I looked into it, and if you're curious you might want to have a look at Midway (disambiguation). Seems it's a bit more common than I had thought! Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps you care to write an article to fill in the red link? Jcwf (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Is this about the referent change that I observed and asked about there? Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Catch Dog[edit]

Hello Chrisrus. Sorry about the changes I made in reference to the Boxer mainly used in Texas etc. I had a source to use and was unable to locate it when I edited. I did however add a reference to the Boxer dog being a hunting dog and added the breed and added a reference to the article. I'm new to this so sorry about the errors. Is there a way the Boxer dog can be placed back on the list of dogs as well as the reference I added before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striker1969 (talkcontribs) 12:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Thanks for your contribution. Chrisrus (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

useful stuff[edit]

All pages with titles containing "the word "example""

Collapsing Sections[edit]

Carolina dog[edit]

If you weren't aware, Dog Breed Info, aside from its dubious and commercial nature (I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source), spouts the same dominance theory info on every breed page, regardless of temperament. I think that potentially controversial statements like that should be kept out until we find a better source. Anna talk 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "Dog Breed Info", you may be right about them. But you seem to have strong personal feelings about "dominance theory" that you should keep out of your editing. Chrisrus (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't jump to conclusions. I'm interested in adding information that is based on high-quality sources, not one author's opinion with no apparent, relevant credentials (I can't find their name). If you haven't already, you may want to look at the following links from peer-reviewed journals and a major animal behavior association that challenge dominance theory: [8] [9] [10]

Category:Dog breeds originating in China]. Not necessary if you don't want to, of course -- my only point was that something with the potential for acrimonious debate, as I've seen happen in canine communities again and again, should be cited to an undoubtedly rigorous source. Anna talk 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

None of those speak of the Carolina dog. Like the Australian Dingo and the New Guinea Singing Dog, the Carolina dog is, by all sources, more of a wild animal than normal pet dogs or street dogs and so on that have not been living apart from people for so very many generations, fending for themselves in the wild and reverting to a relatively more wolf-like, anthrophobic, nature, and so tend to challange human owners who do not take the time to establish themselves as the dog's "parent" or "alpha" or whatever you'd like to call the one they look to without implying any need for violence. Until the article says this clearly, it's not going to be a very good article. Chrisrus (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, Carolina dog sources do not mention pack hierarchy with humans. Article in Smithsonian with no mention [11] The articles you linked to should be emulated -- their behavior sections are miles away from the random bit I cut. Neither of them mention anything about "asserting your sattus in the pack" or even a hierarchy-based relationship with humans. I'm always open to new information and am receptive to anything you have. Anna talk 19:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I never linked to any articles there, so I don't know what you're talking about. I have nothing to do with that article, I just watch it. Your reasoning the second time around was more legit, the first time seemed ideological, so I reverted it then because of that. I'd like to talk to you more about it, but for now, I'd just like to say that people who keep and promote C. dogs have every movitvation to say that they make fine pets, so when they do say that they are very wild and difficult to keep and don't respond as familiar dogs do to lots of "good boy"s and pats on the head; that they're not very praise-motivated it's hard for me not to believe them. Also, it jives perfectly with the fact that they seem to have been living as far as they could get from humans for a very very long time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You linked to Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog (as examples of wild dogs, not articles, but they were easy to examine and compare to the Carolina dog article). Speculation about dominance and humans hasn't made its way into those for the reasons I'm giving, I'd assume, namely lack of publications that say as much and fit the reliable source guideline. If these publications do exist, I'd be happy to incorporate them into the article, but you haven't listed any which leads me to think that you are going off of "common knowledge". I welcome evidence to the contrary. Anna talk 06:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Let's do this. Since we're not really talking about the Carolina Dog anymore, I'll continue this subject on your page. Is that ok? Chrisrus (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that we're not discussing the Carolina dog (read my replies and you'll see I'm referring to it, along with the dingo and NGSD articles, specifically), but that's fine and I replied there. Anna talk 00:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this thread first started, I've been looking a bit more into this question of the Carolina Dog, and I'm much more skeptical than I was. Originally, there was only one researcher who noticed a wild landrace of dogs living in the woods and swamps like a dingo, looking like a dingo, and possibly being a Canis lupus dingo, still pure C.l.dingo somehow having avoided interbreeding with feral dogs from Europe. Amazing and interesting and clearly worth looking into but not proven at the time and made all the more interesting by the fact that one wouldn't have thought it possible. The idea as I recall was that they were going to do some genetic testing and observations in the wild and get back to us. I'm still waiting, now so many years later, what's taking so long for those genetic test results and field studies? Have I missed something? Or have researchers lost interest in the animal? When researchers walk quietly away from a topic, it's not a good sign. Now we can hear alot about Carolina Dogs as domesticated housepets. There are very many websites breeding them in captivity and trying to sell them as "wonderful pets, great with kids" and everything else a buyer would want to hear before purchasing a dog from a breeder, but such temperaments are inconsistent with the original theory as they make them seem not like dingoes or wild dogs; not like NGSDs or such at all, as nothing more than an ordinary dog. NGSD and Aus Dingo breeders report very different temperaments consistant with wild or zoo animals. Plus, if it were a wild animal, wouldn't the thing to do be to leave it in the wild and study it there? Why all the domestication and breeding? Wouldn't that take away the uniqueness of the animal that made it interesting in the first place? Chrisrus (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) We should look into this matter more closely with an eye on improving that article. I smell a rat. Thanks for your contributions to the article, interest in this referent, and all you do on WP! Chrisrus (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Wither "Thos"?[edit]

Good idea, seeing as it was used solely for African golden jackal subspecies.Mariomassone (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So the article Jackal is wrong then? As I recall, it says there that it was a proposed genus that included Coyotes and some others, and although it was dropped the species names are still used today with Canis instead of Thos. If you get a chance, you might want to check out if that section of Jackal gives incorrect information about Thos and either fix it or tell me to or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt know you'd replied. From what I can gather, the majority of canids assigned to the Thos genus were merely West African golden jackals, I'm not sure if coyotes were included within it. I'll give it a look.Mariomassone (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Porcupine Contrast picture[edit]

Pictogram resolved.svg
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
How do I combine these two into one image, side by side, with one caption? Chrisrus (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Old World Porcupine
New World Porcupine
See Wikipedia:Gallery tag. — Waterfox ~talk~ 18:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can read this and know how to do this easily, please do and either leave it here or tell me here where you've left the combined picture. I think the caption should read "New World porcupines (left) and Old World porcupines (right) are quite unrelated rodents" or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


Chrisrus, Please email me at I have a photo of wild Thai dogs I'd like to show you. 0sm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure! I just sent you some I got from a friend of a Thai person I know. I can't tell if they're pure C.l.dingo or not (one is black and white, while the other is more dingo-colored). I also have some pictures we could share of Bali Street Dogs and one of the the Cambodian Razorback that our Norwegian friend took. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Carlos (footballer)[edit]

   Hi, and thanks for editing; IMO your motivation and method of choosing edits are very sound and welcome. I commented on your note at talk:Carlos (footballer), but my reason for responding here, even tho i found hyperbole justified, is that "camel jockies named Mohammed", however well intended, involves a term of abuse which was immediately compounded by a pointlessly exaggerated naming stereotype. IMO your justified point had by then reached 90% of the conceivable audience, and running on past your peak of effectiveness (by beginning to overdo the number of parallel examples) made the attempt at broad humor especially regrettable.
   I hope my repair on this talk page of the accidental Cat assignment by one of your other correspondents (which concealed a Cat-name she may have intended to mention) neither is more confusing than it's worth, nor makes you feel your talk page has been trespassed upon.
   Thanks again for your contributions.
--Jerzyt 09:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The number of soccer players named Carlos is very large. What could be larger? Soccer players named Jose? I bet it's camel jockeys named Muhammand. Isn't it the biggest name in the world? My guess is, there may be more camel jockeys named Muhammed than there are camel Jockeys named anything else. What is your guess as to the most common name for a camel jockey? I mean, there miight be a few camel jockeys named Steve or Soccer players named Tex, but probably not very many. Chrisrus (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Disappearing Data[edit]

Hello Chrisrus; I found the Wiki entry "List of Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States" and as expected, there were widely varied and often heated exchanges of opinions. After she was killed, Darla Napora's name and references to the news articles appeared, and then within a week they were deleted. Do you know if this was intentional, and if so, what was the reason? Really curious. I'll check back here from time to time. Thanks. Andante$46 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Andante$46

Hello and welcome to my talk page and Wikipedia. It might help you to know that when you edit any page, including people's talk pages, they automatically end up on your "Watchlist", so there's no need to check back here periodially because when you sign in and hit "Watchlist" at the top you'll see if they've replied more easily than checking in periodically. Also, whenever you want to start a new thread, you can hit "new section" at the top and it'll give you a box to title it and a place to type. That's easier because, otherwise, you've got to scroll through the whole thing to the bottom all the time, and some pages like mine are too long (sorry) and can take a while to scroll through.
Next I promise to try to help you investigate this mystery. I don't know how that happened, but the first thing I'd try is the tab called "history." Try to teach yourself to use the "History" to solve this interesting mystery! I will help you. First, navigate back to the article, by clicking here List of Fatal Dog Attacks, or better yet, opening a new browser tab and go to Wikipedia there as well and then searching for the article by typing in the search box. I say "better yet" because that way, you'll end up with two tabs, the article you're talking about and this one, but if you just click on the link I provided you you'll leave this page and go there and you'll have to go back and forth alot if you want to come back here.
Once you are there at the article, look for the tab near the top that says "history" and look around a bit and try to get a feel for how it works. You'll see a list of edits to the page and some information about each, including who made the edit and when. Try to find (by date or somethign) the edit in which the information was first added to that article. Then look at the edits that came after that and see if you can find the one that removed the information. Try to figure out who did it and why. Then, come back here and scroll down to the bottom and hit edit for this section only, with the title I gave it. If you don't like scrolling you can use the table of contents; it should be basically the last one. Then hit the blue edit for this section only and let me know how it went and if there's anything else I can help you with. Happy hunting! Chrisrus (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Darla Napora Deletion[edit]

I'm not a sophisticated Wikipedia user, obviously. In reviewing the history of revisions, it appears that two or more contributing editors got into it about some Clifton reports with one deleting and another reverting. The problem is that the wholesale revision, that is, reverting to a prior "acceptable" version, failed to take into account that an unnamed editor had meanwhile updated the list information by adding the mauling death of Darla Napora. When one of the editors did a wholesale revert to a prior version, Darla Napora and all the table revisions associated with adding her to The List were summarily lost. Unintended consequences of our actions.

Thanks for the assist.Andante$46 (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Andante$46

Ok! You're doing great, and thank you for your interest in improving that article and contributing to Wikipedia, the greatest compellation of knowledge ever! Maybe the next thing we can do is check the "discussion" tab at the article and see what the problem seems to have been, you know, to hear out the arguements and make an informed judgement. Remember, just because one person might be a better debator doesn't mean he's wrong and the other guy is right.
Or maybe the next thing to do is to check the source of the information and see who was right and who was wrong. Then, when you're pretty sure you're not making a mistake, you can find the last bad edit(s) on the "History" and "undo" or "revert" it them by using the button in the history next to the bad edit. That doesn't always work, though, because sometimes there've been intervening edits so that section isn't the same now as it was at the moment the edit is done. But don't worry, if there's such a problem the system will tell you after ou hit "undo"; and also, if there any trouble "undoing", you can always just go right to the section of the article and hit blue "edit" button and just type in the correct information from the source. Please let me know if you have any trouble.
Oh, and there's no need to start a new section here every time. Once the topic has been established, just navigate that topic by scrolling or using the table of contents. Hope this helps! Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Chrisrus, questions? Fire away... Moletrapper (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you making some edits without any citations. We are allowing this because we are guessing that the changes you've made are probably correct because you seem to know what you're talking about, but just in case, do you have any citations? Where are you getting this information from? Chrisrus (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to editing.

I get frustrated when I see people referring to Strychnine being 'banned'. It implies that it was banned because it was not humane. In fact, it was withdrawn from the market because the importer (Thornton & Ross) couldn't justify the huge cost of producing a data package for a product that no longer had a patent. The data package was needed to register Strychnine as an active on the Plant Protection Directive (new EU legislation which takes over from COPRA).

The fact that sonic type repellers do not work is well known, and mentioned by the UK government in it's review of mole control methods in the EU leading up to the withdrawl of Strychnine (

Hey, this is a good source. Please use it in the article! We're not supposed to add uncited stuff. We say nothing that's not in the sources, even if we know it to be true, except in maybe "the sky is blue" cases. Even if I think you can be a trusted source, all wikipedians are anonymous nobodies and as such can't be the ultimate source for anything. Chrisrus (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to add another edit because moles are known as 'bucks' and 'does' in southern england; not 'boars' and 'sows'.

I've also added a link to a directory site for traditional molecatchers. Moletrapper (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but nothing too "advert-like". We don't want to promote traditional or non-traditional moltrapping or any other kind. Chrisrus (talk)


The study, conducted at a waterhole in Namibia, shows that in years of low rainfall, when resources are scarce, some male elephants band together into a social group with a clearly defined hierarchy, much the way females do. Group members associate in wet years as well, but with fewer individuals and a dominance hierarchy that is not as clearly defined. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thank you, this is very interesting. However, your point escapes me. Are you looking to improve the article elephant with this information? Chrisrus (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Many thanks for your nice message. I've enjoyed reading your user page. You are obviously a thoughtful editor with a lot to contribute. Johnfos (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

on Raniere and NXIVM[edit]

I have no problem referring to it as a cult later in the article, but it seems to stack the deck to put all of those sources up top. There are successful people who have used the program. Most of the "reporting" that calls it a "cult" is jut rehashing similar things coming from one writer at the New York Post. --GoCubs88 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you for your interest in improving the articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere.
Reply to: "I have no problem...on top":
Do I understand correctly that you are offering to support a sub-section dedicated to good faith summarization of the main points of the WP:RS collections on the discussion page of the article "Keith Raniere"? (Details of which, of course, are to worked out later?)

Reply to: "There are...program.", yes, this is true and of course should be and is made clear in the article. As Becca says, it's not until once is past the initial layers of the "onion" begin that "the shift" occurs. Edgar says the same thing, basically, the initial classes are great.

With regard to "Most of the.....York Post":

What are the dates of the Post articles? Do they predate or postdate the other articles? Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  • "There are successful people who have used the program." I think he means "been used"?--Milowenttalkblp-r 02:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why you feel the need to demean people who have used this program. Is it a bit odd this coaching program? No doubt, but no odder than 1) the virgin birth 2) Mormonism 3) the Archangel Gabriel visiting Mohammed, etc. We shouldn't violate WP:NPOV merely because we disagree with an organization's views.GoCubs88 (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I haven't responded to this thread in such a long time. I don't want to demean the people who have used this program. I believe that the program is very beneficial in the initial stages as Becca says at the bottom of the TU collection on the KR talk page, and is pretty much what Mr. Bromfman says. The evidence for this is overwhelming, actually, there's no doubt about it because, as Becca says "in any efficient cult you have to have a good hook". Sure, I suppose there are the odd few who walk away from the initial stages not feeling better, more confident, even euphoric, but most people seem to. Go ahead and edit the article in such a way that it reflects this knowable, verifiable truth. If you have trouble finding citations for it, let me know, I promise to try to help. Chrisrus (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


  • I have asked an experienced BLP editor to take a look at it. His initial reaction is that things didn't look too bad when he saw it on the BLP noticeboard. Its a matter of degree in these cases, though, I've seen much worse.--Milowenttalkblp-r 02:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Has he seen the sources? The disparity between what is in the citations and what the citations are used to cite? Chrisrus (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV violations and edit warring[edit]

Dear User:Chrisrus,

I'm concerned that you may be in violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:Edit warring. I'm going to be pursuing it with an administrator should I have to. I think we can come to a resolution that avoids placing all of those sources in the lede. I have no problem with them appearing in the article, but I'm concerned about WP:UNDUE as well.

Thanks, --GoCubs88 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First, WP:NPOV refers to articles, not people or their actions. So neither you nor I can be in violation of it, only articles or parts of articles can.

Second, if I am guilty of WP:Edit warring, so are you. We definately have a WP:Dispute, but "Edit Warring" has both technical and broader uses, so it depends what you mean. As long as no one "3rr"s or some such, it's not edit warring in a technical sense. I see you, and I understand that you see me, as doing "WP:disruptive editing". Third, please do persue it with an administator, regardless of whether you have to. Forth, if we are not going to put weight on what our WP:RSs, what are we to put weight on? All wikipedians have to go on are the RSes. He and it; they; are not very notable as providers of business seminars, although they are somewhat because it was while doing a report on hot business coaching programs that the Forbes reporter originally got interested in him and it, and their reporting took a different turn; after that, the Forbes story became a story about an odd, cult-like organization and a man who loses lots of money. Please read the article carefully and you will see I'm right. So other than the initial approach by Forbes, no source we have so far is about how they are providers of popular personal development training. Unless you can find one. Is there another RS that is fundementally about NXIVM as a popular, effective training program? Let me know, I will read it carefully. As far a wikipedia knows, there are pretty much all investigative reports into a cult-like organization, please check the sources, you will see I'm not mistaken. After that initial blush, it's pretty much all exposes. Sorry I don't know how to type an accent on an "e", but I meant the French word for a type of reporting that has an accent on the "e". My point is that, because NXIVM is most notable as a cult-like organization, because that's the whole point, the main thrust, the thing that the RSes are saying, it can't be a case of undue weight on the cult organizations or non-neutral point of view for us to say so. Finally, you seem to be referring to my naming of the places where it is so called or depicted; I did this because we couldn't agree on a way to summarize them. You didn't like "mainstream" to mean "not tabloids", which makes some sense. I didn't add the term "mainstream", but I think can't think of a better word for "not tabloid". If we can agree on a term that means "not tabloid" media, then I will agree not to specifically name those sources at that point in the article. I don't agree that your term "some media", clarifies this idea. Chrisrus (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Whippomorpha has precedent[edit] I noticed in July, you moved the page to Cetancodonta providing no rationale for your move. While Whippomorpha doesn't "sound" scientific, it has precedent. Cetancodonta is a synonym, not the official name. I undid your move and noted that Cetancodonta lacks precedent. Please do not repeat your edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I love the name "Whippomorpha" and especially "Whippo". I argued against the change, but lost the debate to others who had references. I was very disappointed, but did manage to keep the terms from being deleted in the article. I think that, based on WP:COMMONNAME, it should be called "whippos", but I'm not sure if such a grouping can truely be said to have a "common name". Good luck and GO WHIPPOES! Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Molecularly defined clades generally don't have common names. The common name of a molecular clade is the name of the clade. Where was this discussion where you lost to the people with references? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the history. Some random IP came in with that citation. They cherrypicked one article that had their view... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fatal dog attacks[edit]

This is just a technical note: I'm not commenting on how wonderful or how horrible your comments/behavior/etc. are. When you're linking to a specific diff, never enclose it in two brackets, because the software thinks the diff and oldid numbers are part of the article title. Rather, you always must give it as an external link, including the bit. While you can use as your link, including nothing but the diff number will suffice, since it refers to the change made by a specific edit, and every edit that's ever been made to Wikipedia has a unique number. For that reason, you could simply type and get to the same page. Just one caveat — if you get a link like, you have to include the oldid number, since "next" can refer to any diff. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will keep in mind :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Do you want it?--v/r - TP 13:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's give them a chance to fix it. Please look into the history of the article List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and see if you find it necessary. There's quite a bit there. Chrisrus (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking on a bit bigger scale. I looked through your edits and you do the occasional vandal fighting. Your only block for edit warring was a year ago and you have plenty of edits to know the rules of the place. So do you want rollback rights?--v/r - TP 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Sure! Chrisrus (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia Rollback.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

v/r - TP 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Ugh! Wouldn't a raw slice of raw Brontosaurus meat be more appropriate? ;) -- llywrch (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK! I'll send you some Dinosaur Bar-B-Que!Chrisrus (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ugh ugh! Very yummy! -- llywrch (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Canid hybrid fertility table[edit]

  • The table is at Canid hybrid#Canid interfertility chart. Please answer in my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know, thank you. I was just there. I'm not good with tables, so I left a "thanks" there anong with a plea for further help. Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What needs to be put in what box of the table, or what needs to be done? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for asking! Several things, really, but I don't know how. First of all, it doesn't include Coywolf in the appropriate places. Chrisrus (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Coywolf. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Great! Next there is a problem about the word "Jackal", as you can see if you read, if you haven't already, the article Jackal. It turns out that the Golden Jackal is not like the others. It belongs to the same branch on the Canis family tree as the Coyote and Canis lupus, which famously and previously meant "wolf" but now means "wolf + (familiar dog + dingo dog = domestic dog). So, again according to the article, the Golden Jackal could cross with any of these, as is the case with the Sulimov dog, but only theoretically so far as wikipedia knows also could cross with the dingo, coyote, or wolf. I don't know if there are names for all these crosses, but you could just put "possible" or "Golden Jackal/Coyote hybrid" or whatever you like. Then, there are the other two exclusively African Jackals, the Side-striped Jackal and the Black-backed Jackal. Those two are pretty closely related and could cross with each other, the article says, but not with the rest of the Canis canids, because despite the taxonomy, these two belong to their own branch with a different number of chromosomes. Their branch actually supposedly meets the branch of the African Wild Dog's ancestor before (going backwards in time, from twig toward trunk) it meets the lupus/latrans/golden jackal branch. Whew! So anyway, what does this mean for the chart? It means we have to split the "jackal" into Golden Jackal and the other two jackals, the former which would cross with the wolf/coyote branch, and the two African jackals which might cross with each other but not with any of the rest because of a different number of chromosomes. This just according to the article Canine Hybrid and Jackal, so if I'm wrong it's because Wikipedia's wrong about that, but what we're summarizing is what Wikipedia is saying at the moment, so let's run with that for the chart. Chrisrus (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! What seems missing now is the Ethiopian Wolf, but as of now as far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't even address the question as to whether they can cross with other canids or not. My guess is maybe they can. Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

NGSD infoboxes[edit]

New Guinea Singing Dog
New Guinea Singing Dog on trail-Cropped.jpg
Conservation status
Scientific classification (unresolved[2])
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammal
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. dingo
Trinomial name
Canis lupus dingo
(Meyer, 1793)
New Guinea Singing Dog
New Guinea Singing Dog on trail-Cropped.jpg
Other names New Guinea Dingo
Singing Dog
New Guinea Highland Dog
New Guinea Wild Dog
Hallstrom Dog
New Guinea Singing Dingo
Country of origin Papua New Guinea
Dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
  1. ^ Corbett, L. K. (2008). "Canis lupus ssp. dingo". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. International Union for Conservation of Nature. Retrieved 26 Oct 2011. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference status was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

RE: Plea[edit]

There has not been any decision to delete any, much less all, of the articles I've created for minor planets. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 19:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no such consensus, nor do I see the other articles I've created being redirected. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I am creating quality referenced articles for an encyclopedia. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have talked to multiple people about my creation of minor planet articles. Perhaps you can take a look at previous discussions on my talk page? Last month it was brought up here at the administrators' noticeboard. I am not violating policy. Quite honestly that's consensus enough for me. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 22:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have responded to your new AN/I posting. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 04:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


I have responded to your AN/I thread about minor planets articles. Just as a note, it is polite to notify a user when you open a thread on them at AN/I. I took care of that and asked the user to pause while the matter is resolved.

If there have been any previous discussions about these articles, could you please post links in that AN/I thread to help others tell what is going on? Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:20, 20 November 20111 (UTC)

Phew! Thanks so much for your kind attention to this matter. Sorry I beat the notablity idea way into the ground, but who would have expected him to suddenly 180 and do that job for me? Good luck with the mess, let me know if you decide what to do and need non-skilled help with that. Chrisrus (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
It might be more kind for you to drop the matter, and consider the possiblity of undoing your recent edit on Merovingian's talk page. If he is on an indefinite break, there is no reason to make edits that could be perceived as aggressive or to try to slam the door behind him. If he returns, we can return to the matter then. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll drop the matter just as soon as we finish the unfinished business. Or when I am confident that you or someone else will. You've misinterpreted that edit of mine there. For the good of Wikipedia, I want to how this happened. Something in the system must have been broken. What matters is the project. Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Chris, to give a quick answer, many editors here either implicitly refuse to recognize the concept of notability, or justify mass inclusion of topics that they are particularly interested in by stretching the GNG to the breaking point (usually by distorting the concept of "significant coverage"). Actually getting editors at large to acknowledge that these stubs aren't worthy of inclusion on an individual basis is a pretty significant victory over that bloc of Wikipedia culture. Insisting that they all go away at once and everyone admit how wrong it is for them to exist is going to chafe the inclusionists pretty severely, to no good end. Let the discussion take its natural course and be gracious in victory, and you'll probably save yourself some trouble down the road. Choess (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I am an "inclusionist"! So long as a person has some legitimate sources and one basic clue as to what a referent is, I say let a stub be started and that's progress. All this "your first article" stuff that is insisted on will fill in over the years until finally a decent article exists. My standards for inclusion are much lower than most people's. But without notablity standards, Wikipedia is a joke. Notablity standards are very important.
What do you mean by "they"? The Asteroid stubs? Or are you implying that there are other similar things that some other editor is including en mass? Are you allowing someone else to waste huge amounts of time creating another huge mess that's all going to have to be undone? Why? To be nice to the person? It's very, very cruel, what you're doing, not nice at all! How is it being nice to someone to allow them to create thousands of new articles that are all going to have to be undone? You seem to be the cruel one, not me, if you are allowing such things. Stop them now before and waste more time and energy and before they do more damage and direct their energies to something useful!
The asteroid stubs don't have to go away "at once" but they do have to go away eventually. Do you see any evidence at all that anyone at all is determined to get rid of them? Everyone wants it swept under a rug. They will sweep it back under the rug and ignore them forever, doesn't it seem so? Everyone will just go back to ignoring them and they will stay forever as an eternal monument to the fact that wikipedia actually doesn't have any effective notablity standards. If I lose momentum, if I stop now, everyone will just ignore the problem and nothing will be done. I've been after this for years and no one had ever paid it any mind before. So I will drop the matter just as soon as I am assured that they will eventually be dealt with, and not be left under the rug. But I have seen no sign whatsover that anyone else has any intention to get rid of them. Everyone seems to be perfectly willing to let them sit around forever, so that is why I will not stop now.
Where have I insisted that everyone admit anything? I have not and do not. I don't care who admits anything. That couldn't matter less to me what people admit or don't admit. It means nothing to me. I want only that these articles must be dealt with and not ignored and forgotten. Do you think you seem to want to do something about the problem? You don't. Oh, and the other thing I care about is that the system should be fixed if it's broken and can be fixed so that this kind of thing doesn't happen and sad events like someone wasting lots of time are stopped before they become tragic. Chrisrus (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You or anyone else in the Astronomy project could undertake the project to get the non-notable stub articles redirected to the main list. That isn't an activity that requires administrator involvement, which is why there is no reason to discuss it at ANI. You just need to: (1) make a list of all the articles affected and which page they ought to redirect to. (2) Start a discussion on the WikiProject page to get documented consensus that the list is right. (3) Get a bot operator to go through and make the redirects (you can ask at WP:BOTREQ). It probably makes sense to wait for the new notability guideline to become a guideline, so that it can be referred to in the discussion.
None of those steps, however, requires posting on Merovingian's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to clean up the mess! Why should I be the one, do you see me as the only one who cares? Most people would say that all that should be done by anyone but me, and I expected more leadership from administration than just walking away and telling me to clean up. Oh well. We'll see that the astronomy project people do. I've put their notablity guidelines on my watchlist and tried to light a fire under them a bit to get it done, but I've done everything I'm going to do for now. Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Would you like to merge this with the existing article? Chrisrus (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me but merge what?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to merge the article on your user page with the existing page on the same topic? Chrisrus (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That was the article version that was published before you and oldsingermann came along and started to rewrite it without stating any sources or even the basic knowledge of articles (for a while it read like a hand-me-out). That is what good authors do they write their articles on their own page and ask for reviewers before they get published. Have you forgotten all this heck-mack about the article? That was especially bcause singermann rewrote it all the time without regard to structure or referencing and even because he didn't like what research data was published. That was the reason I quitted updating the article.
And since I am at it, you should delete your free-ranging dog article for now or at least give it the under construction status. Delete half of the pictures since there are far too many, stop this "... vs...". Stop making definitions up and lumping them together. A dingo is only a wild dog in the sense that a mustang is a wild horse. In addition many feral dogs are called wild dogs, so info on this usage of the term wild dog should be under the category feral dog and wild dog should be out since free-ranging dog refers to domestic dogs and not actual wild dogs like wolves or dholes. The only sections the article needs are:
  • definition
  • Categories: stray, feral
  • mixture of terms (this section would deal with the topics of inconsistencies of term usage)
And for godness sake stop using these bad and poorly structured sources. That you find something on some page without any eferences doesn't make it written by an expert. Even if, in this field of research many different views exist especially because there isn't much comparison of data. To give an example: you referenced Coppinger, he claimed that dogs had no cooperative behaviour among each other or that female dogs regurgitate enough food, but Guenther Bloch observed exactly that among dogs in Italy. In addition Coppinger claimed that dogs are naturally adapted to garbage heaps, but this is totally inconsistent with this immense hunting drive so many of them have, in addition there are many wild animals coming into the cities these days (even wolves), or in some cases for centuries and they did not become domesticated. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't write any of NGSD. Do you want to merge the version of the article on your user page with the existing one? Feel free to edit free-ranging dog article or any others. Chrisrus (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The merging of that version of the NGSD erticle would have no use in my eyes, since Oldsingermann already didn't like the first version (which is the one on my page) and the article is no longer up to date. I would have to translate the german version of it. I already edited NGSD though because the referenced sources did not state what was written. In addition every article here who gets even a moderate level of attention gets violated very fast and very often and Wikipedia doesn't protect them fast enough. I don't have much time since I am updating the german dingo article and also plan to split it into several articles, but I will copy the free-ranging dog article on my page and see what I can do and at least give it a different structure. You can then visit my page and give me your feedback. In addition would you be ok with it if I label the current poblic article as an article under construction?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nominators cannot create the GA review page[edit]

Chrisrus, the guidelines for GAN say that if you nominate an article for GA status, you cannot review it. I have thus put the review page you created for NXIVM up for speedy deletion. Be patient, and let another editor review it.AstroCog (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't trying to review it. I just wanted to leave the message from Jimbo Wales at the top of the page. Please help me to do this properly. I am trying to help the community create a good article on this topic. Chrisrus (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article reviews are for articles that currently meet, or are very close to meeting, the good article criteria. Nominating an article for GA will not increase the likelihood of somebody improving it. If you want advice on how to improve it, I suggest requesting a peer review. My recommendation is to withdraw the GA nomination. You would do this by deleting the Good Article nomination template from the talk page. The bots would do the rest. After that, request a peer review. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I will do as you suggest. One more thing, if you would, may I swipe this post you've written before this reply and re-post it to the article's discussion page? I just want everyone there to see what you've suggested I do so that when I do it everyone will know why. Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Before you nominate that article for GA, I would suggest working on that tag about un due weight on it. I know that if I was reviewing it, I can see that it is not ready yet. Just a quick tip, don't use the word "current." You say "current members" in the article. This becomes outdated and should be removed or re written. Puffin Let's talk! 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. I didn't write and don't edit the article anymore. I don't think it's a good article, I just wish it was. Jimbo Wales wants it to be. I thought nominating it for review might help. Maybe I was wrong. I didn't/don't write the article, and don't want to edit it anymore. I'm a critic of the article and want someone to "get it right" as Jimbo says. I was just trying to get some attention to it. I have read the WP:RSes and collected them on TALK:Keith Raniere, and live in the area, and as a result am concerned. The RSes are quite alarming as you will see if you have a look at them. If there's a better way for me to improve the article short of editing it myself, please let me know. I want to recruit a good author to simply transfer the important information in the RSes to the article properly and "get it right" as Jimbo says. I had tried all kinds of things and thought this might be worth a try. Chrisrus (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what peer reviews are for and not GA nominations! I can see that you have filed a request for it to be reviewed and I hope you can get some more help on the article. Puffin Let's talk! 18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight[edit]

I was referring to the articles spin, no encyclopedic article should have slant. Questionable pulse (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Emotions? Evidence and reason?[edit]

Honestly, Chrisru, I think the first sentence of this comment was a trifle over the top. You have no way of knowing what, if any, emotions I am feeling in regard to the topic, and it is unhelpful for you to speculate about them in that way. "Comment on the edit, not the editor", right? It's a shopworn dictum, but it's one worth following, imho. All I said was that we seemed to be talking past each other—a statement assigning either equal blame to us both or no blame at all, depending on how you look at it. You went on to imply that so far I have been ignoring evidence and being unreasonable, which just isn't true. I have read and considered all of the evidence you provided, and I simply came to different conclusions about it. Big deal.

Just to be clear, I'm not angry or even particularly annoyed by your comment; I was surprised and a little dismayed by it, since I consider you to be a highly constructive editor who has made valuable contributions to discussions at Talk:Human. Others are chiming in now, so I'm going to step back from the discussion for at least a couple of days. I hope that in future if you have any concerns over the way I'm conducting myself in a discussion, you'll feel free to let me know on my user talk page or by email. Rivertorch (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You say I had no way of knowing what emotions you were feeling, but you had said that you were tiring of the discussion and seemed to be ready to quit, which is consistant with a person who might be at the point of concession. Which I was hoping you'd do before walking away, or if not then, at least sometime soon. However, it may have been a bad rhetorical move on my point if it "spoils the well" and causes people to oppose the proposed edit to the art section because I'm supporting it, if they also saw it as unfair argumentation as you seem to have, something I did not predict when I wrote it. Can I still delete it, as no other subseguent post there refers to it? I could strike it through, do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Striking is usually better, but it's your call. No need to do either on my account. Fwiw, my passing mention of "time and energy for right now" was intended to be taken at face value: I had neither the time nor the energy at that time to pursue the question any further. Whether that will be the case in the near future, I don't know yet. Checking my watchlist seems a bit like wading at the edge of a whirlpool sometimes. Rivertorch (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazing coincidence: Physical resemblance of Hachiko and the Yellow Dog of Lao Pan[edit]

Look at these two dogs. Wikipedia has this picture of Hachiko:


Now google "Lao Pan" and have a look at him. Like for example this here where there is a video of him:

Notice something? They're practically identical. They look more alike than many littermates! What kills me is that left lop ear. What do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I told ya! Strange eh? Maybe there's a ghost dog thing happening here. Maybe it's just a loyal breed. But both having floppy-ear? That is really bizarre. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fido (Cane)[edit]

Can you send me the link to the English version of the page? Does one even exist yet? Acmilan10italia (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Chrisrus (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Should articles be named "domesticated (x)" or "domestic" (x)?[edit]

Known redirects or articles starting with "Domesticated"[edit]

Thanks for moving the Turkey, you were right. You got me thinking. I did some research and found the following on Wikipedia. I thought you might be able to use the results or at least interested:

  1. Domesticated birds redirects to List of domesticated animals
  2. Domesticated cattle redirects to Cattle
  3. Domesticated chicken redirects to Chicken
  4. Domesticated dog does not redirect
  5. Domestic dog redirects to dog, and says that taxomists use that term to describe a union of Canis lupus familiaris and C.l.dingo
  6. Domesticated duck redirects to Domestic duck
  7. Domesticated fox redirects to Domesticated silver fox
  8. Domesticated goose redirects to Domestic duck
  9. Domesticated guineafowl is so named
  10. Domesticated hedgehog is so named
  11. Domesticated horse directs to horse
  12. Domesticated outsider taxa redirects to List of domesticated fungi and microorganisms
  13. Domesticated pig redirects to domestic pig
  14. Domesticated pigeon redirects to Domestic Pigeon
  15. Domesticated plant redirects to List of domesticated plants
  16. Domesticated sheep redirects to Sheep
  17. Domesticated skunk redirects to Pet skunk
  18. Domesticated turkey is so named
  19. Domestic water buffalo has no "domesticated" counterpart
  20. List of domesticated animals is so named
  21. List of domesticated fungi and microorganisms is so named

Chrisrus (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


Right, it is not the name section -- (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean.Chrisrus (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fido (dog) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grand Hotel
Mary of Exeter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Shrapnel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback 2[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for those Chris. Not sure what we should do with them yet. What I have done once is with nineteen redirects to one subject had them wholesale deleleted. THe purpose of redirects is to aid searching and some of these, it seems to me, just get in the way of that and hinder searching.

Good research there! And a happy new year!

Si Trew (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for doing that. I think I noticed a general pattern or tendency to prefer one word over the other and maybe you did too. We tend to say "domesticated fox" but "domestic dog" because the mind thinks of a fox as a wild animal that would have had to have been domesticated by someone. On the other hand, we say "domestic dog" because we just look at them and see that they are already domestic. We only add the adjective just to distinguish it from wild dogs, which aren't even true dogs; we think of "domestic" as describing the nature of the animal as we find it, without having in mind the process of domestication from wild to domesticated. I wonder if there's anywhere this could be confirmed or the opposite, something one could cite. Anyway, in sum, it looks as if we would say "domestic horse" but "domesticated zebra" if there were such a thing as a domesticated zebra. Chrisrus (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Chris, I had never really thought of that. A similar discussion happened at Talk:Botanical garden, Botanic versus botanical. We settled on botanical after discussion then three editors together over one morning whizzed around changing links etc and were told off for WP:NOTBROKEN, when in fact a lot WERE broken, because in many articles they would be called a botanic garden and then in the text say botanical garden, or vice versa, so on settling what the title should be we found a lot of inconsistency, in the same way you have in domestic vs. domesticated. That allusion is somewhat tenuous since both mean the same thing, but we just found a lot of inconsistency in usage. (The upshot of which is it seems botanic is preferred in Scotland and Ireland and Australia but botanical in England and North America: hard to say about Wales or other parts of the world as not so many articles about their botanical gardens to call it, also for non-native English speakers they probably just use whatever term their dictionary hands up.)
I am not sure "dog" is a good example here, because I think the assumption goes farther than that: if someone says they have a dog, you would assume it was a domesticated dog, i.e. house-trained (of course if it is a puppy it may not yet be, but let's leave that aside for simplicity, taking Occam's Razor). If they had a wild dog, e.g. one that happened to come into their garden/backyard at night scavenging, they would qualify it with "wild", or perhaps "stray", as the assumption is that a dog is domesticated (and same for cat, canary, etc). Which leads us to say, we don't need "domestic" or "domesticated" to describe a dog, because a dog is assumed to be domesticated, and then we DAB on "dog" to pages describing the ontological family canis etc. However, I doubt this would wash with those who do sterling work at the various projects under Category:WikiProject Biology.
To pick "dog" is also a good example because everyone knows what a dog is. James Thurber has an article where he looked up "dog" in the dictionary. Very few people do this he says, because everyone knows what a dog is. And found that there are dogs used in machining (feed dogs etc), hang dogs, to dog someone, and eighteen other meanings that have nothing to do with your four legged friend (and often, in fact, are unrelated by etymology).
But to return the point of domestic vs. domesticated. I agree with you there should be some consistency here, if sensible to do so. The difficulty with this kind of thing, which rarely gets through, is each article is treated on its own merits, so to ask for consistency across a set of articles is hard work. I have occasionally won arguments with this when I have translated a series of articles into British English and the head article was in US English, to keep the consistency (I am agnostic about dialects etc but just for the consistency across the series), but this is very hard fought and rarely won, because the base premiss is for each article to be treated in isolation, and not as part of a series of articles that should be consistent together.
So, one must establish a pretty strong link across the articles to win the argument. In the case here of "domestic" vs "domesticated" I am not sure there is much of a strong link because there is no series of "domesticated animals" and I am not sure there ever could be, although there is a list of domesticated animals and an article on an article Domestication but the list cannot be complete (and is not required to be) because no doubt someone somewhere has domesticated a bumblebee or something and will insist on having it added. You see the difficulty there because bees, as a hive, can be domesticated by a beekeeeper but any individual bee isn't, in the common sense meaning of taming it (that redirects to Domestication, btw, and not sure that it should).
So I think on the whole, after all that rambling, it is best to let it stand. I put this on the record here because it is interesting linguistically to me, and probably deserves to belong somewhere. I should appreciate your views, and if you know of a better place to move it, please do so and we will continue there.
A belated happy new year to you and yours. Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Hey. :)

This was on my user talk thing "...if you filled in your edit summary with some kind of explanation for what you've done and why you've done it, it'd make it less likely you'll get reverted. Chrisrus"

I'm not sure what you want me to do really. On future edits, fill in the 'edit summary' thing, but what about for the ones I have already done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioko (talkcontribs) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if your first few edits don't get undone, I suppose you don't have to do anything. If they do, and you want them to stay, you can explain on the discussion pages that correspond to the pages you edited. Or you could do that now if you'd like. My point was basically for the future. Chrisrus (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to apologise[edit]

In a wobbly edit where I was fiddling with the headings on the talkpage of Mother Teresa, I accidentally deleted some of your comments here the situation has been fixed thanks to the vigilance of HiLo48 here, but I'd like to apologise for the inconvenience to you and other talkpage users (you were the only one affected and because it was quickly fixed, I haven't put a comment on the tp as it would me more fuss I think than it's worth).

I do notice however that your talkpage is rather long, would you like me to setup archiving for you ? something simple, with the little books and years icon box like on my talkpage, say the word and I'll fix it up for you. Please use my talkpage for response. Penyulap talk 01:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I understand completely. But please understand if I reply here. That talkback thing makes things difficult to go back and read later.
My main concern of that thread is that I don't feel that I am being heard. They continue to talk as if Criticism of her stems from C. Hitchens. The most important criticism of her; that she was a missionary who sought out suffering non-believers so that she could convert them in time before their death, thereby sending them to heaven forever; is exactly what MT always said she was doing, if anyone would take the time to listen to read "Something Beautiful for God" or anything else she wrote, or what her followers claim to be doing. They are converting heathen in time for them to go to heaven, and that's why it's good that they should suffer. It's just that, for MT, it wasn't a criticism. Because she was securing for them a place in paradise for all eternity, so it was a good thing to do, to watch those people suffer. It was Malcolm M. who came up with the other master narrative that she was out to relieve suffering, she wasn't, she was pro-suffering according to her critics and according to herself and her followers. And from Malcolm's vision of what she was doing took on a life of it's own, wow, took off like a shot, but there's no evidence for it. Wikipedia doesn't have to say whether what she did to those suffering dying hindus and moslems and whatnot was a saintly or devilish thing to do. That depends completely on whether you belive accepting Jesus before you die secures you a place in heaven as she did, or not as he didn't. We can just present the facts, which are not seperable into praise and criticism. If the reader believes she was saving them from hell, s/he will think she her a saint. If s/he doesn't think so, the reader will see her as the head of a sadistic evil pain cult who wallowed in the suffering of her convertees for naught. Please read over the article again and the sources, it is all consistant with this understanding. It's not just Hitchens, forget about him for a while. -Chrisrus
Well I didn't get that impression from the article and you do put it the idea quite eloquently, I should just copy your text from here to the article if we can find the right refs. Just write up something, pop it on the talkpage, (or the article), and I'll have a look for you, see if there are any obvious problems, and then if I too think it's cool, we can pop it into,( or leave it in the article,) now when you do it that way, certainly it can still be taken out, but if it is done by just one editor, you can put it back and point to the consensus (the part where more than one person on the talkpage says they support the text) and you won't get in trouble for the 3 revert rule, they would instead. Of course if three editors removed it and there were just two putting it in, it has to stay out and so forth. Happy to tell you more as we go along. Personally I think she was a nice old lady but of course I don't mind listening to other viewpoints, who knows you may change my mind, but regardless of that, the article should show all significant points of view that can be referenced. Just that no single viewpoint should get out of hand, Hitchens seems to be too much the subject of the article in my opinion, maybe others too, whatever. Penyulap talk 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
About the archiving, thanks but the thing is that bot can't tell the difference between a topic that's closed and one that's still theoretically open. And to my mind, they're pretty much all still open. -Chrisrus
Cool, well, there are three ways to handle that, you can add a template to a section, called do not archive until, it's invisible and stops the archiving, you can remove dates from sections, as it won't archive sections with no dates, you can also manually archive, I can set up the archives with the little box and then you can cut'n'paste as you please. If the bot does something you don't like you can also always click undo. Penyulap talk 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Joyful knowlege from Chrisrus and Wikipedia[edit]

Happy New Year!! The War is Over!! Peace on Earth is real!! Good Hospice to Us All!! The End is Not Near!!

Chrisrus (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Basenji usurps the New Guinea Singing Dog as most ancient breed.[edit]

Superlatives attributed to the NGSD are unfounded. The closest dog to the wolf is the Basenji, according to this tree:

Envision the dog family tree:

  1. Having to start somewhere, let’s start with my Spaniel, Casey.
  2. His family twig on the tree, we know, is traceable back to Obo II,
  3. Obo's parents cleave with the English Cocker Spaniel, cocker spaniel in general,
  4. Which cleaves with the Springer Spaniel branch, something like a Welsh Spaniel, which is intermediate between springer and cocker.
  5. Which shared a common ancestor with the common ancestor of the other hunting spaniels,
  6. Which shared a common ancestor with lap dog King Charles Spaniel
  7. Which meets the water spaniel branch sometime before that split
  8. And then meets the shared common ancestor of the Spaniels and the Britney, (which also lent DNA to the German Shorthair Pointer)
  9. Before meeting the common ancestor of the spaniels and the scenthounds
  10. Which shared a common ancestor with the poodles,
  11. Going further back in time, we meet the common ancestor of all these hunting dogs with the main branch of Lap dogs,
  12. Which share a common ancestor with the pincher/schnauzer / Portuguese water dog branch,
  13. Next we meet another large main branch of dogs, including molossers, terriers, Retreivers,

herding dogs, and the sighthounds; There are very few breeds which do not share this common ancestor, other than very ancient dogs.

  1. We next meet the common ancestor of the Ibizan hound and the Kuvasz,
  2. Then that shared a common ancestor with the Saluki/Afghan Hound
  3. Then we meet the common ancestor of some of Casey’s most distant relations alive today, including the New Guinea singing dog, Dingo, East Asian breeds such as the Chow Chow and Shar Pei and the Japanese Inus, and circumpolar sled dogs.
  4. Finally, we meet the dog that shares the most ancient common ancestor with Casey or any other living dog: The Basenji.

According to this,, the dog that shares the most ancient common ancestor with any other dog in the world is not the Dingo, not the NGSD, not the Inus, ancient Chinese dogs such as the Chow Chow, Nureongi, nothing.

Any further back in time, there is no living dog which is not a wolf.

Superlatives attributed to the NGSD are unfounded. The closest dog to the wolf is the Basenji, or rather the Basenji shares no common ancestor with any other dog alive on the planet.

The common ancestor of the Basenji and all other living dogs, may not have been a dog, it could have been a wolf. Or at least, there is no known living dog which proves this is was not the case.

Proposed deletion of Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street – Proposed for deletion[edit]

Notice: The article, Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street, has been proposed for deletion by another user. Since you have contributed to the discussion page for the article, I'm notifying you about this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


You are welcome!!! :-) --PMM82 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: k.d. lang RM[edit]

I am just going to copy what I wrote there and paste it here:

The move request is just a self-admitted crusade on Kauffner's part to eliminate any sort of leeway in MOS:TM and the other manuals of style when it comes to people's stage names. Kauffner, Dicklyon, and Greg L are simply editors who think that the manual of style is a set of rules written in stone, and are seeking to make a point after I attempted to get some clarity at WT:AT#Names of individuals over the apparent kerfluffle I started when I requested that Kesha be moved to "Ke$ha" and that DJ OZMA be kept at its current location based on the fact that this page is at k.d. lang and we have pages like bell hooks and I believe you, and other interested editors, should add their opinion to the discussion at WT:AT, because this very vocal minority of 3 editors should not be the ones to enforce a set of guidelines as unbending rules, which includes Greg L's insistence that "[he] can only assume that a bat-shit-crazy, rabid following on [k.d. lang] established a local consensus in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: comments at list of fictional dogs[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that there is an ongoing request for comment from all editors regarding whether or not notability should be a requirement for membership on the list of fictional dogs. From your questions at the talk page it looks like you might be interested in the arguments that have been presented. And I'd like to hear more feedback on the question if you have the time. The discussion can be reached here. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Questions about Patents[edit]

Thanks for the note, unfortunately I cannot help you much in the way of explaining these particular patents. I came about them in the same way you have, and I was also witness to their near incomprehensibility, but such is the nature of patents. I added this information in an attempt to resolve some of the contention between editors- This tree of articles is among the worst of Wikipedia, and editors routinely add and remove information without explanations (edit summaries). The only way to coalesce these issues is to start from uncontroversial premises (patent list). It appears that there was a question implicit in your post as to the notability of these patents, my only thought was: if a person has the notability to be mentioned, then certainly a patent constructed by them warrants inclusion as notable to their Biography; do I personally know or care about any of these patents? No, but I figured the way to make this article a good article is to find a common ground or something uncontroversial which editors can agree on; nor do i think this makes anyone eligible to be called a great inventor. Inexplicably, there is peacock language and Undueweight on eitheir side of the debate, and in several articles. I will probably leave it alone if not resolved soon, but if there is anyway I can help let me know-- or if you are able to resolve your questions about patents.Questionable pulse (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Poi dog pictures[edit]

My response is here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

RFD nomination[edit]

Just tagging a redirect with an RFD tag does not actually nominate it for deletion. You will need to follow the steps outlined at WP:RFD#HOWTO to complete the process and open the discussion. If you are using WP:TWINKLE it can do all that for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried to for the forth time now and I get reverted every time. Please, can you just do it for me? I'm too frustrated to try again and it'd be so nice if you could just do it for me please. Chrisrus (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Dog". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobberone (talkcontribs) 07:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the talk page[edit]

Your recent editing history at Dog shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Speciate (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


There is a discussion which involves you at the No Original Research Noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied there. I hope you do strikethrough the citation not under discussion and add the third page of the one that is. I hope you now understand me and what it means when the so stamp the taxa and will agree that it's clear-cut. Chrisrus (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

KR thread[edit]

I took a look at the discussion Jimbo Wales started on Talk:Keith Raniere#A few comments on this article. Ive been waiting for this...Now I understand better what your intent was in referencing "the times". This article is still a mess, I would love to help you recreate this page. I was very disappointed with the current state of the page and would really like to work with you to create a new one, maybe in your sandbox or something...Questionable pulse (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not on my page, please. That would be far too me-focused, not only for my comfort but also for the reputation of the article. Your first step should be to familiarize yourself with the WP:RSes on the KR talk page upon which the article may be based. Then, contribute to the proper summarizing of them there, and then transferring them to the article. Chrisrus (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello, I replied to an old question of yours on Talk:Yellow-bellied_marmot. Hope this helps... Fabriced28 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Asteroid Thingy[edit]

Hi Chrisrus, I remembered that I forgot to finish your request at WP:BOTREQ. The list of articles that returned no results from the Harvard Abstract Search is here (a revision of my userspace sandbox). The table of articles that returned at least one result from the Harvard Abstract Search is here (annother revision of my userspace sandbox). Leave me a message if you want anything else done! --Tim1357 talk 02:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! That's great. Thank you so much. Shall I talk about the next step, which looks like it might be to transform all the "zeroes" is you will, into section redirects to the correct place on List of minor planets, here, or start a new section on the WP:BOTREQ page? Chrisrus (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. I've got a lot on my plate right now, and I'm not sure I have enough time to do this. If you're fine waiting one or two months, then I'd be happy to do it. If you need it sooner, WP:BOTREQ might be a good idea. Tim1357 talk 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Swansea Jack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newfoundland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You won't remember why you liked him[edit]

Chrisrus (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Who/what the hell actually is  ;-)[edit]

I noticed you asked this question in a recent, well meaning, edit to the article on Hachikō. It's a Russian language site. The ".ru" stands for Russia just as ".ca" stands for Canada and ".NZ" for New Zealand, etc.. and so forth. The site is well done and seems to be devoted to interesting stories about pets including one similar to Hachikō. The page referenced is about a famous story of a Russian "Faithful Dog" honored with a statue. The dog was nicknamed Constanine by the people of the area where he was the sole survivor of a car accident that killed his family. The dog lived for years in the forestby the road, always coming down when he heard cars, looking for his masters. His story became widely known and locals cared for him as best they could. Constantine the dog eventually came to be known as Kostya and upon his death, was honored by locals with the statue, photos of which are on the page. Sadly, the news articles mentioned are all in Russian and use Cyrillic script just like the website.

It's an amazing story possibly worthy of its own article. If you cannot read Russian, you can use Google Translate or Babelfish to get the basic gist of things should you be interested in learning more about "Kostya The True" or more appropiately translated, "Kostya The Constant." Constanine was the name chosen becuase it means true and faithful and the Russian spelling is: Константин . The spelling of Kostya, the name most tourists know him by, is spelled thusly: Костик . I don't know if Kostya should be mentioned in the Hachikō article but his story is compelling and appears to have touched the hearts of those in the area deeply. Shortly after his death, they began a roadside tribute with signs saying things such as "Faithful Kostya, may we learn from your example" and more. Eventually the locals gathered enough money to have sculptor Oleg Klyuyev complete a Bronze statue of Kostya , which was erected in the city of Tolyatti near the roadside accident. Kostya's Statue is a beloved monument. The dog's head is positioned so that it appearsas if he is still turning to watch the traffic go by in his ever-faithful hope of catching sight of his family once again. The article on that site states that this statue is considered a a symbol of their city.

Perhaps adding a section of Kostya and photos of his statue to the article on the city itself would be a better place for mentioning this famous "faithful dog." Do you agree? I shared this with you because I try to keep watch over the [Hachikō]] article but have been busy of late. Editors who work on that article tend to like to hear of similar stories from around the world. If you'd like to help me, we could either create an article on Kostya or add a section to the existing article on Tolyatti which is sometimes spelled as Togliatti in English. Either way, I will try and find some English Language source material. Do you feel it would be a good addition to the other articles on dogs?

For your reference, here is the original link to the page. Note that one of the people leaving a comment included their own photo of Hachikō's statue ! Link: Kostya The Faithful Dog LiPollis (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, I quickly found a good english language page telling most of his story. Had I simply googled on the name Kostya and the word faithful I would not have had to read all that Cyrillic! Here you are: Monuments dogs – faithful friends of manLiPollis (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thank you very much. Please keep List of dogs#Faithful dogs updated. For example, shouldn't we be calling him "Kostya"? This is our only English language source so far and it calls him that, so it might be better to call him that than "Constantine". Also, although with photoes and important details and such make us believe this story, we only have blogs as sources, which is less than ideal WP:RS citation. If you know the language, could you Google up the original press reports or something? Chrisrus (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll do a little research on this since I love faithful Dog stories and Kotya"s story, if found to be reliable, deserves mentioned. I'm glad you appreciated my note. I must confess, I am not a fluent speaker of Russian by any means but I did study Russian as well as Serbo-Croatian whilst getting my degrees, one of which is in Linguistics. whatever I can read clearly, I can get help with via various translation tools. I never thought I'd use the knowledge gained back when I was trying to squeeze ibn one more non-indo European langiuage requiremnt to read a page about a Hachikō -like dog! (Uad to study Russian to get the alphabet THEN move on to Serbo-Croatian which met the Non-Indo-Eruopean requirement. Russian doesn't apply. ) Thanks again. LiPollis (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, part of the appeal of Wikipedia is being able to use the knowledge we learned in school. Your tools are good and there are lists of bilingual Wikipedians that will help if asked. It's a great story. It should definately have it's own article if sufficient coverage is found, and then an excellent entry on the List of dogs#Faithful dogs. We probably shouldn't list all of those faithful dogs on Hachiko, just mention each one and then send the reader to the list. Hachiko should probably just mention the names of the most prominent ones that have Wikipedia articles of their own, such as Shep, Fido, and so on. We should get access to pictures and have a special project in honor of these dogs at the Wikiproject Dogs. Many people from all over the world will love to contribute. Keep up the good work, good luck tracking down the original Russian language sources that this good blogger seems to have used in creating his page on this topic. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"She" for ships[edit]

I never intended to mean using the "she" for ships was somehow an insult to women everywhere, but I understand how people arrived at that interpretation. My concern is that the rule is inaccurate, and it's self-defeating. A ship named after a man is still referred to as "she". In fact, "he" is not allowed for marine-vessel use. As for the "protector" and "giver of life", men take on this role just as frequently as women. The entire rule is backward to me, but I understand that it survives out of tradition. I'm sure in the past, especially when marine-faring was still new, using "she" for ships was looked on as something of an honor. For modern language though, at least in my shoes, nothing should come before accuracy. fdsTalk 06:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First, let's please keep this converstion in one place for later reference and not go back and forth on each others talk pages. Second, if you want to try to edit the ship article guidelines, you may, but I don't see how you can win that arguement if you rely on the position that to use the same pronoun that the source uses is "inaccurate". If your main objection is that the practice is no longer considered good style because some people are offended by it, that has a chance of rhetorical success, but you'd have to prove that that is the case. You'd need to find some article somewhere proving that women do object to the practice or that style guides object to it or something, because I don't think it's as clear that it is offensive to women as you seem to think. For example, you may recall examples of men who so loved their cars they called them "she". So it seems to me that men call things "she" out of love, not "objectification". You seem to feel that the practice objectifies women, but I've always assumed the opposite: that the practice personifies objects. There's a scene in the original Star Trek series episode "The Naked Time" where Captain Kirk mentions this issue in a monologe which includes the line "Now I know why they call it "she"". Please check it out, it may give you pause. Chrisrus (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
When I brought up the issue earlier in the week, I didn't think I would meet such enormous resistance. I don't care anymore about the idea that it might be perceived as sexist. I regret bringing that up. However, why is using "she" to refer to inanimate objects considered correct in writing, especially encyclopedic writing? I'm still baffled by this notion. I'm fine with people personifying their cars (or boats or any other inanimate objects) informally as "she" in everyday speech and writing. It's something else, in my eyes, to have a stylebook prescribe it. Indeed printed stylebooks are at odds with Wikipedia's style for this specific rule: CMS and AP use "it" for marine vessels. The issue for me is formality at this point. Wikipedia's stylebook probably doesn't prescribe other colloquialisms, even though they are in wide-spread use in every culture. I am thankful that the stylebook does prescribe both "she" and "it", though. fdsTalk 01:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
First, would you mind if I swiped a copy of the rest of this conversation from your talk page and pasted it to the place it fits on this page? I like to keep these things in one place for future reference. Don't hesitate to say no if you rather I didn't. It's your talk page.
Second, yes, that is a very different matter from the one I was addressing. I will drop the first question and address your main point.
I'm looking into the matter. I checked WP:Ships. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/GuidelinesAh, here it is:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Pronouns. Ok it says:

"Ships may be referred to by either feminine pronouns ("she", "her") or neuter pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so."

Sounds like the result of a debate. A compromise wording. I bet there was a debate. Anyway it's a summary. For greater detail, it sends us here:
WP:SHE4SHIPS. It also goes by WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. It says:

"Ships may be referred to either using female pronouns ("she", "her") or genderless pronouns ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so."

Ok so the Military Project and the Ship Project have exactly the same wording. Maybe it was an agreement between the military and the civilian ship groups to allow each other their own style guidelines. I have this impression that it's a military style. They're pretty slow to update their Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Using_Determiners_for_Ship_Names. Scanning down, here are some quotes:

"I am against this because it is a slippery slope to having to rehash the she/it debate all over again. The guidelines were clearly written that way for a reason and while each article needs to not change its style internally, each is currently accepted. -MBK004 08:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)"

So as suspected, this has been argued before. But what was the reason? Scanning.... I'm looking for a debate I remember participating in where someone was referring to those style guides you mentioned....

"Centuries of tradition has referred to ships (as with all machines) in the feminine form in the English speaking world. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)"

That's it I'm sure. Centuries of military tradition is what you're up against. That's a very formitable foe you're up against in getting this guideline changed.

Ok this is from 2004: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"). The discussion seem to have taken place at the WP:MOS talk page. Check this one, from 2011: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_119#Use_of_feminine_gender_for_ships.
I scanned it a bit: Here's my impression. This debate comes up very often and has been debated at length.
OK! Here's the one I was looking for, the one I started. Have a look: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_114#She.27s_a_ship.
As I recall, general style manuals are against the practice, but military histories and military encyclopedias and reference books as well as some kinds of reference books about old wooden ships always do it and recommend it. There is zero chance that you and I could possibly win any attempt to change the guideline. Chrisrus (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

JPL refs et al.[edit]

  • I have already put the JPL refs in the articles in question - such as they are.
  • The Ethiopean wolf (Abyssinian fox, etc.) can cross breed with domestic dogs, as can the New Guinea singing dog. Hybridization is a major threat.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

Thanks! Could you make a list of them? We could have someone look them over and see what should be done.
About the Ethiopian wolf, that's good to know, thanks again. Please add this to Canine hybrid, especially Canid_hybrid#Canid_interfertility_chart. Chrisrus (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Turnspit Dog[edit]

Hello. Long time. Sorry about my lack of involvement with the notable dog article you were working on way back. I was distracted by some other task at the time.

I'm sure you've read it, but: "The dogs were also taken to church to serve as foot warmers. One story says that during service at a church in Bath, the Bishop of Gloucester, gave a sermon and uttered the line "It was then that Ezekiel saw the wheel...". At the mention of the word "wheel" several turnspit dogs, who had been brought to church as foot warmers, ran for the door."

So sweet. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there. Yes, that's a good one. I guess at that time "Wheel!" was their command to get to work! I used to have a Welsh terrier that understood the word "Walk" no matter how it was intoned. You had to be careful to say "speak" instead of "walk" because "talk" sounded too much like "W-A-L-K".
It's one of the only original dog subspecies of Germlin, not Carl Linnaeus, as the article states came up with back when it was ok to name subspecies of dog, Canis vertigus, that I was able to positively identify when I tried up here above. One more pet project that came to naught! Oh well. Maybe someone knows which they referred to exactly.
The article Hachiko has been collecting a longer and longer list in it's "other similar cases" section. I wonder if we should spin it off if it collects the entire list of List of dogs#faithful dogs or what should happen.
Fido (dog) has become the most hit article by that name and therefore merits primary referent status on Fido (disambiguation).
Thank you for your recent contributions to the article Domesticated meat animal. The new title is a compromise. I favored "Meat livestock dog". It used to be just "Meat animal", but it was collecting every animal in the zoo practically.
I'm having some trouble with List of domesticated animals. If you would, please read this: Talk:List_of_domesticated_animals#Long_list_of_birds
I still wish you'd merge those two porcupine pictures into one to illustrate the taxobox of the article porcupine for me. I suck at pictures.
Have you created any more animal eyeglasses articles?
I have a bizzare new dog here. She's a lapdog from the pound that seems to be a crossbreed experiment gone wrong. Guesses include toy poodle, Maltese, or Bichon Frise. She's practically a biped. I've never seen any dog that spends that much time on its back legs. I didn't pick her, Casey did. Casey is the Spaniel, who for some reason loves tiny lap dogs but didn't like any of the similarly-sized dogs I introduced him to.
I think this new dog would make a pretty good turnspit. Someone has to invent a gerbil wheel for little dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I will take a look at the matters you mention above. In the mean time: [12] :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Reply in points:
  • "Walk" no matter how it was intoned: Funny. :) When our dog was sleeping, we used to say "Food" progressively louder until he woke up and looked around. But we wouldn't make eye contact with him and pretended it wasn't us. He probably thought he was dreaming it.
  • Not sure if List of dogs#faithful dogs should break away. Maybe the category should be broken into subcats. I don't know. Sort of seems okay as it is.
  • List of domesticated animals: agree.
  • Pls refresh my memory about Porcupine pics. Sorry I forgot. I think I was having image upload trouble at the time and couldn't use the derivate too they had.
  • Your new doggies sound nice.
  • Do you know those steel cage balls where those guys drive little motorbikes around inside? That would be cool for dogs. But they'd probably need helmets until they got the hang of it.
Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The "similar cases" subsection of Hachiko is on the way to becoming a mirror of List of faithful dogs, at least the subsection that are most like Hachiko. I think it should be briefer and direct Hachiko readers to the sublist.
  • List of domesticated animals needs semi-protection, because the IP addresses there refuse to talk to us. The article for each item on the list should state clearly that the animal is domesticated. Many of these may be exotic pets but the article the link to doesn't say that they are domesticated animals. I removed many of the mammals but there are many rodent articles someone has to check and probably each of the tropical fish and birds that are kept as pets as well. We have to follow the link to the article and if it doesn't clearly state that the animal is domesticated, we have to remove it. The problem is, this can't be done without a battle with the IP users who won't discuss and keep adding animals whose Wikipedia articles the list links too doesn't say they are domesticated. Could you semi-protect it please, so I can work on that without it being re-done by stonewalling IPs?
  • The Porcupine pictures that should be fused into one pictue and set into the porcupine infobox may be found here:


Thank you very much[edit]

I sincerely appreciate your experience and level-headed discussion over on Bloop as the limited number of edits I have done is often an impediment to dealing with WP editors who do seem to spend all their free time Working in WP.. Kothog (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously: you are a new personal inspiration for me at this point, I will try to emulate your style more. Kothog (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I used to enjoy letting loose about things, but I have learned that if you just go all "Mr. Spock" with people, if you know what I mean, it usually works like a charm. Chrisrus (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry[edit]

Since you are an active participant in the Rational Skepticism WikiProject, would you mind looking over the Wikipedia entry on Theosophy to see if you find any concerns? Thanks much,Factseducado (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Theosophy Thank you.Factseducado (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
To pass Rational Skepticism Project standards, it must merely accurately describe a religious belief as historical or anthropological science, in context. It may not depict a belief as more than a belief. Is this your concern with the article? Chrisrus (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe that you have stated above that religious belief must be accurately described in its historical context or through accepted methods of anthropology as an academic field. Am I correct? If I have read your writing correctly, then I would add that sociology can be helpful in understanding some aspects of what falls under the rubric of religion.
I feel overwhelmed with my concerns with the article.
Certainly, stating beliefs as facts is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The example I and another person on the talk page used was the phrase "hieroglyphs of nature." I do not think this is the only example of stating a belief as a fact.
There was a citation to a text by a publisher not considered reliable. Publications by religious adherents are not placed in context as primary sources. There is an over-reliance on one author and one or two texts for all of the citations. Important, reputable scholarly works which have a scholarly, critical stance towards the apparently favored author in the citations section have not been included for balance. Something else I find problematic and possibly disturbing went on with the citation section.
The writing is both hard to follow and appears sometimes to be describing theosophy while at other times it appears to be describing esotericism in general beyond what is necessary to elucidate theosophy (the two concepts are related). I strongly suspect that theosophy is being presented as a catch-all for all or much mysticism and gnosticism and much of occultism. Conversely, there is an historical, sociological, and cultural relationship between theosophy and spiritualism but the article seems to be written from a point of view that wants to deny that link.
The article's writer(s) have explicitly stated that it is their intention to leave out a lot of theosophy. I think it's fair to say the article writers like some parts of theosophy but don't like other people and groups who are or where theosophers or theosophical.
One view that the article's proponents seem to find appealing is that theosophy has been around for a really long time. Not only that but famous historical figures who have no record of being regarded by scholars in the appropriate fields as being theosophers or doing theosophy are being claimed as examples of theosophers or people who did theosophy. I believe this might be based on the work of one author but that author's work has been critically examined by other scholars who don't agree with some of that author's conclusions.
I may have other concerns but I feel I have presented enough to justify that the article needs clear-headed examination. Factseducado (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Read this please: .
I read it. It is a good summary but not a great summary which I attribute to the word count constraint in such an encyclopedia entry.
The events related in the encyclopedia entry do represent what has brought theosophy into our cultural and intellectual consciousness in recent times. I would add that theosophy has continued to the present. Also, there were more stages in the development of what I am going to call the explosion/heyday of theosophy in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Interest in Egyptian mysticism is not mentioned in the entry and it was there. The entry connects theosophy too strongly to Blavatsky; however, she is a huge figure and it's a short entry so it's natural that occurred due to space constraints.
Something the encyclopedia entry didn't have space to explore is the history of theosophy before the events in the encyclopedia entry. I believe scholarship may debate how integral eastern mysticism, eastern religion, or eastern philosophy was in the beginning of theosophy, I'd have to check. The connection to India, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism would need verification by reliable academic sources. The reason is that prior to around 1700 direct links between Europe and the Indian sub-continent were few and tenuous. Even intellectual history had not breached that divide at the time except in cases in which there had been intermediaries such as the Arab and Persian world. For instance, the Moors had already been in Spain and Italy of course. Jewish scholars were also notably mobile. So Islamic mysticism such as Sufism could have been known to some Europeans. Jewish mysticism including but not limited to Cabbala would likely have been known to some Europeans. Finally, esotericism within Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity has been well-established. All of those are potential sources of theosophical thought prior to around 1700. This is not to say that theosophy is agreed by most scholars to have been in evidence in most of ancient times. The record of scholarship from a variety of points of view would have to be consulted before one could conclude it is likely that theosophy was in evidence in the 3rd century CE. My hunch is that around that era mysticism and/or gnosticism or esotericism would be more accurate ways to describe trends in thought rather than theosophy. The historical record and its scholars are the arbiters of that issue.
Some current writers on the topic on Wikipedia strongly object to the word doctrine in relation to what they regard as true, original, or correct theosophy. In the academic study of religion it is true that doctrine is not always heavily emphasized in a particular religion or in a particular time and place. I think I would likely agree that theosophy was intellectual in the beginning. It's possible that words such as emotional, intuitive, mystical, or spiritual and perhaps other words could replace the word intellectual. For example, some theosophists in the last part of the 1800s and probably before then were writing about needing to combine something like imagination or the esoteric with scientific investigation in order to arrive at true, full knowledge. Factseducado (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Now help me write this: I'm not kidding, really, please edit and add to the following summary of the above: Chrisrus (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As originally defined, Theosophy and is an essentially intellectual way of thinking about religious questions combining the common philosophical elements of Indian thought, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Theosophy is also the name given to the religious doctrine of the Theosophical Society by the Society’s founders, Helene Blavantsky, a professional psychic and medium and student of theosophy, and Charles Sotheran, a journalist and socialist, in the 1870’s.

Your summary is an adequate description. Given that theosophy did exist prior to the late 1800s, I would put in a blurb making that explicit. Here is an hastily assembled summary based on yours. Mine is not perfect, but it is not poor quality either. Factseducado (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"Prior to the mid-to-late 1800s theosophy was a form of esotericism which employed an essentially intellectual way of seeking answers to religious questions and seeking knowledge by combining the common philosophical elements of Indian thought, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. In the late 1800s and early 1900s theosophy experienced a period of massive growth and change. During that time the Theosophical Society was founded. Theosophy was the name given to that organization's religious doctrine by the Society’s founders, Helene Blavantsky, a professional psychic and medium and student of theosophy, and Charles Sotheran, a journalist and socialist, in the 1870’s.

You are right about the article. Collect sources like the one I found by using Google Books on Google Scholar if you can find it anymore, now that Google has buried that search engine so deep. Try to forget everything you know about the subject and simply report the facts about what these WP:RS (basically everything on Google Sch. is WP:RS); simply report what the RSes do in fact say about Theosophy. We want something a bit longer than this one, but there is more we could still use it to cite.
We need to get those red links hooked up and blue.
The article should say that at the very beginning Ch.S. had a big part in it's conception, very early in the group's history he resigned and she was synonymous with the doctrine.
Yes, use that word, "doctrine", if that's what the RSes call it.
Do not let them potray their beliefs as something other than just that: their personal religious beliefs. If there's debate among them as to what exactly those beliefs are, let them fight that out among themselves between "according to these people's beliefs..." etc and stay out of it. If they object, tell them it's what sources say in your best Mr. Spock imitation. Ask them why can't write in an article stating that Adam and Eve were the first people, but you can say that the Bible says that they were. All you have to do is write an introductory phrase stating words to the effect of "Theosophists believe that..." We get them to agree.
You are right. You are dealing with a difficult case here, a polysemic term for at least three referents with no clear boundries and lots of gray area between.
So far from the encyclopedia of religion we know hardly hardly anything about the first referent, an attempt to find common ground among Indian religions, a sort of Southasian Unitarianism if you would. Next, we have on student of that philosophy who lables her personal take on the former and the encyclopedia talks about that, mostly. Since she died there has been who knows how many claims on the word. Then, there's the official doctrine of the Society that she founded since she died, which may have changed somewhat or quite a bit since then. Now, if there are believers in control of the article inserting their own definitions, let them put up a blog or some such and tell the world. All we know is what our sources say, and we're not using her primary sources as facts because that's a good rule across the board for all articles, that's what you will argue and they will agree. We want it to read like an improved version of the article in the encyclopedia of religion. Chrisrus (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Theosophy had been mentioned in an academic book while I was in college. It was not a focus of the class and I had not special interest in the topic. Of course, I did the assigned reading for the class. So fortunately I don't know much about theosophy which I would need to try to forget. My current involvement came about almost a week ago because of a casual conversation in which somehow theosophy was mentioned. I told someone to try looking it up on Wikipedia. He did but told me he didn't understand what the article meant. I wondered if the religious subject matter had confused him. I read the entry and had a sinking feeling. The problem of understanding was not the subject matter it was the writing and in my opinion the comprehension of the topic by the writers of the article. Of course, the statements of beliefs as facts was obvious. This began quite a turn of events this week.
I have begun looking at appropriate sources. I am near a university library and can access some items through its online catalog. I had not thought to check Google Scholar and that's a great idea. Thanks for that.
Polysemic is a useful adjective; thank you for bringing it to my attention. Linguistics certainly comes into play with the word theosophy over time.
I'll need to carefully examine a variety of sources as to the "first referent, an attempt to find common ground among Indian religions, a sort of Southasian Unitarianism," because I'm not clear that all reputable scholars agree. I'm under the impression that this first referent is a growing field of research.
"Theosophists believe that..." is a good beginning of an introduction to the eventual article. The article will need to become "an improved version of the article in the encyclopedia of religion." Of course primary sources by adherents cannot be used as facts. Rather than fighting about what theosophists believe among themselves it appears to me that the current interested parties accept uncritically facts not in evidence which are presented by one interested party based on one scholar who he or she appears to favor. Using phrases such as "according to person A, X is correct" is not yet in evidence in the writing style of the article's writer. I will have use my best Spock imitation to reiterate what a reliable source reports. In the past I have been accused of not listening to the points of view of others. I believe such criticisms will continue. This has obviously touched a nerve for the advocates of keeping the article more or less as it is. Hopefully asking "them why can't write in an article stating that Adam and Eve were the first people, but you can say that the Bible says that they were," will result in something productive.
Ch.S.'s involvement and verified contribution will have to be mentioned. Some writers did not want any but the barest mention of Blavatsky and only agreed to mention her after an earlier debate. I agree that if RSs use the word "doctrine", the article must use the word.
I now know how to use double brackets to turn words blue. I don't know how to hook up red links. I am unclear as to hook up blue links. All of Wikipedia mechanics is a steep learning curve for me. Factseducado (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


Civility barnstar.png Civility Award
Hey there. I had assumed things would be a lot more disruptive around here, so I wanted to say thanks for the great cooperation we've had thus far on the NXIVM page. I'm looking forward to more peaceful progress in the future. Laundry Week (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and you're welcome. Chrisrus (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich's ArbCom case[edit]

Hi Chris. Just saw the comment that you added to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision. I thought it was excellent and absolutely agree, but unfortunately only arbitrators are supposed to comment on the proposed decision page. It would probably be best if you moved your comment to the talk page, or else it may be removed entirely be one of the (well meaning) clerks. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed your comment from the main page per the header: "Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page." as an arbcom clerk, Guerillero | My Talk 06:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


Hey Chrisrus. I just wanted to remind you to take a look at the Forbes coverage that I wrote up and to let me know what you think. Have a great weekend! Laundry Week (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

C. l. soupus[edit]

Don't worry, I've removed the obviously erroneous Hundspsychologie reference. The viability of coywolves is now confirmed! On another note, you may want to purge your talk page. It's packed. Mariomassone (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! On another note, there's a list on the article "Coyote" of attacks on children, a potential large contribution to which I've left at the bottom of Talk:Coyote. I found them in a study on Coyote attacks on humans in the state of California from the seventies to the 2K noughts, (thanks, Google Scholar!), but if I add them where they would go on the article Coyote it'll take up a large percentage of the entire mainspace for that article. I was thinking how I watch you add that "show/collapse" thing sometimes with the list of foreign names and such. How do you do that? Or, maybe a new spin-off article? What do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Magneto merger proposal[edit]

Hi Chrisrus, I edited your proposal to merge Magneto and Magneto (generator). Since this entailed editing your comments, I wanted to fully explain to you what I did. See Help:Merging for full instructions on proposing or performing a merge. You used the {{merge}}, which is intended to be displayed at the top of the article in question, on the talk page. This placed the talk pages in Category:All articles to be merged, which was a bit confusing. As a member of Project Merge, I wanted to clear this up. I placed {{merge}} on both of the articles involved and procedurally closed the discussion at Talk:Magneto, as these discussions occur only on one page. I hope this is all clear. If you have any questions or otherwise want to respond, you may do so here; I'll watch this page for a bit. Best, BDD (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Canis lupus dingo, latest genetic science Alan Wilton study - Proceedings of Royal Society B, Biological Science[edit]

Mitochondrial DNA data indicate an introduction through Mainland Southeast Asia for Australian dingoes and Polynesian domestic dogs Mattias C. R. Oskarsson1, Cornelya F. C. Klütsch1, Ukadej Boonyaprakob2, Alan Wilton3, Yuichi Tanabe4 and Peter Savolainen1,*

So labeling the C. lupus dingo a domestic dog is not valid


Joanne McKay — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand this article to be saying that the Australian Dingo arrived there not on Polynesian or Austronesian ships or trade with Austro-Asiatics, but rather with the original inhabitants, the native Australians? This they evolved somewhere in southern China over 10,000, more like 18,000 years ago. "The most likely story, say the researchers, is that dingoes and New Guinea singing dogs then dispersed to their destinations via a separate route to the dogs that arrived with Polynesia's first people 3000 years ago. They also made the journey much earlier." and arrived in Australia @4,600 - 18,300 years ago.
Australian_Aborigines#Origins says "The results imply that modern Aborigines are the direct descendants of the explorers who arrived 50,000 years ago.[12] This finding supports earlier archaeological findings of human remains near Lake Mungo that were dated to 45,000 years ago." That's crazy long ago. That's much older than the oldest dog Wikipedia knows of. That means that they arrived in Australia much, much earlier than the date that this article gives for the first southern Chinese dingo, and then they traveled to Australia maybe max 18,300 years ago. So there the Australians must have been dogless for thousands of years before either the dingo or the dog evolved. The "Oh my God, that's a radically early date" figure by the most radical expert for the first dog that I can find on Wikipedia is 31,700 years ago. I can't find any way that they could have arrived with the native Australians. And as far as Wikipedia knows, there never was a land bridge to the old Australia/New Guinea continent and the rest of the world that connects to China. They would have had to have swum or rafted or come on a boat with humans. The dates given by this article seem consistant with the Austronesian diaspora which is the theory that Wikipedia goes with, or some kind of exchange with Austro-Asiatic, but the article has ruled the Polynesian theory right out as impossibly late. That's the only theory the article attempts to debunk. Chrisrus (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: List of MInor Planets[edit]

I have returned and I wish to resume work on the minor planets lists and articles.

I understand that the creation of articles for many unnamed minor planets was not the most prudent decision. However, I would like to see that all named minor planets have an article. Is this reasonable? There are to date 333,273 numbered minor planets, of which only 17,301 (5.19%) have names.

The exception for the unnamed but numbered minor planets would be those that get significant press outside of the Minor Planet Center, etc. The same goes for the unnumbered minor planets whose orbits are not defined.

As to the project's other issues at hand, I very much approve of your idea to include in the primary lists the groupings of the minor planets. Also, I want to go through the lists and check for accuracy against the MPC list. Although it may not be a popular idea, I would, if I had my druthers, have the lists of 100 each semi-protected, at least for the first several thousand minor planets; their data is unlikely to change any time soon.

This is a very manageable project, albeit a bit looming now, because we have caught up it will a piece of cake to keep pace with MPC's monthly updates. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 18:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good to have you back. Please forget about creating articles for objects that don't pass WP:NASTRO. Instead, keep them on charts; List of minor planets, and perhaps collapsable charts on the articles for the asteroids group, such as the article about the main belt.
Also, if there are any, such as those you mention, that don't pass NASTRO but should, you can make articles about them if you first change NASTRO so that it allows such articles to be created.
Next, it'd be great if you got involved in the conversion of NASTRO-failing minor planet articles to the chart redirects. Chrisrus (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I have read NASTRO and it seems like a fair and well fleshed-out policy, which was a long time in coming for astronomical objects... so I can concede that named minor planets without follow-up studies and/or without more than the basic information that can be found on MPC/JPL databases likely do not warrant a stand-alone article. I will proofread and tidy up the hundreds lists and add the groupings column. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree about NASTRO. We were trying to implement it, but it got side tracked when Rich was banned from using bots. That decision really hurt that project. Very uninformed decision to that that at that moment. I still can't understand why exceptions could not be made for this project. I could go on about that but let's get back to the astrobots.
All MPs are interesting when taken as groups, very few are interesting as individuals. Instead of one big massive LOMP which clumps them all together in alphabetical order, LOMP should be organized into groups. Then the only thing that's known about most of them, which is how they are moving and their approximate size, can be summerized in the form of animated graphics. Numerical orbital data is incoherent to the LOMP user in comparison to an animated gif, which is nothing more than the numerical orbit data made instantly comprehensible.
The rest of the data is interesting only if it's ranked and summarized. It doesn't mater to LOMP users if Joe Blow from Idaho was the guy who found this one. What might be interesting and important is where Mr. Blow ranks in the standings. Who's the all-time champ? Are there certain observatories that dominate the MP finding business? Amature astronomers might like an interactive table to see who's on top and whose catching up. Like the high scores on a Space Invaders booth that used to flash a high scores table when not in use. Graphs, charts, stats. People love the stuff. I gather that certain waves of discovery were done en masse by certain projects, and that these can dwarf the numbers found by individuals in the past who stumble upon them looking for something else.
Ok, so there's the size and orbitdata and discoverer info, and... I guess that's all we know about them. And above you have the state of the conversation when it stalled, and the ways to present these two kinds of information to the LOMP user. No one is going to be using LOMP the way it presently presents this data. We need to present them and their discoverers in their contexts for LOMP to be an interesting and useful thing for the LOMP user.
Actually, why have LOMP? Only to serve as a database for future projects? Why not summarize it all in collapsable charts and graphics and such within the articles about each grouping? It'd be great if the summary charts and graphics and such could be incorporated into the articles about each grouping. That'd be awesome and potentially useful.
So, what else? Oh, while your thinking about all that, please allow me to present this visual aid from YouTube that I was talking about. It might inspire you as to how to do it's creator one better by presenting all the members in one grouping as parts of one coherent notable thing: Chrisrus (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Having articles/lists for the separate groups is alright, though I think we should keep the listing by number because it is the most logical ordering (although it's not all that logical, just numerical).
Anyway, the MPC has all the discoverers [13] and the top 50 discovery sites [14] ranked. For the discoverers, the first 5 are automated surveys and number 6 refers to surveys done between 1960 and 1977 using photographic plates. I agree that some charts to summarize the groups would be helpful to the average user. It would be important, though, to standardize the articles for the groups. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 05:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If the lists contain scope for comments then they should not be semi-protected. Instead they should be guarded by agents in the same way ChemBot does. Rich Farmbrough, 02:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC).

Buff Colour[edit]

Please note that as per WP:CONSISTENCY (a section of WP:ENGVAR) "Although Wikipedia favors no national variety of English, within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently". It matters not that the section deals with use in the US, it is still on an article that uses BrEng and the consistency of spelling whould be used throughout the article. Thanks - SchroCat (^@) 17:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I know. But if you would please note that as per WP:TIES, (a section of WP:ENGVAR which states "...a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Please look at the rest of the article. Will it really look proper for an article that on balance is basically talking about something American: deeply symbolic of the Continental Army, General Washington, US state flags and universities, and on and on, and just a little bit about British Culture, how will it look to speak of these things using the spelling "colour" of George Washington University or the US Army Heroldry? We can't talk about the "colour" of General Washington's uniform. It looks bad. Please look over the article and read over the sections about this on the talk page where this decision was arrived at in discussion. In this article, we are simply extending WP:TIES to sections. All we care about is that things don't look wrong. There is no problem talking about the "buff-colour'd linings" of the Redcoats and the buff "color" of the Continental Army as long as we do that consistently and smoothly with the flow of the WP:TIES of the referents of the different sections and subsections. Where no WP:TIES exist, we default to the British spelling because of the spelling of the article title's parenthetical. Chrisrus (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Ties says, and I quote: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation". Not section, article. Furthermore, to say that it is "an article that on balance is basically talking about something American", is nonsense: we in the rest of the world also have buff. I think it's an international thing, rather than just a US thing...". - SchroCat (^@) 18:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but that's just a guideline and you know what they say about foolish consistency. The important thing is that the articles look right, and authors of guidelines haven't thought of all possible situations. Please do investigate the particular contexts of this situation. Please read through the whole article. The word "color" is spelled like that in all the American sections. Are you going to change them all to "colour"? Why are you picking on just that subsection? Are you going to make it consistent throughout? Your edit is inconsistent with this article's pattern of spelling it the American way when talking about American things. Please do see that it doesn't look right in an article that otherwise applies WP:TIES to sections. Do spend some time looking at the article, it won't take long for you to give it a good look-over. Do you see? You haven't made it consistent until you change all the "buff in US culture" sections as well. And please do read the corresponding talk page. See how the decision to do it this way came naturally out of the evolution of the article? When you do these things you will see that we should apply WP:TIES to sections in the case of this article.
Second, I think you've misunderstood something I said. I did not mean to imply that the color buff itself was on balance an American thing. I'm saying that the article as written is mostly about American things. There is more in that article as written right now that is specifically about some aspect of American culture than there is about it in any other culture. That of course could change. If you have the means to do so, please do add more information to the article about the buff in other cultures. Maybe some future version of the article will no longer be mostly about American things. At that point, what I said before about the article will no longer be true. I was talking about the state of the article as it stands, not saying that buff is American. As such, if you get your way and apply WP:ENGVAR as that guideline is written, the end result is going to be American English throughout, not UK. I don't want that, no one wants that as far as I know. But on balance the article is more about Buff in American culture than in any other, so a consistant and literal reading of ENGVAR will inevitably result in the article using American spelling throughout, although this would change if you or someone added quite a bit more about buff in UK culture. So your recent edit has not solved the problem that you intended it to solve, namely bringing it in line with ENGVAR
So, I hope now you understand and undo your recent edit or at least not redo your last edit when I undo again as soon as WP:3RR allows. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I've made one final alteration. The word "color" now appears only once - in a quote, where it is correct to do so (although you should provide a citation for it being a quote). The remainder of the article retains the spelling of the title "colour", as per WP:ENGVAR. I have looked at the article as a whole for the balance between the references to the UK and US and see the following:
US references
1) The US Army; 2) U.S. Universites, Fraternaties, and Schools; and 3) U.S. State Flags
UK references
1) The British Army; 2) UK Politics; and 3) UK Ships
All looks pretty even to me and even if it wasn't, it still doesn't matter: the title of page flags up which national usage is applied to the page. There are other colour articles where AmEng is the dominant variant and the UK references all refer to "color". No one complains about this: it's just the way it is because of ENGVAR. In relation to changing the title of the page, please see WP:RETAIN.
As to your final point, you have given notification that you intend to edit war over this matter. I would advise against this: warring over language variants, especially in such a clear cut case where the variant is flagged in the title, would be frowned upon and I will not hesitate to take the appropriate action if you decide on that course. - SchroCat (^@) 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think you'd better look again, because if all you want if for WP:ENGVAR to be applied, I exect you to support it being moved to Buff (color) in this case and spelled that way throughout, because as anyone can see there is quite a bit more in the article as it stands abotu buff in American culture than there is about it in UK culture. Even if you refuse to admit that, I'm sure that any objective person will notice that this is clearly the case. This again is not what I want, but it's what consistent application of WP:ENGVAR would lead to, and as that's all you say you care about I expect you to do that or explain why not if ENGVAR is the only reason for your edits.
I'm interested in these "other articles" you speak of. Please direct me to them.
I would ask that you read what people say more carefully and not throw around major accusations such as "edit warring" so carelessly. I have announced my intention to put everything back the way it was without edit warring by acting only as WP:3rr allows. That by definition is not edit warring. Chrisrus (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure you've read ENGVAR properly. Can I point you once again to WP:RETAIN: "With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." A colour has no strong national ties: it is international by its very nature. The article refers to the use of buff as a colour by a number of nations and it is not overwhelmingly US-focussed, so I am not sure upon what grounds you could argue for a change.
Please note that Edit Warring is not based on three reversions. As the policy states "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In other words if you engage in pointless reversions when you have been warned that you will be in breach of some rather touchyt guidelines, you are edit warring: 3RR is the point at which an administrative procedure kicks in. - SchroCat (^@) 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I just transfered the above to the talk page of the article Buff (color), and I will respond there because that is where it belongs. I will now do the same with this addition. See you there! Chrisrus (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I've already added it over there. I didn't see your posting it on the talk page there as I was editing here, so moved it over subsequently. - SchroCat (^@) 21:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Got it. Chrisrus (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you're still pressing your point today, long after it should have been clear that it's been rejected by the community, let me point out that any further violation of WP:ENGVAR in article space will be considered to be disruptive edit warring, warranting admin intervention. Feel free to keep discussing on the talk page, though. Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Canid hybrid genetics[edit]

I'm sorry you feel that my addition hurt rather than helped the article.

I went straight to the Canid hybrid article from Zebroid. In Canid_hybrid#Genetic_considerations, hybridization is attributed solely to the different chromosome numbers (or, at least, that is the only example of genetic factors that is mentioned) but the Zebroid#Genetics article says quite clearly that a different chromosome count does not automatically mean hybridization is impossible.

I was only trying to express that idea because I felt that the current version of the Canid article was unclear and misleading in that regard.

Obviously, I failed.

However, after re-reading both article's genetic sections, I still feel that the Canid article needs to be edited to include the thought I was trying to convey. I tried to re-word my thought but couldn't produce anything too different from my original addition. Perhaps, if you read the Zebroid Genetics, then you would understand what I was trying to say and express it better than I was able to do.

My addition:

The fact that "parent" species have a different number of chromosomes does not, by itself, mean that hybrid offspring is impossible. For instance, zebroids are the offspring of horses, which have 64 chromosomes, and zebras, which have between 32 and 46 chromosomes depending on the species. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes but can breed with horses to produce mules.

My thought:

Chromosomes are not the sole determinant of the ability of two species to produce hybrids and horse hybrids are proof of that.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. My undo made returned the coherence to the article, but did not resolve the dissonance between it and this other article. I'll take a look at it, think it over, see what I can do, and let you know. In the meantime, if you would, please do swipe this conversation and paste it to the talk page of the article. It's important to keep a record of the factors that go into decision-making about articles on their talk pages. Chrisrus (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, how's that? I edited Canid hybrid tonight so that both what Zebroid and it say about hybridization can both be true. Did that do the trick?

It looks good. Thanks. I've copied our complete conversation to Canid genetic's talk page. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

John Bull[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Bearian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad Dogs[edit]

Combined list from List of fatal dog attacks in the United States.

Fatalities reported in The United States[edit]

User:Chrisrus/Bad dogs is a sortable combination of all the separated lists from Fatal dog attacks in the United States as of summer 2012. It is useful for researching long-term patterns of such attacks. My conclusions are at the end. It's very interesting, please do check it out! Chrisrus (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Conclusions drawn from this table[edit]

Dogs that kill by dog type, in the United States:

I could identify the type in 244 cases. Many more were "mixed breed" or "unknown"

Of these, 179 were Molosser or Molosser mixes: 179 dogs. That's close to two-thirds of the total.

Sixty-five were not Molossers. A bit more than one third.

20 dogs were Spitz-type or Spitz/Retriever mixes: About an eighth of the total, and about one-third of all non-Molossor fatal dog attacks.

19 Wolfdogs, also a spitz-like bunch, were implicated in killing people in the USA. They are a very tiny minority of dogs in the US, yet were also about an eighth of all dogs involved in human-ocide, if you will.

11 dogs were Herders or Retriever/herder mixes. Australian Shepherds, German shepherds, and so on. These dogs need a job and are happiest when a human is fully in charge of their every move. They are not playthings or cuddlebunnies. German shepherds were bred from many dogs including wolfdogs and spitzen, and were one of the only herding dogs expected to bite the sheep. Large sharp teeth are a breed standard.

7 were retriever and retriever/herder mixes: Including golden and labrador. Most people are surpised to hear that retrievers have killed people. Some of the cases remind me of the retriever that caused the French woman to need the first face transplant: Incredible stupidity making some of them incapable of knowing what they are doing to tiny or incapacitated people.

4 Dobermans were involved in killing people. They were bred from molossers, herders, hounds, and the "Thuringian Sylvan Dog" a semi-wild lupine dog. They also are bred to be controlled and worked all the time.

One Schnauser. Close to being a terrier.

One Jack Russell Terrier: The only true terrier on this list. Born to kill, but not to kill people. This one killed a six week old baby.

One Drovers, An Old English Sheepdog, a slow plodding straight-line diver of sheep to town on narrow roads. Hard to believe, but there is one clue: In the original press report, it called the dog "an Old English Sheepdog Mix" Mixed with what?

Hounds: 1 dog

No poodles, no matter how large. No bloodhounds, no spaniels, no pointers, no setters, no lapdogs, no sighthounds.

RE: interesting paper[edit]

It's certainly a blow to red wolf conservationists, but the standard of inclusion here is verifiability. In any case, it's already in use on the wolf article.Mariomassone (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Coyote attacks on humans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oceanside (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Poi dog[edit]

Could you take a look at 1:01:01 on this video Does that in your opinion fit the description of a poi dog?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Could be. Let's look at this together. Go to the article Poi dog and scroll down to where it has "External Links". There is only one; please click it. Scroll down to the bottom of the page thirty three and see the drawing of four dogs. Look at the one in the lower right forground. That's what I go by. The dog that looks almost exactly like that one that I have found on the internet is this picture: . It's signed by one "J.R. Quinn" and is housed by National Geographic dot com. That looks the same as the one in the book. It's flat skull was supposedly pretty unique, as was the reason the skull was so flat: the small brain, and the lack of chewing muscles normal over a dogs skull on each side; temple chewing muscles aren't needed to eat mushy poi. It's ears stand up and are very big for a dog so small, not unlike a Corgi, and it had bowed forlegs like some bulldogs do. Also like a bulldog, they are very heavy for a dog so short. Now you have as much info as I do as to what it looked like and will come to the same conclusion about the dog in the video. I go by those two pictures, only. I have never seen a photo of a poi dog, just these two drawings. I'm not convinced such a photo exists on the internet. Or anywhere.
Do you think the dog in the photo in the video at 1:01:01 and the dog in the infobox in the article Poi dog; are you convinced that they are clearly the same dog as the dog in the drawings in the book and the Nat Geo article? Chrisrus (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution Discussion (from a DRN volunteer)[edit]

Hi there!

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution.

I noticed that the editor who filed the case did not notify you, so I wanted to give you a heads-up in case you weren't aware.

Thank you! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)



Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new Chrisrus (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paucidentomys vermidax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shrew-rat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


What do I think? That all this red/eastern wolf advocacy relies solely on mtDNA. SNP studies have rendered it redundant.Mariomassone (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Chrisrus (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Frozen River[edit]

If a few scenes are set in Quebec, than the Quebec category can stay. You want a New York category to be added right? QuasyBoy (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But what's most important to me is whether it's the only movie ever set on the NYS/Quebec border. As far as I know it's the only one. Such a category of one would allow others, if they exist, to be added. Then, people doing research on the question of the strange legal situation with the Mohawk reservation that causes the smuggling, which is the topic of Frozen River, if you've seen it; such people would be able to know whether this is the only movie set pver there by seeing that it's a category of one and maybe adding to it if anyone knows about one. I don't know if Wikipedia has categories of one. I don't know why not, there are unique things in this world. Chrisrus (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about other films being in that area, but at this point having both the Quebec and New York categories should suffice. There aren't any film categories that I know of that are named after two settings, which is why the Films set on the New York / Quebec border category is an unorthodox request. I'm adding the New York category right now. QuasyBoy (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
My problem is that calling it one more movie in a place in NYS is not sufficient to describe the setting category. There are a kazillion movies set in NYS, mostly because of NYC, which in some ways is another world entirely compared to the setting of the Quebec border. Chrisrus (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that, you must be suggesting a New York category like say Category:Films set in Hogansburg, New York, but that's still a small region for a film setting category for just one film. QuasyBoy (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. "Films set in the North Country (New York)" or "Films set on Indian lands"? Chrisrus (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The "Films set in New York" category covers the films set outside the NYC area, like upstate (where Frozen River takes place) and Long Island. Also, wouldn't a "Films set on Indian lands" category would be redundant to the "Films about Native Americans" category? QuasyBoy (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
"Films set in NY" is for all NYS, and the vast majority of them take place in NYC. It's might as well be on another planet as a film set on the Canadian border. It's accurate, of course, but Frozen River is lost in there among the NYC films and those set in towns like It's a Wonderful Life, really not the same thing at all. That border with its strange neither-here-nor-there status of the Mohawk reservation in NYS and Canada at the same time and also in neither country, where by NYS constitution it's treated like a foreign country and they have their own passports and maintain soveregity... have you seen the movie? It's a movie a about a strange place. The NYS troopers can't go their lands unless invited. It's a strange situation. You couldn't come up with a situaiton more condusive to smuggling if you tried. I don't know another place like it. It's not really a film about Indians, anyone in that same situaiton will be highly tempted to smuggle no matter their race or culture. If you've seen it, would you describe it as a "film about Indians"? The setting of this film is an outlier among all film settings I know of. Anyway, category "Films set in NYS" should have sub-categories. Chrisrus (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I actually have not seen the film. Also, to back even further the main reason why I removed the Films set on the New York / Quebec border category, is because its not a created category. No other film besides Frozen River was listed in it. Like I previously mentioned the "Films set in New York" category is mainly for films set outside the NYC area. If there are any strictly NYC films listed in it, they should not be there. Category:Films set in New York City is for films set in NYC. The "Films set in New York" category as of right now has 140 films listed, that's a good amount and does not to be any further sub-categorized at all just for one film. QuasyBoy (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Referents of the term "Pariah dog"[edit]


The Indian pariah dog

The Pariah Niche[edit]

Ecologists have named the ecological niche characterized by adequate habitat and food in the form of garbage in areas adjacent to towns and cities "the pariah dog niche" after that occupied by the Indian Pariah dog.

Derived Term[edit]

Ecologists have extended the term "pariah" to animals other than dogs that exploit the same niche as the Indian pariah dog, including "pariah cats" and "pariah birds" such as the Black Kite.

The Pariah Dog Morph[edit]

Experts also speak of a "long-term pariah dog morph", a set of physical and instinctual characteristics which can be found in mongrel populations occupying the pariah niche elsewhere in the world which resemble but are unrelated to the Indian Pariah dog.

Sunda Clouded Leopard Picture[edit]

Good find on the new picture of the Sunda clouded leopard. I think it serves as a better main illustration! —Dajagr (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I just noticed the picture was very dark and hit the commons link at the bottom and there it was. More would have to be done for readers like me to be able to tell the two clouded leopard species apart, though! Chrisrus (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: dangers[edit]

I have indeed come across this discrepancy, and I daresay I'm not the only one:

It is even more ironic that, while wolf biologists stoutly denied dangers from wolves and failed to develop any understanding of the conditions under which wolves were harmless or dangerous, their counterparts studying urban coyotes did just that. They described a progression of behaviors, which predicts when coyotes would attack children... One is thus left wondering how it is possible for students of coyotes in urban areas to develop a predictive warning system that foretells the coming of attacks by coyotes on children, while a large number cooperating scientists fail to do so when studying the much richer European and Asian material of wolf attacks on humans... A similar, predictable progression as above has been, independently, described for urban coyotes in California involved in attacks on children. It is a pattern in which coyotes shed shyness, become increasingly bolder and killers of pets, till they finally target and attack children in urban areas. Wolves follow the same basic pattern as coyotes, signaling their intent of attacking humans a long time before it happens. That is, wolves and coyotes go through repeated and predictable pre-attack behavior. It is very similar as both species have the same way exploring, of making the unfamiliar, familiar. North America expertise in attacks of wolves on people is not merely slim, but experts are in a state of denial. They have created the lore of the harmless wolf that hurts no people, and consider that the Little Red Riding Hood tale is based on myth and superstition. Are attacks on children by urban coyotes mere myth and superstition?

I truly think the socialisation (as opposed to hazing) methods you describe wolf biologists using are hypocritical, and analogous to zoo keepers encouraging kids to pet tigers, but steer clear of cheetahs. I look forward to your new article, as the coyote is a populous and complex animal that warrants more in-depth coverage than the average beastie. As I've said before, I'd like to steer clear of coyotes for now, but I think I've made the first step in ordering Michael Fox's The Wild Canids. Mariomassone (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese mole shrew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mole shrew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


You're kidding, right? Reverting the close of an RfC, with an edit summary that says "check the map"? Drmies (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Which maps did you check? Chrisrus (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I hate to break it to you, but the close of an RfC is based on the material brought to the table by the participants, not on a closer's own research. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that none of the participants brought the maps to the table? Chrisrus (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that your remark is utter nonsense. I think it is pretty clear what I said; it's up to you to read it properly. But in case this isn't clear to you: what I'm saying is that the close of an RfC is based on the material brought to the table by the participants, not on a closer's own research. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Why, when you closed, did you speak of "the lack of an official name and status"? Also, are you saying that no participants brought the maps to the table? Chrisrus (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I imagined it when I posted a link to the CIA map. Maybe the proposer imagined it when they linked to a spreadsheet citing the nomenclature in the Times, Oxford and National Geographic atlases and provided a direct link to Google Maps in their opening argument. Or maybe Drmies isn't the one who should be going around calling on others to read things "properly" and accusing them of not being "smart"? The idea that a closer has no responsibility to even investigate the matter themselves for two seconds is also ridiculous. N-HH talk/edits 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The closing admin do seems to be closing the move request with the wrong claims but is reverting it the right approach? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • No, it isn't, and as for "wrong claims"--I have yet to meet someone who can read properly, or write a well-reasoned response. "Check the maps". "The others have nationalist motives". "My arguments are better". Drmies (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't ask you, but, the closing admin claims "the lack of an official name" which is undeniably wrong. If an admin fails to even get such a fundamental part of this issue right, his judgment can not be relied upon. It deserves action to be taken. What I'm asking Chrisrus, and not you, of his opinion. Please do not flame this. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Just realized that you are the closing admin. If you even coldn't get the fact that the official name of the island is Bozcaada how could you be in a position to close this move request? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry DLSeth, I think you were directing a question to me, ("The closing admin...the right approach?") above. My reply is I donno, maybe not. We'll see. Thus far, I don't regret it. He doesn't seem to claim to have made an informed decision or to have felt any obligation to have checked the facts, and it seemed proper at the time and still seems to. Why do you ask? Chrisrus (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I asked to see if you had a policy backing up your action and because you're more experienced with Wikipedia than I am. There was a rule on the lines with being able to simply revert any obviously wrong action by an admin but I don't remember it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're in a position currently to start throwing out insults about people not reading things properly or not having well-reasoned arguments. N-HH talk/edits 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
When you closed, you spoke of "the lack of an official name and status". Do you still believe that there such a lack exists? Also, you don't seem to claim that you actually checked any maps or other evidence before closing. Instead, you argue that it was proper for you to close without checking the evidence presented. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Please revert your edits on the Tenedos RM Reverting the close of an admin that was made in good faith for the reasons you cite are unacceptable. If you are unsatisfied with the close, then the process to follow is spelled out in Wikipedia:Move Review.

I Strongly reccomend you restore Drmies close and initiate a Move Review where a wider audience can access whether or not the close was properly made. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You say that "reverting the close of an admin that was made in good faith for the reasons I cite (is) unacceptable". Please explain what "acceptable" means in this context, with reference to policy or guideline or whatever. Please understand that he said he based his decisions on a head count and the untrue "fact" (don't take that from me, check it yourself) of "the lack of an official name and status". When asked about it, he has since claimed that adminstrators don't need to check the presented facts. Clearly, his decision was misinformed.
It doesn't seem appropriate to start a move review because there's no move to review. Nothing has been moved, so thank you for your recommendation but it doesn't seem appropriate without there having been a move, does it?
I don't want to start a big issue about whether he closed it improperly. That might be seen as me coming after him and his position as an admin, and I'm not interested in "bringing him up on charges" or whatever. I've already got his back up with just this little I've done. I don't want to persue him any further, I just want to undo the improper close and get back to the matter at hand.
Please feel free to close again once you have been properly informed. However, if you are feeling strong emotions about this at the moment, you might want to consider whether you can objectively review the evidence at this point. Chrisrus (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The proper method to contest an RM closure that you believe is improper (as you say it was above) is to intiate a Move Review. Merely reverting an admin decision because you don't like it, for whatever reason just isn't good form. Are you going to revert the next admin that makes the same closure decision? Again, I strongly suggest you revert your changes, allow the RM to be closed and intiate a Move Review with your concerns if you think the RM closure was improperly carried out. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not about not liking the decision. He made pretty explicitly clear. If the closing admin said that every single vote was in opposition of the move when there were more support votes than oppose moves would it still not be ok to revert the close? Wasn't there a Wiki policy where it tells you to ignore an admin decision if it's clearly incorrect? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
You might also take into account that Chrisrus initially argued against the move request but later changed his opinion due to provided evidence. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the very reason WP:MRV was created, to give editors the opportunity to contest a close if they felt the close was improper. WP:MRV allows other editors, especially those familar with title and requested move procedures, to make a determination as to whether the move was improper or not. and adjust the article title if neccesary. Since the RM close has now been restored, I suggest those editors that believe the close was improperly handled initiate a move review and leave the RM close alone to allow the Move Review to rationally analyze the close. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The MRV is created. That would be my initial action as well. Though I swear there was a Wiki policy that told us to ignore admins in clear cases. Now that I pointed out to you that earlier my mind is going crazy for not remembering it... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Chrisrus, indulge me one more time. You disagree; that's fine. But, as Mike Cline (who was on your side, so to speak) indicates, there's a process--a simple revert is not the way to go. In all this hullabaloo (and yes, you got my back up some) and a bunch of edit conflicts, not to mention real life interfering, I didn't say anything more about this "official name and status" business. First, you have to understand (whether you like it or not) that I have to go on the evidence presented in the RfC/move request. I don't have to go check maps--but indeed maps were brought up, and they would show up in some of the searches, and they were part of that spreadsheet you or N-HH pointed at. But, as was pointed out, they don't all agree, and even if they did it's not a given that maps should weigh more heavily than books (though I will tell you that I don't disagree that they should weigh, heavily). The "official" name was brought up in a few places, in relation to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne: "the official name of the island according to international peacy treaties is Tenedos, still under a de-jure semi-autonomous status", according to one of the editors, and no one disputes that fact though its meaning was disputed. Mind you, Athenean's comment right after, on the value for Wikipedia of "official name" is valid. What any other "official" name would be, or how that is established, or what its value is for Wikipedia, that's another matter which, I believe, was not clearly and completely teased out in the discussion. In other words, we have something official whose value is not totally clear but it does not support a move; mutatis mutandis, we have some statements on the Turkish prerogative, if you will, but there again the counterargument is that we're on the English Wikipedia and if a name is more accepted in English then that should be its name.

    I saw also, of course, that there seems to be a historical development favoring Bozcaada, and no one denied (I think) that a few years from now this discussion might have a different outcome. But my job as a closer is to establish a consensus now, based on the arguments brought forth, and I simply don't see a consensus one way or the other--and no consensus means keep, so to speak. Faulting me for not checking enough modern maps is really neither here nor there; I could say "not my job" or, and I prefer this, I could say that much information, a lot of which very reliable, was brought up by competent editors, and that's what I have to go on.

    I hope this clarifies what may have been unclear. If you wish to seek redress, that's fine--one of the reasons I chose to close this is that I have no dog in this fight. I just taught the Aeneid, where of course Tenedos is used, but that doesn't mean a thing, I know that; I've not edited the article and I don't plan on vacationing there. I have no more love for the Turks than for the Greeks, and 1923 is a long time ago: I tried to see if there was a strong consensus to overturn the previous move discussion and found none. And now I'll leave you and the island in peace, I hope: I have no desire to raise the temperature any further, and I'm sure you don't either. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

First, thank you all for your kind attention to this matter.
Second, thanks to Mike Cline for providing Wikipedia:Move review. I had not seen it before. I must read it and decide what to do next based on it and anything else tha might also be germane that you provide or I can find, (including Drmies' reply above, which just came in while I was writing this), and obey established procedure. At this point I am not convinced that my revert of a demonstrably uninformed closure was unproper, but it may have been. If I am in fact obliged to revert to the closer and to iniciate a "move review" (even though there is no move to review), then that is what I have to do.
In the meantime, Drmies, Mike, please read this: Talk:Tenedos#Has_anyone_suggested_nameing_it_.22Tenedos_or_Bozcaada.22_or_.22Bozcaada_or_Tenedos_.22.3F. It's my hope that it will help you understand certain things, including me.
Right now, I am going to go to bed. In the morning, I have to mow the lawn and such, but then I will review WP:MR and anything else anyone says or provides about what I should do, and then either revert myself or whatever it seems clear that I am demonstrably obliged to do. Good night. Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Chrisrus - You need do nothing relative to the RM close because another editor reverted your change and the RM is now closed as DRMIES originally closed it. Leave the RM alone. When ready, carefully read the instructions at Wikipedia:Move review and decide whether or not you wish to contest DRMIES close. Nominating a close for Move Review is relatively simple, but the most important aspect is that you are clear and concise as to why you think the RM closure was improper. Other editors then will evaluate your rationale and the discussion in the RM to determine if the close was proper or not. This is not an adversarial process, but a process designed to ensure community satisfaction with contested RM closure decisions. --Mike Cline (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd back any bid to have this issue reviewed. The arguments in favour of a move were overwhelming - as overwhelming as Ceylon to Sri Lanka. Beyond that, the close was manifestly flawed - it was made by an editor who had not apparently even assessed the evidence as presented, even in the opening nomination, but who had, it would now appear, already entered the debate, albeit off the main island talk page, on the side he eventually found in favour of (and done so by referencing 19th century news reports). N-HH talk/edits 08:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it appalling that Drmies would argue that the move discussion suggests that the official name of the island is Tenedos when the example he gives, Athenean, points out that the official name is Bozcaada. Added to that majority of Oppose voters argued that the official name, which they all pointed out to be Bozcaada, of the article can not be used automatically as it's irrelevant to naming conventions. A number of official documents are given as sources for the official name being Bozcaada as well in the move request and subsequent discussions in the talk page. I'd advise Drmies to go back and re-read the talk page carefully. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon. Reviewing this, WP:MR, the most important part at this moment seems to be this: Wikipedia:MR#Steps_to_list_a_new_review_request, #1, where it says: "1. Before requesting a move review: Please attempt to discuss the matter with the discussion closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, and you decide to request a review of the closure, please note in the review that you did first try discussing the matter with the closer."

Then this is what we should do next, not to make the unfortunately named "move review" (there is no move to review), quite yet. Is that correct? Does anyone have anything they would like to say about whether and how to do this? If we can convince Dm to unclose or reopen the move request, no "move review" will be necessary, but this possibilty is not mentioned in WP:MR. Should it be? What's the best we can hope for here? Chrisrus (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, haven't two of us already tried to discuss this with Drmies? I recall being told that my (and your) comments "weren't very smart" and that the thread was swiftly boxed off. It seems that we've done that stage and can move direct to a move review - or rather a review of the move-discussion close. That could end with the discussion reopened for further debate, or even the right decision finally being made without yet more waffle and bureacracy (or, of course, the close and no-move confirmed). I think we have a pretty clear case - not only was the close, objectively the wrong decision based on WP naming rules, but the closing admin: a) had already set out his preference on the issue before coming to close (see his talk page and WP:RMCI re conflicts of interest, even if only appearance thereof); b) clearly did not even read half the main discussion, including the proposer's rationale and evidence (as noted by three of us); and c) rebuffed any attempt to explain the problems to him subsequently (again, see his talk page). The reversion of the closing edit maybe doesn't look good the other way, but there are several of us scratching our heads on this one and doing nothing more than questioning the decision. N-HH talk/edits 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think a move review is due. The closing admin have expressed clear bias and a lack of interest in an impartial decision. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm on it. Should appear shortly once I get through the technical stuff and work out how much or how little detail to give/repeat .. N-HH talk/edits 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm at a loss for words about this claim by drmies: "But, as was pointed out, [Maps] don't all agree, and even if they did it's not a given that maps should weigh more heavily than books (though I will tell you that I don't disagree that they should weigh, heavily)." This wasn't ever substantiated in the discussion. The opposite was substantiated. Since I'm at a loss for words, I took pictures. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Where you showed us your atlases, and falsely claimed that I called you a liar. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't own any atlases. The library does. I feel for you man, the Bozcaada debate was confusing and there was a lot of stuff said that seemed reasonable from everyone. But, you said: "That someone prepares a spreadsheet doesn't make them right" implying that I either lied or misled about the evidence. I just think there were some ways the close could have been helpful for me, an editor that actually is working on improving the page (check the history). But it has to be on the terms of the evidence presented. Here they are: 1. Every reputable research source (Atlases, dictionaries, Encyclopedias) about the current island uses Bozcaada. This has never been contested aside from vague claims of it being cherry picked with no counter examples. 2. Tenedos is used a lot in Google Books (although ones about the current island are few and far between). What should be the name of this pile of rocks in the Aegean? No one has answered for me how we resolve this debate, and the close didn't either. I got no animus against you or even the decision, but I did nothing deceptive and was accused continually of it by a lot of users. Just really, look at the evidence again. You don't have to dig in on this issue, and if you really think a treaty from 1923 that refers to Persia means there is no official name and that books about some wizard named Tenedos trumps the Encyclopedia Britannica, cool. Say so. But there is enough distortion of the evidential record by others, we don't need anymore of it. I'll respect the hell out of your decision, but it needs to be based on the evidence presented, which is all edited resources (including every atlas about the current island) versus raw Google Book hits. You disagree with me about how that should tip, awesome. But we aren't helped by more confusion about what the evidence shows. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no English language variety in which "That someone prepares a spreadsheet doesn't make them right" implies "that [you] either lied or misled about the evidence". Drmies (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't need to or want to go back and forth on this issue (I took it as an accusation that the spreadsheet was not felicitous and accurate, certainly seems to be suggesting that my evidence wasn't up to snuff and since I put it together either I'm...whatever). If you don't want it to be an accusation, awesome, I'll take your word on it. Changed the presentation to remove those references. Hope you'll accept my apology for thinking it was an attack. I don't want to lengthen this other person's talk page, so any future dialogue can happen on mine. Sorry Chrisrus. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Abstract, the spreadsheet seems to have been brought up as evidence (not by you) that your side was right--as if a spreadsheet made it right. That's not the case. I will tell you, though, that such an overview of evidence and positions is exactly the kind of thing that will help sway a discussion. If you hadn't done that it would have been very difficult for the discussion to get going in the first place; you can see how different this one was from the July one. I think, but I'm sort of commenting as an outsider, that the SPA and the IPs helped derail this and raised the temperature. If that evidence about the shift toward the Turkish name is correct you will win in the long run, but careful presentations of specific evidence, such as yours, are always helpful. Thanks for your consideration, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


I am quite aware of the situation on that talkpage and of the previous (and ongoing, elsewhere) discussions. I am acting as an uninvolved administrator here, and thanks for asking but I am fairly confident I have a competent judgment of what's going on. I'm going to restore that closure one more time; if you revert that again I'll block you. Fut.Perf. 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish tea for you (Wikivideo)[edit]

I know you like videos and hope you also like Turkish tea because I would like to offer you some. I just added a nice video to the article and would like to suggest you see it, while it is there... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That video is a very nice and informative contribution to the article. Chrisrus (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Jerk and point[edit]

Hi! I can't figure out who you aimed that comment at on Jimbo's talk page. Yopienso (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I hope I clarified it by adding "JW, ..." at the beginning. Chrisrus (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I disagree he was a jerk, and don't see how he was pointy. Seemed the opposite of pointy to me, broadly interpreting WP rules. But I was just wondering, and appreciate your reply. I saw the JW, but didn't know if you were talking to the person or about the issue. I really don't get your comment, then, but that's OK. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, what I saw was the edit summary: Seriously? WP:POINT editing by JW? and didn't know if you were saying that to him or sarcastically to the editors who were ragging on him. I've just looked now and seen your new "JW, you". Wow. We all see things differently, huh? Yopienso (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Cyphoidbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Cyphoidbomb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mixed breed dog[edit]

I believe, without looking, all I did was to remove a comma. I wouldn't call that shortening of the article. I think you should look to someone else who may have shortened the opening. On the talk page I said the opening needed to be expanded. Jobberone (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Chrisrus!! I have heard from both Dr. Christopher Fox *and* Prof. Phil Lobel![edit]

David Wolman, the author of the article where he paraphrases the both of them as saying the sound were "likely animal in origin," may have been exaggerating after all.

After noticing that the NOAA site about Bloop was updated with statements about its likely ice origin, I wrote to Dr. Fox and to Prof. Lobel, and they have now both written back to me, saying they do not think it was animal in origin. In Dr. Fox's case, he says that any paraphrasing that suggests that he thought that, is false.

I might have more soon too, as I've written David Wolman and asked him for source materials for his interviews. Perhaps he's willing to share them?

I will post everything that I receive, and will write an update, and a Wikipedia update when (if?) I receive a complete picture.

I've also written the NOAA themselves about the update, and I hope to hear something back from them too. If not, I'll call them. Kothog (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wolf or coyote attack??[edit]

Looks like a coydog to me. Indeed, I'd like to know exactly WHICH Randolph County this took place in.Mariomassone (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The wolf attack article (which, incidentally, I'm re-writing in my sandbox) only includes fatal attacks. Besides, as I mentioned before, I think its a coydog, not a coywolf. It doesn't look anything like a red wolf or eastern coyote. Speaking of coyotes, you might want to click on my profile page. Mariomassone (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You are right, Wolf attack is restricted to fatal attacks. However, should it? Aren't they all interesting? For example, would not the reader be served by learning of attacks such as [this |]? Without weight given to such incidents, the reader might be left with false impressions, such as maybe that such attacks are less risky for the wolf than they really are.
I will reply about the planned overhaul of Coyote on your talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
That might be feasible for the coyote article, but not the wolf one. Records for coyote attacks go back only 30 years, whereas wolf ones go back for over a 1000 years, and the fatal attacks are numerous enough without including the non-fatal ones. I would however concede to a separate article covering solely attacks in North America, where even non-fatal attacks make headlines. On another note, I've requested a coyote subspecies map here to be based on an authoritative source. The range of "eastern coyotes" is listed as C. l. var..Mariomassone (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Levy is quite clearly wrong. As you've mentioned, there are coyote bones in La Brea, and they belong to the extinct subspecies orcutti (of which there is a photo in the current article). Would it be too much trouble to ask you to settle things with the La Brea staff and request an additional map? I think you deserve an active role in this. I'm currently reading through material I've accumulated over the years, including The Clever Coyote (the coyote equivalent of the 1970 Mech book on wolves), and will get a copy of the Bekoff book soon.Mariomassone (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
To produce a map showing both subspecies ranges and the species' historic expansion would be incredibly messy. It would be better to have two separate maps. After all, we don't really know exactly what subspecies have or are expanding their ranges. I'll leave the requesting of the second, expansion map to you. I've just acquired the Young and Jackson (1978) book, and am in the process of incorporating its info into the article.
I do not have the Eastern coyote book you mentioned (yet). I'll get round to finding it when I've incorporated all I can from the Y&J and Bekoff books.Mariomassone (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm putting the coyote article on hold for the next few months. So much to do IRL.Mariomassone (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ring of Fire (disambiguation)[edit]

Please can you explain what you mean by "we have a primary referent, and it's this song." - thanks (please reply here) (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC Chrisrus (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You've misread/misunderstood Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". If the song was the primary topic, then the article for the song would be Ring of Fire, not Ring of Fire (song), and the disambiguation page would be at Ring of Fire (disambiguation). See also this edit/summary. (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Ring of Fire (song) is highly likely — much more likely than any other referent — to be the topic sought when a reader searches for the term. With respect to long-term significance, it has substantially greater enduring notability than any other referent of that term. Chrisrus (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Ring of Fire (song) is not the primary topic. Please establish a consensus before changing the order. Thanks. (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Presumably if we need to first establish a consensus before changing the order, we should go back to the (IMO much more logical) ordering prior to your own edits. (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"Hello editor at an IP address in Midleton, Ireland."[edit]

If I were actually in Midleton, that might be a somewhat unsettling salutation -- which I'm guessing is the intended effect. As I'm not, and nor is it the IP's 'whois' registration, it's more in the "puzzling" category. (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, you might be better off arguing for a change in policy concerning anon IP. (Or indeed mere practice -- this entire ISP has been rangeblocked for what amounts to a matter of years in total, in the past.) You didn't address my point about "spookily inaccurate geolocating" in anon-greetings. (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not correct to say there are no benefits to "anonymous" editing: I have my reasons, and Wikipedia, as I pointed out before, appears to have its own for allowing it. "Anonymity" isn't one of them, but you exaggerate (or overestimate) both the lack of "anonymity" of IP editing (vis, again, your mistaken conclusion that I'm in Midleton), and the difference from logged-in editing (there always could be checkusers on fishing expeditions). And to try one more time to illuminate the original puzzle: can you clarify what you mean by "putting your IP address into any browser"? I don't really follow what result that's intended to achieve, nor how it maps in this case, to that location. (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the contents of WP:LOGIN, but I just looked again at it now, out of deference to your request (or repeated instruction, perhaps), on the basis that it might possibly have markedly changed in the meantime. It doesn't address either of the two main areas I just put to you; perhaps you would return the favour, and do so yourself at some point? (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

"But if what you care about is anonymity": I think I already covered that, expressly and explicitly. It isn't. By "anonymous editing" I think it's fairly clear I mean editing as an IP, especially as I directly addressed that point two replies ago, and that usage is still very much custom and practice in WP. It might be your preference that no-one edit "not logged in", or that while they do, it not be referred to as "editing anonymously", but patently you're swimming against the tide on both of those. You continue to argue the benefits of editing logged on (and to point me a couple more times at WP:LOGIN which does the same -- lest I have missed it the first three times, notwithstanding that I'd both linked back to it myself, and assured you I'd now read it several times). I haven't disputed the existence of any of those, and that doesn't even go to the point of whether there are any of not doing so. Since I consider there to be, Wikipedia policy insists that it be allowed, and its 'founder' goes to the rhetorical heights of describing it a 'sacred' principle, I'm not clear what you're aiming to achieve. One-by-one Damascene conversion of each person on the other end of every IP?

Here's what especially puzzles, however. I don't understand why you continue to say things like "editing as a physical place on the globe available to anyone who can Google", while avoiding my now-repeated attempts to clarify such statements. Typing my IP address into Google doesn't map my IP address to that place in any way that I'm aware of. And (losing track of how many times I've said this now) I'm not in Midleton. I'm not sure which geolocating website you're using, but you may wish to reevaluate your assessment of its accuracy. And if this is your go-to response in "welcoming" anon editors, how your present such guesswork to them, too. (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I most definitely did not "bring up anonymity", either as a reason for "editing not logged in" as you seem to be continuing to wish to badger me into saying, or in general. I mentioned "anon IP" editing, since, y'know, that's what it's very commonly called. I think both the immediate context for "anon", what with it being right next to the word "IP", and the larger context, of this discussion happening on Wikipedia makes the sense pretty clear. Several wikipedia project pages document and acknowledge this usage. It's not merely widely used, it's actually pretty logical. The -nym- component does mean "name", after all, not "general indication of geographical location", "from whom I buy my internet service", or other things that can be adduced from a numeric IP. A "screen name" would be more precisely pseudonymous. Your dislike of this terminology is clear; I don't see what you'll achieve by insisting on misunderstanding it. Earlier I said "swimming against the tide": I can supply more colourful metaphorical comparisons if that'd help. Heck, the welcome template for IPs is called {{welcome-anon}}. You might want to refer to the sort of wording it uses, for that matter, with regard to considerations relating to flies, honey, and vinegar. I also not that it, too, points to the same page as WP:LOGIN does, and without over-egging or overstating what it says.

I fully realize you're not planning on stalking me, or otherwise taking any actual interest in my location, and that this is just a semi-standard greeting/warning gambit. But "advising" people that they're disclosing some degree of locational information does rather carry connotations of menacing them with it. (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-read for tone? Given that your tone started off "poor", and is presently "terrible", I really don't see how you imagine ingesting a second dose of the same prescription would somehow help. Compare the "best practice" "anon" greeting I just linked you too. Ask yourself how they compare for "tone". As I've already pointed out at considerable length why an IP address is not "a physical location", and you at one point acknowledged that, I can only suggest you "re-read for factual accuracy", rather than having me repeat myself further on the topic. Just when I thought a measure of mutual understanding might be being approached...

I appreciate that you're unlikely to weight the input of "anons" very highly on this topic (or perhaps on any topic), given the foregoing, but perhaps it might be useful to seek third-party input at the likes of WP:WELCOME. (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I also found Wikipedia talk:Welcome unregistered editing#Advantages of anonymous editing to be quite insightful. (I assume it'd be redundant to mention WP:BITE.) (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Hello. This edit may be of interest for you. Filanca (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Chrisrus. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dog breed identification.The discussion is about the topic List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. Thank you. -- Astro$01 (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of individual dogs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wolfhound (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mongrel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you know?[edit]

Sockpuppet investigations[edit]

Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry lists some of the signs that an account may be a sock puppet. If you believe someone is using sock puppets (or meat puppets), you should create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny.

Also, please remember to sign your posts. Onefireuser (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

I would hope it wouldn't come to that. Simply calling a user's attention to the rule should, in most cases, encourage the person to post on one account only from that point on, because, if we Wikipedia:Assume good faith, the person may be sockpuppeting because he or she hadn't been aware of the rule or reasons behind the rule, so a "word to the wise" should be sufficient without having to go through that whole painful process.

Sorry I didn't sign; I was in a hurry and forgot. Chrisrus (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)'t_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet

"This page in a nutshell: Don't be too quick to jump to certain conclusions without real evidence."

You may also wish to consider this philosophy in your thinking about what belongs in Wikipedia articles.Onefireuser (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)Onefiresuer

RE: Article request[edit]

Hi there. I think the coyote attacks article is referring to Reds Meadow Campground, [15]. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 18:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up[edit]

Hey Chrisrus. I moved "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Revision" to User:Chrisrus/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Revision for now because I'm not sure if you meant to make this in the sandbox (based on "Revision" being on the end). If this was made in error, feel free to revert me, but I just wanted to let you know what I did. Have a great day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How about if it was moved to a subpage of the talk page? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
So long as we keep my name off it, fine. Chrisrus (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


Excellent figure! Thanks.Onefireuser (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Onefireuser

Disambiguation link notification for May 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Street dogs in the Philippines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bicol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Chrisrus/List of fatal dog attacks in the United States/Revision2[edit]

Again, as another editor pointed out before, we already have List of fatal dog attacks in the United States, so while it's fine to draft changes on your Sandbox, you eventually have to move those changes to the existing article, not create another published version with "/Revision" after it in the actual article mainspace. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Eastern "coyote"[edit]

A move request discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Eastern "coyote". —  AjaxSmack  02:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wolf attack[edit]

[Saw your inquiry at E2024's talk page]. The Hurriyet article you linked to [16] speaks of a case where a single wolf entered a rural neighborhood and attacked several people, killing one 80-year-old shepherd and injuring four others, before being shot dead by villagers. Authorities were investigating whether the animal might have been affected with rabies. Is there anything else in particular that you need translated? Fut.Perf. 21:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that's great thanks. I see you've already updated the wolf attack article. I was trying to get the facts straight from a Google Translate about how the others escaped and such but it's not as good as having a native speaker.
If you want to and there are any more good details available, feel free to flesh it out further. The most important thing we want to know is if it turns out to have been rabid or not. If it was just suddenly going around attacking everyone, that's strange and rabies-like, but if it had just killed the man and was eating him and attacking the other people to drive them away from the body, that's what you'd expect in the case of a predatory attack. The problem is, these reports usually end, even five years later, with the statement that the body was sent for rabies testing and they were awaiting results. They rarely get updated, so it leaves us hanging. Also if people were able to save themselves, such as tree climbing, or specific types of fighting back or running it off techniques, it's nice to record how so researchers into how to react to a wolf attack benefit from that info. It helps to know if the wolf appeared sick or starving, how big it was, and just about any detail; the victim's name; would improve the article.
Thanks again
From what I gather, the attack type would be more of the rabies-like "going around randomly attacking different people in different places" type. The victims were either shepherds tending their animals or people working in their fields. The killing of the first victim (Mevlüt Özcanlı, the 80-year-old shepherd) is described as "parçalayarak", literally "tearing to pieces", so it seems to imply it was very violent. It might also be of interest that the second victim, Fikriye Pişkin (I gather that's probably a woman's name, but that's not grammatically certain from the Turkish), was described as "severely injured" and that she required plastic surgery afterwards. Victims three and four are described as having arm injuries, apparently relatively light. They are apparently the two guys interviewed in the beginning of the Hurriyet TV piece; the second of them appears to be the tree climber. Unfortuntaly my Turkish is not good enough to get much more out of listening to that one. The article also says that after the tree-climbing incident, the wolf also attacked and injured one of the guy's animals, probably a sheep or goat. Fut.Perf. 06:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've added a section on non-fatal wolf attacks in North America. Feel free to fill it out (using the format of the fatal ones, of course...) Mariomassone (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For your suggestion here, which is both completely ingenious and an excellent compromise between "stop posting pictures of your dog" and "post all the pictures!" TKK bark ! 21:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Urban coyote for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Urban coyote 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/Urban coyote 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 notice from the top of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST[edit]

Beach Comber[edit]

I noticed this edit and associated edit summary in which you claim it may still be suitable for speedy deletion. Can you point me at which speedy deletion criterion you believe it falls into? And I fixed your errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Being basically empty makes me think it might get speedy deleted. I'm sorry if I'm wrong about that. Please keep up the good work. Chrisrus (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It has a claim of notability, verifiable source(s), categories, a stub template and an external link. Basically it's the one-line stub you want to avoid because it'll get no more interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Very good. I hope you will continue; it does seem very easy for you. I'll try to find out more and add more about Beach Comber (pigeon) and welcome further edits there on your part as well. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It's easy for you too, just look at the stubs I've created and create new ones but just change the names and references. As I said though, this is going to create the one-line stubs you fear won't receive any attention. Also, suggest you archive your talk page, it's unmanageably large. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I will, eventually. Or maybe someone else might. But this is not an argument against redlinks until that day. Chrisrus (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


Hello, nice to meet you :) May I enquire what you feel is the difference between Hog-baiting and Hog-dogging? For your interest: Link1 Link2 Thank you IQ125 (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest improving Wikipedia with regard to hog-dog rodeos and boar-baiting. I have replied here: Talk:Hog-dog_rodeo#Boar_baiting.3F. Let's discuss this there instead of here so that others can participate more easily if they want to. Chrisrus (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Equine recipients of the Dickin Medal[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:(5796) 1978 VK5[edit]

I removed your speedy deletion tag from Talk:(5796) 1978 VK5 because lack of notability is not a reason for speedy deletion. If you want to delete the article, go to WP:AFDteb728 t c 08:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's "its"[edit]

I believe you may benefit from reading this site: (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. I still make that mistake from time to time despite this knowledge, how. It's the apostrophe. I think it's its association in my subconscious mind with possession. I appreciate the thought, however. Chrisrus (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If the reminder helps, "his" and "hers" are possessive and lack an apostrophe. —Frungi (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, but thanks for trying to be helpful. Chrisrus (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The real problem with maps as reference[edit]

Re the difficulty you’re having at WP:PLACE, I really don’t think the problem is that your ideas are bad. I think the problem is actually your conduct, the way you present your ideas. I honestly suspect that there would be much less resistance to changes if they had been proposed by someone who didn’t appear to keep trying to brute-force them by repeatedly editing the page and posting overly verbose and self-referential arguments. If you’re willing and open to personal criticism of your behavior, something like WP:ER or WP:RFCC would allow you to get some third opinions on whether the sort of thing I just said is true or not. Just my 2¢, but I hope you take it into consideration. —Frungi (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You offer me more advice. That's nice. I will return the favor. Work on your Mr. Spock impression. Never oppose an edit based on who made it, or why. Judge each edit or argument on its merits, only. Never oppose something because your back is up or your nose is out of joint, or out of spite, or to make a point to someone, or to get back at someone, because those are the moments otherwise good Wikipedians make really bad edits. Worry about article/guideline improvement, that is all. In the end, what matters is that the article or guideline or system is better than it was. Please do not reply. Get back to the matter at hand. Chrisrus (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Problem is I don't think that's what you're drawing people's attention to. You're drawing their attention to your objectionable conduct. Fix that. Limit the obstacles to having people agree with you. —Frungi (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine. Now, if you would, go respond substantively to the points made there. If you can not, concede the points. Focus on the goal if you can. Chrisrus (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, I did. I pointed out that the list (whose order you changed, then objected to being reverted) is explicitly "not listed in any particular order", so the objection doesn't really make sense to me. —Frungi (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
In that case, if it doesn't make any difference, you won't mind when I put it back up again. Chrisrus (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope you’re not being serious. You need to stop editing against consensus. If you think something is right when everyone else is telling you it’s wrong, it’s wrong, no matter how much you write about it. You need to stop ignoring consensus and stop this WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior before someone decides that you’re being disruptive to Wikipedia. —Frungi (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I’m posting this here instead of WT:PLACE because it seems a more personal matter than is suited to that page. You asked why maps should not be listed first in WP:WIAN. Reasons were given when your change was brought up in WT:PLACE#Latest move. In response, you essentially said, “No, you’re wrong, I’m right, and this is why, so I’m going to ignore you and put it back the way I want it.” This would have been perfectly fine, if not for the bold part that overshadowed the rest. That’s simply not how it works. If there’s disagreement, the page usually stays as it was before any recent changes were made (in this case, the change in order) until after discussion. This, I think, was a large part of why some of your points were not sufficiently addressed—the post that raised them was more notable for a refusal to abide by consensus. —Frungi (talk) 07:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback 9[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Frungi's talk page.
Message added 04:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frungi (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please respond. And be clear and direct. —Frungi (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusing words[edit]

So are you ever going to tell me what you meant by your posts on my Talk page? —Frungi (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I’ve replied to your latest reply. Please reply with useful information. —Frungi (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/:(5796) 1978 VK5[edit]

I have done a procedural close of this discussion for reasons I detailed there. I would strongly suggests that before you attempt to nominate anything else for deletion you review the guide to deletion and/or install an automated tool such as WP:TWINKLE which can make nominations for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important green.svgThis talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not close these threads. Chrisrus (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Even ones which have seen no activity for a year or two? I think those can safely be considered closed. And he’s right—over half a megabyte is a whole lot of textual data. Please see WP:SIZE#Technical issues and be considerate. —Frungi (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
WP, it's not a rule and nobody an make you do it, but it is considered courteous as not everyone has a super fast internet connection and it could take them several minutes to load page of this length. I just noticed someone brought this up with you almost exactly two years ago and that thread is still here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Three years, actually. Chrisrusssssss, my dear old friend. How are you? I'll make you a deal: If you archive, I promise to stop the next friendly dog I see and give him a good tickle and scratch for 3 minutes. Dogs don't get nearly enough love here, and you can, by remote control, make a dog's day! Deal? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll even do it for you, just like mine -- manually, so no bot takes control. How about from "251 Hog-baiting" and up into the archives, leaving 252 to this last one here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Is that the reason? The page takes too long to load? It loads in a split second for me. How long does it take to load on your machine?
I really like most of these threads. Some of the oldest ones are the most interesting. Try amusing yourself by looking over some of them. It's like my collection. Some aren't even conversations, they are just interesting little things I was working on, or little points I make repeatedly so I can just leave a link to them, that I save so I can refer to them directly, not to just an archive number. I even like the ones in which someone is being rude.
Ideally, I'd like to organize them all by topic and type, but there always seems to be something else I'd rather be doing. I might index it by topic.
I don't see why people care whether I archive or not. Really, that's it; it takes them too long to load? What are we talking here, in seconds? 6? If it's just a few seconds, maybe people need to take things slower in life. Maybe look away from the computer for five seconds, it's bad for the eyes to stare the same distance for too long. Look out the window for a few seconds and allow the thing to load. Does it take more than ten seconds?
I really don't understand why people would care whether I archive or not. I don't care if anyone else archives or not. I don't get it. Is that really all there is to it, it takes to long to load? Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
You are very lucky. Your connection is good. People on mobile devices, those in certain countries, those who live a cabin in the woods, all would appreciate being able to load your page in less than a minute. In my case, I sometimes cannot load it at all. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, loading time is a major factor, but not the only one, and it’s not as trivial as you think; again, see WP:SIZE#Technical issues. Loading web pages that exceed a few hundred kilobytes—let alone a full megabyte, as this one is—can be very problematic. And try loading it on a 3G or dialup connection (yes, those are still around). Archiving the old discussions won’t hinder you from linking to them; in fact, you could even archive individual discussions to subpages like User talk:Chrisrus/Shiba Inu (I don’t think there are any guidelines against this). But until you get around to sorting and labeling the old content in the manner that works best for you, it would be a great kindness to get it out of everyone else’s way. Plus, Anna pledged to scratch a dog on your behalf. —Frungi (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I hereby delete some of the less interesting ones. Tomorrow, I'll try collapsing some of the bigger ones, that should speed up the load time. I have to admit I'm a little skeptical still, though, that that is really the/a problem. I mean, what happens when these cabin-dwellers click on Huff Post or Yahoo or some such? My talk page is just a bunch of text and a few small pictures. My page crashes browsers? It's tiny compared to people's facebook pages and so on. Every once in a while a page won't load for me, but if I re-load it usually works, and later the page loads fine, so go figure who knows why your browser crashed. Such things just happen and you might have been mistaken as to why your page crashed that time.
I can see why others might think that it's pointless to keep some of these threads open for future use, but almost all of them have good reasons.
I'll have another look at it sometime soon and maybe delete some more or collapse some threads. Chrisrus (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing only hides content; it does not remove it, which means that it’s still a part of the page that has to be downloaded. It would help scroll times, but do no good for load times. Facebook handles things differently: it dynamically loads content as you scroll. You’ll notice that if you wait for everything to load and then press the End key, more content loads in. MediaWiki does not work this way.
The main page of the Huffington Post, as of this writing, is about 326,000 bytes (326 KB). This Talk page still wins at 920,000 bytes (920 KB) before this reply, about three times as big as Huff—even after you deleted 5% of it. (And just so there’s no confusion, I’m using the sizes of the downloaded HTML documents here, which is what must be loaded in order to view the page—not the size of the raw wikitext that the wiki software reports in revision histories.)Frungi (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If I could chime in here: I feel the same way you do, Chrisrus, about wanting some of my older threads to remain visible, for my own reference or the enjoyment of others. So I manually archive, once every six months. By the end of the six months my page is over 100,000 bytes, which is long - but it's not as bad as yours which is 500,000 bytes. By doing it manually I can keep visible the things I may want to refer to - and all of the older things are there in the archive if I want them. (I also delete routine things like bot notices and talkbacks as soon as I have dealt with them.) It's your talk page and you can do with it what you want, but you might want to listen to what people are saying about consideration for others. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Very well. You have focused me on improving the usability of this page. You are right, it is indeed unfortunate that some can't easily access all the internet has to offer due to technical difficulties. It will be great when the whole world has full access, and that day might not be too far off. But this thread has caused me to notice how interesting a project this is for me, going through and revisiting each of these and deciding how they can be moved forward. There's a lot to consider but it's got my focus thanks to this thread. Chrisrus (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_size#Question Chrisrus (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cur, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Black bear and Puma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice regarding WP:PLACE[edit]

Hello! You are one of the contributors who edited the text of this policy, so I'd like to ask your opinion about the way of application of WP:PLACE guideline. More exactly, I tried to apply the general guideline no.2 for at least 3 alternative names, but some editors (all of them being Hungarians who support the keeping in the first phrase of the alternative Hungarian name) are claiming that this is not "a widely accepted approach". Please submit a comment at Talk:Alba Iulia to help us to settle the dispute. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

All Alone (pigeon)[edit]

Relevance to Surrey/France research of a pigeon message of one day? See my open question at Talk:All Alone (pigeon). - Adam37 Talk 17:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Discussion of interest[edit]

A discussion you may be interested in is this RFC, a proposal to make the second comma in a date/place optional. United States Man (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wolf attacks on humans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flew (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wolf attacks on humans. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Coyote attacks on humans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Austin, Illinois
Fatal dog attacks in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to White County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lycaon (genus), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cusp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't move my talk page comments[edit]

Chris: Please refrain from this. No need to respond. Thank you in advance for complying with this request!! (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

However you may prefer to characterize your action, I ask, again, that you refrain from altering chronology of

a discussion on an article's talk page. Such chronology, obviously, is important to contextual understanding.

Thank you for your future compliance with this minor request!
I'd also like to thank you once again for halting your previous practice of deleting my comments on an article's talk page. I gather from ensuing notice board discussion, that this oversight on your part had been merely due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's generally accepted practices. (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sock Puppetry Message[edit]

Did you know? It's pretty rude to imply/accuse someone of using "multiple Wikipedia accounts for an improper purpose" with no basis in fact.

First off, I've only ever made one post to Wikipedia under any account. Therefore, the implication that I've used multiple accounts to hide or deceive is completely baseless. Second, there was no attempt to "disrupt discussions, distort consensus..." etc. I simply pointed out a grammar explanation that was so wrong I couldn't let it pass.

If it's violation of policy or otherwise wrong to point out gross mistakes, then this site needs some serious re-evaluation of its principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of wolf attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haliburton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png For replying to my question at WikiProject: Tree of Life. :) Bananasoldier (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Indian pariah dog: Revision history[edit]

Hello Chris

Regarding the reversion that you have done on the wiki page ... The picture that you put on the of the page is a mutt and not a pure Indian Pariah / aboriginal dog. The purpose of this page is to describe the Indian Pariah Dog and not mix or mutts or street dogs found in India. When dog savvy people see that picture it will lower the wiki credibility, when animal activists see it they will spread the wrong info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsyking410 (talkcontribs) 06:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This one....

...was recommended by Rajashree Khalap. It was the picture I had as the lead picture. I don't know who put that other one in its place. I know it wasn't me. I will change it back now. Chrisrus (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit 2/10[edit]

Hello, was instructed by ma professor to ask how come my edit was deleted in order to get a better understandding, your feedbcak is greatly appreciated; "A cross between Shih Tzu and Chihuahua may be reffered to as a ShiChi.

Thanks, KierraA.

To prevent it from turning into List_of_dog_crossbreeds. Chrisrus (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms of Mother Teresa[edit]

During my recent edits on this article, I guess I inadvertently foxed up the additional cites you gave .. there is now a cite error tag at the foot of the page referring to your edits and I can't see how to fix it. Apologies! Ridiculus mus (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being so feeble. Have fixed it now. Ridiculus mus (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
No Problem! (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello Chrisrus,

I noticed you reverted my edits on coyote/dog hybrids, relating to their fertility. The reason I changed the text, was that it's misleading to say that coyotes and wolves/dogs can produce fertile young. Although there are populations of hybrid origin (red wolves, northeastern coyotes and wolves, and coydogs), crossing the wolf/dog with coyotes results in offspring that are less fertile than either parent. Overtime, crossing hybrids can lead to complete sterility. This is why I changed the text to say "reduced fertility." I suggest using that change.

Sincerely, Gaddy1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaddy1975 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but [citation needed]. (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to Chrisrus re: fertility of Canis hybrids[edit]

Hello Chrisrus,

I read your comment on my Talk page, so I responded in detail, explaining why simple interspecific hybrids (as opposed to those with gene introgression) in canids and other animals have reduced fertility, even if they are viable and capable of reproduction. I hope this explains why my edits on the Coydog page were justified. Please read my response here:

Regards, Gaddy1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaddy1975 (talkcontribs) 04:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's not necessary. Just cite the statement. Just cite the statement. Let me know if you need help citing things because you don't know how. Happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to spotted hyena edit[edit]

Thanks for your minor change to my addition here. You are right...these are not feral animals and "urban" is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemebowd (talkcontribs) 15:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I need help with an image[edit]

Hi there,

I am having trouble with trying to organize an image I uploaded on the Coywolf page. I was trying to make the F1 Coywolf picture that I recently added the main page but when I added in the picture came out big and has this file:frameless|alt= info instead. Can you help fix this for me? Thank you in advance. Nosferatuslayer (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Nosferatus. I promise to try to help you. Can you try and post it here, just below these words? I'll see what I can do. Chrisrus (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Kenya#Mkombozi-_Kenya.27s_most_famous_dog.
Message added 14:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your page is too long. Please consider archiving older messages. TitoDutta 14:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Too long for what? Chrisrus (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ape, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthropoid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Diagram/Map of Wolf Evolution[edit]

Heya, can you perhaps come over to and give us some advice as to how to proceed? Or alternatively refer us to someone who can give us some advice? Thank you very much. (If you reply here, please add @{{u|DLommes}}, so i will be notified automatically. Cheers.)--DLommes (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You should ask User:Mariomassone. Chrisrus (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of individual dogs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Swahili and Savior
Coyote attacks on humans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Gibson Township, PA
Mastiff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dogo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Wolf etymology[edit]

I'd propose an article entitled "Etymology of wolf".Mariomassone (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dane gun[edit]

You listed this as a new article, but it is redlinked. Are you requesting someone create that article? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Niemti's edits on the Wolf Attacks article[edit] Mariomassone (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Would you rather I rolled it all back, or should we keep the additional significant attacks, but restore the summaries? Or would that make it too long or something? I've posted there, but wonder if s/he will respond. Chrisrus (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, please archive[edit]

Hi there. Please, please, archive. I'll help you if you want. Please just bust it into two archive pages. I'm having terrible trouble loading your talk page. Really, it's not like the posts vanish or anything. They will be sitting right there in the archives. Do you want me to help? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, please describe specifically what "terrible trouble" means in this context. Do you mean a time delay? How long do you have to wait? Chrisrus (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It means the attempt times out most of the time and I cannot load it at all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you using a laptop? Chrisrus (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
What kind of computer I have makes no difference. It's my connection. And the problem is saving posts to your page too. I often have to try several times, and a while ago, I couldn't post here at all. Others have connection issues too that make accessing your talk page impossible. Your refusal to archive is actually very unfair and now into the territory of being disruptive.
Please tell me straight so I don't waste my time: do you have any intention of archiving? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Chrisrus (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Please be convinced of one thing: You are, in fact, preventing others from viewing your talk page and communicating with you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not. Chrisrus (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Diane Whipple[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Chrisrus. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefireuser (talkcontribs) 21:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Summary Tables planned reversion warning[edit]

You have intimated on WP:NORB and in your edit summaries that you plan to restore the summary tables to Fatal dog attacks in the United States. I have warned you multiple times that this is inadvisable, and that you will be editing against the consensus. Several editors have indicated agreement with this. You've added the material 3 times already and it's been removed three times, by three different editors (myself, Dodo bird and Onefireuser). Not only have you not shown that there is a consensus for the addition of this material, you have failed to convince even one other editor of your position. Be advised now that the restoration of this material without first building a consensus to do so will almost certainly be considered disruptive editing and/or edit warring. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 21:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. The removal of the summary tables violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so, according to WP:CON and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, I am justified in restoring the summary tables because I have shown that grounds on which they were removed, WP:SYN, does not apply, because WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR, because other reasons given in support of summary table removal were irrelevant, and because, since these things were pointed out, no one has responded substantively after a more than reasonable amount of time. So, according to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, if you don't discuss, I can revert. If you would like more time to prepare a substantive rebuttal to the substance of the argument in favor of summary table removal taking into account the substance of the argument in favor of it restoration, let me know how much time to do that you will need. But the ball is in your court now; WP:Stonewalling will not work. So please go back to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#.22Summary_Tables.22_for_Fatal_Dog_Attacks_article and deal substantively with the substance of the argument in favor of summary table restoration or I will have no choice but to restore the summary tables. Have a great day and, as always, Happy Editing! Chrisrus (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have not replied to your comments because you have been making the same comments over and over again, and several editors have already very clearly explained why they are original research. You have not added anything new to the discussion. When assessing whether there was a consensus for removal, I didn't just count votes or something (you'll note that no one voted). I took into account that you and at least 5 other editors looked at this issue (after you had made your arguments), most of whom were brought to the article as neutral parties to the dispute, and none of them agreed with your position. At the very least that would be a pretty strong indication that there is no consensus for adding the material. When you reverted the material multiple times, three completely different editors not only disagreed with you, but specifically suggested that consensus had been achieved in favor of removal. I think there is ample evidence that the consensus view is that this is original research.
At this point, I think most people have seen your arguments about summary and found them lacking, and several of us have addressed them. If you think that the editors who have weighed in are an unrepresentative sample somehow, I'd say an RFC is the next step there. Honestly I think WP:NORB is a pretty neutral noticeboard, so I doubt you'll have much luck with an RfC, but obviously you wouldn't be so insistent if you didn't believe that you'd be able to build a consensus on this matter, so clearly we disagree on this. Frankly, though, I'm not 100% sure the list part of the article (Section 2) is even going to survive scrutiny anyway - if it's not OR, it's definitely on the borderline.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 03:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, in order to stop me restoring the summary tables, someone is going to have to go back there and respond effectively to why summarizing a discretely sourced list is always OR, not just in this case, given WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR and countless examples of summarized lists all over Wikipedia that no one objects to but somehow with this one controversial topic its suddenly a problem. It simply is not true that there is or should be any rule that no such lists may be summarized, in table form or elsehow, and I have demonstrated this there. You clearly have arrived at the your conclusion that consensus has been reached not by strictly evaluating arguments and their consistency with Wikipedia's rules, guidelines, and long-standing widespread uncontrovertial practice but by headcount (and an incorrect one at that, the number is not five). You should stop doing this, that is not how it works. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and headcounting is no excuse for refusing to substantively discuss.
When you said what you did about :a consensus to add the material", you seem not to understand that that summary was not recently added by me or anyone else, but has been there since the article started and has long-standing consensus. I'm not trying to add controversial new material to the article, I'm just trying to prevent its censorship by an admittedly biased editor based on the demonstrably false and trumped-up argument that it's WP:OR to summarize a discretely sourced list. It simply is not, and I'm not "adding material", just trying to save material that has had long consensus of editors.
If you want the list deleted, there is a place for you to discuss that. In the meantime, the summary stays. I'll wait a short time again to see if you or someone else there will finally explain there how it's OR to summarize a list.
If you would like to discuss removing the whole list on OR grounds, there is a place for that, but please put it out of your mind in that section, because it is just about whether summarizing a discretely sourced list is OR. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, there's no consensus for re-adding the material, and a clear consensus for removing it. It doesn't matter how long the material has been there. We've made a very clear case and responded to your objections. You seem like a totally reasonable person, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think you'll be able to get the summary tables to get back in there without the consent of any other editors, and against the clear consensus of those already involved. Seriously, you can't say, "I don't buy your argument, so I'll just restore it until you give me an argument I do buy." You have to build a consensus for your position.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 11:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
There is project-wide consensus that proper summaries of discreetly sourced lists cannot be removed on WP:OR grounds. This is the consensus I will use as grounds to restore the summary to the article. Furthermore, no consensus that discrete item list summary deletion on OR grounds is found in that discussion. Please read it again:
Neither Mangoe, Doug Weller, nor TFD argued that discrete item lists summaries are OR, which is the only grounds One Fire User is using to remove the summary. They are instead arguing for the removal of Section Two on OR grounds, not Section Three. But I am not going to restore Section Two today, because it has not been removed! This is important: please understand: I'm going to restore Section Three, not Section Two, so those arguments are irrelevant. Of course, if Section Two is removed, Section Three must be as well. However, this is a controversial topic and many attempts to delete that list and all have failed because consensus has long been that that list is not different from many like it and in line with Wikipedia rules and guidelines and so on and therefore not OR and therefore cannot be rightly removed on OR grounds. Now, if you or they are convinced that Section Two should be deleted, and would like to mount another proposal to delete it, you may, and if it succeeds, you may remove Section Three at that time, but that has nothing to do with me restoring the summary today. While Section Two stands, its summary should stand with it because WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. Those arguments not in support of me not restoring Section Three while Section Two still stands. As long as Section Two stands, they have made no valid reasoning against my planned restoration of the summary, so unless you plan to support the argument that summary of a discretely sourced list is OR, and have any evidence and good reason to back that up, there is nothing stopping me from restoring Section Three today, and then you can delete it if and when you delete Section Two. Fair enough? Chrisrus (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Mario Legacé[edit]

Interesting story, indeed. I wonder why it wasn't picked up by larger media; surely this is more interesting than the repetitive junk that usually gets run around here. The only written articles I can find are on the Journal de Québec which is behind a paywall and staffed by questionable journalists. As for radio, I couldn't tell you. Radio-Canada is pretty solid but their audio clip isn't working. I'll try to summarize the important bits from the various radio clips:

  • Rouge FM (Julie Bergeron, Saguenay): Mario Lagacé was attacked on his bicycle while riding through the Laurentides Wildlife Reserve. Luckily, his injuries were limited to bruises. [Paraphrase from Mr. Legacé]: "He attacked me right in the middle of the two lanes." Last July, another cyclist was approached by a beast in the same area.
  • 98.5 FM (Louis Lacroix): "...I was going about 25-30km/h ... it arrived on top of me from the side, I didn't see him before that ... its two front paws pushed me down, as if my bicycle stopped and I was projected in the middle of the highway on the white line ... a car passed, which distracted the wolf, so I was able to regain my breath and get up. I got my bike, and the car got in front of me like a kind of protection ... He was aggressive when he jumped on me, but it's like he didn't understand why he did it. [La chair était plus loin ... "The meat was harder to get to" (?)] He wasn't growling, just staring at my face ... If I moved, he moved too ... from his perspective, it was [to go for] the head. I had bruises, my knees were full of scrapes, my elbows, my hip, my right ribs, I went to the hospital and all that. When I got up I was bleeding ... the wolf was standing on the gravel and I was waving down cars ... A guy from Montreal stopped to help me and he said, 'Hey, that's a wolf over there?' and the wolf stayed there on the edge of the forest for at least 5 minutes before going back in. I haven't gone back to that area ... the man from Montreal put my bicycle in his vehicle and took me to the emergency room in Chicoutimi ... the next day I contacted the agents de la protection de la faune and [filed a report], they told me that right away that afternoon they would place traps in the area ... when there is an attack, they have to follow procedure ... When I was with him, he told me that a month ago another cyclist was getting chased by a beast, and there was another cyclist behind him with a cell phone who took some photos. He showed me the photos, but it's hard to tell if it's the same beast. It was blurry and unclear ... and it all happened around the same kiometers [markers 218 - 219 on the highway] ... I've been back to the park but I stopped before I got to the same spot."
  • Radio X: Not working, and thank goodness, it's got a reputation like Fox News up here ;)
  • NRJ: text and author identical to Rouge FM, no audio clip

So unfortunately those look to be the two best sources. - SweetNightmares 15:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, might I suggest User:ClueBot III to archive your talk page? It's kinda long ;) - SweetNightmares 15:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great. Would you prefer to fill out the entry yourself, or should I? Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem! The only thing I'm unsure about is the type of attack, since I'm not very familiar with animal behavior. The way he describes it makes it sound like the wolf saw something moving fast and acted on instinct, like it probably would with a deer, only to realize after it pounced that "hey, what is this thing, I don't normally eat these things...?" As the animal wasn't biting/growling/etc, we can probably rule out rabies. Was it agonistic? After he got up from the pounce, Lagacé noted that the wolf appeared to be mirroring his steps, and the wolf kept his gaze on Lagacé's head. - SweetNightmares 17:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right, we can't say what type it was because it isn't like the other sources which contain an attack type by an expert. You were right just to leave it blank, or if we prefer we can add n/a or something.
Hey, how interested are you in this topic? Because there is a big hole on Wikipedia and in the Anglosphere generally because at least two of the most important works on the topic of wolf attacks are not available in English, only French (Albeit Euro-French, not our American French). I'm talking about extensive study of that was led by and published into two books by something like the French Society for Rural History or something like that. If you are at least curious, I'll find a link to the two books and pass them to you. The first one as I recall was the story that resulted from their findings in records going back centuries of [Wolf attacks on humans in France]], which is a red link now but doesn't have to be. The next book was a history of a huge and centuries-long government-sponsored campaign to eradicate the species from France. But thus far all we know are some summaries and stats quoted from the books in English-language sources, and because so few of us know French well enough, and at the same time are interested in this topic enough, and at the same time are willing to improve Wikipedia with that information.
So anyway, let me know if you want me to pass you those links, and thanks again, I'll send you a virtual Molson and some virtual poutine on our talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fatal dog attacks in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leash law. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coyote attacks on humans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beaufort County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fatal dog attacks in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rake. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)