User talk:Dark hyena

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bears in Heraldry

Hi. Why did you remove the examples of bears in heraldry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomenat (talk • contribs) 10:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. You created an article for bears in heraldry. It had some nice examples of heraldic bears in it. Then you deleted the examples from the article. Why? Can we put them back? Anomenat (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

Hello, Dark hyena! Thank you for your comments. It's refreshing to be acquainted with someone who is interested in these matters.

That book is damned expensive, isn't it? I imagine popular knowledge of this subject would be much more forthcoming if if weren't so hard to find a decent source on the matter, or leastways a source that doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Anyhoo ...

Misidentification by any of the parties involved in the business of the Beast seems very unlikely. The Gevaudanais had been pastoralists for centuries and the wolf was a staple of their culture, if unwanted. Local hunters (fugitive poachers and aristocrats), d'Enneval (supposedly the greatest hunter of wolves in France until his failure), and Antoine de Beauterne (whose only superiors were the Grand Huntsman of France and then the King) all agreed that the Beast was a wolf. The carcasses of the two wolves suspected of being the Beast and the Beast II were positively identified by a number of victims and witnesses. With the death of each animal the two sequences of human predation ended.

I suppose the mystery lies not in the physical nature of the Beast, which by all accounts was an oversized wolf with some unusual characteristics, but its behaviour. There is, of course, the argument of wolf-dog hybridization and the atavism that would be associated with such crossbreeding, not to mention the awkward effects that might have on morphology. The images we have, be they engravings or newspaper prints, are at best stylized representations of the animal reproduced from accounts that may or may not have been exaggerated due to fear, excitement, or the opportunity for profit. Newspapers in France and elsewhere sensationalized the episode, despite its inherent sensationalism. The subject is fantastic to be sure but rogue wolves menacing the French populace were nothing new - the Beast being an exceptional example thereof.

There is understandably a great deal of speculation on the matter but, if you notice, none of the sources referred to in the article are of true scholarly provenance save for the last. If we are to make this a serious subject of study then we need to distance it from cryptozoology and conspiracy, as detractors will immediately and irrevocably take those associations and carry them to no end, crying wolf as it were.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask me anything else. Have a nice day or night or morning or whenever you read this!!

Oh, and I can speak French ... sorta. Haltingly and poorly.

Bearerofthecup (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Furthermore, dot dot dot

Why did you change

Wolf hunting is the practice of hunting wolves, especially the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus). Wolves are mainly hunted for sport, for their skins and to protect livestock. Wolves are also hunted due to the fear that they may kill people, however in the United States no claim of a wild wolf killing a human has ever been verified by official sources. A Scandanavian study found that cases of wild, healthy wolves attacking or killing an adult human being were rare.[1] However, there are a number of well-documented historical cases of wolf aggression involving predation of humans.

If the sentence However, there are a number of well-documented historical cases of wolf aggression involving predation of humans. is irrelevant and belongs in Attitudes toward wolves then the note in the United States no claim of a wild wolf killing a human has ever been verified by official sources. is also irrelevant, and should take a hike as well. Either keep them both or leave them both, but leaving only one will give the false impression that a)wolves are cuddly little things incapable of harm to humans or b)wolves are bloodthirsty killing machines, neither of which are true. As a very general rule, European wolves have historically been aggressive while American wolves have not. Why is the docility of American wolves worth mention but not the hostility of European wolves? We're trying to give a balanced perspective of the wolf here.

I think both statements should remain - don't forget that wolf hunting was very often undertaken to remove man-eaters. What do you think?

Bearerofthecup (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple human error. I missed the part on wolf attacks in the US. Personally, I would remove both. Before we came along, the article was nothing but a childish rant on how wolves are harmless puppies. There was barely any significant mention on the global history and methods behind wolf hunting, just brief, uninteresting summaries.

I think the whole wolf attack debate should be limited to the "Fatal wolf attacks" and "attitudes" articles. The hunting article has such potential in a neutral frame of mind. I would hate to see it turn into yet another "wolf apologist historical revision".

On a different note, does "Wolf hunting in France" mention what dog breeds were used in France to hunt wolves?Dark hyena (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Damn

You are tearing the wolf hunting article to pieces. Great job! Keep it up. Bearerofthecup (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lions and hyneas

Um...interesting stuff you added to the lion article. Do you have some refs and are you able to inline them as the article is a Featured Article and referenced throughout. If you're unfamiliar iwth inlining I can add later if you highlight the refs. Also, the article is pretty huge and I had to trim mercilessly and write in a very succinct style, so it may need some trimming. However it is 1am here and I must sleep...zzzzzzzzzz cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty please?

Say, I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! (For a graphical summary, check out this page.) — Dave (Talk) 14:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grendel

Why did you add an image from an ms of Gawain and the Green Knight to the article on Grendel? It seems only marginally related to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coyote nonsense

Good job in finding that nonsense in the coyote article, keep up the good work. There's similar ignorant material in the bobcat, cougar, and fox articles if you are so inclined to tackle them sometime. Thank you. Bugguyak (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hardcore

You're a real pal, Dark hyena. I'm glad I payed enough attention to click on the Amazon link, though. Sending a check through the mail - what is this, 1995? Bearerofthecup (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] predator(alien)

I deleted those parts because everyone has just fused together all the information into one big mess, without thinking of trying to differentiate all the information it gets mixed up,why don't we try putting what comes from the movies,comics,books etc.

[edit] Thanks for the chuckle

Best edit summary of the day. --EEMIV (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mammal collab

OK, I'll set this up here - feel free to nominate and foraward to any other editor interested in furry critters. We'll see how it flies and I'll drop a note in the signpost.

Nominating key articles is ok, even if you can't work on them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ...

You know, all the effort myself and other fans have put into the Predator technology article is really a waste now that you've wiped most of it out. I know that you just put in the "need to know" stuff, but the details that I and everybody else had put in really is just unfair now that you've butchered it.

I'm not asking or telling you to stop it, just tone the hacking down. Plus, once your done, I'm sure some people are just going to make it all a "mess" again. It was never really a mess, it was fairly organised. Oh and by the way, that "blury loop of wire" was the best shot there was on my DVD. I'm not trying to offend you, just telling you it's just a little unfair that you are re-writing everybodys work.LordJesseD (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is not a place for personal, epically narrated essays containing guesses and theories. Writing down "as seen in AVP" etc just clutters the article unecessarily. References are much tidier, and easier to digest. Sentences like "..this weapon is probably used for.." have no place whatsoever.

I don't blame you for the wire pic, I just think that of all the Predator's technology needing a visual representative, a wire should be of least concern. I don't imagine people would have problems visualising a loop of wire by themselves.

About toning down the editing, it was not my writing which nearly got the article deleted. I think you'll find in the discussion page that it is considered an improvement.

I appreciate the effort you've put into it, AND, I can see that your grammar and vocabulary is better than most. It would be of great help if that gift was limited to following wiki-guidelines. Apologies if I may have hurt your feelings, but think upon what I've just written.Dark hyena (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

nice job buddy, you ruined the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyrb Jenings (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Cloverfield_(creature)

I have responded to your edit comment where you asked how the content was OR at Talk:Cloverfield (creature)#Size yet again. You may want to take a look at it. Thanks. -Verdatum (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Saiyan-transaction.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Saiyan-transaction.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Heya

In the last while I've come around to you style of thinkning. I completly agree with the butchering now. I understand why. I'm gonna try to be a bit more like you. In some ways I agree about the wire, but I do think every article and section should have picture(s), as it makes it a full explantaion then. But it wasn't just wire, it had jagged edges. Yes, my idea of a joke. Also out a of the many pictures I've put onto the page, a lot were taken off a while back. Any idea why? I can't quite tell if you did it. But I thought that my pictures had good reprersentaion of the section(s). Ah well, I will try to decipher it all before I put hem back.

I now will follow the guidlines. With vigilance.

Also I knoticed your images of the Saiyans. Which article were you trying to put thme into? No offense intended, but the picture was shocking. I could upload the same image myself, restored from my DVD. I'm great at cleaning up pictures, so... yeah. That's provided you want any help.LordJesseD (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

I agree with the two-images-of-the-same-thing concept. But stuff like the cloak short-circuiting I think should stay. Images like the hilt of the dagger are understandable, but out-right removing useful images like the medicomp is just rude. IF I was to add back a few of the images like the arm blades and medicomp, or parts that don't alreay have a picture, would you not remove them? Not saying you will, just asking.

On a side note, should I make a sub-article for the helmet's vision modes? Only two things are stopping me: I don't know the specific details of some modes and what they do and are for, and I'm afraid that it'll get turnt into a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordJesseD (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also I take DragonBall Z very seriously, it means a lot to me personally.

[edit] Agreed

I will make the new subsection at sometime, but I'll have to find plausable references. I acknoledge that some other people may not agree, but if I did it right, they shouldn't have any reason to complain. Too much. I'll do some research and get the facts straight, then I may start it. Thanks for the input and advice.LordJesseD (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

Believe it or not, I thought about doing that a couple of weeks ago. I'll go get all those screenshots. But I don't own AVP:R, so... But we'll have to do, I'll get on it ASAP.

Are we gonna do it in the Technology section, or start a new one? I'll start combing my DVDs and finding some good shots.

Also, do you think the bio mask section should be called bio helmet? A mask is only used to cover something, it seems more like a helmet to me. It protects their face and hides who they are, so I think it should be called a helmet. Before I change it, I'll need your opinion.LordJesseD (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea: 2

I think the 'bio' came from it's atmosphere-changing abilitys. One'd assume it stands for biological. I've also heard of it being called 'enviro helm' or 'enviroment helmet', which make more sense to me. I think that 'enviroment helmet' is quite suitable, but to save fuss, just 'helmet' is good. As soon as I upload the ship images, I'll notify you. I'll have a few, but you'll have to chose which is the best.LordJesseD (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Bullshit

I agree about the need to remove bullshit from the Xenomorph (Alien) article, but I have to say that if it were up to me I would remove entire sections, so it's difficult for me to decide which bullshit to keep and which to ditch. Serendi ^pod ous 14:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grendel's mother

Don't worry. Momentarily lost your Grendel's mother comment in the shuffle, but it's back in, in the Queen section. Serendi ^pod ous 13:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reducing intelligence/physical abilities

is exactly what I was thinking. A neat summary is more than enough. Serendi ^pod ous 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job. Far more brutal than I could have been. Do you have a title for that book? I have British Library access, so I might be able to track it down. Serendi ^pod ous 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a great discussion of the Alien³ debacle on HR Giger's website. Serendi ^pod ous 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Biographical" info

I notice you also edit the "Predator" article, which has plot synopses of the films in it. I'm trying to reduce the amount of "in universe" material, so have decided not to allow the alien a fictional biography, but if you think it's necessary perhaps we could negotiate one. Serendi ^pod ous 14:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What the dilly-o?

Champion of Wolves ... to editing articles on predators and xenomorphs?? Garn. Bearerofthecup (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

I would like to ask a favor for the the Predator technology page. I've uploaded an in-game image of the speargun and linked it to that page, but the thing kept getting removed just because "it's overcluttered with other images" according to EEMeltonIV. Is there any possible way you could crop the screenshot of the speargun thumb034.jpg and the spear gun tip [1] into something similar like this? [2]. I saw your work on that particular screenshot and would like some help with something like that for the Speargun. As it is, I'm held up by bureaucracy and am not knowledgeable on how to crop images like what you did. Thanks. Dibol (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Thanks for your response though. :) Dibol (talk) 23:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wolf Hunting

Thanks, I have had it on my watch list for sometime. You are doing very well, very well indeed. I have nothing to add, but I am watching for that lack of NPOV from such well known editors [3][4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugguyak (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Thompson Seton Dog/Wolf drawing

Any way you can help me get my hands on a higher resolution image of the Seton Dog/Wolf drawing in the Gray Wolf article? Thanks much. beekman (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you want exactly? A higher resolution image, or the drawing? If the latter, then here; http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Animals-Dover-Books-Instruction/dp/0486447472/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208849882&sr=1-1 Dark hyena (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll spring for the book. Cheers. beekman (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dog infobox image

Please read the old talk page discussions about the infobox image. The current one is a strong consensus choice, and whatever the image, it has been long standing tradition to use a Labrador Retriever. That breed is the most neutral choice, as it is verifiably the most popular breed. Feel welcome to propose a different image, but it should probably stay a Lab. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 02:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foot-and-mouth disease

You recently wrote that wolves can be infected by FMD. I don't have access to Graves' book which you refer to, but it strikes me as curious that no dogs are known to have contracted the disease, even though they'r closely related to wolves and often in close contact with farm animals. However, dogs may spread the disease [5] by carrying around infected meat and bones. I wonder if this could be the case with the russian wolves, that they spread it simply by digging up carcasses of infected farm animals? EverGreg (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your contribs

Great work on Gray Wolf, keep it up! And please let me know if you need any help in any context.
/ Raven in Orbit (t|c) 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, top of the line edits there. Keep up the great work. Bugguyak (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dog

I was looking at the article and wondered if you could clear up something? You added the line "Inuits tend to favour dog skin over wolf skin due to the former's resistance to tear." but it doesn't say for what they prfer it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain myself. What are the Inuit doing with the dog skin? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this and best of all you used the word "some". Most people tend to think that all Inuit groups are the same. Thanks again. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hyena fighting dogs.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hyena fighting dogs.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).