User talk:DFoidl

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, DFoidl! Thank you for your contributions. I am Charlesdrakew and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Charles (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Proposed deletion of Stichting Taurus


The article Stichting Taurus has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability not established.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eeekster (talk) 02:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Dedomestication


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Dedomestication. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Feral. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Feral - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't know that it already existed. Although the topics aren't 100 % identical, I have no problems if it is deleted. -- DFoidl (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Breeding back, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TaurOs Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barrosa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Tarpans, old and new
Hi DFoidl, wanted to take the Tarpan discussion over here. The article says extinction was 1909 in one place and 1918 in another. I take no position which date is correct, it just has to be consistent. A google search is inconclusive, partly because "tarpan" is used to describe other European wild horses, not just e. ferus ferus The Smithsonian says 1909, for what that's worth. As for the "breeding back," we have had past versions of this article that tried to promote the bred-back horses as "real" tarpans, so it is important to educate the reader on this point. Montanabw (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, ok, it seems clear to me. By the way, tomorrow I'll grossly extend the breeding history of the Konik. I gathered some quite interesting information from an objective source. By the way, I still think the 2nd paragraph on the Tarpan article still misses a ".", don't you think? I really dislike the ambiguity of the term "Tarpan". If we'd restrict that term to what colloquially has been called that way, it would probably only refer to wild horse populations and possibly feral populations in the south of the former Russian empire (in Poland, they weren't called "Tarpan", afaik). Most refer to all populations of wild horses western to the Ural region that have been mentioned in historic sources. Others want to call all members of Equus ferus ferus "Tarpan". I really don't like this, it makes the whole area very ambiguous. However, I think the solution of that problem we have in the current article is good. DFoidl (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the article is probably OK. I'll look at the grammar again.  But "Tarpan" is the colloquial word for the Eurasian wild horse. e. ferus ferus. No feral animals included!  Until we have DNA studies to sort it out beyond that, we pretty much need to stick with what is published.  To go farther into crossbred horses gets us into WP:OR territory.  To the extent domesticated horses interbred with Tarpans, true, it probably happened, but those horses would not be "wild" any longer.   Montanabw (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is the colloquial term for the Eurasian wild horse by convention. Pieter Boddeart was the first to use the word in the scientific literature in 1768 and it became a trend, but ordinary people in Europe probably didn't use that word. So it's not the same like the term "aurochs" relates to the animal it refers to, as it is a derivation of names that have been used by the european people since the late antiquity. Whatever, it is how it is. -- DFoidl (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think there may be a difference between US and UK English on this one? Lacking consensus on a word like "Eurasian wild horse" or something, we are stuck with "Tarpan," even with the ambiguities that exist.  Americans always used to think of the "Tarpan" as the wild horse, until the "breeding back" folks started using the word as a marketing ploy... (MTBW grumbles about commercialism...) Ah, maybe in another decade it will all shake out...  Montanabw (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In German this word also became established as a synonym for the European/western wild horse, Equus ferus ferus, I just wanted to point out that the original meaning of the word in the region it originated is not the same as the modern meaning, and that it has, in contrast to "aurochs" for instance, no millennia-long history of colloquial usage in Europe. I just wanted to clarify this, because some say "the tarpan may actually have been a hybrid/feral population", which is impossible per definitionem if we define the meaning of the term as the predomestic western eurasian wild horse. But nevermind, lol. ;-) DFoidl (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we are on the same page, that "Tarpan" now is equus ferus ferus, and that this was the European or Eurasian never-domesticated "wild" horse species that lived into the historic era (along with the Przewalski) I don't know that there are any of the longer-extinct wild horse (equus ferus) subspecies have this same label.  (see Template:Equus But a discussion of etymology is interesting. It appears that any other wild subspecies in Europe did not survive into the historic era and were wholly incorporated into the domestic horse via successful crossbreeding, whereas the Tarpan appears to have kept some impossible-to-domesticate members at least to that early 19th century population that was released for crossbreeding. I suppose further DNA study might sort this all out.   Montanabw (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TaurOs Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rewilding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Breeding back, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion on Heck horse GA
Hi, I'll review the good article nomination for Heck horse, but wondered whether you'd like to give it a second opinion? FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And oh, please add new references for new statements! FunkMonk (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, OK, I'll have a look at the article soon. DFoidl (talk) 06:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring
Hi! You're edit-warring at both List of horse breeds and Konik – please don't! Instead, please follow the advice at WP:BRD: "". If you don't start that conversation I probably will. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Conflict with Wikispecies
Your is in clear conflict with the wikispecies article on the subject. Please establish the taxonomy based on your theory at Wikispecies before releasing contradictory statements on Wikipedia. The same goes for your edit contradicting established taxonomy. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

My edit was not a "theory". :-)


 * Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zebu. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. If you disagree with the current scientific consensus on the subject, you can try and reach a new one. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aurochs, you may be blocked from editing. If you disagree with the current scientific consensus on the subject, you can try and reach a new one. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide evidence or sources for a scientific consensus that zebu and taurine cattle, which have been domesticated separately, together form a species separate from the aurochs? Many, many, many thanks. :-)
 * I already did in the article, but will repeat myself here (also )
 * Indicine and taurine cattle have indeed been domesticated separately. The were also domesticated from different subspecies of aurochs, namely the indian and eurasian aurochs, respectively. While the number of progenitors of indiciene cattle has not been established, the taurine cattle alone stems from up to 80 domestication events.
 * Indicine cattle (Bos taurus indicus) and taurine cattle (Bos taurus taurus) are both subspecies of the species domesticated cattle (Bos taurus), even though they descended from different subspecies of their progenitor species (Bos primigenius namadicus and Bos primigenius primigenius, respectively).
 * The IZCN ruled in 2003, that the name "Bos primigenius, 🇦🇹, 1827" must be preserved. All derived subspecies - wild or domesticated - can therefore be classified as either subspecies of aurochs or separate species, i. e. Bos primigenius indicus or Bos taurus indicus. Its wikispecies entry reflects, that most literature prefers the latter and regards the aurochs species extinct.

I'm quite sure that there are enough interwiki conflicts already. Any help is welcome. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you failed to present evidence that taurine and zebuine cattle form one species that is distinct from the aurochs. Either they are all one species, or three species. But your theory that taurine and zebuine cattle are one species is flawed by the fact that they were domesticated in different domestication events and from different subspecies of the aurochs.
 * I didn't: see refs 2 and 4. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You provided sources that list them as one species (which is ok as long as the aurochs is included in that species too, no matter if the name for that species is B. taurus or B. primigenius), but no actual evidence for zebus and taurine cattle being one species and the aurochs another, separate species.

Taurus Project
Hello DFoidl. Are you connected to this project? Your edits suggest you are. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, no I am not connected to that project or any other breeding back project. Which edits suggest that and why? DFoidl (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * DFoidl, I find your tone at Talk:Taurus Project rather less courteous than I would expect of you, and your behaviour at that and other articles less than fully collaborative. That article has a number of problems, and making personal remarks will not solve any of them. You are now also edit-warring at the page – you added this unsourced content, which I removed for exactly that reason, but you've added it back with this edit, still without any reference at all. Please either provide suitable independent reliable sources or undo that edit; you might want to read WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD.
 * I'm afraid that several of your uploads to Commons appear to be missing essential permission, so I've nominated them for deletion. If the actual copyright owner wants to donate those to be used in Wikimedia projects (or anywhere else), then he should go here to generate a suitable release. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's you who is not fully cooperative because of your lack of will to discuss on the talk page in order to achieve consensus. You have no problem at all with the article for the Tauros Programme? Really? That is curious, it seems to me that you are rather biased. DFoidl (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Butting in here, I think those images could be kept if we get WP:OTRS permission? FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , that's what I said – or at least tried to say – above ("If the actual copyright owner ... a suitable release"). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, didn't notice due to the piped link. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally I have no objection against deleting those images, Henri Kerkdijk-Otten sent them to me years ago for using them, if that's not OK it is the way it is. DFoidl (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All you'd need to get is his explicit permission through email, then it should be good to go. It's outlined how in the OTRS instructions. I think they're helpful here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, DFoidl, it might save some time for Commons admins if you add a note to that effect to the deletion request page. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

March 2023
Your recent editing history at Heck cattle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Please immediately undo your deletion. ~'' Pbritti (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Your behaviour is very interesting. I was looking for consensus, YOU started the edit war, and you had me blocked. Very, very interesting. Please remember that EVERYONE is free to edit wikipedia, and not only a small group of "established" users. Is Wikipedia "the free encyclopedia" or is it a sect of a few "established users"? Thank you very, very much. DFoidl (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on consensus; multiple editors found your insufficiently explained removals (neutrality and Bad reference & nonsense, will start discussion tomorrow) errant and undid them. You have been previously alerted to the existence of WP:3RR, a core policy to Wikipedia, and continued edit-warring past the new warnings. Anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, but there are certain well-publicized standards and an editor who has been around more than a decade is expected to follow them. I'll keep the discussion on Talk:Heck cattle on ice until you can edit that page again. In the meantime, please consider my comments there and determine if you can formulate an argument in accordance with those standards. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, it was you who started the edit war. You reverted my changes, I wrote I was going to open a discussion on the talk page about it, you reverted it again, I opened the discussion and you did not engage in it but reverted my changes again. So you are just as guilty of "edit warring" as I supposedly am, but curiously, there are no sanctions for you. That shows that Jokipedia is a platform like a sect were only a handful of "established" users determine what is in the articles and what is not. Which is quite a shame. DFoidl (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So that you are aware of the reason for your block and can avoid something similar from happening again: You deleted content (edit summary: neutrality), Justlettersandnumbers undid that deletion (edit summary: Seems to be adequately sourced), and then you again removed that content (edit summary: bad reference & nonsense, will start discussion tomorrow.). Instead of doing that, you should have either a.) waited until you had time to start the conversation on the talk page or b.) provided more specificity in your edit summary. Since you failed to do either, I reverted you twice: first immediately in concurrence with Justlettersandnumbers (which you immediately undid, so that's the upper limit of 3 reverts for you per WP:3RR) and then a second time after 15 hours of no discussion opened on the talk page. You violated 3RR shortly afterwards in this edit. I did not revert you again after the discussion was opened (instead, I had added a different passage back) but you seem to have mistaken this for me reverting you and you undid that edit too, violating 3RR a second time in intent if not effect.
 * If you look at the article now, you'll notice I haven't undone your most recent deletion of the originally disputed passage and I'm awaiting further comment from your or other editors before taking further action. If any of this comes across as conspiracy by "established" users, please explain how and I can absolutely provide either further clarification or help you seek alternative recourse. I'll wait for a week after your block expires (12 March UTC) for a response before reinserting the deleted prose to give you and any other interested parties adequate time to weigh in. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, waving your finger at me and behaving like a dictator certainly won't help. You started the edit war. What makes you think you are in the position to give me an ultimatum? You are neither the sheriff here nor the Wikipedia police. DFoidl (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it sounds like I'm giving an ultimatum, but the general standard for a Wikipedia discussion on a more obscure talk page is waiting about a week for responses (on other articles or discussion pages, this period can be as short as 72 hours). Considering the circumstances, I wanted to ensure you had a full week from when you could again edit that page. If you require more time, I'm more than willing to discuss that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pbritti Oh you had me blocked again, a very strong move of you! Seems like you can't handle the conflicts that you started, that's only laughable :-D. Grow up. DFoidl (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I blocked you on my own without any request from Pbritti. If you continue the harassment, I can convert the block to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Interesting, so his private war on me is OK? Very, very revealing, thanks for the information. DFoidl (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cullen328 Interesting, now you have me blocked for one month. Very, very interesting. You are doing nothing but misusing your power, why don't you block me infinitely? Joconyinuedkipedia has become a joke. DFoidl (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you have continued with your personal attacks and harassment after being warned, I have extended your block to one month and revoked your talk page access. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options. Cullen328 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Heck cattle. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
 You have been blocked for one week from editing for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.
 * When an editor tells you to stay off their talk page, simply stay off their talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)