User talk:Ddum5347

I'm talking about Mammals of Algeria. As I see your edits and attitude, you clearly violate the rule to prevent owning articles by denying the result of discussion but follow your selfish sentiment where you agreed to include vagrant animals into lists. Apology that my IP address had changed since our last conversation. 2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you say that, but you are on an IP. And accusing me of ownership is one thing, but selfish is something else. Those sources included for the whales are the only ones for those species, and even then they aren't a WP:RS. Now please link a reliable ref and then it'll be added. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you revert even without reasoning? I still don't see your point, and the reference about right whale is CANADIAN GOVWERMENT. 2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I apologized about my IP address changed. It is not intentional hence I revealed and apologized where I could just pretend like a third party.2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The right whale one I'll accept, but a news article from an Italian agency isn't reliable. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new one is from Euronews.2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to warn you officially now. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you even answer to my new reference is from Euronews? You say that is also without credibility? I suppose you are the one who've been blocked for multiple times by edit warring? One of your problems is that you revert even without reasoning.2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the Euronews has a source for its own article (preferably one like the Canadian gov't ref), then use that. Please revert yourself and either fix the ref or stop this nonsense. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, huh? I will stop for now, but look yourself in a mirror.2400:4051:E900:5B00:8559:F009:22:411E (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, sure. Still waiting on that revert. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from the fact that this herd is completely autonomous, as they feed themselves and not with human help, I don't know where you read the fact that this herd of reindeer is semi-domesticated, because in the source it says nothing of everything what. In addition, I inform you that these reindeer graze in an area of ​​approximately 10,000 acres in the middle of the Cairngorm National Park, and therefore not privately owned as you say. I invite you to read the information carefully and do not write information that you do not know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo pag (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a reliable source backing all of this up, then I will believe you. Ddum5347 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonardo pag: Whilst I don't want to see either you or Ddum5347 edit-warring over this (especially as the latter is aware of the risks of so-doing) but I have to side squarely with Ddum's general view on using the term 'semi-domesticated'. You could both do with citing proper sources, not a commercial website. Here are three to start with, and there are many more if you care to look:

• "Domesticated reindeer were introduced to the Cairngorms in Scotland in 1952 and survive there as a managed herd."^[1]
• "It [The Cairngorms] also has a semi-domesticated herd of Reindeer Rangifer tarandus (which became extinct in Britain c.8,200 years ago) and..." ^[2]
• "The Reindeer was native in Britain during the Late Glacial (until about 8,000 years ago) but became extinct as the climate warmed up. Since 1952, two small but free-ranging but heavily managed herds have been maintained on the Cairngorms."^[3]
• "...including a semi-domesticated reintroduced reindeer population."^[4]

I think it's quite reasonable to use the term 'semi-domesticated' about the Scottish reindeer population, though I see no evidence in the sources I have checked of the species having been actively 'extirpated' - just simple extinction from Britain following amelioration of the climate at the end of the Ice Age, followed by the 1952 reintroduction. However, I can imagine it could well have been hunted to extinction, in which case 'extirpation' would then be a valid term to use. That would require a valid source, of course. Hoping this will stop your bickering. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The main reason I disagree with Leonardo's edits is that they put the herd as a reintroduction, which is honestly a very loose application of the term, seeing as how the reindeer are pretty heavily managed and dependent on those wildlife managers, and the fact that they originate from domestic reindeer, which makes me think they are more feral than wild. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Moyes I can agree with you on some things but less on others. I start by saying the things I disagree with: the site I put as a source was the official website of the herd (ps. If you want to have information about it you can go to the contacts page of the site and you can ask what you want, I've already done it several times) and second I invite you to look at the Scottish tourist board^[1] in which they explain well that reindeer are absolutely free to graze. I agree with you that in 1952 the first reindeer were semi-domesticated, but it's been almost 70 years! Thank you!

@Leonardo pag: No, the Tourist Board is not an expert site, and the cairngormsreindeer site is a promotional and involved source. I prefer to use independent and academic sources- and you should, too. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.). Nick Moyes (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources are not always reliable and therefore I don't feel like looking at them. For the cairngormsreindeer, try to ask him for information anyway (as I said in the previous comment) because surely they can know more than us. Leonardo pag (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The home page of https://www.cairngormreindeer.co.uk/ says the herd is free-ranging and the animals "tame and friendly". The FAQS section says "We also feed them a carefully balanced cereal-based supplementary feed" and that adult males are "are trained to pull a sleigh". They also refer to "management of breeding" and their staff being qualified herders. All this seems closer to free-ranging domesticated than wild. I'm not so sure semi-domesticated is entirely accurate, but there is a source for that. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jts1882 You’ve probably only read where it says that some reindeer are locked up in an enclosure near a cottage. In that case it is true, those reindeer are semi-domesticated and what you said happens (them alosa give them a mix of cereals), but we are talking a few specimiens! All the other reindeer are found in a vast territory (more or less un to ski slopes of the Cairngorm, so much so that the herd took over the plants a few weeks ago) in this case, the reindeer are completely wild and the online food they eat is the lichen they find and wrap the food that someone who meets the pack gives them. I hope I explained myself. Leonardo pag (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomy section of this page contained 2 links to subpages about 2 subspecies ever since I overhauled the latter subpages in late 2018. During the review for good article status of the sand cat page in 2020, the reviewer did NOT criticise the presence of these 2 links, so they were kept. YOU, however, were the first who removed them withOUT explanation on 7 May. I reverted your removal a few hours later. But the next day, you removed these links AGAIN. This is borderline disruptive, as is your unexplained removal of needed parenthesis, linked words and sentences on this page.
@Jpgordon, Donald Albury, and Floquenbeam: how does their repeated deletion of same links fit with the 0 revert agreement after their last block? – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BhagyaMani:, I don't see where Ddum5347 made that specific commitment to me.

Ddum5347, while many of your edits are improvements to the encyclopedia (and I see more of your edits than you may realize, as you have been editing many articles that are on my watchlist; our editing interests seem to overlap a lot), you sometimes make changes without understanding why something is worded the way it is, or why it is in the article, and often has been so for many years. Be cautious about edits that change the meaning of a statement, or that remove anything that has been in an article for very long. If you do get reverted, think about why you were reverted, and do not re-revert unless you are sure that you are dealing with vandalism or demonstrably incorrect or unverifiable information. If there is any objection to one of your edits, or if you suspect an edit might be controversial, discuss it on the talk page. While a 1RR restriction is not the worst thing to happen to an editor, it would be inconvenient for you. Just be a little more cautious about reversions, and you should be OK. - Donald Albury 13:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct is that s/he didn't make that commitment to YOU personally, but to Jpgordon, before he unblocked the indefinite one imposed by Floquenbeam. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hate doing this.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in violation of 0RR agreed to here.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this user was evading their block on this date. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on this one. You're really pretty obvious; if you can't control yourself, find another hobby. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddum5347, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Acroterion (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transcontinental countries has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]