Talk:Free-ranging dog

no evidence that people breed them

I just removed the uncited claim that there is a movement to get breed recognition for this dog. Its uncited nature was enough to remove it, but first I contacted Rajashree Khalap, who runs the most famous website about these dogs, who I figured should know about any such breed development.

She said "As far as I know, there have been no attempts so far to breed them through artificial selection, nor has anybody made a serious attempt to get them recognized by any Kennel Club."

Signed and dated for archiving purposes only - William Harris • (talk) • 08:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free-ranging dog. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016001108/http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/LrnBreedInfoByGroup to http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/LrnBreedInfoByGroup

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:HiLo48, which material was removed that you "have been using in a discussion" - check the whole article, and think very carefully before you answer.William Harris • (talk) • 09:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You know the answer. Please try editing here in good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You have failed to answer why you have removed properly cited secondary source material, and this action is not in accordance with WP:BRD. William Harris • (talk) • 10:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I see little point in continuing discussion on this with you. You haven't addressed the primary reason I asked you here. And I know you know what that reason is. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You have not answered my reasonable question of which material was removed that you "have been using in a discussion" - your words, not mine - nor have you answered why you have removed properly cited secondary sourcing. Then you say there is "little point in continuing discussion." Have you not considered how your aberrant behaviour would look to an independent third party? William Harris • (talk) • 10:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Now we have threats. Interesting approach. I see little point in continuing discussion on this with you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You would find an independent review threatening? I would not. This is very simple, take the text that you believe was removed that you "have been using in a discussion" and paste it below. I do not believe such text exists. William Harris • (talk) • 10:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I seek opportunities for collaborative editing here on Wikipedia, where editors constructively discuss issues with each other, without bad faith editing. I am not finding that here. I see no point in continuing discussion. Good night. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think I now know what we are dealing with. I wish you all the best for the future. Farewell! William Harris • (talk) • 11:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Free-ranging unowned dogs

The text stating that "urban free-ranging dogs" are "commensals, subsisting on garbage or other dog's food as their primary food sources." is likely incomplete or not entirely true. For example, I have read that the city street dogs of Santiago de Chile live primarily on food purchased for and given to them by human passersby and locals, not by scavenging. (I do not at the moment have time to track down sources.) Acwilson9 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would endorse that comment based on personal observation, but also do not have sources. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Although I am not keen on Vanak in "Dogs Canis familiarisas carnivores: Their role and function in intraguild competition", that is what the author said. Think of cities in India and Africa. I am not opposing its removal if that is what editors think. William Harris • (talk) • 09:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Woof alert listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Woof alert. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)