User talk:Chrisrus/Archive 1

Koko bibliography
Nice job putting the bibliography together. The next step would be to sort and format the sources into the appropriate subsections, and see how many of these we can find online--and if we can--add URL's. Of course, we may have to rely on JSTOR and other archives. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Perro de Presa Canario
Hey there, I see you readded some links and removed the box from the pressa article, I don't know if you have read wikipedias policy on external links, but briefly links to be included include:
 * 1) Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.
 * 2) An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
 * 3) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 * 4) Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Cluttering up the article with a link farm at the end is not really the way to go. If you want to improve the article then using websites as sources is a great way to go. Have a look at some of the better dog articles on wikipedia (Beagle, German Shepherd Dog) and their external links. Anyway hope you have a read of External links. I'm going to change it back, I'm kinda hoping to avoid an edit war though. let me know if you have any questions, Cheers - M r Bungle |  talk  21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You, Mr. Bungle, did not leave the links as in Beagle the first time, as a look at the history of the page proves. You left it blank at first, and then left it with one or two of the links but not equally valid links, giving faulty reasons, such as "wikipedia isn't just a collection of links" as if that's what the article was when it obviously wasn't.  The way it is now has my approval, not the way you had been doing it.  You should be here thanking me that I didn't let you do it wrong but forced you to do it right, not lecturing me with a bunch of irrelevant stuff.  You didn't want it the way it is, you didn't want them at all or just this one or that one and didn't explain why this one and not that one, etc.  You really made me angry and continue to do so.  You should just apologize for not doing it right at first and thank me for making you do it right or just don't say anything and go forth having learned your lesson.  Don't come to my talk page and lecure me as if I'd been the one doing something wrong.Chrisrus (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, I did not want any external links, they are not needed. I initially trimmed them down and actually edited the article to cite the others. After all of them kept getting reinserted I left a couple in as they were not in the references and it seemed they were to reasonable sites. You could have discussed that they were "not equally valid links" on the talk page but did not, which is surprising as most of your edits to the encyclopedia are to talk pages. The most important thing is we are here to build an encyclopedia. Some of your comments, i.e.“If it's good enough for the references, must be good enough for the links”, “There is no reason to delete these contents, who want to read them should be free to do that”, made me think you had not been told about some of the rules. I did not mean to sound as though I was lecturing you, just trying to point you in the direction of the relevant policies. Wikipedia is not a big deal, it is not that important that you need to get angry about it, just relax, and good luck with editing in the future. Hopefully this is the last of this issue. Cheers - M r Bungle |  talk  21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Koko speech abilities
Hey there.

If you can convince me that your argument does not have a basis in anti-evolution it'll be easier to convince me that you're not being biased and Koko doesn't have speech abilities.

Because I have to tell you, I watched a lot of video of Koko and it seemed to me that she was speaking, and I think there are scientific journals which back her speaking abilities up.

I think we're both trying to improve the article.

If this goes back and forth for too long though, I think we should seek a third opinion. Philosophr (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what it would take to assure you that my arguement does nto have a basis in anti-evolution, but I can assure you that it does not. Instead, it has a basis in evidence and reason.


 * You say you have seen videos in which it seemed to you that she was speaking. Yet nothing I have seen seemed that way to me.  This is indeed interesting, and I would ask you to be more specific, but hesitate to, as I would recommend having a more critical look again at that tape and be sure you still feel that way before continuing.


 * I do assume good faith on your part. I would welcome any "third party" or other attention that you can bring to this matter.  This issue brings a number of interesting issues to the fore. Chrisrus (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Catch dog
The article's going to have to improve quickly, or the deletionists will get it. The fundamental problem with it lies in the fact that it is almost entirely composed of WP:OR - so find some secondary sources quick while I hold them off! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How's that? There was no particular reason that these websites were chosen; they just were the first bunch I found that use the term in context.  All I want to prove is that this is in fact a word or term and that this is what it means.  I've cited the dictionary and pointed out a bunch of sites that use the term in context and describe it.  I don't understand why it would be deleted.  Is it taking up space on the server or something?  By the way, I reserched it, yes, but I didn't find out about it by checking research done by me.  I don't do any "original research".Chrisrus (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See? I told you!  The article is filling up nicely.

Talkback
Koppas (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Moles
What do you mean? Biased towards one species? Not at all! But look at the version I undid. By all means reinstate the few parts of it that are no longer in the current version, but please first sort out the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you see any typos or such, please feel free to either fix them or leave the article alone, as I or someone else will be along eventually to fix them. I appreciate your help but don't agree that I have to have everything letter perfect before doing things which improve the article.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So far there are two editors who disagree with your idea of have an umbrella article for all animals coined mole. This is the time to stop reverting and start using the talk page. It was the main reason i tried to sort out the talk page as it was clear it was about to become needed to solve the dispute. Reverting to your preferred version is not going to help your argument and you will never win that kind oif dispute if you are the only one that favors that particular version. A well thought out rationale could well win the day though. David D. (Talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know, but thank you for the encouraging words. Chrisrus (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you know why are you still reverting? Just be careful because the more you go down that track the more you poison the well. David D. (Talk) 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So people can see what we're talking about. If we want to see how the article was, we can look at Talpidae, which is still mostly the old version of the article Mole (animal) which they keep reverting back to.  Chrisrus (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and try to nudge things along. David D. (Talk) 03:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't feel I have enough background to make a call on this. If I had to make a call given the arguments thus far though, it would be on your side. LilHelpa (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, take a look at Mantis does this article not come down on your side?? See also List of mantis genera and species where it is stated that: "The insect Order Mantodea consists of approximately 2,000 species, of which a majority are in the Family Mantidae. Until recently, only this single family was recognized within the order." 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this! It's interesting.  I haven't been able to figure it out for sure just yet, but at the moment, it appears that, whereas before the zoological term "mantid" was a full synonym for the English word "mantis", as in "praying mantis", now some mantises have been removed from the "mantid" group and set alongside them in two other groups.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Shrew mole vs shrew-mole vs. mole-shrew vs. mole-shrew
Yes, very confusing! Happy to help out though. I have moved "shrew-mole" to shrew-mole (Neurotrichus) as you suggested and redirected "shrew-mole" to the disambiguation page at Shrew mole. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that generic names such as 'shrew mole' and 'mole shrew' (and variants of these) direct the reader to the disambiguation page at Shrew mole from where the reader is led to the article they want to read. For readers who go directly to an article, such as Aberdare Mole Shrew, we can add a hatnote at the top of the page to direct them to the disambiguation page. This would sort out the navigation issues, I think. It looks as though it is almost there. There are some double redirects to take care off but I'll look at these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * I like your idea, but here's what I was thinking:
 * One disambig for shrew mole, one for mole-shrew, with links to each other and some text about the other one on each. The text would say: "X" is often confused with "Y".  One is a Y named after its similarity to X, and the other is an X named after its similarity to Y".  As briefly an clearly as we can.
 * That way, if someone got the search right, he'd be able to choose the one he wants easily without so many species on the page, but if he got it reversed, he wouldn't find the one he wants on the page but rather an understanding of his mistake and a link to the disambig he or she really wants. Whew!  Thanks for your help!  Chrisrus (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Vultures and Whales
I think your suggestion on Vultures was correct. If you look at the original articles, the content was like this:

Vultures: Mainly information about Old World Vultures, with a bit about New World Vultures thrown in.

Old World Vultures: A brief article on Old World Vultures, lacking in detail.

New World Vultures: A detailed article on New World Vultures.

It is quite obvious that the article on Vultures (despite its title) was really an article about Old World Vultures.

The problem seems to have been caused by a strange skewing of people's mental maps. Despite the use of the term "vulture" for both groups of birds, there is, I suggest, an unconscious assumption that Old World Vultures are somehow "true" vultures. New World Vultures, on the other hand, got their own article because they were somehow a special class of their own, separate from "true" or "historic" vultures.

All I needed to do was move the material on Old World Vultures into that article and it largely fell into place. There are still a few messy edges. In particular, the article on Vultures has been gutted and either needs to be rewritten or reduced to a disambiguation page.

I find the definition of whales hard to understand, especially the interpolated explanation of dolphins as "members, in other words, of the families Delphinidae or Platanistoidae". However, I can see the problem. I personally would phrase it something like:

"Whales are large marine mammals belonging the order Cetacea. Two families of toothed whales -- the Delphinidae, conventionally called "dolphins", and Phocoenidae, conventionally called "porpoises" -- and the superfamily Platanistoidae (conventionally called "river dolphins") are excluded from the whales in normal usage. Several genera of what are technically dolphins are also conventionally called whales, namely the killer whales (genus Orca) and pilot whales (Globicephala)."

It's still a bit rough around the edges, but that is how I would approach it.

Bathrobe (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just done some work on Vultures and talk. Please have a look, and thank you for doing the work.  I also included something about listing genea, up towards the middle of the discussions.


 * With regard to whales, don't you think we should mention some of the morphological details, like the dictionary entries I listed? You know, blowholes, broad heads, horizontal tails,..." These could distinguishe them from some early extinct large cetaceans. Chrisrus (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think some morphological details should be included in the introductory paragraph. What I wrote above was merely to convey the idea that certain groups of "toothless whales" are not called whales; similarly for river dolphins. If information can be added that will flesh out the depiction of whales it should be added. Much of this is already found at the article on Cetaceans, but could be repeated or adapted for use here.


 * As for the Quails, I believe that one reason the situation is less confusing there because people haven't allowed the shared name "quail" to muddy the waters so much. It would be possible to have an article on quails in general, but in the end you would just get a vague "quails refer to several unrelated families of small, squat birds that live in the grass". No doubt convergent evolution is at work here, too, but perhaps it's not as striking or remarkable as that of the vultures, so nobody has felt impelled to see a conspiracy in nature to come up with a pre-ordained category of "plump grass-dwelling birds". As opposed to vultures, which are "large carnivorous birds that fly around looking for carcases" :)


 * To state my thoughts on this, my feeling is that there are two factors at work in confusing cases like this. One is the "convergent evolution" view. That is, there are certain intrinsic, pre-ordained niches that need to be filled. The result is that nature "conspires" to come up with creatures that fill that niche, and they are inevitably quite similar. If specific ecological terrain didn't already have vultures or moles or quails, nature would have to invent 'em.


 * The second is human language itself. Due to historical circumstances, when people move to new places, they use old names for new animals that resemble animals where they came from. So we get New World Vultures, New World Quails, etc. That causes confusion, because when people write encyclopaedia articles they tend to regard the common names ("vulture", "quail", etc.) as a kind of naturally occurring category. If the people who went to the Americas had adopted a native name for the New World Vultures (for instance, using the term "condor" for all the New World vultures), encyclopaedia articles would not have to spend so much time explaining to readers that "although the name is the same, they are actually quite different families". Articles could get by with a simple statement that "Condors in the New World fill a similar niche to Vultures in the Old due to convergent evolution". (That is the case with "sugar gliders" and "flying squirrels", etc. Because they haven't been given a common name, nobody has felt impelled to write an article uniting the two, despite convergent evolution. If the flying squirrels of Europe had been given a name like, say, "flirrels", I'm sure the sugar gliders would have ended up being called "native flirrels", and Wikipedia would have an article on the different kind of "Flirrels", with long disclaimers to the effect that "although these animals are remarkably similar and share the same name, they actually belong to completely different families" :) )


 * Incidentally, I think the plural of "genus" is "genera".


 * Bathrobe (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. You seem to understand these things quite well, you can see the problem and what options there are in different cases.  The way I see it, the choices are these:


 * 1. A disambiguation page with links to the appropriate taxologically based articles.
 * 2. An enhanced disambiguation page, with an explanation of the problem and then the internal links.
 * 3. A full umbrella article with disambiguation links.

This should be based on how much there turns out to be to say about the referent of the common word. In a case like mole, there could be quite a bit to say. I don't know much about Quail, but so far it doesn't seem to me to be nearly as clearly defined a referent for that word. I mean, what could you say about quails that you can't say about ptarmigans or praire chickens? I could be wrong about that, though.

At this point, I see some more work, possibly to finish what you started at Vulture. I'm working on mole a tiny bit at a time as I've got to tread lightly there for complicated reasons. I'm closer to finished with Talpidae, which I'm pretty proud of in view of the fact that it was originally the same as the article mole, although I lost as many conflicts as I won in those debates. I'm very interested in what you would recommend with quail, and actually kind or hope you'll lead the way there if you see anything that would help. I'm pretty much finished with shrew mole/shrew-mole vs. mole shrew/mole shrew. Whew! That was a mess and I'm pretty proud of it.

I think there must be many more cases out there, and I find myself in the position of wanting to nomify these cases. Cases of what? Something along the lines of "non-taxo-parallel-bio-referants". I see this as a potentially large project that I haven't seen anyone else working on apart from you, who clearly seems to "get it".


 * Actually, I think the three quail articles are largely satisfactory the way they are, precisely because no attempt has been made to mix the three together. Anyone interested in Californian quails, say, who came to the article on quails would quickly click through to the New World quails (with an exclamation of "Oh, they're actually different critters! That's interesting") to find what they were looking for. I think that's the ideal situation -- gently helping enlighten people to differences they didn't realise existed.


 * Bathrobe (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought you might be interested in this one: Mistletoe.
 * Bathrobe (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still in love with this one. So long as I have the article Mistletoe, no one can say that no article can be written about a thing as a gestalt of features rather than genetic relation.  This article is quite precious to me, and I thank you for having pointed it out.  Now, what do we do with mongoose?

My molosser edits
You may certainly put the Boston Terrier back into molosser, it indeed appears I made an error. Sincerest apologies! Thanks, -- Pharaoh Hound  (talk)  12:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphins are Whales
Hello. I saw your comments regarding the rather idiotic and opinionated first paragraph regarding the entry on Whales. And I totally agree with you. I found a few sites that will indeed show that Dolphins, Porpoises, Killer Whales, Pilot Whales, etc, are indeed whales. Here's another one I might have missed. http://www.whale-images.com/killer_whale_facts.jsp I hope this and the one I left on the discussion page is helpful. PatrickLMT (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Common People
Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I've replied on Talk:Common People. I notice we also had a conversation there some time ago, about the references and what I perceived as a possible NPOV problem: I agree we need to think globally, but don't feel emphasising the cultural significance of the Pulp version in the UK is excessively parochial or outdated. I think more citations of specific reliable sources, maybe using a template would still help. --Cedderstk 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

species in philosophy of biology
Hi - saw your message on Philosophy of Biology. I agree that that section is not well-developed. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/ CHE (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for responding and for this link to this paper, which is interesting. Have you seen the list on my user page?  What is the significance of this?  Old world and new world porcupines are not related beyond being rodents, but it everyone seems to be ok with that.  But when I try to include the Malagasy Mongooses, traditionally thought of as mongooses, in the article mongoose, I meet opposition.  Why stop at the species level?  Did you know that seem to want there to be one articles about whales, and another about dolphins, simply because there is no clear line between the beaked whales?  What's the problem with ambiguity?  The existence of shrew-moles and mole-shrews does not threaten the existences of moles and shrews, at least to my mind.


 * What some seem to fear is the fact that, if you take away the taxonomic definition, you are faced with the often difficult chore of actually saying out loud what it is that makes a mongoose a mongoose or a porcupine a porcupine or what makes us call this a whale and that a dolphin or when a beaked whale is an intermediate form. It comes down to shape, mostly, and would have to be defined mathematically, and I don't think that anyone has done that yet, or at least not in a way that it can be sited.  If you ask a child to draw a whale, it'll probably be a rough approximation of a sperm whale.  How do you write in words what that is?  Words that have referents need articles, but it's easier said than done when current taxonomy doesn't match up with the referent of a long established concept and word.  Chrisrus (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mother Teresa
I left a note on the talk page explaining why I removed the cat. Please reply why you disagree and reverted. Thanks. - Spaceman  Spiff  02:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget it, sorry for the hasty message, I've just been cleaning up a lot of India related cats recently and get reverted quite often for no reason. - Spaceman  Spiff  02:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't see that you had explained. I have undone the undo. Chrisrus (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Koko anecdote
No, sorry. That edit was nearly 2 years ago and I dont remember where I got it from! Fig (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
If we are talking about same thing and same edit, then see this. You will understand... --Tadija (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Frugivore debate
Just so you know, it was I who directed Pearl999 to the Human talk page. The argument had been going on for quite a while on the Frugivore talk page, and then I was asked to join the debate after others had tired of it and bowed out. It looks like this user will beat this horse to glue, possibly in the hope that when she makes her desired changes, people will be too tired of fighting over it. Another potential motive is that this person is likely an animal rights activist. I hinted at it in one of my replies, and she more or less confirmed it by defending the animal rights sources she was using. Therefore, she may be either using the talk pages as a forum to debate with people (to push her views), or she may be trying to plant this material in the articles to give support to the animal rights movement. At some point, I think we're going to have to get some admins involved. She's already received several warnings and personally attacked one of my online Wiki friends (who is an admin). Anyway... just wanted to let you know. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  00:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New Guinea Singing Dog
Per your request, I have added several audio/video files. They can be accessed in the external links section. As I am a novice on Wiki, let me know if there is a better way to present them. Tomcue2 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I thought it to be fitting to state my questions here and not in a seperate section since in affects the same article. I have updated the article on the New Guinea Singing Dog and the current version is on my page. Most notably I refused to use information from the New Guinea Singing Dog Conservation Society since there is no proof at all that they are peer reviewed and in case of non-peer reviewed I only use newspaper or magazine articles, if nothing better is available. I also used the info-box for dog-breeds due to the whole taxonomic issue. I had already published the original german version in the German wikipedia and no one critisized it so I think it must be ok. However, I have two problems: Can you help me with that? --Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a native speaker of English so I need someone who checks my grammar and wording.
 * I can't get the Canis lupus familiaris out of the Infobox.

Thank you Chrisrus for undoing mrhorseracers latest deletion of oldsingerman20's contributions to the NGSD page. Tomcue2 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

my question to you is how does the new text fit with existing standard. Please site reference--Mrhorseracer (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You said:::: * I can't get the Canis lupus familiaris out of the Infobox. Can you help me with that? --Inugami-bargho (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2010 I recommend that you copy/use the infobox in the original NGSD article taken from the iucn site. It looks like someone has already corrected the NGSD's taxon to c.l. dingo. This is accurate and you can use ISIS to confirm. Tomcue2 (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing???
You're not writing what the sources say, you write what you want and make terrible grammar mistakes. Your not improving the articles, your ruining them. You also come up with MSOW but in the end ignore what is written there. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Props
Chrisrus, I sincerely thank you for standing next to me in the name of science to help me refute the incorrect claims of Pearl999. To answer your question to her that I overread, humans evolved on the Savanna, not in a jungle where a "frugivorous" diet would be practical. With that being said, Homo sapiens speciated from Homo rhodesiensis on an omnivorous diet, and that makes us natural omnivores no matter what Pearl999 wants us to think. (The nature of an individual species is derived from its own speciation, not its distant ancestors.) I'm a Biology Major, so you can trust me on this one. In the name of science and truth, with the One who first set all that natural science describes in motion as our witness, thank you! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A belated "You're welcome" and and thanks to you, Mr. Willstro, for taking on the lion's share of the burden of setting Pearl straight. You did a fantastic job and I am glad to have helped.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop messing with articles!!!
What is wrong with you? You're ruining both the NGSD as well as the Dingo-article. You´re not doing anybody a favour with it and you obviously can't even see it. Not even your "improvements" are performed right; they have the word "sloppy work" written all other it. I don't know what is going in your head and I don't care any longer. And one piece of advise: Its completely pointless to make a good article in "accordance" with a bad one. And stop claiming that it is in accordance with anything, it is only in accordance with your own views.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You should calm down. I understand you represent one side or faction with some kind of personal vested interest in certain facts being couched in a certain way, and seem to look at this as war. But I don't care about that and have no such agenda.
 * If you have a point, don't use emotion; use thought, evidence, and reason to make your point. Adopt a calm matter-of-fact tone so that, if you are right about something, I can hear it, as I gather you have something to contribute and I will hear you out.  You will find that if you are civil with me I am actually intelligent and unbiased enough to listen to reason.  I will not, however, be bullied, so quit trying; you will fail.
 * The article I am making things in accordance with is Subspecies of Canis Lupus, which directly from MSOW, so it's not really other articles that things should be in line with per se, but MSOW, or maybe my understanding of it in this case, which could be flawed, but you haven't shown how.
 * To understand me, please look, for example, at Himalayan Wolf. See that the taxobox says "Canis himalayensis", and compare that to the text of the article, some of which I changed, and the article Subspecies of Canis Lupus.  You will see a problem, something has to give, don't you agree?  I have it on my agenda to fix that, not because I know better but because I figure MSOW does.  It's the same with these two subspecies.
 * According to MSOW, there is some question about whether the C.l.dingo and C.l.familaris should really be separate subspecies, but there is no indication of any doubt any more about whether the NGSD should be one. They just list it as a "synonym" of C.l.dingo, which I understand to mean that any reference I see to "hallstromi" is a C.l.dingo.   If you are saying (and I still don't know what your position is) that there is such debate, I'll listen to why you think so, but it's not to be found at MSOW, which is odd, because if there is some serious doubt about it among them anymore, we should expect them to have noted it.  As such, any mention of such disagreement has to come out of the lead and into the subsection on historical thought on the subject.
 * As they do note the provisional separation of C.l.dingo from C.l.familairis, the situation seems to be this: there is a clade between the familiar dog on the one hand, and the Aus dingo and some other SE Asian animals (including the NGSD) on the other.  So there is a separation between the two that they had to think about before calling them separate subspecies, but there doesn't seem to be any doubt that it's there.  The problem they have handed the English language now, it recently became clear to me as a result of this experience, is that the English word "dingo" and the technical term "C.l.dingo" don't line up as nicely as they had, now that many animals, including the NGSD, that had not been the referent of the word "dingo" are now grouped into C.l.dingo.  Wikipedia may have ways that we can respond to this "problem" if it's a problem.  I think the article "Dingo" has enough to deal with just dealing with its traditional referent without the additional burden of having to give equal time to all animals now being grouped in with them.  This is just an idea, I'm not sure if or how Wikipedia could or should respond.  What do you think?
 * Sorry if this was "sloppy", I've got to go now and will not be able to review it for typos. I trust you won't be a jerk about them.Chrisrus (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I alreay tried to be reasonable with you but everytime I reason with you, you simply seem to ignore the important parts. And to be honest it seams that you are lacking facts and you interpretating MSOW in a way the site doesn't give information on. Really if they don't mean that both dingo and familiaris are domestic dogs (simply two subspecies of domestic dog instead of just one) why do they call them both variants created by domestciation and artificial selection and the dingo only provisionally seperate, and why does the comment under lupus dingo only say domestic dog and not descended from domestic dogs then? As for your last "improvement" on the dingo article: you wrote that "Although the name "dingo" mostly refers to populations occurring in Australia, some animals in southeast Asia and the New Guinea Singing Dog are also classified under the term Canis lupus dingo, and as such, may be classified as dingoes." That is a contradiction in only one sentence. On the article on the subspecies of Canis lupus and referring to dingo and familiaris. The article doesn't simply use MSOW (in fact it lefts information out) as a source but other sources as well. The number of subspecies and synonyms seems to be based on MSOW but much of the rest is not. The entrance about the characteristics of the domestic dog (the skull, the tail, etc.) all apply to the dingo as well (as was written in the article in the description section), only the dingoes teeth are a little bit bigger, dingo males are usually fertile throughout the year something not found in wolves. Furthermore the article indicates that all domestic dogs have curved tails, but they do not. The article is misleading, after all according to it dingoes would not have curved tails, but one look at the dingo article will proof otherwise (look at the section beneath discription on the group of howling dingoes). Didn't you notice those contradictions? On the ignore topic: I already told you before that the dingo and the NGSD both have mtDNA-types that fell right in the main clade of domestic dog types and now you talk about that "there is a clade between the familiar dog on the one hand, and the Aus dingo and some other SE Asian animals (including the NGSD) on the other". MSOW doesn't state anything in that direction and the published scientific article on the dingo-origin (also referenced in my NGSD-article) says otherwise. As for the debate on NGSD status, just look at my article. You will find it there. And have you actually looked at your work in the NGSD article? You write something here and something there instead of finally giving it at least the right structure. I see all your work and now you want me to believe that you are not involuntarily messing with them? It's obvious that you don't mean, to since some of your info is accurate, but you nonetheless do. Or how would you interpret it if you see somebody working in such a way?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am responding to you in my own way, elsewhere, as you may have figured out by now. You will see this is not as it seemed to you when you wrote this.  I cannot respond well to this post because it is addressed to someone who is saying something I'm not.  If you change your mind about me, please post here on this page saying so.  If not, I hope you will stay off my talk page.Chrisrus (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence supporting the separation of c.l. familiaris from c.l. dingo
Chrisrus, I really don't think Inu is familiar with the last DNA paper that Dr Wilton and like 37 other researchers have just published. It specifically states that AU Dingoes and NGSD are totally separated from domestic dogs. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * MSW3 agree that familiar dogs and dingos are separate, because the list them as two separate subspecies. They don't show any sign that I can see of leaning toward separating them into two species, but they do unite them as subspecies under the heading "domestic dog"  They did say that they'd be revisiting the separation.  I bet this paper will be taken into consideration at that time.Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Guinea Singing Dog War
‎Chris... Let me try and make sense as to what has been going on with the NGSD page. In order for you to fully understand [Mrhorseracer]‘s motivations for deleting gobs of oldsingerman20's contributions' without asking for citations or having any measure of courtesy, some history needs to be provided. It has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of his contributions which you will better understand by the end of this long post. So grab as seat and let me begin.
 * You have my undivided attention!

20+ years ago, Senior Ecologist Dr I Lehr Brisbin along with oldsingerman and a couple others helped to retain a few of the ISIS listed Singing Dog population in the USA by taking in the Zoo specimens as they were being bouncing (Zookeeping term) by them. The cause of the zoo exodus had to do with the USDA's re-classification of the Singing Dog and Dingo to just another domestic dog breed. The Singing Dogs taxon was changed from hallstromi to familiaris. As far the zoos were concerned it made the Singing Dog an undesirable animal to house. The USDA guidelines at that time required a zoo that has domestics (Zookeeping term) care for them at a level that was not cost effective. A once a day feeding & watering no longer applied to Singers & Dingo's. **What else was required? (two feedings, leash walking & human interaction) Chrisrus (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)** After Bris (Dr Brisbin’s nickname) and friends gathered up a group of Singers, he obtained a research grant for the Singing Dog. In 1996 Bris formed the New Guinea Singing Dog Club of America and sat at the point. Bris had many irons in the fire, however, and not enough time for them so he sought out someone to do the research and produce documentation for on the NGSD. He found Janice Koler Matznick who was (at the time) a modestly successful dog behaviorist. Not certain what her education status is today, but she had no scientific or genetic credentials. Bris handed Janice a pair of female Singers **The names of these two dogs?** (Buna & Tufi re:http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/Ethogram0405.pdf) to study and to produce the ethogram] http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/Ethogram0405.pdf ] on them. Janice then sought out a male to breed some litters, and to sell some Singers to supplement the grant monies. She found an undocumented intact male Singer at an exotic pet store [[**Dog’s name? (Kai) and documented it (via Bris's ISIS account) and started breeding. She volunteered to take over Bris's Club and renamed it the Conservation Society. She then built a board of directors at her choosing. From 1997 to the present, that board is primarily made up of folks who own singers that she produced the names of these dogs? (Manny, Marco Polo, Pan, Foldo, Junah) and had sold to what became her board members. With pretty much nobody else really caring about the Singing Dog, once Janice had completed [her writings|insert link here]http://newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/Ethogram0405.pdf, http://www.newguinea-singing-dog-conservation.org/Tidbits/BookExcerpts.pdf,  they were the only game in town; the one place to go for info**specify please** NGSDCS. Janice tried to further the recognition of the Singing Dog by making every possible effort to have the scientific world re-declare the Singer as a separate species. After meeting oldsingerman (a ontime supporter of the Society), I realized that he has both an understanding and a passion for the NGSD that would rival anyone in the world. He has not produced any documentation on them so technically speaking, he has no credentials. Oldsingerman & I eventually realized that we had the same feelings about the Society and it's goals. We decided to break off from the Society and form [our own organization] NGSDI and have done so. We are undoubtedly with less credentials, but on the net there is now [a 2nd option for casual researcher when it comes to learning about Singers]. We eventually decided to become Wiki members and add in some info and [a link or two] so that the folks with descendents of those Singers that left the zoos for the exotic world would have a place to go for help. The Society will be cordial to someone with an undocumented Singer, but will make little to no effort to trace down a bloodline for you unless you are part of the inner circle or on the Board itself. With all of the above now said, I can confidently tell you that mrhorseracer is a board member or actually board members (plural) for the Conservation Society. In fact, mrh is not even a mr but 1 to 3 different people that possibly include Janice Matznick herself. Google "youtube [tomcue2]" and you will see that one of my three passions is horseracing. mrh is (in essence) mocking me. That should also be evident by reviewing both mrh's and my talk pages. I undoubtedly and admittedly have bias as does mrh but the day is soon coming where our contributions to the Singing Dog world will become notable and documented. Lastly, I will address the coloring issue. Until aprox 4yrs ago, there was only a handful of Singing Dogs that ever had the black & tan coloring. They were in Germany and the offspring of Singers captured by German explorers on the Irian Jaya Range of New Guinea **names?**. A sable colored Singer was in Canada** but he was not a true b & t. There is also one still in Germany **?**whose photo is seen on the page that User:Inugami-bargho is building. The Society spent in the neighborhood of 6k to import a relative of the pictured German Singer**named?**. It was believed to be a black & tan. What arrived was Benji (a sable colored singer)**nm?**. Meanwhile, some 4 years ago, an exotics friend at [a Canadian sanctuary] called to tell me that she had acquired [a pair of true black & tan Singers that were pure]. **After 3+ years of investigating the claim, we have finally been able to verify that the pair are indeed pure. **how?** I myself with help from oldsingerman20, obtained a 3rd black & tan that is related to the pair in Canada. [That 3rd black & tan Singer in North America]] and one of only [four known black & tan singers in the world] is lying on my bed behind me as I type this to you. mrh and her organization have been desperate to either obtain or produce the coloring. Until they do so, they refuse to admit that the color exists and unless one of these black Singers gets into Matznick's hands, it will never be admitted to any breeding program or acknowledged as pure. **Why can’t this be decisively proven by a gene test** We of course know better. The bottom line here is that although none of the information that oldsingerman has contributed to the NGSD page is fiction, there is little documentation other then [a website that we own] to back it up. The Society is making every effort to keep only their information accessible to the public. That's why all of the deleted info and why mrh is so taken back by [the external link that I added featuring the vocalization files]. It's a 2nd link to our website. As she is now threatening to arbitrate the issue, I have no interest in entertaining anything she suggests. Asking for citations I believe is a wki editors right. Simply deleting ones contributions out of jealousy or spite is just plain wrong imo. Tomcue2 (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, but you can’t publish your own research here. I sympathize, but there’s nothing I can do about it.**


 * Keep improving your site. I’ll ask about using it as a reliable source.  At the very least, I think you would win in arbitration that it can be added to the external links.  Be careful that there is nothing in it that would disqualify it as a breeder’s site.  Dog article guidelines, for good reasons you can imagine, discourage any links to breeder’s sites in the external links.  I can then see about using it as a reference for citing statements in the article.
 * I’m putting a copy of this on my page. You may want to delete it, or at least the parts I indicated, from here.Chrisrus (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made some edits per your request and have removed any perceived negativity of the version of this post on the NGSD discussion page. I more wanted you to get a feel for what was going on with the edits then actually writing NGSD history. Ask questions if you have them. Tomcue2 (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A belated thank-you and reply for this and your contribution to Wikipedia. I understand your motivations and appreciate the background information very much.  Yes, I have some questions.  If I may not know exactly with whom I am speaking, could you introduce yourself to me as you will with regard to the above? Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions
Chrisrus, Please a couple of questions. How does a person attain a position as a "senior editor"? (Please don't think I have the energy, knowledge or desire to ever be one). Does Inugami have more power given him by wikipedia than say does mrhorseracer or are we all "equals"?? Just curious. It's important to understand the "rules of engagement". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there is any such thing as a "senior editor". No, they have no more power, but if they cite everything they say well and no one can disagree effectively, they will win.  Please let me see your website, tell me the URL again.  As an expert, even if you don't have a degree or have published anything in peer-reviewed journals, we can still cite your website as a reliable source if it's done right.  There is very little published on the New Guinea Singing Dog, and much of that which has been published, I gather second-hand, has been discredited.  As such, your website may be among the most reliable sources there is. Chrisrus (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, For our website information please email us at oldsingerman20@yahoo.com. I will respond privately only. Thank you, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, Some links for you to check out:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4207-wild-dingoes-descended-from-domestic-dogs.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/33/12387.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/302/5645/555bhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/302/5645/555b  osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Orbits-framed.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Orbits-framed.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Please help me. Chrisrus (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wolf (disambiguation)
Hi, I noticed your edits to Wolf (disambiguation). I hope you don't mind, but I made a few tweaks based on the style guide for disambiguation pages at MOS:DAB. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  09:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mind at all; in fact, I appreciate the help. Actually, could you help me with the formatting of the Animal section where it shows blank bullets before starting to list the other canids?  I can't get rid of them.  Thanks again! Chrisrus (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Essex (whaleship)
Thanks for your kind note. It was of great interest to share this research on the Essex. One imagines Melville being inspired by it as documented by Chase. Bests. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a well-written article and a gripping true story, even without the added dénouement/dramatic final twist of the fateful meeting of Melville and Chase! Keep up the good work. :)Chrisrus (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. Dénouements are interesting literary devices. I hope you had a chance to see:
 * "Into the Deep: America, Whaling & the World", PBS, American Experience, 2010.
 * Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up about the PBS documentary. It was awesome!Chrisrus (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference List

 * Chrisrus, Are you or someone you know good at making the proper reference entries in the text and reference list for NGSD? I am totally bald regarding referencing.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, do you mean re-referencing the same citation twice? Chrisrus (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I mean that if I go thru editing and mess something up in regard to a reference, can you fix it or add new references or delete old references no longer in use. I just don't have a clue as to this referencing methodology..  It's a terrible handicap.  I know stuff and can write fairly well, but don't know the mechanics of referencing.  For example, if I were to go through editing and took out all the text for a reference, I don't know what to do about the reference.  Osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm...Is this what you want to know? Click on this little number here:   Is that what you want to know there? Chrisrus (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading this type of directions is worse than translating Greek.. My computer skills are so poor and they assume the reader knows things I've never heard of. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "...to put a reference in the text, write Chrisrus (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, and then if I edit a paragraph and take out all the material from a listed reference, then what do I do to the reference list?osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if someone I wrote something and typed in a reference for it, and you delete the thing that I wrote, you have to also delete the stuff that I put between the reference markers. And by "reference markers", I mean the stuff between the .  Is that helpful? Do you know how to cut and paste text? Chrisrus (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I cut and paste on other things all the time, but never have on wikipedi. I understand now about the reference deletion.  I was going to put the "Further Reading" in alphabetical order, but didn't know how to do it.  osm20  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, do you know how to select text with the mouse? You point at nothing and click and hold.  Then you move the mouse while holding and sweep over the text you want to select.  This will change the color of the text.  Then you let go of everything and you have some selected text.  If you don't like useing a mouse, you can also hold down control and use the arrow keys. Chrisrus (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nureongi
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also 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  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. Vipinhari ||  talk  16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Chrisrus (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your comment posted on my talk page. You say that you are not the one who is going to be working on the (re-created) article. Who is, then? This is an encyclopedia which, of course, everyone can edit; and it is expected that articles will change and develop with time and with muktiple editor input. But it is not really usual for an editor to create a brief article containing, presumably, his/her total knowledge on the subject, with an expressed expectation that other editors will pitch in. I have left the article alone, to avoid any appearance of bias, but in my personal view it is, as it stands, only borderline notable at best. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 10:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You think that the special breed of dog which is bred to be eaten by Koreans is "borderline notable". Chrisrus (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do actually. Particularly as there appears to be some controversy as to whether it is a real breed, or just a "yellow" one. But, as I have daid, i will leave it to take its course. Whether this aricle is worth recruiting editors to, when we have over 3 million aricles here, is of course a further consideration.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just passing by, you don't have to thank me:) But I'm glad the article wasn't deleted, anyway. Good luck. ~ Katoa (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Dog
Hi. I uploaded three very nice images in the article, can you please tell me what breed could that dog be? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for this and all your contributions to the article dog.  I don't know what breed it is, but it looks like a scent hound of some sort.  The nose is larger and longer than in more primitive basal dogs, so it looks like it's been bred for tracking.  Sorry I couldn't be more helpful! Chrisrus (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been more than helpful! Thanks a lot. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

NGSD
Hi Chris, in the NGSD article, I wish we could have an easy way to do an "Also See" section so we could put in article references such as "Dingo", "Canaan Dog", "Pariah", "India Dingo" etc and make it so we can easily add or delete as new information comes to light. How can we do that? osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like that? I just added dingo and pariah dog to the list.  How about the article Evolution of the dog, which mentions the NGSD?

Yes on Evolution of the Dog and also the article Dog. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Noam Chomsky
All right, I see what you're getting at with the section heading. But there's a problem here, because the kind of criticisms that the GS people leveled at Chomsky were technical in nature, whereas the kinds of criticism that people like me, Shalom Lappin and David Johnson, Geoff Pullum, Gerald Gazdar, Paul Postal and others direct at his work is based rather on its intellectual shoddiness and dishonesty. Let me give you a clear example of the contrast involved:

(i) back in the day, Chomsky argued that generative semantics' 'global rule' mechanism permitted an explosive growth in the number of possible grammars for natural language, and was thus inferior to the strictly boolean conditions on analyzablility that he assumed for constraints on derivations via transformations. But as Postal and others noted, the use of persistent features in syntactic derivations made a hash of this claim, because you could use strictly boolean conditions on analyzability and still implement the effect of a global rule, simply by introducing a dummy feature at one stage of the derivation which would then be carried through later stages, eventually triggering some transformational operation in a purely local fashion which nonetheless reflected a configurational state of affairs from much earlier in the derivation---exactly the kind of thing that global rules did, but in a much more transparent way. That was a technical critique, pure and simple---that a claim of Chomsky's about formal restrictiveness was just so much hot air, because his own approach incorporated ways of effecting precisely the kind of effect that he was criticizing in GS. No one claimed that this was intellectually dishonest---a bit thick on NC's part, maybe; but that sort of argumentation ('What X fails to notice is that by her own assumptions, it is possible to show that Y necessarily follows, which she criticizes me for advocating'---the usual story) is a part of every academic's arsenal.


 * So, Chomsky said something that you and others claim was wrong. It was a technical critique that can be summarized by saying that Chomsky's assumptions, something follows that Chomsky criticizes others for advocating.  Is this correct? Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(ii) In his 1982 book, Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Chomsky pisses all over Elisabet Engdahl's brilliant discussion of parasitic gaps, which she argued had to be treated as a special case of extraction, unrelated to any other phenomenon in the theory of transformations. He announced that poor old EE had got it all wrong, and that on the basis of certain assumptions (what was then called the functional determination of empty categories), you could show that certain components of the then new Government and Binding framework predicted exactly the parasitic gap phenomenon. Except... it turned out that the functional determination of empty category was an untenable idea, shown to be so by people in Chomsky's own inner circle (well, the outer part of the inner circle){who?}}. And guess what? In Chomsky's next monograph, Barriers, published in 1986, Chomsky gets parasitic gaps by a mechanism called Chain Composion, which has to be treated as a special condition on extraction, unrelated to any other phenomenon in the theory of transformations. Oops. ... but never a word, anywhere, in anything he wrote then or subsequently, that Engdahl had been right and he had been wrong. The contortions that MIT syntacticians went through after that to get parasitic gaps to 'fall out' of general principles look like something from the Peking acrobats---and they *still* haven't gotten a good story. And yet at no time did Chomsky ever say that his sneering, condescending cracks about Engdahl in Concepts and Consequences were out of line, that he was wrong in attacking her on the basis of his own failed model of single filler/multiple gap phenomena. On the contrary, he has repeatedly maintained that he was always right, and important rival grammarians always wrong, or, at best, on the right track but missing the crucial point. His worst sins in this respect might be his abusive treatment of Haj Ross, a far greater syntactician than Chomsky, whose case Postal and I discussed at length in our paper; but there are many, many others of the same sort.


 * So, Chomsky said that Engdahl was wrong about something called "parasitic gaps" in a way that embarrassed her; hurt her reputation. Then, later on, he claimed to have found a phenomenon called chain composition to be true.  But there is no important difference between parasitic gaps and chain composition, they are the same thing.  So he didn't give her credit for this idea and didn't apologize for hurting her reputation.  He claimed her idea as his own, which is sort of stealing and lying, and he never said he was sorry about defaming her idea.  But there is no disagreement now about whether the parasitic gaps/chain composition idea is true.  Is that correct?

(i) and (ii) are not the same sort of thing at all. It's very important that the reader who isn't part of the technical linguistic world, but who wants to understand Chomsky's intellectual offenses in this domain, understand clearly that cases such as (i) can happen to the very best of us. Cases such as (ii) on the other hand point to a flawed intellectual character, someone who lacks the integrity to acknowledge that he was wrong, and in effect calls other people names instead of answering their quite reasonable challenges, or attempts to deny them credit for their own work (as in the case of Engdahl, whose work on parasitic gaps was conducted at least as early as Taraldsen's---a fact that Taraldsen has never disputed---but which Chomsky has always explicitly referred to as coming *after* Taraldsen's, with the implication that it was really derivative. This last bit is regarded by many distinguished people in the field as fulfilling all of the necessary semantic requirements to qualify for the description "out and out lie".


 * So, on the one hand, i) Chomsky was wrong about something according to you and others, and he's still wrong about that. On the other hand, ii) Chomsky was wrong and then right about something, but instead of admitting he'd been wrong, claimed that he'd thought it up and acted like a jerk about it, making many angry at him. Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My point is just that the 'early GS criticism' section you want---which someone else is going to have to write---is going to be fundamentally different in nature from the later criticism. Everyone gets something wrong, everyone has someone who disagrees with him or her... that's just the way science is done. People were working out a lot of stuff they didn't really understand very well, on both sides of the GS/IS line. Many of the necessary technical tools to get a handle on the issues, e.g., model-theoretic semantics or typed data structures, hadn't come into existence yet, or weren't accessible outside very small circles of mathematical logicians and theoretical computer scientists. So the stuff under (i) isn't really what gets people worked up about Chomsky; that was really just a matter of it being early days in theoretical linguistics. It's the stuff under (ii) which makes people see red, and with good reason. People in the latter group who bring up Chomsky's unacknowledged adoption of many GS ideas---ideas he treated as transparently undesirable in the 1970s---did *not* necessarily endorse the GS position at any time, and currently *no one* does. What they do, rather, is note that Chomsky in effect took over many GS mechanisms and assumptions without ever once acknowledging that he was originally contemptuously dismissive of those very ideas. You can think (as I do and always did) that Generative Semantics was a crock, and still level the latter charge.


 * So, we should have one section called early "General Semantics", which explains that, while it is a discredited notion, it did have some ideas that were worked into the current understanding. Then we have another section where any criticism published by you and others about how he 1. took other people's ideas 2. didn't give people credit for these ideas 3. loudly said someone was totally wrong and then quietly said the same thing himself later without apologizing or admitting that she had been right.  Can we cite all this?

Rdlevine (talk) 03:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Bob Levine


 * I was hoping someone like you might come along. Please if you could just help us have a section on the Early General Semantics section and then another about later critiques.  Nothing should be original to the article, it must be summaries or overviews of each type of notable critiques made by famous people and published soemwhere.  We don't want battling experts having it out on the page, we just need to report what the battle elsewhere is.  Thanks for your help!  Chrisrus (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus---OK, I can do something like that, but it'll take me a bit of time. The early criticism of Chomsky during the Linguistic War era involves a certain amount of excavation---a lot of issues that were live then have the same status now as arguments between the early Celtic and Roman churches about what the tonsures of monks should look like! There *is* good work out there---Fritz Newmeyer and Randy Harris have of course done a lot of the spadework (although Fritz' position is a bit partisan: originally a committed GSist, he had an epiphany at one point that led him to adopt a very uncompromising 'Principles and Parameters' view for a long time and much of his writing on the history of linguistics was done from that perspective---which he no longer holds, interestingly; the Parameters part of Principles and Parameters has never been able to be gotten to work, and Fritz has been one of the chief whistle-blowers on this particular point; he has a really outstanding book on the subject that came out a few years ago from Oxford. But his classic histories definitely had an agenda, which Harris, a very well-informed outsider, doesn't). There's also some excellent, very technical material by Geoff Pullum on the origins of transformational theory which bear on this question. So it'll be a bit of a project... but if you do think an entry covering the published work on that era would be useful, then yes, I can assemble the various perspectives and contributions that have been made along the lines you ask for. And I'll try to keep it concise... it just will take a bit of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdlevine (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help!Chrisrus (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If, in the meantime, there are sections in which you can perceive that someone has been unfairly maligned in the section, we should remove it right away or fix it right away as it might be the sort of thing that the guidelines of "biographies of living people" are in place for: liable or slander against a person in a position to be harmed by those words. I'm sorry for reverting your edit, but I was just trying to get someone to do it right.  Should I go re-instate them, or is there any chance you'll be teasing out one critique from the others anytime soon?  I just worry that if I reinstate those edits, it'll just lie there un-dis-conflated and the problem won't be solved in any long term way.  Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Shiba Inu; C.l.familiaris or C.l.dingo?
Chris, Is there a way to use a link as a reference? Could you check this out to see if I could use it? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.shiba-dog.de/dingo-en.htm


 * Wow, this is really intersting! I want to study this some more for my own interest, but right now to quickly answer your question directly, of course we could, but we should have our eyes on the same references that it uses, we could use some of them, definately.  Have a look at its reference section!  We can use this and its citations, among many other things, to convince them to change the taxon for in the box on the page Shiba Inu to Canis lupus dingo instead of Canis lupus familiaris.  Eventually, if we can properly cite it, there will be so many universally recognized "dogs" that aren't familiaris that they would have to let us redefine the nature and scope of the article dog to either include C.l.dingo or to somehow carefully re-do itself to be about familiaris only and not about C.l.dingo.  I think they'll find that the first option is the most doable.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought about the reference list also, but not having experience writing on wiki I wanted you to evaluate its usefulness. The reference list ans actually the writeup itself are really neat.  I was after it as a reference link for the name use of New Guinea dingo.  If I put in a sentence about use of the name New Guinea dingo would you do the reference part of it so I can see how it's done?  osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, You could do it like this: The Shiba Inu is a kind of Canis lupus dingo


 * I think we actually have found an excellent reference here. Dr. Holger Funk is well written.  Has written extensively on the Shiba.  Seems to me we could easily reference any of his articles.  See, the Shiba Inu and NGSD are strikingly similar.  If there were only two Singers left on earth we would breed one of them to an AU Dingo and the other to a Shiba Inu. There exist already some "closet" NGSD/Shiba Inu hybrids.  The fact is, we have one such hybrid ourselves that we rescued from a kennel that was going defunct.  I think Dr. Funk could also be a valuable resource for the Dingo article and probable other various "types" of dingoes.  I would say Dr. Funk as a reference could replace some of the other references that are weak scientifically. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I just don't understand how to do these references. Could you please help out?  In the article where it says Hallstom Dog, could you put in the Dr. Funk reference from up above here?  It can replace the JKolerMatznick one which is currently listed as #1. We can add a bit of diversity by adding the Funk ref and discarding the Matznick ref.  Could you do this one for me and then maybe I can learn. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, umm...So where exactly do you want exactly which reference? This one here,, to replace the citation number one? Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Coaster did part of it. Yes, I think what I need to ask you to do is to replace in the reference list the #1 citation.  #1 citation in the reference list is a Matznick reference and I'd like to replace it with the Helgor Funk article.   They both say the same thing and replacing her's with Funks would add some diversity to the reference list. I need to ask, how does a person type in the little red reference numbers enclosed in the brackets? And if a person edits and types a reference into a text edit, then will it also appear in the reference list or do you have to type it in both places?  osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added the Funk reference to article where the Matznick reference used to be located. As to your questions, the bracketed reference numbers will automatically appear in the article where you put the tags. Also, the refernce will automatically appear in the reference section of the article.  I hope this helps.Coaster1983 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, that is so cool! Thanks ever so much for your help. Please watch my work, though, because I'm sure there will be errors. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Nureongi
Hi. I have read your comment you left on my talk page and the article "Nureongi" you created. I believe the article is a fine contribution to discussions on Korean culture and dog breeds. I have made some edition of my own to the article; Please revise anything if it is problematic. I've also noticed that the user Melonbarmonster2 has been messing with the article. This user has been reverting my edits on other articles too, without any reliable sources. I will make efforts to stop this user's disruptive behavior and make some contributions to the "Nureongi" article. Hkwon (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My website
I removed the bulk of my material from the NGSD article as you requested. I had actually planned to reference it in due time after it had been duly edited and all the errors removed and so on, but apparently on wiki a person has to cite nearly every word as it's written. I think that tremendous need to cite is due to editors not knowing their subjects. It's almost a paranoid need, "the paranoid need to prove each word." Interesting phenomenon. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If stuff isn't well cited, it won't stand up well to a challenge, that's all. Someone can remove stuff that's not well cited, but they probably won't get away with removing stuff that's well cited.  There's tons of uncited or poorly cited stuff, though.  As one of the world's leading experts on this dog, if you provide a website that establishes why we should believe what you say, people will look at that and say "oh, he must know what he's talking about" and not challenge you.  Or if they do, another can come along and say, "I don't agree with your challange.  He seems to know what he's talking about."  and then revert the challenge.  The thing about breeders stems from a practice of people citing "the best Kentucky Hunting Hounds come from A1 Kentucky Hunting Dog Breeders" and then linking to the website.  Also, there was a thing where the "external links" were added full of lots of breeders looking for free advertising.  Again, it's just being reasonable.  Everyone should be reasonable and no one should be unreasonable, that's all, and from this general principle comes lots of "rules" but there're not real rules.  There are no real "rules", just about.  Chrisrus (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying and your comments regarding my personal knowledge of Singing Dogs is greatly appreciated albeit embarrassing. Again, as I've found in the past, what you say makes sense and is logical. I hope to someday repay you for your help and kindness.osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Levine
Hi Chrisrus

I'm going to leave another copy of my reply in case you miss the first one---as I say, sure, you can remove my name from the page, and when my quarter and grading are done, I'll be able to pick up this N.C. criticism project.

cheers, Bob L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdlevine (talk • contribs) 19:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! Chrisrus (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just remember, nothing that hasn't already been published; sum it up and cited. Thank you for your help with this project; there is a huge amount of criticism of him and we're trying to collect it all in one place, get it all organized, and understandable to the lay reader.  Chrisrus (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus---sure, that's fine with me. My quarter is just about over, my last class is this Thursday, I have minimum grading to do and I'll be able to pick up the 'Critique of N.C.' project once all that's out of the way.

cheers, Bob L.

Copyright problems with File:Orbits-framed.jpg
Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Orbits-framed.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.themandus.org/them.html. As a copyright violation, File:Orbits-framed.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Orbits-framed.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Orbits-framed.jpg and send an email with the message to . See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Orbits-framed.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Orbits-framed.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you.

The CC-license is for Balserio's work (artwork of a gorilla-like Neantherdal) on that specific page (the one that states the license) and not of other works on that page or on other pages. Jappalang (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi Chrisus, Could you tell me how to access the reference list on the NGSD article? I need to delete #15. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's under the Origin and taxonomic status section, right at the end of the first paragraph. Chrisrus (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Borahund
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boranhund

I'll be darned. There's the Thai dingo. Can the page be translated to English? Since there is no longer a Dingo article, don't you think each of these "Dingo" types articles need an "Also See" section? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)\\

Or is this the Thai Ridgeback? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boranhund&ei=-AwRTKOyJMSBlAfax-XZBw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dboranhund%26hl%3Den   osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm! Look at this: Phu Quoc ridgeback dog.  Accoring to the translation, it's one of the three types of Asian Dingo.Chrisrus (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Darn it! There's not one reference on any of these articles at the Norwegian Wikipedia!  I'll continue trying to track this down....Chrisrus (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I study this Dingo/Pariah/Ancient breed dog stuff, problems become more and more apparent. I really do believe there needs to be a "Dingo" wiki article in the English language just to point out and try to clarify some of the worldwide dingo information. . For sure the Au Dingo article needs an "Also see" section. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving Pictures
Hi Chrisrus, I have been able to download several photos into wiki commons and would like to use a couple of them on the NGSD article. Could you refer me to the proper link so I can learn how to move them from commons to the article? I need to learn it myself rather than depending on others to do it for me. If you could point me in the right direction I'd be obliged. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too good at it either, but I'll try to help you. You have to type everything in double brackets, the same way that you do when you add an internal link. So first, you'll have to "open brackets" or however they're called, right next to the letter "p" on my keyboard. Then you type the word "Image", capitalized, and then put a colon. Then you type the name of the image that you uploaded, and then either close it with double brackets. That's all you have to do. Now, if you want more than a picture, you have to add a verticle line after the name of the image. The vertical line is the one above the enter key and below the backspace key on my keyboard, to the right of the brackets key. After that, you type the words you want the caption to say before the closing brackets. You can also write the word, left, center, or right between vertical lines between the name of the image and the caption text. You can make it standard "thumb" size by typing the word "thumb" before between vertical lines right after the image name and before the orientation word (left, right, or center. Open this section to edit this eror where I spelled that with one "r", and study this example.   Hope this helps! Chrisrus (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks sooo much for your help again. I think I have photos figured out. Who says you can't teach old dogs new tricks. Awesome things these computers and software programs!! Thanks again, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)