User talk:Chrisrus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

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

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

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global account

Hi Chrisrus! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 11:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hyena

Thanks for the revert.

In fact, I am curious to know that how hyenas are not part of the dog family. You say they are feliforms, is that so? I've never ever known hyenas to be cat-like.

Thanks for the revert by the way. I didn't bother reverting myself, because I thought/knew someone else would. Porchcorpter 07:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I just read Hyena, and I see it says that hyenas are feliforms. Still, though, I am curious to know or see how a hyena can be feline. What I however, did know was that hyenas are not canidae family, but I never knew they were feliforms. Porchcorpter 07:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

There are two reasons. One has to do with the dentition and other features. The other has to do with which branch of the carnivoran family tree they stem from. Chrisrus (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turkey call, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vocalization. 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, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate Discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed., a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 03:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

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 Fisher River. 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) 08:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

link in your post at user talk:jimbo wales

FYI your post at user talk:jimbo wales links to http://www.markbernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html but that URL does not currently display what you are talking about. You also show a redlink, not sure if that is meant or not. Hope this helps. --doncram 06:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

heterosis in dogs

Dear Chrisrus,

Forgive me for reverting a recent edit you made to the heterosis article, restoring the photo of a dog.

I agree that it doesn't make any sense to have a photo of a dog in an article that never mentions dogs.

I added a few sentences about heterosis in dogs to the article, with couple of references that seem to support those statements.

Now that I look at the current version of the article, I don't see how that dog photo helps our readers understand heterosis, so perhaps the article would be better off without that photo.

Perhaps the article could be improved further with a sentence or two like:

All domestic dogs are of the same species, and so the offspring of two dogs from two different pure breeds is better described as a (some appropriate technical word here) rather than a hybrid.(Some reliable source goes here)

--DavidCary (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Wolf article and taxonomy

Thank you for your kind words :)

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

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

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

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

To answer your question directly, yes, perhaps that is the best solution. It is quite similar to the example of domestic/wild horse.

You are right, the problem of my idea of moving the article to Wolf (animal) is the fact the purpose of the term "Gray Wolf" is to distinguish it from the Ethopian Wolf, etc.

However, if we can define "Gray Wolf" not as simply Canis lupus but rather "all subspecies of Canis lupus other than the domestic dog"; well then, there's your solution right there. The question is, can we cite that definition? You don't see it spelled out per se like that, do you? But even so, if you look at the way it is used in context, that is, in effect, what "Gray Wolf" means, so can we safely define it so? I mean, how many usages of the term "Gray Wolf" in context clearly do or do not clearly exclude the domestic dog?

I also liked your idea of having a separate article called "Canis lupus". In my view, such an article would not have to be very long. It would just tell the story of the taxon, and explain how it used to mean "Gray Wolf" and still does in some contexts but contrary to popular belief it doesn't mean "gray wolf" anymore but now means "Gray Wolf" + (Domestic Dog = Dingo + Dog), and sending the reader to the appropriate articles. It might not have to be much more than a disambiguation page. I don't know what else such an article would have to do, but that's ok. If an article can be completed in just a few sentences, I don't see what's wrong with that. Is there anything else you can see that such an article would have to do? Describe those things that are true of all Canis lupuses (lupi?) and which distinguish them from all other Canids? Every taxon should have an article of it's own, is that not a principle?

If we go that route, however, it may mean that the article Gray Wolf would have to lose it's taxobox, thereby effecting the overhaul, so we should decide quickly and make it happen. I can go ahead and set it up, but I'm too much of a big picture guy to write the article, or at least to cite it. If I go ahead and do it, will you help me cite it and write it? Anyway, if Gray Wolf loses it's taxobox, what sort of infobox do you use for a subspecies grouping? Would people get upset if we went without one, a la Dolphin? People get emotional about their taxoboxes, and I always hate to remove them myself. Chrisrus (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the grey wolf, being a scientific article, should consist of all subspecies. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Magneto (generator)

I have left you a message at Talk:Magneto (generator). Biscuittin (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now proposed renaming instead of a merger. You may wish to comment. Biscuittin (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion in DRN

Threaded discussion in the dispute resolution noticeboard is normally not permitted. You made a comment, a reply to my statement, in my section. I have moved it to your section. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

talk for talks sake

At what point do you think the repetition of the same baseless whining will improve the Gamergate controversy talk page or the encyclopedia? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You seem more emotional and not very WP:CIVIL recently. Maybe you need a WP:WIKIBREAK or something, or just not let things get to you because it's not productive to work with people when they have their WP:BACKUP.

To answer your question, at the point proper talk page procedure resumes. 03:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Proper talk page procedure, of course, being "#letchrisrusspeak". PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk page procedure being WP:TALK and long-standing project-wide standard talk page procedure and values. Chrisrus (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that after thirty six archive talk pages rehashing the same non supported positions over and over and over again that somehow on the thirty seventh page some miracle from heaven will occur and the sea lions will go back to the ocean? Or will that be on the forty seventh or on the hundred and forty seventh? We are here to write an encyclopedia after all not cause the mass extinction of the poor pixel species in pointless rehashings. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to the Gamergate talk page! Just so you're aware, it is an official WP:AGF-free zone. New users on the talk page with a low edit count are to be quickly reported to WP:AE and quietly banned for "disruptive editing" (aka "editing"). Users with a high edit count will be shut down with misinterpreted guidelines ("HORSEMEAT! NOTAFORUM!"), talked past ("This is not productive...") and red herring'd ("The number of archived pages an article has is a relevant point for some reason so I will keep repeating it ad nauseam!!!") until an admin-ally steps in and shuts down discussion. Anyone actually brave enough to read those 37 pages of archived talk pages will see that these tactics have been deployed dozens of times, and it's quite effective.

The content of this article, and even the discussion of this article, is being carefully curated by a handful of dedicated editors who seem to have unlimited time. Anyone who doesn't buy into the current article's narrative is lumped in with a supposed "organized off-site disruption effort" (which must be the most poorly-organized effort in the history of organized efforts, coming in one-at-a-time every few weeks or so). Any violations of rules or policies by the current curators are justified by a hand-waving WP:IAR citing off-site boogeymen, or WP:BLP, or any other flimsy excuse that will fit their needs at the moment.

If you stick around long enough you will be called names (a particular vilified marine mammal is their favorite), your motives will be questioned ("Dude, what's your goal here?"), your edits will be reverted, and if you try to go to an un-involved noticeboard they will find you there and shout you down (see: [1][2][3][4][5]). If you ever screw up, you'll get banned by those same admin-allies. The end game is that, eventually, you'll go away. I did, and I honestly think you should consider it too...not because you're wrong, but because I just don't think it's worth the effort at this point. Sure, I'll chime in occasionally when I see something grievous (such as involved editors using hats to immediately shut down discussion from newcomers), but my heart's just not in it any more. Unless you happen to have the God-like patience and thick skin of a Masem, I'd just wait until a journalist in a respected news organization finally dares to question the current narrative (in the case of Amanda Knox it took a few years -- see if you recognize any similar tactics here). Until then, I think attempting to achieve neutrality in the article or talk page will just be an effort in futility. I mean, don't take my word for it, and by all means continue to raise valid points on the talk page, but I personally think it's a losing battle. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic shift 2

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES is the first line at Talk:Gamergate controversy. Before the arbitration case imposed those remedies, some "general sanctions" applied. Please review this enforcement request which contains the instructions that contested hatting should be taken to the enforcements requests page, which is now WP:AE. This is the background:

• 02:23, 11 May 2015 discussion closed (hatted) by Gamaliel (close message adjusted)
• 03:25, 11 May 2015 un-hatted by Chrisrus
• 04:43, 11 May 2015 un-hat reverted by Gamaliel with comment "if you wish to contest this please take it to wp:ae"
• 08:02, 11 May 2015 3,361 bytes added by Chrisrus
• 11:30, 11 May 2015 new comment moved inside hatting by Johnuniq, repeating WP:AE link
• 03:01, 12 May 2015 un-hatted by Chrisrus
• 03:23, 12 May 2015 re-hatted by PeterTheFourth
• 04:06, 13 May 2015 1,360 bytes added by Chrisrus with statement of intention to un-hat

Per the request in your comments, I am urging that you not un-hat the section. Please remove your most-recent comment, or move it inside the collapsed section. That is important because other editors often find it hard to resist adding a further comment, and an unproductive discussion can then continue for a long time, and will not be archived due to the activity. If necessary, I will ask for assistance at WP:AE where any editor may be sanctioned. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic Shift

Are you seeing the edit summaries in the history? Please consider this edit as an example. More than one editor has chosen to collapse that discussion on the basis that leaving it open invites further comment, and the thread has little likelihood leading to an improvement in the article. I will not re-hat again, but if you edit that section again I will ask for assistance at WP:AE because two editors have stated that WP:AE is the correct location to contest the hatting of a gamergate discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not grounds for hiding a thread. Chrisrus (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Chrisrus & Johnuniq. Apologies for the interruption...

I concur that grounds for involved editors closing threads, and for any editors closing this thread in question, have simply not been made.

Wikipedia policies & guidelines reflect long standing community consensus. The guidelines at WP:TALK clearly & expressly prohibit involved editors from closing discussions. This is further reinforced by the explanatory notes for each of the methods which have been used (Template:collapse,Template:archive top,Template:hidden archive top). These state that they should not be used by involved editors to close discussions, and should not be used over the objections of other editors.

We clearly have a case where they are being used both by involved editors, and over the objections of others.

W.r.t the thought that editors wishing to re-open closed threads should apply at WP:AE, I respectfully suggest that the polarity of this is incorrect. Policy, guidelines & long standing community consensus, and the core principles of how we build an encyclopedia are clear - we build consensus through discussion. If editors wish to prevent discussion, it is they who should apply at WP:AE, articulating clear reasons as to why normal processes should not be followed.

There has been some suggestion that this is a case for WP:IAR; similarly, if editors believe this is the case, they should provide clear reasoning as to why & how preventing discussion improves the encyclopedia. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Will you please post this or something similar there? Chrisrus (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

At WP:AE? I was also considering WP:ARCA. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant at the talk page thread in question, but those might be good as well. Chrisrus (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

An AE discussion that might interest you

Please see WP:AE#The Gamergate hatting thing has blown up again. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I haven't followed the gamergate controversy for months, so when I took a look at the talk page today I was very surprised to see what you've been doing there.

The function of the article talk page is discussion of article content. You are insisting on discussing other topics for which there are clearly established alternative venues; I don't know why, but I suppose you have good reasons.

Nevertheless I urge you to stop. If you think other people are misbehaving there, take the problem first to their user talk page and then to WP:AE, as the entire topic is under arbitration sanctions. I cannot emphasise too strongly how important it is that you heed this advice, no matter how deep your feelings may be.

NB: Should you reply to me, please do so in this page. --TS 15:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem seems to be a mistaken belief that meta-talk page discussions are off topic. They are not. If they were, discussions of such things as, for example, improvements to the FAQs, archive rates, and so on, would be off-topic. As meta-talk page discussions take place on talk pages all the time all over Wikipedia, there is no way that meta-talk page discussions could possibly be off-topic. Chrisrus (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

GG Sanction Enforcement Clarification

Saw your post on the GG talk page. I'm under the 500 edit restriction, which is why I didn't post there, but I think what you're looking for is this:

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;

(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;

(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.

The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.

It's the section right under the Discretionary sanctions section here. Much less cryptic than the first box alone, IMO. Hope that helps! Kaciemonster (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Warning regarding your editing at Talk:Gamergate controversy

Chris, I understand you don't like the restrictions at the article Talk page. However, after I implemented them as an AE measure, several editors brought up discussion of the restrictions in various places, and I purposefully stepped back from defending the restrictions in public venues to see what the community reaction to them was. They were discussed at the article Talk page, at AE, at a Village Pump board, and they were even challenged directly by an uninvolved administrator at WP:AN. What I observed is that, as of now, there is consensus to keep the restrictions in place. So, at this point, I'm going to start treating repeated re-hashing of the restrictions at the article Talk page as disruptive off-topic editing. This is fair warning to you. Thank you... Zad68 18:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Don't like" is a less fair summary of that than "have serious object citing core principles."

Please provide links to that which you have referenced so that I can check. Chrisrus (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Politely persisting with issues not related to actionable proposals to improve an article eventually becoomes disruptive. If Zad68 provides links to discussions, polite questions about those discussions could ensue, followed by polite requests for links to the exact policies being relied on, with polite discussions about those policies. While that approach could continue indefinitely, it has been shortcircuited by WP:ARBGG. The result is that a polite warning has been issued on this page, and sanctions may follow, with appeals to WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You are joking, right?

[6] so you are still on that "massive media conspiracy theory"?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Something like that. Do you recognize this following quote?

“I’m a triple-A producer. That’s where I live. I've seen the emails come down about E3 demos and press junkets. And I’m line level in the producer pit, so chances are, I’m the one booking your flights, bar tabs, spa treatments, catering, and rooms full of HDTVs, Alienware and razor keyboards with neon fucking undercarriages. None of these are about the game. We’re plying you with payola. We’re not just expecting you not to be impartial, we’re fucking banking on it.”

Chrisrus (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are of the position that ALL of Wikipedia utilizing news sources is doomed - or just Gamergate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not of the position that anything is doomed. Do you recognize the quote? Chrisrus (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No, i dont recognize the quote - is it from Wikipeia - The Musical? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem sincerely interested in learning about it. Chrisrus (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Not unless it somehow relates to evidence of a mass conspiracy that stretches from NYT to NPR to The Guardian to Newsweek to The Age to Le Monde to The Columbia Journalism Review to the Washington Post to the BBC. Does it?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No conspiracy needed. Chrisrus (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

An Invitation

@Chrisrus: Per my user page, I am the author of Matthew Hopkins News. The site has from time to time sourced national news stories, and my work has been retweeted even by some major celebrities like Richard Dawkins. I have recently written some articles critical of misconduct on Wikipedia, for example here.

I am currently considering follow-ups including deep concerns about Wikipedia:Wikibullying. Some users who have received several warnings have been allowed to continue in their misdeeds and may pose a threat of emotional harm to the vulnerable.

I am also a Wikipedia user and editor. I am keen to oppose ethical lapses and I agree with you that the GamerGate article, for example, could be less biased. I am setting up a private venue for like-minded to meet and discuss these issues and consider you suitable. If you are interested, please email me via the address on my blog, giving your Wikipedia and Reddit user names. Vordrak (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Unhatting things

Hi Chrisrus. Your objections to hatting being made on the Gamergate controversy talk page have been discussed before, multiple times. Consensus has been for hatting concluded discussions, for multiple reasons. If you wish to continue the debate about why you believe hatting things makes them opaque, the meta page for gamergate controversy is here. Please cease unhatting things. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi PeterTheFourth, Thanks for your attention to this matter. I accept in good faith your comments above, but assertions of consensus for controversial, non-standard actions should generally be accompanied by diffs demonstrating that consensus. It would be prudent for the matter to be raised on the associated "Meta" Talk page. Would it be possible for you to self-revert and raise this on that page with details of the relevant diffs.

Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ryk72, thanks for paying attention to my edits to Chrisrus's talk page. I accept that you may believe rehatting things is controversial after they've been unhatted, but I'll instead assert that Chrisrus's continued unhatting of things so they are 'easier to read', which in the process introduces formatting errors (leaving untethered comments with bits of visible tagging), is the controversial act. We've discussed Chrisrus's belief that hatting is wrong- see the discussion continuing from this diff. Many editors have weighed in on this including administrators, and despite Chrisrus's continued belief that hatting is a bad thing I see clear consensus against the unhatting he has done in the past and I see no reason to believe this consensus has changed. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fatal cat attack

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Fatal cat attack requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Dingoes such as Thai dingoes

Hi Chrisrus, replied on my talk page to you, but as I have little correspondence through talk pages these days, did not remember to follow my own vow in my talk page intro and let you know by leaving this note to read the section you created on my talk page - nor quite how to do this, so hope copy and paste of the following sig works now, most of a day later.

These years I edit according to the movements of my own research into topics, and do not 'sit' on particular topics or themes, as editors who take on the role of . . . what shall we say, curators? do. Most of the time if I am not expecting correspondence as I temporarily expect I may have from you, I am not logged into my editing account while surfing and taking extensive personal notes offline from W. Good to see that you may play some longer run roles in some related topics here, and even help with good amalgamation of the contributions of others.

What do you mainly work on, in your broader career, besides the good work many of us share in editing by reading, curiosity, and educational interest? I, for example, work with the medium-term future of species and sentience issues, preparing explorations of these topics beyond typical attention for those who will influence them. Do you use W materials outside of W?

cheers!

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

Pandelver (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC) and two little subsidiary cheers twice more!

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

(Last sentence added there 02:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC))

Nomination of Suicide chicken for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suicide chicken 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/Suicide chicken 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 04:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Madstone (folklore), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crusader and Hydrophobia. 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) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate AfD notice

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nureongi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jindo. 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) 09:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Corrected Archival of Comment by Sigmabot III

It seems that Lowercase Sigmabot III is suffering from a bevy of technical issues. I have rolled-back its supposed archival of your May 2015 contributions regarding Meta Talk Pages, which struck all your comments from the discussion, and they should now have returned to the Page. If you continue to experience troubles with this Bot, I'd recommend filing a report with the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

1. I would be interested to learn why UBI-et-ORBI thinks this is a "technical issue". Archiving on the page is set to take place if a section has not been edited for 90 days, and that is exactly what has happened.
2. I would be interested to learn why UBI-et-ORBI thinks that archiving sections after 90 days is unsuitable. How long a wait would be suitable? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason was simply this: the Bot removed a latter comment on the Talk Page discussion from view, while preserving the former comment to which it was in response. As you apparently feel strongly about this issue, I have reverted the Archival and will leave it to the original editor to manage. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Seems that this was a misread of the log, on my part (see below for details). Sorry for any inconvenience!

"It looks to me that the bot the bot removed the entire thread which is its normal and expected behavior. At first glance, there is no earlier post which it failed to archive. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)"

"It seems from the link that you are correct —I must have misread the log which appeared on my Watchlist. As I mentioned, I have reverted back to the bot's edits, and all is as it should be. Thanks for pointing this out!

--UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)"

My close at Talk:Gamergate controversy

Hi Chrisrus, I noticed your comments below the discussion for which I performed a non-admin close. I am happy to revert that close to allow the discussion to continue on the points you have raised; and will do so. I remain concerned that the discussion is likely to be derailed with borderline WP:NPA & WP:FORUM, and is unlikely to reach a consensus. I hope that a wider community of editors, such as found at WP:RSN might be able to find such a consensus. FWIW, I agree with the points that you have raised around sourcing. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:53, 3 September 2015 (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. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fatal dog attacks in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taze. 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) 11:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:DRN Revert

If you disagree with my closure of a case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, please discuss it with me at the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page. I don't know why you reverted my close of a case. Do you wish to become a party to the case? In any event, the open RFC is inconsistent with guidelines for DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You must be confusing me with someone else. What case are you referring to? Chrisrus (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=694353823&oldid=694349609 That edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know how that happened. It must be some kind of mistake. I'll investigate and let you know if I figure it out. Chrisrus (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Were you trying to revert something else at DRN? Were you using the Visual Editor, which is still buggy? If it was a mistake, I won't worry more about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No, nothing like that. So bizarre. Apologies again. I'll let you know if I learn anything but right now I couldn't be more perplexed. Chrisrus (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Kelly Keen memorial

I got the exact date of Kelly Keen's death from her Find A Grave memorial page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:AF8B:C869:A5E1:2B8A:1773:68C4 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you paste us a link? We should cite it properly. Chrisrus (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Dogs

One question, how many dogs do you need to make a "pack" ... three, four, five ... a dozen? Do they not live in three and fours too?

So, should it be, "They may live in packs, fives, fours, threes, pairs, or singly"?

The point I am making is this, you made a canonical statement in your summary, "no evidence ... etc" but you did not provide any evidence or reference to sustain it in your edit.

Can you do so?

The reason I am writing this is because I spent some time cleaning up and developing the Indian pariah dog topic, which I am sure you know. It's obviously a topic which you have some interest and passion in, perhaps even want to promote, which is a good thing.

But isn't content on the Wikipedia supposed to be supported by references? You may well be right, but you know that's not enough.

I am actually interested in these kinds of dogs and would like to know more but there does not seem to be many academic or other reliable reference to support them. At least in the English language. A lack of dogs overseas means that there seems to be a lack of knowledge and acceptance of their heritage. I know a little more about Spitz types, Shibas etc, which are a little better studied.

A lot of dog and cat topics on the Wikipedia seem to be in bad shape. I'm thinking because they are written by their fans modelled on breeder pages, e.g. every breed appears to "very intelligent". I've yet to read one topic that says the breeds are "stupid and neurotic", and I've met a lot of stupid and neurotic dogs ... even if that's just the owners'/breeders' fault!

Too much work for me to consider taking on right now but at least the Indian pariah dog article is, I think, a little cleaner and in better shape now.

BTW, what are the Hindi/Indian language names for it? Pariah appears to be a Post-British thing. Is it just "dog"?

Thank you. --Wordfunk (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

My purpose was only to delete the uncited claim that they pack up with wolves, jakels, or dholes, a claim that seemed to me extraordinary. I left behind the claim that they pack up together because I didn't see any reason to doubt that, but if you do, you can delete that uncited claim as well, but I hope you don't because it's probably true.

I hoped anyone who wanted to know would click the link to pack (canine) that I left and they would learn about the gray areas around the concept such as whether two individuals would constitute a pack, but if that's not the case further edits are in order.

You seem to attribute emotions to me that I don't have. The only thing I care about is article improvement, so thanks for your recent work. I work on that article because it was confusing and I wanted to figure it all out.

You should contact Rajashree Khalap. She says that the native south Asian words basically all mean "native dog". Chrisrus (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were an Indian Pariah Dog fan.

I've seen this with other breeds abroad, unless some people pick them up and promote them, the kennel clubs just don't know they exist. Likewise, with academic studies. I have no idea what family/pack groups they create, or who or what they pack with. I've read a bit about feral dogs in general, and the material is against the idea of their packs. More often just pairs or small groups. This is why I asked. I don't know what IPD do naturally. Joing wolf packs does not sound right. Wolves are known to kill and eat domestic dogs. They are just too different now. But I know it's not enough to guess on the Wikipedia.

I suspect in cities due to crowding and lots of waste, natural patterns for IPDs are corrupted. Thanks. --Wordfunk (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well like I say, if there's reason to believe that the uncited claim that they can be found in packs might not be true, then please do fix the article.

I was working on it mostly because Pariah dog is a bit of a problematic term, being used by experts of differnt fields to mean something not quite the same. I was trying to straighten it out for myself and for the readers.

Happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Men Going Their Own Way, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manipulation. 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) 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	hi i am in project skepicisim too Dogebro (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to Wikipedia talk:About

Hi Chrisrus. Your edit to Wikipedia talk:About looks as if it was intended to go on some other editor's talk page. May I suggest you move it there?: Noyster (talk), 23:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dingo (Tacon)

Hi Chris, hot off the press, more detail on the origin of the Dingo by my favorite Aussie academic "Professor Paul" and associate: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16300694 I will not do anything with it as we are too close to the Larson document which is now under peer review, with him stating that it will answer "one or two questions in two weeks or so...." Especially with Fan 2016 finding that some dog lineages are almost as divergent from each other as the dog is from the wolf. (These are the Dingo, Basenji, and Tibetan Mastiff.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 09:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:AN3

Hi Chrisrus! I see you reverted me on WP:AN3, Any reason sir? Or If I had made a mistake, Apologies! MBlaze Lightning -talk! 06:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

revert

why? I left similar messages in other talks, no issue at all.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

you fixed it, thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusion

Hi Chrisrus, don't think we've bumped into each other yet, I reverted an IP on Kelly Keen coyote attack and noticed your latest edit - am I missing the reason the entire section on "Other coyote attacks on humans" was removed? Thanks -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It's too far off topic. We already link them to that article, to the attacks on children section of it, and already have a sample of similar attacks. For this much more detail, they should be sent to the article it comes from. Chrisrus (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah right, your edit summary makes sense now! I thought my reversion had caused an issue! Thanks for the explanation -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again!

You are a kind person and I appreciate the co-curation and moral support you unfailing donate. Sincerely, thank you. Kothog (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I think you do a great job and wish you would expand out. Happy editing! Chrisrus (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

re.

I think William Harris is more qualified to comment. He's written more on north american wolf taxonomy than anyone else.Mariomassone (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

How do you do it?

Just curious how someone who has your level of intelligence and effective communication abilities is able to stick around and continue fighting for a lost cause? (assuming you're a guy) if you just spent whatever time here on wikipedia in the gym every day instead, you'd be having a much higher return on investment and the stress level would go way down, and maybe you'd sleep better too? Either way, you have lasted here on wikipedia for YEARS longer than I could ever see a reasonable person to survive before coming to a halt. That's impressive and worthy of a persistence barnstar but barnstars don't improve cardiovascular health nor help you avoid back injury when lifting something heavy later in life. So consider this mixed interweave of curiosity/fascination as a compliment and continue to do whatever it is that you enjoy! Cheers, Adwctamia (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer your question, if all these causes had been lost, I probably would have quit a long time ago. I have had several satisfying success and have been improving my rhetorical skills. Actually, to me, Wikipedia is the place where evidence and reason and logic are most likely to win out in the end of any place on the Internet.

Do any of these topics interest you? Have you had frustrating results trying to improve certain articles? Chrisrus (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chrisrus. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Bombshell!

Hello Chris, please have a look at the first article in my sandbox, and then I would value your opinion on my Talk Page, please. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 20:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I took so long to respond.

I think you were talking about http://www.allthingscanid.org/A%20review%20of%20selected%20features%20of%20the%20family%20Canidae%20with%20reference%20to%20its%20fundamental%20taxonomic%20status.pdf is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am never in a hurry Chris, and people come here when they can fit it in around real life! No, I have deleted that article as a complete fake. The first article - Dingo Taxonomy. Your opinion before I launch it, please? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Chris, regarding Dingo#Problems in classification, is this one of your contributions, please? My thoughts are that it is an important theme that needs exploration - is the dingo domesticated, semi-domesticated, or wild - but this piece appears a bit lost at the foot of the article. (It could be more associated with the chapters on Origin, or even Legal Status.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 20:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking it over now, I don't recall righting any of that. I think I can remember who wrote it, but you'd be better off checking the History to be sure, but we may find that it has quite a few authors, possibly including a comma or two from me but not very much I don't think.

As I recall, that section was created to unburden another section from all that information. It was getting too long and seemed best to spin it off into its own section.

But I think you may be right, it's not just about semantics, like most taxonomy sections, is it? It has to explain factual disputes such as whether and to what extent dingoes are feral dogs gone so lupine that the word "feral" really doesn't do it justice somehow, or whether and to what extent dingoes are much more dog-like than wolves, comparatively predisposed to seek out, depend on, and be not so lupine but rather more comeseral with humans as we'd expect from a feral dog and not a wolf.

So some of that semantic dispute lies in ontological issues like that. I gather dingoes are more lupine than dogs from elsewhere but also more comesaral than wolves.

However, let's not let readers come away with the impression that there is more mystery here than there is. We know it's a result of domesticated Austronesian dogs, but they've changed since then, as you'd expect a dog to do. Of course they became more feral and would tend toward the lupine, but of course continued to focus more on what humans were up to then wolves do. Some tribes others probably continued the dog's close relationships with humans. Some dingoes at least following tribes, as pariah niche dogs, or village dogs, or tribal dogs, but it seems clear that others reverted to a lupine lifestyle. Experts seem to agree that direct competition for that niche between dingo and thylacine brought about the end of the latter.

After the arrival of dogs from elsewhere, dingoes maybe lost out for the comesaral niches somewhat, and only the more lupine remained. I gather that the lupine ones are pretty much still mostly genetically Australian. Those genes from elsewhere couldn't be reasonably expected to make a dingo any more fit to be lupine. As you move toward the human areas of Australia today, they might be less native in decent in the pariah niche. Village dogs might be more dingo than not, but more urban street dogs might be less dingo, several known working dogs are less dingo than introduced, but most of that gene pool is not dingo. They are dingo family pets that may not be the very good house dogs but are no way as ill-suited to that role as, say for example a coyote would be. So we see the dingo genes holding their own among the lupine dogs of that continent, but losing out to other dog genes in the more comesaral niches, but of course there is going to be lots of mixing, especially around the edges of the niches.

So most dingoes genes appear in the most wild of the feral dogs today, something more than just a feral street dog but rather a dog adapted to the lupine niche. However, dingoes only succeed there for lack of competition with real wolves, who would surely best them at that, for they are in the end, just dogs, and while they might not make as great pets or even urban street dogs compared to dogs from elsewhere, they are much better at those things than real wolves would reasonably be expected to be. They are still much more adapted to life around people than even the urban coyote.

That section does a good job at describing the problems and difficulties that experts have had in defining exactly what the dingo is in terms of traditional taxonomy. It's just not a very good tool for describing them and there are multiple "correct" possible ways to look at it. No one has given taxa to particular types of dogs for a very long time. It's just not done anymore, and the motivation to do so in this case seems to be somewhat political.

Like, for example, assigning a taxon to the Sunda Clouded Leopard was done to protect them more than something dictated by the such things as dentition and such. They thought it would help them, maybe save them or benefit them in some way.

Experts, perhaps unfortunately at times are very often if not usually fans of the animals they study. The problem is they are supposed to be objective. But as there is no clear objective definition of "species", they will do what they think is best for the animal when there is room for experts to see things differently, but there has to be something they can point to. This tooth is different, the ears are smaller, and what not. Can you tell a dingo from a non-native dog by looking at it more or less easily than you could a Sunda clouded leopard from the other kind?

I think that section does a pretty good job of describing the situation, but I think it's mystifies it a bit much. There's not much mystery about the dingo, it's just difficult to say for all contexts what it should be called. We don't want to over-dramatize the situation or let the reader walk away with the impression that the animal is some kind of strange mystery that experts don't understand. It'd be best to use the different ways of naming the dog as helpful illustrations of the facts about the dog and the history of and present situation of human thought on the subject.

The last word I'd heard was from some kind of official society of Australian mammalogy just published a reference book recently. They were clear that they were done giving taxa to dingoes. To me, that means it's over, because the only reason I can see that it didn't lose its taxon when, for example, dachshunds did, a long time ago, was in deference to the Australians and Australian experts, who found it useful to distinguish native relatively lupine animals from Australian dogs from elsewhere. In that situation and culture, there's a difference between a feral dog and a wild dog that I can't easily point to anywhere else in the world.

They wanted to use the taxon to distinguish the Australian reality of the native dog from those from elsewhere. My impression is the taxon is on the way out because if the Australians don't want us to give them taxa anymore out of respect for their quite unique situation, I bet not too many decades from now everyone will be following the Australians on this. It's their dog, so who are we to disagree?

Chrisrus (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, most informative. Jackson also points out that they may have been living in a semi-domestic state with indigenous Australians until the arrival of Europeans and the collapse of their traditional way of life, or at least this appears to have been the case in eastern Australia. The section is valuable and may benefit from being placed in the Taxonomy section of "Dingo (taxon)" where it could be redeveloped, with a paragraph in "Dingo" giving an overview of the issue and then leading the reader to the other article (Dingo is currently 175kb in size and is a little large). What do you think of this idea? (Of interest, many years ago in the Northern Territory I came across one on the landscape at least 100 km from the nearest indigenous settlement, road or track, which indicates its wild state. I was standing on the top of a hill looking for a way down onto flat land when it came out of the grass about 10 metres away, stopped, and gave me "the old look" for want of a better term, recognition, eye to eye, the ancient bond. They may be wild now, but they certainly were domesticated once. Neither of us was concerned, despite me standing there cradling a battle rifle! It then looked for a way down, looked at me as if to say "this way", then led off down the hill via a small, almost invisible Draw (terrain). By the time I struggled to the bottom of it he was gone!) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Separating Animal baiting from Dog baiting

Hi, I'd like to say that I have references for animal-baiting in general, so I'd like to separate the two articles. Leo1pard (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. Have you found citations for baiting that doesn't involve dogs? Chrisrus (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's say that the references I have with me don't refer only to dogs, rather, the issue of any animal being "killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been eaten by a wild animal ..." Leo1pard (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Also references for the issue of baiting in Laws against cruelty to animals. Leo1pard (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok but not all animal cruelty is baiting. Baiting is a particular kind of animal abuse, so not all animal abuse is baiting. Chrisrus (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Leo1pard (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Once I heard mention of a form of animal abuse that Wikipedia knows nothing about. It seems that a long time ago, there were laws against "overworking". There was a crime called "overworking", as I recall. Please keep an eye out of citations for it. For example, if you work a mule more than reasonable, to the point of exhaustion, and a policeman saw it, you could be arrested for overworking, because it's a form of animal cruelty or abuse. If you can find anything about it, please let me know or create such an article yourself. Chrisrus (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Given per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chrisrus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Fatal Bear Attacks

Hello Chrisus,

Please contact me ASAP at gobearviewing@hotmail.com. There is something very strange with the bear attack data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear-Evolution (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read through the discussion about the list of fatal bear attacks. I don't understand the ins and outs of publishing on Wikipedia, much less all the jargon. But I think it would be valuable for all concerned if additional attacks were listed there. Most of the attacks cited by Herrero et al. 2011 are already listed there. So why not had the 7 or so which are not already listed? I would be glad to provide a list of the "missing" cases from Herrero's paper.

Same with any other cases anyone discovers. The more thorough the list, the better the foundation it provides for anyone doing actual research. In any event, my thanks to those of you would compiled the list. It has saved me an enormous amount of time tracking down additional information on the attacks of which I was already aware, in addition to informing me of new ones. By the way, when I want to cite this webpage as a source of information. what is Wikipedia's preferred format?

Bear-Evolution (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC) (Bear-Evolution (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC))

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chrisrus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)