User talk:BhagyaMani/Archive 5

Italics

You were incorrect to remove italics from journal names and book titles. That is the standard used in Wikipedia. Of course, many times this standard is not respected but if you take a look at the Water buffalo article you will see that this occurs quite often. It also occurs when the "cite" template is used. Keep up the good work. Dger (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tigers and elephants

Siberian Tiger

I appreciate your contributions on our Siberian tiger article. However, your edits removed some of the properly sourced original content relevant to the article and your new edits also focus more on bears with greater details while omitting the details on tigers in the original version, which is not appropriate since undue weight given to bears and this constitutes biased content. That section is about tiger-bear relationship and you should not delete the introduction that tigers occasionally prey on bears which is properly sourced and significant (as bears constitute up to 8% of tigers' preys, which isn't insignificant). The statement that bears usually dominating tigers contradict with the results from other reliable studies and sources so it should not be included. It seems to me that you intentionally omitted points from the original source that favor the tigers but included every single point that disfavors tigers - such cherry picking statements are not only biased but also constitute original research materials, both of which are not allowed.

I am not a native English writer and if you think you can improve the article with better wordings please do so. But if you change the article to such a way that it no longer focuses on tigers your edits become disruptive. Those contents focusing on bears can be put in our bear article though. I am one of the major contributors that brought our tiger article into the GA standards, and I hope we can work together to make our Siberian tiger article even better. Note I am open and neutral if you have sources that disprove the current content I am more than happy to correct them. But please do not cherry picked statements from sources and combine them for new meanings and do not put undue weight on rare incidents / exceptions that concern bears - those contents should be put in our bear article. Please talk back before reverting to your own version and please check the last talk section of the siberian tiger article. Thanks. BigCat82 (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)I[reply]

Asian Elephant

Please note that your statement "Only one case is known of a tiger killing an adult elephant" is your original research and the source doesn't say so. That the news source reported a case of tiger preying on an adult elephant doesn't mean only 1 case has ever happened - to illustrate, a news source reporting someone got robbed doesn't mean that only 1 case of robbery ever happened in this world. There are a few more tigers preying on adult elephants, some are viewable online some are not and thus my original statement "Tiger predation on Asian elephants is rare but is not restricted only to small calves" accurately reflects exactly what the supporting sources say, because there was at least 1 exception. I can put more news and sources on more tigers preying on adult elephant accounts but as per guidelines wikipedia is not an archive collection of all news and accounts out there - we need to be concise.

It seems to me that you have double standards - you are very harsh on contents that favor tigers but become tolerant on problematic contents that disfavor tigers such as this obvious one. Why are you so biased against tigers? I love all animals, tigers, bears, elephants but we need to put accurate information here. And FYI adult elephants do flee from signs of tigers - another contributor LittleJerry already put that in the main elephant article with a reliable source. LittleJerry is a senior editor who brought lots of articles into GA standards. I hope this is a misunderstanding. Thank you. BigCat82 (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

In all those years that I contributed to both articles you are the first to accuse me of being biased against tigers, or other species. What kind of glasses are you wearing? You deleted sourced text from the article initially, arguing that one scientific source is more reliable than the other. So who is biased is here other than you?
Or do you think that I'm one of the anonymous IP editors? If so, you are on the wrong track. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry man. The article was rewritten by ip editors in such a way that the section began with bears attacking tigers after awaking from hibernation etc as if it was a bear article, not tiger. They also played with the adverbs of frequency to make rare incidents appearing more common (e.g. tiger bear encounter outcomes) and undermined important incidents (e.g. bears constitute up to 8% of a tiger's diet but they said tigers preying on bears are rarer than bears killing tigers!?). Since you also made some edits in between I mixed all of you up. And thanks for your efforts on the citations. BigCat82 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asian elephant

Hi there. Just a tiny remark about using the phrase "lives in" for where the subspecies occur. It sounds a bit strange using it for fauna. For instance, there are also Asian elephants who "live in" Europe, be it only in zoos and circuses, but they do "live" here. Using "from" instead of "live in" is more correct in my opinion, because each subspecies is "from" that specific area. - Takeaway (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you like "occurs in" better. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occur, from, indigenous to. All fine with me. Cheers! - Takeaway (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Tiger

Thanks for your effort in editing our Siberian tiger article. Regarding the size of Siberian tigers, Valmik drew the conclusion that the body size of the body size of Siberian tigers are similar to that of bengal tigers based on the same modern research of wild Siberian tigers in Sikhote-Alin which measured siberian tigers of 35 months of age or above and the same research data already appeared in the 2nd paragraph of the article. Also males tigers reach maturity at the age of 48 to 60 months, so the modern average weight of siberian tigers of 35 months include weights of the subadults.

Since Mazak published his data in a peer reviewed science journal while Valmik's statement was published only in a book, Mazak's measurements are thus considered more reliable and precede Valmik's statement which is an opinion. There are multiple peer reviewed scientific journals saying Siberian tigers are larger than Bengal tigers (though not that much) and that siberian tigers are the largest are accepted by the science community. Besides, Valmik made that conclusion based on the data already mentioned in the 2nd paragraph and it shouldn't be repeated. BigCat82 (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and resolved this issue now on basis of peer-reviewed publication. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read your edits and our current siberian tiger article is the most accurate version since its creation, thank you. I know Bengal tigers from northern India and Nepal are probably even heavier than the siberian tiger but they are not separate subspecies. BigCat82 (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Tiger

As you are interested in big cats in general, I would like to point out that in terms of the largest specimens, the siberian tiger is still the largest, slightly larger than bengal tigers. You can find such information from the existing peer reviewed journals (mainly Mazak's) in the article. But for the average sizes, it's true that historically both bengal tigers and siberian tigers were quite similar in size and now the docile siberian tigers are considerably smaller than the fierce bengal tigers. Bengal tigers from northen India and nepal are also huge though and such information appears in the main tiger article. So it may be worth clarifying this to avoid confusion because when people or scientists talk about the largest, they are usually talking about the largest individuals, not the average size. Big Cats - talk 20:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Tiger, Brown Bear and Ussuri brown bear

You may be interested in our Brown Bear and Ussuri brown bear articles as well, as the same IP editor 155.XXX is obsessed with the bear not fearing the tiger track accuracy. Things have been under control though as he recently communicated in the talk section. Note Yudakov's observations were made on a single day (24 hour periods) and he just reported 1 case of brown bear not fearing tigers, and 1 case of brown bear changing path upon crossing tiger tracks and 1 case of Asiatic (Himalayan) bear not fearing tigers. Compared to Geptner, Yudakov's scale and scope are not in the same league as Geptner source that was based on reviewing studies spanning across years. So even if Yudakov and Geptner came to different conclusions, I still think Geptner review is more reliable and the fact that bears are generally afraid of tigers also agrees with the fact that tigers are predators on bear in their range (i.e. not just siberian tigers but bengal tigers also prey on Asiatic bears). As you are a major editor of various mammalian articles, you may be interested to take a look and take part in the discussions and editing there. Thank you. Big Cats - talk 10:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this invitation! There are so many other aspects of tiger ecology and conservation that I'm not really interested in heated discussions about this relatively petty one. This verbal sparring about who is right and who wrong is fun to observe but not attractive enough to get involved in. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Thanks for your tireless contributions to various mammalian articles btw. Big Cats - talk 19:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Hyrax

Thank you very much for your improvements to the Rock hyrax article! --Fëanor (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]