Here you can post your suggestions on the article's grammar.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I still think more could be added to the "build" section. Couldnt the sentences on brain size and dog/wolf comparisons be added to the section, with the subtitle: (see Problems in classifying the dingo)?
Also, I have not checked the grammar of the conservation section yet. I shall give it a look. Mariomassone ( talk) 07:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No, the brain size is already mentioned under the picture. The article clearly again. By the way the brain size is what distinguishes all dogs from wolves so it makes no sence to mention that in the article a third time.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who first wrote the dingo skull caption. Maybe we could just remove it and give it the simple subtitle "dingo skull as drawn by ...." Mariomassone ( talk) 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
But of what use would the picture than be? A dingo skull is quite generic and only an expert coukld identify it, not like e.g. the one of a pug. And like I said, when the article clearly states that the dingo is a dog why mention the brainsize more than once when its not necessary?-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 12:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh and don't wonder why you can't see it right now, there is a guy who all the time makes it that way, he ßprobably doesn't get that this one will be an article soon.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 04:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not gonna wait any longer, I will enter both articles as soon as possible, I will just anounce it on the article page before. However, there will probably much left to edit simply to ward off all the douchebags that might show up. And by the way, the source for Decker Dog is questionable in my eyes.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
(I'm a nomad on this page, and didn't edit as I could see there'd already been some heat generated. There are quite a few redundancy, repetition and style issues which an article rewrite would fix, and I'd happily do it - but I do respect long-standers and, as always, regulars tend to get proprietorial over pages. An example:
The term "wild dog" may refer to wild and feral domestic dogs; to any of several wild canine species commonly called called "dogs" or "wild dogs" but which are not true dogs; or even, in the broadest sense, to any wild canid - any member of the dog family of carnivores, the Canidae; including wolves, jackals, coyotes, foxes, and many more which are commonly contrasted with "dogs" in other contexts. [6] It is also used as a common name for several specific canine species which are not true dogs; and may sometimes refer to any wild canine. Humboles ( talk) 23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
For the attack section http://www.flickr.com/photos/rannew/3504567882/
For the pet section http://www.flickr.com/photos/45663166@N00/3509613141/
What do you think? Mariomassone ( talk) 09:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Not possible, good idea, but sadly not possible. The pictures need a creative commons license like this one, otherwise it would be illegal to upload them. If you wan't to look for further pictures, try here, there you should find pictures you can use.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 11:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Where do you want to put the wolf brain information? For some people, the best way to understand how something is built, is to compare it with something else. Also, I think the dingo's impact on human culture should be seperated into different sections: European and aboriginal. I think some of the info on the old article regarding aboriginal mythology should definately go in (after all, it is from a source you posted). Mariomassone ( talk) 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, I think the old article's paragraph on how dingoes hunt kangaroos should be added, as there is a lot of detail on how dingoes hunt and kill cattle/sheep, yet little on how they attack marsupials. Mariomassone ( talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not change the meaning of the howling part: the whole point of it is that this specific behaviour in dingoes is observed less in wolves, correct? That is what I wrote, but I'll leave it as you put it.
I think the kangoroo hunting part is very relevant, as it can be said that the kangoroo is a more "natural" prey for the dingo. Plus, even though it is sheep-sized, it does not behave like a sheep does when attacked. Maybe the cow/sheep attack sections could be shortened or summarized?
Message me when you are finished, to avoid further conflicts. Do you have any idea how long it should take you? Mariomassone ( talk) 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of these pictues?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paleontour/2491497087/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jzb/366886433/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849432/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849578/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849276/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/briangiesen/3556577714/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigblueocean/2755522999/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/david55king/787081167/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thegirlsny/2844240286/ (you'll like this one)
Lovely! But I am slightly confused; Arent the pictures from the same site you said was not in the public domain? Mariomassone ( talk) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Public domain yes, but not all of them have a creative commons license. Most pictures on the site have an all rights reserved license, therefore we cannot use them without copyright violations. Believe me I would have if I could, because as you probably noticed there are no pictures of black and tan dingoes in wikimedia commons, otherwise I found all kinds of shades. And by the way I think we should use one of the pictures with several dingoes in one picture as the first one of the article, what do you think?-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 19:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good work, but I'm beginning to suspect that the finished product will be too long to comfortably navigate. Perhaps certain sections (such as legal status and cultural impacts) could be made into separate articles. For reference, check the wolf article, which has numerous articles covering the more in depth topics. Mariomassone ( talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I had thought of that before but I think, they are to short for a single article, at least for a good one. But wait until this one is finsiched and I start with the one on interbreeding with other dogs, you will love it. ;-)-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Ps. Do you have any idea why some peiople write such long introductions? There are articles who are shorter.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Introductions are supposed to summarise the whole article. They are meant to give general information on the subject, and leave it to the reader to decide if he/she wants to read in greater detail. Just my thoughts. Mariomassone ( talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If you find enough material, I think a separate article on dingoes as pets would be good. For example, check Wolves as pets and working animals. Mariomassone ( talk) 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Enough material yes, but not much that could be called reliable and I only enter that information. The section won't be long and I also wonder how much of it will survive the "natural selection" of wikipedia.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think several aspects of the original article's information on this topic is good enough for this revision. It covers how dingoes are treated by aboriginals, why they are used and undermines a few misconceptions. It also covers the dingo's use as a cane toad tracker. I think this is worth adding. Mariomassone ( talk) 11:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe, but I had the impression that I already covered the Aboriginal topic in cultural and economical impact. The Cane Toad topic, I don't know I think you talk about Sarah Flyffe but do you have any official source that they are used as cane toad tracker. It's just that the women who trains them for it also states quite a lot of unproven things, therefore I doubt her reliability.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"Control measures mostly result in smaller packs respectively in a disruption of the pack structure". Could you explain this? Does it mean that the pack structure is disrupted in smaller packs?
I'd prefer to hear your explanation before correcting it. Mariomassone ( talk) 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It means that the packs are either smaler or that there are no packs at all.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Bargho
Sorry for bringing something else up, but do you have any official sources which could be used to add more detail to the "build" section? It just seems to me that more detail is dedicated to impacts and conservation issues than on the dingo's anatomy itself. Mariomassone ( talk) 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I found these from the site you recommended to me; Black dingoes http://www.flickr.com/photos/dingowolf/3200843464/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dingowolf/3124968886/
Thai dingo http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildones/39437017/ Mariomassone ( talk) 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that wet forest means the same as rainforest? Because the used sources said wet forest and since I'm not a native english speaker I just "copied" the word. And by the way great grammar editing, it's astounding how often german grammar creeps in despite all efforts to avoid it.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Bargho
I am somewhat surprised. I was born in England, and I personally have never heard the term "wet forest" before. Perhaps it is an Australian english term? There is quite a lot of variation. Mariomassone ( talk) 09:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe, however I corrected three of your correction:
1. The sources only said incidence not violent incidence and did not specify what was meant
2. The sources only said occupied territory, not human occupied. The researchers probably meant occupied by other dogs.
3. 1,2000 is defintely wrong, isn't it? ;-)
How do you like the new title picture?-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected :( The dingo in the picture is beautiful! Good choice. Mariomassone ( talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Would "mainstream knowledge" be a good term? It's just that this statement is from a scientific book and based on scientific evidence. Actually the "Mainstream knowledge" (e.g. that dingoes suppossedly don't bark or are the only dogs with one annual breeding cycle) proofs often to be false. Wouldn't "scientific" be a better option?-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Very well, but I'd add that such information is the general consensus, as from what I;ve read, even scientists are divided over this issue. Mariomassone ( talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Done.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 07:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Inugami-bargho. Thank you for creating the useful and interesting article to Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure why you're so agitated by my simple tagging. [2] I think the sentence The population of wild living domestic dogs in Australia is now probably higher than ever before. is vague because the intro does not reveal when the research was conducted, and "ever before" is also not clear. I think "as for March 2009" or "According to a 2009 research" would be fine if you can add. And everyone could not know the intro is already referenced by existing sources. The tags are only for clarification, so I hope you're a bit more familiar with these. I love reading the article by the way, so keep up the good work. -- Caspian blue 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there
I have recently re-written the golden jackal article, and wondered if you had anything to add.
I am particularly curious about the german poodle cross-breeding experiment you added to the wolfdog article. Was there anything at all about the jackal hybrids which was unique to them? Also, do you know of any cases in which they have been crossed with wolves or coyotes? The canid hybrid article says so, but provides no references.
Thank you in advance Mariomassone ( talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
From my point of view, this article is a much better approach than the article as it stands. Until we can search Mammal Species of the World for "Canis lupus hallstromi" and it gives some result ( http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/search.asp), there is no such animal. Well done. If you want me to edit the English, I will try to help you. Chrisrus ( talk) 05:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Well go on then, because I'm sure that the wording of my mother tongue influenced the article.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Just curious-- Mrhorseracer ( talk) 02:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Inugami-bargho Although I believe that the NGSD should still have it's own page, I like what you are putting together here. I however have bias as you used two photos of my NGSD (thank you). I just want to give you a little history on the NGSD's taxon and a source to go to for info on their current dna testing issue. With Sir Edward Hallstrom's discovery of the NGSD they were originally named canis lupus hallstromi. For further info on this subject you can refer to the book "A Celebration of Rare Breeds" Alice Bixler also has and article on the Dog Channel website that mentions the key points. At some future date (early 90's) the NGSD was declared no longer a seperate species and therefore the hallstromi taxon was lost. This created a huge problem for the captive singer of North America. Google NGSDI's history page for details. At what point they were deemed to be a subspecies of canis lupus dingo I am again uncertain but recent dna testing suggest that the Singer & Dingo are virtually identicle. There are two genetics people who specifically are building databases on Dingo and Singer dna Alan Wilton & Peter Savolainen. They both came to the same conclusion. Alan Wilton has stated that both Singer & Dingo dna have distinctions that seperate them from every other domestic dog breed. If any given dna sample were sent to him, he could tell us if the sample is of a Singer or Dingo that has been hybridized. What he cannot tell us is if it's a Dingo, a Singer, or a mix of the two breeds. The dna markers are that similiar. Tomcue2 ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hy, I wanted your opinion on whether I should just go on and publish the new version. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcue2"
Inugami - I absolutely think that you should publish it. You have obtained lots of hard to find information from German research and other outside sources that is not evident in the current page. I will also talk with osm20. His input on the talk page is from his 23yrs of experience. Although he has no published literature to back up his statements, there is nobody in North America that better understands the NGSD then him. I will work to get his observations either published or university archived to give them merit. FYI, I have posted some additional photos including the 3 black & tan Singers here in North America. It's your choice if you want to use them. Tomcue2 ( talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Inugami - I just wanted to add that the wiki-bot might remove the external link to flickr. If that happens, I have 150 to 200 photos of NGSD's that I can either send to you or place on a neutral server. Write me at tomcue2@hotmail.com so I can send them and also contact you outside of Wiki. Tomcue2 ( talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Inu, My wife and I feel your opening sentence in the section "Relationships with Humans" is very well written. Will you be including any "modern" "relations with humans" information?? osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the book but will verify. Is there something troublesome to you?-- Mrhorseracer ( talk) 02:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The external links on your page are good. Tomcue2 ( talk) 07:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
May I ask what qualifications on the subject that both you and Tomcue have for this article? It seems like you criticize all of the canid researchers including Wilton, Matznick, Coppinger, Simonson etc. As well as Brisbin who is also a co-author on all of Matznick’s articles, which also includes James McIntyre, Susan Bulmer, Mark Feinstein etc. While I am not involved, there are others following this. --Bee4Real 01:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what qualifications you feel that I must have. My contribution to Inu's new version of the page is limited to two external links and 37 Singer photos of which 4 are being currently used. Tomcue2 ( talk) 03:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcue2" Hy, I tried to contact you via E-Mail but I just got a returned message. Did you already manage to send the permission to Wikimedia Commons?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Inu - I do not know what permissions are need or how to grant them. I can and have posted photos in the past so please write me again privately to let me know which photos you want posted. I am glad to be of help. Tom Tomcue2 ( talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, though I shall have to read through the article, as I am not very knowledgeable on NGSDs. Mariomassone ( talk) 12:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, only Italian and French. I promise I will get something done sometime this week. Could you perhaps summarise what the disagreement is? I am in the middle of an examination period. Mariomassone ( talk) 10:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, its my fault. I should have just refused, instead of losing my temper.
I would very much appreciate your help in those articles. Indeed, there are publications (I think in German) by Seitz (1959 & 1965) which involve jackal coyote hybrids. If you have them, I would greatly appreciate a summary of what the findings are. As for wolves, it would be useful to me to have publications specifically on European/Russian wolves.
Thank you for your kind words Mariomassone ( talk) 15:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss improvements to specific articles, please do so on the discussion pages of the article in question. If you would like to discuss deletion of articles whose existence you disagree with, you can start a deletion discussion by following the instructions on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. It depends on if you want to simply request a speedy deletion or to propose a deletion discussion. People there will be glad to help you. If you would like to request punitive action be taken against a specific user for disruptive editing, such as banning a person from editing articles or some such, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing Please don't do any of these things on my talk page. Chrisrus ( talk) 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there
I've looked up the occurrence of polygamy in wolf packs in the Mech book, but it states that this primarily occurs in captivity, and is rarely successful because of females killing the pups of rival pack members. Do you have any information about polygamy in the wild? Mariomassone ( talk) 14:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! I always wanted to read his book, but the English Amazon.com does not have it anymore. I know this may sound annoying, but when displaying Bibikov's info, could you add page numbers too? A new standard in animal articles is on the way.
As for Mech and Boitani, I didnt know they even HAD made comments on wolf-jackal-dog hybrids. Mariomassone ( talk) 11:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Edits like this are considered personal attacks. Please be more polite. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to merge this with the existing article? Chrisrus ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Inugami-bargho, thank you for your contributions! I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Inugami-bargho.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to merge this with the existing article? Chrisrus ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to merge the article on your user page with the existing page on the same topic? Chrisrus ( talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry I saw it and asked him already on his own page. Anyway I read the scientific article (which can be found here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/09/06/rspb.2011.1395.full.pdf) and it states: The study of mtDNA among Australian dingoes and Polynesian dogs showed that archaeological samples of pre-European dog from across Polynesia (the Cook Islands, Hawaii and New Zealand) carried only two haplotypes: Arc1 and Arc2 [35]. It also showed that Australian dingoes carried only haplotype A29 or haplotypes differing from A29 by a single mutation, indicating that the dingo population was founded from a small number of dogs carrying a single mtDNA haplotype (A29). Importantly, all three haplotypes are typical for East Asian dogs: Arc2 and A29 are absent and Arc1 rarely found west of the Himalayas [9]. Furthermore, two New Guinea singing dogs (NGSDs; a feral dog from the New Guinean highlands, close in morphology and behaviour to Australian dingoes but clearly distinguishable [36]) were shown to carry haplotypes A29 and A79 (which differs by one substitution from A29). Since A29 is also found among East Asian dogs, an origin from domestic dogs seems clear for these two wild populations.
...
This study shows a distinct pattern in the geographical distribution of the two Polynesian dog mtDNA haplotypes Arc1 and Arc2, and the dingo and NGSD founder mtDNA haplotype A29, with a total frequency of 12 per cent in Southern China, 17 per cent in southeast Asia and 50 per cent in Indonesia, but complete absence in samples from Taiwan and the Philippines. This gives a clear indication that Polynesian dogs as well as dingoes and NGSDs trace their ancestry back to South China through Mainland Southeast Asia and Indonesia. Thus, there is no indication that these dogs were introduced via Taiwan and the Philippines together with the expansion of the Neolithic culture and Austronesian languages, as suggested in some theories about Polynesian origins.
So it clearly indicates an origin in Southern China and a route via Southeast Asia and Indonesia. Also that they are not a seperate species.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 11:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Inugami-bargho. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Here you can post your suggestions on the article's grammar.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 12:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I still think more could be added to the "build" section. Couldnt the sentences on brain size and dog/wolf comparisons be added to the section, with the subtitle: (see Problems in classifying the dingo)?
Also, I have not checked the grammar of the conservation section yet. I shall give it a look. Mariomassone ( talk) 07:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
No, the brain size is already mentioned under the picture. The article clearly again. By the way the brain size is what distinguishes all dogs from wolves so it makes no sence to mention that in the article a third time.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 10:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was the one who first wrote the dingo skull caption. Maybe we could just remove it and give it the simple subtitle "dingo skull as drawn by ...." Mariomassone ( talk) 11:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
But of what use would the picture than be? A dingo skull is quite generic and only an expert coukld identify it, not like e.g. the one of a pug. And like I said, when the article clearly states that the dingo is a dog why mention the brainsize more than once when its not necessary?-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 12:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh and don't wonder why you can't see it right now, there is a guy who all the time makes it that way, he ßprobably doesn't get that this one will be an article soon.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 04:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not gonna wait any longer, I will enter both articles as soon as possible, I will just anounce it on the article page before. However, there will probably much left to edit simply to ward off all the douchebags that might show up. And by the way, the source for Decker Dog is questionable in my eyes.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
(I'm a nomad on this page, and didn't edit as I could see there'd already been some heat generated. There are quite a few redundancy, repetition and style issues which an article rewrite would fix, and I'd happily do it - but I do respect long-standers and, as always, regulars tend to get proprietorial over pages. An example:
The term "wild dog" may refer to wild and feral domestic dogs; to any of several wild canine species commonly called called "dogs" or "wild dogs" but which are not true dogs; or even, in the broadest sense, to any wild canid - any member of the dog family of carnivores, the Canidae; including wolves, jackals, coyotes, foxes, and many more which are commonly contrasted with "dogs" in other contexts. [6] It is also used as a common name for several specific canine species which are not true dogs; and may sometimes refer to any wild canine. Humboles ( talk) 23:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
For the attack section http://www.flickr.com/photos/rannew/3504567882/
For the pet section http://www.flickr.com/photos/45663166@N00/3509613141/
What do you think? Mariomassone ( talk) 09:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Not possible, good idea, but sadly not possible. The pictures need a creative commons license like this one, otherwise it would be illegal to upload them. If you wan't to look for further pictures, try here, there you should find pictures you can use.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 11:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Where do you want to put the wolf brain information? For some people, the best way to understand how something is built, is to compare it with something else. Also, I think the dingo's impact on human culture should be seperated into different sections: European and aboriginal. I think some of the info on the old article regarding aboriginal mythology should definately go in (after all, it is from a source you posted). Mariomassone ( talk) 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, I think the old article's paragraph on how dingoes hunt kangaroos should be added, as there is a lot of detail on how dingoes hunt and kill cattle/sheep, yet little on how they attack marsupials. Mariomassone ( talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not change the meaning of the howling part: the whole point of it is that this specific behaviour in dingoes is observed less in wolves, correct? That is what I wrote, but I'll leave it as you put it.
I think the kangoroo hunting part is very relevant, as it can be said that the kangoroo is a more "natural" prey for the dingo. Plus, even though it is sheep-sized, it does not behave like a sheep does when attacked. Maybe the cow/sheep attack sections could be shortened or summarized?
Message me when you are finished, to avoid further conflicts. Do you have any idea how long it should take you? Mariomassone ( talk) 19:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of these pictues?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paleontour/2491497087/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jzb/366886433/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849432/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849578/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/partnerhund/88849276/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/briangiesen/3556577714/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigblueocean/2755522999/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/david55king/787081167/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thegirlsny/2844240286/ (you'll like this one)
Lovely! But I am slightly confused; Arent the pictures from the same site you said was not in the public domain? Mariomassone ( talk) 19:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Public domain yes, but not all of them have a creative commons license. Most pictures on the site have an all rights reserved license, therefore we cannot use them without copyright violations. Believe me I would have if I could, because as you probably noticed there are no pictures of black and tan dingoes in wikimedia commons, otherwise I found all kinds of shades. And by the way I think we should use one of the pictures with several dingoes in one picture as the first one of the article, what do you think?-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 19:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good work, but I'm beginning to suspect that the finished product will be too long to comfortably navigate. Perhaps certain sections (such as legal status and cultural impacts) could be made into separate articles. For reference, check the wolf article, which has numerous articles covering the more in depth topics. Mariomassone ( talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I had thought of that before but I think, they are to short for a single article, at least for a good one. But wait until this one is finsiched and I start with the one on interbreeding with other dogs, you will love it. ;-)-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Ps. Do you have any idea why some peiople write such long introductions? There are articles who are shorter.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Introductions are supposed to summarise the whole article. They are meant to give general information on the subject, and leave it to the reader to decide if he/she wants to read in greater detail. Just my thoughts. Mariomassone ( talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If you find enough material, I think a separate article on dingoes as pets would be good. For example, check Wolves as pets and working animals. Mariomassone ( talk) 15:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Enough material yes, but not much that could be called reliable and I only enter that information. The section won't be long and I also wonder how much of it will survive the "natural selection" of wikipedia.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think several aspects of the original article's information on this topic is good enough for this revision. It covers how dingoes are treated by aboriginals, why they are used and undermines a few misconceptions. It also covers the dingo's use as a cane toad tracker. I think this is worth adding. Mariomassone ( talk) 11:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe, but I had the impression that I already covered the Aboriginal topic in cultural and economical impact. The Cane Toad topic, I don't know I think you talk about Sarah Flyffe but do you have any official source that they are used as cane toad tracker. It's just that the women who trains them for it also states quite a lot of unproven things, therefore I doubt her reliability.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
"Control measures mostly result in smaller packs respectively in a disruption of the pack structure". Could you explain this? Does it mean that the pack structure is disrupted in smaller packs?
I'd prefer to hear your explanation before correcting it. Mariomassone ( talk) 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It means that the packs are either smaler or that there are no packs at all.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Bargho
Sorry for bringing something else up, but do you have any official sources which could be used to add more detail to the "build" section? It just seems to me that more detail is dedicated to impacts and conservation issues than on the dingo's anatomy itself. Mariomassone ( talk) 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I found these from the site you recommended to me; Black dingoes http://www.flickr.com/photos/dingowolf/3200843464/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/dingowolf/3124968886/
Thai dingo http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildones/39437017/ Mariomassone ( talk) 07:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure that wet forest means the same as rainforest? Because the used sources said wet forest and since I'm not a native english speaker I just "copied" the word. And by the way great grammar editing, it's astounding how often german grammar creeps in despite all efforts to avoid it.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey Bargho
I am somewhat surprised. I was born in England, and I personally have never heard the term "wet forest" before. Perhaps it is an Australian english term? There is quite a lot of variation. Mariomassone ( talk) 09:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe, however I corrected three of your correction:
1. The sources only said incidence not violent incidence and did not specify what was meant
2. The sources only said occupied territory, not human occupied. The researchers probably meant occupied by other dogs.
3. 1,2000 is defintely wrong, isn't it? ;-)
How do you like the new title picture?-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected :( The dingo in the picture is beautiful! Good choice. Mariomassone ( talk) 20:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Would "mainstream knowledge" be a good term? It's just that this statement is from a scientific book and based on scientific evidence. Actually the "Mainstream knowledge" (e.g. that dingoes suppossedly don't bark or are the only dogs with one annual breeding cycle) proofs often to be false. Wouldn't "scientific" be a better option?-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Very well, but I'd add that such information is the general consensus, as from what I;ve read, even scientists are divided over this issue. Mariomassone ( talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Done.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 07:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Inugami-bargho. Thank you for creating the useful and interesting article to Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure why you're so agitated by my simple tagging. [2] I think the sentence The population of wild living domestic dogs in Australia is now probably higher than ever before. is vague because the intro does not reveal when the research was conducted, and "ever before" is also not clear. I think "as for March 2009" or "According to a 2009 research" would be fine if you can add. And everyone could not know the intro is already referenced by existing sources. The tags are only for clarification, so I hope you're a bit more familiar with these. I love reading the article by the way, so keep up the good work. -- Caspian blue 04:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
BorgQueen ( talk) 02:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there
I have recently re-written the golden jackal article, and wondered if you had anything to add.
I am particularly curious about the german poodle cross-breeding experiment you added to the wolfdog article. Was there anything at all about the jackal hybrids which was unique to them? Also, do you know of any cases in which they have been crossed with wolves or coyotes? The canid hybrid article says so, but provides no references.
Thank you in advance Mariomassone ( talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
From my point of view, this article is a much better approach than the article as it stands. Until we can search Mammal Species of the World for "Canis lupus hallstromi" and it gives some result ( http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/search.asp), there is no such animal. Well done. If you want me to edit the English, I will try to help you. Chrisrus ( talk) 05:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Well go on then, because I'm sure that the wording of my mother tongue influenced the article.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Just curious-- Mrhorseracer ( talk) 02:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Inugami-bargho Although I believe that the NGSD should still have it's own page, I like what you are putting together here. I however have bias as you used two photos of my NGSD (thank you). I just want to give you a little history on the NGSD's taxon and a source to go to for info on their current dna testing issue. With Sir Edward Hallstrom's discovery of the NGSD they were originally named canis lupus hallstromi. For further info on this subject you can refer to the book "A Celebration of Rare Breeds" Alice Bixler also has and article on the Dog Channel website that mentions the key points. At some future date (early 90's) the NGSD was declared no longer a seperate species and therefore the hallstromi taxon was lost. This created a huge problem for the captive singer of North America. Google NGSDI's history page for details. At what point they were deemed to be a subspecies of canis lupus dingo I am again uncertain but recent dna testing suggest that the Singer & Dingo are virtually identicle. There are two genetics people who specifically are building databases on Dingo and Singer dna Alan Wilton & Peter Savolainen. They both came to the same conclusion. Alan Wilton has stated that both Singer & Dingo dna have distinctions that seperate them from every other domestic dog breed. If any given dna sample were sent to him, he could tell us if the sample is of a Singer or Dingo that has been hybridized. What he cannot tell us is if it's a Dingo, a Singer, or a mix of the two breeds. The dna markers are that similiar. Tomcue2 ( talk) 12:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hy, I wanted your opinion on whether I should just go on and publish the new version. --Inugami-bargho (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcue2"
Inugami - I absolutely think that you should publish it. You have obtained lots of hard to find information from German research and other outside sources that is not evident in the current page. I will also talk with osm20. His input on the talk page is from his 23yrs of experience. Although he has no published literature to back up his statements, there is nobody in North America that better understands the NGSD then him. I will work to get his observations either published or university archived to give them merit. FYI, I have posted some additional photos including the 3 black & tan Singers here in North America. It's your choice if you want to use them. Tomcue2 ( talk) 21:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Inugami - I just wanted to add that the wiki-bot might remove the external link to flickr. If that happens, I have 150 to 200 photos of NGSD's that I can either send to you or place on a neutral server. Write me at tomcue2@hotmail.com so I can send them and also contact you outside of Wiki. Tomcue2 ( talk) 23:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Inu, My wife and I feel your opening sentence in the section "Relationships with Humans" is very well written. Will you be including any "modern" "relations with humans" information?? osm20 Oldsingerman20 ( talk) 19:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the book but will verify. Is there something troublesome to you?-- Mrhorseracer ( talk) 02:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The external links on your page are good. Tomcue2 ( talk) 07:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
May I ask what qualifications on the subject that both you and Tomcue have for this article? It seems like you criticize all of the canid researchers including Wilton, Matznick, Coppinger, Simonson etc. As well as Brisbin who is also a co-author on all of Matznick’s articles, which also includes James McIntyre, Susan Bulmer, Mark Feinstein etc. While I am not involved, there are others following this. --Bee4Real 01:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what qualifications you feel that I must have. My contribution to Inu's new version of the page is limited to two external links and 37 Singer photos of which 4 are being currently used. Tomcue2 ( talk) 03:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tomcue2" Hy, I tried to contact you via E-Mail but I just got a returned message. Did you already manage to send the permission to Wikimedia Commons?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Inu - I do not know what permissions are need or how to grant them. I can and have posted photos in the past so please write me again privately to let me know which photos you want posted. I am glad to be of help. Tom Tomcue2 ( talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, though I shall have to read through the article, as I am not very knowledgeable on NGSDs. Mariomassone ( talk) 12:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, only Italian and French. I promise I will get something done sometime this week. Could you perhaps summarise what the disagreement is? I am in the middle of an examination period. Mariomassone ( talk) 10:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, its my fault. I should have just refused, instead of losing my temper.
I would very much appreciate your help in those articles. Indeed, there are publications (I think in German) by Seitz (1959 & 1965) which involve jackal coyote hybrids. If you have them, I would greatly appreciate a summary of what the findings are. As for wolves, it would be useful to me to have publications specifically on European/Russian wolves.
Thank you for your kind words Mariomassone ( talk) 15:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss improvements to specific articles, please do so on the discussion pages of the article in question. If you would like to discuss deletion of articles whose existence you disagree with, you can start a deletion discussion by following the instructions on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion. It depends on if you want to simply request a speedy deletion or to propose a deletion discussion. People there will be glad to help you. If you would like to request punitive action be taken against a specific user for disruptive editing, such as banning a person from editing articles or some such, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing Please don't do any of these things on my talk page. Chrisrus ( talk) 08:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there
I've looked up the occurrence of polygamy in wolf packs in the Mech book, but it states that this primarily occurs in captivity, and is rarely successful because of females killing the pups of rival pack members. Do you have any information about polygamy in the wild? Mariomassone ( talk) 14:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! I always wanted to read his book, but the English Amazon.com does not have it anymore. I know this may sound annoying, but when displaying Bibikov's info, could you add page numbers too? A new standard in animal articles is on the way.
As for Mech and Boitani, I didnt know they even HAD made comments on wolf-jackal-dog hybrids. Mariomassone ( talk) 11:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Edits like this are considered personal attacks. Please be more polite. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to merge this with the existing article? Chrisrus ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey there Inugami-bargho, thank you for your contributions! I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Inugami-bargho.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to merge this with the existing article? Chrisrus ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to merge the article on your user page with the existing page on the same topic? Chrisrus ( talk) 15:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry I saw it and asked him already on his own page. Anyway I read the scientific article (which can be found here: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/09/06/rspb.2011.1395.full.pdf) and it states: The study of mtDNA among Australian dingoes and Polynesian dogs showed that archaeological samples of pre-European dog from across Polynesia (the Cook Islands, Hawaii and New Zealand) carried only two haplotypes: Arc1 and Arc2 [35]. It also showed that Australian dingoes carried only haplotype A29 or haplotypes differing from A29 by a single mutation, indicating that the dingo population was founded from a small number of dogs carrying a single mtDNA haplotype (A29). Importantly, all three haplotypes are typical for East Asian dogs: Arc2 and A29 are absent and Arc1 rarely found west of the Himalayas [9]. Furthermore, two New Guinea singing dogs (NGSDs; a feral dog from the New Guinean highlands, close in morphology and behaviour to Australian dingoes but clearly distinguishable [36]) were shown to carry haplotypes A29 and A79 (which differs by one substitution from A29). Since A29 is also found among East Asian dogs, an origin from domestic dogs seems clear for these two wild populations.
...
This study shows a distinct pattern in the geographical distribution of the two Polynesian dog mtDNA haplotypes Arc1 and Arc2, and the dingo and NGSD founder mtDNA haplotype A29, with a total frequency of 12 per cent in Southern China, 17 per cent in southeast Asia and 50 per cent in Indonesia, but complete absence in samples from Taiwan and the Philippines. This gives a clear indication that Polynesian dogs as well as dingoes and NGSDs trace their ancestry back to South China through Mainland Southeast Asia and Indonesia. Thus, there is no indication that these dogs were introduced via Taiwan and the Philippines together with the expansion of the Neolithic culture and Austronesian languages, as suggested in some theories about Polynesian origins.
So it clearly indicates an origin in Southern China and a route via Southeast Asia and Indonesia. Also that they are not a seperate species.-- Inugami-bargho ( talk) 11:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Inugami-bargho. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)