User talk:Inugami-bargho

Dingo-article

Here you can post your suggestions on the article's grammar.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think more could be added to the "build" section. Couldnt the sentences on brain size and dog/wolf comparisons be added to the section, with the subtitle: (see Problems in classifying the dingo)?

Also, I have not checked the grammar of the conservation section yet. I shall give it a look.Mariomassone (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the brain size is already mentioned under the picture. The article clearly again. By the way the brain size is what distinguishes all dogs from wolves so it makes no sence to mention that in the article a third time.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who first wrote the dingo skull caption. Maybe we could just remove it and give it the simple subtitle "dingo skull as drawn by ...."Mariomassone (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But of what use would the picture than be? A dingo skull is quite generic and only an expert coukld identify it, not like e.g. the one of a pug. And like I said, when the article clearly states that the dingo is a dog why mention the brainsize more than once when its not necessary?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and don't wonder why you can't see it right now, there is a guy who all the time makes it that way, he ßprobably doesn't get that this one will be an article soon.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not gonna wait any longer, I will enter both articles as soon as possible, I will just anounce it on the article page before. However, there will probably much left to edit simply to ward off all the douchebags that might show up. And by the way, the source for Decker Dog is questionable in my eyes.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about douchebags that show up, I'm sorry you had to revert my edits twice [1]. I hadn't realized I was editing the same article again. Hope you didn't mind too much. Pietrow ☏ 07:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will survive it ;-). I just which all this vandalism and unreferneced editing would stop.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pictures?

For the attack section http://www.flickr.com/photos/rannew/3504567882/

For the pet section http://www.flickr.com/photos/45663166@N00/3509613141/

What do you think?Mariomassone (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not possible, good idea, but sadly not possible. The pictures need a creative commons license like this one, otherwise it would be illegal to upload them. If you wan't to look for further pictures, try here, there you should find pictures you can use.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And something else, you don't have to look further than ecological impact. Afterwards it is still from the old version. And I also switch the first dingo picture. I know it was in the article but that dingo is to heavily built, we need a more "generic" one. By the way, that heavy built one is supposed to be in the interbreeding article as an example of a dingo who does not look "typical". And also pay more attention on what you write. You changed the howling text so much that it had a different meaning. Howling was in general less frequent among dingoes than among greywolves.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for Christs sake, stop adding information without discussing it first, I let certain infos out for a reason. The stuff with the brain size will be adressed later in the article. If you have to, wait at least til the article is finsihed. And please for Gods sake read it first, that stuff you wrote at the start of the Description section was already in Build and Fur. Just be more careful, please.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you want to put the wolf brain information? For some people, the best way to understand how something is built, is to compare it with something else. Also, I think the dingo's impact on human culture should be seperated into different sections: European and aboriginal. I think some of the info on the old article regarding aboriginal mythology should definately go in (after all, it is from a source you posted).Mariomassone (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the old article's paragraph on how dingoes hunt kangaroos should be added, as there is a lot of detail on how dingoes hunt and kill cattle/sheep, yet little on how they attack marsupials.Mariomassone (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I know you mean well but trust me, it's not a good idea, the article will be very big and with that it will be too big. And the information on attacks on cattle and sheep is because they are two sites of the spectrum, sheep being killed so easy, cattle so hard to kill most else is intermediary, and I guess such information must be entered into an article of canine hunting behaviour in general. I already had what you offered in the german version and it was all erased because it needed to be smaller. And as for the thing with the brain: at first it is already mentioned in the description of the skull picture and second this will be entered into the section about the problems due to the classification. There it will serve better because it is not unusual that people say that the dingo was never exposed to any kind of domestication and so I will add that statement and than list the facts: brain size, fertility of the males, reduced mimic, tails. Of course the conclusion is obvious but as you probably know we are not aloud to draw our own conclusion so there is no other way around. By the way did you check the german article I have linked on your site? If not do it and you will see how big this article will be.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you changed the meaning in the howling section AGAIN. Ok this is the last try, I split them into two sentences. The original meaning should be clear now. But all in all your corrections are good, just one thing: is "wantonly" in the cultural section really the right word, the original source said that it was the opinion that dingoes killed because they are evil.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one thing, believe me don't make more work for you now than is necessary you may need your energy later on. You may have no idea what I already had to erase from this article. So be prepared to control the finished article on a daily basis for weeks or even months.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change the meaning of the howling part: the whole point of it is that this specific behaviour in dingoes is observed less in wolves, correct? That is what I wrote, but I'll leave it as you put it.

I think the kangoroo hunting part is very relevant, as it can be said that the kangoroo is a more "natural" prey for the dingo. Plus, even though it is sheep-sized, it does not behave like a sheep does when attacked. Maybe the cow/sheep attack sections could be shortened or summarized?

Message me when you are finished, to avoid further conflicts. Do you have any idea how long it should take you?Mariomassone (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the howling part, you got the right meaning but you did not write it in the right way. If you had written "a behaviour which was observed less frequently than among grey wolves" that would have got it. About the kangaroo part, since it is a section on itself, I suggest you copy it on your own site and when I have added the rest of the article we'll see whether we have enough space. You know one of my goals is to get the article back into the good science section and for that we have to keep it as short as possible but also as correct and complete as necessary, however we have to wait with that until everything is entered so we can make the decision whether we enter just a sentence of several. Sadly I don't know how long it will take me, I'm working on the econcomical impact right now and I'm quite fast because the translation is so easy. But that changes from chapter to chapter. But I'm sure I can make it in less than a week in the worst case.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked the section about hunting kangaroos and after I striped it of all the stuff that wasn't directly related to dingoes, there remained only to sentences who contained new information and so I added them.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New pictures second take

What do you think of these pictues?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paleontour/2491497087/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jzb/366886433/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849432/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849578/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849276/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/briangiesen/3556577714/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigblueocean/2755522999/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/david55king/787081167/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/thegirlsny/2844240286/ (you'll like this one)

Lovely! But I am slightly confused; Arent the pictures from the same site you said was not in the public domain?Mariomassone (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain yes, but not all of them have a creative commons license. Most pictures on the site have an all rights reserved license, therefore we cannot use them without copyright violations. Believe me I would have if I could, because as you probably noticed there are no pictures of black and tan dingoes in wikimedia commons, otherwise I found all kinds of shades. And by the way I think we should use one of the pictures with several dingoes in one picture as the first one of the article, what do you think?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles?

Good work, but I'm beginning to suspect that the finished product will be too long to comfortably navigate. Perhaps certain sections (such as legal status and cultural impacts) could be made into separate articles. For reference, check the wolf article, which has numerous articles covering the more in depth topics.Mariomassone (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of that before but I think, they are to short for a single article, at least for a good one. But wait until this one is finsiched and I start with the one on interbreeding with other dogs, you will love it. ;-)--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Ps. Do you have any idea why some peiople write such long introductions? There are articles who are shorter.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introductions are supposed to summarise the whole article. They are meant to give general information on the subject, and leave it to the reader to decide if he/she wants to read in greater detail. Just my thoughts.Mariomassone (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find enough material, I think a separate article on dingoes as pets would be good. For example, check Wolves as pets and working animals.Mariomassone (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough material yes, but not much that could be called reliable and I only enter that information. The section won't be long and I also wonder how much of it will survive the "natural selection" of wikipedia.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pet section

I think several aspects of the original article's information on this topic is good enough for this revision. It covers how dingoes are treated by aboriginals, why they are used and undermines a few misconceptions. It also covers the dingo's use as a cane toad tracker. I think this is worth adding.Mariomassone (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe, but I had the impression that I already covered the Aboriginal topic in cultural and economical impact. The Cane Toad topic, I don't know I think you talk about Sarah Flyffe but do you have any official source that they are used as cane toad tracker. It's just that the women who trains them for it also states quite a lot of unproven things, therefore I doubt her reliability.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentece

"Control measures mostly result in smaller packs respectively in a disruption of the pack structure". Could you explain this? Does it mean that the pack structure is disrupted in smaller packs?

I'd prefer to hear your explanation before correcting it. Mariomassone (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the packs are either smaler or that there are no packs at all.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More on build?

Hey Bargho

Sorry for bringing something else up, but do you have any official sources which could be used to add more detail to the "build" section? It just seems to me that more detail is dedicated to impacts and conservation issues than on the dingo's anatomy itself.Mariomassone (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most of it is from Canids: Wolves, jackals and foxes (or however it ws called). In general there isn't much information on build, unless you cite a breed standard, but I decided not to use that since the article is mainly about a wild animal not a dog breed. And a breed standard doesn't really reflect the dog breed, often quite the contrary. From the Canid source there would only be stuff like the dental formular left, but that is pretty useless. That's one of the reasons why I used so many pictures, because they show the variability of the dingoes. By the way you haven't come across a picture of a Thai-dingo or a black-and-tan one haven't you?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I erased the picture with the Hare Indian dog. Such a picture would be better in an article about mixed-breed dogs or population geentics in general. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found these from the site you recommended to me; Black dingoes http://www.flickr.com/photos/dingowolf/3200843464/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dingowolf/3124968886/

Thai dingo http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildones/39437017/ Mariomassone (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem again. These pictures don't have a creative commons license. And just two things for the record: I already checked the published pictures of dingowolf and none of them had a creative commons license (they all had "all rights reserved") although you can try to contact him (I already tried and he didn't answer); as long as the picture doesn't specifically say dingo we cannot upload it as a picture of a dingo, we can only say that the dog looks like a dingo but not more.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wet forest = rainforest?

Are you sure that wet forest means the same as rainforest? Because the used sources said wet forest and since I'm not a native english speaker I just "copied" the word. And by the way great grammar editing, it's astounding how often german grammar creeps in despite all efforts to avoid it.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bargho

I am somewhat surprised. I was born in England, and I personally have never heard the term "wet forest" before. Perhaps it is an Australian english term? There is quite a lot of variation.Mariomassone (talk) 09:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe, however I corrected three of your correction:[reply]

1. The sources only said incidence not violent incidence and did not specify what was meant

2. The sources only said occupied territory, not human occupied. The researchers probably meant occupied by other dogs.

3. 1,2000 is defintely wrong, isn't it? ;-)

How do you like the new title picture?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected :( The dingo in the picture is beautiful! Good choice.Mariomassone (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added several new ones yesterday. Saidly again no black-and-tan ones :/. However I got a warning sign from Fraser Island, three pictures of dingoes living with humans (two on a chain and one "singing" at a piano) and a few others. Check: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Canis_lupus_dingo for all the pictures that can be used now.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream knowledge?

Would "mainstream knowledge" be a good term? It's just that this statement is from a scientific book and based on scientific evidence. Actually the "Mainstream knowledge" (e.g. that dingoes suppossedly don't bark or are the only dogs with one annual breeding cycle) proofs often to be false. Wouldn't "scientific" be a better option?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, but I'd add that such information is the general consensus, as from what I;ve read, even scientists are divided over this issue.Mariomassone (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interbreeding of dingoes with other domestic dogs

Hi, Inugami-bargho. Thank you for creating the useful and interesting article to Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure why you're so agitated by my simple tagging.[2] I think the sentence The population of wild living domestic dogs in Australia is now probably higher than ever before. is vague because the intro does not reveal when the research was conducted, and "ever before" is also not clear. I think "as for March 2009" or "According to a 2009 research" would be fine if you can add. And everyone could not know the intro is already referenced by existing sources. The tags are only for clarification, so I hope you're a bit more familiar with these. I love reading the article by the way, so keep up the good work. --Caspian blue 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just a bit hot headed that's all because I had to deal a little bit to often with people who want a reference nearly for every sentence although the whole chapter is practically based on the same source, that is all. I know that the statement is vague but that's what Managing the impacts of dingoes and other wild dogs said. Saidly when it comes to the dingoes or better wild living domestic dogs most data is quite blurred. Saidly that's also true for the dogs living with humans. Strange really, there is more research on wolves than on dogs. Even more saidly there are also more myths about domestic dogs than about wolves.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Interbreeding of dingoes with other domestic dogs

On July 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Interbreeding of dingoes with other domestic dogs, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackal hybrids

Hi there

I have recently re-written the golden jackal article, and wondered if you had anything to add.

I am particularly curious about the german poodle cross-breeding experiment you added to the wolfdog article. Was there anything at all about the jackal hybrids which was unique to them? Also, do you know of any cases in which they have been crossed with wolves or coyotes? The canid hybrid article says so, but provides no references.

Thank you in advance Mariomassone (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article

From my point of view, this article is a much better approach than the article as it stands. Until we can search Mammal Species of the World for "Canis lupus hallstromi" and it gives some result (http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/search.asp), there is no such animal. Well done. If you want me to edit the English, I will try to help you. Chrisrus (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Well go on then, because I'm sure that the wording of my mother tongue influenced the article.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why a hidden second Singing Dog article?

Just curious--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native english speaker. Therefore I first wrote it hear and once it is sure that wording and grammar is correct it will replace the old NGSD-article. And I'm looking for a way to get rid of the "Canis lupus familiaris" in the Infobox.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NGSD Taxon

Inugami-bargho Although I believe that the NGSD should still have it's own page, I like what you are putting together here. I however have bias as you used two photos of my NGSD (thank you). I just want to give you a little history on the NGSD's taxon and a source to go to for info on their current dna testing issue. With Sir Edward Hallstrom's discovery of the NGSD they were originally named canis lupus hallstromi. For further info on this subject you can refer to the book "A Celebration of Rare Breeds" Alice Bixler also has and article on the Dog Channel website that mentions the key points. At some future date (early 90's) the NGSD was declared no longer a seperate species and therefore the hallstromi taxon was lost. This created a huge problem for the captive singer of North America. Google NGSDI's history page for details. At what point they were deemed to be a subspecies of canis lupus dingo I am again uncertain but recent dna testing suggest that the Singer & Dingo are virtually identicle. There are two genetics people who specifically are building databases on Dingo and Singer dna Alan Wilton & Peter Savolainen. They both came to the same conclusion. Alan Wilton has stated that both Singer & Dingo dna have distinctions that seperate them from every other domestic dog breed. If any given dna sample were sent to him, he could tell us if the sample is of a Singer or Dingo that has been hybridized. What he cannot tell us is if it's a Dingo, a Singer, or a mix of the two breeds. The dna markers are that similiar. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first, like I said above this article will replace the old one, once it is sure that the wording and grammar is correct. But to be honest I wish I had more infos from people that worked indipendently from Matznick, because I a) don't trust her judgement and b) think she does nitpicking when defending her arguments. For what you said. Well, the infos from Matznick say that they were originally called Canis hallstromi, however the name you mentioned is one of the several mentioned in the article. The book you mentioned doesn't help me since its not available here. When you talking about the DNA; do you mean the article from 2004? As for Wilton, he might be good geneticists but just because Dingos and Singers have unigue DNA-characteristics it doesn't make them automatically seperate from other dogs since other dogs don't have the same DNA, if they were as different as he seemingly always claims it wouldn't have taken so long to find these characteristics. Furthermore I'm as familiar with his work as can be from up here and according to him, his tests are not absolutely reliable and in fact his reference group might not have encompassed all "pure" dingoes like he had always claimed. Oh and one, thing, most domestic dogs don't belong to breeds. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NGSD - Should I just do it?

Hy, I wanted your opinion on whether I should just go on and publish the new version. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcue2"

Inugami - I absolutely think that you should publish it. You have obtained lots of hard to find information from German research and other outside sources that is not evident in the current page. I will also talk with osm20. His input on the talk page is from his 23yrs of experience. Although he has no published literature to back up his statements, there is nobody in North America that better understands the NGSD then him. I will work to get his observations either published or university archived to give them merit. FYI, I have posted some additional photos including the 3 black & tan Singers here in North America. It's your choice if you want to use them. Tomcue2 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inugami - I just wanted to add that the wiki-bot might remove the external link to flickr. If that happens, I have 150 to 200 photos of NGSD's that I can either send to you or place on a neutral server. Write me at tomcue2@hotmail.com so I can send them and also contact you outside of Wiki. Tomcue2 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its better if you upload them yourself, because that is the easiest way, otherwise you would send a permission per E-Mail to Wiki Commons. As for osm20, that might all be, but as long as I don't have his material in front of me I can't say anything regarding that.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suggest doing it yet -may want to build consensus first. Looks like the group might even get be getting along finally now that we all know the rules--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the article or the pictures?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment

Inu, My wife and I feel your opening sentence in the section "Relationships with Humans" is very well written. Will you be including any "modern" "relations with humans" information?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tawa Source

I don't have the book but will verify. Is there something troublesome to you?--Mrhorseracer (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check for links

The external links on your page are good. Tomcue2 (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is something. But maybe Osm20 is right and the published article is going to the dogs. Why is horseracer still aloowed to be here anyway if she obviously just seems to make trouble? In my country she would have been kicked out a long time ago.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inu - I am happy to see you here and improving the NGSD article. Reading your responses to jkoler, It's now more clear that she takes her beliefs and tracks down some tiny shred of evidence (even 25yr old evidence) and uses it to support her theories. Re mrh, I really cannot fault her because she has been force fed what jkoler has been cooking up for many years. In mrh's mind, she believes that what she is doing to the wiki page is right. Tomcue2 (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to my experience such people are the hardest to deal with. The same seems to be true for Chrisrus. Did you noticed that he named the picture in the dingo-taxobox "Australian lupus dingo"? :/--Inugami-bargho (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to know

May I ask what qualifications on the subject that both you and Tomcue have for this article? It seems like you criticize all of the canid researchers including Wilton, Matznick, Coppinger, Simonson etc. As well as Brisbin who is also a co-author on all of Matznick’s articles, which also includes James McIntyre, Susan Bulmer, Mark Feinstein etc. While I am not involved, there are others following this. --Bee4Real 01:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what qualifications you feel that I must have. My contribution to Inu's new version of the page is limited to two external links and 37 Singer photos of which 4 are being currently used. Tomcue2 (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The works of Matznick and Coppinger I know so far are very premature and full of wishfull thinking. Let me give you a few examples: In "An updated description of the New Guinea Singing Dog" Matznick claimed that all species of the Genus Canis can produce fertile hybrids with each other. However the mentioned sources only deal with hybridization of 4 species (which would be only half of the species in the genus at best). Furthermore she claims that the Singer is a species because it is not replacable with any other canid population and is a unique evolutionary unit. The same could be said about any subspecies, as well as you and me (unless you have an identical twin). Furthermore she often writes as if the furture will always proof her right. Coppinger claimed that if you have seen one wolf you have seen them all, but this has long been disproven by research in Italy, Spain, Germany and Canada. In his famous book he stated that artificial selection could not have produced the domestic dog because the foxes on the Fiox farm experiment only changed colour not skulls (others said otherwise) and was of the opinion that the changes in colour and shape occured at the same time. However, there is no evidence for this because the fossil record doesn't tell us about colours or earshapes so the changes in morphology might have occured long after colorchanges and in many cases it is very difficlut to tell a dog bone from a wolf bone. Any more examples on why I don't trust these two? Wilton might be good in genetics but that doesn't mean he is a professional on other subjects. The rest I don't know. And I actually don't criticize "all of the canid researchers" in general but I also don't believe everything and sometimes it is obvious that something was overlooked. If you want reliable researchers try Mech, Zimen, Feddersen-Petersen, Trumler, Bloch, Raddinger, Bekoff or Corbett.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singer pictures?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcue2" Hy, I tried to contact you via E-Mail but I just got a returned message. Did you already manage to send the permission to Wikimedia Commons?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inu - I do not know what permissions are need or how to grant them. I can and have posted photos in the past so please write me again privately to let me know which photos you want posted. I am glad to be of help. Tom Tomcue2 (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]