User talk:Chrisrus/Archive 2

Moving Dingo to Australian Dingo
I'm tolerating what you do on the English Wikipedia, but I won't accept the mess you've created in other language versions. You either pull that thru and fix the interwiki links (i.e. repair the links that point from articles on the subspecies to your article on the infrasubspecific form) or I'll revert the articles back to an acceptable version. -- Torben Schink (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, please take a different tone. You are coming across as arrogant an bossy.
 * Second, the other language versions seem to be, primarily at least, about the Australian Dingo, so it's not really a problem as I see it. But if the people at those languages' Wikipedias don't want to link to Australian Dingo anymore, they can do as they see fit; link to Canis lupus dingo (taxon), follow suit, or do whatever; that's their business and I can't do anything about it because I don't speak all their languages.  Also, many Wikipedias have articles that don't correspond perfectly to all other articles in all other Wikipedias, and there is no rule that one language's Wikipedia can't make a move unless all languages' Wikipedias do so.
 * Third, this is how Canis lupus familiaris is organized in apparently all the languages, the German one I assume as well. You have one article for the taxon and one for each notable variety.  Why not organize your German version in the same way?  What would be your objection to doing so?  It's just a suggestion; you Germans can do as you want, I don't care.
 * Fourth, you should check out the Norwegian way of doing things. They seem to be on the right track, and I'm hoping to get some help from them translating their article on the Asian Dingo, which is an article that neither English nor German Wikipedias seem to have. Chrisrus (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to fool me? You want to have separate articles about the Dingo and the Australian Dingo but it is others who should do all the work? You have moved the article about the Dingo to Australian Dingo five days ago. You have done nothing about that article since. It still has the interwiki links in it which should be in the Dingo article, it still has the taxobox in it, it still contains all the info about non-Australian Dingos, and Dingo and Canis lupus dingo still link to that article. It is YOUR job to continue what you've begun. It is not up to others to fix the problems you're creating. -- Torben Schink (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "trying to fool you", and I would ask you to refrain from this kind of talk. Second, I can't tell if the interwiki links need changing or not, because I don't speak all those languages except a few.  It's their business if they judge it to be the best link, even if it's not completely the same.  Third, the taxobox should be removed, but I hesitate to do so personally for my own reasons.  I am surprised that you haven't removed it.  I can only assume you'd rather dominate than fix the problem yourself.  Fifth, it doesn't seem inappropriate for the article to talk about non-Australian dingoes in that way in that section, even though the article is and has always been mostly about Australian Dingoes, it's not wrong for it to mention their place amoung the other dingoes in that section.  I will take a look at it, and would ask that you do so as well if what you are trying to do is to help.  Next, anyone who searches for "d-i-n-g-o" or "Canis lupus dingo" is probably looking for the Australian dingo, but an improvement to the hatnote might be in order, what would you suggest?  Thinking about it, I think I'll redirect Canis lupus dingo to the article Canis lupus dingo (taxon) and have a hatnote sending them to the Aus. Dingo article if that's what they were looking for.  So your criticisms are somewhat valid and I'll make a few adjustments as a result of them.  You should feel free to help, and there is no need for you to act like a jerk. Chrisrus (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making a fool of yourself again, by not doing the work yourself, but as always you don't see it. Again you think that you are right and that time will prove it. And you re-word stuff as you see fit. You are so lucky that you don't live in the same country as I do. Because than you would have to face me in person.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to make any changes you see fit, or to use the discussion pages of the articles in question to calmly state your objections. If you continue to make personal attacks on me and to issue personal threats, you will be banned from Wikipedia.  You may not believe this, but I actually welcome your participation if you would just calm down, take it easy, and be rational.  If you cannot do these things, please stay off my talk page.  Second, please concider the possility that I'm simply a guy that likes to sort the wolves and the dogs and other animals, enjoys figuring out puzzles where one thing runs into another and lines blur, and that nothing I do actually has anything to do with you.  If you look at the history of my contributions you will see the evidience is consistant with this.  I'm intrinsically interested in these things and not interested in you or out to get you.  Even if you didn't exist, I would be doing this.  Please calm down for a while before responding.  I would like to work with you or someone like you in some ways because I can't do this properly without people who are like you in some ways.  PEACE!  Chrisrus (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For what end? From all that I have seen of you, you do not even recognize when you make a mistake, no matter how obvious. And despite what you claim to be and to want, your actions do not prove it.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are several instances I could point out that when I made a mistake, sometimes obvious, and undone them. I ask you to what end do you go around to different people's pages making criticisms too general or unclear for anyone to do anything about?  What point is there in paying attention to you if you do not clarify what you what you disagree with and why, consistantly violating Wikipedia guidelines about civility, not to mention good rhetoric and argumentation?  Please either repect our rules or go violate them somewhere other than my talk page.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Undone" them and they were still incorrect. I did clarify several times: your interpretation of MSOW and stating things that it did not state, that you don't know how to write (you overlook coprrupted links, you make gross grammatical and letter errors despite the fact that english is your mother tongue), don't use sources for your statements to name the the three main groups. I did it so often, but you still didn't got it. You didn't even answer in many cases or all of a sudden stated that you meant something entirely different (e.g. the case of the MSOW entry on Canis lupus dingo, first you claimed that the synonyms were breeds or races/types and later you does barely list any references or sources and none on the different "Asiatic dingo" as they call it, so were is the basis for their work? You don't need to speak Norwegian to notice that. Basically it comes down to one thing: You show only evidence that you are a person who thinks what she is doing is correct, despite proof to the contrary. And stop claiming that you get insulted, If you cannot handle criticism, it is not our problem. Instead you should seriously rethink your work. If everything would be OK with it, no one would criticise you.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 06:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All this betrays that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's cooperative, and you repeatedly show you think that one person has to have everything perfect before you hit "Save".  It's not like that.  A red link is there to show that something is missing, a lacuna that should be filled, maybe I'll get back to it some day or someone else will come along and do it.  There is an army of editors and bots who come along in due time and fix little typos and whatnot, these things are not important to get something going.  When all you have is an imperfect source or even no source, you go with the best you've got and then later you come back to it or someone else does and the thing gets better over time.  I fully expect that article to be wholely different in the future, with maybe none of my text left at all in it, even, I don't care.  I'm only doing it because no one else has.  It's just standing there, filling a lacuna that needs to be filled - especially the Asian dingo section, which stands with the only thing I could find at the moment.  If you or anyone else wants to take it over, be my guest; I would much rather read it than write it and would have if I could have but it didn't exist so I got it started.  You, on the other hand, seem to believe that nothing should be done until everything is finished, by one person.
 * As to whether the synonyms are types or breeds, well, that's what some of them are. For example, your New Guinea Singing Dog, as you know, is not exactly the same as the Australian dingo, but they are the same as far as taxonomy is concerned, they are both Canis lupus dingo, so for taxonomy hallstromi is a synonym.  If taxonomy didn't end at the subspecies level, there might be a taxon for each, but there it does, so what therefore are the Australian Dingo and the New Guinea Singing dog and the the rest?  Go back and read again what I said before that you misunderstood.  Please see that I've been saying the same thing all along.
 * I can handle criticism fine, but this type of emotional ad hominim stuff is way out of line, and the bit about what you would do if you lived near me borders on criminal harassment.
 * About the Norwegian stuff, again, it's just holding the space until a cooperative good Wipedian comes along and replaces that text with something better. There was nothing there, and that was the only thing I could find at the time and now there is something there to show what obviously needs to be done.  I've been soliciting help with it, and if you have a copy of "The Dingo in Australian and in Asia" or some such, feel free to replace it.  If your reaction is "That is your responsibity, Chris, you must do all of this yourself, I refuse to help you" then it just shows that you don't understand this website.  Chrisrus (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Et cetera, et cetera. Always the same with you. I know you don't like it but you belong to those people that really ruin wikipedia. By the way, if you had followed your own rule I wouldn't even had typed this now. Farewell.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I was thinking the same thing about you. Wikipedia only works when people are cooperative.  Others ruin everything. Chrisrus (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Chrisrus!
Hello Chrisrus! I'm a recently new user and need assistance in creating articles. I am a member in the Wikiproject Cats. Help me at Wikipedia, please! I have a nice userpage. I welcome you there! Regards,--Sainsf&lt;^&gt; (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a specific question, I could try to point you in the right direction. Chrisrus (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Shadowing edits
Please stop shadowing my edits and do not leave troll comments on my talk page. That is behavior prohibited by WP:Stalk. If you continue to abuse wikipedia rules with such behavior, I will have to file an incident report with at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please understand I don't watch you. I watch the article Dog meat consumption in South Korea because I'm a contributor to it so it's on my watchlist.  I hope that, now that you realize this, you will no longer believe that I am "shadowing" your edits, making you paranoid that I am "stalking" you or harbor any grudges against you.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Canis lupus dingo var. "papauensis"
I hope my changes met with your approval. It was a kind of difficult and awkward section, but seemed to work out well in the end. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like it very much. You're right that there will probably be a way to improve it further, but that's very well done for now.  Sorry about my typos and such and thanks for fixing them.

We still need to track down the origial paper, "Ramsay, 1879", which MSW3 sites as the original naming authority. There, we should be able to find a more detailed anatomical analysis. I've tried and tried with no success.

We still don't know what happened to it, although I doubt if either of us would revert the other if he came out and said that they seem to be no more, having likely been interbred out of existence with non-native dogs. We could, I suppose, both be wrong about that, so we should probably hold off. Do you know anyone in PNG who we could ask? For all I know, they may be wandering the streets of the capital to this day, right under everyone's noses. Stranger things have happened.

BTW, I saw my first Norwegian Elkhound today. Very interesting!

Back to "papauensis", if we added something to the var. "halistromi" section, we could say something less dramatic and more encyclopedic but still to the effect of "deep within the remote highland valleys, another...." Then that might relieve some of the pressure on the papauensis section to stave of an innocent reader's conflation. Chrisrus (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to track down his paper either although I'm sure an Australian museum has the original. My opinion is that I think the current version of the article is perfectly clear. I doubt anyone will be confused re the differences between Ramsey's observations and actual NGSD. I can describe his study specimens. They were a mixed dog, Greyhound almost looking animal with a long smooth tail and a lanky body. A fairly ugly cur dog. Ramsey was first and foremost an ornithologist so his research into dingo types is really questionable anyway. Norwegian Elkhounds are very special. osm2066.213.185.78 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pariah Dog Article
Chrisrus, The Pariah Dog article needs to either be deleted or totally redone. It's near terrible! osm20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsingerman20 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think it's kinda interesting. For one thing, as you might predict, I love the way it uses the terms Canis lupus dingo and Canis lupus familiaris.  I'm making sure I understand on the talk page, and then I'd like to try to clarify the article.  It's probably going to have to do some disambiguation, as the meaning of the term seems to have changed quite a bit over time.  Now, it seems mostly to be a generalized dog type by some kennel clubs as a place to put all the primitive dogs, from Besenjis to NGSDs to Shiba Inus to all the spitz-types to the Carolina Dog, and so on.  I guess it is a term that lends itself well to the purposes of the dog show crowd, a sort of catch-all for the "breeds" that they didn't know what else to do with.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The first task will be to define the term "pariah". As you say, it has become a dumping ground. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I think UKC is the only kennel club who uses the name "pariah". Do you find any other registry or kennel club using the name? The rest use "primitive" or "ancient". osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Invitation
Sorry, I just got involved to the extent of that had to do with the extent to which it is true to say that the famous singer Freddy Mercury was a Zoroastrain. I mean, there seemed to be a gray area around the concept, as we don't know if he actually went practiced the religion or believed in it. But on the other hand, in places like India, I understand that it's become an ethicitiy, something about one's self that you can't change no matter what you do or not do. So the only thing I think I can do for the project is to ask that this matter be clarified in the article(s) in such a way that a person like me, who comes to the article with little or no knowledge about your religion/ethnicity can understand. Chrisrus (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Nudge
In the off-chance that you missed my participation, I replied to your comment on the Lesbian talk page before you removed the sentence.

I need you to engage in a fruitful discussion with sound reasoning so we can reconcile these issues. You have participated in the talk page for about a year. I give more weight to your comments than first-time commentators on the talk page, who, I suspect, are putting up drive-by objections to material that they do not fully understand, have not fully read, and are motivated more by morals than intellect. I do not believe deleting the sentence was the right way to go about this, but I need you to explain your point, please. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I learned alot from this, to my mind, excellent article, but it has since become stagent. As a suggestion as to a way forward, I'd recommend dealing with matters that people like me (or at least like I had been, I've since read the article) who know little or nothing about the subject and are afraid to ask.  For example, one thing I'd noticed was the correlation between lesbianism and sports.  Could it be that there is some common cause for both phenomena being so hightly statistically coorelated?  No where is the roles for one's hormones mentioned.  My guess is, there might not be any citable research on this phonenon.  People just don't want to go there, but inquiring minds want to know.


 * Similarly, but more mysterious, are the aparent statistical "overrepresentation" (no value judgement to the prefix "over" in the statistical definition) of lesbians in other fields. Animal-related professions and hobbies, such as horse and dog related professions.  I've had many dog groomers in my life, and I was wondering if my perception would turn out to be correct, that these people tend to be good at working with dogs and more attracted to the jobs because I know that lesbians are a very small percentage of the general population but of the groomers I've had MOST of them have been lesbians.  So I'm like, what's up with that?  So I went on the internet to find out and there's nothing.  Again, there's probably nothing you can do about it because there's probably been no citable research into this matter.


 * But that's not all. What about comedy?  What percentage of women are lesbians, and what percentage of female comedians are?  Why doesn't "Gender Studies" or "Womens Studies" or "Lesbian Studies" do some research about these obvious lacunas in our knowledge?  It shouldn't be impossible to learn what the answers to these questions are and to get some respectable and informed speculation as to why this might be.  That's not your/wikipedia's fault, but who knows?  Maybe someone can find something.


 * On the other hand, I still think that this article, lesbian, deals with it's gray areas better than many other articles with broad gray areas around the central referent. It pretty clearly shows how an individual can be both X and not X or part X and part not X, and what are the factors that would fill in the "If by X, you mean Y, then, but another way to look at it which would be legitimate would be yadda yadda, and all that other brave confrontation with vague stuff that many other articles run from.  Keep up the good work from the self-appointed "it-ain't-that-simple patrol", you get high marks from my criteria! Chrisrus (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Maned Wolf
Not sure what you were referring to here, but the maned wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus) is certainly a canid (Canidae) though not a member of the genus Canis.

In general, please do cite your sources when you write sections like the one at Canis. It's easy to stray into original research or new conjectures while writing such sections. Ucucha 21:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was talking about this genus. Feel free to help.  Chrisrus (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, how metaphorical do you consider the use of the word "wolf" to be when talking about Chryocyon brachyurus?


 * Sometimes I think that, now that Canis lupus refers as much or more to dogs as it does to wolves, the word "wolf" doesn't have any specific meaning but "big canid", and therefore this referent is covered by the word "wolf" as much as Canis lupus lupus. Chrisrus (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

About ready to start contributing
Hi Chrisrus, I'm finally starting to formulate a couple of ideas so that instead of complaining, I may be able to actually contribute something constructive to some of these articles. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great!
 * By the way, I got that book that I told you about. In your "travels", how often do you see this name, Laurie Corbett?  Plenty, I think.  Is there a more repected expert on the subject of Dingoes?  He seems to be everywhere.  That's the first thing I'd like to say I learned, I, like you, assumed that he was female because of the name Laurie.  Have you ever heard of a man with that name?  Dr. Robin Fox I thought was a woman, but he's a man, too.  I found that out the hard way.  Anyway, I think you have him referred to by the wrong pronoun there in the NGSD article or somewhere, so I thought I'm mention that first.
 * Second, he has a pretty radical (for Wikipedia, anyway) map of historical and present areas of "pure dingoes". To see my description of that, go to the talk page of the article Canis lupus dingo.
 * Third, I saw a Kartvelian Bear Dog today. There's a program in Oregon I'd read about where professional park rangers use this dog's unique ability to chase away bears without getting killed to protect the bears there from getting into trouble and thereafter inevitably put down.  A pretty amazing dog.  But I'd never seen one before.  It's owned by a guy who moved in up the street.  I coudn't stop to ask because I was, as usual, with my spaniel Casey so I didn't want to get too close to a dog that takes on bears.  But I recognized it right away and came home to learn about it on the internet and got involved with that topic recently.  I'm hoping to meet the dog soon, very excited to meet such a rare breed.  I want to ask the guy, who just recently moved in, how hard it is to keep such an animal in a small house with a small yard.  I bet he needs plenty of walks and still gets antsy without having the job to do which he was born to do.  Anyway, this got me trying to disambiguate the various "bear dogs" on Wikipedia.
 * Next, I got involved trying to mediate the Koreans on the meat dog issue. If you think the New Guinea Singing Dog wars were hot, you ought to check out that battle.  Whew!  Those guys hate each other with a passion.  I'm trying to help them work it out, but I don't recommend you get involved.  I don't know why I get into these things!
 * So, what are you looking forward to doing on Wikipedia? I enjoy talking to you! Chrisrus (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, Thank you for straightening me out on the Laurie Corbett mistake. A bear dog. Hummm, new one to me. Never had the pleasure of meeting one. That must be exciting. It's so blasted hot here the dogs just lie about in the shade as do we. I was going to work with the various articles that address dog stew, but if there are confrontational issues amoung editors I think I'll just let them fight it out. It's a tasteless job anyway! I'll review some articles and see where I want to land. Thank you for your kind support and comments. I enjoy working with you as well. You are always "sane" about things. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) One other thing, in some of the articles etc, there are little square boxes in place of letters of words. Inside the boxes are two sets of letters. Do you know what I mean? What are they?? Why are they there? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think what you are referring to is what happens when some computers don't recognize certain letters, usually foreign ones, such as Korean or some such. It used to happen on my old computer, but this new one understands the code for foreign letters and realizes them on my screen.  The old one used to do that on letters with an accent or certain other diacritical marks such as umlauts, as well as Greek letters.  There should be some way to fix this on your computer.  It will depend on what program you are using to see the letters.  If you are using Microsoft Internet Explorer, or Mozilla Firefox or some such.  I wish I could help you more, but I don't know how.  Chrisrus (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What you've said sounds logical. I normally use firfox, but I'll switch to IE and see if there's any difference. Some of these articles are mostly just little boxes. Thanks again for your help, osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What I've learned from the Corbett book
This is what I've been learning from this book and the ways I think it might be useful for us on some of the articles that we work on. Let's see..., I already told you about his being a man called Laurie, about the map, (you have checked out that section in the C.l.dingo article, haven't you? I hope so and hope that you'll be motivated to talk about that there soon.  The basic point is he conciders the "Inu" dogs, Nureongi, Caanan dogs, Carolina dogs, NGSDs, Telomians, and Besengis all to be Canis lupus dingo.  This contradicts Wikipedia in many places because every article with a dog info box on Wikipedia comes pre-equipped with the taxon "Canis lupus familiaris" already pre-installed, so any article that fulfills Wikipedia Dog article guidelines and has one of thier common dog boxes in the lead proclaims them to be familiaris, even these dogs.  Whereas Corbett says they're not.  Tom the Norwegian's map, which we use, has been updated by him several times.  Well, at least once, to include new information as he learns about it. This is the best map Wikipedia already has, and neither you nor I know how to make maps or get them onto wikipedia. For example, one time Tom learned that there was a confirmation of pure dingoes living along the Nepal/India border. I don't know how he learned about it, he must have seen a paper about research into this discovery and how it was confirmed in peer-review and it must have convinced him to add it to the map. After that, the map we use at Aus Dingo and C.l.dingo was updated by him. So I wonder if he'll do this again. I don't know why he wouldn't. I wonder if he will update it again, and would like to talk to him about it.

Geez, I wish I could share my copy of 'The Dingo in Australia and Asia' with you somehow. Have you thought about getting a copy? I got one used at Amazon.com for really cheap.

Ok, another thing I was psyched to learn from it is about the Thai dingo, the only dingo accpeted by Inu the German on his map, which is still in the commons. After I finish typing this I'll see if I'll post his below. The Thai dingo is the only non-Australian Dingo accepted by absolutely everyone that I can find, yet we didn't know anything about it beyond the uncited stuff in the C.l.dingo article that I took from the Norwegian Wikipedia to fill the void. Well, now we have something citable, are you excited to hear what Corbett has in his book about the Thai dingo? I'll keep you insuspense while I take Casey out to the shrubs for some "birding" (we use stuffed birds I toss up there and try to get tangled up good in there where it's a challenge for him to get them out. He needs this about three times a day.  I say this to you should you ever run into someone who doesnt' understand what his Cocker Spaniel wants when he's looking at you the way Casey's looking at me now.  He needs to go be a cocker spaniel for a bit, that's what's wrong with him!)  B right bk. Chrisrus (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I'll see if I can buy a copy of his book. I downloaded the what, Google review of it and have found some very useful info. I don't agree with him completely but then.... I have a feeling he may have changed some of his ideas a bit as he's learned more too. We all do. I found a science talk show yesterday where several people were discussing dingoes and he was also on the show. You can read the transcript of the show. The link is: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1952216.htm   You should take a look at it. Also I found a website: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dingo/origin.htm  that I've come to enjoy. You see, the AU Dingoes, well all the dingo type dogs are so similar, but AU Dingoes are mostly overgrown Singers. There are some social differences and so on, but basically they're a match. I never thought I'd say it, but if we thought Singers were going to go extinct the AU Dingo would be the one to hybridize with Singing Dogs, no doubt about it and Alan Wilton and other now seem to really have their DNA act together. I think the Thai Dingo is in the same class more or less as NGSD and AU Dingoes because of their isolation. The isolation is what has preserved and made those three unique. And the beauty of it is, and I know very little about Thai Dingoes, at least for NGSD and AU Dingoes, in their pure form, they are today as they have been for ages. They have not been altered by man, in fact, speaking for Singers, we have kept them unaltered, period. No selective breeding except to diversify their genes to avoid some of the proven pitfalls of intense inbreeding. It's a challenge when we're working with such a thin line of diversity. For years there were virtually no Singing Dogs bred because we were all doing what the "experts" asked us to do. It suddenely dawned on us that the "experts" were wrong by calling a moratorium on breeding and that because of their stupidity and our blind agreement with them, we were actually near extinction. Three years now have passed with a few litters in the US and Europe. This year we(my wife and I) will attempt to produce three selective litters at our facility. They will be the most genetically diverse litters possible in the world. They will be our first litters in nine years. We have vowed never to allow Singers to die out during our lifetimes. We have 14 adults right now and I'll just be happy as punch to whelp, raise up and train and socialize that many puppies, but it won't happen. We'll probably get about 10 puppies total and several of them are already spoken for. At any rate, I love looking at the AU Dingo pictures. I have an archival photo of two NGSD taken in, I don't know, 1962 or so of the original Singers at the San Diego Zoo. I've had the photo for many years. I should scan it, shouldn't I? It's a black and white. Remember what's been said about how animals in captivity seem to get smaller? I didn't know about any studies or anything, but many years ago, from comparing the San Diego Zoo photo to our own Singing Dogs, I developed my own theory about Singers getting smaller as time goes by. I called it the "Diminuation Factor". I didn't know others had already established it as fact. Anyway, I do think Singers have "shrunk" a bit in the captive population. Thai Dingoes are interesting. Not much about them. Your Cocker is a lucky dog!!!! Tell me what Corbett has to say about Thai Dingo. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Compare the Shiba and the Dingo at this link: http://www.shiba-dog.de/dingo-en.htm  osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

dholes
Hiya!

From what I've read, dholes are classed as "more" social for these reasons;


 * They live in much larger groups than wolves do
 * Dominant animals do not assert themselves with acts of aggression. This is a behavioural trait much more specialised for social cohesion than that of wolves
 * You rarely find lone dholes, unlike wolves

Sorry if this seems cursory. If you have anymore questions, go ahead and ask Mariomassone (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How rare is rare?
Chrisrus, This evening something interesting happened. I was reading about rare dog breeds. There was a comment regarding how very rare Thai Ridgebacks have become. The person went on to say that they were so rare that only 100 litters were registered last year. I just about fell out of the chair laughing. How extremely funny. Last year there were six litters of New Guinea Singing Dogs produced. Now let's talk about rare. How funny!!! osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point! I bet you'll react similarly to this: Rare breed (dog). Chrisrus (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see there is also a wiki article about Landrace. I think the article Rare breed(dog) does a good job of defining the term but we have to remember that AU Dingoes and Singing Dogs and possible Thai dingoes are not landraces because landraces are by definition domesticated animals or plants. I'd still prefer to think that AU dingoes, Thai Dingoes and New Guinea dingoes match the literal definition of a "breed" in the scientific sense, albeit a very ancient breed designed by natural selection, not by humankind. Only a handful of "modern" breeds of dog have been developed from Thai dingoes and from AU dingoes. Not one single dog breed has been developed using NGSD as foundation stock. Not one! Those of us who really think through all the effects of this scenario have many issues on both the pro and the con sides ie whether basically to hybridize Singers. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thai Dingo Picture
Chrisrus, There is pretty darn nice picture of a Thai Dingo at this link: http://hem.passagen.se/yvkek/thaiom_e.html  Also, I am in the process of contacting the author of the webpage. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Chrisrus, I received a mail return on this author. Now what?? osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Mr. Singerman. I'm sorry I hope you don't think I've been ignoring you.  I just wrote a response, but I decided it should really go to talk page of Canis lupus dingo.  I hope you will read it.  Unfortunately, however, I could only talk about the picture and I haven't talked about the other information in the Corbett book.  I will finish later, and then there are some other matters that I would like to talk with you about as well.  But now, I've got to go to work, but I promise to finish because I've got a lot more to report, it's very interesting! Chrisrus (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Qwyrxian (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Go back and read it again. 1. Dog meat as a cultural behavior. ex. Korea 2. Dog meat as a desperation food. Ex. France, arctic explorer 3. Dog meat as an eccentric/crazy individual thing. ex, Three Swiss guys, some dude in Kentucky. Three Separate phenomena Chrisrus (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I did misunderstand what you wrote. I thought you were talking about the actual practice of eating dog as some sort of fringe activity, when I see now that you were commenting on the mess that is the current article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I'm sorry that the post was poorly written, resulting at least partly in your misunderstanding being my fault. I am very happy with the initiative you are taking there and try to help to the limited extent that I am able, I'll try to find ways that I can be helpful.  Finally, I'll probably repeat this same statement in another appropriate place.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Canis
Hi Chrisrus. Thanks for the nice note you put on my talk page. My contribution to Canis was really very small, but I'm grateful to know you welcomed it. By the way, I saw the Go diagram further up your talk page. Do you play it? --Stfg (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks again, every little bit helps.  :) Actually no, I was just using that as practice to help a friend with picture formatting.  I had it open because I was researching all notable meanings and usages of the word "go" for an ESL class I teach, so I was reading that article at the time he asked for help getting pictures in.  It looks like an interesting game, though! Chrisrus (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
For your advice re my talk page. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

re:dog meat
hi chrisrus, you're welcome. i was just curious about that article. --Winstonlighter (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that the lead there is a bit vague with regard to Mexico? Cause if you read the Mexico section below, it's really the ancient Aztecs who ate it.  We have no evidence that it's any less taboo in Mexico than anywhere else! Chrisrus (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hybrids
Heya

From what I've read, the problem with coyote and jackal hybrids is that they are born with a plethora of communication problems which are not apparent in wolf dogs. Wolf-dogs are able to interact without problem with wolves, dogs and other hybrids. Jackal and coyote hybrids on the other hand seem to behave in erratic manners consistent with genes in conflict with one another (eg. dog and wolf body language and vocalisations are almost identical, whereas those of jackals and coyotes differ significantly, hence the instability in hybrid behaviour).

Also, the jackal-dog hybrid article mentions a source stating that jackal hybrids are unable to breed with one another once they've been crossed after several generations.

Although members of Canis CAN interbreed, only the wolf and the dog can seemingly do so without producing mentally unstable pups with defficient social skills.

Hope that clears that up Mariomassone (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

I know that's been the thinking, but are you keeping up with all the new stuff? Look:
 * 1) "Past hybridization between the two species {lupus and latrans) in the south-central United States may account for the origin of the red wolf."
 * 2) "...wolves from the Frontenac Axis...are hybrids between the coyote and the eastern wolf and represent the Ontario distribution of the eastern coyote," and "Central Ontario is inhabited by a mixture of wolf "types," and the area has been described as containing "Canis soup." Some of this complexity has been attributed to wolf hybridization with western coyotes, Canis latrans, which began colonizing Ontario in the early 1900s (Kolenosky and Standfield 1975)"
 * 3) We suggest that hybridization with wolves in Canada introduced adaptive variation that contributed to larger size, which in turn allowed eastern coyotes to better hunt deer, allowing a more rapid colonization of new areas than coyotes without introgressed wolf genes. Thus, hybridization is a conduit by which genetic variation from an extirpated species has been reintroduced into northeastern USA, enabling northeastern coyotes to occupy a portion of the niche left vacant by wolves. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/1/89.abstract

I could go on and on with more citations like this, because at the end of one there's always a link to another that cites it. But here's a suggestion: Google "Canis Soupus" and "Canis Soup". It's such an apt, easily graspable, catchy, and amusing term, I think it's really going to catch on as a term of art (of course never a real taxon...I don't think.... Let me know how many hits you get for it, is it up to two hundered yet? My guess is, sooner or later, Wikipedia will have an article by that name.

Well! Sorry, you said you "hope that clears that up" so I hate to cloudy it up, but that's the way things are going, everyone seems to be putting out papers about it. Canis is just a different kind of genus! Chrisrus (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish I'd recommened that you google "Eastern Coyote", which, as you probably know, is not a recognized species or subspecies. Wikipedia needs an article called Eastern Coyote, but I hesitate to approve the term for this referent, look at the size of this one, for example http://www.terrierman.com/598poundaddirondackcoyote.jpg. The word "coyote" might be better left in quotes in the term, as it's not really fully a Coyote, as you will learn when you Google it, if you don't already know all about it. Someone other than me should write the article, as I'm no expert. I do listen to what experts have to say about it, though, and it's pretty amazing. So someone else should write that article, and I know just the man for the job: you, Mario. I wish that you would write the article Eastern "Coyote", because it's high time someone did, and better you than anyone else I know on Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry I didnt get back to you.

I'm afraid I don't have reference [5], nor have I read it first hand. I got the information second-hand from Inugharmi-Bargho [sp?], who, unlike me, can read German. He translates the info, I transcribe it in higher standard English. Perhaps he can provide an explanation. Are you on good terms with him these days? From what I have understood, wolf/coyote hybrids obviously have no congenital defects (quite the opposite it seems), but dog/coyote hybrids do. I am aware that modern taxonomists now class the dog and the wolf as the same species, but then again, the behaviour of dogs is do diverse, and the experiment described in the reference only used one breed of dog (poodles, which arent exactly reknowned for their social skills). That is just my theory, but I wouldnt publish it.

I've actually been thinking of re-writing the coyote article for quite a while now, and the Eastern coyote is an interesting challenge. However, as you may have noted from the wolf and spotted hyena article, I prefer to do so with a full bibliography, rather than a collection of websites. At the moment, all my books mentioning coyotes do not treat the topic exhaustively. HOWEVER, I assure you that I one day shall buy books such as Marc Bekoff's Coyotes: Biology, Behavior, and Management and Gerry Parker's Eastern Coyote, and when I do, the coyote article will taste the consequences(!). Perhaps I'll treat myself to them this Christmas.

Kind regards, and thank you for the encouragement! Mariomassone (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with the facts. I haven't researched much into coydogs, but chromosome number regardless, it has been found by at least two sources (Marie Jean Pierre Flourens and Doris Feddersen-Petersen) that jackal-dog hybrids become sterile after the third/fourfth generation, and can only be mated back to either parent species, but not with other hybrids. The Flourens reference identifies the jackals involved as the golden species and, so far, Inu (who has the Peterson reference) has not argued against me using his hybrid info for the golden jackal article. It seems similair chromosome number is not a foolproof way of producing consistently fertile hybrids.

I did not write anything on the canid hybrid save for the jackal hybrid section.Mariomassone (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wolf teeth
Not sure if we have this already. Here is the source. I uploaded the smaller version. The big one is 4MB. I can't do that from my ISP. If you want, upload the newer, bigger version here. Might be good for at least one article. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
You, my friend, could do with a bit of archiving. Your talk page is lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnng. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. You, I like.  But I think I like it better this way.  I might go through and delete a few of them, or organize them or even archive a few.  But thanks! :) Chrisrus (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"lasar"
is there a particular reason you won't work in the userspace page I created for you? why do you keep recreating this article about a mythical device? -- Y not? 03:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At least glance at, at least one of the references, then call it "mythical" no more. Yes, there is a reason.  Go to the article's talk page if you want to talk about ways of improving the article.Chrisrus (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I put it up on AfD here: Articles for deletion/Anti-laser. -- Y not? 01:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Chrisrus (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Human
Thanks for your input. See Talk:Human -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing AfD Notice
There's no time limit to an AfD and you can't remove a notice of AfD until it is properly closed. I've replaced the notice on Anti-laser because of this.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It ran it's course and lost fair and square. Why was it re-listed?  It was re-listed and no reason was given.  You can't just re-list without some honest good faith reason.  "It didn't go my way" doesn't count. This is a bad faith re-list.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's a different issue. The AfD wasn't closed so it was inappropriate to remove the notice. Removing the notice doesn't close the AfD or stop the consequences when it is closed. It's against policy to remove an open AfD notice and it can be considered vandalism. You seem like a good contributor and I don't want you to fall in to behavior that could have consequences toward your continued editing on wikipedia. Just let this one slide and the AfD will run its course and be closed. Please be patient.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I agree Chrisrus (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, how might I open an investigation into a case of undue and unjustified re-listing, as well as stonewalling all queries as to why it was re-listed? I still want a reason. Chrisrus (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Eastern wolf
I can't promise anything, but I'll give it a try sometime later. At the moment, I'm busy compiling facts on the Indian wolf.Mariomassone (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Notice, by the way, that statement about wolves not adapting to humans as well and many more parts of the article clearly refers to a referent which excludes domesticated subspecies. This is appropritate because the reader understands that "dogs" and "wolves" are separate in English.  "Wolf", in turn, not synonymous with the Grey wolf, because even if one of the four subspecies that have been put forward as independant species turns out not to be Canis Lupus after all, surely you will agree that they will still be wolves.  I'm not even sure how metaphorical the word "wolf" is when used for the maned wolf.  So I'm thinking a person who searches for "wolf" and means "wolf (animal)" should learn in as clear and in an upfront a way as appropriate that while we may be assuming he or she is looking for the article Grey wolf, we are not trying to say that "wolf" = "Canis lupus".  I was filling out the wolf (disambiguation)'s (animal) subsection.  What do you think?Chrisrus (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, this is a referent that is going to continue giving taxonomy, and even cladistics, a big headache. What I've learned about it seems to indicate that current thinking is that it, like the red wolf, is a population of coywolves that has speciated.  When has biology ever included hibredization as a factor in evolution?  How many other animals, other than dog breeds, have resulted from mixing two separate species?  Have you ever seen an evolutionary tree or clade chart where any of the branches rejoined after having separated?  Who knows where this could lead in the future! Chrisrus (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Chrisrus, I don't edit wiki pages often so just saw your may talk edit to my page. I don't know that I have time to separate all of the debated facts for the eastern wolf but I think much of it is semantics.  At least wikipedia wants to use one source for the text box, and I support writing the debate (either historical if it's done or currnet if not).  There are several tests (mitochondrial DNA shows one piece of the puzzle and nuclear DNA shows another) so when different biologists use one and argue the other, it often feels like it's all for publications and exposure.  Unless a new method fills in a gap in knowledge, we didn't learn anything.  Many papers seem like that, especially when a paper tests DNA from the few remaining red wolves that we KNOW were bred from unknown individuals that somone decided was a wolf by measurements not DNA.  Unless we have DNA samples from before the collapse of red wolves, we don't know anything more about their origins as a full species and instead have documented the effect of hybrids.  The better result would not be that red wolves are just hybrids, but that they are extinct as a species and we have something new (then we could argue if it's new enough to warrant a new species designation, keep the old, or be wolfxcoyote that I'd choose).  The editors of the wolf wiki articles just go back and forth supporting their favorites rather than summarize it all.  Since I don't see it gettign resolved, I said my piece and moved on.  Wish I had more time to follow some of this through more.

Good luck --Paddling bear (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Pigs
Hi. I am sorry you are getting reverted on Pig (disambiguation). Whether or not to open with a link to Domestic pig depends on the outcome of the requested move on Talk:Pig. Please make your case there, not on the disambiguation page! The disambiguation page opens with the genus because that is what is on Pig; no other reason. If Pig changes then so will the disambiguation page. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at an ANI thread, regarding an issue with which you may have been involved, here. Thank you Steve Quinn (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Pig (disambiguation). During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I hereby appeal this block by adding below this notice this text: Chrisrus (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR notice board
Because of your excessive reverts of mostly my changes I've raised your recent editing of Pig (disambiguation) at the 3RR notice board: -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that the edit summary about you obviously not knowing the first thing about peccaries could have been misinterpreted as being uncivil. Please undestand that I meant it literally, it's literally the first thing, almost, that any expert wants to say about them - they are not true pigs. I thought that that to argue that whether "peccaries are not concidered true pigs by experts" is a subjective statement, this betrays he or she doesn't know the first thing about peccaries. That this argument was on the wrong track in this way was a necessary point to make, I thought. But please don't take it personally, most people don't know much of anything about peccaries. And there is absolutely nothing particularly wrong with knowing nothing much about peccaries, one needn't be ashamed of it or of having been caught arguing in a way that was flawed because of that, because people could be forgiven for thinking they were true pigs, as they do seem a very piggy bunch and in fact are considered pigs by non-experts. So I thought it wasn't being uncivil, this is good rhetoric. Nevertheless, I apologize because I should have realized that it does sting to have one's ignorance about anything exposed, even if it's the obscure fact that peccaries are not true pigs. So I should have found a gentler way to say it. Chrisrus (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivility
Chrisrus, re your comments addressed to User:Kevmin on article talk pages and Kevmin's talk page, not only are such personal remarks rude, but they approach personal attacks, for which you can be blocked. See No personal remarks and No personal attacks. Also, I think you are over-interpreting those sources. All they seem to be saying is that a peccary group and a pig group, each defined by the source author, are sister groups rather than parent and child or child and parent. The only fact here is that this is a matter of debate in the literature. If this debate belongs in Wikipedia then it is content for Suina. Mention of "true pigs" does not belong on the disambiguation page. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone says that whether peccaries are considered true pigs by experts is a matter of opinion or a subjective statement, that person must not know the first thing about peccaries. If you disagree with this, you must not know the first thing about peccaries either, and this is not to insult you.  You are being far too sensitive.  It is not rude to say that someone clearly doesn't know much about peccaries.  Lot's of people don't know the first thing about peccaries and are not ashamed of this and readily admit it.  There is no shame in not knowing anything about peccaries.  Please don't be insulted because someone has pointed out that you clearly need to learn just a little bit about peccaries if you argue that whether they are true pigs or not is at all controversial among experts.
 * Please spend just a little time learning about peccaries. You will see that, no matter what expert on peccaries you find, if they are speaking to the general public, who can, as can anyone searching for p-i-g(s), be expected not to know anything about peccaries, the expert will tell them in a very upfront way that one of the first things to know about them is that they are not true pigs, contrary to popular belief.  It had to do with their teeth and such at first, but more to the point has to do with the clades.  It will not take long for you to convince yourself that experts do not consider peccaries to be true pigs.  The statement that "peccaries are not considered true pigs by experts" is not a matter of opinion or a subjective statement.  Please don't take this from me, look into it yourself.  You will see unanimous consensus among experts that peccaries are not considered true pigs by experts.
 * A "p-i-g" disambiguation page user is highly likely to be looking for a page about honest-to-goodness pigs. He or she should be given the information that he or she needs to do this.  We need to let them know that anything higher than Suidae isn't really about true pigs, but rather one about true pigs and peccaries, which are not true pigs. He or she might very well want an article only about real pigs, not peccaries, which are universally considered not to be true pigs by people who study such things.  For this reason, letting them know that an article is about pigs and peccaries, and that peccaries are not really true pigs, that is likely to be helpful information for a "p-i-g" searcher to know.  Why, without knowing that peccaries are not true pigs, a user might just choose the broadest taxon, thinking he or she wants the broadest perspective on real pigs, an article about all the pigs in general.  Without this information, the user might accidentally arrive at an article about a referent that includes pigs and non-pigs at the same time, and then have to figure out the situation and then backtrack, needlessly complicating his or her search for an article which is about pigs, only.  And he can pretty well be assumed to be wanting an article just about pigs, because they typed in "p-i-g(s)".  Well, many if not most of them can be so assumed.  Pity the poor searcher who simply wants an article about pigs being denied the information he or she needs to know to find one!  For this reason, adding this information about peccaries to the disambiguation page is important.  Chrisrus (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Remarks such as If you disagree with this, you must not know the first thing about peccaries are personal remarks and are not appropriate. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who states that whether peccaries are considered by experts to be true pigs or not is a subjective statement or matter or opinion must not know the first thing about peccaries because whenever you read anything about peccaries written for the layman by an expert, the first thing they'll tell you is that they are not true pigs. So anyone who knows the first thing about peccaries should know that they are not true pigs.  Therefore, one of the arguments against including the fact that they are not considered true pigs by experts on the disambiguation page, this arguement is best dealt with by the person making such an arguement going and learning just a tiny bit about peccaries.  At that point, the person making such an arguement, if he or she is reasonable, will have to withdraw that arguement and either substitute another or concede.
 * If Wikipedia is to work, there will be debates. In some debates, one person will be wrong and the other right at times about different things.  At such times, the person having been shown to be wrong may very well feel bad and angry and personally attacked, and so charge the other with being uncivil, but this does not mean that the person who has pointed out that they were wrong and why and how to prove it to themself has been uncivil.  Nowhere in either of these links you have provided does it say "don't point out to other people that they are wrong and why and what information they are missing and how they can get it, because it's uncivil to do so".  Of course, it is to tell someone such things in most contexts, but it's not uncivil or unduely personal in this context.  You yourself tell people that they are wrong about this or that and why.  In fact, ironically, that's what you've attempted to say to me here today.  Probably we all do in one way or another at some time on Wikipedia.  If you are so insulted by someone pointing out that you what you'd just said betrays that you don't know the first thing about peccaries and suggests that you google it or some such, you might consider a new hobby that does not involve debate. Chrisrus (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Soricomorpha
Hallo. You've added a strange word socomorph to the article in this June. I can't find it in scientific literature. Did you mean soricomorph? Mithril (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have made a mistake. Chrisrus (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

An explanation
Hello, Just wanted to explain why I haven't been on line with wiki. The organization I co-founded(NGSDI) is rehoming a hoard of about 80 New Guinea Singing Dogs in PA. It's a real deal, believe. There's a lot on the news about it. Sadly, the media has many prejudiced statements and false information. You might check it out anyway. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Mr. Singerman!
 * As you see it, what is going on in Pennsylvania?

Chicken turtle
Can you expand on your comment on the articles talk page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem! Thank you for your interest in this matter.  Chrisrus (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fossil Records
Fossil records only indicate that humans have been denaturing meat by cooking them in order to eat it. I never contested this fact. But this doest take anything away from the fact that cooking meat releases PhIP, a carcinogen. http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/gm09winter/burgerking.html

Since humans are herbivores, they lack the stomach and mouth acidity or intestine length to kill the bacteria and get rid of purifying meat fast. Like I wrote, and for this very reason, meat comes with warning http://thebbqgrail.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Label.jpg. More people die of meat bacteria than aids virus. Therefore, meat has to be radiated and cooked to get rid of the bacteria. But, cooking meat releases carcinogens.

Cancer is most frequent where carnivorous habits prevail. - Scientific American, 1892

if humans are really omnivores, this they dont need to go to all this length. Also, omnivores don't get atherosclerosis. Manuj Chandra (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dog yet again
The "dog" article starts "The dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated form of the gray wolf". This means that the subject of the article is the domestic dog - while this may not be genetically different from the dingo, it is not appropriate to list canis lupus dingo as a classification of the domestic dog. Wrong end of the stick, it seems to me. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any domestic animal is a domestic form of a wild animal, even if it has reverted to life in a wild state. Feral pigs, for example, are still domestic pigs, albeit ones that have reverted to life in the wild.  But more to the point, if the sources call it a domestic dog, we should do so too no matter how you or I feel about it.  The problem is, you (it seems), like many other people, have not noticed that this is what they do.  Chrisrus (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Jackal
I don't think thats necessary. It was never considered a distinct species, just (previously) a subspecies of golden jackal (which IS still considered a jackal, albeit a very wolfy one)Mariomassone (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Lepidoptera
Your request has been complied with. See :
 * Bradipodicola hahneli
 * Cryptoses choloepi

AshLin (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Gray wolf - cannibalism
in the gray wolf article you're currently editing, please change the link to "cannibalism (zoology)" instead of the generic "cannibalism" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.29.106 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but in general, please feel free to do such things yourself. It is that you don't know how?  I'd offer to help you if you said that was the case.  We can always use more help on Wikipedia.  Chrisrus (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Navajo wolves
I'm not an expert on Navajo culture, but here's the whole page:

''Other tribes, notably the Navajo, feared wolves as human witches in wolves' clothing. The Navajo word for wolf, mai-cob, is a synonym for witch. There is a good deal of witchcraft among the Navajo and belief in werewolves provides explanations for otherwise inexplicable (to them) phenomena. Witchcraft and werewolves are (the belief is current) more on the minds of some Navajos than others, specifically the more insecure, those who have many bad dreams or who suffer from a sickness or misfortune all out of proportion to those around them. Such people might be viewed by other Navajos as suffering the attention of werewolves.''Mariomassone (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Shrew Mole Taxonomy
What I'm reading says Neurotrichus is one of the Urotrichini.

"... 3) the Urotrichini, containing Neurotrichus." -- Terry L. Yates and Ira F. Greenbaum, zoologists, Biochemical Systematics of North American Moles (Insectivora: Talpidae), Journal of Mammology, Volume 63, Number 3, Pages 368-374, Aug 1982

Yates, T.L., and Moore, D.W., Speciation and Evolution in the Family Talpidae (Mammalia: Insectivora), Progress in Clinical and Biological Research, Volume 335, Pages 1-22, 1990

"Yates and Greenbaum (1982) suggested that the morphological similarity between Neurotrichus and Urotrichus, found on the opposite side of the Pacific, in Japan, may be the result of convergence. Subsequently, however, Yates and Moore (1990) indicated that the chromosomal data support an earlier view that the two are more closely related to one another than either is to any other living genus." -- Robert M. Nowak, zoologist, Walker's Mammals of the World, Volume 2, Insectivora: Talipidae, 1999

"The Urotrichini (Urotrichus, Dymecodon and Neurotrichus)...." -- Masaharu Motokawa, zoologist, Phylogenetic Relationships Within the Family Talpidae (Mammalia: Insectivora), Journal of Zoology, Volume 263, Pages 147-157, May 2004

"Chinese (Scaptonyx), Japanese (Urotrichus and Dymecodon) and North American (Neurotrichus) shrew moles closely resemble each other in external appearance and habits (Allen, 1938; Reed, 1951). These diminutive animals commonly excavate shallow tunnel systems in the leaf mold of soft loamy soils and appear to occupy an ecological niche between those of the shrew-like and fossorial talpids." -- Akio Shinihara, zoologist, et al., Evolution and Biogeography of Talpid Moles from Continental East Asia and the Japanese Islands Inferred from Mitochondrial and Nuclear Gene Sequences, Zoological Science, Volume 21, Number 12, Pages 1177-1185, Dec 2004

"... the Urotrichini, including the Asian Urotrichus, Dymecodon, and the North American Neurotrichus (van Valen, '67; Hutchison, '68; Yates and Moore, '90)" -- F. David Carmona, zoologist, et al., The Evolution of Female Mole Ovotestes Evidences High Plasticity of Mammalian Gonad Development, Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, Volume 310B, Issue 3, Pages 259–266, May 200876.216.196.209 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I may have a look at those papers, but as Wikipedians, we have no way to evalutate these papers, which can contadict each other. Even if, in real life, you are qualified to evaluate such things, as a wikipedian you aren't either because as a Wikipedian you are not you per se actually but just a random screenname, or maybe your teenage son logging on when you're out.  And so the tendency is to look to some kind of august institution to have their conventions or whatver they do and have read all the published papers and debate them and then elect one of their own to write up the final decision plus notes and comments about any controvercies and doubts and whatever and then we go with that, at least as far as the taxobox and the lead sentences go.  You will see that this is the only way things practically work out: we just need an authority on what taxon goes where at least till the next edition of MSW comes out, otherwise it's chaos and nothing gets done.  So please let's just wait for them to to go over all these papers that you have there and make their decision to change it.
 * Having said that, I welcome the addtion of these excellent sources. We can use them in the taxonomy sections, below, and summarize the current debates.  We should word it like this "Experticus J. Knowsstuff in The Journal of Serious Discussion has 'suggested that this taxonomy be changed in the following way yadda yadda, but the jury is still out as to whether he's right about that."
 * Thank you for your interest in these interesting animals and your contributions to these articles, but we can't have the lead and the taxobox and all the other articles contradicting each other. Please summarize the references that post-date MSW3 and let's keep the readers up-to-date with the latest expert thinking about these referents.  This is a particularly vexing corner of mammology and I'm very excited to hear all about what these papers you have say.  But until MSW3 or some even higher panel of experts makes the call, let's please keep it out of the leads and taxoboxes.  Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'More to ignore"?
Hey, Chrisrus. I noticed this edit summary when you posted it, but I didn't know what it meant. I assumed it was referring to your posting in the thread and there being no response. Is this accurate? --Moni3 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Sorry, I shouldn't have written that "more to ignore". I understand why you didn't respond.  I admire your hard work, dedication, and skill, and patience.  What that section is trying to do is important and the topic is sensitive.  Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation
I reverted your edit at Entelodont, as, including it within Category:Pigs would mean also including peccaries within it, too. Entelodont (and all of its subordinate articles) are within Category:Entelodonts, which is already within Category:Suina, and that would be fine as is.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That, and Porky Pig is in the subcategory "Fictional Pigs," to be precise.
 * Fine, I don't mind. I knew it was a stretch.  But please notice that, according to several articles on Wikipedia including Suina, neither the entelodonts nor the hippos are included in the Suina e anymore.  Of course, I have no problem if we want to stick with the older alignment, but at least for the taxoboxes and the lead sentences all the articles should follow just one system, and as a user who navigates by taxobox alot I just want it to be one system and don't care too much which, but I realize for the project in general we're supposed to go with the most generally accepted by experts.  At this point on the mammilian branch, it seems they aren't all of one mind, but isn't there some authority, such as MSW3 which we could look to to evaluate it all and make a decision that we all agree to go with?  MSW3 doesn't deal with extinct species.  Either Hell Pigs and Hippoes are in the Suina as far as Wikipedian taxoboxes are concerned or they are not until the international society of mammologists or some such has their next conference, looks it all over, has it out, and then publishes it, even if its "inserta cedis" or whatever, and have that be the way we organize things here until they meet again and switch it on us again. Chrisrus (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The placement is not settled yet and we havent gotten very good coverage of this in the appropriate articles here yet, so dont go by what the wiki articles say here. As shown by this 2008 paper placement in Suiforme (Suina) is still accepted.  Im not sure if you meant Suinae in your comment but neither entelodonts nor the hippos have ever been placed as a pig subfamily that I know of.  Often times in Taxonomy "one system" is very contentions and pov, and this is especially true of higher taxonomy in some mammal groups still.  MSW3 is not an authority except for wikiproject mammals.  The thing about MSW3 is that it is just a compilation of taxonomic opinions with no major revisions itself and was never considered a binding decision by mammal taxonomists. In fact it was contested by papers soon after it was published and has been growing more out of date each month with now papers revising opinions on taxonomy.  I am strongly of the opinion that MSW3 should not be used as the default position on taxonomy due to its age and that it didnt cover any aspects of extinct taxa making it very spotty on accuracy to begin with.  It all comes down to what the individual papers say and who had the most compelling opinions in a paper.  Btw the term you were looking for was incertae sedis.-- Kev  min  § 20:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we have to go with something in terms of the taxoboxes and leads, and it's very confusing to navigate by taxobox up and down the Tree of Life if you've got one or two articles that are still sticking with the old way of doing things and out of synch with everything else. It'd be chaos otherwise, we have to make some kind of decision, we can't have one article saying that this taxon goes here and another saying that it goes somewhere else.  We have to go with some coherent system at least as far a taxoboxes go, and then in the body you can have the text say that it's contravertial and this expert or that has said it should be re-arranged in some manner that should be spelled out in as much detail as appropriate.  The article Suina, the disambiguation page Pig (disambiguation), and other places should have the Hippoes and Hell Pigs re-installed into the Suina, or this page should take them out at least in the taxoboxes, one way or another.  If I'm wrong about that, then all articles and taxoboxes should have both systems somehow incorporated into the taxoboxes and leads in as non-awkward a way as possible.
 * I am not in a position to evaluate this article you provide and to pass judgement on it. Neither are you, actually, because even if you are in real life here on Wikipedia you are just a screen name named Kevmin, maybe your teenage son logging on when you're out shopping or some such, not you, yourself, per se.  What we need is some periodic publication of something with a name like "The International Commission on Mammalian Taxonomy" or some such to wade through it all and come down one way or the other or something in between and then we Wikipedians simply obay until they meet again and publish something we can use as a current taxonomy until they come around again.  With extant species, rightly or wrongly, it's been MSW3, no matter how you or I feel about it, Wikipedia has settled on it.  In this case, it doesn't seem to apply because hell pigs are extinct, so I'm calling for some kind of genearal consensus as to what to run with while the top experts argue such things out.  Please agree that this if not ideal at least is practicable.  And although I thank you for your intersting facts about MSW3, I still would ask you to suggest something else to use or else there's little we can do about the problems with them until and unless something better comes along.
 * Thank you for your interest in settling this problem and for all your contributions to Wikipedia. Chrisrus (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point it will take looking at the scientific papers and finding out if, and only if, there is a stable view of the superordinal placement for entelodonts and hippos. At that point taxoboxes can be edited as needed. A publication is only good until the next publication is put out that addresses the same topic.  MS3 was chosen for its wide coverage and relative recentness about 5 years ago by a group of wikieditors as the guide for taxonomy.  There are known problems, such as lack of coverage and inaccuracies due to lack of extinct taxa (see the one genus, no subfamilies, Equidae).  Also despite the editors of MS3 assertions otherwise, updates and corrections based on new papers have not been maintained in print or online editions of MSW.
 * But as I said there is no such thing as MSW3 in the way you are wanting it though, science and taxonomy does not work that way. There  will never be an "The International Commission on Mammalian Taxonomy" which lays down the law as it were and says one way is correct.  Its all based on different researchers proposing different ideas and the concepts being hashed out over time.  Most taxonomics are never settled in all reality.  The job of wikipedia is to reflect the current state of opinion that is held by the researchers, both majority and significant minority, In general the taxobox should reflect the current opinions while hte article covers the current plus background on the historical views. -- Kev  min  § 05:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.
 * It seems to me that there are two topics we are discussing, one is about what to do when we have problems such as these. I'd like to drop that topic for the moment and talk about what should be done in this case.  If it were up to you, what changes would you make, if any, to the taxoboxes and leads and such for the following articles and pages:
 * Hell pigs
 * Pig (disambiguation)
 * Suina
 * Hippo
 * There are probably more. I would like to see them reconciled somehow so they don't give contradictary information.  Chrisrus (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's another example, the article Artiodactyla. It says that there are three main types, the pigs and such, the camels and such, and the whippos.  Having the hippoes and the whales in one group would imply that, seeing as how the hippoes aren't in with the pigs and such, that the hell pigs aren't either.  Do you think it's safe to assume that any article that organizes the even-toeds with the hippoes not in the pigs-and-such groups wouldn't include the hell pigs either if it were listing extinct groups?  It seems reasonable to me.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: mixed-breed dog
No problem, I'm glad I could help out in some (tiny) fashion. I've been reading your talk page comments and agree that the article in its present state has some issues, and I may take a stab at improving it soon. It'd be great if it got up to FA status again, but I haven't even had my first GA submission reviewed yet :)

Do these "never-bred" dogs even belong in the article if they're not true mixed-breeds? Are there any specific types that exist that don't have articles? I do think the concept deserves more coverage, to be sure. – anna  09:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cambodian Razorback
Hi Chrisrus, Those CR are neat. I wonder how many are in Cambodia? I noticed they referred to their barking, not howling. All the southeastern Asia dogs are certainly cut from the same block of wood, but one can't help but wonder how modern domestics figure into the genetics. I would think there would have been an isolation factor involved in Southeast Asia. Lack of western influence. European influence though. If someone would do some dna sampling before they get all watered down?? that would be nice. How isolated has the Thai Dog or Dingo been? I don't mean the Thai Ridgeback. Is there a plain Cambodian Dog or Dingo. It talked about dogs along the coast. Where did the razorback of ridgebacvk genes come from? Why haven't any Singing Dogs or AU Dingoes exhibited razorbacks or ridgebacks? The Cambodian Ridgeback is such a big dog. Wonder why? Interesting. osm20Oldsingerman20 (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. The story of the Cambodian Razorback dog centers around one particular person, and a person who you know.  His name is Christian Berger, this is his website:.  But you may know him as "Tbjornstad" the same Norwegian user who helped us translate the Norwegian article on the Thai Dingo for the article Canis lupus dingo subsection that we created and worked on together.  He is also the author of the only article you will find if you search wikipedia for Cambodian Razorback Dog, which is only on the Norwegian encyclopedia.  As I recall, (please read his website) he found these dogs in Cambodia, wandering around or something, and asked about them.  The locals told him that one in every so many common dogs there have this feature, and shrugged it off, as locals so often do about extraordinary dogs right under their noses.  He collected as many as he could and began a breeding program which he talks about on his website.  If you Google Image "Cambodian Razorback Dog" there is one picture that appears multiple times on multiple sites which is clearly one of the most extraordinary individuals I have ever seen.  This is no simple "ridgeback", it's a serious straight sharp rigid Mohawk many inches high.  The closest thing I've seen to it is the razorback of the Striped Hyena, or the neck mane of a zebra or hourse.  I wonder about it.  the back of a dog is supposed to divide hair laying one way with one going the other, and that stripe could somehow come from a slight variation in how that normally works.  The NGSD and Aus dingo probably share close common ancestors with this dog, but they come from genetic bottlenecks of just very few individuals, originally.  I guess the chances of those dogs having that ridgeback, or even razorback gene, even if it existed at that time, would have been pretty small.  The other mystery is the Rhodesian Ridgeback, did it evolve separately?  They look alot alike aside from the ridge.  I wonder if they were brought there by the same Austronesian peoples that populated some of New Guninea and all of Madagascar, but have never been proven to have landed on Africa.  Some people think they are origianly from Africa, but I don't think so.  Chrisrus (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Aulacorhynchus
I just noticed your edits to the genus article and wanted to clarify a few things: First, just to be sure that does not lead to any further confusion, it appears you believed my "hidden" comment was specifically aimed at you. That was not the case: Rather, I wanted to be sure people realized exactly what I requested the citation for (i.e., that the name "green toucanet" was in use). Although I do appreciate John Boyd's page when I just need a rough update on bird phylogeny, calling him an expert on toucans or for that matter Neotropical birds is questionable at best, and I have checked all the other citations you list; none of them use green toucanet (I guess you just copied them from Boyd's PDF because some of them don't even deal with Aulacorhynchus, but if you need the full citation feel free to ask and I'll provide them). I have worked with Neotropical birds for many years and probably have every single book that is directly related to this matter and has been published in the last few decades; I have yet to find one that uses "green toucanet" as a general name for Aulacorhynchus. However, Boyd, regardless of his level of expertise on toucans, is an external ref., and that's all I requested. I have therefore added his PDF as a citation. The second matter: Yes, I did remove your edit from the taxonomic section, but the primary reason was that it, as I also said in my edit summary, included a fundamental misunderstanding (the basis are few species; the novel idea are the splits). Even if I had modified it to fit the realities better, that brief text would only provide info already present in the list (following standard format w. brackets to indicate taxa that can be treated as sp./ssp.; used widely in biology and also in many bird articles on wiki), i.e. it would essentially be a repeat. If you want to add a larger taxonomic section I hope you will consider reading the papers that have formed the basis for the splits, but if not familiar with this group please also check some of the background literature (mainly Haffer 1974, but also Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Short & Horne 2001, Short & Horne 2002), as especially the proposed Andean splits of the Emerald Toucanet complex include some serious problems (briefly dealt with in Emerald Toucanet, but I'll probably add more when I get the time). Finally, referring to other articles is pretty standard on wiki; we even have templates for it (WP:TMG), and if we were to add everything that only is relevant to one species/species complex in the genus article we'd be content forking. I have removed the "hidden" text you placed under the taxonomic section, as I believe it only was aimed at me. In the future, please forward such personal messages to my talk page. Cheers, • Rabo³  • 06:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles about genera should explain important and interesting things about the genus, so please do so. That is the place for it, not sending them to all those other articles in order to piece it together.  It's there in the list, yes, but see WP:PROSE; readers may need the list explained inn prose, at least for a start.
 * One could approach it chronologically, as in "this idea came first, and then this one came along and challenged it" and so on. Another approach would be "two legitimate ways of looking at it" approach, a la "there are these (two) ways of looking at it, one which sees it like this and other like that" Chronological may cause the reader to weigh the last one who spoke as the most probably correct, so this other way is more neutral and NPOV.  However, if the new alignment is as it is simply because more knowledge has come to light, then the reader should lend more weight to the newer taxonomy and a balanced approach would cause "undue weight" on outdated ideas.
 * By the way, I know it's supposed to be a taxonomy section, but as you must know, and as the article Cladistics teaches, it is closer to the reality because it gets all the further branchings you can see as you fractal zoom on it into inter-taxonomic space. A drawing like Boyd's is easy to understand, and another showing the alternative branchings as there may be are easy for reader to "get the picture" may be a good idea.  But sentences describing the "complexes" (a term not explained nor likely understood very well as it stands) as divisions along a branch as if you were describing such a picture can very clear even without the visual aid.  If the reader gets the cladistics, the taxonomic debate becomes easy to understand and not just semantic debating about what to call something.
 * But might that be getting ahead of ourselves? Right now, all I ask is, could you please do as I was trying to and explain the information already in the article in the form of a list in prose?  That would definately be some progress.  Or barring that, if you don't do it, please the next time I try, please fix any problems you find with my attempt rather than just reverting the whole thing.  That way, that section would be makeing progress.  And if that's too much trouble, then please just tell me what's wrong and I'll fix it.  "Cheers" back to you!  Chrisrus (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a fair proposal. I'll leave a possible illustrations to someone else; cladistics is only really useful when we have good results to work from (some of the Aulacorhynchus branches have poor bootstrap support, part of "albivitta" falls into the atrogularis group, lautus remain unsampled, and only ND2 is available for huallagae; GenBank isn't of much help for these either, so we can't even check/update the consensus tree ourselves, but that would be WP:OR anyway). Additionally, most ornithological authorities follow the biological species concept where monophyly is not a requirement, and suggesting the phylogenetic species concept is closer to the reality than the BSC will land you right in the middle of the huge, ever-ongoing BSC/PSC discussions. Even in a strict interpretation of the PSC, people regularly make mistaken assumptions based on apparent mono/para/polyphyly (e.g., Funk & Omland 2003), and interpreting species trees as indicative of exact interspecific relationships is fundametally flawed (among birds perhaps best illustrated by the multiple studies by the Grant couple and others on Darwin's finches, a group with sympatric speciation and extensive hybridization). Regardless, I'll follow your suggestion and make a small update to the taxonomic text in the genus article within the following week, but should you feel tempted doing it first that should certainly not hold you back (if requested, full citations for all mentioned in my earlier comment can be provided). Cheers, • Rabo³  • 15:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Human
Hi, Chrisrus. Just a courtesy note to let you know I've applied a hidden template to the thread you recently joined. I didn't feel right about removing or archiving it since you'd replied, but I think the question was deeply unconstructive and unlikely going to lead to anything good. Rivertorch (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Ok, that's fine. Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fatal Dog Attack Page
Hey Chrisrus, I hope that this post finds you well. I am in the process of going through the edits and trying to find out who inserted that cocker-spaniel edit on the page. Assuming that I am able to track down that specific edit, I will let you know who was doing it and the date. There is a big possibility that this person also messed up the rest of the data, though I have not been working on the page long enough to know if other bad information was ever corrected. U21980 (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help! It's a vexing problem. Chrisrus (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wolf
You're welcome. I was busy adding various places to California's Wiki-repertoire, county by county, somewhat alphabetically until various matters occupied my time and interest following Mono County, now I'm carrying on where I had left off. Cheers, Carlos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My philosophy on your question is how likely would a user end up at XXX, YYY County, State if s/he was looking for XXX, ZZZ County, State? My guess is almost never. Most wouldn't even know about the other XXX, so would likely enter a search term "XXX" or "XXX, State" and be brought to the disambiguation page at one level or another, only then realizing that there are 2 XXXs, and if the user were unsure in which county the XXX they want is, would likely try one and if it wasn't the one they were after,, try the other. They'd never get to the notice on XXX, YYY County, State until they either (a) had found the one they want and didn't need it; or (b) realized it wasn't the one they wanted but knew to go back to the other one anyway. In neither case would a hatdab really do much for someone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I find that logic very convincing. Hey, by the way, if you're interested, do you remember how I asked you about how common this situation is?  I looked into it, and if you're curious you might want to have a look at Midway (disambiguation).  Seems it's a bit more common than I had thought! Chrisrus (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abatwa
Perhaps you care to write an article to fill in the red link? Jcwf (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question. Is this about the referent change that I observed and asked about there?  Chrisrus (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)