User talk:Chrisrus

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.

Nureongi

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!

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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?

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

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

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

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.

Talkback

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)

Moles

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

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

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?

Bea Arthur

Actually, no. Take a look at this edit and you will see that it was Eleccion (talk · contribs) who added that info. I merely hid the noted in a footnote to keep it tidy. If you look at the post above yours on my talk page, Tony Santiago promised to look into it and verify the claim, as he was going to be at the National Archives this fall. I'm not familiar at all with utilizing the NA, so unless you have access to that resource, it will have to wait until the fall. Failing that, I will be home from Iraq this winter, and I plan on taking a trip to Washington DC in the spring, so I can look take a sidebar and look then if necessary. Cheers! bahamut0013^words_deeds 06:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My molosser edits

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

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. http://www.whale-images.com/killer_whale_facts.jsp I hope this and the one I left on the discussion page is helpful. PatrickLMT (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

List of common names for animals which have no scientific synonym

• Mole
• Quail
• Whale
• Wolf
• Shrew
• Bullfrog
• Civet
• Vulture
• Shrew-mole (type of talpidae)
• Misteltoe (ok, we're allowing plants, too)
• Monkey
• Mongoose
• Mole-rat
• Mole-shrew
• Porcupine
• Anteater
• Antbear

I've since moved this to my main page. Chrisrus (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Stanis-whatever

I didn't change the name in the title because I was once told you can't do that on wikipedia. One of its many arcane little rules! (not a comment by chrisrus, that's why it's unsigned. I moved it here from my user page.

You actually can and can simply move the page. I recommend getting consensus first as, right now, the page contradicts Brittanica - Alison ^❤ 07:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Galidiinae

Malagasy Mongoose; actual mongoose or mistake? Malagasy Carnivore

Common People

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. --Cedders^tk 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

species in philosophy of biology

Hi - saw your message on Philosophy of Biology. I agree that that section is not well-developed. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/ 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

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)

Talkback

Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Talk:Zoroastrianism.
Message added 05:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

warrior4321 05:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

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

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)

Nudge

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

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

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)

Question

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)

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.

Talkback

Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Avs5221's talk page.
Message added 06:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

avs5221 (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Avs5221's talk page.
Message added 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

avs5221 (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Frugivore debate

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

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)

Props

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

‎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:http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/Ethogram0405.pdf) to study and to produce the [[ethogram] http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/Ethogram0405.pdf ] 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]http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/Ethogram0405.pdf, http://www.newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/BookExcerpts.pdf, 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???

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!!!

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

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)

Questions

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 oldsingerman20@yahoo.com. I will respond privately only. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, Some links for you to check out:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4207-wild-dingoes-descended-from-domestic-dogs.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/33/12387.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/302/5645/555bhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/302/5645/555b osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Orbits-framed.jpg

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

• File:Orbits-framed.jpg

Image courtesy of themandus.org Copyright: themandus.org Neanderthal reconstruction courtesy of themandus.org

Essex (whaleship)

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:

• "Into the Deep: America, Whaling & the World", PBS, American Experience, 2010.

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)

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)

File copyright problem with File:Orbits-framed.jpg

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. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference List

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)

"...to 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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)

Dog

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)

NGSD

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?

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) http://www.shiba-dog.de/dingo-en.htm

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

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, , 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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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 http://www.themandus.org/them.html. 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:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Orbits-framed.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Orbits-framed.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Orbits-framed.jpg.

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)

Question

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)

Borahund

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boranhund

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: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boranhund&ei=-AwRTKOyJMSBlAfax-XZBw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dboranhund%26hl%3Den 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

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

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)

Did you know? Sockpuppetry

The default position on Wikipedia is that editors who register should edit using one account only. The purpose of this policy is to forbid deceptive or misleading use of multiple accounts and to explain where editors may legitimately use a second (alternate) account. A second account used in violation of this policy is known as a sock puppet.

Alternate accounts should not be used to avoid scrutiny; mislead or deceive other editors; edit project discussions (e.g. policy debates and Arbitration proceedings); make disruptive edits with one account and normal edits with another; distort consensus; stir up controversy; or circumvent sanctions or policy. These same principles apply to editors who decide to cease editing under one account and restart under another).

Do not sock. Do not bias discussions by asking for supporters from other places (meatpuppetry). Do not act as a meat puppet for somebody else. The misuse of a second account is considered a serious breach of community trust, and is likely to lead to a block or a ban, the public linking of any other accounts or IPs you have used on Wikipedia and its sister projects, and (potentially) "public record" discussion by other editors of your "real-world" activities and other personal information relevant to your editing. Abuse of multiple accounts can seriously affect what employers, friends, peers, journalists and law enforcement may see when they look up your name or nickname online in the future.

Editors who use more than one account are advised to provide links between them on the user pages (see below). They can also redirect the user and user talk pages of that account to their main account. Do not use undisclosed alternative accounts without very good reason. If you must, do so only with care. Note that if you are found to be behaving abusively and action is taken, privacy policy's data release criteria releases other Wikipedians from their obligation to protect your anonymity when addressing abuse. It is likely that all of your accounts will be blocked and publicly linked.

When is a wolf not a wolf?

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

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"

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)

Talkback

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

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

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)

Pariah Dog Article

Chrisrus, The Pariah Dog article needs to either be deleted or totally redone. It's near terrible! osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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 Amazon.com 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: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1952216.htm You should take a look at it. Also I found a website: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dingo/origin.htm 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: http://www.shiba-dog.de/dingo-en.htm osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How rare is rare?

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)

dholes

Hiya!

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

Chrisrus, There is pretty darn nice picture of a Thai Dingo at this link: http://hem.passagen.se/yvkek/thaiom_e.html 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)

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)

Canis

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)

Talkback

Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Anna Frodesiak's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank You

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

re:dog meat

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)

Hybrids

Heya

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)

Hi!

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. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/1/89.abstract

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 http://www.terrierman.com/598poundaddirondackcoyote.jpg . 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)

Hi

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~

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/full/nature08837.html

Wolf teeth

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)

Archiving

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)

"lasar"

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)

Human

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

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)

Pigs

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. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

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

Because of your excessive reverts of mostly my changes I've raised your recent editing of Pig (disambiguation) at the 3RR notice board: [5]--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 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

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:

This 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).

Chrisrus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. NOT NECESSARY because
   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.
2. . 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, 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Incivility

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. 69.3.72.249 (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. 69.3.72.249 (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)

Bloop

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 | http://www.bu.edu/biology/people/faculty/lobel/] 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 "plobel@bu.edu".

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 <plobel@bu.edu> 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

http://www.bu.edu/biology/people/faculty/lobel/

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)

Soricomorpha

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

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?

examples

1. Hyenas are the animals of the family Hyaenidae

Indian_pariah_dog article

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

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

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. http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm09winter/burgerking.html

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 http://thebbqgrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Label.jpg. 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

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

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

Accepted by MSW3:

(Linnaeus, 1758)

• Canis aegyptius Peruvian Hairless
• Canis aquaticus Poodles and other waterdogs
• Canis domesticus The common farm dog
• Canis familiaris Common feral streetdogs, assumed to be the pool from which all others were bred
• Canis fricatrix No idea. The word means "lesbian dog." Bizzare.
• Canis graius Wolfhounds
• Canis mastinus Molossers
• Canis melitaeus Lapdogs of the European nobility
• Canis mustelinus Means "weasel-like". Short-legged tunnel flushing dogs? Waddling pedestrian-hunter's scenthounds?
• Canis sagax Hounds

(Gmelin, 1792)

• Canis americanus Native American Dogs
• Canis anglicus Old English Bulldogs
• Canis antarcticus Dusicyon australis. Very confusing term, as it also meant Dingo at another point in time (1792, Robert Kerr).
• Canis aprinus Catch dogs
• Canis aquatilis Poodles and other waterdogs
• Canis avicularis Pointers
• Canis brevipilis English spaniels
• Canis cursorius Grayhounds bred for racing
• Canis extrarius Continental spaniels
• Canis fricator Pugs and such
• Canis fuillus German boar hunting dogs
• Canis gallicus Means "French dogs", but which?
• Canis grajus continental hunting grayhounds
• Canis hibernicus Irish wolfhounds, Scottish deerhounds, and such
• Canis hirsutus heavily furred slavic wolfkillers
• Canis hybridus The Roquet
• Canis islandicus Islandic dogs, Greenland dogs, and such
• Canis italicus Small Italian Grayhound bred to follow you and stay out of trouble
• Canis laniarius Lurchers
• Canis leoninus Lowchens
• Canis major No clue
• Canis melitacus Mediterranian upperclass lapdogs
• Canis minor Small waterdogs
• Canis molossus Molossers
• Canis obesus Name means "the fat dog" No clue
• Canis orientalis Perisan Grayhounds
• Canis plancus means "howling dogs" Bay dogs?
• Canis pomeranus Keeshounds, Chows and such
• Canis scoticus Scottish Grayhounds
• Canis sibiricus Huskies and such
• Canis turcicus No clue. Name means "Turkish dog" and was supposedly pug-nosed
• Canis variegatus Harlequin Dogs
• Canis venaticus Middle Eastern Sighthounds
• Canis vertegus Turnspits

(C. E. H. Smith, 1839)

• Canis alco New World feral dogs
• Canis borealis Eskimo dogs
• Canis ferus Old world feral dogs
• Canis glaucus "The Great Cur of Eastern Europe" WTF???
• Canis haitensis Feral dogs from Hispaniola
• Canis leporarius Ancient Middle Eastern sighthounds
• Canis pacificus "The Poi Dog, the Uri-Mahoi of Tahiti and Ilio of the Sandwich Islands"
• Canis sagaces Scenthounds, or hounds in general
• Canis sanguinarius A breed of agressive mantracking scenthounds, maybe bloodhound-types
• Canis suillus Suilot Dogs and other pig catchers
• Canis terraenovae Retrievers?
• Canis terrarius Terriers
• Canis urcani Mollosers

(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.

Jackal

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

Your request has been complied with. See :

• Bradipodicola hahneli
• Cryptoses choloepi

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

Gray wolf - cannibalism

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 89.139.29.106 (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

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

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"?

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)

Explanation

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)

Research about virtual community

My name is Juliana de Melo Bezerra. I am a phd student at ITA (www.ita.br). I am doing a research regarding members’ motivation in virtual communities, and my case study is Wikipedia. I would like your collaboration in my research. If you are interested, please contact me and I will send you some questions. You can send me an email via Wikipedia: go to my userpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmbbmj) and click on Toolbox > E-mail this user.Jmbbmj (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: mixed-breed dog

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

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:[6]. 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)

Talk:Human

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)

Aulacorhynchus

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)

Conduct

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

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

|aethiopicus
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

|aurignacensis
Klaatsch & Hauser, 1910

|capensis
Broom, 1917

|cro-magnonensis
Gregory, 1921
|grimaldiensis
Gregory, 1921

|drennani
Kleinschmidt, 1931

|eurafricanus
(Sergi, 1911)

|grimaldii
Lapouge, 1906
|priscus
Lapouge, 1899

| monstrosus
Linnaeus, 1758

|palestinus
McCown & Keith, 1932

|proto-aethiopicus
Giuffrida-Ruggeri, 1915

|spelaeus
Lapouge, 1899
| troglodytes
Linnaeus, 1758
|wadjakensis
Dubois, 1921

| bory de vincent's list

Fatal Dog Attack Page

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)

Carl_Linnaeus#Views_on_mankind

Europaeus albus

Americanus rubescens

Asiaticus fuscus

Africanus niger

Wolf

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)

Talk:Abatwa

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

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 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

useful

All pages with titles containing mole

Carolina dog

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: [7] [8] [9]

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 [10] 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"?

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

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)

Photo

Chrisrus, Please email me at oldsingerman20@yahoo.com. 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)

Other editor's comments

Please do not edit another user's comments, as you did to mine on the Šarplaninac talk page. I edited my own comment to say just I wanted it to say. Since no one had commented in the three minutes begin between the original and the correction, there is no reason not to allow the second edit to stand. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please go back and try to find any edit there I made to anyone else's comments. Then, when you find that you are unable to do so, please realize that you have falsely accused me of something I did not do. Then, please return here and post an apology to me for this false accusation. Chrisrus (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Your change to my comment plus your reply, all in one edit. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh. You're right. That's odd. Look, the reply I wrote and signed is not in red, but the word change I didn't make is, which looks like an undo of the previous edit. I'll try to figure out what happened, but please accept my apology and my word that only the part I signed my name to is my work. I reads as an undo of the previous edit, but there is no edit showing where my signed reply was added with the new words in red. See what I mean? Where is the edit that I made with my reply? I mean, you say "your change to my comment plus your reply", but my reply isn't in red there, indicating it was part of that edit, only the word change is. Very strange, my reply is there without showing that it was a part of that or any other edit in the history. If this is the edit where I added my signed reply, why is it in red, as the word change is? Weird. Anyway, I didn't change your word choice back, or if I did somehow, I don't know how I did or mean to change it back. There must be some kind of strange mistake, because my reply is there without there being any edit in the history which highlights it in red. Scroll through the history if you like, but sorry anyway, and happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sections/paragraphs that have been changed or added are highlighted in green in the edit history window. Text in new sections is always black. Unaltered text in previous sections is also black, with red text only used to highlight alterations made to those sections. (Look at this edit in the cur/prev history of the page to see the changes I made to my first comment in this edit.) It appears you hit "undo" for my edit on Šarplaninac talk, erased the default undo message, and added your own comment and edit summary. I do not know how any WP tools work, so if you use those perhaps an error snuck in through it/them. You are aware of it, I am aware of it. We can now resume our scheduled editing, already in progress. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Carlos (footballer)

   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.
--Jerzy•t 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)

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