This is an archive of past discussions with User:William Harris. 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.
Hello, I'm William Harris. Your recent edit(s) to the page dog appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
You have made a mistake and keep making them. Instead of trying to find a consensus, constant and continuous reverts of my edits without having the slightest time to check what exactly have I edited will result in me reporting you to the administration. I have never done so with another editor, but persistence is the key here. The dog did not descend from the common gray wolf, this is a misconception of the 20th century that has long been rectified, as they both share a common C. lupus ancestor. Moreover, "a dog is a domesticated wolf" is a sentence good for Simple Wikipedia. Here, editors usually try to use encyclopedic language, such as "lupine" (look it up), even if the source says that verbatim. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
If you feel the need to report me to an administrator, then I encourage you to do so - unless you have a WP:RELIABLE source stating that the dog is a descendant of the Dire wolf, it will be treated as WP:OR and reverted. You can then explain yourself on the WP:ANI page - I am sure the good people there will be very interested to hear all that you have to say for yourself. The English word "lupine" derives from lupus, and it is not clear that the dog is from lupus, thus Canis familiaris is an acceptable taxonomic classification held by many taxonomists. If you think that you can come up with a better first sentence for the Dog article, then I encourage you to do that, but you would be wise to first seek consensus on the Talk page for it, else its survival cannot be guaranteed. (For your information, I am not on the Dog page alone, there are a number of members of WP:DOGS who have an interest in it, as you may learn shortly.) William Harris (talk)05:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Did you actually read the f*cking source for my statement in my entry cited right after it?
Or do you just manically revert sourced eduts 'for fun'? --Philip Johann Nasia (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Not only did I read it, I originally wrote the source reference into the article. If you are going to provide some text, perhaps you might provide all of it and not just part of it. It is about the wolf ridding itself of worms, and not just vomiting for the fun of it. Perhaps next time you might like to do a thorough job, rather than the half-assed attempt that you did. Additionally, your interpersonal communication is atrocious, and you attitude even worse. Messages left by others on your talk page prove most revealing. William Harris (talk)11:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Who in their right mind would assume that a fully grown, adult mammal would 'vomit for fun' on an online encyclopedia. You must think this website was generated for people who have no brain or for 5 year old kids. Your attitude is the real atrocious one. Carpe diem --Philip Johann Nasia (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Who in their right mind would assume that a fully grown, adult human would "revert sourced eduts 'for fun' on an online encyclopedia"? William Harris (talk)06:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
.......FOLLOWED BY MR. DIPLOMACY (WHO IS NOW BLOCKED INDEFINITELY)
Hi, WH, how are you? I see that you're removing a good number of country Wikiproject banners from article talk-pages. Are you sure that there's consensus for that? You're citing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Tagging pages with WikiProject banners in your edit summaries, but what I read there is "In general, one should not attempt to police which projects are sufficiently relevant to place their banners on a given talk page" which suggests that these edits might not be such a great idea. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello JLAN, thanks for dropping by and commenting. Back in 2010, a member of WP:DOGS visited a number of breed articles and placed national WikiProjects on them. Not all of them, but those that appear to have been in his interest. Why he did that I do not know, perhaps because he was not aware of the guideline, or perhaps the guideline has been amended since then. My efforts are an attempt to rectify that, especially when some editors see it as a further opportunity for "flag waving" (you know the nations, those that are in conflict or competition with each other). If projects want to badge an article, I will be quite happy for that, just as long as they can demonstrate how they are going to support the article. Currently, none that I have visited have. Regards, William Harris (talk)10:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, if it was me I'd want to try to establish some sort of consensus before going any further along that road – plenty of (or almost all?) Wikiprojects are dormant, inactive and/or overloaded (you've done great stuff for the dog one, but that's more of an exception than a norm). I don't hold out much hope of that ever changing, but you never know; mightn't it be kind of annoying if a project came back to life and someone had untagged all the articles in its purview? Anyway, would you please take it that for any European dog breed (broadly construed, i.e, including the former USSR and its satellites), and for any agricultural domestic animal breed worldwide, I'm representing the related national Wikiproject(s) wherever there is one, and asking you to kindly stop the untagging. If you felt like restoring the tags you've already removed from the talk-pages of such articles (e.g., Alano Español) that'd be even better. Thanks, regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, at your request I shall cease, and rebadge the Europeans. However, I do not believe that any of these inactive or semi-active projects will ever restart, because they have achieved their purpose - getting articles initially up an running; they have achieved that. WP:DOGS will go the same way; indeed, there are only several people truely active now. William Harris (talk)21:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
That's very good of you, and much appreciated, WH! To be honest, I'm sure that in the long run you're right, but I don't think we're quite there yet. I'm heartened by the new activity in the dog project – I used to just leave those articles alone, as they seemed so irretrievably awful. Now I think there's some real improvement going on. Anyway, thanks again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi William. I have been reading a book rescued from a library sale, Australia's Mammal Extinctions by Chris Johnson, there are interesting but contentious ideas proposed as causes and solutions. Are you familiar with this work? ~ cygnis insignis08:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I see that you enjoyed my reply to our Scottish friend - it must have been a big night in Glasgow last night, and this is a hell of a Sunday morning over there. I am not familiar with the work, but the rate of mammalian extinctions on this continent is unacceptable. What does he reveal? William Harris (talk)09:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The author discusses '50 000 year history' of extinctions and the factors that influenced that, it is very thorough in discussing the interplay of human and other species arrival on predators (thylacines, for example). I'm not personally persuaded its premises are settled, but the conclusion is what I thought you might be interested in: "why Australia needs more dingoes". ~ cygnis insignis09:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
After a century of baiting, shooting, trapping, and persecution, we now possibly have more dingoes than before the arrival of the colonists. This is because the pastoral industry has brought water (through wind-powered pumps drawing underground water) to parts of the continent that did not have it before. We know that the more dingoes are suppressed, the more they increase litter size as a response.
My personal philosophy is this. Fifty years from now, the world will need to turn vegan (or be very close to it) for both ecological and health purposes (note: I am not a vegan). The result will be that the cattle, sheep, and pig industries will diminish - pig farming is becoming uneconomic already. Therefore, stock and land currently under pasture will decrease, and nobody will care about dingoes, wolves, etc. With apex predators roaming free, some balance can begin to return.
There is a proposal to reintroduce the wolf back into Scotland. There are no wolves there, and people no longer hunt deer as it has fallen out of favour. The deer increase in numbers, and by feeding on lichen and the bark of trees they begin to destroy the forests - you can see how this will end. The solution is to reintroduce an apex predator to predate on the deer. However, the sheep industry protest this idea. With no sheep industry, there will be no protests. William Harris (talk)09:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Cheers, this has given me a couple of things to think about. I personally find eating animals distasteful, but despite a lifelong bias I think intensive farming and pastoralist activities can be opposed for any number of reasons. An emergent property of bringing back wolves would be the re-invigoration of those old tales, putting a bit o' fright in the wee bairns. ~ cygnis insignis10:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps those of northern Holarctic descent need to re-establish our old relationship with the ancient Gra (grey). Turn on the subtitles button on your browser and enjoy! (And no, this is not trick photography - she is on set with Einar, and they have performed live together in Helsinki.) William Harris (talk)11:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I can't see the wolf proposal going anywhere. I think that is someone proposing introduction on a private estate, or is that the lynx proposal? The lynx might be more acceptable as the howling of wolves invokes all sorts of fears. There are even a proposals for reintroducing wild cats in England and Wales. However, I'm sure the sheep industry will oppose anything that challenges the "sheepwrecked wasteland" (to use George Monbiot's memorable phrase). — Jts1882 | talk12:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Back in 2009, the beaver was reintroduced into Scotland after 400 years. Last year, the Lynx UK Trust launched a public consultation on plans to release some Lynx in Queen Elizabeth Forest Park near Aberfoyle. The wolf will be much more difficult. A property in the Scottish Highlands, which has already reintroduced wild boar and elk, wants to enclose 2 packs within a electrified security-fenced 23,000 acres and establish a tourism business out of it - given that there is money to be made that may add some interest! I note on your linked article that sheep are only supported in that district due to EU subsidies - we are now post-BREXIT, so I suspect that will prove to be either true or false. William Harris (talk)12:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It is a bit daggy to do this, but I wanted to show you an image from Gould's Mammals of Australia; you probably have looked before but here it is again. The image may change if I get better at working on colour restorations from old texts (it is currently over-cooked). Like the thylacine, that other above (I started this with) suggested the dingo replaced, there are two lithographs showing a close up and in situ like above. Weather perfect, dog is happy, that is about it. Regards, ~ cygnis insignis09:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
That was good work on the Dingo & Thylacine pix. Is your intention to drop the pix above into the Dingo article, or one of its related articles, at some stage? William Harris (talk)10:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I might add them if a reference suggests it notable, scientific illustrations are sometimes more than faithful renditions. Ages ago I started a page that collects images of the recent thylacine, c:Thylacinus cynocephalus, it might be interesting to gather images of early renditions of the Dingo; the skull for a couple a reasons that come to mind. My main interest in Gould is the liberally quoted reports from his field workers, John Gilbert is a local hero for my side of the country. If someone gets enough mentions I might get around to filling a gap here, Benjamin Bynoe, or a bit more, Frederick Strange, pretty odd they were overlooked, but all these things are incidental to the content I want to improve eventually. ~ cygnis insignis05:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
There is always some artistic license with artworks; those ancient Greek statues of muscular gods depict muscles that do not exist in biology! William Harris (talk)06:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hunting in wolves
Hi. Do you think maybe you could FORK the Hunting section in the article? Summarize it for the wolf article and move the rest of it to a new one? I feel like the article could use some trimming. Its 11063 words and it better for single species to be under 10000. LittleJerry (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Jerry. I am not quite following. Summarise the "Hunting" section in the article "Wolf". Then move it to which new article? Or do you mean WP:SPINOUT the "Hunting" section from the article "Wolf" to a new article to be named ? (Wolf predation?, Wolf hunting strategies?), and leave a "main page" template with a summary of it in the "Wolf" article?
Be aware that Wolf is well referenced, and its 46kb in references are not counted as part of the edit count per WP:PROSEL. If something needs to be spinout, I would choose "Relationships with humans" because it tells us much about humans but little about the wolf - the article is about the wolf.
The 11063 words is excluding the references. "Relationship with humans" is suppose to be about human's views and interactions with the animal. It also already has spinoff articles. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Why me? You know that I left that article some time ago, apart from my Recent Changes Patrolling across WP:DOGS articles and its associated reverting of vandalism. (The last editor that I had a difference of opinion with on Wolf is now blocked indefinitely.)
Hi! I spotted your revert (1) on mentioned article. This information, however is partially correct, at least the first part of the sentence. Valvasor described breed as strong fearless and powerful dogs, which are breeded in river Pivka valley. Of course, I will add ref. to 1978 shrunken version of Slava Vojvodine Kranjske. With regards, A09090091 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for dropping by, and for adding the supporting reference. I believe that the eastern Central Europe breeds are much neglected here on the English Wikipedia. It would have been convenient if Valvasor had provided more of a description than what he did - all that we know is that from that region just before 1700, there were shepherd dogs that were "strong and fearless dogs" (as most shepherd dogs are). That these shepherd dogs were the direct ancestors of today's Karst Shepherd has not been shown - the article needs a reliable source that says this. Regards, William Harris (talk)00:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I read the chapter about animals in 3rd book. Valvasor did not mentioned any ancestors of the dogs, but as they were described in karst area, it might be the Karst Shepherd (and many think they are), but I am not able to prove this at the moment with my given books. Must agree on your commentary about the characther of shepherd dogs. Sincerely, A09090091 (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Portal links
Hi William, as an outsider to WikiProject Dogs who has a few articles about dog breeds on my watchlist to combat vandalism, I initially found your edit to Dunker very confusing ... I wondered why you were adding links to a portal in an until-now non-standard format. I then noticed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs#Portal:Dogs and it made a bit more sense ... while your edits aren't harmful per se I honestly wonder how helpful they are. I'd suggest that, if you continue making these edits, you provide a more informative edit summary, probably with a link to the WikiProject Dogs discussion. I'm generally meh about the existence of portals and relatively negative about see also links, but I don't want to get into a huge fight about them, so I don't feel strongly enough to revert your edits. I also wonder about the wisdom of making potentially controversial edits (which adding portal links can be) while you have a semmi-retired banner on your user page. I'm going to link to this discussion from the WikiProject Dogs talk page. Graham8707:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for dropping in. I agree, the edit summary is confusing however WP insists that these sections are to be named "See also" rather than "See Also", but I shall add that in future. The discussion about how useful these edits might be you have already found, and I concur with the "portal people" that readers should get to choose whether they follow the link to the portal or not, and not WP:OWNing editors. There was only one editor in that discussion who believes that these links are "controversial". Being semi-retired does not preclude me from editing WP; I am probably here more regularly than most of the "active" editors, but my scope is now greatly reduced. Regards, William Harris (talk)09:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
The Arbcom case you referred to relates to the behaviour of certain administrators with regard to portal editing, and its outcome was a desysop for one of them. It did not relate to portals per se. WP:SEEALSO tells us: "Other internal links: Portal links are usually placed in this section."
In summary:
You have raised the issue of an unclear edit summary, and I have agreed to make them more clear in future.
You have stated that you are indifferent to "See Also" sections and portal links, however they are in accord with WP:SEEALSO
You have stated that you do not feel strongly enough to revert the portal edit, and I have stated at Talk WP:DOGS that I expect WP:BRD to apply in this matter and it is not my concern if other editors on an article page revert my edit.
You have raised the issue of should I be making "controversial" edits while semi-retired, however WP:POL places no restrictions on my edits while semi-retired.
Well I'm indifferent leaning towards being negative re your edits like this, but I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest so I'll just leave them be. I have nothing else to raise. Graham8707:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I hope I’m not bothering you or anything. I just came to ask a favor of you, though I do not know if you are still even active anymore. I edited an article with a statement and I linked an article as evidence for said statement, however it was removed because an editor claimed that it was blank (which I do not understand what they are referring to). I wish to know what I should do in this situation, as I feel that my edit was valid, since it had a linked reference, but I do not want to re edit it back because it could be seen as vandalism and rebellion. What should I do in this situation? Firekong1 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Issue 1: The article which you cited did not support your edit. Yes, one family was threatened in a local fire. However, you cannot generalise that into: "European Martens are also considerably threatened by wildfires that ravage Europe and burn entire swaths or forest, thus depriving them of their natural habitat." You would need a reliable source which actually stated that.
Issue 2: By bare URL, the editor meant that you only provided the URL e.g. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-45248359 rather than a proper citation. However, the editor reverted you for the reason above, and not this reason.
I see now. I assumed that since this one event happened, that it would apply to my statement as true evidence. I appreciate you letting me know what I did wrong. Though if I am to find any articles pertaining to my statement of European Martens being threatened by wildfires in Europe on a more general scale, then I will link it as a reference. Thank you very much, old friend. Firekong1 (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Firekong1, you did not do wrong - we all learn as we go here on Wikipedia and sometimes the reverters are our best teachers. How do you think I got started here 7 years ago? If it were me, I would be looking for that more general reference in Google Scholar right now. Take care! Regards, William Harris (talk)08:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you very much, my friend! I am glad to have this knowledge now. I hope to work and improve my skills as a contributor to wikipedia in order to improve this site. Thanks for your help! Firekong1 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
This article implies that Mario's depictions of lighter-coloured Pleistocene wolves out on the grassy mammoth steppe were not far off the mark. I have referred this matter to a highly competent authority in this field for clarification, because my inference from this article is that our ancestors crossing the mammoth steppe to escape the impending Last Glacial Maximum may have come across a rare population of "coloured wolves" in a refugium, and had to go into an Ice Age "lockdown" and live beside them hunting the same game for several thousand years uninterrupted by outside humans or wolves - the rest is history. William Harris (talk)22:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Wolf Weights
This new study came out August 27 2021 : Morphometric variation in wolves and golden jackal in India (Mammalia, Carnivora) https://bdj.pensoft.net/article/67677/
User:William Harris, You need to stop adding dubious and poorly-sourced information to the Harris surname page. Firstly, the page relates to the family name. Second, there are several origins of the family name, which I dealt with in the etymology section. Thirdly, the name is not exclusively Scottish (nor is it even common among Scots) so please do not edit the infobox to suggest such a thing.
Several of the sources you cite refer to Harris as a place-name (see Isle of Harris), not as a family name, therefore they are strictly unwelcome here.
The allusion to Ancestry.com refers only to user contributions, and not to items added by Ancestry themselves sourced from books on family names.
When a species officially becomes extinct on earth, what is required for one in changing the article of the related species? Firekong1 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Will, my interest actually simply extends to all fauna, especially those that are extinct and close to extinction, and megafauna, especially mammals, happen to be the easiest fauna to use to study this phenomenon. Firekong1 (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey will. I'm having a bit of confusion with the article passer predomesticus with the user innotata. This user has stated that my simple additions of the birds appearance are not helpful edits because they aren't sourced, but I pointed out to them that a few articles here pertaining to animals here use companions, and they aren't sourced.
I believe I was not specific enough before. What I'm saying is that I'm confused as to why I need to add sources for an animal's appearance when it sometimes seems obvious. But I felt that the user was hypocritical since there are several articles on animals using the same comparisons, yet they have no sources (they don't seem to need them), but said user said that they are false information (or similar drivel). Could you please restate what you stated in layman's terms? I did not understand it. By the way, I did not mean that I always want to be "right", but rather, whether or not I'm making a pointless mistake. If you'd like, you can discuss this with the user I mentioned, but be sure to understand my side of this as well.
Firekong1 (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Because we are building an encyclopedia, and what may be obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else in a more remote part of the world. There is nothing stopping you from demanding that the other editors supply WP:RELIABLE sources, or to tag a sentence where it makes sense to have a citation required, e.g. [citation needed]William Harris (talk)05:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I have started a draft of the level 5 vital articles rewrite draft, User:Cavalryman/sandbox/sandbox 1. I think there is a great amount of room to expand species at the expense of many of the breed articles and almost all of the individual dogs articles (Laika is the only one I would include).
There are currently 16 spots to fill, but I would be happy to sacrifice some more breeds if more spots are required. What are your thoughts? Feel free to make some additions. I will present it at WT:DOGS when we have a solution. Cavalryman (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC).
Cavalryman, for the "cascade effect", please see my sandbox under Wolf. Note that the Dire wolf, Maned wolf, and Red wolf should not fall under Wolf article (which is the grey wolf Canis lupus). All of these species fall under the Caninae, a living subgroup of the Canidae. Else, just list them at the same level - I cannot see what is being gained by cascading them. Let me know if you need some more. William Harris (talk)09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
That is quite a collection of biters. Fox and Jackal are phenotypically descriptive terms, and they have enough visitors to indicate people know what they are seeking. William Harris (talk)11:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Iranian Leopard name adding into article
I was told not to add the term until there were articles using the name commonly, though I found at least one using it, but it didn't count anyway. I also asked if it was appropriate if I as a Wikipedia published papers as a biologist and that would count, but the users seemed to misunderstand what I stated. What should I do?
The conversation is here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panthera_pardus_tulliana#Iranian_LeopardFirekong1 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The issue appears to be that Iran is the modern name for Persia, and at naming time of this leopard Persia was in existence and therefore has name priority. William Harris (talk)06:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Alright. Makes sense. But in the future, when the name "Iranian Leopard" is used more exclusively, then would it count for addition?
Firekong1 (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi William Harris, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very happy and healthy New Year, Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, –Davey2010Talk17:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
Sorry to be an inconvenience to you but I saw a user:LittleJerry had edited the page Hunting behavior of gray wolves and specifically added the refrences Mech & Boitani 2003, pp. 119–121 and Heptner & Naumov 1998, pp. 241–242 and I had asked if they could help me by providing me some more detail on how wolves get lone bison to move.
However when they contacted me back they told me they had copied the refrences from you with the article being wolf. So instead I ask you, can you help me?
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
