![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Kari A. Prassack et al. Dental microwear as a behavioral proxy for distinguishing between canids at the Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) site of Předmostí, Czech Republic, Journal of Archaeological Science (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105092
Wolves and dogs from same general area have different dentition consistent with different diets. This fits nicely with the view that dogs have already diverged from wolves when domesticated. — Jts1882 | talk 12:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello William Harris, I thought I would pop by and see how everything is going over there and have seen your announcement, are we still going to see you from time to time? How are things in SA going? People are gradually getting the message over here and maintaining some distance, but beaches were still quite frequented over the weekend. My wife is an anaesthetist here in Melbourne and they are already rationing face masks etc due to shortages. I hope you and family are well and have an adequate supply of toilet paper!!! Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 23:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC).
I don't understand - why? Atsme Talk 📧 04:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
65.183.144.120 (
talk)
02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I am notifying you that you are involved with an ongoing incident.
Hi, William Harris! You've removed a couple of red links that I had previously added to some dog pages. I think that's a good idea only if the topic is patently never going to have or deserve an article here. A topic such as primary lens luxation, which is discussed in many academic WP:RS, may not get a page until the rest of the project is complete, but is surely both notable and encyclopaedic, so I believe keeping the red link is generally helpful, and also incidentally in line with the recommendations at WP:REDDEAL. Am I wrong? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure why Wikipedia is in denial over the original longer legged SBT now known as ISBT a quick google would enlighten you. They are not American Pitbull Terriers albeit perhaps in some cases interbreeding has occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 ( talk) 14:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Far be it from me to tell you, as someone who is not a part of the project, how to conduct the project. However, I'm not sure of any discussion that occurred regarding fictional dogs, nor am I aware of a guideline for inclusion. Can you link me to these if these do indeed exist? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I wrote in my explanation for a change: "changed "scientific name: Canis hallstromi" to "original scientific name: Canis hallstromi" in lead - this is not a currently accepted species name"
To which you responded: "Oh yes it is - do not get nomenclature confused with taxonomy, and learn the difference between the two."
Aha - the sleeping giants stir!! (Hi William...) OK, when I see "scientific name" for a taxon, I expect the current scientific name according to common usage. The current scientific name depends on whether there is a consensus to treat this taxon as a full species, a subspecies of a different accepted species, or something below this (which has no formal status in nomenclature - at least in animals) such as variety, form or breed.
The reason I changed "scientific name: Canis hallstromi" to "original scientific name: Canis hallstromi" is that yes, it was originally erected as a species by Troughton in 1957, but few if any today accept that it deserves species status today. BTW in zoology, it is the "epithet" (hallstromi in this instance) that is considered the "name"; the combination in which is it is first published is useful as a reference, but it is not obligatory to keep it there. Also the name is re-usable at any rank in the "species group" - i.e. species or subspecies - according to the preference of subsequent users.
According to this logic, the scientific name of the taxon today depends on where it is classified and at which rank. If authors prefer to treat it as a species, then the scientific name is Canis hallstromi; if a subspecies of dog it can be Canis familiaris hallstromi; if a synonym of dingo (another taxonomic position) it would be Canis familiaris dingo or Canis dingo.
So forgive me for saying, yes I do know the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy (actually I have been involved with this stuff for many many years). The (current / accepted) nomenclature follows the taxonomy, as stated above, depending on the rank at which the taxon is placed, and the higher taxon to which it is assigned. The original nomenclature does not - hence my change - but then again, that followed the original taxonomy of the proposer.
Now if you (or someone) wishes to argue that this taxon is a "good" species in its own right, then to say that the [current] scientific name is Canis hallstromi would be 100% correct, just like Canis dingo for the dingo in that circumstance (as some do indeed argue). However I do not believe you take this position (although I could be wrong...) - happy to debate further of course... your thoughts on the above? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 06:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct - there are some other contributions that I can add from the study. Indebted once again. William Harris (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi though i understand ur removal of content as per the policy WP:Spam.I think you removed the image inadvertently.So i added it again.Plz don't remove that tq. Heba Aisha ( talk) 11:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Please make sure you do your research before undoing/editing this page. First you undid an edit with regards to the South African Encyclopaedia claiming it was not published in 1970 when it fact it was(You have rectified this and I've thanked you), then you removed an edit stating that the Boerboel is not a declared landrace under act 62 of 1998 AIA which it is(SABBS Registration Number 62/98/B-68). Lastly KUSA is not the legal authority when it comes to the Breed standard, only the SABBS under act 62 of 1998 AIA is that authority and thus the Breed standard should be based on that of the SABBS.
Regards: User:Jln115
Hi William, just wondering if you still think that Canis lupus dingo is the best name for that page, bearing in mind that MSW3 taxonomy (from which the name/treatment originates) is now 15 years old and there are other views, as you know, and as are reflected in the article - e.g. I might favour renaming it "dingo-New Guinea singing dog clade" or something, which would then be taxonomy/nomenclature independent. However I realise that there is some history here, and potentially other views to be considered. Thoughts? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering: how did you get access to the book Canids of the World (ISBN 978-0-691-17685-7)? Do you own it, or is there a subscription service that gives you access? ZFT ( talk) 16:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
It isn't exactly the dog ancestor you are looking for, but a paper describing a new Canis species C. borjgali came out this year. No article on it yet, but the paper itself can be found on Google Scholar. Happy editing! -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Boerboel. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Jln115
(talk)
I didn't know that it was from a cited source and someone said that. I thought it was just basic knowledge. The same with the European Rabbit. I am not attempting to cause disruptive editing, I just genuinely did not know. I thought I was just adding information.
This is what I hate a bout my life. I do something which I believe to be harmless by accident, but then I basically step on a landmine and people give me death threats and I hate it. I didn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I never said it was a personal blog, and what I did was done in innocent ignorance rather than willful trolling. I didn't notice the citations, honest. I apologize if I seemed like I was altering the respective articles. I assumed that the information put in there was from common knowledge observed by people, not from written sources. And technically, I get threats, which spells death to my editing time at wikipedia, so yeah. But anyway, please don't block or remove me. I keep making honest mistake after honest mistake, but people think I'm just a troll or a hacker. I promise that I will never edit and set foot on wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course I feel remorse. I don't do them to tick people off, I did it because I thought the articles were missing some additions. And i am learning and changing. It's not like I'm doing this on purpose. I don't know who runs wikipedia now, but I assume I can go to them and ask what articles should be edited properly or not. Also, I wasn't trying to overdramatize. I was just paranoid. But yeah, my point still stands that I basically get into a lot of trouble by accident. And I admit that I made mistakes that I didn't know were wrong. For example, I added "African Cheetah" as a species, but I didn't know they were a species. But still, African Cheetahs are animals, and its easier to call them a species by their range name rather than multiple names. And I see Zebras as a whole as "Vulnerable", and they probably are, and the same is with African Cheetahs. And also, I have a lot more questions and statements, but wait until you're ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I hope I'm not in trouble. I do have an interest in mammals, especially megafauna, extinct and extant, but I'm interested in all animals and even life on earth as a whole. I especially have gained in interest in megafauna living today, such as african megafauna. I also am running a wiki of my own on fandom, and I have ambitious plans for it. Anyway, I wish to learn more about extant megafauna, so please let me know if there's anything relating to that. And if you have a personal place where we can talk easier, that would be fine.
Also, what happened to the conservation status on the zebra and chinese high-fin banded shark?
And should I edit something weird from this page: /info/en/?search=Domestic_sheep_predation (For context, it lists gophers as a predator of sheep, without citation), and besides, that makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I still have a few questions, but I'll list some of them later. Where and how do I ask questions to the projects? And I'm heavily interested in extant megafauna. Do you know if that community exists? Firekong1 ( talk) 22:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
There's this user that I'm having an issue with. They're called BhagyaMani. I have been making some incorrect edits which that person undoes, but I have been asking to talk to them, and I have received no answer. In fact, they just remove it. All I want to do is talke to that user and ask them a question, but they won't respond. And they even blame me for not talking to them. But they're the one who won't respond. Firekong1 ( talk) 14:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Why won't Bhagyamani respond to messages on his talk page that I leave him? He won't answer me, and I'm always waiting for a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
HELOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! 82.10.53.151 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a more mature message on his page, but he hasn't responded. Can you tell me why he won't respond? And/or can you please ask him for me? /info/en/?search=User_talk:BhagyaMani#Greetings,_and_a_sincere_apology
external link to add on the Alopekis article: https://greatdanegnosis.wixsite.com/mysite subject to your approval. I had put a lot of effort into the article, with personal research, conservation efforts and on-the-ground knowledge, over many decades, shame to see it reduced to a stub but I suppose only third-party sources count as "reliable" here, while first-hand cynological study / experience / expertise / original research on a subject does not matter... Please remove my talk, apologies for formatting errors, this was the only way for me to contact you about this, best wishes, User:Fainomenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainomenon ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thought you would appreciate this, a wolf pup mummy from Yukon has just been described, if you haven't already seen it: [1] [2] I must say that music in the video abstract is somewhat distracting! FunkMonk ( talk) 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas William Harris |
Hi William Harris, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
![]() |
Don’t really care for the article, but in response to your edit summary, there’s no country called the Middle East either. Jerm ( talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Hello William Harris: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
William Harris,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–
Davey2010
Talk
00:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Hi. You may not consider it a split, but you copied the 2nd paragraph in the Dire Wolf article directly into the genus article (except for its last two sentences). As per WP:COPYWITHIN, attribution is required for copyright, unless it falls under the exceptions listed in WP:NOATT, which I don't think apply in this instance. The fix is simple, simply revert my last edit, and when you do, provide attribution in the edit summary to see the history of Dire Wolf for attribution. Onel5969 TT me 00:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
"Canis" armbrusteri was named by James W. Gidley in 1913. Unfortunately, I can't access the paper at the moment. Given the convergent evolution, there must be a big question over whether armbrusteri belongs with the wolf or dire wolf. — Jts1882 | talk 08:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk, I was not aware of that policy, and will put the redirect back in place. The material will be there in case of future activation. I will be raising some issues tomorrow when adequate time has been given for closing off the formal proposal for the name change. There is no control, and the change is spilling over into all sorts of articles where it has no business being there.
Jts1882, the paleo-database is rubbish - I have just provided a reference for Gidley 1913. Rest assured some palaeontologists will be doing a review of Canina evolution as a response to this study, and evolutionary biologists now need to try and sequence armbrusteri as a priority. William Harris (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello William, you seem to be new on the project so I advise you to get used to this kind of ambiguous and volatile sourcing on the matter, because that's what you'll most find about on the subject. The journalists here aren't direct on their ideas and they like to put some "flair" on their wording, so be careful on interpreting their word's true meaning (and pay extra attention to identify it a term is being used as a noun or an adjective, many times it's not clear when it's the earlier or the latter). The scholars are a little bit more direct, but they are more scarce and less abrangent on their researching. Lastly, if you're unsure about some sources, try consulting with people from the project. They are experienced wikipedians who are used to this more difficult sourcing, and they might help you on getting better at identifying terms and ideas. With all that said, good luck on your projects. Regards, ABC paulista ( talk) 13:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi William Harris. Thanks for reminding me of WP:NOTNEWS. I was going to do exactly what you did but could already 'hear' clamourings of "but it has a good source!". I doesn't always occur to me to take NOTNEWS into account when weighing the merit of bits of content. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Your page and edits are usually my source for such papers, but I saw this reported in a newspaper yesterday and it is now on the PNAS site.
So an ice age refuge might have been a factor in getting together in time for man and dog to explore the Americas together. — Jts1882 | talk 12:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Origin of the domestic dog you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi William, in case of interest and you have not already seen it: https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2021.004 Not sure if it has anything new to report, just thought I would pass it on :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.432714v1.full Mariomassone ( talk) 11:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey William, you left me a message on my talk page. I wanted to thank you for reaching out to me, and I was hoping you would lend some advice to me. Could you let me know why my edit didn't seem constructive? I want to make sure that I don't repeat this in the future, thank you. Jmorales96 ( talk) 15:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Please use reliable sources. "Canis" is not the same genus as "Aenocyon", and obviously neither means "wolf", so your 'translation' is obviously nonsense. "Aenocyon" is not even a single language, but an invented Latin-Greek blend. — kwami ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi William, I'm not totally sure what happened here. I don't see anything in my diff that reverted another editor, but I know things can get tricky with pending changes. The issue is that after some cleanup, Direwolf (fictional creature) now redirects to Dire wolf (disambiguation), so the hatnote has two links to the same page in a misleading manner. I thought it would be a simple matter to sort out, but perhaps not. Should I take another shot at it? Could you handle it? -- BDD ( talk) 20:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Kari A. Prassack et al. Dental microwear as a behavioral proxy for distinguishing between canids at the Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) site of Předmostí, Czech Republic, Journal of Archaeological Science (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2020.105092
Wolves and dogs from same general area have different dentition consistent with different diets. This fits nicely with the view that dogs have already diverged from wolves when domesticated. — Jts1882 | talk 12:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello William Harris, I thought I would pop by and see how everything is going over there and have seen your announcement, are we still going to see you from time to time? How are things in SA going? People are gradually getting the message over here and maintaining some distance, but beaches were still quite frequented over the weekend. My wife is an anaesthetist here in Melbourne and they are already rationing face masks etc due to shortages. I hope you and family are well and have an adequate supply of toilet paper!!! Kind regards, Cavalryman ( talk) 23:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC).
I don't understand - why? Atsme Talk 📧 04:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
65.183.144.120 (
talk)
02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I am notifying you that you are involved with an ongoing incident.
Hi, William Harris! You've removed a couple of red links that I had previously added to some dog pages. I think that's a good idea only if the topic is patently never going to have or deserve an article here. A topic such as primary lens luxation, which is discussed in many academic WP:RS, may not get a page until the rest of the project is complete, but is surely both notable and encyclopaedic, so I believe keeping the red link is generally helpful, and also incidentally in line with the recommendations at WP:REDDEAL. Am I wrong? Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure why Wikipedia is in denial over the original longer legged SBT now known as ISBT a quick google would enlighten you. They are not American Pitbull Terriers albeit perhaps in some cases interbreeding has occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.39.126 ( talk) 14:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Far be it from me to tell you, as someone who is not a part of the project, how to conduct the project. However, I'm not sure of any discussion that occurred regarding fictional dogs, nor am I aware of a guideline for inclusion. Can you link me to these if these do indeed exist? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 07:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I wrote in my explanation for a change: "changed "scientific name: Canis hallstromi" to "original scientific name: Canis hallstromi" in lead - this is not a currently accepted species name"
To which you responded: "Oh yes it is - do not get nomenclature confused with taxonomy, and learn the difference between the two."
Aha - the sleeping giants stir!! (Hi William...) OK, when I see "scientific name" for a taxon, I expect the current scientific name according to common usage. The current scientific name depends on whether there is a consensus to treat this taxon as a full species, a subspecies of a different accepted species, or something below this (which has no formal status in nomenclature - at least in animals) such as variety, form or breed.
The reason I changed "scientific name: Canis hallstromi" to "original scientific name: Canis hallstromi" is that yes, it was originally erected as a species by Troughton in 1957, but few if any today accept that it deserves species status today. BTW in zoology, it is the "epithet" (hallstromi in this instance) that is considered the "name"; the combination in which is it is first published is useful as a reference, but it is not obligatory to keep it there. Also the name is re-usable at any rank in the "species group" - i.e. species or subspecies - according to the preference of subsequent users.
According to this logic, the scientific name of the taxon today depends on where it is classified and at which rank. If authors prefer to treat it as a species, then the scientific name is Canis hallstromi; if a subspecies of dog it can be Canis familiaris hallstromi; if a synonym of dingo (another taxonomic position) it would be Canis familiaris dingo or Canis dingo.
So forgive me for saying, yes I do know the difference between nomenclature and taxonomy (actually I have been involved with this stuff for many many years). The (current / accepted) nomenclature follows the taxonomy, as stated above, depending on the rank at which the taxon is placed, and the higher taxon to which it is assigned. The original nomenclature does not - hence my change - but then again, that followed the original taxonomy of the proposer.
Now if you (or someone) wishes to argue that this taxon is a "good" species in its own right, then to say that the [current] scientific name is Canis hallstromi would be 100% correct, just like Canis dingo for the dingo in that circumstance (as some do indeed argue). However I do not believe you take this position (although I could be wrong...) - happy to debate further of course... your thoughts on the above? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 06:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct - there are some other contributions that I can add from the study. Indebted once again. William Harris (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi though i understand ur removal of content as per the policy WP:Spam.I think you removed the image inadvertently.So i added it again.Plz don't remove that tq. Heba Aisha ( talk) 11:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Please make sure you do your research before undoing/editing this page. First you undid an edit with regards to the South African Encyclopaedia claiming it was not published in 1970 when it fact it was(You have rectified this and I've thanked you), then you removed an edit stating that the Boerboel is not a declared landrace under act 62 of 1998 AIA which it is(SABBS Registration Number 62/98/B-68). Lastly KUSA is not the legal authority when it comes to the Breed standard, only the SABBS under act 62 of 1998 AIA is that authority and thus the Breed standard should be based on that of the SABBS.
Regards: User:Jln115
Hi William, just wondering if you still think that Canis lupus dingo is the best name for that page, bearing in mind that MSW3 taxonomy (from which the name/treatment originates) is now 15 years old and there are other views, as you know, and as are reflected in the article - e.g. I might favour renaming it "dingo-New Guinea singing dog clade" or something, which would then be taxonomy/nomenclature independent. However I realise that there is some history here, and potentially other views to be considered. Thoughts? Regards - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 02:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Just wondering: how did you get access to the book Canids of the World (ISBN 978-0-691-17685-7)? Do you own it, or is there a subscription service that gives you access? ZFT ( talk) 16:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Greetings,
It isn't exactly the dog ancestor you are looking for, but a paper describing a new Canis species C. borjgali came out this year. No article on it yet, but the paper itself can be found on Google Scholar. Happy editing! -- SilverTiger12 ( talk) 16:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Boerboel. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted. Repeated vandalism may result in the
loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Jln115
(talk)
I didn't know that it was from a cited source and someone said that. I thought it was just basic knowledge. The same with the European Rabbit. I am not attempting to cause disruptive editing, I just genuinely did not know. I thought I was just adding information.
This is what I hate a bout my life. I do something which I believe to be harmless by accident, but then I basically step on a landmine and people give me death threats and I hate it. I didn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I never said it was a personal blog, and what I did was done in innocent ignorance rather than willful trolling. I didn't notice the citations, honest. I apologize if I seemed like I was altering the respective articles. I assumed that the information put in there was from common knowledge observed by people, not from written sources. And technically, I get threats, which spells death to my editing time at wikipedia, so yeah. But anyway, please don't block or remove me. I keep making honest mistake after honest mistake, but people think I'm just a troll or a hacker. I promise that I will never edit and set foot on wikipedia again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course I feel remorse. I don't do them to tick people off, I did it because I thought the articles were missing some additions. And i am learning and changing. It's not like I'm doing this on purpose. I don't know who runs wikipedia now, but I assume I can go to them and ask what articles should be edited properly or not. Also, I wasn't trying to overdramatize. I was just paranoid. But yeah, my point still stands that I basically get into a lot of trouble by accident. And I admit that I made mistakes that I didn't know were wrong. For example, I added "African Cheetah" as a species, but I didn't know they were a species. But still, African Cheetahs are animals, and its easier to call them a species by their range name rather than multiple names. And I see Zebras as a whole as "Vulnerable", and they probably are, and the same is with African Cheetahs. And also, I have a lot more questions and statements, but wait until you're ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I hope I'm not in trouble. I do have an interest in mammals, especially megafauna, extinct and extant, but I'm interested in all animals and even life on earth as a whole. I especially have gained in interest in megafauna living today, such as african megafauna. I also am running a wiki of my own on fandom, and I have ambitious plans for it. Anyway, I wish to learn more about extant megafauna, so please let me know if there's anything relating to that. And if you have a personal place where we can talk easier, that would be fine.
Also, what happened to the conservation status on the zebra and chinese high-fin banded shark?
And should I edit something weird from this page: /info/en/?search=Domestic_sheep_predation (For context, it lists gophers as a predator of sheep, without citation), and besides, that makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I still have a few questions, but I'll list some of them later. Where and how do I ask questions to the projects? And I'm heavily interested in extant megafauna. Do you know if that community exists? Firekong1 ( talk) 22:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
There's this user that I'm having an issue with. They're called BhagyaMani. I have been making some incorrect edits which that person undoes, but I have been asking to talk to them, and I have received no answer. In fact, they just remove it. All I want to do is talke to that user and ask them a question, but they won't respond. And they even blame me for not talking to them. But they're the one who won't respond. Firekong1 ( talk) 14:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Why won't Bhagyamani respond to messages on his talk page that I leave him? He won't answer me, and I'm always waiting for a response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firekong1 ( talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
HELOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! 82.10.53.151 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I wrote a more mature message on his page, but he hasn't responded. Can you tell me why he won't respond? And/or can you please ask him for me? /info/en/?search=User_talk:BhagyaMani#Greetings,_and_a_sincere_apology
external link to add on the Alopekis article: https://greatdanegnosis.wixsite.com/mysite subject to your approval. I had put a lot of effort into the article, with personal research, conservation efforts and on-the-ground knowledge, over many decades, shame to see it reduced to a stub but I suppose only third-party sources count as "reliable" here, while first-hand cynological study / experience / expertise / original research on a subject does not matter... Please remove my talk, apologies for formatting errors, this was the only way for me to contact you about this, best wishes, User:Fainomenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fainomenon ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thought you would appreciate this, a wolf pup mummy from Yukon has just been described, if you haven't already seen it: [1] [2] I must say that music in the video abstract is somewhat distracting! FunkMonk ( talk) 21:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Merry Christmas William Harris |
Hi William Harris, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas |
![]() |
Don’t really care for the article, but in response to your edit summary, there’s no country called the Middle East either. Jerm ( talk) 22:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy New Year! |
Hello William Harris: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary
blisters. |
William Harris,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–
Davey2010
Talk
00:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Hi. You may not consider it a split, but you copied the 2nd paragraph in the Dire Wolf article directly into the genus article (except for its last two sentences). As per WP:COPYWITHIN, attribution is required for copyright, unless it falls under the exceptions listed in WP:NOATT, which I don't think apply in this instance. The fix is simple, simply revert my last edit, and when you do, provide attribution in the edit summary to see the history of Dire Wolf for attribution. Onel5969 TT me 00:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
"Canis" armbrusteri was named by James W. Gidley in 1913. Unfortunately, I can't access the paper at the moment. Given the convergent evolution, there must be a big question over whether armbrusteri belongs with the wolf or dire wolf. — Jts1882 | talk 08:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk, I was not aware of that policy, and will put the redirect back in place. The material will be there in case of future activation. I will be raising some issues tomorrow when adequate time has been given for closing off the formal proposal for the name change. There is no control, and the change is spilling over into all sorts of articles where it has no business being there.
Jts1882, the paleo-database is rubbish - I have just provided a reference for Gidley 1913. Rest assured some palaeontologists will be doing a review of Canina evolution as a response to this study, and evolutionary biologists now need to try and sequence armbrusteri as a priority. William Harris (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello William, you seem to be new on the project so I advise you to get used to this kind of ambiguous and volatile sourcing on the matter, because that's what you'll most find about on the subject. The journalists here aren't direct on their ideas and they like to put some "flair" on their wording, so be careful on interpreting their word's true meaning (and pay extra attention to identify it a term is being used as a noun or an adjective, many times it's not clear when it's the earlier or the latter). The scholars are a little bit more direct, but they are more scarce and less abrangent on their researching. Lastly, if you're unsure about some sources, try consulting with people from the project. They are experienced wikipedians who are used to this more difficult sourcing, and they might help you on getting better at identifying terms and ideas. With all that said, good luck on your projects. Regards, ABC paulista ( talk) 13:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi William Harris. Thanks for reminding me of WP:NOTNEWS. I was going to do exactly what you did but could already 'hear' clamourings of "but it has a good source!". I doesn't always occur to me to take NOTNEWS into account when weighing the merit of bits of content. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Your page and edits are usually my source for such papers, but I saw this reported in a newspaper yesterday and it is now on the PNAS site.
So an ice age refuge might have been a factor in getting together in time for man and dog to explore the Americas together. — Jts1882 | talk 12:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Origin of the domestic dog you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa ( talk) 15:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi William, in case of interest and you have not already seen it: https://doi.org/10.7882/AZ.2021.004 Not sure if it has anything new to report, just thought I would pass it on :) Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.432714v1.full Mariomassone ( talk) 11:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey William, you left me a message on my talk page. I wanted to thank you for reaching out to me, and I was hoping you would lend some advice to me. Could you let me know why my edit didn't seem constructive? I want to make sure that I don't repeat this in the future, thank you. Jmorales96 ( talk) 15:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Please use reliable sources. "Canis" is not the same genus as "Aenocyon", and obviously neither means "wolf", so your 'translation' is obviously nonsense. "Aenocyon" is not even a single language, but an invented Latin-Greek blend. — kwami ( talk) 18:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi William, I'm not totally sure what happened here. I don't see anything in my diff that reverted another editor, but I know things can get tricky with pending changes. The issue is that after some cleanup, Direwolf (fictional creature) now redirects to Dire wolf (disambiguation), so the hatnote has two links to the same page in a misleading manner. I thought it would be a simple matter to sort out, but perhaps not. Should I take another shot at it? Could you handle it? -- BDD ( talk) 20:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)