User talk:Dennis the mennis

Hi, I would like to say that I shifted your work to the article Southern African lion, because it would be article like these that can have more specific information about lions.^[1][2] Leo1pard (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hell; sorry to revert your addition to Parrot, but WP:Daily Mail is not recognised as a reliable source for Wikipedia articles; nor are most WP:blogs. Could you could find a better, reliable source or sources? Haploidavey (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Dennis the mennis, could you please stop adding "The" to species named after individuals? First, this is not common usage - see Darwin's fox, Gould's petrel, Wallace's tarsier, Spix's macaw, Humboldt's hog-nosed skunk, and any number of other examples. No definite article is required here. Second, you are making a mess of it, blindly inserting capitalized "The" into the middle of sentences. I am reverting what I am finding of this, and asking you to please cut it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Dennis the mennis. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Khouay buffalo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hhkohh (talk) 14:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fossa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exotic pet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caracara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. Please see Talk:Dolittle_(film)#WP:OVERLINKING and amateur taxonomy. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Dennis, Im once again removing Asian elephant from the List of domesticated animals, please do not submit it again backing it up with your personal opinion, if you cant give a scientific peer reviewed source giving a clear indication this species should have been domesticated. I run, since 2006 the global database of elephant individuals at www.elephant.se, and have only been able to record a total of 7 or 8 generations, from either species of elephants. This is too less numbers to discuss any kind of domestication, full, semi, or whatever. Just because a species has been captured and tamed, during long time, it doesn't make them domesticated, if all specimens were in fact wild.born, and captured and brought in captivity from the wild. And IF this should be a definition of a semi-domestication, a term which Im not sure is backed up by science, then that should cover the African species as well, but also hundreds of wild species, including tigers, lions, zebras, cape buffaloes, Eland antelopes, etc, the list will be longer than that page can handle.

In fact there were more African captured and tamed as Asians since last 20 yrs, but neither species has been bred for more than 7 generations, compared with one example, lions at UK circus with apr 35 generations, and if the African lion should be considred domesticated, or semi-domesticated, whatever that means, then hundreds of species are, and why not any species, humans ever captured and tamed?

With this in mind, the list of domesticated species, in questionable cases, should be backed up with reliable scientific sources, not with someone opinion, or personal interpretation.

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Since I believe you have been pushing your opinion with good faith, I did not report you to edit warring, but strongly advice you to follow the recommendations suggested at how to avoid being involved in edit warring and instead discuss your opinions at the talk page, rather than once again change that page according to your personal opinion and beliefs.

Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. If you wish at any time to request a Third Opinion (3O), use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for arbitration, you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute. Actual discussion is needed; discussion conducted entirely through edit summaries is inadequate. Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request.

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

EDIT Dear Dennis the mennis, I hereby apologize for accusing you of what I stated above, now after I noticed, it was in fact User @Tamtrible: who once again submitted the Asian elephant. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

N helvetica

Is that new image known to be N helvetica?

ThanksS C Cheese (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but... the list is long enough without ungrouping grouped species just to add extra pictures. Please don't. Leave the conspecific groups grouped unless there's a clear reason to ungroup them (eg one is used for a different purpose, or had a rather different domestication history). Tamtrible (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

... looking again, you changed the genus, so they're no longer conspecific. Sorry to scold you incorrectly (though, given your history with the page... I think I had cause, to at least some extent...) Tamtrible (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! You've re-added an alternate name to Ankole-Watusi after I removed it as unsourced. Please either (a) add the source you used or (b) remove it until such time as you've found one. This encyclopaedia is already staggering under the weight of unsourced material, I hope you'll agree that there's really no reason or excuse for adding to it. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Good Evening,

I appreciate the zeal to add to various reptile pages, but I don't think adding lines saying "this species is sometimes kept as a pet" to the articles of every reptile species you believe is sometimes kept as a pet is pertinent information, particularly since you are not providing citations for these assertions, even when making specific claims like western banded geckos are "very popular" pets.

Almost all reptiles (and probably nearly all animals in existence) are sometimes kept as pets. But that information isn't particularly relevant unless the species have a significant cultural impact or their breeding has an impact on them (ball pythons and leopard geckos are becoming domesticated which is worth mentioning). For example, the common toad is sometimes kept as a pet. But the featured article on the toad does not mention this fact because it's not really pertinent information. The alpine newt article (also featured) does mention captivity, as a population propagated in captivity is now extinct in the wild, so the fact the newts are kept as pets is relevant. I would recommend/request not merely stating "this species is sometimes kept as a pet" on short reptile articles for species that are not significantly impacted by captivity (ie, minimal impact on their wild populations/conservation, they are not being domesticated, minimal economic impact to the pet trade, etc). Also, please provide citations for any assertions you do make. Citations are critical to enable other editors to check the veracity of your claims.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Connorlong90 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Domestic goose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anser.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not revert an edit with an edit summary without an explanation or take it to the talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) LittleJerry, you are edit-warring over this at that and many other articles; please self-revert before this escalates, and then try to establish editor consensus on whether your edits were correct (I suggest either WT:FARM or WT:MAMMALS for that). Your statement that "domestic animals have no conservation status" is not sustainable: this document lists 7616 breeds, and gives the conservation status of many of them. This database lists about 14000 breeds, and attempts to assign a conservation status to each one. You might(?) have meant to suggest that domestic subspecies have no conservation status; if so, that somewhat questionable assertion would need to be supported by reliable sources and agreed with other editors. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers specific breeds being labeled CRITICAL or ENDANGERED do not justify giving the entire species a "domesticated" conservation status. The IUCN recognizes no such label for species. The burden of proof is on you to show that there is one. LittleJerry (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of countries by date of transition to republican system of government, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Further edits like this one will get you blocked from editing. This is stealth vandalism. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I've now looked at some of your past edits; I ought to have done that before issuing that warning, but this edit really jumped out at e when I saw it. Anyhw, it now looks to me as if this was likely unintentional. I understand how that can happen as I've made slips of similar severity in the past. Please remove this warning from your talk page if that was the case here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm aware that you were only trying to correct the absence of italics. (I think the problem was originally caused by another editor, SesameHoneyTart.)

{{Species list}} is used with a list of pairs of parameters: a bare species name and an authority. It automatically italicizes the species name and puts the authority in small text. Thus:

{{Species list|Davus fasciatus|O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1892}} →

• Davus fasciatus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1892

If you want to link the species name, then use {{Linked species list}}, again with pairs of bare species name plus authority. Thus:

{{Linked species list|Davus fasciatus|O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1892}} →

• Davus fasciatus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1892

You can pipe the species name by using {{!}}. Thus:

{{Linked species list|Davus fasciatus{{!}}D. fasciatus|O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1892}} →

• D. fasciatus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1892

It should not be used in any other way. In particular, never put the authority part of the pair in small tags, because this will use double small, which violates accessibility guidelines. Also it doesn't work if you have a distribution following the authority, because this gets put in small font, which is wrong. In such cases, use a bulleted list via * as normal. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Dennis the mennis. Thank you for your work on Succession to the Mosotho throne. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for viewing my article that I created. Dennis the mennis (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you added back Spiny toad. Please confirm reference for freeliving population in GB, as we already discussed this in the talk and removed it as Channel Islands are not part of GB.

Thanks

—GRM (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the List's Talk page

—GRM (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)