User talk:Ddum5347

Sections of this talk page with no replies after 30 days are automatically archived.

Archives: 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Eastern Cougar

Continuing here, since there's no need to continue cluttering Eastern Cougar talk.

Sorry if I question your credibility, but one of your reverted edits on North American Cougar was clearly biased. And your reactions haven't been addressing the issue at hand, so without knowing you better, it would suggest emotion clouds your judgement.

You proclaim on your page "passion" for animals. I appreciate that. But please consider the dark side of passion : make sure that passion isn't overriding objectivity in your edits, or your discussion of edits. Crescent77 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit do you refer to? Ddum5347 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Persecution" was your wording, I believe... Crescent77 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. How was that biased? Ddum5347 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I'm looking, your discussions indicate this is an ongoing problem for you. Another editor indicated improvement on your part, and you indicate the willingness to improve. That's great. Thanks for your efforts, keep up the good work. This is a hard forum for communication, hopefully we all can continue to make it work for the greater good. Crescent77 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your inclusion of the word was not neccesary in that instance. It indicates a bias on the side of the animal. Remember, at the time of extirpation, the cougars were killing people and eating their food, they could easily be considered the persecutors, and their extirpation a neccesary function of human survival in the face of nature's oppressor.

For the most part, that's no longer the case and their killing would be viewed much less favorably, but that's our context, and to include our modern value based interpretation in the presentation of history is not encyclopedic. Crescent77 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't continue to edit that in for a reason. I knew this already. But thanks anyways. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Hopefully in the future you know to stop before you start. That wasn't the case with this topic. Crescent77 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, but do not confuse that with incompetence or ignorance. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but here on chat, we have only a small window to assess that. When your statements are emotion driven, and documentation indicates a history of questionable actions...hopefully you're learning. We all start out incompetent. Crescent77 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion driven? That's just false. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep learning! Crescent77 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or don't, it's your choice. But if you choose to continue with the aforementioned behaviors here, your time may be better spent elsewhere. Crescent77 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, "keep learning". Ddum5347 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Hi Ddum5347: I'm working my way through the WP:BIRDs cleanup list (here, if you're interested) and found a few recently-updated lists that had reference errors. And tracked them here! ;) If you add notes to a list that doesn't already have some, be sure to add a ref group section as well. Here's a link to the fix, to show you what I mean. Obviously, if there are already notes (typically, they'll show in a section right above the References section), you don't need to do this. Ping me if you have any questions. Thanks for the updates, and happy editing! MeegsC (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I usually add a refgroup to pages without one when I add notes, but I'll look through and see if there's anything that needs fixing. Thanks! Ddum5347 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish Mammals

Your enthusiasms for contributing to the page is appreciated, but you must respect that there are resident Danish experts that may know the Danish fauna much better than you do. This does not mean that we're always right. Quite the contrary. We are happy to engage in discussions on the talk page, but not in edit warring. Your last edits, addition of brown bear and european bison should have been discussed before being added. They belong on a list of prehistoric mammals of Denmark, not a list of the Danish fauna of today. Just because IUCN lists them as extirpated doesn't mean they should be on the list. They probaly were extirpated, but in the paleolithic.--JakobT (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to talk it out, but I am not edit warring. I am editing boldly, but I did not revert any of your changes. And every other "list of mammals" has additions regarding extirpated mammals. As to when exactly they were last present in Denmark, I'd like to see sources backing up your claims of them being last present in the Paleolithic. Until then, I will consider IUCN a valid source. Ddum5347 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most authoritative soiurce is Aaris-Sørensen (1987) Danish prehistoric fauna (in Danish), which lists 6 known remains of European Bison, all 6000 years old or more. I have never seen European bison mentioned in any field guide to Danish or even Scandinavian mammals, or any other Danish source, so the common understanding is clearly that it is not part of the Danish fauna. The national red list refers to fenced herds, i.e. animals in captivity. --JakobT (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page on the list for discussions regarding the brown bear. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Taino

I reverted your edit at Taino because "nephew" is too broad a term. In many, if not most, societies of Indigenous peoples of the Americas, clan inheritance is through the female line. Therefore "son of one's brother", which is one meaning of "nephew", is not equivalent to "son of one's sister". In such societies, a chief or other person with a title could be succeeded by a sister's son, but not by his own son or a brother's son. - Donald Albury 22:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to simplify the wording, but thanks for telling me. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic genera

An FYI, prevailing methodology is to have pages named at the genus level rather than species when the page uses scientific names......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters, since searching up the genus name only should still link to the page. But thanks. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, see WP:MONOTYPICTAXA. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Ddum5347 (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN updates

Another FYI since I know you spend a lot of time with the IUCN if you didn't already know. Every quarter they update their species pages with new status. I'm working on amphibs now. You can find them on Resources & Publications, Summary Statistics, then Table 7 for the current ones. I've done past years.... Pvmoutside (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I've mostly done reptiles and mammals recently. They seem to update amphibians a LOT more though. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions to bird lists

When you add a species to a country or state list that isn't from the stated source, you should amend the lede with something like "An additional introduced (or extirpated, or whatever) species has been added from another source." Otherwise the counts aren't up to date. Craigthebirder (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always forget. My bad. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting sourced materials

I'm talking about Mammals of Algeria. As I see your edits and attitude, you clearly violate the rule to prevent owning articles by denying the result of discussion but follow your selfish sentiment where you agreed to include vagrant animals into lists. Apology that my IP address had changed since our last conversation. 2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you say that, but you are on an IP. And accusing me of ownership is one thing, but selfish is something else. Those sources included for the whales are the only ones for those species, and even then they aren't a WP:RS. Now please link a reliable ref and then it'll be added. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you revert even without reasoning? I still don't see your point, and the reference about right whale is CANADIAN GOVWERMENT. 2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologized about my IP address changed. It is not intentional hence I revealed and apologized where I could just pretend like a third party.2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The right whale one I'll accept, but a news article from an Italian agency isn't reliable. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new one is from Euronews.2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to warn you officially now. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you even answer to my new reference is from Euronews? You say that is also without credibility? I suppose you are the one who've been blocked for multiple times by edit warring? One of your problems is that you revert even without reasoning.2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the Euronews has a source for its own article (preferably one like the Canadian gov't ref), then use that. Please revert yourself and either fix the ref or stop this nonsense. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, huh? I will stop for now, but look yourself in a mirror.2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, sure. Still waiting on that revert. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reindeer

Starting from the fact that this herd is completely autonomous, as they feed themselves and not with human help, I don't know where you read the fact that this herd of reindeer is semi-domesticated, because in the source it says nothing of everything what. In addition, I inform you that these reindeer graze in an area of approximately 10,000 acres in the middle of the Cairngorm National Park, and therefore not privately owned as you say. I invite you to read the information carefully and do not write information that you do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo pag (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reliable source backing all of this up, then I will believe you. Ddum5347 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]