User talk:BhagyaMani/Archive 10

Wildcat disagreement

BhagyaMani, I have laid out a proposal for cleaning up the various wildcat pages at Category talk:Wildcats. Since you have been active in that area recently, I thought I'd notify you of it. Also, I have noted that we have had some disagreements over content placement- may I suggest a compromise, that information about the Cretan/Corsican/etc "wildcats" be noted on Feral cat (which is more of a general-term article, and not quite suitable for in-depth discussion of specific feral-"wildcat" populations), and explored more in-depth on a wildcat page? All redirects, especially scientific names, should redirect to a wildcat article (per least surprise principle).

I do not mean to be rude, and I hope that we can settle this disagreement between us quickly and amicably- I have enjoyed working with you on past subjects, and do not wish to burn this bridge, so to speak.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Usually I don't care much about sorting pages into categories. And think it was a good idea of you to empty the 'Wildcat subspecies' one; 'Wildcats' is more appropriate. What do you mean by 'Cretan/Corsican/etc "wildcats" be noted on Feral cat' ? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

By noted, I mean that there is a brief mention that "some populations once considered wildcat subspecies (i. e. the Corsican and Cretan wildcats) are now proven to be feral populations of house cats". The taxonomic history and such of the "subspecies" would be on a wildcat page, which is more appropriate. The addition you made in Feral cat (which does contain taxonomic history and such) seems very much out of place on that page.--SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no intention to remove the island cats from the History section of the feral cat page. But will add the Cretan cat there too and add an int link. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't mean to remove them; I mean move the taxonomic history stuff to a wildcat page (either European wildcat or Wildcat), and say something along the lines of: "some populations formerly considered to be [European wildcat#Former subspecies|wildcat] subspecies, such as the Cretan, Corsican, and Balearic wildcats, are now considered to be populations of feral domestic cats." The taxonomic history stuff would be on a page that covers taxonomy of wildcats, and the interesting history of some feral populations would be noted on Feral cat. Win-win, in my opinion.

Also, have you looked at my proposal concerning the wildcat pages?--SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

not sure what is going on here, but I think it needs more eyes. If there is a discussion opened I know two users who have worked on similar situations and may have the solution. I contested the speedy notice, and hope I am wrong: this was already discussed or some other misunderstanding. cygnis insignis 18:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Category talk:Wildcats. Am just writing a reply there. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis: btw, see Feral_cat#History, where I added the list with those pops that are considered feral, but were once proposed as subspecies. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Caspian Tiger

Hello. I noticed you reverted my small edit on the Caspian tiger page. Just to clarify, I was under the assumption that the Middle East includes parts of West Asia, as well as Egypt and the European area of Turkey. While looking at the provided image of it's range, it seemed as if it included only the West Asian parts of the Middle East, as well as other areas of West Asia not generally considered to be in the Middle East, hence why I changed it. Have a great day :) GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Well, I think the links to West Asia and Middle East are not appropriate there, as this region is much larger than the part where this tiger population occurred. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I very much liked what I saw when I went back to the article today. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Reptiles

seriuz now, when I was looking at the gharial article I kept thinking about freshies. The book on bats that I'm currently reading has a great picture of two fellows in the middle of an open body of water (fresh), snapping at fruit-bats trying to get a drink. They also swim under their roosts (overhanging trees) and thrash the water to panic them, hoping that a collision gives them a feed. Maybe this is usual crocodilian behaviour, I wouldn't know, but thought you might be interested in this example of cunning. Happy editing, cygnis insignis 09:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks !! Gharials don't like furred prey, apparently: when captive ones were offered dead rodents, they ignored them and turned away; someone suggested that they perhaps don't even like the smell of mammals. But as muggers are more generalist predators, I do think they are capable of developing individual hunting techniques to catch mammals approaching water. In this documentary, Rom Whitaker follows muggers in Yala NP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNzvslQ6jmI, enjoy watching!! BhagyaMani (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Sigh, I can't watch videos with my access, but will have a look when I can. I sympathise with their view on dead mammals, smelly, uninteresting and not what I want for lunch. I like to imagine this from an ancient perspective, in geological time, as available prey mammals are a fairly recent and strange novelty (furry and crunchy, who wants that!). cygnis insignis 14:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how general this is for reptiles, but some snakes don't like their prey killed. A friend used to have boa constrictors and they would only eat mice provided live.   Jts1882 | talk  14:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the fishlings offered to young gharials in the breeding station were fresh, caught in the river, but more dead than alive. As you can see in the vdo, muggers also eat carrion. I wonder how your friend fed the boa? A zoo keeper responsible for snakes once told me that a python caught the hand of his colleague when he put the weekly rat into the enclosure. Within an instant, the python had wrapped around him, and they needed two people to unwrap him. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Just affection I think, for the keeper who brought him lunch. Someone woke up next to their python completely stretched out on the bed beside them, taking the concern at this new behaviour to a herpetologist the reply was "she was measuring to see if you fit". cygnis insignis 17:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I just laughed so hard, I fell from the chair! My friend was picking beans when suddenly the ground moved. He was so afraid that this was an earthquake. Then he looked down and noticed he was standing on a python. Poor guy was petrified, done for the day. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis and Jts1882: These people love their village crocs : https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/500-people-attend-last-rites-of-beloved-130-years-old-crocodile-in-chhattisgarh-village/story-a99uY31NnoAgi4mEYx5NuN.html BhagyaMani (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A good story, a bit sad until I read about his life and part in that community. He looks dignified and peaceful at his ceremony. Thanks for the uplifting diversion, cygnis insignis 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wildcat "co-editing'

Just wanted to touch base and let you know how enjoyable it has been to intertwine my edits with yours. Regarding your most recent "override": I am guilty of presuming other animals are a threat, not relying on the reference. I notice at the top of this page you enjoy interacting with knowledgable and friendly editors. Those descriptions fit you to a "T". Your "please" and smiley face did not go unnoticed. As best I can tell we have agreed with, or at least tolerated, each others 108 edits, with perhaps 3 exceptions since I began editing on this site on Jan 13. I would like to discuss these with you at some point, not to persuade you to my way, but to further understand your thinking. Would you recommend I do that here or on Talk page? My bias is here. I notice that you have only 6 edits here since last Feb, until I started editing in Jan. You are now up to 80; I'm at 38. May I assume my edits somehow stimulated your renewed interest in editing here? You have certainly gone far beyond just critiquing my edits. Shall we say you are now editing "like a wild man"? or "like a wildcat"??? (The "wildcat" living in my home is named "Ike"; hence my Username) Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

PS I am curious re your Username: care to share its origin/meaning? IiKkEe (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message! Yes, we can discuss your edits here. I too enjoyed our team work improving this long neglected page, which has been on my watchlist for more than 7 years. But true: in all those years, I contributed only once in a while, as there are so many other pages on wild cats, wildcats, big cats and small carnivores that I contribute/d to more or less regularly.

The word 'bhagya' originates in Sanskrit and means 'fate'; the addition of 'mani' turns fate into good luck, . Cheers, BhagyaMani (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

'preciate your prompt response. I am back to marvel at our interplay over Characteristics. I added 12 subsections, you said too many, reduced to 3 (good move) and in the process moved large chunks of material to other sites (good move). I added 2 new subsection headings, you did not object. You rearranged the 3 subsections, I did not object (altho I gently disagree). As best as I can tell, neither of us is offended, annoyed, or angry with the good faith edits of each others edits in this section. Amazing! IiKkEe (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

New subject: the Lead has a paragraph on fur, but now there is nothing about fur under Characteristics. Would you consider adding a 4th subsection titled Fur, and say something cogent that applies to all wildcat fur, not one particular subspecies? Or should we move the paragraph in the Lead to become the contents of a subsection titled Fur? Or leave things as they are? Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this para in lead re fur is fine as is, because that is exactly the main difference between the 3: stripes in European and African, but spots in Asiatic WC; and bushy tail in silvestris, but pointed in lybica. Maybe just rem 'and size' -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It's OK with me as is. WPMoS guidelines state the Lead is a summary of the article; material not in the article is not to be in the Lead, but material in the article need not be in the Lead. Having nothing in the article about fur seems to go against that guideline, but it's not that big a deal to me, just wanted to point it out to you to see what you thought. IiKkEe (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at the table in section Taxonomy, 2nd column, where the differences are explained again. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the material on fur is in the table: I overlooked it and was only looking for it in the narrative. IiKkEe (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

New subject: could you direct me to where on WP I might find the guideline for what is the recommended section order for an article whose title is a particular Species? I don't know my way around the site that well... IiKkEe (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I usually do not insist on a particular sequence of sections. The most important ones are *Characteristics*, most birders prefer *Description* instead; *Distribution and habitat*, *Behaviour and ecology*, *Threats*, *Conservation*; and in large pages also *Taxonomy* and *Evolution*, preferably in 2 distinct sections; and where appropriate also *In culture* and *External links*. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout for general recommendations. The various Wikiprojects may also have more specific layout prefs, you find resp. int links on top of talk pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the detailed response. We are in 100% agreement here. I have come upon numerous species articles where Taxonomy and Evolution are jumbled together as if they are synonymous; I have debated others re whether Classification is a better term than Taxonomy for the benefit of the general public; and whether to be consistent from article to article re Evolution vs Cladistics vs Phylogeny. Regardless, I'm with you that they should be separate, and Taxonomy comes before Evolution for historical reasons. You didn't mention however where in the article you prefer to see these two: before or after Characteristics? I myself prefer before. IiKkEe (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that most readers want to know first : what does an animal look like, where does it live, what's its life style like. But they may not be interested in details of taxonomic history. Therefore, I tend to place taxonomy in a later section, often even after Conservation. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

So noted. Thanks. IiKkEe (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

IiKkEe: Please read the refs, before you shift them around at random. The one named catsg is the proper one for the definition of 'species complex' and distribution, whereas Yamaguchi et al. (2004) still lumped all of them under silvestris!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Any reference shifting was inadvertent, not intentional. Thanks for continuing to review my edits and reverting or modifying them when you think that is needed; and continuing to improve the article with your new edits. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)current

I have a new question for you regarding this article: are you the editor, in whole or in part, of the Further reading and External links sections? Regardless, have you perhaps looked at these sections recently to judge whether the entrees are all current, appropriate, and accessible? If not, I am hoping you could look these over at your convenience, and modify any you think need attention. That exercise goes beyond my knowledge of the subject. IiKkEe (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't add but edited this section a while ago already. Some entries in this list are needed for the 'ref=harv's; the others not needed do indeed provide more detailed info. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And a question related to External links: do you happen to know the WP policy on having an external link to an article that is copyright protected? Is that OK? IiKkEe (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure is that ok; a link doesn't violate a copyright. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for both answers, and for taking a look at and updating the Further reading and External links sections ... Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

My Caspian tiger edits

Please review the above at your convenience. Thanks! IiKkEe (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The sentences in lead were more appropriate before your edits: this tiger subspecies P. t. tigris is NOT extinct, the pop in Caspian area is. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening me out. I need you help with one apparent contradiction. The Lead states "The Caspian tiger was intermediate in size between Siberian and Bengal tigers." The body states under Characteristics "The Caspian tiger ranked among the largest cats that ever existed." Are these both true? Should either be modified? Thanking you in advance,IiKkEe (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This is ok as is, well referenced and hence does not need any modification. I suggest you read the sources provided, and or provide new ones not yet referenced. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to stick with relying on your expertise, and yielding to your judgement when you revert or modify an edit of mine. It just sounds like a contradiction to say "intermediate in size between the..." in one place and "among the largest cats that ever existed" in the other. I guess the answer is that the Caspian, Siberian and Bengal tigers were all among the largest, the Caspian was #2?

Well, this debatable which one was bigger. Because such measurements were perhaps not representative for a population, given that accounts about the Caspian tiger's size relied mostly on hunters' lore, who preferred shooting the big male ones. But males of all three pops were indeed "among the largest cats"; the addition "that ever existed" may be exaggerated, given that prehistoric tiger-like cats were probably larger. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC) This particular statement is however well referenced!! I just read Mazak again, and this is what he stated as well. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

RE your latest edit: I agree, "lived" is indeed better than your original "occurred" or my "located"! RegardsIiKkEe (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Kodkod

Dear Friend, recently I made a small edit in Kodkod, entering an old taxonomic relation: Felis guigna. About a century ago this was the name sometimes used for the Kodkod. This is what I wanted to express. I also added a ref for it. In your recent edit you overwrote this. How can I make clear that F. guigna (and not only Oncifelis guigna was an old name for the Kodkod? Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I just revised this history with refs. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Tiger range

Hey. Would you be able to look over the "Distribution and habitat" section and make sure it is properly sourced (it is preferred for a cite to support all the text between it and the previous cite)? You can even rewrite it if you want. LittleJerry (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Can do. Had a brief look and started. I prefer to remove all the refs to newspaper articles, as there is ample primary literature available on past and present range, and habitat. Will take some time. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: What do you think of shortening the 2 tables under 'Recent subspecies' to a list? Then all the info about fur colour and sizes etc. can be moved to 'Characteristics', unless already provided there. If we reduce all of this to a list, then I will move all info about distribution to the resp. section 'Distribution and habitat' and expand there. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Nah. Keep the taxomony section the way it is. LittleJerry (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you also expand the article's leading paragraphs and look at "Reproduction" (I don't know if Novak supports the entire chunk of text in the second paragraph)? LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, as time goes by .. I still have quite some info for the Distribution and habitat section, which I'll finalise first. How do you like it so far? Do you think it's too detailed? Will appreciate some feed back. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel it needs to be trimmed some. We don't need to get in too much detail on tiger presence in each country. Some of the information would work better in the articles of the subspecies. In addition, certain parts like the third paragraph get too far into conservation. You shouldn't get into habitat loss, threats and exact populations. That belongs in conservation. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I was planning to trim the last 3 paragraphs as i proceed. Some of the info provided there, e.g. estimated sizes of pops and extent of areas, xx% and all the other figures, are not that important, imo. And some also provided elsewhere on the page. What I consider important in this section is : make people understand that forests are vital for tigers!!! I can move the 5 tigers in Nam Et-Phou Louey to the subspecies page, though to date this is the last and only area in Lao where tiger was recorded. I suggest: let me finalise, and then we think together, which sentences to move to subspecies pages. Ok? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

One info that is completely missing in ALL the tiger pages is the concept of 'Tiger Conservation Units' (TCU). Tiger folk developed this already in the mid 1990s, i.e. a decade before the lion folk did for Africa. In some of the national park pages that I have been working on in past years, I mentioned this, e.g. see Chitwan National Park. So what I imagine is a table with the TCUs in the 13 tiger range countries. What do you think? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I just had a look at the lead and noticed the statement about 'the remaining 6 subspecies ... classified as ...' This is contradictory to the currently recognized classification of only 2 subspecies!! So I think it would be much better to remove the mention of subspecies altogether from lead, the more so as the species is RL listed as EN. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@LittleJerry: I think for now, the lead is ok. But the section on Conservation is OMG: a random unstructured collection of statements, partly even referring to old newspaper articles, despite 1000s of peer-reviewed articles on tiger. Are you ready for a joint revision?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have the energy for a revision at this point. LittleJerry (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits at Lion

I took a look at Lion, and made 13 edits of a similar nature to those I made at Wildcat: they were all rejected with one click and the justification "totally unnecessary changes." I see you have contributed 337 edits to that Page over the past 2 years: at your convenience would you take a look at my edits, and if you think they have any merit, restore them? Maybe you have more credibility than I do at this site. Or let me know if you disagree with them why you think they are not an improvement? I have not been met with the same courtesy here that you provided me at Wildcat. IiKkEe (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

LittleJerry has been watching over this page's style for a long time now. If you want to contribute *new content*, then please reference it. But as a *only-style* editor, you won't have a chance on this featured page. I suggest to continue page-specific discussion on the resp. talk page.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation that I "won't have a chance" to edit this article . I thought WP was a democratic forum where all editors are co-equal, and edits are judged on their merits. After 4 years of editing and over 10,000 edits, I have never run into this situation. Who gave LittleJerry the power to control the contents of Lion? IiKkEe (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you got me wrong: you can contribute new content anytime. LittleJerry does not control content, but just makes sure that its style complies with the criteria for Wikipedia:Featured articles. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC

Who gave him the authority to do this? One of the changes I made with my edits was to move images from the left to the right margin as recommended in WPMoS guidelines. Rejected. Why? And thanks for the link to Featured article: all news to me! IiKkEe (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

IiKkEe I undid your edit because it is typical for taxonomy to proceed description in mammal articles and dividing the description section like you did was tedious. I also merged the habitat lines in the lead because that were too short by themselves. And BTW, I did not undo your other edits. LittleJerry (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You seem to own the Ocelot page WP:OWN

You have reverted me--an experienced editor--without discussion. I don't have the time/energy to edit war with you over a trivial manner. You "win". Nevertheless, my edit that ocelots are very rare now in southern Arizona (only 5 males reported) was accurate reported from a reputable newspaper that interviewed local experts. Bellagio99 (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Cheetah lead paragraph

Any major changes like you did need to be discussed if you're wanting to improve the lead a little more. Minor grammar changes is one thing, but pulling out whole paragraphs is another.Mcelite (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sand cat

Hey BhagyaMani - Nice to renew an old acquaintance. Of course I'll take a look at the article. In fact, the International Society for Endangered Cats (ISEC), out of Canada, has done some recent research on Sand Cats with camera traps, so I'll see if anything interesting shows up there. Give me a few days and I'll update you. Cheers. Seduisant (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply!! As far as I know, ISEC partly supported the sand cat project currently ongoing in Morocco. So yes, the publications on some of the project results are referenced. Looking forward to what you think of the page now. Cheers -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

crocodile video

Hi BhagyaMani. You remember the crocodile snapping at bats, there was another video in the article I am working on. Bats are not generally regarded as good swimmers, as you can imagine, but these little 'flederhunds' have found a reason to learn. Pythons, on the other hand, do not seem to bother them, and that snake just lives at their camp digesting its last meal. I thought of our previous conversations while writing about them, hope you are well. cygnis insignis 14:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean this one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_tqzRT6ipk ? What a fascinating footage !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because the video at national geographic would not play. But I was able to watch this one, cheers for that! No mention of swimming, no footage I guess, but what there was was exciting and interesting; to see them in action as well as reading about them :-) The croc with the double-snap of the jaws just seemed annoyed by them, disturbing the tranquillity while they enjoyed their warm bath? cygnis insignis 19:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Mammalia in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae

I think we may have some confusion here. Can you tell me what source you have been using for your edits? Because what I am finding in my attempts to check Torres' additions, is that they have more generally been correct in adding missing entries, than you have been in removing or revising them. E.g., "Canis crocuta": was missing [1], added by Torres, removed by you. There's several instances. In addition, you appear to have replaced some of Linnaeus' genus names with the modern equivalent, which is not the point of this list. E.g., "Myrmecophaga tetradactyla" [2] to the modern "Tamandua tetradactyla".

On the other hand, Torres insists on inserting "Elephas africanis", which is nowhere in the original.

I'm tempted to revert the entire thing to back before this back-and-forth started, and do a proper job of it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed most of the & nbsp;s before the refs; edited and added <ref name="Gentry"/> to the domestics; and edited and added <ref name=Thomas1911/> to the nomen dubiums and synonyms that Thomas (1911) commented on. Note that both refs were used before, hence were not newly added by me.

Possible that some entries added by Torres got deleted when I reverted his edits. I did not always check all of their additions, but reverted when seeing that they added the African elephant. I did not compare all entries with Linnaeus's complete list of mammals. But: am ready to work with you on comparing this list with Linnaeus's original. Can we do this tomorrow? BhagyaMani (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

PS : I'm using this version of the 10th edition : https://archive.org/details/carolilinnisys00linn/page/42, i.e. NOT the translated version by Turton (1806) made available at books.google. There are quite some differences between the two !! E.g. Turton lists even Chaus and Caracal under Felis, which are not in Linnaeus's 10th. BhagyaMani (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice to have the original; let's provide that reference in the article, too - what is accessible as an article reference is only the translation! I have a suspicion that the differences between what Torres is inserting and what was there before may rest entirely on the differences between the original and the translated version. Yes, happy to work on double-checking this. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll add the original. Used this already in a few pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Turton's edition is a translation of Gmelin's edition, which would be the 13th edition. There were already many changes between the 10th and 12th by Linnaeus and Gmelin updated it further after his death. The preface of Turton's edition suggests he might have made further updates. Clearly neither of these should be the reference for the classification in the article on the 10th edition.   Jts1882 | talk  08:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So I disregarded Turton (1806) when checking each of Linneaus's genera separately, and did so on basis of the 10th edition of 1758 ref'ed in beginning of that page and comparing with comments by Thomas (1911). Please check whether the list is complete now. Cheers, BhagyaMani (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems like you did a job and a half there in the meantime. Thanks for the exhaustive checking! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, some good work from BhagyaMani despite the disruptive interference. One thing I found confusing was the introductory section refering to Turton being used for the translation. It gives the impression that he translated the 10th edition. It also makes me wonder about that quote from Turton in the lede and how relevant it is to this article.   Jts1882 | talk  15:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please revise this sentence as you deem appropriate, Jts1882. Its main purpose, imo, is the translation of the characteristics of L.'s families.-- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Dropped a final note on Joseth Felix Torres' talk page. If they don't take the hint, I'll heave it over to WP:AN/3. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Whichever species this guy adds now, is definitely not listed in the 10th edition. I hope both of you keep this page on your watchlist. Cheers -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Tribes within Felidae

There are a number of articles that make reference to tribes within Felidae that are not supported by sources. The Acinonychini article is entirely based on interpretation of the molecular data rather than published taxonomic descriptions. Likewise Felini makes some appearances in a number of articles with varying definitions that vary from the traditional ones.

There is one manuscript floating around on the internet that proposes dividing extant cats into seven tribes within Felinae sensu lato. The proposed tribes correspond to the eight lineages in the molecular studies (Johnson et al, 2006; Li et al, 2016), with the inner two combined into Felini, and seem perfectly reasonable. However the manuscript was submitted in 2008 (or earlier) and still doesn't seem to have been published, although it was referenced regularly in reviews and IUCN reports a decade ago.

Any suggestions on how to handle this?   Jts1882 | talk  11:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

When authors submit a manuscript to a scientific journal, the journal editor invites at least 2 people, some even 3, to review the manuscript. If it doesn't get published, then for the following reasons: a) the reviewers rejected it, i.e. recommended to not publish it; or b) the authors didn't revise it according to reviewers' comments and suggestions. It may be possible, or rather very likely, that the source data presented in the manuscript were insufficient. I just checked Kitchener et al. (2017), the revision of felid taxonomy, but this submitted manuscript is NOT referenced there, although Eizirik is also one of the co-authors. I therefore suggest to refrain from referencing ANY submitted but unpublished manuscripts. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC); clarified 'rejected' -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it failed because it didn't handle the taxonomy properly. The definitions were based on molecular phylogeny and they didn't really formally describe the taxa. In particular there are clear rules for redefining taxa like Acinonychini which have been formally described (even if at a different level). As molecular phylogenists I don't think they would have been too interested in developing the taxonomy further so probably dropped it. However the Acinonychini article is either based on their proposal (without citation) or on independent research.   Jts1882 | talk  14:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I found a dissertation, in which the author writes in the abstract: "... there was no well supported tree for the Acinonychini. The characters used by this author, as well as previous authors do not work to effectively organize the evolutionary relationships of this tribe." This diss includes one chapter about Acinonychini and is available for download:

Good find, but a shame only the introduction is available. Essentially he is using the term based on Eizirik et al (submitted). The statement that it "has been used for some time (Martin 1980) without being cited as having a specific author coining it" is misleading. Martin (1980) uses Acinonychini for the cheetah and places the puma in Felini (Fig 12, p151). My understanding is that it is perfectly valid to move a name described at one rank if the contents are not changed, i.e. subfamily Acinonychinae Pocock, 1917 (cheetahs) to tribe Acinonychini (cheetahs) or even subtribe Acinonychina (cheetahs). Pocock's authority moves with it, but you can't suddenly include pumas, especially as pumas don't have the defining characteristics of acinonychines (the claws). Changing the content requires a formal redefinition, which seems to be lacking. I think the formal rules of taxonomy make a redefinition of a taxon solely on a molecular basis difficult. It's up to the fossil people to tie Acinonyx, Miraconynx and Puma together.   Jts1882 | talk  15:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Prior to Martin (1980), a French author used the term Acinonychini in the 1960s, but I cannot get hold of this article. I read all Pocock's articles again about hyoid apparatus in the Felidae that were published between 1916 and 1917 : he never used 'Acinonychini', not even in his article on the characters of the cheetah, see Pocock didn't think in terms of evolution at the time, but looked foremost at differences and similarities between species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

McKenna & Bell (1975) mention Acinonychini de Beaumont, 1964 in the synonyms for Acinonychinae. I can't find the text either.   Jts1882 | talk  18:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, that's the one: Beaumont 1964, a Swiss who wrote in French, see page 840 in his Remarques sur la classification des Felidae -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I restored Pocock as the authority on Acinonychinae. According the Article 36 of the Zoological code, the principle of coordination means the names are simultaneously established for all ranks within the family group.

Article 36. Principle of Coordination.

36.1. Statement of the Principle of Coordination applied to family-group names. A name established for a taxon at any rank in the family group is deemed to have been simultaneously established for nominal taxa at all other ranks in the family group; all these taxa have the same type genus, and their names are formed from the stem of the name of the type genus [Art. 29.3] with appropriate change of suffix [Art. 34.1]. The name has the same authorship and date at every rank.

Example. The family name HESPERIIDAE (Lepidoptera), based on Hesperia Fabricius, 1793, was established in 1809 by Latreille (as Hesperides). Latreille is deemed also to have simultaneously established the coordinate superfamily name HESPERIOIDEA and the coordinate subfamily name HESPERIINAE (even though the former was first used by Comstock & Comstock (1904) and the latter by Watson (1893)). The authorship and date of all three names is Latreille, 1809.

So Pocock is the authority for any family rank name based on Acinonyx, whether Acinonychini, Acinonychinae. Acinonychidae or even Acinonychoidea if there was a major revision of Carnivoran relationships.   Jts1882 | talk  17:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC). This possibly explains why 'Felidae' is attributed to Fischer de Waldheim, though he didn't use the term when defining the 'Felis' family as quadrupeds with retractile claws. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm trying to find an original text, but I think Fischer de Waldheim defined a lot of the Carnivora taxa. My reading of secondary sources is that he used Felini, Canini, Ursini, etc. and that these are the basis for most of the modern family names. The taxonomy rules are quite formally set down, which makes a lot of sense, most of the time, but removes some extremely simple solutions. Here I'm thinking of Feloidea to describe the Felidae, Prionodontidae and Barbourofelidae. The rules mean it needs to be a synonym of Feliformia and can't be used in the narrower sense. This narrower sense appears in a few articles and is, like Acinonychini, a name that makes sense on all the evidence, but is not allowed for zoological nomenclature or wikipedia sources reasons.   Jts1882 | talk  20:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Fischer de Waldheim used Linnaeus' names Felis, Canis, Viverra, Ursus etc., but not any '-idae' : neither in this from 1813, nor in the 1817 publication, which shows essentially the same explanations and lists. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

His Adversaria zoologica: Facsiculus primus from 1817 is the one generally referred to for the mammal families. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

In 1839, Mr. Waterhouse exhibited skulls ... and : To these six families applies the names Canidae, Viverridae, Felidae, ... So shouldn't he credited for these names, instead of Fischer de Waldheim? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Fischer de Waldheim links. The 1817 publication used Mustelini, Felini, Canini, etc in the table on p372 (p18 of pdf), which is as McKenna & Bell cite him. Then he refers to Familia Felinorum on p417(62) which is the same latin noun (-orum is genitive plural, so I think means it means "family of the cats"). So clearly he is considered to have established the root of the family name in this publication and zoological convention is that the name is established for all family group names. It makes sense in that Fischer de Waldheim established the link between the name and the group of animals, the important action, while Waterhouse just changed the suffix to the form used now.   Jts1882 | talk  09:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly: the ending -orum is the genitive plural for Latin masculine nouns. Anyway, Pocock and Blanford before him considered Waterhouse the authority for the family name Felidae. Well, this perception obviously changed over time as nomenclature did. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Cats in ancient Egypt

Hi! I just wanted to reach out to you. I saw that you restructured the Wikipedia article on cats in ancient Egypt, which one of the students I was overseeing was also editing. She was also editing while you were restructuring and felt left out of the process. I wanted to ask if you could discuss things on the talk page more in the future, to make collaboration easier. The class is over, but I'll make sure to also make a point to ask the students to reach out if they feel left out of a process. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Shalor: this page was assessed B-class in early November after I had been working on it for about a month. Your student had ample opportunity to ADD new info. Instead she chose to restructure content that I had added before she started revising and restructuring, without first discussing her revisions. So yes please, ask your students to discuss their opinions for such kind of changes on talk pages. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hunchun NNR

Hi! Please be reminded that "Hunchun Northeast China Tiger National Nature Reserve" (珲春东北虎国家级自然保护区) is the official name for this NNR, as designated by the State Council of the People's Republic of China on July 23, 2005 [3]. "Northeast China Tiger" (东北虎) forms part of the legal name of this NNR. Cybercicada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi too! In all the English articles that I read it is called Hunchun National Nature Reserve! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you actually read the official document: "Notice on Declaration of 17 National Nature Reserves" (refer to above link)? According to article 15 of the "Regulation on Nature Reserve"[4] the name of the protected target is legally permitted to form part of the official name of NR. Also, the legal name of the NNR cannot be altered without permission of the State Council. I Would like to stress that "Hunchun Northeast China Tiger National Nature Reserve" is the more accurate translation to its original Chinese name "珲春东北虎国家级自然保护区". Cybercicada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

As already mentioned above: Chinese authors who wrote in English used *Hunchun National Nature Reserve*! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really. To name a few: 1. http://ca.china-embassy.org/eng/zgxw/t1493178.htm （"Hunchun Manchurian Tiger National Nature Reserve" and "Hunchun Northeast Tiger Nature Reserve"）; 2. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-09/26/c_137494779.htm; 3. http://www.ecns.cn/news/cns-wire/2018-09-17/detail-ifyxxzwt9221553.shtml In the case where protected target's name was omitted, probably they have no consensus on the common name of panthera tigris altaica in foreign language. The proper name of this sub-species in Chinese is Northeast [China] tiger (东北虎) instead of Siberian (西伯利亚虎), or Amur (阿穆尔虎) tiger. Cybercicada (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

How odd that not even Chinese agree on a consistent English name for the reserve -- :) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, English is not the official language of China, their central/local governments or public institutions don't have obligation to translate all the things into English. Secondly, Panthera tigris tigris is the scientific name for Bengal tiger, and Hunchun (42.8628° N, 130.3660° E) is located at Jilin Province of Northeast China, the cold temperate zone!!! Only panthera tigris altaica can survive here!!! Thank you. Cybercicada (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

No one is saying Chinese authorities are required to provide an English translation. What is required by Wikipedia guidelines is a reliable source for the name of the reserve in English. If the subspecies/population of the tiger is part of the reserve name, then the English name used for this population here on English Wikipedia should become part of the reserve name, which would make it "Hunchun Siberia Tiger National Nature Reserve". Two of your three sources use this name while the other uses two names in different places. On your second point, the Siberian or Amur tiger is no longer recognised as a subspecies by cat taxonomists and P. tigris tigris now applies to all mainland tigers in Asia and P. tigris altaica is a synonym.   Jts1882 | talk  08:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Copy-pasted without proper

Hello BhagyaMani, thank for your contributions. You recently have edited at Distribution and habitat section. Here you reverted me over and over again 'cause I copyed content without proper. Well, you yourself have copy-pasted without proper here from Indochinese leopard, and even from other sections. Im not reverting you, just let you know not to do that anymore, as you told me. Best wishes! — Punëtori' Rregullt ^{talk} 13:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Well, you got a point that I should have attributed the content that I added. But please have a look at the edit histories of the leopard subspecies pages, e.g. since 2010 in Indochinese leopard: in the past years, I added by far the most of the distributional info and refs to these pages, so copied my own edits. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Leopard behaviour

Since we are in talking mode again, I would like to discuss your addition regarding 'white spot on leopard tail used for communicating with cubs' in the section on behaviour: I screened lots of articles on leopard behaviour, but did not find a single one that provides evidence for this statement on the San Diego Zoo's website. Do you know on which study this hypothesis is based on? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

BhagyaMani, I took a look, and the text read like this: "Leopards rarely roar; their voice is more of a raspy bark. White spots on the tip of the tail and back of the ears help leopards locate and communicate with each other in tall grass." I also have seen a documentary about wild cats behavior, and the way they communicate with each-other. — Punëtori' Rregullt (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I found 3 articles, whose authors analysed the significance of colouration in about 200 species. But they did not find any significant association between the white or black tail tips of carnivores and their behaviour. So this idea remains a hypothesis without evidence. Just added this info to the article. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wild goat

Hi, why doesn't the Distribution section match the information in the lede? And do you know why Markhor's lede states that it falls under wild goat? DA1 (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out!! The int link in the Markhor page points to the genus Capra. Whereas the wild goat page is about the species Capra aegagrus, also known as ibex. Most likely, nobody bothered yet to update the section on this species' distribution. But all the countries listed there are possibly those countries where the genus Capra occurs, perhaps even including domestic goat. So it definitely needs updating. Just see the resp. iucn red list page. Do you want to tackle this? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

BhagyaMani Are there wild goats in southern Dagestan, or Uzbekistan or Tajikistan? And Kurdistan shouldn't be separately stated on the list, and it overlaps with Iraq and Iran which have regions of the same name. DA1 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Each and every iucn red list account includes a map which shows the species's distribution. BhagyaMani (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

South African English.

Hi BhagyaMani, earlier you reverted my spelling changes on the 'Fauna of South Africa' page. I'm sure you're aware of Wikipedia's custom of using the spelling conventions of the particular region that the page concerns. The page was using U.S. English rather than South African English. National spelling conventions can be read on this page. 'colour' appeared five times and 'grey' appeared three times on the page before I cleaned up the two U.S. spelling variants to match the rest of the page.  I find it difficult not to seem rude over text, please know I don't mean any rudeness, thank you for your time! BernardFox1595 (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Another kitten

A lion-like kitten, that I kept thinking you might be interested in a Microleo when I see your name on my watchlist. Hope you are well, see you in another six months :) cygnis insignis 19:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC) @Cygnis insignis: aah, you're following the elephants and me, great!! Stay tuned: I have another change in the making. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly, I noticed the activity on the mammal project page. I was pleasantly surprised when the thank notice for the little edit was from you. It turned it we had lots of lions down here, but I haven't found any elephants. I do like them though, the few I have met.cygnis insignis 20:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced tags

Hi BhagyaMani, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I just thought I'd explain that some of the articles you've been editing recently were imported and translated from German Wikipedia. German Wikipedia doesn't require every paragraph to be cited; instead they cite key facts and put the sources for the overall text in a bibliography, much as the rest of the academic world does. Have you ever read a book with a reference at the end of every page? Of course this is English Wikipedia and our rules are a bit different, but there isn't a mandatory requirement to tag every section and every paragraph of every article - we try to balance it a bit. Clearly potentially contentious or controversial text should, quite rightly, be tagged if it is unreferenced, but Wikipedia will be the poorer if we drive-by tag everything. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt. I very well understand that the content of these pages is translated. But I do wonder whether the German versions are as poorly referenced as the resp. translations. And if so, why are German contributors so secretive about their sources? Good referencing is a key feature of an encyclopedia!! Cheers -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Some are the same, some have additional references if there has been a time lapse. But I think it's unfair to suggest "Germans" are secretive about sources; they'd probably say we're a bit overzealous. And, as I say, they do what academic literature does - only reference inline what really needs it and put the rest in a bibliography. As someone who is well used to academic referencing, I can tell you that English Wikipedia goes over the top in this regard. The only area where I think we need to do more than academia is where bold claims are made or the stuff is contentious. Nevertheless, as bots are starting to drive-by tag articles, I'm adding references where I can to improve the situation. But if we start tagging every section, I'll quit. The effort should go into improving articles not slapping tags everywhere. It's obvious if a paragraph isn't cited; we don't needs tags to tell us.Bermicourt (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Discuss before reverting endlessly

You have engaged in multiple reversions on Viverridae while I have not counted, I want to advise you that there are rules against edit warring. Please use the talk page to explain your position. If you cannot achieve consensus, there are other mechanisms to resolve conflicts. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I checked the ref'ed sources provided for the cladogram in this page. And since the cladogram in the sources differs from the one in the page, I removed the unsourced labels. Hence did NOT completely revert this page. So I suggest to check the sources yourself!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)::I checked the sources. I saw the paper describing the molecular evidence; I don't know if that paper is considered definitive, but it appears to be in order. What I see a lot of block deletions and additions and back and forth on the same species (a lot of it is formatting or precedence issues). I could not unravel it all from the edit descriptions. Wikipedia is collaborative. Please take a little more time to let other editors figure out what you are trying to do. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The cladogram in question is based on the supertree of Nyakatura & Bininda-Emonds (2012), which only includes extant species (for which the molecular data is available. The other editor was adding extinct species to the tree, without source or explanation. The genus Leptoplesictis and its seven species don't even have a Wikipedia page from which to try and determine further information. I don't think a single reversion of unsourced material counts as an edit war.   Jts1882 | talk  15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Tiger

The distribution stills needs to be cut down. It is far too large. LittleJerry (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it should focus on its general range. There shouldn't be details on populations in national parks. The article is big enough. LittleJerry (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve

You have deleted my recent edit saying this is not wikipeida is not a travel portal. However, as a general rule people should know how to reach there easily. So I am keeping the relvant portions.

1) you did not reference your additions; 2) see Wikipedia:WikiProject Travel and Tourism. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Panthera pardus panthera in African leopard

Hi, Why do you say Panthera pardus panthera is already listed by the African leopard article? --Oliver H (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's the nominate subspecies. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

He wants to add Panthera pardus panthera, not Panthera pardus pardus. I note that MSW3 has quite a few other synonyms for P.p. pardus that are not listed.   Jts1882 | talk  15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note!! I'll check and add it if I find the ref -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Bhitarkanika Mangroves reverted edit

Hi, I see that you have reverted my edit to Bhitarkanika Mangroves. Could you please let me know what was wrong with the edit ? The remark says empty box. But it was definitely not empty. Thanks Psanu (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This page already has a {{Designation list}} box for the Ramsar status. And as I understand, Bhitarkanika Mangroves do not have protected area status like Bhitarkanika National Park. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Alexander's kusimanse

Hi, I'm wondering what I did wrong in my edit? Now the page is back to having formatting errors, which I thought I fixed. Chillidobe (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

You used an old template. Which formatting errors do you see? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Siberian tiger

Why did you delete the information about the largest living captivity tiger of 320kg?

Captive animals are NOT representative for the natural weight of the species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but in the page there is many examples of captivity individuals including Jaipur the tiger with 465kg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roqui15 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note! I hadn't seen this and removed the dubious source. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Brown bear

Hello. Do you think you can trim down the brown bear article? I personally think articles on single species should not exceed 150,000 bytes. Brown bear is far beyond that. LittleJerry (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid: not this month any more. Have several non-wiki mss on my desk for review and revision. Cheers, -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDAVOID

You were recently in an extensive edit war with this IP, but do keep in mind that the IP is correct per MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDAVOID. You should be open to following our policies and guidelines if you want to continue editing here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and changed, at least in one of those lists. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Your recent editing history at List of mammals of Spain 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.

---

The history of that article shows you engaged in a fierce edit war with over a dozen reverts. Please be sure to never repeat that because edit warring will lead to a block. That is true regardless of whether the IP is correct or not. In this case, the IP is correct and you should follow the MOS:FIRST and MOS:BOLDAVOID guidelines. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and changed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Surely the IP is wrong on MOS:FIRST as the opening sentence doesn't describe the page.   Jts1882 | talk  09:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jts1882. Ay darn, what is correct now? I unbolded and removed repetition of page title. Anyway, these lists have not been updated in a looong time, during which a lot of species were reassessed and status changed. So my main focus is to update with refs, and must admit that I didn't pay much attention to the standard re formatting lead of such lists. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: The second point at MOS:FIRST is Similarly, if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs...". I believe that was the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sharda River and other pages

Hi BhagyaMani, thanks for watching the Sharda River page. Other related pages still getting attacked are

• Kalapani River,
• Kalapani territory,
• Lipulekh Pass,
• Gunji, Uttarakhand and
• Territorial disputes of India and Nepal.

There could be others that I don't know about. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Your recent editing history at Madhesi people 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Precise citations

Hi BhayaMani, I see that you are continuing to write vague and imprecise citations despite our past discussion at Talk:Madhesi people. WP:Verifiability requires that any one with access to the source should be able to easily verify that the content is supported by the source. There is no conceivable reason to cite 15 pages of source to support a single sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

For good bad, these discretionary sanctions are always "broadly construed". So if you are dealing with people of "Indian origin", ancestry, heritage or whatever, please take it that it is covered under ARBIPA sanctions. I have seen much more remote topics like California textbook controversy over Hindu history covered by the ARBIPA regimen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Cite iucn template

A heads up. I know you have been responsible for many additions of the {{Cite iucn}} template to articles and I assume you will have noticed many conversions of citations using {{Cite web}} and {{Cite journal}} to {{Cite iucn}}. When the conversions are complete, all iucn citations, including the old {{IUCN}} family of templates, should use {{Cite iucn}}. One change is that it will ignore |url=, |journal=, and |volume= so these don't need adding. The url is now generated automatically from the electronic page number.

There is also a new tool, {{Make cite iucn}}, which takes the raw text copied off the IUCN site and can used to substitute a valid {{Cite iucn}} citation into an article. This should make the citations easier.   Jts1882 | talk  17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have been using the {{Cite iucn}} template since about a year, if not longer, upon your advice once upon a time. And removed the now superfluous dois, urls etc. in a few already. Nice would be if the parameter |last-author-amp=yes can be added to this template, so that it becomes active if author list is more than one, but without producing an error when author is e.g. BirdLife International. Happy New Year to you. Cheers -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

|last-author-amp=yes is a CS1/2 template parameter. It should get passed on. Have you an example where it doesn't work?   Jts1882 | talk  20:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it does work! What I meant was : is it possible to integrate this para within the {{Cite iucn}} template ? So that it automatically adds the & before the last author without having to add this para into each and every instance of the template; just like adding the |url= is superfluous now. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There is an error generated when the doi is used in the cite iucn template and the page is an erratum. In these cases the page name stays the same as it was before and the url is revised. See Mackerel scad. Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)