User talk:Chrisrus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Asteroid Thingy

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

Excellent! That's great. Thank you so much. Shall I talk about the next step, which looks like it might be to transform all the "zeroes" is you will, into section redirects to the correct place on List of minor planets, here, or start a new section on the WP:BOTREQ page? Chrisrus (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I've got a lot on my plate right now, and I'm not sure I have enough time to do this. If you're fine waiting one or two months, then I'd be happy to do it. If you need it sooner, WP:BOTREQ might be a good idea. Tim1357 ^talk 21:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

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

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

You won't remember why you liked him

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-C1PxARlxo

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

• LOL.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Who/what the hell http://petsparadise.ru/ actually is  ;-)

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

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

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

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

Oh my, I quickly found a good english language page telling most of his story. Had I simply googled on the name Kostya and the word faithful I would not have had to read all that Cyrillic! Here you are: Monuments dogs – faithful friends of manLiPollis (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much. Please keep List of dogs#Faithful dogs updated. For example, shouldn't we be calling him "Kostya"? This is our only English language source so far and it calls him that, so it might be better to call him that than "Constantine". Also, although with photoes and important details and such make us believe this story, we only have blogs as sources, which is less than ideal WP:RS citation. If you know the language, could you Google up the original press reports or something? Chrisrus (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll do a little research on this since I love faithful Dog stories and Kotya"s story, if found to be reliable, deserves mentioned. I'm glad you appreciated my note. I must confess, I am not a fluent speaker of Russian by any means but I did study Russian as well as Serbo-Croatian whilst getting my degrees, one of which is in Linguistics. whatever I can read clearly, I can get help with via various translation tools. I never thought I'd use the knowledge gained back when I was trying to squeeze ibn one more non-indo European langiuage requiremnt to read a page about a Hachikō -like dog! (Uad to study Russian to get the alphabet THEN move on to Serbo-Croatian which met the Non-Indo-Eruopean requirement. Russian doesn't apply. ) Thanks again. LiPollis (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, part of the appeal of Wikipedia is being able to use the knowledge we learned in school. Your tools are good and there are lists of bilingual Wikipedians that will help if asked. It's a great story. It should definately have it's own article if sufficient coverage is found, and then an excellent entry on the List of dogs#Faithful dogs. We probably shouldn't list all of those faithful dogs on Hachiko, just mention each one and then send the reader to the list. Hachiko should probably just mention the names of the most prominent ones that have Wikipedia articles of their own, such as Shep, Fido, and so on. We should get access to pictures and have a special project in honor of these dogs at the Wikiproject Dogs. Many people from all over the world will love to contribute. Keep up the good work, good luck tracking down the original Russian language sources that this good blogger seems to have used in creating his page on this topic. Chrisrus (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"She" for ships

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

First, let's please keep this converstion in one place for later reference and not go back and forth on each others talk pages. Second, if you want to try to edit the ship article guidelines, you may, but I don't see how you can win that arguement if you rely on the position that to use the same pronoun that the source uses is "inaccurate". If your main objection is that the practice is no longer considered good style because some people are offended by it, that has a chance of rhetorical success, but you'd have to prove that that is the case. You'd need to find some article somewhere proving that women do object to the practice or that style guides object to it or something, because I don't think it's as clear that it is offensive to women as you seem to think. For example, you may recall examples of men who so loved their cars they called them "she". So it seems to me that men call things "she" out of love, not "objectification". You seem to feel that the practice objectifies women, but I've always assumed the opposite: that the practice personifies objects. There's a scene in the original Star Trek series episode "The Naked Time" where Captain Kirk mentions this issue in a monologe which includes the line "Now I know why they call it "she"". Please check it out, it may give you pause. Chrisrus (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

When I brought up the issue earlier in the week, I didn't think I would meet such enormous resistance. I don't care anymore about the idea that it might be perceived as sexist. I regret bringing that up. However, why is using "she" to refer to inanimate objects considered correct in writing, especially encyclopedic writing? I'm still baffled by this notion. I'm fine with people personifying their cars (or boats or any other inanimate objects) informally as "she" in everyday speech and writing. It's something else, in my eyes, to have a stylebook prescribe it. Indeed printed stylebooks are at odds with Wikipedia's style for this specific rule: CMS and AP use "it" for marine vessels. The issue for me is formality at this point. Wikipedia's stylebook probably doesn't prescribe other colloquialisms, even though they are in wide-spread use in every culture. I am thankful that the stylebook does prescribe both "she" and "it", though. fds^Talk 01:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First, would you mind if I swiped a copy of the rest of this conversation from your talk page and pasted it to the place it fits on this page? I like to keep these things in one place for future reference. Don't hesitate to say no if you rather I didn't. It's your talk page.

Second, yes, that is a very different matter from the one I was addressing. I will drop the first question and address your main point.

I'm looking into the matter. I checked WP:Ships. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/GuidelinesAh, here it is:Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Pronouns. Ok it says:

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

Sounds like the result of a debate. A compromise wording. I bet there was a debate. Anyway it's a summary. For greater detail, it sends us here:

WP:SHE4SHIPS. It also goes by WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. It says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok this is from 2004: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"). The discussion seem to have taken place at the WP:MOS talk page. Check this one, from 2011: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_119#Use_of_feminine_gender_for_ships.

I scanned it a bit: Here's my impression. This debate comes up very often and has been debated at length.

OK! Here's the one I was looking for, the one I started. Have a look: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_114#She.27s_a_ship.

As I recall, general style manuals are against the practice, but military histories and military encyclopedias and reference books as well as some kinds of reference books about old wooden ships always do it and recommend it. There is zero chance that you and I could possibly win any attempt to change the guideline. Chrisrus (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

JPL refs et al.

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

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

Thanks! Could you make a list of them? We could have someone look them over and see what should be done.

About the Ethiopian wolf, that's good to know, thanks again. Please add this to Canine hybrid, especially Canid_hybrid#Canid_interfertility_chart. Chrisrus (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Turnspit Dog

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

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

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

Hey there. Yes, that's a good one. I guess at that time "Wheel!" was their command to get to work! I used to have a Welsh terrier that understood the word "Walk" no matter how it was intoned. You had to be careful to say "speak" instead of "walk" because "talk" sounded too much like "W-A-L-K".

It's one of the only original dog subspecies of Germlin, not Carl Linnaeus, as the article states came up with back when it was ok to name subspecies of dog, Canis vertigus, that I was able to positively identify when I tried up here above. One more pet project that came to naught! Oh well. Maybe someone knows which they referred to exactly.

The article Hachiko has been collecting a longer and longer list in it's "other similar cases" section. I wonder if we should spin it off if it collects the entire list of List of dogs#faithful dogs or what should happen.

Fido (dog) has become the most hit article by that name and therefore merits primary referent status on Fido (disambiguation).

Thank you for your recent contributions to the article Domesticated meat animal. The new title is a compromise. I favored "Meat livestock dog". It used to be just "Meat animal", but it was collecting every animal in the zoo practically.

I'm having some trouble with List of domesticated animals. If you would, please read this: Talk:List_of_domesticated_animals#Long_list_of_birds

I still wish you'd merge those two porcupine pictures into one to illustrate the taxobox of the article porcupine for me. I suck at pictures.

Have you created any more animal eyeglasses articles?

I have a bizzare new dog here. She's a lapdog from the pound that seems to be a crossbreed experiment gone wrong. Guesses include toy poodle, Maltese, or Bichon Frise. She's practically a biped. I've never seen any dog that spends that much time on its back legs. I didn't pick her, Casey did. Casey is the Spaniel, who for some reason loves tiny lap dogs but didn't like any of the similarly-sized dogs I introduced him to.

I think this new dog would make a pretty good turnspit. Someone has to invent a gerbil wheel for little dogs. Chrisrus (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look at the matters you mention above. In the mean time: [1] :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply in points:

• "Walk" no matter how it was intoned: Funny. :) When our dog was sleeping, we used to say "Food" progressively louder until he woke up and looked around. But we wouldn't make eye contact with him and pretended it wasn't us. He probably thought he was dreaming it.
• Not sure if List of dogs#faithful dogs should break away. Maybe the category should be broken into subcats. I don't know. Sort of seems okay as it is.
• List of domesticated animals: agree.
• Pls refresh my memory about Porcupine pics. Sorry I forgot. I think I was having image upload trouble at the time and couldn't use the derivate too they had.
• Your new doggies sound nice.
• Do you know those steel cage balls where those guys drive little motorbikes around inside? That would be cool for dogs. But they'd probably need helmets until they got the hang of it.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "similar cases" subsection of Hachiko is on the way to becoming a mirror of List of faithful dogs, at least the subsection that are most like Hachiko. I think it should be briefer and direct Hachiko readers to the sublist.
• List of domesticated animals needs semi-protection, because the IP addresses there refuse to talk to us. The article for each item on the list should state clearly that the animal is domesticated. Many of these may be exotic pets but the article the link to doesn't say that they are domesticated animals. I removed many of the mammals but there are many rodent articles someone has to check and probably each of the tropical fish and birds that are kept as pets as well. We have to follow the link to the article and if it doesn't clearly state that the animal is domesticated, we have to remove it. The problem is, this can't be done without a battle with the IP users who won't discuss and keep adding animals whose Wikipedia articles the list links too doesn't say they are domesticated. Could you semi-protect it please, so I can work on that without it being re-done by stonewalling IPs?
• The Porcupine pictures that should be fused into one pictue and set into the porcupine infobox may be found here:

User_talk:Anna_Frodesiak/archive27#Porcupine_Pictures.

• That's a great idea about scaling down the circus motorcycle sphere for dogs. Where's the article on that topic? Chrisrus (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much

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

Seriously: you are a new personal inspiration for me at this point, I will try to emulate your style more. Kothog (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I used to enjoy letting loose about things, but I have learned that if you just go all "Mr. Spock" with people, if you know what I mean, it usually works like a charm. Chrisrus (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Rational Skepticism WikiProject member asking for look at Theosophy entry

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

I understand. Theosophy Thank you.Factseducado (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

To pass Rational Skepticism Project standards, it must merely accurately describe a religious belief as historical or anthropological science, in context. It may not depict a belief as more than a belief. Is this your concern with the article? Chrisrus (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you have stated above that religious belief must be accurately described in its historical context or through accepted methods of anthropology as an academic field. Am I correct? If I have read your writing correctly, then I would add that sociology can be helpful in understanding some aspects of what falls under the rubric of religion.

I feel overwhelmed with my concerns with the article.

Certainly, stating beliefs as facts is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The example I and another person on the talk page used was the phrase "hieroglyphs of nature." I do not think this is the only example of stating a belief as a fact.

There was a citation to a text by a publisher not considered reliable. Publications by religious adherents are not placed in context as primary sources. There is an over-reliance on one author and one or two texts for all of the citations. Important, reputable scholarly works which have a scholarly, critical stance towards the apparently favored author in the citations section have not been included for balance. Something else I find problematic and possibly disturbing went on with the citation section.

The writing is both hard to follow and appears sometimes to be describing theosophy while at other times it appears to be describing esotericism in general beyond what is necessary to elucidate theosophy (the two concepts are related). I strongly suspect that theosophy is being presented as a catch-all for all or much mysticism and gnosticism and much of occultism. Conversely, there is an historical, sociological, and cultural relationship between theosophy and spiritualism but the article seems to be written from a point of view that wants to deny that link.

The article's writer(s) have explicitly stated that it is their intention to leave out a lot of theosophy. I think it's fair to say the article writers like some parts of theosophy but don't like other people and groups who are or where theosophers or theosophical.

One view that the article's proponents seem to find appealing is that theosophy has been around for a really long time. Not only that but famous historical figures who have no record of being regarded by scholars in the appropriate fields as being theosophers or doing theosophy are being claimed as examples of theosophers or people who did theosophy. I believe this might be based on the work of one author but that author's work has been critically examined by other scholars who don't agree with some of that author's conclusions.

I may have other concerns but I feel I have presented enough to justify that the article needs clear-headed examination. Factseducado (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Read this please: http://books.google.com/books?id=6TMFoMFe-D8C&pg=PA522&dq=%22Encyclopedia+of+religion%22+theosophy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yWSbT8zUNIn10gHhnqyADw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Encyclopedia%20of%20religion%22%20theosophy&f=false .

I read it. It is a good summary but not a great summary which I attribute to the word count constraint in such an encyclopedia entry.

The events related in the encyclopedia entry do represent what has brought theosophy into our cultural and intellectual consciousness in recent times. I would add that theosophy has continued to the present. Also, there were more stages in the development of what I am going to call the explosion/heyday of theosophy in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Interest in Egyptian mysticism is not mentioned in the entry and it was there. The entry connects theosophy too strongly to Blavatsky; however, she is a huge figure and it's a short entry so it's natural that occurred due to space constraints.

Something the encyclopedia entry didn't have space to explore is the history of theosophy before the events in the encyclopedia entry. I believe scholarship may debate how integral eastern mysticism, eastern religion, or eastern philosophy was in the beginning of theosophy, I'd have to check. The connection to India, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism would need verification by reliable academic sources. The reason is that prior to around 1700 direct links between Europe and the Indian sub-continent were few and tenuous. Even intellectual history had not breached that divide at the time except in cases in which there had been intermediaries such as the Arab and Persian world. For instance, the Moors had already been in Spain and Italy of course. Jewish scholars were also notably mobile. So Islamic mysticism such as Sufism could have been known to some Europeans. Jewish mysticism including but not limited to Cabbala would likely have been known to some Europeans. Finally, esotericism within Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity has been well-established. All of those are potential sources of theosophical thought prior to around 1700. This is not to say that theosophy is agreed by most scholars to have been in evidence in most of ancient times. The record of scholarship from a variety of points of view would have to be consulted before one could conclude it is likely that theosophy was in evidence in the 3rd century CE. My hunch is that around that era mysticism and/or gnosticism or esotericism would be more accurate ways to describe trends in thought rather than theosophy. The historical record and its scholars are the arbiters of that issue.

Some current writers on the topic on Wikipedia strongly object to the word doctrine in relation to what they regard as true, original, or correct theosophy. In the academic study of religion it is true that doctrine is not always heavily emphasized in a particular religion or in a particular time and place. I think I would likely agree that theosophy was intellectual in the beginning. It's possible that words such as emotional, intuitive, mystical, or spiritual and perhaps other words could replace the word intellectual. For example, some theosophists in the last part of the 1800s and probably before then were writing about needing to combine something like imagination or the esoteric with scientific investigation in order to arrive at true, full knowledge. Factseducado (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Now help me write this: I'm not kidding, really, please edit and add to the following summary of the above: Chrisrus (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

You are right about the article. Collect sources like the one I found by using Google Books on Google Scholar if you can find it anymore, now that Google has buried that search engine so deep. Try to forget everything you know about the subject and simply report the facts about what these WP:RS (basically everything on Google Sch. is WP:RS); simply report what the RSes do in fact say about Theosophy. We want something a bit longer than this one, but there is more we could still use it to cite.

We need to get those red links hooked up and blue.

The article should say that at the very beginning Ch.S. had a big part in it's conception, very early in the group's history he resigned and she was synonymous with the doctrine.

Yes, use that word, "doctrine", if that's what the RSes call it.

Do not let them potray their beliefs as something other than just that: their personal religious beliefs. If there's debate among them as to what exactly those beliefs are, let them fight that out among themselves between "according to these people's beliefs..." etc and stay out of it. If they object, tell them it's what sources say in your best Mr. Spock imitation. Ask them why can't write in an article stating that Adam and Eve were the first people, but you can say that the Bible says that they were. All you have to do is write an introductory phrase stating words to the effect of "Theosophists believe that..." We get them to agree.

You are right. You are dealing with a difficult case here, a polysemic term for at least three referents with no clear boundries and lots of gray area between.

So far from the encyclopedia of religion we know hardly hardly anything about the first referent, an attempt to find common ground among Indian religions, a sort of Southasian Unitarianism if you would. Next, we have on student of that philosophy who lables her personal take on the former and the encyclopedia talks about that, mostly. Since she died there has been who knows how many claims on the word. Then, there's the official doctrine of the Society that she founded since she died, which may have changed somewhat or quite a bit since then. Now, if there are believers in control of the article inserting their own definitions, let them put up a blog or some such and tell the world. All we know is what our sources say, and we're not using her primary sources as facts because that's a good rule across the board for all articles, that's what you will argue and they will agree. We want it to read like an improved version of the article in the encyclopedia of religion. Chrisrus (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Theosophy had been mentioned in an academic book while I was in college. It was not a focus of the class and I had not special interest in the topic. Of course, I did the assigned reading for the class. So fortunately I don't know much about theosophy which I would need to try to forget. My current involvement came about almost a week ago because of a casual conversation in which somehow theosophy was mentioned. I told someone to try looking it up on Wikipedia. He did but told me he didn't understand what the article meant. I wondered if the religious subject matter had confused him. I read the entry and had a sinking feeling. The problem of understanding was not the subject matter it was the writing and in my opinion the comprehension of the topic by the writers of the article. Of course, the statements of beliefs as facts was obvious. This began quite a turn of events this week.

I have begun looking at appropriate sources. I am near a university library and can access some items through its online catalog. I had not thought to check Google Scholar and that's a great idea. Thanks for that.

Polysemic is a useful adjective; thank you for bringing it to my attention. Linguistics certainly comes into play with the word theosophy over time.

I'll need to carefully examine a variety of sources as to the "first referent, an attempt to find common ground among Indian religions, a sort of Southasian Unitarianism," because I'm not clear that all reputable scholars agree. I'm under the impression that this first referent is a growing field of research.

"Theosophists believe that..." is a good beginning of an introduction to the eventual article. The article will need to become "an improved version of the article in the encyclopedia of religion." Of course primary sources by adherents cannot be used as facts. Rather than fighting about what theosophists believe among themselves it appears to me that the current interested parties accept uncritically facts not in evidence which are presented by one interested party based on one scholar who he or she appears to favor. Using phrases such as "according to person A, X is correct" is not yet in evidence in the writing style of the article's writer. I will have use my best Spock imitation to reiterate what a reliable source reports. In the past I have been accused of not listening to the points of view of others. I believe such criticisms will continue. This has obviously touched a nerve for the advocates of keeping the article more or less as it is. Hopefully asking "them why can't write in an article stating that Adam and Eve were the first people, but you can say that the Bible says that they were," will result in something productive.

Ch.S.'s involvement and verified contribution will have to be mentioned. Some writers did not want any but the barest mention of Blavatsky and only agreed to mention her after an earlier debate. I agree that if RSs use the word "doctrine", the article must use the word.

I now know how to use double brackets to turn words blue. I don't know how to hook up red links. I am unclear as to hook up blue links. All of Wikipedia mechanics is a steep learning curve for me. Factseducado (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

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

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

Rich's ArbCom case

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

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

Forbes

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

C. l. soupus

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

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

Magneto merger proposal

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

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

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

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/the-dingo-came-to-australia-from-southern-china.htm

Mitochondrial DNA data indicate an introduction through Mainland Southeast Asia for Australian dingoes and Polynesian domestic dogs Mattias C. R. Oskarsson1, Cornelya F. C. Klütsch1, Ukadej Boonyaprakob2, Alan Wilton3, Yuichi Tanabe4 and Peter Savolainen1,* http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/09/06/rspb.2011.1395.full?sid=0b0c1b0d-ccc2-421c-bf94-7fe03c747cef

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

Thankyou

Joanne McKay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.69.0 (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand this article to be saying that the Australian Dingo arrived there not on Polynesian or Austronesian ships or trade with Austro-Asiatics, but rather with the original inhabitants, the native Australians? This they evolved somewhere in southern China over 10,000, more like 18,000 years ago. "The most likely story, say the researchers, is that dingoes and New Guinea singing dogs then dispersed to their destinations via a separate route to the dogs that arrived with Polynesia's first people 3000 years ago. They also made the journey much earlier." and arrived in Australia @4,600 - 18,300 years ago.

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

RE: List of MInor Planets

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

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

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

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

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

Very good to have you back. Please forget about creating articles for objects that don't pass WP:NASTRO. Instead, keep them on charts; List of minor planets, and perhaps collapsable charts on the articles for the asteroids group, such as the article about the main belt.

Also, if there are any, such as those you mention, that don't pass NASTRO but should, you can make articles about them if you first change NASTRO so that it allows such articles to be created.

Next, it'd be great if you got involved in the conversion of NASTRO-failing minor planet articles to the chart redirects. Chrisrus (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read NASTRO and it seems like a fair and well fleshed-out policy, which was a long time in coming for astronomical objects... so I can concede that named minor planets without follow-up studies and/or without more than the basic information that can be found on MPC/JPL databases likely do not warrant a stand-alone article. I will proofread and tidy up the hundreds lists and add the groupings column. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree about NASTRO. We were trying to implement it, but it got side tracked when Rich was banned from using bots. That decision really hurt that project. Very uninformed decision to that that at that moment. I still can't understand why exceptions could not be made for this project. I could go on about that but let's get back to the astrobots.

All MPs are interesting when taken as groups, very few are interesting as individuals. Instead of one big massive LOMP which clumps them all together in alphabetical order, LOMP should be organized into groups. Then the only thing that's known about most of them, which is how they are moving and their approximate size, can be summerized in the form of animated graphics. Numerical orbital data is incoherent to the LOMP user in comparison to an animated gif, which is nothing more than the numerical orbit data made instantly comprehensible.

The rest of the data is interesting only if it's ranked and summarized. It doesn't mater to LOMP users if Joe Blow from Idaho was the guy who found this one. What might be interesting and important is where Mr. Blow ranks in the standings. Who's the all-time champ? Are there certain observatories that dominate the MP finding business? Amature astronomers might like an interactive table to see who's on top and whose catching up. Like the high scores on a Space Invaders booth that used to flash a high scores table when not in use. Graphs, charts, stats. People love the stuff. I gather that certain waves of discovery were done en masse by certain projects, and that these can dwarf the numbers found by individuals in the past who stumble upon them looking for something else.

Ok, so there's the size and orbitdata and discoverer info, and... I guess that's all we know about them. And above you have the state of the conversation when it stalled, and the ways to present these two kinds of information to the LOMP user. No one is going to be using LOMP the way it presently presents this data. We need to present them and their discoverers in their contexts for LOMP to be an interesting and useful thing for the LOMP user.

Actually, why have LOMP? Only to serve as a database for future projects? Why not summarize it all in collapsable charts and graphics and such within the articles about each grouping? It'd be great if the summary charts and graphics and such could be incorporated into the articles about each grouping. That'd be awesome and potentially useful.

So, what else? Oh, while your thinking about all that, please allow me to present this visual aid from YouTube that I was talking about. It might inspire you as to how to do it's creator one better by presenting all the members in one grouping as parts of one coherent notable thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqC1QjlVUYk&feature=relmfu Chrisrus (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Having articles/lists for the separate groups is alright, though I think we should keep the listing by number because it is the most logical ordering (although it's not all that logical, just numerical).

Anyway, the MPC has all the discoverers [2] and the top 50 discovery sites [3] ranked. For the discoverers, the first 5 are automated surveys and number 6 refers to surveys done between 1960 and 1977 using photographic plates. I agree that some charts to summarize the groups would be helpful to the average user. It would be important, though, to standardize the articles for the groups. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 05:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Buff Colour

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

I know. But if you would please note that as per WP:TIES, (a section of WP:ENGVAR which states "...a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." Please look at the rest of the article. Will it really look proper for an article that on balance is basically talking about something American: deeply symbolic of the Continental Army, General Washington, US state flags and universities, and on and on, and just a little bit about British Culture, how will it look to speak of these things using the spelling "colour" of George Washington University or the US Army Heroldry? We can't talk about the "colour" of General Washington's uniform. It looks bad. Please look over the article and read over the sections about this on the talk page where this decision was arrived at in discussion. In this article, we are simply extending WP:TIES to sections. All we care about is that things don't look wrong. There is no problem talking about the "buff-colour'd linings" of the Redcoats and the buff "color" of the Continental Army as long as we do that consistently and smoothly with the flow of the WP:TIES of the referents of the different sections and subsections. Where no WP:TIES exist, we default to the British spelling because of the spelling of the article title's parenthetical. Chrisrus (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Ties says, and I quote: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation". Not section, article. Furthermore, to say that it is "an article that on balance is basically talking about something American", is nonsense: we in the rest of the world also have buff. I think it's an international thing, rather than just a US thing...". - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but that's just a guideline and you know what they say about foolish consistency. The important thing is that the articles look right, and authors of guidelines haven't thought of all possible situations. Please do investigate the particular contexts of this situation. Please read through the whole article. The word "color" is spelled like that in all the American sections. Are you going to change them all to "colour"? Why are you picking on just that subsection? Are you going to make it consistent throughout? Your edit is inconsistent with this article's pattern of spelling it the American way when talking about American things. Please do see that it doesn't look right in an article that otherwise applies WP:TIES to sections. Do spend some time looking at the article, it won't take long for you to give it a good look-over. Do you see? You haven't made it consistent until you change all the "buff in US culture" sections as well. And please do read the corresponding talk page. See how the decision to do it this way came naturally out of the evolution of the article? When you do these things you will see that we should apply WP:TIES to sections in the case of this article.

Second, I think you've misunderstood something I said. I did not mean to imply that the color buff itself was on balance an American thing. I'm saying that the article as written is mostly about American things. There is more in that article as written right now that is specifically about some aspect of American culture than there is about it in any other culture. That of course could change. If you have the means to do so, please do add more information to the article about the buff in other cultures. Maybe some future version of the article will no longer be mostly about American things. At that point, what I said before about the article will no longer be true. I was talking about the state of the article as it stands, not saying that buff is American. As such, if you get your way and apply WP:ENGVAR as that guideline is written, the end result is going to be American English throughout, not UK. I don't want that, no one wants that as far as I know. But on balance the article is more about Buff in American culture than in any other, so a consistant and literal reading of ENGVAR will inevitably result in the article using American spelling throughout, although this would change if you or someone added quite a bit more about buff in UK culture. So your recent edit has not solved the problem that you intended it to solve, namely bringing it in line with ENGVAR

So, I hope now you understand and undo your recent edit or at least not redo your last edit when I undo again as soon as WP:3RR allows. Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made one final alteration. The word "color" now appears only once - in a quote, where it is correct to do so (although you should provide a citation for it being a quote). The remainder of the article retains the spelling of the title "colour", as per WP:ENGVAR. I have looked at the article as a whole for the balance between the references to the UK and US and see the following:

US references

1) The US Army; 2) U.S. Universites, Fraternaties, and Schools; and 3) U.S. State Flags

UK references

1) The British Army; 2) UK Politics; and 3) UK Ships

All looks pretty even to me and even if it wasn't, it still doesn't matter: the title of page flags up which national usage is applied to the page. There are other colour articles where AmEng is the dominant variant and the UK references all refer to "color". No one complains about this: it's just the way it is because of ENGVAR. In relation to changing the title of the page, please see WP:RETAIN.

As to your final point, you have given notification that you intend to edit war over this matter. I would advise against this: warring over language variants, especially in such a clear cut case where the variant is flagged in the title, would be frowned upon and I will not hesitate to take the appropriate action if you decide on that course. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think you'd better look again, because if all you want if for WP:ENGVAR to be applied, I exect you to support it being moved to Buff (color) in this case and spelled that way throughout, because as anyone can see there is quite a bit more in the article as it stands abotu buff in American culture than there is about it in UK culture. Even if you refuse to admit that, I'm sure that any objective person will notice that this is clearly the case. This again is not what I want, but it's what consistent application of WP:ENGVAR would lead to, and as that's all you say you care about I expect you to do that or explain why not if ENGVAR is the only reason for your edits.

I'm interested in these "other articles" you speak of. Please direct me to them.

I would ask that you read what people say more carefully and not throw around major accusations such as "edit warring" so carelessly. I have announced my intention to put everything back the way it was without edit warring by acting only as WP:3rr allows. That by definition is not edit warring. Chrisrus (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've read ENGVAR properly. Can I point you once again to WP:RETAIN: "With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change." A colour has no strong national ties: it is international by its very nature. The article refers to the use of buff as a colour by a number of nations and it is not overwhelmingly US-focussed, so I am not sure upon what grounds you could argue for a change.

Please note that Edit Warring is not based on three reversions. As the policy states "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." In other words if you engage in pointless reversions when you have been warned that you will be in breach of some rather touchyt guidelines, you are edit warring: 3RR is the point at which an administrative procedure kicks in. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I just transfered the above to the talk page of the article Buff (color), and I will respond there because that is where it belongs. I will now do the same with this addition. See you there! Chrisrus (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already added it over there. I didn't see your posting it on the talk page there as I was editing here, so moved it over subsequently. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Chrisrus (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Canid hybrid genetics

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

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

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

Obviously, I failed.

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

My addition:

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

My thought:

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

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

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

OK, how's that? I edited Canid hybrid tonight so that both what Zebroid and it say about hybridization can both be true. Did that do the trick?

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

John Bull

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

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

Bad Dogs

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

Fatalities reported in The United States

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

Conclusions drawn from this table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Schnauser. Close to being a terrier.

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

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

Hounds: 1 dog

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

RE: interesting paper

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Poi dog

Could you take a look at 1:01:01 on this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO4Q_nmtpis? Does that in your opinion fit the description of a poi dog?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Could be. Let's look at this together. Go to the article Poi dog and scroll down to where it has "External Links". There is only one; please click it. Scroll down to the bottom of the page thirty three and see the drawing of four dogs. Look at the one in the lower right forground. That's what I go by. The dog that looks almost exactly like that one that I have found on the internet is this picture: http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e00982269188330115714d621f970c-800wi . It's signed by one "J.R. Quinn" and is housed by National Geographic dot com. That looks the same as the one in the book. It's flat skull was supposedly pretty unique, as was the reason the skull was so flat: the small brain, and the lack of chewing muscles normal over a dogs skull on each side; temple chewing muscles aren't needed to eat mushy poi. It's ears stand up and are very big for a dog so small, not unlike a Corgi, and it had bowed forlegs like some bulldogs do. Also like a bulldog, they are very heavy for a dog so short. Now you have as much info as I do as to what it looked like and will come to the same conclusion about the dog in the video. I go by those two pictures, only. I have never seen a photo of a poi dog, just these two drawings. I'm not convinced such a photo exists on the internet. Or anywhere.

Do you think the dog in the photo in the video at 1:01:01 and the dog in the infobox in the article Poi dog; are you convinced that they are clearly the same dog as the dog in the drawings in the book and the Nat Geo article? Chrisrus (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute Resolution Discussion (from a DRN volunteer)

Hi there!

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

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

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Candidates_for_redirection_new

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

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

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

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

RE:

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

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

Re: Frozen River

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

Yes, I do. But what's most important to me is whether it's the only movie ever set on the NYS/Quebec border. As far as I know it's the only one. Such a category of one would allow others, if they exist, to be added. Then, people doing research on the question of the strange legal situation with the Mohawk reservation that causes the smuggling, which is the topic of Frozen River, if you've seen it; such people would be able to know whether this is the only movie set pver there by seeing that it's a category of one and maybe adding to it if anyone knows about one. I don't know if Wikipedia has categories of one. I don't know why not, there are unique things in this world. Chrisrus (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about other films being in that area, but at this point having both the Quebec and New York categories should suffice. There aren't any film categories that I know of that are named after two settings, which is why the Films set on the New York / Quebec border category is an unorthodox request. I'm adding the New York category right now. QuasyBoy (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My problem is that calling it one more movie in a place in NYS is not sufficient to describe the setting category. There are a kazillion movies set in NYS, mostly because of NYC, which in some ways is another world entirely compared to the setting of the Quebec border. Chrisrus (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that, you must be suggesting a New York category like say Category:Films set in Hogansburg, New York, but that's still a small region for a film setting category for just one film. QuasyBoy (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. "Films set in the North Country (New York)" or "Films set on Indian lands"? Chrisrus (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Films set in New York" category covers the films set outside the NYC area, like upstate (where Frozen River takes place) and Long Island. Also, wouldn't a "Films set on Indian lands" category would be redundant to the "Films about Native Americans" category? QuasyBoy (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Films set in NY" is for all NYS, and the vast majority of them take place in NYC. It's might as well be on another planet as a film set on the Canadian border. It's accurate, of course, but Frozen River is lost in there among the NYC films and those set in towns like It's a Wonderful Life, really not the same thing at all. That border with its strange neither-here-nor-there status of the Mohawk reservation in NYS and Canada at the same time and also in neither country, where by NYS constitution it's treated like a foreign country and they have their own passports and maintain soveregity... have you seen the movie? It's a movie a about a strange place. The NYS troopers can't go their lands unless invited. It's a strange situation. You couldn't come up with a situaiton more condusive to smuggling if you tried. I don't know another place like it. It's not really a film about Indians, anyone in that same situaiton will be highly tempted to smuggle no matter their race or culture. If you've seen it, would you describe it as a "film about Indians"? The setting of this film is an outlier among all film settings I know of. Anyway, category "Films set in NYS" should have sub-categories. Chrisrus (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually have not seen the film. Also, to back even further the main reason why I removed the Films set on the New York / Quebec border category, is because its not a created category. No other film besides Frozen River was listed in it. Like I previously mentioned the "Films set in New York" category is mainly for films set outside the NYC area. If there are any strictly NYC films listed in it, they should not be there. Category:Films set in New York City is for films set in NYC. The "Films set in New York" category as of right now has 140 films listed, that's a good amount and does not to be any further sub-categorized at all just for one film. QuasyBoy (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Referents of the term "Pariah dog"

Primary

The Indian pariah dog

The Pariah Niche

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

Derived Term

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

The Pariah Dog Morph

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

Sunda Clouded Leopard Picture

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

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

RE: dangers

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

It is even more ironic that, while wolf biologists stoutly denied dangers from wolves and failed to develop any understanding of the conditions under which wolves were harmless or dangerous, their counterparts studying urban coyotes did just that. They described a progression of behaviors, which predicts when coyotes would attack children... One is thus left wondering how it is possible for students of coyotes in urban areas to develop a predictive warning system that foretells the coming of attacks by coyotes on children, while a large number cooperating scientists fail to do so when studying the much richer European and Asian material of wolf attacks on humans... A similar, predictable progression as above has been, independently, described for urban coyotes in California involved in attacks on children. It is a pattern in which coyotes shed shyness, become increasingly bolder and killers of pets, till they finally target and attack children in urban areas. Wolves follow the same basic pattern as coyotes, signaling their intent of attacking humans a long time before it happens. That is, wolves and coyotes go through repeated and predictable pre-attack behavior. It is very similar as both species have the same way exploring, of making the unfamiliar, familiar. North America expertise in attacks of wolves on people is not merely slim, but experts are in a state of denial. They have created the lore of the harmless wolf that hurts no people, and consider that the Little Red Riding Hood tale is based on myth and superstition. Are attacks on children by urban coyotes mere myth and superstition? http://www.vargfakta.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Geist-when-do-wolves-become-dangerous-to-humans-pt-1.pdf

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

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

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

Tenedos

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

No, I'm not. Which maps did you check? Chrisrus (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but the close of an RfC is based on the material brought to the table by the participants, not on a closer's own research. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that none of the participants brought the maps to the table? Chrisrus (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that your remark is utter nonsense. I think it is pretty clear what I said; it's up to you to read it properly. But in case this isn't clear to you: what I'm saying is that the close of an RfC is based on the material brought to the table by the participants, not on a closer's own research. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Why, when you closed, did you speak of "the lack of an official name and status"? Also, are you saying that no participants brought the maps to the table? Chrisrus (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I imagined it when I posted a link to the CIA map. Maybe the proposer imagined it when they linked to a spreadsheet citing the nomenclature in the Times, Oxford and National Geographic atlases and provided a direct link to Google Maps in their opening argument. Or maybe Drmies isn't the one who should be going around calling on others to read things "properly" and accusing them of not being "smart"? The idea that a closer has no responsibility to even investigate the matter themselves for two seconds is also ridiculous. N-HH talk/edits 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

• No, it isn't, and as for "wrong claims"--I have yet to meet someone who can read properly, or write a well-reasoned response. "Check the maps". "The others have nationalist motives". "My arguments are better". Drmies (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask you, but, the closing admin claims "the lack of an official name" which is undeniably wrong. If an admin fails to even get such a fundamental part of this issue right, his judgment can not be relied upon. It deserves action to be taken. What I'm asking Chrisrus, and not you, of his opinion. Please do not flame this. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just realized that you are the closing admin. If you even coldn't get the fact that the official name of the island is Bozcaada how could you be in a position to close this move request? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry DLSeth, I think you were directing a question to me, ("The closing admin...the right approach?") above. My reply is I donno, maybe not. We'll see. Thus far, I don't regret it. He doesn't seem to claim to have made an informed decision or to have felt any obligation to have checked the facts, and it seemed proper at the time and still seems to. Why do you ask? Chrisrus (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked to see if you had a policy backing up your action and because you're more experienced with Wikipedia than I am. There was a rule on the lines with being able to simply revert any obviously wrong action by an admin but I don't remember it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're in a position currently to start throwing out insults about people not reading things properly or not having well-reasoned arguments. N-HH talk/edits 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

When you closed, you spoke of "the lack of an official name and status". Do you still believe that there such a lack exists? Also, you don't seem to claim that you actually checked any maps or other evidence before closing. Instead, you argue that it was proper for you to close without checking the evidence presented. Is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please revert your edits on the Tenedos RM Reverting the close of an admin that was made in good faith for the reasons you cite are unacceptable. If you are unsatisfied with the close, then the process to follow is spelled out in Wikipedia:Move Review.

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

You say that "reverting the close of an admin that was made in good faith for the reasons I cite (is) unacceptable". Please explain what "acceptable" means in this context, with reference to policy or guideline or whatever. Please understand that he said he based his decisions on a head count and the untrue "fact" (don't take that from me, check it yourself) of "the lack of an official name and status". When asked about it, he has since claimed that adminstrators don't need to check the presented facts. Clearly, his decision was misinformed.

It doesn't seem appropriate to start a move review because there's no move to review. Nothing has been moved, so thank you for your recommendation but it doesn't seem appropriate without there having been a move, does it?

I don't want to start a big issue about whether he closed it improperly. That might be seen as me coming after him and his position as an admin, and I'm not interested in "bringing him up on charges" or whatever. I've already got his back up with just this little I've done. I don't want to persue him any further, I just want to undo the improper close and get back to the matter at hand.

Please feel free to close again once you have been properly informed. However, if you are feeling strong emotions about this at the moment, you might want to consider whether you can objectively review the evidence at this point. Chrisrus (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The proper method to contest an RM closure that you believe is improper (as you say it was above) is to intiate a Move Review. Merely reverting an admin decision because you don't like it, for whatever reason just isn't good form. Are you going to revert the next admin that makes the same closure decision? Again, I strongly suggest you revert your changes, allow the RM to be closed and intiate a Move Review with your concerns if you think the RM closure was improperly carried out. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not about not liking the decision. He made pretty explicitly clear. If the closing admin said that every single vote was in opposition of the move when there were more support votes than oppose moves would it still not be ok to revert the close? Wasn't there a Wiki policy where it tells you to ignore an admin decision if it's clearly incorrect? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You might also take into account that Chrisrus initially argued against the move request but later changed his opinion due to provided evidence. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the very reason WP:MRV was created, to give editors the opportunity to contest a close if they felt the close was improper. WP:MRV allows other editors, especially those familar with title and requested move procedures, to make a determination as to whether the move was improper or not. and adjust the article title if neccesary. Since the RM close has now been restored, I suggest those editors that believe the close was improperly handled initiate a move review and leave the RM close alone to allow the Move Review to rationally analyze the close. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The MRV is created. That would be my initial action as well. Though I swear there was a Wiki policy that told us to ignore admins in clear cases. Now that I pointed out to you that earlier my mind is going crazy for not remembering it... TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Chrisrus, indulge me one more time. You disagree; that's fine. But, as Mike Cline (who was on your side, so to speak) indicates, there's a process--a simple revert is not the way to go. In all this hullabaloo (and yes, you got my back up some) and a bunch of edit conflicts, not to mention real life interfering, I didn't say anything more about this "official name and status" business. First, you have to understand (whether you like it or not) that I have to go on the evidence presented in the RfC/move request. I don't have to go check maps--but indeed maps were brought up, and they would show up in some of the searches, and they were part of that spreadsheet you or N-HH pointed at. But, as was pointed out, they don't all agree, and even if they did it's not a given that maps should weigh more heavily than books (though I will tell you that I don't disagree that they should weigh, heavily). The "official" name was brought up in a few places, in relation to the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne: "the official name of the island according to international peacy treaties is Tenedos, still under a de-jure semi-autonomous status", according to one of the editors, and no one disputes that fact though its meaning was disputed. Mind you, Athenean's comment right after, on the value for Wikipedia of "official name" is valid. What any other "official" name would be, or how that is established, or what its value is for Wikipedia, that's another matter which, I believe, was not clearly and completely teased out in the discussion. In other words, we have something official whose value is not totally clear but it does not support a move; mutatis mutandis, we have some statements on the Turkish prerogative, if you will, but there again the counterargument is that we're on the English Wikipedia and if a name is more accepted in English then that should be its name.

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

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

First, thank you all for your kind attention to this matter.

Second, thanks to Mike Cline for providing Wikipedia:Move review. I had not seen it before. I must read it and decide what to do next based on it and anything else tha might also be germane that you provide or I can find, (including Drmies' reply above, which just came in while I was writing this), and obey established procedure. At this point I am not convinced that my revert of a demonstrably uninformed closure was unproper, but it may have been. If I am in fact obliged to revert to the closer and to iniciate a "move review" (even though there is no move to review), then that is what I have to do.

In the meantime, Drmies, Mike, please read this: Talk:Tenedos#Has_anyone_suggested_nameing_it_.22Tenedos_or_Bozcaada.22_or_.22Bozcaada_or_Tenedos_.22.3F. It's my hope that it will help you understand certain things, including me.

Right now, I am going to go to bed. In the morning, I have to mow the lawn and such, but then I will review WP:MR and anything else anyone says or provides about what I should do, and then either revert myself or whatever it seems clear that I am demonstrably obliged to do. Good night. Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Chrisrus - You need do nothing relative to the RM close because another editor reverted your change and the RM is now closed as DRMIES originally closed it. Leave the RM alone. When ready, carefully read the instructions at Wikipedia:Move review and decide whether or not you wish to contest DRMIES close. Nominating a close for Move Review is relatively simple, but the most important aspect is that you are clear and concise as to why you think the RM closure was improper. Other editors then will evaluate your rationale and the discussion in the RM to determine if the close was proper or not. This is not an adversarial process, but a process designed to ensure community satisfaction with contested RM closure decisions. --Mike Cline (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd back any bid to have this issue reviewed. The arguments in favour of a move were overwhelming - as overwhelming as Ceylon to Sri Lanka. Beyond that, the close was manifestly flawed - it was made by an editor who had not apparently even assessed the evidence as presented, even in the opening nomination, but who had, it would now appear, already entered the debate, albeit off the main island talk page, on the side he eventually found in favour of (and done so by referencing 19th century news reports). N-HH talk/edits 08:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Well, haven't two of us already tried to discuss this with Drmies? I recall being told that my (and your) comments "weren't very smart" and that the thread was swiftly boxed off. It seems that we've done that stage and can move direct to a move review - or rather a review of the move-discussion close. That could end with the discussion reopened for further debate, or even the right decision finally being made without yet more waffle and bureacracy (or, of course, the close and no-move confirmed). I think we have a pretty clear case - not only was the close, objectively the wrong decision based on WP naming rules, but the closing admin: a) had already set out his preference on the issue before coming to close (see his talk page and WP:RMCI re conflicts of interest, even if only appearance thereof); b) clearly did not even read half the main discussion, including the proposer's rationale and evidence (as noted by three of us); and c) rebuffed any attempt to explain the problems to him subsequently (again, see his talk page). The reversion of the closing edit maybe doesn't look good the other way, but there are several of us scratching our heads on this one and doing nothing more than questioning the decision. N-HH talk/edits 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a move review is due. The closing admin have expressed clear bias and a lack of interest in an impartial decision. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it. Should appear shortly once I get through the technical stuff and work out how much or how little detail to give/repeat .. N-HH talk/edits 17:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm at a loss for words about this claim by drmies: "But, as was pointed out, [Maps] don't all agree, and even if they did it's not a given that maps should weigh more heavily than books (though I will tell you that I don't disagree that they should weigh, heavily)." This wasn't ever substantiated in the discussion. The opposite was substantiated. Since I'm at a loss for words, I took pictures. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Where you showed us your atlases, and falsely claimed that I called you a liar. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't own any atlases. The library does. I feel for you man, the Bozcaada debate was confusing and there was a lot of stuff said that seemed reasonable from everyone. But, you said: "That someone prepares a spreadsheet doesn't make them right" implying that I either lied or misled about the evidence. I just think there were some ways the close could have been helpful for me, an editor that actually is working on improving the page (check the history). But it has to be on the terms of the evidence presented. Here they are: 1. Every reputable research source (Atlases, dictionaries, Encyclopedias) about the current island uses Bozcaada. This has never been contested aside from vague claims of it being cherry picked with no counter examples. 2. Tenedos is used a lot in Google Books (although ones about the current island are few and far between). What should be the name of this pile of rocks in the Aegean? No one has answered for me how we resolve this debate, and the close didn't either. I got no animus against you or even the decision, but I did nothing deceptive and was accused continually of it by a lot of users. Just really, look at the evidence again. You don't have to dig in on this issue, and if you really think a treaty from 1923 that refers to Persia means there is no official name and that books about some wizard named Tenedos trumps the Encyclopedia Britannica, cool. Say so. But there is enough distortion of the evidential record by others, we don't need anymore of it. I'll respect the hell out of your decision, but it needs to be based on the evidence presented, which is all edited resources (including every atlas about the current island) versus raw Google Book hits. You disagree with me about how that should tip, awesome. But we aren't helped by more confusion about what the evidence shows. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• There is no English language variety in which "That someone prepares a spreadsheet doesn't make them right" implies "that [you] either lied or misled about the evidence". Drmies (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't need to or want to go back and forth on this issue (I took it as an accusation that the spreadsheet was not felicitous and accurate, certainly seems to be suggesting that my evidence wasn't up to snuff and since I put it together either I'm...whatever). If you don't want it to be an accusation, awesome, I'll take your word on it. Changed the presentation to remove those references. Hope you'll accept my apology for thinking it was an attack. I don't want to lengthen this other person's talk page, so any future dialogue can happen on mine. Sorry Chrisrus. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Abstract, the spreadsheet seems to have been brought up as evidence (not by you) that your side was right--as if a spreadsheet made it right. That's not the case. I will tell you, though, that such an overview of evidence and positions is exactly the kind of thing that will help sway a discussion. If you hadn't done that it would have been very difficult for the discussion to get going in the first place; you can see how different this one was from the July one. I think, but I'm sort of commenting as an outsider, that the SPA and the IPs helped derail this and raised the temperature. If that evidence about the shift toward the Turkish name is correct you will win in the long run, but careful presentations of specific evidence, such as yours, are always helpful. Thanks for your consideration, Drmies (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Tenedos/Bozcaada

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

Turkish tea for you (Wikivideo)

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

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

Jerk and point

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

Sorry, I hope I clarified it by adding "JW, ..." at the beginning. Chrisrus (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree he was a jerk, and don't see how he was pointy. Seemed the opposite of pointy to me, broadly interpreting WP rules. But I was just wondering, and appreciate your reply. I saw the JW, but didn't know if you were talking to the person or about the issue. I really don't get your comment, then, but that's OK. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, what I saw was the edit summary: Seriously? WP:POINT editing by JW? and didn't know if you were saying that to him or sarcastically to the editors who were ragging on him. I've just looked now and seen your new "JW, you". Wow. We all see things differently, huh? Yopienso (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Mixed breed dog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Wolf or coyote attack??

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

The wolf attack article (which, incidentally, I'm re-writing in my sandbox) only includes fatal attacks. Besides, as I mentioned before, I think its a coydog, not a coywolf. It doesn't look anything like a red wolf or eastern coyote. Speaking of coyotes, you might want to click on my profile page. Mariomassone (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, Wolf attack is restricted to fatal attacks. However, should it? Aren't they all interesting? For example, would not the reader be served by learning of attacks such as [this | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHu6g4TuF70]? Without weight given to such incidents, the reader might be left with false impressions, such as maybe that such attacks are less risky for the wolf than they really are.

I will reply about the planned overhaul of Coyote on your talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That might be feasible for the coyote article, but not the wolf one. Records for coyote attacks go back only 30 years, whereas wolf ones go back for over a 1000 years, and the fatal attacks are numerous enough without including the non-fatal ones. I would however concede to a separate article covering solely attacks in North America, where even non-fatal attacks make headlines. On another note, I've requested a coyote subspecies map here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Map_for_coyote_subspecies_range to be based on an authoritative source. The range of "eastern coyotes" is listed as C. l. var..Mariomassone (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Levy is quite clearly wrong. As you've mentioned, there are coyote bones in La Brea, and they belong to the extinct subspecies orcutti (of which there is a photo in the current article). Would it be too much trouble to ask you to settle things with the La Brea staff and request an additional map? I think you deserve an active role in this. I'm currently reading through material I've accumulated over the years, including The Clever Coyote (the coyote equivalent of the 1970 Mech book on wolves), and will get a copy of the Bekoff book soon.Mariomassone (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

To produce a map showing both subspecies ranges and the species' historic expansion would be incredibly messy. It would be better to have two separate maps. After all, we don't really know exactly what subspecies have or are expanding their ranges. I'll leave the requesting of the second, expansion map to you. I've just acquired the Young and Jackson (1978) book, and am in the process of incorporating its info into the article.
I do not have the Eastern coyote book you mentioned (yet). I'll get round to finding it when I've incorporated all I can from the Y&J and Bekoff books.Mariomassone (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Ring of Fire (disambiguation)

Please can you explain what you mean by "we have a primary referent, and it's this song." - thanks (please reply here) 92.41.223.195 (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC Chrisrus (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You've misread/misunderstood Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. "If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page". If the song was the primary topic, then the article for the song would be Ring of Fire, not Ring of Fire (song), and the disambiguation page would be at Ring of Fire (disambiguation). See also this edit/summary. 92.41.223.195 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ring of Fire (song) is highly likely — much more likely than any other referent — to be the topic sought when a reader searches for the term. With respect to long-term significance, it has substantially greater enduring notability than any other referent of that term. Chrisrus (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ring of Fire (song) is not the primary topic. Please establish a consensus before changing the order. Thanks. 188.30.24.82 (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Presumably if we need to first establish a consensus before changing the order, we should go back to the (IMO much more logical) ordering prior to your own edits. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

If I were actually in Midleton, that might be a somewhat unsettling salutation -- which I'm guessing is the intended effect. As I'm not, and nor is it the IP's 'whois' registration, it's more in the "puzzling" category. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case, you might be better off arguing for a change in policy concerning anon IP. (Or indeed mere practice -- this entire ISP has been rangeblocked for what amounts to a matter of years in total, in the past.) You didn't address my point about "spookily inaccurate geolocating" in anon-greetings. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not correct to say there are no benefits to "anonymous" editing: I have my reasons, and Wikipedia, as I pointed out before, appears to have its own for allowing it. "Anonymity" isn't one of them, but you exaggerate (or overestimate) both the lack of "anonymity" of IP editing (vis, again, your mistaken conclusion that I'm in Midleton), and the difference from logged-in editing (there always could be checkusers on fishing expeditions). And to try one more time to illuminate the original puzzle: can you clarify what you mean by "putting your IP address into any browser"? I don't really follow what result that's intended to achieve, nor how it maps in this case, to that location. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the contents of WP:LOGIN, but I just looked again at it now, out of deference to your request (or repeated instruction, perhaps), on the basis that it might possibly have markedly changed in the meantime. It doesn't address either of the two main areas I just put to you; perhaps you would return the favour, and do so yourself at some point? 84.203.36.42 (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Here's what especially puzzles, however. I don't understand why you continue to say things like "editing as a physical place on the globe available to anyone who can Google", while avoiding my now-repeated attempts to clarify such statements. Typing my IP address into Google doesn't map my IP address to that place in any way that I'm aware of. And (losing track of how many times I've said this now) I'm not in Midleton. I'm not sure which geolocating website you're using, but you may wish to reevaluate your assessment of its accuracy. And if this is your go-to response in "welcoming" anon editors, how your present such guesswork to them, too. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I fully realize you're not planning on stalking me, or otherwise taking any actual interest in my location, and that this is just a semi-standard greeting/warning gambit. But "advising" people that they're disclosing some degree of locational information does rather carry connotations of menacing them with it. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

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

I appreciate that you're unlikely to weight the input of "anons" very highly on this topic (or perhaps on any topic), given the foregoing, but perhaps it might be useful to seek third-party input at the likes of WP:WELCOME. 84.203.36.42 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I also found Wikipedia talk:Welcome unregistered editing#Advantages of anonymous editing to be quite insightful. (I assume it'd be redundant to mention WP:BITE.) 84.203.36.42 (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Tenedos

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

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

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

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

Did you know?

Sockpuppet investigations

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet

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

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

RE: Article request

Hi there. I think the coyote attacks article is referring to Reds Meadow Campground, [4]. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 18:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up

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

How about if it was moved to a subpage of the talk page? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So long as we keep my name off it, fine. Chrisrus (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Tree

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

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

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

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

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

Eastern "coyote"

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

Wolf attack

[Saw your inquiry at E2024's talk page]. The Hurriyet article you linked to [5] speaks of a case where a single wolf entered a rural neighborhood and attacked several people, killing one 80-year-old shepherd and injuring four others, before being shot dead by villagers. Authorities were investigating whether the animal might have been affected with rabies. Is there anything else in particular that you need translated? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that's great thanks. I see you've already updated the wolf attack article. I was trying to get the facts straight from a Google Translate about how the others escaped and such but it's not as good as having a native speaker.

If you want to and there are any more good details available, feel free to flesh it out further. The most important thing we want to know is if it turns out to have been rabid or not. If it was just suddenly going around attacking everyone, that's strange and rabies-like, but if it had just killed the man and was eating him and attacking the other people to drive them away from the body, that's what you'd expect in the case of a predatory attack. The problem is, these reports usually end, even five years later, with the statement that the body was sent for rabies testing and they were awaiting results. They rarely get updated, so it leaves us hanging. Also if people were able to save themselves, such as tree climbing, or specific types of fighting back or running it off techniques, it's nice to record how so researchers into how to react to a wolf attack benefit from that info. It helps to know if the wolf appeared sick or starving, how big it was, and just about any detail; the victim's name; would improve the article.

Thanks again

From what I gather, the attack type would be more of the rabies-like "going around randomly attacking different people in different places" type. The victims were either shepherds tending their animals or people working in their fields. The killing of the first victim (Mevlüt Özcanlı, the 80-year-old shepherd) is described as "parçalayarak", literally "tearing to pieces", so it seems to imply it was very violent. It might also be of interest that the second victim, Fikriye Pişkin (I gather that's probably a woman's name, but that's not grammatically certain from the Turkish), was described as "severely injured" and that she required plastic surgery afterwards. Victims three and four are described as having arm injuries, apparently relatively light. They are apparently the two guys interviewed in the beginning of the Hurriyet TV piece; the second of them appears to be the tree climber. Unfortuntaly my Turkish is not good enough to get much more out of listening to that one. The article also says that after the tree-climbing incident, the wolf also attacked and injured one of the guy's animals, probably a sheep or goat. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've added a section on non-fatal wolf attacks in North America. Feel free to fill it out (using the format of the fatal ones, of course...) Mariomassone (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Nomination of Urban coyote for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Urban coyote is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban coyote until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Beach Comber

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

Being basically empty makes me think it might get speedy deleted. I'm sorry if I'm wrong about that. Please keep up the good work. Chrisrus (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It has a claim of notability, verifiable source(s), categories, a stub template and an external link. Basically it's the one-line stub you want to avoid because it'll get no more interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Very good. I hope you will continue; it does seem very easy for you. I'll try to find out more and add more about Beach Comber (pigeon) and welcome further edits there on your part as well. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's easy for you too, just look at the stubs I've created and create new ones but just change the names and references. As I said though, this is going to create the one-line stubs you fear won't receive any attention. Also, suggest you archive your talk page, it's unmanageably large. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I will, eventually. Or maybe someone else might. But this is not an argument against redlinks until that day. Chrisrus (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hog-baiting

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

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

DYK for Equine recipients of the Dickin Medal

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

Talk:(5796) 1978 VK5

I removed your speedy deletion tag from Talk:(5796) 1978 VK5 because lack of notability is not a reason for speedy deletion. If you want to delete the article, go to WP:AFD —teb728 t c 08:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's "its"

I believe you may benefit from reading this site: http://www.its-not-its.info/ —Frungi (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. I still make that mistake from time to time despite this knowledge, how. It's the apostrophe. I think it's its association in my subconscious mind with possession. I appreciate the thought, however. Chrisrus (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

If the reminder helps, "his" and "hers" are possessive and lack an apostrophe. —Frungi (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but thanks for trying to be helpful. Chrisrus (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The real problem with maps as reference

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

You offer me more advice. That's nice. I will return the favor. Work on your Mr. Spock impression. Never oppose an edit based on who made it, or why. Judge each edit or argument on its merits, only. Never oppose something because your back is up or your nose is out of joint, or out of spite, or to make a point to someone, or to get back at someone, because those are the moments otherwise good Wikipedians make really bad edits. Worry about article/guideline improvement, that is all. In the end, what matters is that the article or guideline or system is better than it was. Please do not reply. Get back to the matter at hand. Chrisrus (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem is I don't think that's what you're drawing people's attention to. You're drawing their attention to your objectionable conduct. Fix that. Limit the obstacles to having people agree with you. —Frungi (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Now, if you would, go respond substantively to the points made there. If you can not, concede the points. Focus on the goal if you can. Chrisrus (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did. I pointed out that the list (whose order you changed, then objected to being reverted) is explicitly "not listed in any particular order", so the objection doesn't really make sense to me. —Frungi (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

In that case, if it doesn't make any difference, you won't mind when I put it back up again. Chrisrus (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you’re not being serious. You need to stop editing against consensus. If you think something is right when everyone else is telling you it’s wrong, it’s wrong, no matter how much you write about it. You need to stop ignoring consensus and stop this WP:IDONTHEARTHAT behavior before someone decides that you’re being disruptive to Wikipedia. —Frungi (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Talkback 9

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

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

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

Confusing words

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/:(5796) 1978 VK5

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

Archiving

{{utverylong}} Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather not close these threads. Chrisrus (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Even ones which have seen no activity for a year or two? I think those can safely be considered closed. And he’s right—over half a megabyte is a whole lot of textual data. Please see WP:SIZE#Technical issues and be considerate. —Frungi (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

WP, it's not a rule and nobody an make you do it, but it is considered courteous as not everyone has a super fast internet connection and it could take them several minutes to load page of this length. I just noticed someone brought this up with you almost exactly two years ago and that thread is still here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Three years, actually. Chrisrusssssss, my dear old friend. How are you? I'll make you a deal: If you archive, I promise to stop the next friendly dog I see and give him a good tickle and scratch for 3 minutes. Dogs don't get nearly enough love here, and you can, by remote control, make a dog's day! Deal? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll even do it for you, just like mine -- manually, so no bot takes control. How about from "251 Hog-baiting" and up into the archives, leaving 252 to this last one here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that the reason? The page takes too long to load? It loads in a split second for me. How long does it take to load on your machine?

I really like most of these threads. Some of the oldest ones are the most interesting. Try amusing yourself by looking over some of them. It's like my collection. Some aren't even conversations, they are just interesting little things I was working on, or little points I make repeatedly so I can just leave a link to them, that I save so I can refer to them directly, not to just an archive number. I even like the ones in which someone is being rude.

Ideally, I'd like to organize them all by topic and type, but there always seems to be something else I'd rather be doing. I might index it by topic.

I don't see why people care whether I archive or not. Really, that's it; it takes them too long to load? What are we talking here, in seconds? 6? If it's just a few seconds, maybe people need to take things slower in life. Maybe look away from the computer for five seconds, it's bad for the eyes to stare the same distance for too long. Look out the window for a few seconds and allow the thing to load. Does it take more than ten seconds?

I really don't understand why people would care whether I archive or not. I don't care if anyone else archives or not. I don't get it. Is that really all there is to it, it takes to long to load? Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You are very lucky. Your connection is good. People on mobile devices, those in certain countries, those who live a cabin in the woods, all would appreciate being able to load your page in less than a minute. In my case, I sometimes cannot load it at all. :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, loading time is a major factor, but not the only one, and it’s not as trivial as you think; again, see WP:SIZE#Technical issues. Loading web pages that exceed a few hundred kilobytes—let alone a full megabyte, as this one is—can be very problematic. And try loading it on a 3G or dialup connection (yes, those are still around). Archiving the old discussions won’t hinder you from linking to them; in fact, you could even archive individual discussions to subpages like User talk:Chrisrus/Shiba Inu (I don’t think there are any guidelines against this). But until you get around to sorting and labeling the old content in the manner that works best for you, it would be a great kindness to get it out of everyone else’s way. Plus, Anna pledged to scratch a dog on your behalf. —Frungi (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I hereby delete some of the less interesting ones. Tomorrow, I'll try collapsing some of the bigger ones, that should speed up the load time. I have to admit I'm a little skeptical still, though, that that is really the/a problem. I mean, what happens when these cabin-dwellers click on Huff Post or Yahoo or some such? My talk page is just a bunch of text and a few small pictures. My page crashes browsers? It's tiny compared to people's facebook pages and so on. Every once in a while a page won't load for me, but if I re-load it usually works, and later the page loads fine, so go figure who knows why your browser crashed. Such things just happen and you might have been mistaken as to why your page crashed that time.

I can see why others might think that it's pointless to keep some of these threads open for future use, but almost all of them have good reasons.

I'll have another look at it sometime soon and maybe delete some more or collapse some threads. Chrisrus (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing only hides content; it does not remove it, which means that it’s still a part of the page that has to be downloaded. It would help scroll times, but do no good for load times. Facebook handles things differently: it dynamically loads content as you scroll. You’ll notice that if you wait for everything to load and then press the End key, more content loads in. MediaWiki does not work this way.
The main page of the Huffington Post, as of this writing, is about 326,000 bytes (326 KB). This Talk page still wins at 920,000 bytes (920 KB) before this reply, about three times as big as Huff—even after you deleted 5% of it. (And just so there’s no confusion, I’m using the sizes of the downloaded HTML documents here, which is what must be loaded in order to view the page—not the size of the raw wikitext that the wiki software reports in revision histories.) —Frungi (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

If I could chime in here: I feel the same way you do, Chrisrus, about wanting some of my older threads to remain visible, for my own reference or the enjoyment of others. So I manually archive, once every six months. By the end of the six months my page is over 100,000 bytes, which is long - but it's not as bad as yours which is 500,000 bytes. By doing it manually I can keep visible the things I may want to refer to - and all of the older things are there in the archive if I want them. (I also delete routine things like bot notices and talkbacks as soon as I have dealt with them.) It's your talk page and you can do with it what you want, but you might want to listen to what people are saying about consideration for others. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

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

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

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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

Advice regarding WP:PLACE

Hello! You are one of the contributors who edited the text of this policy, so I'd like to ask your opinion about the way of application of WP:PLACE guideline. More exactly, I tried to apply the general guideline no.2 for at least 3 alternative names, but some editors (all of them being Hungarians who support the keeping in the first phrase of the alternative Hungarian name) are claiming that this is not "a widely accepted approach". Please submit a comment at Talk:Alba Iulia to help us to settle the dispute. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.183.29 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

All Alone (pigeon)

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

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Discussion of interest

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

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

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

ANI Notice

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

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

Coyote attacks on humans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Austin, Illinois

Fatal dog attacks in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to White County

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

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

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

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

Please don't move my talk page comments

Chris: Please refrain from this. No need to respond. Thank you in advance for complying with this request!!

76.250.61.95 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for your future compliance with this minor request!

I'd also like to thank you once again for halting your previous practice of deleting my comments on an article's talk page. I gather from ensuing notice board discussion, that this oversight on your part had been merely due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's generally accepted practices.

76.250.61.95 (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Sock Puppetry Message

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

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

If it's violation of policy or otherwise wrong to point out gross mistakes, then this site needs some serious re-evaluation of its principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.99.177 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14

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

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

A cookie for you!

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

Indian pariah dog: Revision history

Hello Chris

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

This one....

• 

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

Edit 2/10

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

Thanks, KierraA.

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

Criticisms of Mother Teresa

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

Sorry for being so feeble. Have fixed it now. Ridiculus mus (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No Problem! 67.246.33.203 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Coydog

Hello Chrisrus,

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

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

That's fine, but . 67.246.33.203 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to Chrisrus re: fertility of Canis hybrids

Hello Chrisrus,

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gaddy1975#Coydogs

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

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

Response to spotted hyena edit

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

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

I need help with an image

Hi there,

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

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

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 2

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

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

Diagram/Map of Wolf Evolution

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

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

List of individual dogs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Swahili and Savior

Coyote attacks on humans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gibson Township, PA

Mastiff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dogo

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

Wolf etymology

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

Dane gun

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

Niemti's edits on the Wolf Attacks article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolf_attacks_on_humans#Niemti.27s_edits Mariomassone (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Seriously, please archive

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

Seriously, please describe specifically what "terrible trouble" means in this context. Do you mean a time delay? How long do you have to wait? Chrisrus (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It means the attempt times out most of the time and I cannot load it at all. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you using a laptop? Chrisrus (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What kind of computer I have makes no difference. It's my connection. And the problem is saving posts to your page too. I often have to try several times, and a while ago, I couldn't post here at all. Others have connection issues too that make accessing your talk page impossible. Your refusal to archive is actually very unfair and now into the territory of being disruptive.

Please tell me straight so I don't waste my time: do you have any intention of archiving? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Chrisrus (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please be convinced of one thing: You are, in fact, preventing others from viewing your talk page and communicating with you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. Chrisrus (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Diane Whipple

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

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

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

Summary Tables planned reversion warning

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

You are mistaken. Please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. The removal of the summary tables violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so, according to WP:CON and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, I am justified in restoring the summary tables because I have shown that grounds on which they were removed, WP:SYN, does not apply, because WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR, because other reasons given in support of summary table removal were irrelevant, and because, since these things were pointed out, no one has responded substantively after a more than reasonable amount of time. So, according to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, if you don't discuss, I can revert. If you would like more time to prepare a substantive rebuttal to the substance of the argument in favor of summary table removal taking into account the substance of the argument in favor of it restoration, let me know how much time to do that you will need. But the ball is in your court now; WP:Stonewalling will not work. So please go back to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#.22Summary_Tables.22_for_Fatal_Dog_Attacks_article and deal substantively with the substance of the argument in favor of summary table restoration or I will have no choice but to restore the summary tables. Have a great day and, as always, Happy Editing! Chrisrus (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not replied to your comments because you have been making the same comments over and over again, and several editors have already very clearly explained why they are original research. You have not added anything new to the discussion. When assessing whether there was a consensus for removal, I didn't just count votes or something (you'll note that no one voted). I took into account that you and at least 5 other editors looked at this issue (after you had made your arguments), most of whom were brought to the article as neutral parties to the dispute, and none of them agreed with your position. At the very least that would be a pretty strong indication that there is no consensus for adding the material. When you reverted the material multiple times, three completely different editors not only disagreed with you, but specifically suggested that consensus had been achieved in favor of removal. I think there is ample evidence that the consensus view is that this is original research.

At this point, I think most people have seen your arguments about summary and found them lacking, and several of us have addressed them. If you think that the editors who have weighed in are an unrepresentative sample somehow, I'd say an RFC is the next step there. Honestly I think WP:NORB is a pretty neutral noticeboard, so I doubt you'll have much luck with an RfC, but obviously you wouldn't be so insistent if you didn't believe that you'd be able to build a consensus on this matter, so clearly we disagree on this. Frankly, though, I'm not 100% sure the list part of the article (Section 2) is even going to survive scrutiny anyway - if it's not OR, it's definitely on the borderline.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 03:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in order to stop me restoring the summary tables, someone is going to have to go back there and respond effectively to why summarizing a discretely sourced list is always OR, not just in this case, given WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR and countless examples of summarized lists all over Wikipedia that no one objects to but somehow with this one controversial topic its suddenly a problem. It simply is not true that there is or should be any rule that no such lists may be summarized, in table form or elsehow, and I have demonstrated this there. You clearly have arrived at the your conclusion that consensus has been reached not by strictly evaluating arguments and their consistency with Wikipedia's rules, guidelines, and long-standing widespread uncontrovertial practice but by headcount (and an incorrect one at that, the number is not five). You should stop doing this, that is not how it works. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and headcounting is no excuse for refusing to substantively discuss.

When you said what you did about :a consensus to add the material", you seem not to understand that that summary was not recently added by me or anyone else, but has been there since the article started and has long-standing consensus. I'm not trying to add controversial new material to the article, I'm just trying to prevent its censorship by an admittedly biased editor based on the demonstrably false and trumped-up argument that it's WP:OR to summarize a discretely sourced list. It simply is not, and I'm not "adding material", just trying to save material that has had long consensus of editors.

If you want the list deleted, there is a place for you to discuss that. In the meantime, the summary stays. I'll wait a short time again to see if you or someone else there will finally explain there how it's OR to summarize a list.

If you would like to discuss removing the whole list on OR grounds, there is a place for that, but please put it out of your mind in that section, because it is just about whether summarizing a discretely sourced list is OR. Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, there's no consensus for re-adding the material, and a clear consensus for removing it. It doesn't matter how long the material has been there. We've made a very clear case and responded to your objections. You seem like a totally reasonable person, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think you'll be able to get the summary tables to get back in there without the consent of any other editors, and against the clear consensus of those already involved. Seriously, you can't say, "I don't buy your argument, so I'll just restore it until you give me an argument I do buy." You have to build a consensus for your position.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 11:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is project-wide consensus that proper summaries of discreetly sourced lists cannot be removed on WP:OR grounds. This is the consensus I will use as grounds to restore the summary to the article. Furthermore, no consensus that discrete item list summary deletion on OR grounds is found in that discussion. Please read it again:

Neither Mangoe, Doug Weller, nor TFD argued that discrete item lists summaries are OR, which is the only grounds One Fire User is using to remove the summary. They are instead arguing for the removal of Section Two on OR grounds, not Section Three. But I am not going to restore Section Two today, because it has not been removed! This is important: please understand: I'm going to restore Section Three, not Section Two, so those arguments are irrelevant. Of course, if Section Two is removed, Section Three must be as well. However, this is a controversial topic and many attempts to delete that list and all have failed because consensus has long been that that list is not different from many like it and in line with Wikipedia rules and guidelines and so on and therefore not OR and therefore cannot be rightly removed on OR grounds. Now, if you or they are convinced that Section Two should be deleted, and would like to mount another proposal to delete it, you may, and if it succeeds, you may remove Section Three at that time, but that has nothing to do with me restoring the summary today. While Section Two stands, its summary should stand with it because WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. Those arguments not in support of me not restoring Section Three while Section Two still stands. As long as Section Two stands, they have made no valid reasoning against my planned restoration of the summary, so unless you plan to support the argument that summary of a discretely sourced list is OR, and have any evidence and good reason to back that up, there is nothing stopping me from restoring Section Three today, and then you can delete it if and when you delete Section Two. Fair enough? Chrisrus (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Mario Legacé

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

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

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

Also, might I suggest User:ClueBot III to archive your talk page? It's kinda long ;) - SweetNightmares 15:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Would you prefer to fill out the entry yourself, or should I? Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem! The only thing I'm unsure about is the type of attack, since I'm not very familiar with animal behavior. The way he describes it makes it sound like the wolf saw something moving fast and acted on instinct, like it probably would with a deer, only to realize after it pounced that "hey, what is this thing, I don't normally eat these things...?" As the animal wasn't biting/growling/etc, we can probably rule out rabies. Was it agonistic? After he got up from the pounce, Lagacé noted that the wolf appeared to be mirroring his steps, and the wolf kept his gaze on Lagacé's head. - SweetNightmares 17:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right, we can't say what type it was because it isn't like the other sources which contain an attack type by an expert. You were right just to leave it blank, or if we prefer we can add n/a or something.

Hey, how interested are you in this topic? Because there is a big hole on Wikipedia and in the Anglosphere generally because at least two of the most important works on the topic of wolf attacks are not available in English, only French (Albeit Euro-French, not our American French). I'm talking about extensive study of that was led by and published into two books by something like the French Society for Rural History or something like that. If you are at least curious, I'll find a link to the two books and pass them to you. The first one as I recall was the story that resulted from their findings in records going back centuries of [Wolf attacks on humans in France]], which is a red link now but doesn't have to be. The next book was a history of a huge and centuries-long government-sponsored campaign to eradicate the species from France. But thus far all we know are some summaries and stats quoted from the books in English-language sources, and because so few of us know French well enough, and at the same time are interested in this topic enough, and at the same time are willing to improve Wikipedia with that information.

So anyway, let me know if you want me to pass you those links, and thanks again, I'll send you a virtual Molson and some virtual poutine on our talk page. Chrisrus (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)