Hi. Please don't remove the page numbers next to the refs which are frequently used throughout, as I haven't added the page range in the main reflist and stick to use rp templates for them as suggested on the article talk. It was ok to do so at Leopard to remove clutter plus the refs aren't that frequently used with too many pages to quote. Sainsf(talk·contribs)11:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is the best way of more accurately citing book sources used repeatedly, without resorting to the Harvard short reference style (see Talk:Cheetah).
One change I wouldn't have made is converting the Werdelin et al (2010) chapter citation to a McDonald (2010) book citation on the cladogram. For a book with different chapters by recognised authorities it might be better to reference each chapter seperately. It makes the citations more complete and makes it clear who the author of the relevant part of the work is. Jts1882 | talk11:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using inline page nos. may be more precise, but affect readability. And I agree to Jts1882's remark re using the proper book chapter and authors Werdelin et al (2010) in the Cheetah page. Changed this. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for now at least, we should continue with the way it was, with the rp template for books with multiple chapters cited (be it the Caro book with only one author, or Marker or MacDonald with different ones). Especially for the Marker one, from where I am likely to reference 10 to 15 chapters and the way you suggest to cite these might look bad in the reflist. I feel this way because changing the citation formats frequently even if it is for this particular class of refs makes it tough to ensure consistency over and over again as more changes are suggested. Right now it's just 3 people who actively contribute to discussions about this article; I would suggest keeping this issue on hold till the PR at least where several new editors can take a look. Let's wait for a consensus there and not change anything till then. BhagyaMani, I understand why you made the changes but note that any change you make must be made consistently throughout; the Marker ref in Etymology still lacks the page number. My point is such sudden changes without notifying the editor who originally added it may make it tough for them to go with the changes. Please don't get me wrong, but all in all I feel we should fully decide the changes before making them and the number of editors involved in the discussion could be more than three if we wait for a platform like the PR or, if we still have doubts, FAC. Sainsf(talk·contribs)04:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In all other pages on cats and sections therein, the AUTHORS of articles and book chapters are listed, but NOT ONLY the editors. So for consistency imo we should follow this standard also in the pages on cheetah and leopard. And we can as place is not a limit. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just cannot find λέον on page 888, but only λέων. The word λέον and compounds with it starts on page 884, 1st column, the last compound being λέο-παρδος in 2nd column of 884. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Ok at least for now I'll stick to rp for only the single author books. And cite multiple author chapters separately. I think there is a typo in the Greek spelling of leon which I'll fix now, no issues. A request though, please let me know of any citation changes you wish to make in the future in citations where rp is used before making them. Sainsf(talk·contribs)11:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just noticed distribution maps you made for many felids. I was wondering if you could help with a good map or two for Cheetah, because I am not sure when and where the data shown in the existing maps is from, which would be an issue especially in an FAC. I tried contacting two uploaders but one is inactive and the other is not sure (plus the map has been altered often since he originally uploaded it). We can possibly include subspecies distribution and general distribution maps (with resident/nonresident etc labels). Sainsf(talk·contribs)16:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This map by User:Mariomassone reflects the distribution in the resp. IUCN RL of 2015. Maybe Mariomassone is ready to change the pink parts of syn. raineyi to light blue like for jubatus and remove former from the legend so to also reflect the status of subspecies as of 2017? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll let him know. Though I am not sure what to do about the modifications made in it since then (discussed here). I guess I might have to ask every person who made a change in it. One more thing, is the source really IUCN, because I recall it does not have entries for two of the subspecies? Sainsf(talk·contribs)17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure once Mariomassone logs in, they will see a notice and read this. The darker tinted areas are pretty conform with the actual RL map for the species. Correct is that latter does not show distribution of subspecies. But in this respect, this map is conform with the one in Kitchener et al. (2017), i.e. the revision of felid taxonomy, see page 30. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply!!! As mentioned above : please change the pink colour overlay for raineyi to the same blue as for jubatus, as these 2 are at present considered one and same subspecies. Then in the legend please remove the line for raineyi. So that the map shows only 4 colours and legend only 4 entries. I think the shapes of the darker patches within the 4 colours do NOT need to be changed, as these still reflect actual (assumed) distribution. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant work Mariomassone. I have one question though, do the darkened areas refer to greater population density? I would need to include it in the map caption in the article and it should be added to the file description too. Sainsf(talk·contribs)06:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to ask FierceJake754 about that. My original upload looked like this: [1], while the light colored sections were added later by him. I imagine they represent historical range areas where they are now extinct. Mariomassone (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be current and historical range. The latest iucn map shows extant and possible extant. The dark areas in the Wikipedia map correspond to the former, but show more detail than the IUCN map, which suggests a different source. Which begs the question, should we use the map if we don't know the source? Jts1882 | talk10:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the IUCN RL map to see that the darker areas conform with those in that map representing 21st century distribution. Therefore, I think that's correct that the lighter areas represent historical range. But when and whether based on a source and which or a wild guess is the question. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a historical range in Durant et al (2017). The Cheetah Conservation Fund also has a map of cheetah distribution that shows up on googling "cheetah distribution map" but the link is dead. This version off twitter uses it as a source, but again the current distribution doesn't match. Jts1882 | talk11:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, Durant et al. (2017) do not define which century they mean when using 'historical range'. May be we have to dig a little deeper, e.g. in the Regional Conservation Strategies for the Cheetah 2007–2015, to figure out whether 'historical' refers to beginning of 19th century or even much earlier ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gharial you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Ideally this message should be put on tha talk page of relevant wikiproject. So if you know one, please feel free to copy and respond to this thread there. I posted it here, since you are very active on some of these article.
Recently I had been browsing some fauna articles, African wild dogs, Zebra, Dhole etc. I found that many of them lack 2 main data points that I had been looking for (and I guess many readers would also like to see)
The life expectancy of the animal (in wild and captivity both if available)
Thanks for your message. Re life expectancy of captive animals is surely available for some, and also data on generation length derived from wild animals kept in zoos. But of *wild* animals: this would require that they are tracked from birth to death continuously, and not just one but many individuals. Re population figures : these are a) not stable, and b) not available for very many species, in particular for those that are widespread, and nobody counts. Take the jungle cat occurring from Egypt to Indochina: nobody has worked on this cat in Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and very many other countries in this century, and there are only a handful locality records in Thailand + Indochina. Give me the money needed for such kind of surveys, and I organise this :) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind reply. LoL, If I had the means to sponsor such kind of activity, not only would I approved it but I would have also joined the team in their efforts. But that is for another day, for now, let's work with what is already in academic/public domain. For example, I was frustrated at not being able to find the life expectancy of plains Zebra in its page, I googled and found that it was around 30 years (if I remember correctly) but the website did not seem reliable to me so I did not add it to Wikipedia. I am sure while updating fauna articles you would have come across some high quality sources, and most likely they covered these 2 questions. My only request is that you keep an eye for this data and update it into our articles wherever possible. I believe adding these 2 points will also help in their conservation efforts by spreading info on how fragile they are. Finally I really appreciate the good work you have been doing on fauna articles. Keep up the good work. regards. DBigXrayᗙ12:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I know that you have an interest in this wolf. Please see the latest addition of Álvares 2019. My view is that this group is influential - influential enough to badge the Himalayan wolf as they have recommended - Canis lupus chanco - with them as a citation. (What this means for the Mongolian wolf C.l.c I have no idea!) They also recommended removing the Dingo from the IUCN Red List, which has already been actioned, so people take notice of them. Do you have a view on the Himalayan wolf, please? William Harristalk10:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since they clearly recommend to use the name Canis lupus chanco for the Himalayan wolf, at least for the time being, I suggest to also use this name in this page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I will initiate. We need to consider the integration of the Tibetan wolf with the Himalayan wolf under the name Himalayan wolf, being the name that they have recommended. Perhaps it is best to await the results of the DNA analysis of the type specimens - who knows what surprises that may turn up. I recall a past study - Ersmark 2016 or similar - that proposed that there is no "Mongolian wolf" Canis lupus chanco - the wolves of the Mongolian/North China region are either Tibetan wolves (now C. l. chanco) or the Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus lupus). Let us see how this adventure unfolds! William Harristalk10:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At last, she finally has a subspecies box, I have waited years for this! Let us hope nobody visits the Mongolian wolf and gets concerned just yet..... William Harristalk10:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
laniger is preoccupied as it was used by Smith 1840 for a domestic dog. — Jts1882 | talk
Ah, thanks!! Now chanco makes sense, as this the oldest name and not preoccupied. Hodgson also refers to 'his' wolf being called chángú by the Tibetans. This basically means that Álvares et al. (2019) consider all three, Mongolian, Tibetan and Himalayan wolf to be one and the same subspecies. BhagyaMani (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have 3 pages now about wolf in the region of central to east Asia, all considered the same subspecies, and with largely similar and repeating page contents, I think it's time to merge this content into one page. What do you think, User talk:Jts1882? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation with the three pages is unsatisfactory, but it might be premature to decide on the appropriate rearrangement. A formal taxonomic review is long overdue and at least Alvares et al (2019) offer hope that one similar to the Cat SG will be forthcoming. It seems likely that the Himalayan wolf will become a species, but in the meantime its designation as subspecies Canis lupus chanco is problematic. The Himalayan wolves studied in Werhahn et al (2017, 2018, 2020) are from India, Nepal, Tibet and Quinhai, but the Mongolian specimens group with other gray wolves. Werhahn (2020) recommend taxonomic recognition of the Himalayan wolf, but I don't think they include the Mongolian wolf. To confuse matters, Alvarez et al (2019) choose chanco over filchneri, which suggest they are including the Mongolian wolf. This needs a secondary source to resolve the issue. A case can be made to merge the Tibetan and Himalayan wolf articles now, but can we use chanco if the Mongolian wolf stays separate, which it probably should at this point. — Jts1882 | talk16:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These images were not of poor quality. In Felidae, the image showing both female + male lion is more appropriate than showing just a male. BhagyaMani (talk) 10:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, a page that is linked to a word provides more info about the meaning of this word than just a single additional word in brackets. So either the brackets are redundant, or the word within or both. In this case : both, as Acinonyx is NOT equal to cheetah. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think in this case adding cheetahs is justified as that is the common name and this is in a general article on the cat family. For the sake of one word there is no need to require someone to go to another article to find out what Acinonyx is or read a popup (if enabled). An alternative is to use "except in cheetahs". Do we actually know if all the Acinonyx have these sheaths? — Jts1882 | talk09:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! If you consider yourself to be more authoritative than Chinese government, experts and scholars in naming that particular nature reserve, you would probably want to reflect your concern to the relevant authorities. I would suggest you to place more attention on the soon-to-be-established "Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park" because the said nature reserve will eventually be integrated into the greater national park system later this year. You may want to challenge them on the justifiability and validity of the name given to that national park. Chinese government, experts, scholars and general public are unanimously perceived that the particular species native to Jilin and Heilongjiang as "Northeast China tiger", in comparison with "South China tiger", no matter how rational they are. I'm just stating the fact that "protected target" has formed part of the official name of that national nature reserve since July 23, 2005, what's wrong with me? Cybercicada (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2009, four (*) peer-reviewed articles were published, all written by Chinese authors who refer to this protected area as Hunchun National Nature Reserve or Hunchun Nature Reserve. And they used the name Amur tiger in these articles, which I referenced when creating this page. So I suggest you complain with them. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are the articles written in native language of those Chinese authors? Why don't you reconfirm with them? Pretty sure that you are able to do so. It is rather curious that you don't trust the legal documents enacted by Chinese authority. If you have difficulty understanding Chinese it's advisable that you use the google translate app to read the relevant professional articles, official announcements, rules and regulations. It helps a lot. By the way, that particular nature reserve was named "Hunchun Provincial Nature Reserve" between 2001 and 2005. Cybercicada (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can check these articles yourself!! Since they are all peer-reviewed, they meet the WP:RS criteria. It's not my job to contact the authors or any Chinese authorities. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not resolved my doubt: your distrustful and suspicious of laws and regulations enacted by the Government of the People's Republic of China. Without the approval of the Chinese government the NNR won't be set up. Consequently the authors under its rule have nothing to be based when writing their articles. Furthermore, the articles' intended audience are non-Chinese readers like you. So they tend to use the terms that are commonly accepted internationally, eg. Amur tiger. And inserting the protected target's name into the protected area name is a common practice in China but seldom seen in other countries. That can well explain the "protected target's name" being purposely omitted by those authors when stating that particular site. Presumably the Philippine Government decided to declare the "West Philippine Sea Marine Park" and South Korean Government planned to set up the "East Korean Sea Marine Park" respectively. Is it OK to change their names to "South China Sea Marine Park" and "Sea of Japan Marine Park" even though both the West Philippine Sea and the East Korean Sea are not widely accepted? They have legal right to do so. In terms of the article "List of the protected areas of China", the focus should be on the perception of Chinese towards the protected areas distributed accross their land, including the way they named their protected area, not TIGER!!! Cybercicada (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Sundarbans 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zayeem(talk)19:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! It is great to see another editor actively working on cat species, and I would like to thank you for showing me the right way to go in some taxonomic details I add (like I should include time ranges) and also for all the zoological specimens you list. Though at times I slightly disagree with the coverage and wording, it has more to do with personal viewpoints but overall it improves the articles. I am planning to use my free time in the next few months to improve several small cat articles.. so I was wondering if you would like to collaborate at least on the taxonomy sections which you are really efficient at managing. It is not often that I know editors I am familiar with who work on articles on the same topic as I do (plus I stay inactive for months altogether), so I thought of reaching out to you. Cheers, Sainsf(knock knock·am I there?)07:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note! Indeed, all the small cats are on my watchlist, already for about 8–10 years, and some like the black-footed cat even longer. The sections on taxonomy were poorly referenced or did not exist when I started working on these pages. But I also keep updating all the other sections with new publications. I was planning to nominate the sand cat for GA later this year, as I overhauled it in autumn last year, so that all available sources but one are referenced. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, your efforts for these articles are commendable :) I was planning to put Sand cat up for GAN after I use all the sources I have to expand it, maybe towards June or July as I have FACs coming up and I would rather finish work on a handful of articles and then nominate them back to back for convenience. I didn't know you had improved it so much (the last time I looked at it properly was 2017!), so it would be great to have you as a co-nominator on this and any others you wish to help with. May be you can finish adding all that you like to in, say, Sand cat, and I can follow up with my resources to fill in any more gaps? Some of the articles I have in my mind are black-footed cat, Pallas's cat, leopard cat, fishing cat and Chinese mountain cat. Really interesting and fun to write :) Let me know what you think, cheers! Sainsf(knock knock·am I there?)09:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that was fast! It would be great but I'm not sure how uninvolved I am to be the reviewer, I contributed quite a bit in 2016 though it has been a long time since then. No problem, I wish you all the best with the article :) Anything you are planning for the other small cats meanwhile? I am still on my plans. Cheers, Sainsf(knock knock·am I there?)14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One issue I would like to see resolved with these small cat articles is an appropriate phylogeny. Most are based on Johnson et al (2006) and have sylvestris sister to the domestic cat and lybica sister to to bieti, when it is clear from later studies (Driscoll et al 2007; Ottoni et al 2017) that the domestic cat derived from within lybica. What is needed is a scheme based on Johnson for the outer branches and Driscoll (Fig 2) for the inner clade of the wildcat complex. I'm never too sure if this violates WP guidelines on synthesis or if it is acceptable if clearly described. — Jts1882 | talk15:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Iirc, that is taking the wildcat complex (shaded) from Fig 3 in Driscoll, which nests bieti in lybica/domestic. I was thinking of something like the version on the right. I need to check the source, but I think that is Fig 2 in Driscoll for the inner shaded part. — Jts1882 | talk19:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are closing in. But then also see Li et al. (2016) who built 2 slightly differing trees: one on basis of biparental nuclear genome showing that Chinese mountain cat and African wildcat branched off before European wildcat; and the 2nd on basis of mitogenome showing that European wildcat and African wildcat branched off before Chinese mountain cat. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882: Hey! I wasn't aware until just now that the old cladogram was still on the African wildcat page, so I thought high time to update it. What do you think of the solution to swap dom cat and African wildcat, both followed by ref to Driscoll et al. (2007), in the cladogram?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sand cat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aven13 -- Aven13 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:):) I thought this has been dealt with, as the ref was added. But didn't yet check HOW it was dealt with. Have a few cats walking on my desk + will check asap. Promised. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The small recent edits were just a prelude, cleaning up a bit. Do you think that the last 2 sentences in the lead of Taxonomy section are necessary, sourced upon this old 2001 book ? I don't + suggest to remove this. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I kept the really relevant part with a ref to a publication of a *taxonomist*. The deleted part about 'true subspecies' is superfluous. --
Re evolution: imo, the 1st paragraph needs revision; an outline : starting with radiation of Panthera common ancestor in Asia > when + where the 8 main divergence events happened that lead to the modern lion. Will rewrite in the next days. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to move the ref to Manuel et al. (2020) out of the subsection Subspecies, as these authors did NOT suggest a revision of the taxonomic position of lions in Central Africa !! Who might have read this nonsense into their article? This article is definitely not about lion taxonomy, but an attempt to shed more light on the evolution of lions, both in time and space. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They, including CSG members Stephen O’Brien and Nobuyuki Yamaguchi, did suggest a revision of the taxonomic position of lions in Central Africa, like how the former and fellow CSG members Luo and Driscoll rebelled against the classification of 2 subspecies for tigers, by insisting on there being 6 monophyletic clades of tigers, or 6 living subspecies of tigers, in 2018! Leo1pard (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black-footed cat you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You undid a wording change as "Test" and "revised". You do not explain why you keep changing it back and use misleading language. It does not make sense to say "The ___ tiger is a population". A ___ tiger is a tiger from a certain population. AnomalousAtom (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This definition is consensus of several contributors and has been in place for 2+ years. If you want it changed, please discuss this on talk page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You are the disruptive editor, as you ignore consensus for the definitions in these pages about tiger populations. Please check these articles' histories since mid 2017: definitions were changed several times, until consensus was achieved. Your proposed changes are NOT consensus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The number of species seems to be a matter of controversy and different articles have different numbers. The Paradoxurus article recognises three species. It discusses the proposed split of zeylonensis by Groves (2009) and dismisses it based on Veron et al (2014). However, there are articles for these species and they are recognised in the subfamily Paradoxurinae article, so it seems the genus article is being inconsistent. The ASM database doesn't recognise this split but does recognise the split of hermaphroditus by Veron et al (2014); those two new species don't have wikipedia articles. Thoughts? — Jts1882 | talk07:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the first who cares in many years about the no. of species shown in the table! Apparently Groves (2009) was of the opinion that the morphological differences between the specimens at his disposal were significant enough to propose 3-4 distinct golden palm civet species. Veron et al. (2015) re-examined this proposal, based partly on the same specimens, and concluded that differences are NOT significant enough for a species level distinction, corroborated by genetic analysis. IUCN Red List assessors, i.e. members of the Small Carnivore Specialist Group, currently do NOT recognise aureus, montanus, stenocephalus as species, but as syns of zeylonensis. Therefore, I'm very much in favour of reflecting this 2016 assessment in the resp. wiki pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At present, Veron et al. (2015) is not referenced in the Paradoxurus montanus, aureus and stenocephalus pages. If their arguments "low genetic diversity, no geographical structure within P. zeylonensis, no support for splitting it into several species nor subspecies" were not ignored there any longer, we would have to redirect these pages to the Golden palm civet page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I always find these species splitting arguments interesting and also quite frustrating as there is no real answer. I noticed the discrepancy because when I went to convert the list in the lede to text I noticed it was unreferenced and that led me to the subfamily article.
I should add that the Veron et al (2015) study examines both morphological and molecular data. The proposed species split is based on the molecular clades (Figs 2 & 3) and genetic distance (Table 2), supported by morphological characteristics. The IUCN assessment was made before the Veron study and they added that information about the proposed species split when finalising the text. I think your recent addition that genetic evidence doesn't support the split needs qualifying. The statement in the IUCN assessment that "genetic data do not, as so far looked at, support species status (A. Wilting pers. comm. 2014)" refers to the Mentawai taxon of the proposed philippinensis species. That said, I think we should go with the IUCN as the most recent secondary source that discusses the issue and not add species new articles. The ASM database doesn't discuss their decision to accept the split. As an aside, there doesn't seem much sign of progress with the ASM database. — Jts1882 | talk10:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One other inconsistency with the Wikipedia coverage is that Groves proposed three new species instead of P. zeylonensis, which he considered an invalid name for these specimens. There are wikipedia articles on the three Groves species AND P. zeylonensis. — Jts1882 | talk13:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. That's why I wrote above : Veron et al. (2015) is not referenced in these pages, i.e. Paradoxurus montanus, aureus and stenocephalus. If the arguments by Veron et al. (2015) "low genetic diversity, no geographical structure within P. zeylonensis, no support for splitting it into several species nor subspecies" were NOT ignored in these pages any longer, we would have to redirect them to the Golden palm civet page, i.e. P. zeylonensis.
What do you think? Definitely one for the splitters. The first author's thesis went further with six Pampas cats, four oncillas and a couple of ocelots, making up 16 Leopardus species. The uploaded figure is nice, but, unfortunately, I doubt it is acceptable copyright status, as it looks to be composed from the map and colocolo illustration from Figure 10 plus illustrations in other figures. I can't see this being widely accepted as lumpers seem in the ascendency in felid studies. — Jts1882 | talk13:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re splitting: perhaps we should wait until the full text is available as pdf, so we can read the part about molecular analysis performed. Or do you have access already? Re the figure: hmm, it was made available for download at researchgate. But you may be right that this doesn't make it an acceptable copyright status. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Researchgate is for limited academic/personal use and being there doesn't meet Wikipedia copyright status. This is unfortunate as it is a nice figure. The pdf is available from OUP, DeepDyve or dodgy Russian sites. It has some nice taxonomic background and the case for divisions is strong. The problem is that what to call the divisions is rather subjective (species or subspecies). The estimated dates for the split are all more than 250 kya, so older than the splits between wildcats. Santos et al (2018) also found five genetic groups, although their results were complicated by tigrinus specimens with colocolo mitochondrial DNA, and they didn't push for separate species. So I wouldn't suggest starting any new articles until further studies address the issue or the IUCN comes out with individual assessments. — Jts1882 | talk15:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that the two distribution maps don't match? The one by Nascimento et al. (2020) will be deleted next week, unless the uploader provides a permission. New IUCN RL assessments will take a couple of years. Remember for how long the wildcat species complex has been lumped into a single assessment already. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for posting a link to a blog site. I know blogs aren't 100% reliable, but since that one's run by researchers, I figured it would be. Redstoneprime (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Refrain from making reverts without edit summar and justification and without informing the IP editor who was behind the edit. Such reverts amount are vandalism and WP:DISRUPTIVE, both basis of ban. Do not take IPs for granted or lightly, some have been editing far longer than you are, nearly 60 percent of all good edits are done by IPs. Do not quietly sneak in reverts just like that. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about the recent revert you made. How my edit was 'unexplained' or removed anything? I only mentioned that most of those tigers reside in India, as already described by the body, per WP:LEAD. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)06:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Then the link does not need to be repeated in the lead. The lead is kept more general, and withOUT any link to the other Wildlife of [country], where tigers exist. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vote here, and let others know about this, because having everyone's support and +30,000 edits than me, doesn't mean you can revert my edits at anytime, showing superiority towards me. These reverts are clearly WP:I DON'T LIKE IT. — Punetor i Rregullt5 07:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Let the previous editors do their job, and revert my edit then! Not you!!! Did he hired you to do this? — Punetor i Rregullt5 09:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't remove, *I added.* But on the other hand, you removed my own comment, which you have no right to. That clearly tells something about your edit habits. — Punetor i Rregullt5 10:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
And again you replaced an image, this time even a featured one of a tiger. How ignorant and not surprising that this was reverted ! I recommend you to learn a lesson + stop playing around with images. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make articles on animals that aren't covered here, as well as the ones with red links. I need some help so it doesn't look like vandalism. Firekong1 (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment already on this one -- . Please be a bit patient, will look into this one and comment later. Am busy with non-wiki stuff -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yesterday I edited the article mentioned in the headline. I know you didn't mean to, but I think deleting my edits was a mistake of yours. The source I edited was essentially the same as the former source, just presented in a different form. It is based on the same study. And the fact I stated is true, not mentioning the cave hyena as an apex predator of the northern steppes that time is simply weird, as research from that specific study points out it even dominated other predators of Eurasia. Thus would you please reconsider your deletion? It's true that I shouldn't have deleted the former source, but I especially meant to point out that hyenas were also dominant then.
regards, --AndersenAnders (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that mentioning the hyaena as apex predator is a good addition, but replacing the reference was a mistake. One is an invited review in a peer-reviewed journal, the other an anonymous blog. Wikipedia policy prefers reliable secondary sources and I don't think the blog qualifies, although it seems generally a sound summary of the paper. Perhaps both should be cited, as the blog provides a lay summary that might be easier for some readers who seek extra information. — Jts1882 | talk16:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response, Jts1882! If the peer-reviewed source also contains a statement about cave hyena, then I agree to include it. But in line with WP:BLOGS, I would not agree to adding this web source. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Bocherens (2015) makes the point a couple to times. It's an interesting review about predator competition and how the other predators effect the diet preferences of some species. The cave lion seems to take second place to hyaenas and wolves at different times and places. So it says In terms of competition and niche partitioning with other large carnivores of the mammoth steppe, cave lions seem to be at a disadvantage and seem to have been dominant predators only in areas where the climatic conditions were too cold for other large carnivores, such as hyena that were absent in high altitude and northern Siberia, or after hyenas were extirpated. ... It seems that the extirpation of the cave hyena opened the niche of dominant large predator for the wolf rather than for the cave lion during the Lateglacial, anticipating the next step of the reorganization of the carnivore guild, i.e. the extinction of cave lion while wolves survived until recent times. ... Such a pattern could indicate that cave hyenas were the dominant predator of the mammoth steppe where the climatic conditions were not too rigorous for them, out-competing not only other large predators such as cave lions and wolves, but also Neandertals. — Jts1882 | talk16:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All you said is true. It was amistake of mine to delete the former more scientifically approved source, and I'm now aware of that. But I feel like citing both sources could be a good solution. And again, I especially meant to add hyenas as apex predators, and the source I edited seems reliable and is based on scientific studies which suggest hyenas might have been the dominant predators of pleistocene Eurasian steppe habitats. --AndersenAnders (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, BhagyaMani! I just noticed you cleared the details I added to the Gaur and Water buffalo articles in Wikipedia. Yes, I understand deleting some images was unnecessary, that was one. However, the text and information, as I noticed, are not unsourced.
-If you see the Baahubali movie and its sequel, the big bull CGI model is based on a gaur, not a normal domestic ox or a Bison.
-This might sound strange, but the Yoruba goddess Orisha Oya is definitely not Asian, but West African. In West Africa there are only African forest buffaloes (Syncerus caffer nanus). So it would be inaccurate to say the animal incarnation is a water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis).
-In documents such as the Wildlife Fact Files and the now-defunct Arkive.org website, the water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) is also named Asian water buffalo or Asiatic buffalo. This applies both to the wild and domestic species.
These are a few key details I found out on official PDF's and print sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica and Wildlife Fact Files, as well as Smithsonian's book Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide.
However, please, don't hesitate to explain me the possible errors and misconceptions stated by those articles' most recent edits. Don't worry, I'm just adding some reputable information I found on both animals and that I tried to add the source. If something went unsourced, please let me know so I can fix it.
In the page on gaur you added a name that was ALREADY mentioned in the same section! In the page on water buffalo you added a name that is an alt name for the wild water buffalo. And links to promotional websites about movies are not relevant. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...is it so difficult to check the most recent IUCN assessment for the Pygmy Hog? Do you think this is one editor, or more than one? The most recent attempt was from an account created last year. One of the many unsolved mysteries of Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Jts1882: hope you are fit and healthy!! You may have seen the edit request by an anonymous user to remove Paradoxurus aureus from the Carnivora template. And I think it's time to initiate a talk about this on respective talk pages and propose a redirect of the pages on those 2 palm civets that are not recognised as species. What do you think? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen that request and agree with the removal and your suggestion to initiate the article merges. I think it is three species that need removing (Paradoxurus aureus, Paradoxurus montanus and Paradoxurus stenocephalus). Unusually for such splits Paradoxurus zeylonensis wasn't retained for any of them. There doesn't seem much useful additional information in those articles. Perhaps the morphological differences for the proposed species should be mentioned in golden palm civet, either in the taxonomy section (as basis for proposed split) or characteristics section (as a regional appearance variation). — Jts1882 | talk14:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello BhagyaMani, this is regarding the Mukundra Hills National Park. I recently saw that a person was trying to edit Mukundra Hills National Park but you deleted all his info continuously. The things he was righting were not false. Hope you understand and put back those true edits. I am not partial and if you think that I am wrong, you can tell me. I also like your changes done on wildlife on various other topics.
CheersAnonymous030603 (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I repeatedly deleted these statements because: 1. This other editor referenced a website that is not reliable, and 2. s/he placed links to this website into several other pages, which is link spamming. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC):[reply]
Hey, BhagyaMani. I am popping in to let you know that, according to various searches on Google Scholar, researchers have merrily ignored the IUCN CatSG assessment regarding the number of tiger subspecies and have continued to use the nine previously described subspecies. The Asian lion is also continuing as P. l. persica. I'm trying to get back into editing but lack of time and skill is a problem, but I felt that you might be interested in this information, since you were involved in the tiger updates a few years ago and the big lion debacle.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey and thanks for your note. I saw your change in the lead of the Zanzibar leopard page. One student's thesis and one article in an anthropological journal is surely not reason to question an assessment made by 23 people. None of these authors provide any evidence that P. p. adersi is distinct from pardus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted restored name change and removed the misleading claim. I also think the sentence I left behind doesn't belong in the lede and is questionable for inclusion at all. A paper dealing with social interactions of leopards is not making taxonomic decisions. — Jts1882 | talk14:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree!! Until and unless authors provide evidence for a subspecific status of the Zanzibar leopard distinct from the African leopard, pardus is the valid taxon! But the ignorance of authors about leopard taxonomy does not belong in the lead. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the CatSG revision did not, in fact, mention the Zanzibar leopard at all (hence why I consider its subspecific status uncertain). That said, I will leave the article as saying P. p. pardus for now. But I do request that it remain in the lede as almost all recent papers that deal with do treat it as a subspecies (and not just in sociological studies, but in zoological ones as well).
Anyway, my apologies for stepping on anyone's toes. I just popped in to point out the current situation of the tiger and lion subspecies, and to correct (or not) the Zanzibar leopard article. Most of my future edits (when I actually have time) will probably be focused on either wikignoming or prehistoric cats.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of stepping on toes, it's a question of reliable sources for taxonomic assessments. Miththapala et al (1996) grouped all previously described African subspecies into one subspecies (although they didn't sample the Zanzibar one) and this seems to have been accepted since. This could change with new sources, but none of those you've provided a revised taxonomy. The Friedmann & Kathy Traylor-Holzer (2003/8?) workshop cites Hes (1991) for the subspecies. The Miththapala reassessment was later. Goldman and Walsh (2019) state that it "remains unknown whether its subspecific status holds up against the genetic yardsticks". They are social anthropologists more interested in the role of the leopard in island witchcraft and are not making a formal taxonomic reassessment. Miththapala et al (1996) cited Pakenham (1984) as saying the subspecies status of the Zanzibar leopard was controversial (although Pakenham seems to support it on my reading of The mammals of Zanzibar and Pemba islands). Perhaps someone will use the museum skins for a genetic analysis and they will be found to be different, but we must wait for reliable sources. — Jts1882 | talk16:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read my reference completely(the Reduction In the sanctuary part). You simply have reverted my changes. Kindly read the complete reference before making conclusions. You can tell me if I am wrong. I have reverted the changes you did by deleting my work .Anonymous030609 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings,
Just wanted to let you know that an IP is now adding unsourced or very poorly sourced material (a youtube channel, two patently unreliable websites, and another wikipedia article are the current refs their using) to the Big cat, Eurasian lynx, clouded leopard, and Sunda clouded leopard again. I'm guessing it is the same as that new user; I checked the IP's contributions and the two lists are pretty much the same.
Considering the their persistence, would looking into having the pages protected be a good idea? This is the third day in a row and reverting them is getting tiring.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I saw these changes too, perhaps by a kid experimenting, therefore I still assume good faith. But if this or other users continue to change, then yes : it may be worth getting the page protected, at least for a short period. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One wants to assume good faith but I noticed two things. One, the poor references don't actually say what is being claimed, e.g. one was used to say ocelots and caracals are big cats, but didn't mention them (although it did have clouded leopards). Two, a whole range of cat pages are being edited to shift small cats to medium cats and medium cats to big cats. It's either a poorly conceived plan or trolling. — Jts1882 | talk08:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BhagyaMani. I reverted this edit because it introduced more errors than it fixed. Just to expand on my edit summary, it:
Removed sourced alternative names from the article with no explanation
Removed the DOIs from references for no clear reason
Removed ISSNs from references for no clear reason
Changed from British (goitred) to American (goitered) spelling in the title of one of the references – the title of the paper uses the British spelling
Changed the volume of Conservation Genetics cited from 12 to "1 2"
Introduced a syntax error to one reference ("Missing pipe in: |last2=")
I appreciate the other corrections you made but I would ask that you be careful not to introduce other errors when you make them. I'm also glad I checked this because I think removing sourced material with the edit summary "edited refs" is quite misleading and would make a lot of editors miss it. Please let me know if I've misunderstood your intention with any of these changes. – Joe (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I replaced the doi in the {{cite iucn}} by the parameter |page, as this is the correct usage for this template; the doi is not needed. Thanks for notifying me on the distinct British spelling of its name. My slip to add a space between 12, + deleting the |. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The DOI provides a universal and permanent identifier, which should remain stable even if the IUCN changes their database/URL schema. It's not redundant and I don't think it's a good idea to remove it if it's there; most of the examples in the {{Cite IUCN}} documentation include it, for instance. – Joe (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an oddity about the IUCN DOIs as they shift target and point to the latest version of the assessment. This can cause a mismatch between the doi and the electronic page number and it throws a citation error (I lost the argument on this error, which I don't think is a citation error, but a proper representation of how the IUCN use the doi). Removing the |doi= removes the error, although it's not necessary if there is no mismatch. — Jts1882 | talk13:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for correcting my stupidity, sorry for doing this twice. I will refrain from editing the English Wikipedia until I improve my English skills. Excuse me. I'm really, really embarrassed.
Pwoli (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I think this has nothing to do with English skills, as lots of people are insecure about when to use singular and when plural, no matter which language they speak. So you must not feel so very embarrassed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just wanted to drop by to say that, whilst I sympathise with your view that a WP:BAREURL is a lazy man's way of adding a link to allow information to be verified, I don't think it was terribly helpful for you to have removedUser:Ddum5347's link to the IUCN red list inserted with this edit, despite the inclusion involving rather a lot of WP:OR. (The statement it purported to support was not explicitly stated in the source, just a vast continental map was presented, suggesting the two taxa had overlapped ranges). That said, a bare url to a good, or even an average source on its own is better than no citation at all, as explained in the second section at WP:BURL.
I really think the better way in future might be to communicate with the editor on their talk page and politely explain why a full citation is so much more useful and professional than is a plain hyperlink. Only by encouraging and chatting with less experienced Wikipedia editors - and pointing them towards simple help pages such as WP:REFBEGIN - can people who think they're doing the right thing here be assisted to realise there are actually even better ways to improve the encyclopaedia. I think we're all working towards the same goal of wanting to improve articles, so edit warring over bare urls does seems a bit daft. If the citation doesn't do its job in permitting verification, then using {{fv}} is sometimes also a good alternative to deletion. If it is a valid source, then please either leave it (or fix it yourself), assuming the first editor hasn't cared enough to have done a proper job in the first place. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your message. I did indeed try to communicate with this editor and asked on many other pages as well to read WP:CITEHOW, on some also multiple times; and in case, s/he does not understand this guideline, I advised to read the translations instead into so many other languages. But s/he just doesn't care, but see their rather naughty reply here. You may have noticed that in the past years, I edited lots of refs and try to maintain and improve the quality of pages. Wheras this editor seems to be more interested in confrontation than in cooperation. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I apologise if I missed seeing those efforts elsewhere to encourage them to become a better editor. I shall keep an eye on their style of editing and interactions from now on, and it won't surprise me if they eventually find themselves receiving admin attention if their attitudes to others is perceived as breaching Wikipedia:Civility, or other policies. It is a shame when people can't interact in a pleasant and collaborative manner, and revel in being over-assertive or unnecessarily confrontational. Contact me on my talk page should you encounter any issues. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am inexperienced with Wikipedia's rules. I need help with how they work, and how to navigate this site. I also need assistance and guidance on editing mammal articles, so that if I make a mistake which you correct, you understand that it was not intentional. I understand that you may be busy, and I presume that you are ignoring this, but if you do happen to see this, please give me feedback as to what steps I should take to help improve animal articles. I wish to be a part of this community and welcomed by it, not to be shunned and labeled as a troll. I know that most of what I have sent was not mature or straightforward, but I need your assistance. I have reached to as many editors as I have possibly could, and they have said nothing. I have even read the rules, but I do not understand them. Please let me know what I need to do. I am mostly an editor on fandom, but here I feel like a fish out of water. I am not the most efficient writer on this. I have been told that several communities may possibly assist me, and as such, I have reached to them, but I have yet to receive a response. I also do not understand how to cite a source. My edits are usually incorrect, or have typos in them. I also do not understand whether an article that I wish to edit should be edited, because if I otherwise edit it, I may have made a great mistake and the community may misinterpret my actions, and frown upon them. If you see this or have seen this, please reach out to me. Thank you. Firekong1 (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi LittleJerry : I must admit that it's been a looong time that I had a close look at this page and saw the many many many duplications of statements and unsourced stuff. So trimmed this now significantly. Let me know when you come to think of anything missing. Basically, I think that the content should focus on those features that ALL cats have in common. Merry Xmas -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hola BhagyaMani, I noticed (and slightly participated in) your dispute with User:Rehan.up26 over their persistent addition of unsourced or generally insufficient content to Pilibhit Tiger Reserve, and I just wanted to note that you went a little overboard with the reverts and technically broke WP:3RR, as those edits weren't unambiguous vandalism (though I agree that after being reverted and warned so often, the user could have hardly acted in good faith). For future encounters like this, it would be better if instead of merely reverting, you also warned the user with an appropriate talk page template (either by placing it with RedWarn / Twinkle or by copying it from this list) and, if this is not successful, reported them to either WP:AIV (for vandalism), WP:AN3 (for edit-warring), or WP:ANI. I know you only had the best intentions, but you do somewhat compromise your own positions by doing so many reverts in a row, and you'd be well advised to use the established venues instead. Anyway, have a nice day! AngryHarpytalk17:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AngryHarpy: thanks for your message and the link to WP:WARN. Didn't know that this list exists, but know about the 3RR, basically. In all those years, I haven't seen such a stubborn new editor. He already had received warnings from Materialscientist and Oshwah, so I thought I won't need to add another one when reverting their statements. Have a nice day too. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you make a good point, I honestly would've expected him to be blocked sooner as well, but I guess it was just an odd case due to him being unusually stubborn about such an unusually uncontroversial topic. See ya! AngryHarpytalk19:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh how great is this !? I expected you to ask some more questions. And I have a few more references that I can add. But can of course also do this later. One maybe now, rather fresh from the press. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for me to ask more questions; everything was well-referenced from scientific journals and publications and meets the GA specification. I could not let the article languish on the GAC queue any longer - Congratulations! William Harris (talk)12:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again: thanks a ton! I had this page on my queue for nomination for muuuch longer than it was on the GAC queue. You made my day, a really special day! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia, here's to: hoping your holiday time is wonderful and - especially -
that the New Year 2021 will be an improvement upon the old of 2020. CHEERS!
Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} to your friends' talk pages.
Thanks for your message, Yakikaki! I amended the first hook and have a question re the inline citation for the 2nd hook: do you want me to add this to the hook itself? In the text, I provided this inline citation already, see section Clouded_leopard#Behaviour_and_ecology, 2nd paragraph, reference no. 13: *Hemmer (1968)*. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Let's take this discussion at the nomination page though, so that it is transparent for the users who will promote the hook to the queues later. I will reply there. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
; see Talk:Gharial for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
talk
talk
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Black-footed cat for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Sand cat at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
. Please be a bit patient, will look into this one and comment later. Am busy with non-wiki stuff -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
-- am I excused when working on small carn data ?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
BhagyaMani (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/79/20160212192004%21Acinonyx_jubatus_subspecies_range.png){kind=link}
.jpg)