User talk:BhagyaMani/Archive 4

Historic range of the Asiatic lion

I've responded to your critique in Talk:Asiatic_lion in support for the reintegration of the sentences in Distribution and habitat section of Asiatic lion. -- Sjschen (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National animal of india

Hello. I see you modified, national animal of india as 'bengal tiger'. Here i give u some links where it says, its 'tiger -panthera tigris' -- ( all tigers ) are the national animal of india. Bengal tiger is panthera tigris tigris , which is a subspecies of panthera tigris. It means, all bengal tigers are tiger but not all tigers are bengal tigers. if u think 'panthera tigris tigris' is the naitonal animal of india, can u send me some links? thanks.

Hope you understand the fact. thanksParvez gsm (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Parvez: this issue has been disputed over and over again for a long time, with changes being made back and forth, mostly unreferenced or cited from 2-nd hand sources. Therefore, I decided to reference this properly with a 1st-hand source (Gupta 2006), which is anyway given preference in wikipedia. This source is referenced in the article and even provided with an external link to an online version of the book. Please take some more time to read referenced article parts in future. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. The author is not someone governmental and the book is not naitonal book. Here i give u link of indian governemnt sites' links, where it says, 'panthera tigris' is the naitonal animal of india.
Indian government: http://knowindia.gov.in/knowindia/national_symbols.php?id=11
Rajstahn government: website:http://www.indif.com/India/national_symbols/national_animal.aspx
Tourism india: Culture India: http://www.culturalindia.net/national-symbols/national-animal.html
Non-government: http://www.iloveindia.com/national-symbols/national-animal.html Parvez gsm (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just have a look at this profile of the author. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says about the author's biography. I gave you Government of India, Government of Rajsthan links and you are showing me a private guy's link!
kindly try to show government / official links with specific scientific name Parvez gsm (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Om Gupta is one of India's most renowned scholars, and professor for journalism. And you want to tell me that he is far less trustworthy than your links ? See his long list of publications : is this all hogwashing stuff or what ? Give me a break kid !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link canvassing

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. What's wrong with the link to this article about Asian bear farming ? I did not at all consider this as spam but a great coverage of the work of TRAFFIC people regarding the practice and industry of bear farming and bile extraction. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything wrong with it per se. Adding the same link to multiple articles is canvassing. Re-adding it to Bile bear would be fine, but please don't canvass it all over the place. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asiatic Lion

Information is listed on basis of significance to the topic Europe is not significant in an Asian topic therefore it belongs on the bottom. If you are white then I understand you may have trouble comprehending what I am writing as the white race has the highest levels of autism in the world and it is apparent that you are showing autistic tendencies. Ascendantx07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandal"

Hi BM - Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy with personal stuff. I can see you're upset, but I usually just ignore "editors" like this. The "editor" in question has only seven edits, all on the same very odd topic. You may never hear from him or her again.

If the behavior persists and continues to create a hostile situation, you could report the user to WP:AIV, where an admin will review his/her edits and possibly block. If this doesn't qualify as vandalism, it's certainly harassment, and something can be done.

In the meantime, remember that the Buddha said, "The greatest prayer is patience." And please create a user page so you have a blue user name!

Thanks again for your tireless work improving the felid articles. Cheers. --Seduisant (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Use WP:ANI if you get nowhere with WP:AIV.

Thanks for your advice!! That's what I have decided too: to ignore this attack and remain patient with this pathetic individual. -- Cheers BhagyaMani (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edits

Forgive me if I'm making a mistake here, but are you copy pasting copyrighted content?

At least some of this edit appears to be copy pasted from here.
At least some of this edit appears to be copy pasted from here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of this edit appears to be copy pasted from here.
At least some of this edit appears to be copy pasted from Banks, D., Davies, C., Gosling, J., Newman, J., Rice, M., Wadley, J., Walravens, F. (2008) Environmental Crime. A threat to our future. Environmental Investigation Agency available here.

Again, sorry if I'm mistaken. It's just that these sources seem to be copyrighted. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least some of this edit appears to be copy pasted from here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of this edit appears copy pasted from here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your intention ?? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to determine whether or not you are adding copyrighted content to Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you are continuing to edit without responding to this. Please respond. Thank you kindly, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, go ahead checking. If you think that I didn't credit the authors of these cited sources correctly by the way I referenced them, then revise the text or the references. I suppose you know that you don't really need my consent for revising content in wikipedia articles. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to check any more. Please understand that the issue isn't about crediting sources. It's about copyright violations. You are not allowed to add content verbatim from copyrighted sources.

Please go through all your edits and reword the copy pasted content. That is not my responsibility. It is yours. I'm not trying to be a meanie. I'm trying to be a good editor and protect Wikipedia. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me whether or not you will go through all your edits and reword the copy pasted content. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You've avoided a clear answer for four posts. Let me be perfectly frank:

I know you care about Wikipedia. I know you care about yourself. You must decide:

One path will lead to helping Wikipedia and saving all of the work you've done. That means systematically and thoroughly going through your edits and rewording or removing all of the copyright violations. Then you can carry on editing and all will be forgiven.
The other path will lead to a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation, sticking a huge amount of clean up work on the Wikipedia community, who will go through your edits and simply delete them, thus making the hundreds of hours you put in be completely wasted, and you possibly leaving Wikipedia because of being blocked or discouraged.

Please tell me your intentions now. My patience is at an end. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O, am so afraid now of your patience being at end that I'm scared stiff of your reprisals and case filing intentions. My suggestion is : cool your rockets! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you aren't taking this seriously. Massive copyright violations are taken seriously. I will file the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigation. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCI Notice

Hello, BhagyaMani. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ussuri Cat

Hi Bhagaya,

Me again. An editor is proposing that the Ussuri cat article be deleted. You may want to read the tag and decide for yourself if this has any merit. You seem to come up with sources for just about everything, so your opinion on this would be valued. Please reply on my talk page. Cheers as always, --Seduisant (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tara

Reputable sources are unfortunately hard to come by on the subject. -I'm working on it as we speak.
Work needed doing on the sections desperately though
What was there was plainly false- shifting the blame to one institution (I'm guessing that someone added that after hearing lies fanned by media sensationalism and ignorance ) when it the issues were caused by a prior lack of scientific knowledge. The decisions of yesterday cannot be judged on the scientific knowledge of today- they must be judged on what was known at the time.
With three articles all giving incorrect information and all very slanderous and falsely accusing one institution of some potentially libelous and defamatory things.... it was far far far in breach of Wikipedia's Neutrality regulations and into dangerous territory legally.
The reference isn't the greatest (I'm working on that) - it was the best I could find to set the articles straight quickly. But as the articles stands now it sticks to the scientific facts of what happened (the miss labeling of subspecies because other subspecies hadn't been identified yet) is clear that there is no "blame" on any of the institutions.
Best --Rushton2010 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poaching

Ths proper way to communicate an article is on the article talk page. I see you are only adding references that support you polical positon. You have reverted my edit again without discussion. Golden seal is endagered and is illegally collected, just because it does not appear in your book does not negate the statement. Your reference still supports the statement especially the fact about ginseng. Deleting non referenced material the way you did does not comply with wiki guidlines.

You started the editing war before I arrived I just didn't know. I was working on how to resolve the issue withour getting into a shouting match. You have precluded that possibility with your latest arbirtary reversion.

If you continue to hold the article hostage it will call for help. Your comment on my page should have beenon the talk page for the article.

I asked for another reference for the politically created term frezze kill, provide another or I am taking it down. Your insistance on cann hunt is also only motivated by politics and will be removed. Get it together and get some non-activist refernces because when I get back to this I will have properly neutral references be ready to deal with your activist editing.

The bullet point list about acts of poaching is intentially exagerated and is blantantly incorrct. I will be reediting it and a reversion will result in a request for arbitration. The list of poaching acts is a wish list from a political movement is is factually innacurrate and absolutly unacceptable under NPOV. Economic Refugee (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Your continued FYI shit on the poaching talk list is insulting.apparently. Apparentl you do not have the integrity to anwer my question just tthrow out nonconected bs. Your continued editing of poaching to imbue it with the chaacteristics that you want to further the political agenda of what ever animal rights movement you belong to contitutes fraud. The definition you are insisting onis NOT IN USE by anyone but your group of outlaw radicals.Economic Refugee (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all those years that I contributed to some 400+ wikipedia articles incl. respective talk pages, I haven't come across anybody who used as many ill-mannered words in such a short period of time as in your recent comments dated 11 August -- see above and this revision labelled: more bs from the activist. Using words for bathroom and meadow deposits as arguments to support a point is not my style; nor do I think that blustering untenable assertions regarding my or anybody else's motivation improves your "line of arguments". This combined is not a base for any discussion or cooperation. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of my comments are meant to lessen your contributions. I have no tolerance for passive agressive manipulation or of the condescending tone of your reponses to me. From my first attemtp to contribute to poaching I have been rejected ignored and talked down to by you. I made seveal attempts to create a way to reach for consensus on the talk page. You failed to respond and continued to edit the lead as if you were the only one there. Using controlling euphamistic language to decribe my direct communications is another of your "superiority plays. I call BS when I see it just because you are more comfortable working in an environment where that sort of manipulation is normal does not make it right.

Are your other contributuons are as skewed as your attempt to redifine poaching for the entire world? If your other contirbutions were done with more integrity and clarity the the lead on poaching then I suspect you have done us a great favor.

That does not forgive the attempt to skew the definition of poaching or the way you ingnored and dismissed my contributions. Try treating me with the respect you seem to be demanding.Economic Refugee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Panthera leo azandica

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. BhagyaMani, thanks for creating Panthera leo azandica!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 3

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulfurboy: thanks for tagging the article. Please have a look whether the categories I added are okay. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]