User talk:Ddum5347/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ddum5347. 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.

So what makes you the expert...3 people have told you to stop...pvmoutside.

• Puerto Rico is already on the template under a U.S. territory, which it is. Stop making redundant edits. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you continue this disruptive style of making controversial changes without seeking consensus, and just edit-warring your way around, I'll have to report you. Many other editors have noticed this and are irked by it, so i's time to change your behaviour. FunkMonk (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -Shift674-🌀 ^contribs 13:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reticulated python, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ddum5347 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to know when exactly I was edit warring, and for how long I am blocked. Ddum5347 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 23:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I actually forgot to block you; that's taken care of. Since you're a repeat offender -- this is your third edit warring block in six weeks -- the block is for a week. And you were edit warring at sand cat. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I very strongly suggest you pay attention to the warnings (and blocks) you've received. You are obviously editing in good faith, making what you believe are beneficial edits to Wikipedia. But this is collaborative environment, and there are policies and practices here that we adhere to. If your current practices continue, you will find yourself blocked from the website; everyone would be happier if instead you would change your behavior to a more collaborative mode. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Checkuser note: I have extended your block to two weeks as you are evading your block via logged-out IP edits. While blocked, you cannot edit via any account or IP until the block expires.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That was pretty foolish. You're lucky it's only extended by a week; you are on your last chance. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your most recent changes to American barn owl do not include sources to justify these changes. Please stop doing this, even if you are factually correct. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. With these edits, you removed two of the six species of serow, indicating in the comments that they'd been lumped, but you didn't update the numbers or the distributions. If you're going to make these changes, can you please make sure that you update all of the information, rather than leaving it for somebody else to clean up for you? Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, it slipped my mind. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The thread in question is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_and_disruptive_editing_by_Ddum5347.Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In case this can be helpful, Wikipedia:Requested moves is the formal procedure to request a move if it's controversial or disputed. It may take time for people to reply but nothing prevents you from moving on elsewhere as the discussion takes place. An uninvolved editor will usually perform the rename if the resulting consensus supports it, when closing the discussion once it expires. —PaleoNeonate – 05:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I was already aware of this. Thank you though. Ddum5347 (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

so I for one am very happy you've decided to cooperate. I know many of us who participate on Wikipedia have strong views coming in....I've learned a lot about compromise here. your edits are often good but some run into issues with other editors. On the bird side, i know craigthebirder pretty well from his edits. He can be pretty particular but his edits are usually very good. You'll run into him the most on the various lists of North America if you already don't know that. He along with other editors, including me, will probably have you on a short leash for a while. If you have any issues with our suggestions, feel free to discuss. I know its probably not as fast as you'd like, but building consensus is usually a good thing. Feel free to ask any questions to me if you'd like beyond the specific ones that arise on the article pages... again, welcome aboard (I hope)....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Pv. I know this doesn't mean much, but I apologise for any strife I may have caused you. Not going to try and make excuses for what I did, but I will ask you any question I have. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The changes you are making to the list of mammals of Denmark are not consistent with the scope of the list. The list ios about Danish mammals, which means that red list statuus should be according to the Danish Red List, not the IUCN red list. The IUCN status of the species can be found on the species pages. Thanks. --JakobT (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't edit on the list of Danish Mammals without discussing principles for the list on the talk page. I have no right to determine the content of the page, but given that I have expert knowledge in the field of Danish mammals, please have the courtesy of discussing your edits before overriding my edits. This is what the talk page is for: establish consensus on the principles for the page.--JakobT (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance with the Wiktionary link, at the Jaguar article, and I wanted to convey a more personal thank you. So, thanks so very much! I didn't know how to do the Wiktionary link! Although I have edited since 2016, the need had never arisen. Once I arrived at your talkpage, I read some of your talkpage posts. Oh my.

WP is the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit, but obviously, we cannot edit "anyway" we choose. It's like an ecosystem. Editors must learn the way the ecosystem works. I don't wish to delve into, or be involved in your editorial problems. But I strongly advise you to take things slowly, and consider the other editor's point of view. For goodness sake, don't edit war, take it to the talkpage, and make your case. Edit warring is like two rams butting heads...sore skulls, and very little progress.

Sorry to be so preachy, but you helped me today, and I suspect you can help others also. Please be more cautious and take the time to learn this new environment. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC) /

No worries, glad I could help you. And thanks for letting me know. It's just hard to edit when I and others are stubborn. Ddum5347 (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, here we are...you taught me something by your good example! I have derived a great deal of pleasure over the years, by helping other editors...and being helped in return! Cheers! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Some more advice: unless there is an actual error with grammar or phrasing in an article, please do not change it. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You're really going to berate me from trying to improve articles? Your standard for an article is not the same as mine. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ddum5347, Also, please keep in mind that we are writing for people on a US high school reading level. This is very important, especially in scientific/technical articles. And that's why good writing, which allows readers to understand terminology through the context of a sentence is so important, versus having to click on every wikilink to comprehend a sentence. If I happen to change or revert an edit, (anyone's edit) I promise to explain the reason....Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

You seem to not get it at all. This is the very definition of edit warring. Consider this a final warning; your next block will be considerably longer, and there will be no more warnings --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If my opinion is worth anything, I prefer Bahudhara more specific comment on this edit....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see the talk page, as well as my section in administator's notice for context Ddum5347 (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ddum5347, please, let us give extirpated a rest, let it become extinct. Our targeted readership (approximately US high school reading ability ) will not comprehend this term. We aren't trying to impress our readers, we are trying to inform them. An encyclopedia is written for "regular" people, not scientists. Please, have some consideration for our readers...that's why we are here. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 08:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tribe of Tiger As I told you previously in one of the many now-deleted threads here, 'extirpated' and 'locally extinct' are not the same thing. All things that are extirpated are either also locally extinct, or just plain extinct); but all things that went locally or globally extinct were not extirpated. The former involves deliberate human action directed towards that species, whereas the latter can happen because one of innumerable types of accidental event. If a source says a taxon was extirpated in a particular area, you may use that statement. But until it does, please do not attempt to introduce your favourite word where it simply does not belong. It adds an unacceptable bias to statements, and is not OK. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Refer to how this word is extensively used in many biological sources. [1]. Ddum5347 (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can find sources which show how a term is used and/or misapplied; a handful of such links demonstrates little. As a verb, it's generally ok; but as a term formally describing a species' status as 'locally extinct' when sources do not support the use of the more active term 'extirpation' is just WP:SYNTH, and misleading. I recognise that the term is used in biological sources - I have used it myself in exceptionally relevant circumstances. But please take care with how you deploy it, and don't treat it as a meaning exactly the same as 'locally extinct' in all circumstances. As you appreciate, a primate is a mammal, but not all mammals are primates. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Again edit warring also here, here and here. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC) and here -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

While there is no question this is edit warring, I agree with the change in the first two. The "elusive predator" doesn't seem encyclopaedic and its not an issue discussed in the body of the text. The change is a more neural statement. This illustrates that even good edits get caught up in edit warring. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion for improvement: Using just a URL as a reference isn't recommended. See Wikipedia:Template index/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference for how to format a full citation. They're displayed with one field per line but it's better to remove the line feeds and just string the fields together (keeping the vertical bars). Especially for a web citation, be sure to include the access date. Also, it's best to remove any unused fields. Craigthebirder (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: Many sources, especially science-based ones, provide a suggested citation. IUCN has one for each species account. You can use them without reformatting but be sure to add the access date. Craigthebirder (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Going to use the cite IUCN template. Thanks for the heads up Ddum5347 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

But please remember that the weight of evidence is that IUCN is not a reliable source for bird ranges (see Wikiproject Birds).

Would the Cornell Lab be more appropriate? Because that one mostly uses eBird recordings as well. Ddum5347 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, certainly yes. The range descriptions (including extralimital records) are thoroughly documented. The eBird map is present but eBird data aren't used in the range descriptions. Craigthebirder (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

My main gripe with this is that some species, such as Coccyzus longirostris[2], for example, are locked behind a paywall. Only some birds have free descriptions Ddum5347 (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." Craigthebirder (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Tough. Do you think you could let me see a copy of certain species that have a paywall? Ddum5347 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you have a specific question that might be answered by Cornell's Birds of the World, I can copy the relevant section. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll let you know if that's the case. Ddum5347 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the cited source (Putnam, Michael & Partida, Ruth & Gomez, Suix & Lacy, Anne. (2008). The Whooping Crane in Mexico: Past, Present, and Future?)? Is it a book? A peer-reviewed journal article? A website? You need to provide the full information. Craigthebirder (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding a link now. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Careful with this one. The IOC and the IUCN split the American and European forms into species, but North American sources, i.e. Clements, the AOS, and state record committees lump them. Some editors may get angry with you on this one depending on which source they follow for the list....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The pages for each have them as separate species. I think I know who you're talking about though LOL Ddum5347 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Canis edwardii is Aenocyon edwardii - no DNA study nor evidence of any kind. It was mentioned as possibly being part of the dire wolf lineage as a broader theory but no change was not proposed by the researchers. I suggest that you put it back. You may be interested in Talk:Dire wolf#Canis edwardii. William Harris (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for rectifying. Someone set you up to make the WP:AGF move - if it was not you then eventually it would have been someone else. William Harris (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I got baited. Thanks for letting me know. Ddum5347 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nubian ibex, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ddum5347: Listen mate, I'll cut immediately to the chase. I am aware that you are part of a discussion due to edit-warring/disruptive editing. The problem I have is that you are not reading what people are writing, and always rushing your edits. I am surprised by the number of edits you do so recklessly quickly without thinking twice, given by your number of edits on a wide variety of articles in a short period of time. I will keep a close eye on your contributions because it seems that you are doing it on many articles. If you do not stop and acknowledge this, I might, unfortunately, have to take this to ANI. Wretchskull (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I make mistakes, but I don't rush edits. Let me know if any more of my edits bother you, so we can discuss it. Ddum5347 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ddum5347: following your recent blocks, edit warring, and disruptive, reckless, rushed edits, I will start an AN tomorrow. It doesn't seem that you are taking this seriously after countless notices, community discussions, and even blocks. Wretchskull (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I just told you I acknowledged what you said. My edits on the beaver page are not wholly representative of all my edits. Ddum5347 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

No they are not, but they are part of it. I have looked at many of your contributions and you follow your same pattern of extremely rushed disruptive edits. I will give you one chance to slow the hell down and think twice before editing. I will check your contributions tomorrow, and if I see you getting engaged in an edit war, disruptive editing, or rushed edits, I will have to report you to ANI (+ the community discussion about your edits, who are wholly agreeing about the issue.).

Where else I have rushed edits? I want to know. Ddum5347 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Literally everywhere, I see you go from one page to another within a minute or so (which many editors have complained about), and most of those edits (grammatical and referencing on quality articles) are almost exclusively unconstructive. You have been blocked multiple times which should obviously be a red flag that you are doing something wrong. The best thing for you to do is to slow down and think. What you did to Beaver is absolutely unacceptable. You reverted my edit and replaced it with the same source, but that isn't the worst part, you then changed it to a different study that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject, assuming that we won't look into the source and simply let it slide. As I said, I look at your contributions tomorrow, if I see the same issues, I will take this a step further with sysops. Wretchskull (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Unconstructive how? I try to fix the wording and grammar on articles, and you say that's not helpful? Ddum5347 (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You're failure to understand the concerns raised above by Wretchskull goes to the heart of the issue with your rushed and seemingly opinionated editing. It is this well-meant but rapid and rather disruptive editing pattern that is most liable to get your editing privileges withdrawn if you continue being so sloppy. I am amazed you did not follow up the comments abobve by checking what was highlighted to you. As I see it, you added this statement and reference to Beaver which added that beavers are predated by "mustelids like wolverines. The source, though a reliable one, did not mentioned any such thing, and so your edit was removed as unverifiable. It's the lack of care and perhaps your expectation that you feel editors should go to other articles to check whether what you've added is correct that bothers me. Had you added this reference your edit would have been accepted and retained, because clearly wolverine do predate on beavers. But you can't just add stuff, throw in a random source and walk away expecting no-one to be bothered enough to check. It's this sloppiness and the addition of 'stuff you happen to know' without supporting sources that is the issue being raised by the editor here, and which is concerning many other editors, too. So, as was requested, slow down, and check that everything you add is genuinely supported by each source you include. If it isn't, leave it out, or at least add a ^{[citation needed]} note yourself. Avoid adding your own interpretation or understanding to articles - stick with adding stated, verifiable facts please, and source each one correctly. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for edit warring, as you did at Gaur. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Donald Albury (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

- Donald Albury 12:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ddum5347: I'm sure it must be really frustrating to be blocked again — particularly when those of us at WP:BIRD have seen a big improvement in your willingness to work towards consensus. If you still feel like contributing once this block is up, I'm happy to provide a sounding board if you find yourself getting in scraps with other editors again. The politics of this place can drive you nuts, but most of us figure out a workable solution eventually. Sometimes it just takes figuring out how to defuse a situation. Anyway, the offer stands. MeegsC (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to second the offer MeegsC has given you to help you in any way you need it....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I bear witness that all edits to WP:DOGS articles made by this editor since the last block have all been improvements.

Edit warring is to be avoided; this is not a matter of personal honour but a matter of mature good sense. Some issues are best left alone and you move on to the next contribution, but you cannot move on to that next contribution if you are blocked for 2 weeks. William Harris (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I would really appreciate help from you both. This place is very annoying sometimes for sure. And thanks for saying that William. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

You may have to give MeegsC a ping to attract attention, as we do not have a watch on your Talk page. William Harris (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, William Harris. Ddum5347, any time you need a hand, feel free to either post on my talk page or "ping" me (just type {{u|MeegsC}} on any talk page you want to draw my attention to). To ping Pvmoutside, just type {{u|Pvmoutside}}MeegsC (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of CITES#Appendix I, I didn't know that they existed until I started to explore wolf protection around the world. We do not have a source for this wolf being in Bhutan - let us hope they find it there some day.

My apologies - you were correct about deleting the critically endangered category as it only relates to IUCN Red List Endangered category. I have reverted my edit.

William Harris (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

CITES does not state that the Himalayan wolf is native to Bhutan. It says that "Canis lupus" is endangered in Bhutan (and Pakistan). We do not even know if wolves exist in Bhutan, let alone distinguishing which type of wolf it might be. There are no Himalayan wolves in Pakistan. You have also left a cite error in your wake. William Harris (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC

Warning! Do not edit war at Gaur. Discuss the wording on the Talk:Gaur page. - Donald Albury 17:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, but I won't do it this time. I'll start a discussion if another revert occurs. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If ONE revert has occurred, you should already have moved to discussion on the talk page. I know you have been linked Bold, revert, discuss a number of times already. The is no opening for "if another revert occurs".--Kevmin § 18:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems like more of a problem on Manwe's end than mine. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. you have been blocked several times now due to not following the BRD cycle.--Kevmin § 18:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant? I'm not breaking any rules, and I even expressed my desire to follow said cycle. I have not done anything like that since I have come back. What is your deal? Ddum5347 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Manwe made two edits to the sentence in question on 16 March. You edited that sentence on 26 March,which I interpret as a revert. Manwe reverted you on 26 March. You reverted Manwe today. Manwe reverted you again today. So, both of you were edit warring, and I have warned both of you. And, now, you have reverted Kevmin, instead of discussing the wording on the talk page. You are getting perilously close to being blocked again. Please do not edit the sentence/paragraph in question again unless and until an agreement has been reached on the talk page to do so. - Donald Albury 18:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I did NOT revert Kevmin's edit. I made a separate edit to the same sentence. Please don't make up things. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Edit warring, which is policy, states, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." And you have just reverted BhagyaMani. In good faith I will assume that you had not read my previous post when you reverted BhagyaMani, but my patience is at an end. DO NOT edit that sentence or the paragraph it is a part of until and unless an agreement has been reached on the talk page on the wording of that sentence. Even then, it would be better to let someone else edit in whatever wording is agree to as a result of the discussion on the talk page. - Donald Albury 18:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't deny reverting BhagyaMani. But we'll see what this "discussion" leads to. Ddum5347 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Noah ^💬 19:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you receive revert notices? If so, you should probably turn them off, for your own sake. A guide to do so is located at Wikipedia:Revert notification opt-out. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Why should I turn them off? They're not a problem. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Because you will be indefinitely blocked if you keep edit warring like this. I have no doubt about it. Having the revert notices off will make you less likely to edit war. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If you say so. Let's see. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring, even after 5 previous blocks. you are obviously never going to stop..

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If you can convince another admin that you have figured out how to prevent yourself from edit warring, they can unblock without talking to me first. One possibility is a zero revert rule - no reverts at all. But I'll leave that up to a reviewing admin if you request an unblock. But no more waiting out the blocks, and no more final chances. "Do not edit war even when you think you are right" is a simple concept. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ddum5347 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If I can prove to a willing admin that no edit warring will take place on a no-revert rule, then I would appreciate it. I'd like to do that. But if no one trusts me to do so, then so it shall be. That's all I have to say.

Accept reason:

Good luck; I hope you can pull this off. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand this means no reverts, ever? That if you make an edit and someone else disagrees and reverts it, your only option is to attempt to achieve consensus for your change on the talk page; and that if someone makes an edit that you don't agree with, it, you may not revert it even if it is blatantly wrong. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed; I would be willing to unblock you with a no-revert rule- but you need to understand that once such a rule is in place, if you revert again, you may be indefintely blocked with or without warning, and if blocked the fact that you agreed to such a rule and broke it would strongly count against you in any future unblock requests. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It might be helpful for Ddum’s clarity if either of you could identify any of the 3RR exemptions in WP:3RRNO can sill revert on. Presumably 1 (self-reverts) are ok. DeCausa (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa:, Where are you coming up with 3RR? My reading of the conversation appears there will be no reverts during a trial phase. Tiderolls 16:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

So, none of 3RRNO is permitted including self-reverts. Is that what’s being said? DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Self-reverts in the normal course of editing have never been an issue. But I'm not going to go piecewise over the exceptions; I don't see how that will help Ddum return to editing, which is my goal here. Ddum: I'll sweeten the deal a little. What I'd like to see from you is a commitment to collaborative editing. Zero reverts for six months. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Understood. No reverts. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking...Craigthebirder and I have been updating various regional bird lists and could use some help. He concentrates on North and South America plus some others in Europe, Asia, and Africa. They are all pretty much updated. I have been working on others, and still am not finished. If you are interested, I can give you a road map plus some "rules of the road" I usually follow. A caveat, Clements should be updating very soon, and all the lists would then need to be re-updated. Are you interested?....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure! Just let me know what exactly needs updating/fixing. Ddum5347 (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

so any list that cites Clements 6th edition. All the ones that state 2019 edition have been updated. There are lists in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Oceania still available....I'm currently updating Mauritania. You can look at my edits of Bhutan to see what I've done.

A couple of things to keep in mind:

• I use Avibase to update as I find it is easiest to use...Clements is usually the taxonomy concept to follow as that is the stated one referenced on all the non-updated lists
• some of Clements taxonomy is not in synch with the IOC...since Clements is the reference point, I use Clements even if it is old. (i.e. see Cory's shearwater, green-winged teal, whimbrel, etc.
• Clements uses dashes more than the IOC
• Clements uses Americanized spelling. So "a" for gray, color, etc.
• I use a column breaker for any family over 15 species
• some family, genus, and species names need to be updated (see the clements list for family updates and order)
• accidentals, introduced, extinct, and endemic categories need to be updated
• reference for avibase needs updating, along with Clements 2019, and species counts, # of introduced species, globally threatened, etc.

I'm sure I missed something....Holler if you have questions.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you give me a link to the clements list? I'll pick some random country to start after. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The latest Clements list can be downloaded here. It should match the Birds of the World listing here. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, just to have to pick a country now... Ddum5347 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I use this for families.Pvmoutside (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I will continue to maintain the lists for the western hemisphere including US states and Canadian provinces (except List of birds of North America, which i think Pvmoutside keeps current). I also maintain the lists of 17 European countries, the continent of Africa, and 12 African countries. If you want to contribute in Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Pacific check the candidate article's history and talk page. If you see me or Pvmoutside, we've done the updates. (Note that the most recent Clements was in June 2019 so our work might be down the history list a ways.) The next Clements will come out this summer. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

One other thing I forgot to tell you. Both Craigthebirder and I remove the worldwide species counts in the family texts. It's too difficult to maintain as species get updated. I usually also remove the species counts for families....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

So only total page counts matter. Got it. Ddum5347 (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ddum5347: I saw your addition here to the Trinidad euphonia article. I'm not sure the "in the Caribbean" is necessary, given Trinidad is wikilinked, but I'm willing to let you convince me otherwise! ;) Go for it! MeegsC (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi MeegsC. The reason I added that is because Trinidad is the only Caribbean island in which this species is found, therefore making it outside of South America. This geographic distinction is one I feel has to be explained. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC correct me if I am wrong, but a few Caribbean islands are South American in provenance: Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, and Trinidad and Tobago.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

While they are all considered South American in terms of continental shelf, Trinidad and Tobago in particular is considered part of the Lesser Antilles, and therefore North American. I know, it's weird. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I still don't understand why you think it has to explicitly say "in the Caribbean". The Trinidad article clearly spells out where it is. We don't say "Columbia and Venezuela in South America", after all. MeegsC (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The more clicks you save for the readers, the better in my opinion. Adding three words is harmless to the flow and context. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@MeegsC and Ddum5347: As a European (with a rubbish geographic knowledge of the Americas), I didn't mind seeing that minor bit of helpful geographic clarification in the lead. That said, looking at the article on Trinidad, it could also be said to be situated in the North Atlantic Ocean as well or, better still, in the West Indies, which helps to clarify it's found away from the South American mainland, too. But, noticing its common name, might it not be even better to emphasis its distribution by saying It is common in northern Colombia and northern Venezuela, but uncommon to rare on Trinidad itself. Thoughts? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually Nick Moyes, it isn't part of the West Indies. That area specifically excludes the islands on the continental shelf (which includes Trinidad and Tobago). And it's not in the North Atlantic, unless you'd consider the entire Caribbean to be so located (which I wouldn't, personally). As to your wording, that's exactly what was there before Ddum5347 changed it. ;) MeegsC (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

That said, we could say that it's the southernmost island of the Lesser Antilles. But would that give you, Nick Moyes, as someone who doesn't know much about American geography, any more information? MeegsC (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This is complex, so I would say leave how common it is in each country to the distribution section, and just state the 3 countries it is native to in the lede. Ddum5347 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to stand corrected - like I said my geography is rather naff and I think I got the W.Indies bit off Wikipedia. But, no, I don't need much more information in the lead. Hadn't realised that my suggested wording was there already. The suggested emphasis 'itself' (which I prefer) was purely to help highlight the discrepancy between the name and where it's more commonly found/not found. Either way reads OK to me. Just a passing thought. Cheers both. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Anytime. Thanks for the medal btw! Ddum5347 (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Just a bit of recognition for your new way of dealing with another person edit-warring at Panthera_pardus_tulliana. It's appreciated! Nick Moyes (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Ddum5347 (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Big thumbs up, Ddum5347. This is great to see. Keep it up!! :) MeegsC (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Continuing here, since there's no need to continue cluttering Eastern Cougar talk.

Sorry if I question your credibility, but one of your reverted edits on North American Cougar was clearly biased. And your reactions haven't been addressing the issue at hand, so without knowing you better, it would suggest emotion clouds your judgement.

You proclaim on your page "passion" for animals. I appreciate that. But please consider the dark side of passion : make sure that passion isn't overriding objectivity in your edits, or your discussion of edits. Crescent77 (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Which edit do you refer to? Ddum5347 (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"Persecution" was your wording, I believe... Crescent77 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. How was that biased? Ddum5347 (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that I'm looking, your discussions indicate this is an ongoing problem for you. Another editor indicated improvement on your part, and you indicate the willingness to improve. That's great. Thanks for your efforts, keep up the good work. This is a hard forum for communication, hopefully we all can continue to make it work for the greater good. Crescent77 (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Your inclusion of the word was not neccesary in that instance. It indicates a bias on the side of the animal. Remember, at the time of extirpation, the cougars were killing people and eating their food, they could easily be considered the persecutors, and their extirpation a neccesary function of human survival in the face of nature's oppressor.

For the most part, that's no longer the case and their killing would be viewed much less favorably, but that's our context, and to include our modern value based interpretation in the presentation of history is not encyclopedic. Crescent77 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't continue to edit that in for a reason. I knew this already. But thanks anyways. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Right on. Hopefully in the future you know to stop before you start. That wasn't the case with this topic. Crescent77 (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I made a mistake, but do not confuse that with incompetence or ignorance. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, but here on chat, we have only a small window to assess that. When your statements are emotion driven, and documentation indicates a history of questionable actions...hopefully you're learning. We all start out incompetent. Crescent77 (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Emotion driven? That's just false. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep learning! Crescent77 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

If you say so. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Or don't, it's your choice. But if you choose to continue with the aforementioned behaviors here, your time may be better spent elsewhere. Crescent77 (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Like you said, "keep learning". Ddum5347 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ddum5347: I'm working my way through the WP:BIRDs cleanup list (here, if you're interested) and found a few recently-updated lists that had reference errors. And tracked them here! ;) If you add notes to a list that doesn't already have some, be sure to add a ref group section as well. Here's a link to the fix, to show you what I mean. Obviously, if there are already notes (typically, they'll show in a section right above the References section), you don't need to do this. Ping me if you have any questions. Thanks for the updates, and happy editing! MeegsC (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I usually add a refgroup to pages without one when I add notes, but I'll look through and see if there's anything that needs fixing. Thanks! Ddum5347 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your enthusiasms for contributing to the page is appreciated, but you must respect that there are resident Danish experts that may know the Danish fauna much better than you do. This does not mean that we're always right. Quite the contrary. We are happy to engage in discussions on the talk page, but not in edit warring. Your last edits, addition of brown bear and european bison should have been discussed before being added. They belong on a list of prehistoric mammals of Denmark, not a list of the Danish fauna of today. Just because IUCN lists them as extirpated doesn't mean they should be on the list. They probaly were extirpated, but in the paleolithic.--JakobT (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to talk it out, but I am not edit warring. I am editing boldly, but I did not revert any of your changes. And every other "list of mammals" has additions regarding extirpated mammals. As to when exactly they were last present in Denmark, I'd like to see sources backing up your claims of them being last present in the Paleolithic. Until then, I will consider IUCN a valid source. Ddum5347 (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Most authoritative soiurce is Aaris-Sørensen (1987) Danish prehistoric fauna (in Danish), which lists 6 known remains of European Bison, all 6000 years old or more. I have never seen European bison mentioned in any field guide to Danish or even Scandinavian mammals, or any other Danish source, so the common understanding is clearly that it is not part of the Danish fauna. The national red list refers to fenced herds, i.e. animals in captivity. --JakobT (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

See the talk page on the list for discussions regarding the brown bear. Ddum5347 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edit at Taino because "nephew" is too broad a term. In many, if not most, societies of Indigenous peoples of the Americas, clan inheritance is through the female line. Therefore "son of one's brother", which is one meaning of "nephew", is not equivalent to "son of one's sister". In such societies, a chief or other person with a title could be succeeded by a sister's son, but not by his own son or a brother's son. - Donald Albury 22:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant to simplify the wording, but thanks for telling me. Ddum5347 (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

An FYI, prevailing methodology is to have pages named at the genus level rather than species when the page uses scientific names......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters, since searching up the genus name only should still link to the page. But thanks. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

In case it helps, see WP:MONOTYPICTAXA. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. Ddum5347 (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Another FYI since I know you spend a lot of time with the IUCN if you didn't already know. Every quarter they update their species pages with new status. I'm working on amphibs now. You can find them on Resources & Publications, Summary Statistics, then Table 7 for the current ones. I've done past years.... Pvmoutside (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I've mostly done reptiles and mammals recently. They seem to update amphibians a LOT more though. Ddum5347 (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

When you add a species to a country or state list that isn't from the stated source, you should amend the lede with something like "An additional introduced (or extirpated, or whatever) species has been added from another source." Otherwise the counts aren't up to date. Craigthebirder (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I always forget. My bad. Ddum5347 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)