perhaps the closest we will come to agreement is that, in your somewhat unfortunate situation of using a camera (D60) with a sensor of one size in conjunction with lenses originally designed for a larger sized format, you are often constrained to either use a lens of longer than ideal focal length, and hence forced to back off in order to fit the image, or to use a slow, wide angle lens. Blame lens limitations, not the format!
I really want to remove issues of current, quite likely temporary, limitations in lenses available for newer smaller formats from claims about inherent advantages or disadvantages of one format over another, so can I ask you some questions?
Imagine that you have access to any lens you desire for any format; any focal length, any maximum aperture, etc., with no size, weight or cost worries; and you wish to make a particular photograph with one of several cameras of different format sizes. That is, think only of artistic considerations for a moment.
a) would you desire to use the same subject distance and perspective in each case, or to change both when changing formats?
would you desire the same depth of field in each format, or to change this when changing formats?
Moving back towards reality by bringing size and weight limits into the picture only adds more flexibility for smaller formats, which fairly consistently achieve the same maximum aperture diameter in the shorter needed focal length with a somewhat smaller (and cheaper?) lens.
That brings me to your second point about long, fast lenses for wildlife photography and such. I am not sure how relevant it is to the topic at hand, but you are quite right in pointing out that it is harder to do that sort of photography in larger formats, which relates to the relative lack of such lenses for MF and LF. This is because of one of the true inherent differences between formats: larger formats generally require longer exposure times and longer lenses, and both of these make them less suited to extreme telephoto work.
But this is straying very far from the original DoF discussion.
About my shallow DOF portait example, it is more thanteh perdominance of 35mm. After all, for professional portraits, MF is a rather big player. And yet work out what would be required to match the shallow DOF of a 35mm format 85/1.4 with its 61mm maximum aperture. The only medium format lenses that can match that aperture are 180/2.8 and longer, so the narrower FOV requires backing off and gives more DoF; nothing in LF can do better either. The same happens with a 135/2, and for more or less any fast 35mm lens: there is no lens in existence for larger formats that will give you lower minimum DoF for the same subject framing.
So both basic optical theory and and the practicalities of lenses available for established formats contradict the idea that larger formats have increased shallow DoF potential.
P. S. Probably a 300mm lens for 35mm format could be used on a MF or even 4x5 camera with no vignetting if you avoid the lens hood; telephoto lenses tend to have a natural angular field of view similar to a normal lens (about 50 degrees) and hence vastly excessive image circles, which are then cropped in the camera. (This is the refutation of the common criticism that smaller formats involve more cropping: telephoto lenses for any format with a given telephoto field of view are usually cropping about the same fraction out of a roughly 50 degree FOV.)
One way to see this is to look at specifications for large format lenses, which often give their angular field of view to let users know which formats and movements they can handle. Wide and super wide lenses offer large angles, but as the focal lengths move up well into telephoto territory, the angular FOV rarely or never drops below 50.